Did you check if these intersected with existing basin or other shapes? See a basin way/82287955 from way/82287955 uploaded 6 years prior which intersects with a pond added in this changeset.

Might be a conflation detection issue by due to the existing crossings not being attached to the road, but the way and crossing node are present on the path.

Example location osm.org/edit#map=21/40.03421/-82.98385

seems some crossings were overlaid on existing crossings - see example this changeset and way/921514444

Ok, but many of your changes are not helping make the map better as they are not following the existing map conventions. For example trees should use key "natural" natural=tree not a building tag. The roads should not have a second golf cart line drawn, additional tags could be applied if on the ground the road is approved for golf carts. leisure=golf_course Please take some time to select the appropriate tags. Added features in this changeset and others need to be cleaned up to remove errors. It won't help the golf simulator if the tagging is not consistent with existing course practices.

There are shapes set as "building" where they are clearly trees and shapes that barely cover a portion of the house. Please don't leave shapes or objects that don't represent the feature. Are you be willing to clean up this changeset and any others like it?

Thanks for mapping in Marietta, Ohio. The buildings you mapped could be improved by following the outline a bit closer. I see you used the Bing aerial imagery, but there are better resolution images with the OSIP 6 inch which would have probably helped trace the building better. Make sure to check which map layers are available so you're both getting the most up to date image and best resolution to see the feature. The rest of the area buildings were mapped with OSIP 6 inch resolution which is only a visible choice when viewing Ohio. Some other layers may be visible or not available depending on where you are viewing so its a good practice to check your options.

Shouldn't the separate line be merged with the segment of Laidley Street and use the Public Service Vehicle tag scheme? osm.wiki/Bus_lanes

An example of this tagging scheme- changeset/103595894

The GNIS names probably should stay associated with these shapes given these are the national record for the names.

What do you think about using the name tags for official_name tag (GNIS Name) and source:official name tag GNIS and loc_name and source:loc_name - the source you cite?

Can't say why this was a duplicated, but I removed the lesser duplicate in the following changeset. It is possible that it was missed by a configuration of ID, humans are bound to make a mistake. Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed in: changeset/103145733

For clarification these are from street imagery I uploaded to Mapillary and OpenStreetCam.

Buildings in this and many other change sets in this area are not well oriented to the buildings on the ground. Are you just importing or have you been reviewing the alignment before adding the buildings?

Reapplied (or close) in changeset/101271861

Good reason to remove!

Great, there was a conflict with my changeset was applied which I couldn't correct after doing a Tiger review in ID so I wanted to verify before applying your change again. Thanks.

Ok good to know, your changeset states "from park map" so just making sure it wasn't copied. :)

How was this determined as unused? Does it no longer exist on the ground - per a survey or is this local knowledge?

What was the copyright of the map or was permission granted in some way for its use or was the map used to confirm from local knowledge?

What is your source for this adjustment? There is no clear community garden boundary from Bing aerial imagery.