Is there a reason the segregated tag was removed here? If the cycleway is designated for both bicycle and foot, and there's not separate sections for each, then segregated=no is correct.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145719246

Is w833398124 actually named Dirt Track or is this just descriptive?

Hey, separate nodes should be created for the stores, the name should represent the building as a whole.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145793552

Is this unit 18, house number 50? If so, it probably should be tagged as addr:unit=18, addr:housenumber=50

Are these private, or would customers be a better tag? Last time I was in the area these were available for customers of the adjacent businesses.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145784729

I'd recommend trying to figure out why doing what you were trying to do wasn't working, instead of just going "screw it" and causing problems. Merge might be the wrong option, there might be a different option to do what you're trying to do.

OSM is collaborative, which means people are going to have issues if you do the wrong thing, and will call you out on it if you're making invalid/incorrect edits or not following the general expectations of mappers. People also have less tolerance for those editing for golf simulators because of constant vandalism as a result of it, which includes other changes you've made like setting a peninsula to water.

OSM doesn't have a concept of an area, a closed way that's tagged appropriately can be treated as an area. If your software doesn't correctly treat that as an area, then the software needs to be fixed. iD should be able to extend a way to make into a closed way with no problems.

Closed ways will be treated as an area if a tag that indicates an area is added, i.e. landuse, building, or area=yes. There's no concept of an area object in OSM, they're just a closed way that's appropriately tagged.

If the original addition was bad, it might have been done with whatever imagery was available at the time or GPS tracks, if something isn't great, improve it.

There isn't a concept of lines vs areas in OSM, they're open and closed ways. If you need to you can set area=yes on a closed way, but usually other tags will indicate whether it's an area or just a line that loops on itself. i.e. landuse tags will indicate an area, highway usually won't.

Areas are just closed ways, to convert a line (open way) into an area (closed way) you just need to move/extend the current way, and then end it on the first node of the way.

That's because "Keep the history" is one of the things OSM tries to live by. If you can just change what already exists (include an existing node in a new way, or expand/change the existing way), that's always preferred to just deleting and recreating the object.

Might be worth giving osm.wiki/Good_practice a quick read for more info.

Adding less accurate but still valid data is fine, if you find it and can fix it, please do. Setting a peninsula to water, is not correct and should never go into OSM.

Changes should not be made temporarily for a specific application, as the contents of the OSM DB could be pulled at any moment, leading to some kind of downstream user ending up with incorrect data. If you need these changes temporarily for your own use, you're best off finding a way to take a copy/extract of the OSM DB to make your changes in and use that.

You've changed the entirety of Virginia Peninsula into water and a golf hazard, please ensure your edits are correct.

Definitely makes it easier. Only problem is buildings with angles that aren’t at a 90 degree angle. If it’s just one or two sections I usually add nodes where the walls end, but keep the way going to a 90 degree angle, square it off, then remove the extra node to have it match the wall.

Good work! A tip for buildings, pressing Q with a way selected will square it off to make it a bit more accurate/better looking after you’ve traced it.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145601699

I don't think traffic_signals=signal is the best option for these, since that's designed for standard traffic lights (however it looks like it's a default in iD).

Do you think traffic_signals=level_crossing, or tags like crossing:bell=yes, crossing:light=yes on the crossing itself would be better?

We don’t aim to replicate sources, we aim to replicate real life. The road classifications we use have a pretty decent explanation of the differences, and then if there’s a difference of opinions, the expectation is discussion, not reverting changesets. Every time you’ve had an issue with one of my edits, you’ve immediately reverted it or just said you’re reporting it, there’s been no attempt at a discussion on the actual changes being made. Right now, what you’re doing is easily perceived as claiming your opinion being the right one above everyone else’s. Taking what is shown in DataSA at face value is just as much of an opinion as me looking at aerial imagery, knowledge of roads I’ve driven through, and comparing that with aerial and street level imagery to come to an opinion. If you want to bring up specific roads with why you think they should be classified a certain way, feel free to, and I’m happy to give my reasoning in return.

There’s plenty of places to document these discussions, if you haven’t got it somewhere people can reference, you can’t expect people to know about them, follow them, or trust one mapper claiming they happened.

Have you got that discussion documented somewhere that I can see it? Would be worth making sure it’s somewhere visible so mappers know about it.