Please do not delete features that are clearly observable on aerial imagery. This changeset has been reverted in part or full.

I also advise against using profane language. It goes against website policies.

changeset/148570933

Please do not delete features that are clearly observable on aerial imagery. This changeset has been reverted in part or full.

I also advise against using profane language. It goes against website policies.

changeset/148570933

Added comment to original changeset. This was not a revert in the normal sense, but more of a cleanup.

changeset/148526991
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148531976

This changeset was reverted in part or full. This is not the appropriate way to map private access. access=* tags should be used.

you also added a ton of water lock gates which are used in canals. I went ahead and changed it for you in verifiable locations with the correct gate tags.

Adding notes and names to ways/features does not align with OSM guidelines.

access=private

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148526991

Please do not delete and then readd features. Just manipulate what is on the map to reflect what it should be.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148445913

When mapping landcovers, do not partially overlap the areas.

When adding buildings that are squarish, press "Q" to square up the corners and make them 90 degrees.

You should not remove features just because they are private. Access tags should be used instead. This changeset has been reverted in part or full.

You can read why deletion is not the answer here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

changeset/148363396

You should not remove features just because they are private. Access tags should be used instead. This changeset has been reverted in part or full.

You can read why deletion is not the answer here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

changeset/148363334

Access tags should be used instead of deletion.

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148360819

They never responded to their previous changeset. Do you plan on reverting this changeset?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148177328

When adding buildings. Use "Q" to square up the corners and make them 90 degrees.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148152874

You mentioned before "ok, got it", but you are continuing to map landcovers such that they partially overlap...

changeset/148060874

The circumference of this tree is, more definite than not, 20m.

Please review:
natural=tree#:~:text=protection%20or%20other.-,circumference%3D*,-%2D%20for%20the%20circumference

The largest tree in the world is:
https://www.wondermondo.com/arbol-del-tule/
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148098864

When mapping landcovers, please do not partially overlap them.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148060874

Instead of mapping each individual tree as a woods/forest, you should add a node if it is not in a cluster.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148065015

Isn't the checkdate just the same as when this business was added? A query could be use to determine this date based on when the node was created. Adding a check date just to match the date a node was added is dumb.

By adding a check date from so long ago, are you verifying that you checked it in 2013 and can testify that it existed then? What if it was added from fantasy mapping or via import but never actually checked? Are you confirming that you checked it in 2013?

How did you verify that they accept BTC/XBT?

How did you verify that they accept XBT/Crypto?

Especially since the XBT tag was only added 7 months ago, not 2015...

changeset/139203145