whoops
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159781370

Hey RedSkies, try and avoid connecting unrelated features to administrative boundaries. In this changeset, I noticed you connected some natural=wood to Cedar Rapid's city boundary. This creates a very likely issue where the woods may grow in size or be cut back in the future, with someone inadvertently changing the city border at the same time. Since you are using the iD editor, you are able to toggle specific map features on/off to your display. If you aren't actively editing a feature (i.e. boundaries), I would suggest not having the feature enabled.

Hello VitKlim, I reverted your changeset as this street already had the correct name=*. Evidently, the US DOT name is incorrect; you can verify the correct name with the county GIS server.

https://beacon.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=1024&LayerID=21532&PageTypeID=1&PageID=9188

Reverted with osm.org/changeset/131091239

Not sure if you care, but your API keys for Strava are displayed verbatim in your changeset.

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