Please use more detailed 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.
---

Please use more detailed 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.

Please use more detailed 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.

Psartial overlaps of areas were resolved.

Again, please use more detailed 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.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140078483

This item isn't a bench... I have corrected it.

node/4659235560

'These trails exist, despite being on "private" property. Access tags should be used instead, such as "access=private".

"Private" roads and trails should be deleted from the database and map. You can read more on why they won'"'"'t be deleted here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property'

changeset/140069168

Please use more detailed changeset comments. What did you change and why? "." tells me nothing.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140036111

Areas should not be mapped such that they partially overlap. They should be mapped to touch, not touch or the smaller area should be completely within the larger feature. When they partially overlap, the database has no clue what is on top.

I have gone ahead and corrected it again for the fairway and green on holes 17 and 5.

Individual tree canopies should not be be mapped as woods. You apparently mapped them as rough?

They should be mapped in accordance with:
natural=tree

I have gone ahead and cleaned it up.

When you adjust areas, they shouldn't overlap. They can touch or one can be fully within the other, but they shouldn't partially overlap, such as what you did with the fairway and green on Hole 5.

Also, tee boxes aren't named. There is a field for the color to be tagged. It should be there, not the name. The color is descriptive and not part of the official name.

I have gone through and cleaned it up.

It looks like you are adding plots. This is generally frowned upon. They also shouldn't be named "24" since they wouldn't be named like that.

place=plot#:~:text=OSM%20does%20not%20aim%20to%20be%20a%20land%20registry.%20You%20can%20add%20plot%20data%20if%20you%20want%20but%20only%20where%20the%20plot%20boundaries%20are%20actually%20visible%20on%20the%20ground.

When you add it, it is just "Kohl's"

The feature in question,
way/87275986

Doesn't exist. While a couple artifacts exist, the canal is long gone and was previously removed, as it no longer exists and was only mapped for "historical" reasons - even by your own admission. The canal was originally replaced by subways, then replaced completely by the freeway. I would argue that it ceased to exist when the water stopped flowing and rails were laid (otherwise how well did trains work in the middle of a wet canal?!?).

The canal doesn't exist under the broad street bridge. Only thing left are some rails. The canal was replaced by rails many decades ago and is definitely not a canal (Confirmed on foot, with my own eyes, and from reading articles, etc.)

Where I-490 and all the homes are located, yeah, it doesn't exist. This isn't just from aerial imagery, I have lived in Rochester for years and have driven I-490 many times. The only time there was water was when it flooded and rained heavily, but never enough to say, "hey, there is a canal here". It was a relic of the past and no longer exists. Railways going through houses and parking lots - they have were dug up, removed and replaced since a house needs a foundation and parking lots/roads need a good base.

As far as adding "OHM=yes" - that still does not address the issue. The feature does not exist. It may have at one point but does not. The community seems to agree that things that no longer exist and are only mapped for "historical" reasons belong on OHM, not OSM.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why there is resistance to adding it to OHM where it is designed for "historical" features where it can live on, while OSM is purely for what is there *now*. *Now* there is no canal or railway pieces down the middle of I-490.

The wiki on features that no longer exist (like some of the railways and the former canal) makes no mention that it NEEDS to be added to OHM by the person removing it. It simply states that it should be removed. This makes sense since the person adding non-existent and no-longer-existing features would be the one with the sources to validate it ever existed and would be able to add it to OHM.
osm.wiki/Nonexistent_features

Additionally, names should not contain "(historic)" as this is a description not the actual name. Even this page states "No longer existing objects should be deleted."
osm.wiki/Names#:~:text=apostrophe%2C%20one%20without.-,Name%20is%20the%20name%20only,-The%20names%20should

Land areas should not partially overlap, as has been mentioned before. Specifically, you just re-partially overlapped way/965083344 with the tee-box.

I have yet again, gone ahead and cleaned up the partial overlaps.

This is yet again, another changeset where you have incorrectly partially overlapped features. I have mentioned this before in many changesets.

These items have been removed since they don't exist.

Why did you delete and readd the water area? Please be aware, when items are deleted and readded like this, version history is lost. In this case, you left off a lot of important tags that were already added to the water that need to be readded.

Changeset that deleted water:
changeset/139665520

Resolved lollipoping and overlapping areas. Mapper was referred to DWG for continued lollipops and partial overlaps, despite multiple comments.

'This changeset has been reverted in part or full. It is still visible on aerial imagery. Access tags should be used instead, such as "access=private".

You can read more about why it shouldn'"'"'t be removed here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property'

changeset/139728787

Private driveways should still be mapped, however, access tags should be used in these instances, such as access=private
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139662782