This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/56631333 where the changeset comment is: revert Vanderlismus, changeset extensive deletions and renaming to offensive racist insults from troll/Holocaust-denialist user @JIDF

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/56631283 where the changeset comment is: revert Vanderlismus, changeset nothing but extensive deletions from troll/Holocaust-denialist user @JIDF

Hallo,
please make sure you connect your driveways to the appropriate street.
Also, the micromapping you are doing here serves to draw attention to this area and this house in particular. As you have previously posted allegations of a sexual predator in the neighbourhood, note that OSM does not map personally identifiable information about private individuals, and if this is your house as I suspect, you may be getting unwanted attention.
If you plan to add similar detail through the neighbourhood, that is one thing, but in its present state, this is can very likely lead people to be able to locate and identify you.
There are still a number of incorrectly-tagged lakes still remaining nearby, although other mappers have corrected some of them to swimming pools for you.

As an aside. StreetComplete handles building=yes and building=something differently, when deciding to complete missing housenumbers.
This can be seen recently in Australia where an entire residential neighbourhood was tagged building=residential, and now has more accurate building=shed, building=garage, and housenumbers thanks to a SC user taking on that challenge.
So far SC ignores building=yes. I tag all my new additions that way (unless turning a petrol node into a roof outline or such) as an armchair mapper on the floor, but I have left notes where an import has added obviously wrong taggings (a water tower tagged as reddish residential building or maybe house? And what seem to be garages and sheds in aerials? I think not).

Ciao Constable,
Why did you bother to revert (incompletely) most or all of changeset/56560765, which basically I reworked to merge it and the pre-existing data to form a properly-shaped park area with decent footpaths?
This revert, which should have failed, instead has left a weird park outline, and the additional orphan nodes I added to refine the path outlines, neither of the originals matching the latest Mapbox images.
Sorry I only cleaned half of this user's awful edits before I crashed following my editing session, intending to attack the golf park and the like today.
Not that I'm complaining, it's just that changeset/56577878#map=19/37.59107/-120.95524&layers=ND looks pretty weird now.
grazie...

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/56583628 where the changeset comment is: Sgraffito Vanderlismus, unconnected and isolated roadways, Pokemon drivers left stranded

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/56558437 where the changeset comment is: Pokemon Vanderlismus, repeat offender turned military relation into grassland

Why did you change this landuse=military
name Bellows Air Force Station
operator United States Air Force
into natural=grassland?
This is pure and simply Vanderlismus, and has no place in OSM, which is a factual map of the real world as it exists, and not some fantasy game to be purged of all military presence.
Your change, like your other Pokemon Vanderlismus, will be reverted.

Hallo,
In this changeset you have tagged four roads as highway=living_street.
However, a living_street has a very specific definition as well as legal status, and are almost exclusively to be found in Europe with a particular signage, osm.wiki/File:Zeichen_325.1_-_Beginn_eines_verkehrsberuhigten_Bereichs,_StVO_2009.svg
These appear to be either residential or simple service drives. A living_street does not exist in the US.

Hi,
The latest aerial imagery shows what appears to be a woods area here (and I see nearby the name Jennings Forest path), and not so much a park.
Constable, this user deleted two parks to expand this one; those two parks extended over what is now new housing, but was also seen as woods in much older imagery.
Of course I'm sure you checked that out in achavi, just as I did :-)
Again Lily-lily (if I may shorten your name ;-), never use any data from Google Earth or Maps for your edits. We can see it looks like a woods, but unless you find some independent source, like visiting there yourself, it is best to call it a woods area.
And even if it is named as a park, it looks far less like a city park, although it may well be that park amenities seen in large, cleared spaces, are hidden by the treecover.
Thanks.

WELCOME to OSM, yaas3 and AWESOME!!!!!
I want to point out your mapping of `FUCK YOU' as footpaths in this changeset is not without problems.
You have created paths which end in the middle of nowhere, rather than connecting to the road network. So that a router does not erroneously direct a wandering vagabond onto these, you should probably add a noexit=yes tag to each non-shared branch of the F, the U, the C, and the top two of the K. (The bottom two are a convenient diversion if one needs a quick slash without being added to the sexual offender register.)
The Y seems horribly inefficient, requiring one to practically double back, taking twice as long to reach the end before coming to the realisation it is but a wild goose chase dead-end. This will needlessly increase the frustration that end-users have with the OSM data when the competition can quickly navigate them to GET BENT.
You have also overnoded parts of the O in YOU and created an irregular circle therefrom. Your editor should offer you the ability not just to quadrilateralise()
such lettering as the C in FUCK for a more æsthetically pleasing appearance, but also the ability to turn a closed way into a perfectly rounded circle.
You damaged the work of the previous contributor Erick de Olivebranch in order to add this off-centre roundabout; the aerial imagery is too poor for me to tell if the previous path it took was correct and if your O should have been added towards its centre and properly tagged as a roundabout.
Now about the C and the two Us, as you get mapping experience you will treat it more as a fine work of art than simple finger painting, so spending a little more time adding and perfecting the roundedness that the C and U display in most fonts, is time well spent honing your mapping skills and will greatly enhance your own satisfaction with your finished masterpiece.
.
I hope these tips help, as not only does OpenStreetMap strive for the most correct map EVAAAHHHH but it also wants to be the best looking, and we'd like to aid you to the fullest in doing your admittedly small part towards these goals.
Thank you,
The Management
P.S.: Ye misspelt FECK, ya eedjit.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/56507461 where the changeset comment is: Phase 2, user-requested proper revert of mistaken deletion/mistagging new construction

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/56507449 where the changeset comment is: Phase 1, user-requested proper revert of mistaken deletion/mistagging new construction

This is OpenStreetMap, and is not a Pokemon map. Edits made with the purpose of attempting to influence that fantasy game are likely to be reverted, as OSM only maps things in the real world, accurately.
You have added a second poorly-drawn area over top of another area you edited, and here you have added a bunch of rubbish tags to it:
Tags
landuse recreation_ground
landuse_1 grass
landuse_2 park
landuse_3 meadow
leisure pitch
name Dubois park
A meadow is not found in a city. A sports pitch does not take up the entire irregular area. And so on.
Pokemon Go uses an over-a-year-old set of data, even though what may be displayed is up to six months old. Therefore all your efforts will be in vain and will change nothing.
By focusing on Pokemon editing, your edits will be viewed with suspicion.
(I will not tell you that what you have done makes it less likely for your stated goal to be reached.)

Hi,
Thanks for seeing your error.
Is it okay if I perform a revert of both changeset/56504431 ...
Ways (4)

Travis Summit (560963299, v2)
Primrose Post (560963298, v2)
Bluebonnet Bay (560963297, v2)
Monets Garden (560963296, v2)
And this changeset, seen below, where you deleted the parts of the four ways not seen in older imagery -- in order to give proper credit to the original authors of the traced ``fantasy'' ;-) segments, which you deleted here, then redrew, hence the v1 below?
If not, no problem, as the ways are now present, just without the history that is important to some...
Tack!

I can't speak for mueschel, but I do not work that way -- first I want to understand how and why a mapper did something (thus my guessing speculation above), and I will only revert something like this at the request of and with agreement of the mapper, which I am happy to do but only if *you* are not satisfied with your edit. Else it's a recipe for an edit war that I'll let you win, by not starting.
Sorry, my opinion only.

Hallo,
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=56337645
is a good overview of this changeset, which is unhelpfully labelled as `Corrections'. I came across this when looking to see what had been deleted from this general area.
In particular, I want to draw your attention to Hales 3, 5, 4, and 6. These were previously drawn as two pairs of connected buildings as a multipolygon with the open central courtyard in each dorm cut out.
You deleted both of these, to draw four new solid building areas, based on the Bing imagery as stated well above, but that imagery implies the multipolygon cutouts were correct, unless you know they have been rebuilt as a solid building, which would be a pity.
Presumably the structures visible between the dorms are just covered walkways, and not actual buildings in themselves, in which case that part of the multipolygon could have been separated and turned into building=roof.
Also, Hales 7 through 10 you have changed from being rectangular shaped into some un-right-angled outline, which looks poor, does not match the imagery -- I still see right angles, plus a missing courtyard, and more detail not mapped here. Also, the satellite imageries tend to give a distortion to objects that are seen to be properly angled in true aerial overflight imageries, the latter unfortunately not available within OSM for this area.
Further, to the east of here you have again deleted two buildings only to redraw them again, like with Hale 3 through 6. In general, we try not to do that as it loses the object history, and this timeline of contributions by fellow mapper Jothirnadh or the original multipolygon mapper ikiya -- not to mention the footpaths from Constable you deleted only to redraw later (that original work can also be restored even after deletion, if you decide it was done in error).

Hallo Erick,
In this changeset, I want to refer to a number of changes you have made not borne out by the admittedly outdated available imagery.
In particular, the bottom section of way 192361413 whose change can be seen in https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=56298995 .
If one looks at the aerial imageries, it is clear that what I believe should be a service drive in fact takes the previous curved path around, rather than straight through the trees as you propose.
In addition, you have moved a service drive, previously poorly-connected (I thought I might have added something more reasonable from the imagery) to the north, through a building (not mapped) and into what appears to be a sports and recreation field, more than 20 metres north of where I would place it based on the imagery.
.
Further you have added a new, crudely-drawn way as a footpath, which I would also consider a service drive, way/560761948 , passing through the mapped positions of buildings visible in the imageries, through which unshifted positions it also passes.
Your changeset comment is portuguese ``traçando com strava'' which is easy enough to understand, but can you better explain your mapping? You have added footpaths that travel through building/roof outlines, created a residential drive within the boundaries of a car park, and created additional paths that pass through buildings, where mapper Constable had carefully traced from the aerial imagery before someone else chose to delete them. Some footways are not connected to the nearby road network.
Can you explain the reasoning behind your changes that do not match the aerial imageries, and seem to have decreased the quality of mapping within and near this school, rather than improving it?

Hallo yaas3,
In this changeset you have changed the classification of a road from service drive to residential.
However there is not a single residence anywhere along this road to be seen; rather, it appears to provide access to parking lots, and what may be a university maintenance area.
In addition you have extended it with a new way, 552044670, v1 which is also tagged residential, but if you look at it closely, you can see that it is incorrectly connected, instead branching off in two similar directions before one ends.
Can you explain the reasoning behind these edits?
Also, in another changeset within the past two days you have once again laid a park grounds over the entire campus, which you have done repeatedly in the past as well as turning it into multiple lakes.
These are unwanted Vanderlismus of OpenStreetMap, inappropriate, and if you continue to improperly tag things, add fictional Pokemon parks, and in general fail to improve the map, you risk being banned from further editing.
Thanks.

ciao constable,
I don't know if iD would keep track if a user changes for a specific item to Texas Orthophoto, where it is visible.
However, there is a significant offset if one attempts to carefully trace the imagery, to the northeast of TX Ortho.
Interestingly, the nearby buildings to the north have a similar offset to the northwest compared to the TX Ortho background.
This building has about 12m offset while the road shows only 6m. This leads me to suspect an inaccurate GPS survey notes, or at worst, guess-estimation.
Some Texas GIS services are known to have a noticeable offset from TX Ortho when added to OSM. I'm probably not going to bother to see if a google aerial background matches this offset in which case we'd cry out against their terms of use.
By the way, the buildings to the north were added by the same user, so they are probably misaligned to the inaccurate Bing/DG satellite instead of the better TX Ortho aerials, and as such I would believe the user added this particular building and way without knowing about TX Ortho, guessing on the Bing background, and so that it is thereby inaccurate.