Hello,

This changeset has been reverted in part or full. I appreciate the enthusiasm with adding railways, but OSM (OpenStreetMap) is only for what is on the ground now, not what once was on the ground. I noticed you used older versions of map data to try and recreate the routes that once were (or may have once been). In most cases, the railways have long been overbuilt and replaced by new buildings and projects, thus, no remnants or clear ROW exists.

"Historical" features, such as these long-gone railways would best be mapped on OHM (OpenHistoricalMaps) over at https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ .

You can read up on the general OSM guidelines here:
osm.wiki/Good_practice#:~:text=also%3A%20ground%20truth-,Don%27t%20map%20historic%20events%20and%20historic%20features,-Do%20not%20map

Additional info on non-existent features can be found here:
osm.wiki/Nonexistent_features

osm.org/changeset/153673904

Hello,

This changeset has been reverted in part or full. I appreciate the enthusiasm with adding railways, but OSM (OpenStreetMap) is only for what is on the ground now, not what once was on the ground. I noticed you used older versions of map data to try and recreate the routes that once were (or may have once been). In most cases, the railways have long been overbuilt and replaced by new buildings and projects, thus, no remnants or clear ROW exists.

"Historical" features, such as these long-gone railways would best be mapped on OHM (OpenHistoricalMaps) over at https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ .

You can read up on the general OSM guidelines here:
osm.wiki/Good_practice#:~:text=also%3A%20ground%20truth-,Don%27t%20map%20historic%20events%20and%20historic%20features,-Do%20not%20map

Additional info on non-existent features can be found here:
osm.wiki/Nonexistent_features

osm.org/changeset/153673904

Hello,

This changeset has been reverted in part or full. I appreciate the enthusiasm with adding railways, but OSM (OpenStreetMap) is only for what is on the ground now, not what once was on the ground. I noticed you used older versions of map data to try and recreate the routes that once were (or may have once been). In most cases, the railways have long been overbuilt and replaced by new buildings and projects, thus, no remnants or clear ROW exists.

"Historical" features, such as these long-gone railways would best be mapped on OHM (OpenHistoricalMaps) over at https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ .

You can read up on the general OSM guidelines here:
osm.wiki/Good_practice#:~:text=also%3A%20ground%20truth-,Don%27t%20map%20historic%20events%20and%20historic%20features,-Do%20not%20map

Additional info on non-existent features can be found here:
osm.wiki/Nonexistent_features

osm.org/changeset/153673904

Hello,

This changeset has been reverted in part or full. I appreciate the enthusiasm with adding railways, but OSM (OpenStreetMap) is only for what is on the ground now, not what once was on the ground. I noticed you used older versions of map data to try and recreate the routes that once were (or may have once been). In most cases, the railways have long been overbuilt and replaced by new buildings and projects, thus, no remnants or clear ROW exists.

"Historical" features, such as these long-gone railways would best be mapped on OHM (OpenHistoricalMaps) over at https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ .

You can read up on the general OSM guidelines here:
osm.wiki/Good_practice#:~:text=also%3A%20ground%20truth-,Don%27t%20map%20historic%20events%20and%20historic%20features,-Do%20not%20map

Additional info on non-existent features can be found here:
osm.wiki/Nonexistent_features

osm.org/changeset/153673904

Can you explain why you removed the official name from a footpath and added railway tags?

osm.org/way/60995478/history

Do not partially overlap areas...
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152690162

Again, do not partially overlap areas... This is not the first time I have brought it up...
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152690564

Just use multipolygon relations instead of confusing area art.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153090452

Just use multipolygon relations instead of all these seperate and creative area drawings...
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153178050

Reverted. Access tags should be used instead of deletion.

Read more here:

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.org/changeset/153394157

Access tags should be used instead of deletion. All of these roadways are clearly visible on aerial imagery and should be mapped.

Read more here:

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152903365

Reverted. Access tags should be used instead of deletion.

Read more here:

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.org/changeset/153394128

Good catch. Hard to keep up with people sometimes.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152916680

Reverted. Road/Driveway still exists in aerial imagery.

osm.org/changeset/153394015

Welcome to OSM. Couple comments. Road names shouldn't be abbreviated. Example, it should be "Trail", and not "Trl".

Secondly, "(Private)" shouldn't be in the name. It is an access tag, and the appropriate access=* should be used instead. It doesn't matter if "Private" is in the name, navigation will still take people down those roads if it is not in the access field. Only the official name should be used, and never descriptions.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153177727

Access tags should be used in lieu of deletion. Changeset reverted.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153313365

Realistically, the only ones that should are the ones within the golf course.

Named lakes generally are tagged as lakes and not water hazards.

For example, Force Lake is a lake, and not just a water hazard.
osm.org/way/93893873

The water treatment plant also should not be tagged as a water hazard.

In many cases, golf mappers remove natural=water to add golf=water_hazard. All bodies of water should be tagged with natural=*.

Also, please use a more detailed changeset comment. What did you change and why? "-" tells me absolutely nothing about what you did.

Review note:

osm.org/note/4296046

Instead of deleting and redrawing it, you should just manipulate the feature that already exists. This would preserve edit history of the feature.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152801709