Something very bad happened to the Eastern edge of osm.org/way/14624247. Can you take another look and address as appropriate? thanks.

Sidewalks on 126?! Bwahahaha. Thanks for helping out @archpdx.

Hi Alan, thanks for contributing to golf course mapping. When you have to map around bunkers or islands within bunkers like in osm.org/way/1107615818, you should draw them as separate entities, and not draw across and around them and back out in what I refer to as "lollipop" mapping. The inner ways should be rough/fairway/whatever and they can be combined/joined with the enclosing way to form a multipolygon. If you need help with doing this, please feel free to reach out.

Why do these duplicate (and slightly shift) the existing waterway that has been there for 8+ years? Shouldn't they be deleted??

Did you check your work after you ran this "simplification"? It left 100+ tiny little ways that had nothing to do with reality. I'd suggest avoiding this time of change in the future until you understand what it leaves you with.

Same deal here: osm.org/way/903888461. The way crosses over itself and makes an invalid polygon.

Looks like something bad happened to osm.org/way/875016206. Was this intended?

FYI, I reverted this changeset as the changes made introduced dozens of consistency errors when you moved parts of objects but left behind many nodes that were shared with other objects, creating ways that zigzagged and created invalid areas. If objects don't align with the imagery you are using, it doesn't been they are wrong. Your changeset comments gave no information about why you thought your imagery was more up to date.

In addition to deleting stuff that shouldn't be, your changeset comment of "1" is not enough for a quality change comment to inform others what you are doing. It needs to do a better job of explaining the "why" of a change.

Hello Shafter CA,

The landuse=residential tag isn't meant for single parcels, but entire neighborhoods. See osm.wiki/Tag:landuse=residential for the following line: "The landuse tag is mostly used for larger areas and not at parcel granularity". You might want to re-edit those that you've created. At the very least, please consider not using parcel-level landuse tags in the future. Thx.

Why are you doing this? Please stop. There is nothing wrong with my edit. If you feel there is, please discuss it instead of reverting my work.

Thanks for the fix. Sorry for the misplaced accusation.

Why did osm.org/way/704190233 get rotated and jumbled up?

Hi Eric, you might want to take another look at this adjustment that you made. Old Pactolus Road doesn't match sat imagery and has pulled nodes that are shared with another way (903993154) in such a way that it is no longer a valid path.

Pipes that cross over each other and do not connect (no 4 way junction physically in the pipe) should NOT share nodes between them. Please fix this.

2000 boxes is the limit, which I’m guessing you know. If someone wants to make an improvement by adding some nodes, they can’t. My change enables others to easily make improvements.

osm.org/way/879100852 is an irregular shape. Can you take another look and correct it? Thanks.

A 45km dirt bridge seems rather unlikely. Can you clarify what this trail really is and adjust tags as necessary? Thanks.

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-96.50673&lat=36.25733&zoom=4&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=long_ways%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Which node should be on top?