Instead of smashing the keyboard, can you please leave a more detailed changeset comment/description? What did you change, and why? Thanks.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139682723

Best option is to get it added on OpenHistoricalMaps (OHM). I believe the best way to do it is to do it in JOSM. I think there is a wiki page on how to do it. I am not well-versed on OHM and have only moved one rail over on Staten Island, but I did that manually.

Start and end dates can also be added, adding even more control because the lifecycle can even be changed from "proposed" to "construction" to "active" to "disused" to "abandoned" then "razed" and finally removed all together. The timeline can then be scrubbed and the status change can be viewed over time whoch is even cooler!

Don't overlap areas. They should be touching and not overlapping, or the smaller area should be fully contained within the bigger one.

I have cleaned it up to resolve the error flags caused by these edits.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139500523

I took a look at the edits. It looks pretty good. Keep up the good work.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139453237

Landcover shouldn't overlap, such as the fairway and the green. One should be fully within the other, or they should be snapped to each other.

The issue is that the renderer and database has no clue which is "on top" of the other.

Example one that has been fixed:
way/1194877604

Please don't falsely change the map. Even if they did, most services don't get their data that quickly from OSM.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138149569

Is there a reason you deleted all these golf features?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139396959

So access tags should be used. It would prevent someone from inadvertently readding it, despite it being "closed"
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139320537

"Virtual=yes" is a non-standard tag with no OSM wiki page for it. Can you elaborate on what this tag means and why it should exist? Thanks.

I know this was a while ago, but please do not name buildings with descriptive tags, such as "abandoned" or "destroyed" when that is not their official name, just a description which can best be placed in a tag field.

Please use better changeset comments. What did you change and why?

You can read more here:
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#:~:text=A%20good%20changeset%20comment%20should,have%20edited%20on%20the%20map.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139322567

Don't add names to the features. These are descriptive tags. I have removed the names from all areas in this vicinity.

It was not to revert your work.

It was an attempt to cleanup after this changeset by another user:
changeset/129972208

If there were intersecting polygons before his edits, then that is what it went to.

Full name should be used.

"dr" should be spelled out as "Drive"

Intersection roads NEED to be connected to the road. I have resolved this for you.

Access tags should be used such as "access=no", instead of deleting it since it will likely be readded, despite it being closed and the knowledge of closure won't be shared/saved.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139270470

Not sure why you would delete it if it isn't showing up?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139271157

Welcome to OSM. The changeset looks good!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139273847

It is visible in aerial imagery, clear as day.

changeset/139323551

If it is closed, it shouldn't be deleted. It should just have access tags updated to access=no. I can still see it in aerial imagery.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139320537

If it is closed, it shouldn't be deleted. It should just have access tags updated to access=no.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139320525