Sure every beach is always partly submerged, but you added several hundred feet of beach beyond the coastline, which isn't there. And the coastline didn't match Cape Point on any of the imagery I can see so I was curious if you had used some other source.

Also a lot of your other edits in the area seem inconsistent; is there a different imagery source you're using?

Hi, why did you add these beaches in the water? They don't appear on any imagery we have, and certainly not Esri.

And actually looking at the Wikipedia page it looks like there's not even a wetland reserve there, its private property?

Is there a reason that Wetlands Reserve in TN is broken up into so many little bits?

This was never actually followed up on and much of the woods still look like good candidates for complete redrawing

Offsets used: Bing (-1.71, 5.6), Maxar (-2.08, 8.19)

It is a work in progress, like some other areas of landcover

The correct tag for these roads is highway=track. They don't really resemble driveways when they are just tire tracks leading to an oil rig, if anything. Many of them don't even exist anymore

Why did you tag so many things as driveways? Hardly any of these roads look like they actually lead to anything.

What are you improving?

If you have time to revert that would be great. They also have not responded to any previous comments.

What is the source for these roads? They do not appear on latest imagery (which Bing is not) or in TIGER.

They are also certainly not secondary roads, and I don't think there is a boardwalk road here.

Fair enough! In that case though would you please use slightly more descriptive changeset comments? Given the current one and the bounding box I assumed that you were making random little edits globally.

I don't know how or why, but you managed to merge a number of different woods into one relation here, which broke the rendering for all the forests and now there's a large multipolygon that needs fixed. relation/9690268

Please be more mindful of where you are editing, and restrict changesets to smaller geographic areas. This one covers about 2.5 continents.

They hardly mapped onto reality at all. They cut out large portions of other woods, covered large areas of non-woods, and were only really handcrafted along two powerline cuts.
I would leave it if someone was actively improving it but it would be hard to work with it since it was connected strangely to a bunch of residential blobs. I plan to redraw at least some of it more accurately.

Hi,
Why did you upgrade Yam Blvd (way/15871754) and River Rd to secondary? They looks like tertiary at best to me.

In that case I think the correct way to map is still that the entire reservoir be tagged with intermittent=yes. There are not to separate water bodies here, there is one which has a varying water level.

Not sure what the 'personal aesthetic preference' comment is intended for; it seems more of an ad-hom than anything I put forward. I have laid out reasons that this imported data is of low quality but you seem to ignore this by saying it was 'done by professionals' which is neither here nor there as far as OSM is concerned.

There are no 'powers-at-be' here. There is community discussion and if needed the DWG will assist with technical things like reverting or dealing with copyright infringement.