Those are not just lines. They are part of multipolygon that defines rough. Please read about multipolygons before doing further edits osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Please follow the community editing guidelines. Use multipolygons where needed and don't delete exiting objects.
leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

Not following the guidelines will result in blocking of your account.

Hi,
Please don't add non-existent railways. Always check with imagery or with survey if the tracks are still there.

Sorry, there was a recent road reclassification in CT and I am just trying to prevent it from getting mixed up again.
Maybe you are right. Try asking Jack (@jnighan) what he thinks about that.

Hi and thanks for editing OSM!

Just a few corrections on the way you are editing the data:
1) Please don't create "lollipop" extensions instead of proper polygon holes and don't overlap fairways with green areas. see here for more details: leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

2) Don't add hole number into name for golf=hole objects. Those belong to ref= tag.

3) When you are drawing buildings, please trace the exact building shape from aerial imagery and press Q to adjust the corner angles. Don't just draw a random quadrangle at the building location.

4) When editing an object, adjust its shape by dragging existing nodes or adding new nodes. Don't delete whole objects and replace them with new shapes.

Not complying with community standards of mapping will result in blocking of your account.
Happy mapping!

Hi zzmzzm,
the path really there. Just take a stroll through the park.

Thanks Andrew!

I assume you are talking about this map from Hamden GIS: https://server2.mapxpress.net/webdata/Hamden/Zoning_Map/Hamden_Zoning_Map.pdf

Most likely those parcels are left for a possible extension of the exiting roads in case of a further residential development in the area. This is a bit of a controversial topic with many discussions (osm.wiki/Talk:Parcel). I've mostly seen people being against including parcel/zoning data into OSM, because how much effort it takes to keep it up to date.
Though the tag should definitely be changed. There are few instances of `parcel`=* so maybe something like `parcel=yes`.

fixed it.

Hi David,
is this public land (way/1035108025) protected or anyhow important? `boundary=administrative` is though not the correct tag for it. It is used for administrative areas like countries, states, ...

Hi,
please when editing do not delete existing features, but rather modify their shape by dragging points.
Also the shapes that you draw were of worse quality than those that were there before.

Hi Andrew, thanks for the great work on hiking trails. CT is starting to look really good.
Though I've just had a recent discussion that some of the trails might not exist any more. For example this trail way/1032794466 seems to have been completely physically removed by the land management.
Are you using Strava traces to add some of the trails? I think we might want to be more careful about those. A in-person survey would be the best solution to make sure that the trails still exist.
It also brings a bunch of issues that the Trail Working Group is trying to solve on OSM US Slack. Often bikers or hikers create their own routes that then show up on Strava and after they are being added to OSM, more people start to use them, which causes unwanted traffic and soil erosion. As you can imagine this goes against the nature conservation efforts.

Current idea is that if the trail does not exist, don't map it. If it exists and has sign prohibiting use, add `access=no`. If path is clearly not made for official use mark it `informal=yes`. More in depth information is summarized on this wiki page osm.wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

cheers

Hi zzmzzm. Actually the path is there. You can also check on Maxar premium imagery, which is the most up to date.

Cheers

Sorry I was restoring some of the relations that you deleted before and in the process I converted some blazed trails to relations. But moved all the information to relation so there is on data loss.

Makes sense, thanks for explanation. Yeah there is no good documentation and a boundary between area where people live and a forest is often blurry. I'd say that if there is a big chunk of wooded area or other land use, it's better exclude it.

Hi kylenz!
Thanks for drawing all those areas, but they look a bit too course. They cover also forests or water areas that are not really residential. e.g. way/1030339037
Typically what I am used to see are more finer boundaries of residential areas that cover only where the houses are. Like at this location osm.org/#map=15/41.7527/-72.8422

What are you trying to achieve? Is this some kind of larger project?

Perfect thanks! Do you know by any chance where is that historic district located?

Hi and thanks for your edits. Just a question, why do you think it is necessary to remove "Woodstock Hill Historic District" and all the address points?

Hi Erik, nice job!

Though just mind that you accidentally turned Elm Street into a driveway. :) I already fixed that.

Hi and thanks for editing!
One thing that I noticed is that you sometimes add layer=* to quite large structures. E.g. this whole [casino building](way/560866392) is as layer=-1. Because now it kind of implies that the casino is built under all the roads that it intersects with (the roads actually go underneath the building).

I would say that if there is another road (or object) that leads over the casino, then more safer is to split the road into fragments and assign layer=1 to the fragment that goes over the building. This way we would avoid having above/below conflicts at other parts of the large objects.
Cheers
Martin