Argh, again I lost my typed text. Must be more careful what I am doing...
Hi Karito,
The newer Bing z20 imagery with full leaf cover is not a good reference.
If you look at USGS Topographic maps at zoom level 16, you will see, with a slight offset, the path of the brook and a small pond.
This is best seen in aerial orthophotography in the Mapbox imagery at higher zoom levels. This also corresponds to the previous Bing z19 imagery (and matches my manually-added ESRI as reference with better resolution, matching USGS Large Scale at lower zooms).
This leaf-off imagery shows best the path taken by South Brook, which this user has added as
way/512592530#map=18/41.97711/-70.97514&layers=ND
but which is poorly-traced, in the middle with an offset over ten metres from the visible path of the stream.
Also, this stream is falsely tagged as an area as a lake, rather than as a river/stream.
The Pond as drawn in this changeset is too large, and is drawn to the woods boundary. As seen in the Mapbox imagery, South Brook takes a turn here to the south, where it can be seen following the road before turning and ending up in the wetlands/lake visible and mapped to the east.
To Draxous85, thank you for your contribution and also thanks for asking for help, which I am sure people will be happy to offer.
My offer of help would be to suggest you use a different background imagery in iD editor (I cannot tell you how but I know I have done it), and redraw South Brook not as an area/lake, but as a line as a stream/river, and decrease the size of this Pond to better match the Mapbox imagery, but with your local knowledge.
And to Karito, I hope I have convinced you that there is/was a small pond from the USGS Topo map, as well as the stream visible in Mapbox.
I can try to make these changes if you wish, and then you can correct them or add feedback based on your local knowledge, where I can only go by the several available imagery sources.
Cheers, and happy mapping!
(Tells self to submit this third try at a comment before doing something else stupid, AGAIN)

Hi,
Without a precise example, I can only note that from my observations in Canada, the ``unmarked lines'' beside most roads may well be address (housenumber) interpolation, which can be seen in the area of your work at zoom level 17 and above, with real-or-planned numbers at the ends of the lines and sometimes in between.
I too admit I was thrilled to think I saw sidewalks everywhere a few years ago.
Of course, you may refer to something different; if so, my apologies.
Otherwise, I cannot comment much on this set of work, not having examined it, apart from that I see in Tecumseh Park, the footpaths are given the name ``Footpath'' which probably is unnecessary (the name should be an actual name, which these probably do not have.
Thanks for your contributions!

Hallo Lucie,
May I repeat the welcome Bernard gave...
You wrote:
"I'll leave the site alone in future."
Please don't... Constructive contributions are always welcome, and there is a lot to be done, perhaps less in London relative to elsewhere -- but I see dozens of unresolved notes near the area of your changes...
Don't be afraid to make mistakes, as I find myself cleaning up after meself years after making changes, where nobody has caught and corrected them.
With that in mind, a warm welcome, and happy future mapping, I hope!
Cheers...

Actually, by manually adding the ESRI aerial imagery as background (not yet allowable as such for tracing into OSM) I can see the completed-mostly carpark with painted lines, and the actual pond, as suspected, not aligned to the approximate drawn data, but close enough to confirm the user's intent. Other not-permitted imagery sources may be available too as verification.
Morgen gibts Freibier

Hi,
If one views the DigitalGlobe Standard aerial imagery, or for that matter Mapbox, I see an area at the time in construction. I assume this has been completed, and this user has added this info with iD based on local knowledge, without realising other imagery newer than the default Bing is available. Which would explain the offset of the pond (seen left in construction) and entrance (too far west). But this is only a guess; I am willing to give the user the benefit of the doubt based on DG Std, although ideally the reality should be updated when still-newer imagery is available.

Hi Beemer, after a few days offline...
I took the liberty of interpreting your reply to me to make changes matching your description:
* Remove road name left behind after the left turn
* Add a barrier approximately where you describe; for lack of actual knowledge I picked concrete blocks, and tagged the first section as private
* Degrade the rest of the track from the barrier to the ex-bridge into a path with access=no
Based on DG Premium imagery which is probably as free of leaf coverage as possible I can still discern where the road used to follow.
* Marked the section of Phillips road on the other side of the ex-bridge as access=private from the service road towards the newly-mapped house/building.
I hope this reasonably reflects the on-the-ground reality as best I understand; feel free to make corrections as needed.

While the OSM data has been updated, I can see that the newer TIGER data shows Phillips Road nearly reaching the ex-bridge, while Chapel Road is shown ending well before you describe its termination, on the other side of the power line. Still, any TIGER-based navigation should not direct anyone to the bridge, unless the data is extremely old. So I hope your routing issues will be soon over. If not, the problem data lies elsewhere.

Your destroyed bridge was more substantial than those of my past, where wooden beams would soon rot and collapse until new beams replaced them, fairly regularly. But thanks for the trip down memory lane, wading barefoot in the muddy ditches and babbling creeks...

Wasserwerk besser sichtbar via ESRI schneebedeckte Luftbilder, aber 14,5m entfernung von Gebaeude.
DigitalGlobe Premium sieht aus wie 'ne Verschlimmbesserung von ESRI.
Verschiebung in DigitalGlobe Standard, overzoom z20, um 7,7m. (andere Gebaeude haben so gut wie keine Verschiebung gegen z19 Bing, leider nicht immer sehr genau. Ursprungliche Quellen sind GPS, auch im Wald ungenau. Wiederhergestellt, hoffentlich ohne Beschwerden.

-- Freibier (gibt's morgen)

Way: 150065690
Edited 1 day ago by Jo Cassel
Version #6 · Changeset #49960743
Tags
landuse residential

Wasserwerk hinzu
Edited 5 months ago by puzzle
Version #5 · Changeset #45596609
Tags

building yes
building:levels 1

Edited over 2 years ago by Feuermond16
Version #4 · Changeset #27862714
Tags
landuse residential

ABER...
Way: 469693841
Deleted 1 day ago by Jo Cassel
Version #2 · Changeset #49960743

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=49960743
Deleted object appears to be present (but difficult to see) in Bing == DG Std == Mapbox (DigitalGlobe Premium is useless) so it seems reasonable to revert this Wasserwerk way to v1 to my eyes.

I suspect user puzzle wanted to add levels=1 to the new Wasserwerk but mistakenly added that to the landuse outline. Ah, yes, editor iD, the source of similar errors I cannot explain.
'Tschuldigung wegen engrisch gleich oben

Look here "freebeer" (IF that is your real name), if you can't keep comments short, at least spend that wasted time doodling and scrawling over our beloved map so we don't have to read your pathetic drivel.
Signed, a fan (NOT)

Hi there, lover of BMW...

I have just saved the first of several edits to clean up this area based on aerial orthophotography, even though I know some to be years or decades out of date.

This area is not mapped to the standards we can find elsewhere, because most data I looked at was imported rough data from many years back with guaranteed inaccuracies. I can see from Bing imagery that the Chapel road turns into an unpaved/unmaintained path or trail at the point I added a service drive and some private barns/houses/whatnot.

Similarly Phillips Road south of this newly-added bridge-that-doesn't-exist.
However, there is a service drive mapped off Phillips Road, hidden by trees if it does exist...

Anyway, with only aerial images to guide me and obscured by treecover, I cannot accurately assess the road surface or access restrictions. It would not surprise me if it is physically possible to drive with auto partway towards the not-bridge from both sides, even if it is not officially marked as private or closed, and likely possible to walk all the way to the Creek.

Therefore I won't delete myself the path or trail, and will instead rely on a local mapper to add the correct access for cycles, wanderers, and autos, or to adjust the length should it be impassably overgrown before reaching the ex-bridge.

Which newly-added bridge in OpenStreetMap should be deleted, if no evidence of it remains (foundations or whatnot). Which I won't do from halfway around the world out of respect for the honourable 5359.

I thank you most heartily for your contribution to OSM, and hope in return you have spurred me to add some more detail to your area and likely property that also benefits OSM.

The problem with routing should disappear when the bridge is adjusted to reflect reality or the trails I changed given appropriate access tags to allow the random walker to hunt crawdaddies in the crik (wait, I don't even know what part of the world I'm editing here...) but to keep through-traffic at bay. That is, when the routing data is derived from OSM, which it may not be...

If you do not know how to edit the map in such detail, feel free to make comments here to point out where the mapped details do not match the on-the-ground reality and need corrections, and I'm sure a more advanced mapper than myself, still a mere beginner unsure of how to tag all the additions I may add, can correctly fix things for you.

But now, it's time to see how much more motivation I can muster up to add more missing detail around your neck of the woods (which outlines itself needs work).

Thanks again for your input, and hope to see you continue to contribute to OSM!

Cheers...

Hi,
A quick googling showed both names at this address, but that the Elementary school closed in 2008, shortly after the import into OSM which has remained untouched. Therefore I am tempted to accept this change as reasonable, limiting myself to the two CA Dept of Ed results and not bothering with the rest that seem more templates than anything.
But that could be just me...

I know it's rude to reply to myself, but here are my thoughts:
The roads should not have been deleted, but instead retagged as not-residential. They look like the paths I walk to my Sometimes-Underwater Spot. Which paths are, at times, impassable for me, but that is not marked as such. At other times, like the rain-free month before this rainy week, no problems.
I will attempt to restore the original paths and tag them -- they were bulk-imported from TIGER data, and, well, if anyone in the USA attempts to blindly navigate by TIGER data in OSM, woe be unto them.
Speaking of woe, I took a look around Maxwell and tweaked a few things with the sports pitches, so they now appear, although not with markings added (yet), a detail of no concern to you.
I did see a pile-up of nodes along with the Maxwell name, including a Post Office, two churches, and a fire department. The last you had modified; all four were imports that ended up in the same place nowhere near their real positions (I hope). I've separated them to see what all they were, so you can move them more readily to their actual locations.
I have added to the lake, with a few incomplete boundaries that I have to figure out how to tag as wetlands or scrub or something.
Mappy Happing...

Hi. Maxwell? Hmmm.
I'm taking a look at the area to see if I can help, and how I can avoid doing too much damage.
If the roads/paths are presently impassable due to rain, I would not delete anything, but at best, mark with appropriate access tags. After all, I spend a lot of time in the sun at a spot which the latest aerial imagery shows as a metre or two under water.
I will see if I can make sense of the water, and what might be wetlands in the aerial imagery. Please note that I'm almost halfway around the world so I will of course defer to local knowledge.
Anyway, take a look at how various areas in Europe are mapped to see the sort of detail I will strive to give to Maxwell, depending how I interpret the imagery.
And thanks for your contribution, and motivating me to do, um... something...

Just to butt in, without knowing the contents of the other imagery sources, I can verify that both building and park are present in the (degraded) USGS Large Scale Imagery background in Potlatch2, although only at zoom levels 16 and server-side scaled to zoom 20, with nothing for me from 17-19 here. Adding an Esri URL gives me identical-to-USGS aerials at zoom level 17, but reverts to identical-to-Bing-z19-old aerials at z18 and z19. As if anyone still doubts these.

To followup to meself...
I chose to not adjust anything, as I saw the net distance is some 69 metres, while OSM.de seems to first want to add pitch markings from 80 (or 90?)m. It would not surprise me if there is a sub-regulation size pitch in use at elementary schools like here, but not being familiar with the custom, I will keep my hands off.
I spent some time in the area and ended up adding some basketball and tennis pitches, with interesting marking rendering results. In one park, a ways west, I saw a normal and smaller-sized basketball pitch, and only mapped the normal as I cannot authoritatively identify the smaller as perhaps a different sport. But like with another area I mapped, there I fake-mapped a smaller pitch to get osm.fr to render markings, and once is enough...
It is interesting how the tennis pitches at Trenton Central High School (west) are rendered by osm.fr and osm.de, the latter getting nearly all of them way wrong. I'm not sure of the reason for this or other observed differences, so time for me to compare the codes.
Anyway, I also wanted to note that in the 2015 aerial imagery available from the New Jersey Department of Information Technology as both infrared and visible imagery, when it finally appears (at least for me), has the pitch markings actually visible in a way that could be used to reposition the pitch, showing as dark lines. I don't see these marks for the pitch to the northeast that itself is even smaller at some 43m between nets...
I do agree that the additional landuse tagging beyond the pitch leisure tag is a problem, with every renderer showing or failing to show. But as I only mapped my first pitches a few days ago, and after a lot of false starts, I am but a beginner and in no way an expert.
Sorry for the interruption/annoyance.

I can clearly see that there is a soccer pitch in Bing zoomlevel 20 aerial orthophotos. The user has mapped the pitch outlines a bit too far north and likely too narrow to render with field markings on openstreetmap.de . At the same time I can see an unmarked pitch visible to the northeast on the grass surface, parallel to the basketball pitch which is rendered with markings on tile.openstreetmap.fr . Here the shadows from the nets are even clearer to identify.
I may attempt to adjust the soccer pitch dimensions for openstreetmap.de treatment as can be seen on the Middle / High School grounds nearby to the south-south-east, or other items from the Bing imagery may well tempt me...

Howdy Ms/Mr O. Ranch,
Good to see you have not abandoned OSM and have in fact tagged The Big Barn. I recommend to add names to as many things as possible, since I've done my experiments and tried to clean up my preposterous placeholders.
In my Easter mythmapping, I collected a number of ideas that I should comment on, like how to ``cheat'' when naming certain things. But rather than attempt to fill a changeset comment I've decided I should write more of a diary entry, also for wider exposure to more experienced taggers and mappers who can better contribute than can I.
In any case, I encourage you to add many attractions that I can see from the aerial imagery but cannot guess what they might be. Such as what I've seen on webpages about horseshoes, and a General Store, and many more.
Also I'd ask that you review some of my dubious additions such as the car park area, and names I've left (Indian Village and the like).
Further, if the present reality is significantly different from the orthophotography source of a winter or three back, then of course bring the map up-to-date.
Do not worry much about the boundary at present; I'm confident it will not be deleted again, and I can attempt to fix it, as I've attempted to add some of the visible fences that I suspect form the boundary.
Anyway, when I get my notes and comments written, I hope they will be helpful for further improvements, and I hope you continue to add detail and information to the map. At least, I am hoping you want the map to be a useful resource to your visitors, whether as a printed handout, or on their smartphones and the like.
Cheerio!

Greetings Oil Ranch,
I see no reason for the full revert that was carried out based on what was clearly simple mis-tagging of a theme_park tourism tag.
I took the opportunity to trace some simple rectangular building outlines in and around your theme park to try and fill in the copious whitespace while awaiting a hoped-for unrevert of your contribution.
The available (legally allowable for OpenStreetMap) imagery is relatively poor, with Bing-provided imagery up to zoom level 19, that I expect to be more like ten years old, and less-sharp Mapbox imagery with visible differences as well as different Mapbox imagery at zoom level 17 where a mysterious infestation of green-stuff seems to have invaded much of the land.
Interestingly as I populated the area to your east, I discovered much clearer and more recent imagery at zoom level 20 a kilometre or three to the east, which likely is only a year or so old and much more pleasant to trace outlines. Unfortunately, such islands around select metropolitan areas are frequent in your country rather than covering the whole area at the higher resolution.
I have attempted to revert the deletion of your contribution with the simple tools I use, thus correcting your area to be a theme park.
The improper tagging as a general `park' for what is not a grassy/forested space likely caused a hair-trigger deletion, as for some months there has been a plague of false parks and other such additions, as well as vandalism like converting buildings to parks, in order to cheat at a game that exists in the mind, while I can see actual physical items in the aerial imagery that I did not trace, preferring that someone who knows the area properly tag things correctly, like probable baseball or softball pitches, maybe a mini-golf area, perhaps a campground in some imagery, possibly a walk-through maze, a horse ranch, and other things I shall not attempt to guess.
The main criticism I can offer, should you accept it, is that the boundaries you traced, do not seem to be up to the standards of accuracy I hope to see, but I cannot properly judge this myself solely from aerial imagery. This hastily-drawn outline, in part seeming to bisect what I would guess to be the church property adjacent, also mirrors the imaginary additions others have made for their game, making it more suspect, I would guess.
I myself hesitate to ``improve'' your outline, being unfamiliar with the boundaries, and I will leave it to you should you wish to invest the time to clean up the appearance of your theme park in OSM. Likewise, you can add points or areas to correspond to the different attractions on offer, even to the point of the detail I saw at 48.26833°N 7.72083°E in OSM before seeing it as one of the examples of a theme park to be tagged.
I hope the unwarranted (from my view) deletion of your contribution as well as the unresponsiveness to your justified complaint has not soured you to OSM and turned you from further contribution in your area. Such as fixing the Oil Ranch Drive/Lane/whatever that looks to take a fantasy path at its end near the swimming pool, or likewise Harts traversing what is now a lake or pond.
To sum up, I hope my attempt to restore your theme park to the map remains, and that it is improved in the future. I apologise personally for this, not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself, and I hope what little I have added to the map in your area, with the limited/outdated aerial orthophotography available to me, has helped to make it a little bit better, and again, I hope to see you fill out your area with more details to make the map more accurate and up-to-date.
Yours from afar....

Vandalism -- This and most if not all other changesets from this user should be reverted, look in this area for more similar vandalism

Halli halloo 1. Rini
Die Hausnummern 5-7c stimmen.
Quelle: Worn-out shoes and worn-out eyeballs
Greetings from Rheinheim -- no, wait, I had to move away, far away. Narri narro