Why did you disconnect the slipways from the water body? They are supposed to be connected.

Pima county's interactive GIS service, PimaMaps, says it is managed by The Nature Conservancy

I am already in the Slack and Discord. I just found it weird that people were piling onto a regular olde changeset without saying how they got here.

In regard to my changes in this particular area, I would still contend they are correct, but I will leave it alone for the time being. Being separate parcels reserved from development sounds like a stereotypical leisure=nature_reserve to me.

Hi Brian,

I'm not sure what explaining there is to do here? They are parcels protected from development which haven't had any improvements to make them qualify as leisure=park. If I recall, I think some were administered by the HOA of the neighborhood, some by the city, and some by the county.

This was my first attempt at trying to figure out how to deal with an HOA. If I were to remap it, I might do it a bit differently since I dissolved adjacent nature reserve parcels with different owners (would keep them separate if redoing).

I am assuming this was a good-faith comment on your part, that the changeset was flagged in review software, and that you were not canvassed. Perhaps it is coincidence that another editor found fault with one of my changesets in this same neighborhood.

-Karson

The parcel is owned by the town of Marana as a water easement.

CMTmaps, I noticed most of your edits seem to be unconventional. You seem to have a misunderstanding of how to add plat information into OpenStreetMap.

If it is a residential plat, you should draw the entire area and mark is landuse=residential and name=somename. If the name is something like ABC Acres Plat 2, don't add it as a separate area. Instead, expand the original ABC Acres area to cover both the 1st, 2nd, ..., nth plats.

As Spaghetti Monster mentioned, I would also like to know your source for these edits. The names and areas don't match up with the information available to the public on the county cadastre websites. For instance, this area still shows as being zoned as agriculture and platted as Vintage Business Park at Prairie Trail.

I will be fixing any issues I create. I am working through the area in multiple changesets.

I don't think any of the municipal boundaries have been updated since the original import other than gluing them to all sorts of inappropriate features. Because of that, I might break some things before fixing them.

You deleted the place=* tag for Manson in this changeset

If you right click on a building, you can select the Square tool to make all of the corners 90 degrees. Alternatively, you can left click a building and press the 'Q' key.

Buildings typically have 90 degree angles, and none of the buildings you traced have squared corners.

In the iD editor (the one you are using), you can square a building either by right clicking it and pressing the square tooltip or by selecting a building and pressing 'q'.

Every imagery source I checked still had a level crossing there. Do you have more up-to-date sources indicating it has been removed?

Hi Gwebster,

There isn't only one imagery layer in the iD editor. You can toggle to other layers which are more up to date and show part of the apartment complex. It looks like Esri World Imagery would be the best source in this area (although it still doesn't have the right half).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116196488

The buildings you added in this area are so low quality that I would argue they are worthless.

Buildings are constructed square, each corner should be 90 degrees. Since you are using the iD editor, the shortcut is 'Q'.

Also note that it would be better practice to trace all the buildings in the area in one changeset. Since you are doing a single objective in a confined area, it makes it much easier for other people to review your edits.

There may very well be some sports facilities there, but the entire area is not a building. I have been systematically checking buildings which are suspiciously large. If this were an entire sports building, it would be nearly twice the size of the largest sports building in the USA.

I assume the original contributor just didn't know the correct tag to use.

I marked it as landuse=commercial, but given the context, it should probably be changed to leisure=sports_centre.

I hope your golf course tagging has improved in the year since this edit. In the series of edits around this course you incorrectly demoted highway=residential -> highway=service, used the name tag on various golf features rather than the ref tag, drew low quality buildings, etc

added landuses in Peoria. Mistyped the changeset comment

Google Maps is not a valid source. Their map data has incompatible licensing and is illegal to use in this manner. I assume you cited the source for the street name? I verified the name with TIGER so it is okay.

When you add name=* tags in OpenStreetMap, you should never abbreviate the name. If you write something as ABC St, how is someone supposed to know that St = Street? There might be some cases where St is abbreviated for something else (Saint) or where St isn't short for anything. In general, don't abbreviate and leave it up to the renderer to decide whether or not to abbreviate.

Why did you change this pond from water=pond and convert it into golf=water_hazard? Both tags can coexist. Also, there is no golf course here, so the golf=water_hazard_tag is inappropriate.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115182620

This is a bad edit. You deleted substantial amounts of data and edit history just to redraw it in lower quality with incorrect tags.

You should always modify what is already drawn. If you delete and redraw you lose the history. You marked the cart paths as roads. You marked the parking lot as a building. You set fairways and greens to overlap. This is impossible, you should use relations to ensure there is no overlap.

I am reverting your edit and will be reviewing your other recent edits.

Did they actually change the name of the Recreation Building? I see https://www.facilities.uiowa.edu/building/0304 refers to it by the name you used. Other campus resources still list it as the Recreation Building.

Having trained in the building for 5 years, it was always referred to as either "The Rec" or "The Recreation Building". Emails I receive which mention the building still refer to it as the The Recreation Building.

Yes, the building does have an indoor track as well as locker rooms for track/xc. The building also has the locker rooms for baseball/softball. And a weight room that is used by other teams. And an athletic training room. And an equipment room.