I went ahead and tagged the stairs as bridge=yes where it overlaps with the section below it. Layer tags on overlapping ways don't really do much without a bridge=* or tunnel=* tag.

You are not bothering to read my comments or check who made the edits you are talking about. I'm no longer responding to this thread.

Except the data *was* incorrect. Information added with lane tags isn't just for routing purposes; it should also accurately reflect the road as it exists in reality. This changeset implied the existence of an eastbound turn lane shorter than the length of a car, when it really extends much further than that. Whether or not this is part of your internal mapping standards is irrelevant. You supplied incomplete data within the scope of your edit, and as a result other mappers have to correct the work that you didn't do.

If you "adhere to the approach that the way should start exactly where the turn lane becomes available" then why was that not done in the edit? This is a bad contribution and it's strange that this was internally reviewed as having "no errors".

See changeset/171480686 as an example

The issue is not necessarily *where* you decided to add turn lanes. Unless aerial imagery is out of date, there are turn lanes here, you just tagged the lane information incorrectly.

The westernmost way added in this edit should have been given the tags lanes=5 and turn:lanes:backward=left|none|none, but the only lane information given to this way was lanes=4, which is wrong. This way also should have started exactly where the turn lane became available, not as far back as it does here. You added a way in the middle tagged with lanes=6, lanes:forward=3, and lanes:backward=3 which should have been tagged as lanes=5, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=2, and lanes:both_ways=1. The easternmost road segment was the only way in this edit that was tagged correctly.

Please add changeset descriptions when uploading so that other editors can understand what you do in your edits. In this case, something like "Renamed Oak Ridge Cir to Oakridge Cir" would be okay.

These edits don't appear to be golf course changes, rather it looks like you mapped buildings and roads completely unrelated to the golf course. For the sake of making it easier for future editors to understand what was changed, please make sure your changeset comments accurately summarize what was changed.

Also, please don't draw buildings as simple squares. You should be outlining buildings as accurately as possible and, for buildings with right angles, squaring them so they don't look jagged.

Future editors have to redraw buildings like this, and current users/editors will have a hard time discerning which building they are looking at on the ground.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171473977

These edits don't appear to be golf course changes, rather it looks like you mapped buildings and roads completely unrelated to the golf course. For the sake of making it easier for future editors to understand what was changed, please make sure your changeset comments accurately summarize what was changed.

Also, please don't draw buildings as simple squares. You should be outlining buildings as accurately as possible and, for buildings with right angles, squaring them so they don't look jagged.

Future editors have to redraw buildings like this, and current users/editors will have a hard time discerning which building they are looking at on the ground.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171473977

Referring to changeset/170751867

Please do not add names to objects unless they have an official name. The golf course the holes belong to is already implied by being inside a named golf course area. In this edit, you also replaced an official name from a golf hole and changed it to the name of the golf course. This is incorrect.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170751867

Just a heads up, using the name=* tag is discouraged if an object doesn't have an official name, and definitely shouldn't be used to indicate that it belongs to another object.

By being contained within a golf course area, it's already implied that those features belong to that golf course. Here, naming them is not only redundant, it obscures the ref=* tag from being rendered.

Please do not name golf lines to represent which course they belong to. The name=* tag should only be used for elements that have an official name.

Sorry if I came across as rude. I noticed you were making a lot of automated edits in this area, saw errors that may have been unintentional, and wanted to let you know in case you weren't aware. You appear to be a new mapper, that's all.

Please make sure to double check your edits before submitting them, especially when importing or using automated tools that are prone to making errors. Most of the buildings added in your edit are okay, however several were traced incorrectly and should be manually redrawn before uploading.

Examples:
way/1420107846
way/1420107832

When in doubt, do not simplify: follow the outline as closely as possible.

I'm not sure why this changeset box is so large. The only affected area should be around the OK County Detention Center

The name=* tag should only be used for features that have a name, such as a road or business.

The leisure=golf_course tag should be used for the boundary of the entire golf course, not for individual features (such as fairways, bunkers, tee boxes, etc.)

leisure=golf_course#Tags_used_in_combination

Please be detailed in your changeset comments, it can be hard to figure out what exactly you tweaked, or why, especially with changesets this large.

If you need guidance, see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Please double check your changes before uploading, you placed an alleyway over a building in this edit