Also don't use Bing imagery in this area. It isn't the highest quality, it isn't most recent, and it is misaligned by around 5 metres. If you are mapping in the Quad Cities, you should use Mapbox Satellite. If you are mapping outside the Mapbox coverage in the Quad Cities, you should probably use either Esri Clarity or NAIP

It appears you never read my changset comment from a month ago. All 4 golf courses you have mapped, you have used incorrect tagging, which will cause significant uncaught issues for some end users.

To reiterate some of the issues with your changes:
* You tagged every single feature with leisure=golf_course. Only the overall course gets this tag, you should remove it from everything else. (This is the most egregious mistake)
* Golf features don't need a name=* tag. Ex. #13 fairway does not need a name.

Please revisit the courses you have mapped and make these corrections.

Please ensure buildings are squared like they are in real life. In iD, you can select a feature and then press 'q'.

Also make sure to use more meaningful description comments. I have no idea what those hashtags are supposed to mean. It would be better to say something like "added house"
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113062995

Looks good to me

Forgot to add as source
*USACE Navigation Charts
*Esri World Imagery
*Bing Imagery
*Iowa 1950's

Hi,

highway=living_street is basically nonexistant in the US. It is reserved for very low-speed streets where priority is given to pedestrians. Based off of 25 mph & 2 lanes, I feel confident this is actually highway=residential.

Also, ensure that names are written in full and not abbreviated. So "St." should be written as "Street".

Finally, I noticed you added a few roads in Polk City over the last few weeks. I checked the Polk County GIS portal, and none of the areas seem to have been platted. Are these roads actually constructed already, or are they merely in a preparation or proposal state? If the latter, then they should not be tagged highway=residential.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111391271

Marking the building with layer=1 implies that it is floating above the ground.

Why did you add a node with name="Rest area" inside of an existing rest area. If the rest stop is already represented by an area, then adding a node is redundant. Also calling it name="Rest area" is a descriptive name, like naming a park, name="Park"; not correct.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. The QC is my home turf for mapping.

Hello j-clark3, welcome to OpenStreetMap. While you have successfully added features to Byron Hills GC, you have made some significant mistakes with your tagging.

* You tagged every single feature with leisure=golf_course. Only the overall course gets this tag, you should remove it from everything else.
* Features don't need a name=* tag. Ex. #13 fairway does not need a name.
* Each golf=hole does not need a name=*. You did a good job adding the ref=* tag. This stores the # of the hole.

Why did you downgrade a bunch of bike paths from highway=cycleway to highway=footway?

It is very clear that osm.org/way/979190256 is not a bridge. Just a culvert. If using iD, Esri Clarity is usually the best imagery for rural US.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110668603

demolished:building=* doesn't really refer to how long ago the building was demolished. Features that may be visible in some aerial imagery, but not in other layers should use this tag to prevent people from unknowingly readding the data. For example, someone using Mapbox or Esri Clarity might see the buildings, assume that they are there in real life, and then retrace them. If they are marked with demolished:building=*, then someone armchair mapping would realize that they have been demolished and should not be readded.

What is the point of incorrectly marking roads as proposed? This road has been in this location for nearly 100 years, nothing about it is proposed. Proposed also implies that the road does not physically exist, only in the mind of a development company.

Corrected boundary to:
osm.org/relation/13111548

It is worth noting that just because a campus map shows a property, does not mean it is a part of the college. Some universities may show independently owned housing or frats on their campus maps, but because they are not owned by the college, they should not be included in the boundary.

Why did you duplicate the University boundary? There was already a well-established boundary: osm.org/way/967728327. Also, the boundary you drew is very inaccurate and includes lots of properties that are not a part of the university.

*Looks like someone else had dragged a bunch of nodes (fixed now)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109833377

Just a heads up if you are going to be adding some stuff in the area, Mapbox is the clearest imagery in iD and most features in the area have been aligned to the Mapbox datum
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109676269

Surveying the data in these changesets, I found most of it to be outdated/inaccurate. Also, assuming all of these are quarries, they should have been tagged with landuse=quarry.

Is this import documented somewhere?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109653854