Hey! Thanks for working on the map, just wanted to make sure you were aware that aerial imagery can often be mis-aligned from reality, and that's the case with Bing here in TC. So quite a few of the changes you made here are not really improvements. Here's a section from iD's help text about the issue:

Imagery is sometimes offset slightly from accurate map data. If you see a lot of roads or buildings shifted from the background imagery, it may be the imagery that's incorrect, so don't move them all to match the background. Instead, you can adjust the background so that it matches the existing data by expanding the "Imagery Offset" section at the bottom of the Background Settings pane.

?? I'm not sure what to make of those photos. That the lagoons are small? There are almost 1.3 million swimming pools mapped in OSM. Size doesn't matter. leisure=swimming_pool

P.S. There really aren't many hard "rules" in OSM, but this page includes a relevant guideline osm.wiki/How_We_Map

"Do not delete data unless you know (or have very strong reason to believe) that it is incorrect."

The waterway you deleted was tagged as natural=water, not waterway=riverbank. Also, the sentence that you quote ends with "but it might still be interesting, especially if it is irregular." I believe that to be the case here. For example, Spider Island has a detailed boundary, but as of right now, the water around it (that makes it an island) does not. There's a lot of detail in the Botanic Gardens that is interesting and appropriate for a dense feature like this, even if you might not map them elsewhere.

Also, it's bad practice in OSM to delete something unless it's inaccurate or harmful in some way (which this is not). I'm planning on adding this back to the map, and I hope you'll agree to let it be.

Here's another one: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/931390285
The map is less detailed without these features. Can you explain your reasoning for why you're removing them?

Hey, I'm curious why you're deleting detail that I added to the Botanic Gardens. For example, this way that showed the outlines of the water passage next to the visitor center: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/931541882

Yeah, relations aren't the most straightforward thing. You're close, the only thing to do still is to take the tags off of the individual ways that you added to the relation. That way the information is only entered once.

FYI these new Sleeping Bear areas that you added should get added to the larger Sleeping Bear relation: relation/812810#map=13/44.6879/-86.1013

Here's some documentation of the tagging guidelines for golf cart paths: golf=cartpath

Hi! I noticed you added a lot of cart paths to this golf course on top of existing roads. This is not a good mapping practice--it means there are two ways in the same space that overlap, cross, and otherwise interfere with each other.

You may have noticed iD giving you lots of tagging warnings when you made your changes, and this is why.

The right way to do this, in cases where carts are allowed to drive in the road, is to add golf_cart=designated to an existing road.

Hi! Thanks for contributing to the map. I haven't looked closely at your changes, but based on your changeset comment, I thought I should note that we shouldn't delete something from the map just because it's on private property. If it exists in the real world then it can be mapped, regardless of whether the general public has access to it or not.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93815450

Looks good! Thanks for contributing!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92531697

As I mentioned on your other changeset, the ways that you deleted were tagged appropriately as driveways. If that accurately reflects reality on the ground, then they should remain in the map.

Hey Brian! Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. FYI, this way appears to have been correctly mapped as a driveway, so I'm not sure why you deleted it. Does it no longer exist?

I like it! Nice work.

Your changes look good! Thanks for sprucing things up.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87058151

Looks good. Thanks for contributing!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/85777570

Hi! Thanks for all the details you've been adding!

In reply to your questions, Bing is not always the best imagery to use. In our neck of the world I generally find the Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta layer to be the best-aligned, but that's not true everywhere. Sometimes you can use the "OpenStreetMap GPS traces" overlay to check, but it's not helpful everywhere.

As for your footpaths, the generally look fine to me. This one that runs through a building looks a little odd. Unless there's a commonly-used walkway through the building I probably wouldn't map it like that. way/804339312

Feel free to message me if you have more questions!

Your changes look good! Welcome to OSM, and thanks for contributing.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/85207523

Um do these streets really not have names? That seems highly unlikely. Unless you can back up this change, I'm going to re-add the names. Remember that the map you edit is the map everyone in the world sees.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/85099403