This is the wrong way to draw a rough area, it should be set with the fairway as a multipolygon ring. Please review osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls
--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115057655

Hi there, this sort of golf course editing where you are replacing multipolygons with regular sand areas that merge is damaging the map. Please refrain from doing so and clean up the mess here by rolling this back.

Further edits of this nature will result and a roll back of all these edits. Please review osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls for tips.

--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114483846

Boopington, if you're going to be dualizing roads, please review the Mapbox Intersection Modeling guide. These examples are vetted by the community and routing data users. Take a look at the W Lincoln Trail Blvd and redo that intersection based on this.

https://labs.mapbox.com/mapping/mapping-for-navigation/modeling-intersections-for-map-navigation/
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114983592

Ticket#2021121310000109

Thanks!
- Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Dave, this edit damages existing roads by converting them to cart paths. Please refrain from this sort of thing.

--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114372442

Dave, in this changeset you've changed some lakes to golf greens. This is highly innapropriate as the Johnson Lake is quite obviously a lake, not a grass green. Could you explain why you've made this change and let me know if you plan to fix it?

--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114806490

Dave,

In this edit you've deleted a lot of useful data from the map and replaced it with other data. Why did you do this?
--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114464743

AvidFan,

The way you're drawing these fairways is disruptive to other mappers and incorrect. For features inside of other features, use multipolygons. These regular polygons with little holes cause downstream issues for other data consumers.

Please see osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls for instructions on how to avoid this pitfall.

Let me if you plan to fix this.

Thanks,

--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114590476

AvidFan, please do not add temporary features to the map. OSM is not a playground or a sandbox. It is a live dataset used by millions of people across the planet. These "temporary" edits will inevitable proprogate to maps all over the world.

If you want to test something, try the dev server. osm.wiki/Using_the_dev_server

Please immediately remove any temporary features and comply with local editing norms or face reversion on these edits.

- Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

FYI, a new mapper has made some edits at Bulle Rock roads that seem to break local norms. Can you take a look? osm.org/changeset/114853414

Hi there, and welcome to OSM. In this changeset you've made a couple errors that we need to resolve.

1. The golf=path is not an approved or recognized tag by other mappers
2. foot=designated is innaproprite for golf paths. That would mean walkers/runners could use the paths any time. That is not the case in any golf course, they typically prohibit pedestrians. These should be foot=private.
3. Don't change residential roads to service (a downgrade) without discussing with other mappers in changeset comments. That sort of thing can be disruptive to other.

See osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls for more info

Let me know you've received this and will work to make the needed updates, or if you have any questions in the next few days. Otherwise we'll have to roll back this work.

Thanks,

--
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114853414

DWH,

I agree with WoodWoseWulf here, this star shaped building seems unlikely. Please respond here.

WoodWoseWulf,

If you do the revert, please email data@openstreetmap.org and mention Ticket#2021121510000141 in the subject line, as we're tracking this issue as well.

- Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Looks good Marc
- Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Thanks, Greg! Yes, you can also use the filters in iD to hide landuse. at the bottom of the "Map Features" tab in the editor there is a box to hide any landuse so as not to get in the way of mapping.

Hi there, these edits look good, but just a friendly reminder to leave a good changeset comment. Read more here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

- Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114864693

UPR: Any reason you removed the residential and retail landuse around Miesville? These look like good landuses to me.

- Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Hi there NorthwestPAmapper / urbanexplorerman

Please do not delete driveways just because doing so would make it easier to update a road. You have been blocked before (osm.org/user_blocks/5366) for deleting items like this. Before resuming mapping, we'll need you to restore the removed driveways that jleedev mentioned above.

- Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

Hi there,

Please be more detailed in your changeset comments. Instead of saying "fixed tags" everything, put in a few more words describing what you did, where, and why. osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

For instance, in this changeset, you removed the tagging of a store from a building and added it to a node. Why did you do that? If the building is only one store, as this appears to be, than it is perfectly okay to apply that tag to the building, rather than on a separate node. Read more: osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Thanks,
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group

Reverted this changeset in full: osm.org/changeset/114766197