Hi,
if there is a hole inside an area, we draw them as multipolygon relation where the area gets role "outer" and the holes in the area get role "inner".
So instead of "lollipops" like here way/999989533, it looks something like this:
relation/13420699

more details are about this are here: leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

Hi,
generally good tracing job. But some of the areas/polygons are overlapping.
e.g.
way/1000023831
way/1000023830

If the two areas are adjacent, they should share the nodes along the line where they touch. see here leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

Also if the two adjacent areas have exactly the same tags it is typically better to draw them as one area. But that is a minor point.

Hi,
those cart paths look wonky. We don't draw them as areas, but they go as a single line along the median of the road/path.
I believe this was supposed to be parking lot that should be tagged as amenity=parking: way/999972674

Also path should not cross each other. If they have to then the should share a node at the point of crossing.

Also they should not

Hi and welcome to OSM.
Several things I would like to point out:
1) Please don't delete objects to replace them with new objects. To do it correctly, modify the existing object shape to update it.
2) Hole numbers don't belong to name= tag, but should be in ref= tag.
3) Why was it necessary to delete all the Tee nodes? They contained useful information e.g. node/2908414180/history
4) This is not the correct way how polygons with holes inside of them are traced: way/1000618120 . Look at here how it is done as multipolygon: leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls
osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Oh I was not sure if there was some sort of local agreement on keeping those names on areas since so many rivers have it like that.
Ok, I'll be removing those. Thanks

Hi,
Just saying that you don't really need to do this. Addresses on separate nodes are completely fine and cause no problems.

Please don't delete exiting trails.
Thanks

More discussion on Slack channel #Trails
https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

Here is a draft of document for solving this issue.
osm.wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

No problem.
I restored the building and the two address nodes from your other changesets.

Thanks for updating. But has the building been demolished as well?

Also for the future, when you are removing a closed business please delete only tags that are related to that business and leave other intact.
E.g. address of the place often stays the same for a long time. And this way it preserves edit history for that object.
Thanks

Hi,
Thanks for contributing. But as a strong reminder, please do not delete existing data to replace it with new! The way how it's done is that the existing data gets modified.
Also you replaced good quality data with your poor quality version.

Maybe you want to talk to Scooby527, so you don't overwrite each other.. They've been adding these private/permissive tags based on some local municipal map.

(as a side note, general agreement in US from Slack seems to be to use access=private only when there is a gate or no trespassing sign)

Hi,
thanks for your edits. I am just bringing to attention that trail blazes and descriptive names don't belong to name= tag.

If you want to add a hiking trial you can do that by creating a relation e.g. relation/12180957

You can check which trails are already mapped in https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=16!41.8679!-72.985 or https://en.mapy.cz/turisticka?x=-72.9863089&y=41.8712555&z=15

Urcite nie su oficialne
changeset/16135182

hi, thanks for the edits. I guess the only thing is that the actual names of the faculty got overwritten by a generic tag.

Would you mind joining Discord (https://discord.gg/openstreetmap) or Slack (https://slack.openstreetmap.us/) to discuss tagging strategy or coordinate with our large scale edits?

If a driveway has no trespassing sign then an option is to just add access=private tag. Definitely don't remove existing roads.

Hi Irwin,
we handle these cases by adding access=private or access=no to the trails. Just please don't delete paths that exist.

That would be appropriate if the feature actually existed. Right now it's tagging a thin air.

Well the idea was not if a tag exists, but if the feature itself exits. In OSM we map only things that still exist osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground

Regardless of the controversial nature of railway=razed, the newly drawn railway goes through interstate highway, parking lots and even right though an existing shopping mall. We can be 100% sure that the railway is not there.