Just adding a fixme tag isn't much of a fix :p ?

Adding that empty relation was a mishap; the feature was already mapped as another object. Fixed in changeset/63496329

Please keep your outrage for serious matters. Along with terms like butchering, this makes the conversation toxic and is not a good way to interact with other contributors. It took me some time and a chat with other OSMers before being able to give you this calm reply.

I won't try to give more arguments about the benefits and validity of detailed maping. Maybe you'll realize them yourself when overall map quality has improved in Belfast, and I wish you good luck working towards that goal.

In the meantime, I'll leave that car park as a single way and just fix the alignment and glueing issues.

Cheers.

Honestly I'm tempted to just reverse these two changesets (cf discussion at changeset/62314751), but there's no point in doing that without a discussion :

1) Looks like you used unaligned Bing imagery, which is off by a significant amount in this area. I'll let you check the wiki for an alignment tutorial, but straight away you can use the box_junction just east of the campus. Also check the other aerial imagery, as Bing isn't the best around here.

2) I you use imagery that's aligned differently from the imagery of the previous contributor, at least make make sure nearby objects are aligned relative to one another (here like you touched the parking object but nothing else, which creates visible inconsistencies).

3) Do not glue areas to ways as this is geometrically incorrect. It's ok to do that for a quick initial mapping, but not ok to do that to previously correct geometry.

4) You might disagree with this one since this is the main change you made, but the parking area covers areas that are not really parking (and misses one that is, due to alignment). To me the he clearest example is the sides of the north building, which are lined by a service road and no parking spaces. Another one I'd cut out is the very south, for the same reason. And the bit of parking at the west is pretty naturally separated from the rest.

To be clear, I wouldn't have bothered with that 4th paragraph if this was the initial version of the car park. It's not as detailed as it could be, but it's correct. But the previous version was more detailed and also correct. You threw away mapped details, and I don't really see a positive. It's one thing to simplify the OSM data structures (overnodded ways, nodes that should be glued, ways that should be combined, etc), but it's another to simplify OSM's description of the reality.

You'll have to qualify what you mean by "butcher", as the whole campus (parking included) was in a pretty poor state and I can assert that my version was a big improvement.

Please avoid insulting terms like this when talking about somebody's work, especially when it took a lot of time and care (whether you like the result or not).

Perhaps you're referring to the the fact that I mapped isolated parking areas as distinct osm objects ? It's simply more detailed mapping, and considered good practice. There's a big spectrum of accepted mapping details, from the single parking node to individual parking places, and I feel I had struck a reasonable balance.

I would have liked to have the time to reply before you went in and undid some of my work, making a mess of various things beside the debatable number of parkings. I'll head over to your changeset to discuss these properly.

Hum, looks like you tried to draw both the car park and its service road as a single object. Try separating the amenity=parking closed way from the highway=service way. See also amenity=parking and highway=service for other useful tags.

Thanks and welcome to OSM :)

osm.wiki/Community_centre maybe ?

Hello!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements
that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me
to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.org/ to get started.
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55682490

Hello!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements
that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me
to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.org/ to get started.
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55683693

Hello!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements
that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me
to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.org/ to get started.
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55683740

Hello!
Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and found some errors or elements
that could be mapped in a better way. Feel free to message me
to know more about it or visit http://learnosm.org/ to get started.
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/55683833

Hi, thanks for trying to improve the map. However, OpenStreetMap only accept real-world things, not virtual or fictional ones. Pokemon Go already has plenty of maps dedicated to its gyms and spawns, but OSM is for real life stuff, sorry. I've reverted your changes.

On the other hand, PoGo uses OSM data for its in-game map, so any good improvements to the map will eventually improve the PoGo experience, like they do for all other downstream OSM users.

So feel free to improve OSM data where it doesn't match reality :)

You went a bit too fast on that one ;) Satellite imagery and website from deleted node show it's a campervan dealer, not a camp site. changeset/55527181

On the other hand, make sure that riverbanks are connected to each other, as in sharing nodes rather than being veeeery close (the breagah riverbank needs to connect to the nore riverbank).

You can probably use less segments. The only reason to split riverbanks in segments is to avoid downloading loads of data when you're only interested in one area, for for an area that you're likely to download in full, there's no need.

Also, see the discussion in changeset/52885942

I think iD presented you the wrong tag because that's technically the most frequent use of "ringfort" in the database. There's one prolific user who used the wrong tag more than all other users combined, and the algorithm follows. Pretty rare, but it happens ;)

Watch out for changesets where you've done more than the edits you remember :) (but thanks for fixing my duplicate shop). Not a big issue, it just makes the work of reviewing changesets easyer. JOSM makes what you actaually changes a little bit easyer to see than iD.

Hi ! The proper tagging seems to be

historic=archaeological_site
site_type=fortification
fortification_type=ringfort

rather than just

historic=ringfort

See fortification_type=ringfort and http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/uYD and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=ringfort#values

Just giving you a heads-up since you're the one who traced most of those (great work !). I'm going to fix all the historic=ringfort I see.

Removed name in changeset/54731882

I assume naming the Glandalough beach "drop off" is a misshap ? AFAIK this beach isn't named ? I'll revert that unless you want to fix it yourself, or you are sure about the name.

Hum, thanks for the contribution but I have my doubts about the name. Isn't it "College road" or similar ? Can you share a photo ? Using the https://www.mapillary.com/ or http://www.openstreetcam.org/ smartphone app is a great and fun way to do that.