Considering it's not visible on Bing imagery, and there's not any signs of construction along here on ESRI imagery, I highly doubt this road has been constructed yet, if it exists at all. Can't find any information on it online.

The highway=residential/maxspeed=80 combination seems suspicious too, if this road did exist, I'd expect it to be more heavily used from first appearances.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162913197

You've commented that on your own changeset, not the original one, btw.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162914132

I agree with kurisubrooks, you’ve got 3 mappers, including a former DWG member, who all disagree with these being deleted, I’d like to see where people have agreed that minor issues (that are still not that inaccurate and provide accurate data in that there are houses there) are worthy of straight out deletion instead of just fixing them.

They're not perfect, but they're still accurate in that there's a house in that location. Even people can't map houses perfectly, I've corrected plenty that have been mapped manually.

Deleting those objects means that instead of knowing there's a house there, we now don't know that. That's a significant loss when you delete several streets worth.

If you're not happy with the minute level of inaccuracy from these buildings, either fix them up, or raise the issue with the people importing them.

It's not misleading for houses to be slightly off from what they are, as long as positioning is right. It's not perfect, but it's still accurate enough to remain in OSM.

If you're not happy with the accuracy of these buildings, then engage with the people adding them in, but once they've been added in, the right thing to do is to fix them, not delete them.

You'd just make a new one with the changes, however in this case I've done it already :)

Hi, descriptive names shouldn't be used on OSM, "Toilet and shower", you can indicate that it includes a shower using shower=yes
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162837751

I've restored the deleted building in changeset/162838337, please don't delete items that do exist just because you're not happy with the quality, instead improve them or leave them.

I agree with aharvey, while some of these aren't perfect, some of the deleted ones are reasonably accurate.

Deleting the ones that are somewhat off isn't the right answer, either correct them, put a fixme tag on the problematic ones, leave a note, or see if someone in the community can help with fixing them.

They're still houses in those locations, and building outlines that need a bit of a touch up are better than not having them there at all.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162804346

Hi, just wondering what your source for this change is, as there isn't one mentioned?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162718448

Hey there, sometimes the Microsoft Building Footprints dataset isn't all that accurate, it's a good idea once you've added some buildings with it to make sure it matches up to aerial imagery, as some of these aren't quite aligned properly.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162475212

Yeah that would probably be fine, best way to put that down would be to put your source as survey.

Publicly provided information may still be copywrited, which we can't use.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162309715

Hi, do you know if that document is provided under an acceptible license for OSM to use?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162309715

Putting amenity=training in that multipolygon both won't change rendering, and is incorrect data, so it should be removed. Both schools do show on the map currently, if they have distinct areas then you could map them as ways, but if there's shared section of campus, the best way is likely going to be leaving the schools as nodes, or seeing if there's a way to represent it with some kind of relation per school, if an option exists.

Hi Hairy Spoon, if there's multiple schools in this one landuse, I'd just remove the amenity tag.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162188738

Thanks! Sometimes OSM tagging doesn't quite fit in with what we call things, especially in Australia.

Hey, same as changeset/160655807, this would be better tagged as leisure=park, not leisure=nature_reserve
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160632654

Hey there, leisure=park is probably more fitting, what we call a reserve in AU isn't a leisure=nature_reserve, and a park in OSM doesn't necessarily have to be a proper one managed by council.

leisure=nature_reserve
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160655807

Reverting changeset to remove mistakenly added restriction

changeset/160529458