Not sure why you would delete it if it isn't showing up?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139271157

Welcome to OSM. The changeset looks good!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139273847

It is visible in aerial imagery, clear as day.

changeset/139323551

If it is closed, it shouldn't be deleted. It should just have access tags updated to access=no. I can still see it in aerial imagery.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139320537

If it is closed, it shouldn't be deleted. It should just have access tags updated to access=no.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139320525

Areas should not partially overlap as has been done here with the Rough, and other features.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139260645

I've mentioned this before, and yet, those comments have been ignored. Do not map the areas all piece-mailed like this and with "lollipops". Multipolygons should be used to create "holes" in large areas.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139265168

Don't partially overlap areas. they should either be completely within the larger area, or it should be seperate.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139280792

Removed features that don't exist (post office), old railway and added new features, including apartment complex. this was confirmed from an in-person survey.

Features that no longer exist, like the railway/tramway down the middle of the road that has been ripped out, replaced and overbuilt do not belong on OSM, but instead belong on OHM.

These features should be moved to OHM and removed to OSM. OSM is only what currently exists, not what may have existed at one point in time.

osm.wiki/Nonexistent_features

Good question! Street sign. I looked at the Bing Streetside imagery, and then looked at the street sign. It had "William Court".

I was alerted to it by a nearby anonymous note.

FYI, areas such as parking or leisure (shuffleboard, etc.) should not be tagged with "Area=yes". It is redundant for this type of feature.

When mapping areas, please don't have them partially overlap, like you have done for the fairways and the greens. They should either be attached to each other (and not overlap or one should be fully within the other.

Areas should not overlap. they should either be fully within another area, or not. There shouldn't be partial overlaps, such as what you have done with the "Rough".

You should utilize multipolygon relations instead of these haphazard landcovers.

Landcover shouldn't "lollipop". Multipolygon relations should be used instead.

Why no bridges for the cartpaths over the water?

Please use better changeset comments to describe what you did and why. Smashing your face into the keyboard to output random characters probably doesn't feel good and definitely doesn't help. Thanks.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139109580

This one doesn't exist... And has been removed

way/820494841

Question is - should it be removed from OSM and added to OHM instead since it is no longer operational?

I am unsure if this means it is done for good, or permanently. It appears that it could be closed for good. For now, I changed it to access=no to reflect it being closed.

https://www.whites-ferry.com/press/whites-ferry-could-reopen-in-30-days?fbclid=IwAR2udO5NBSj70df7bajlOY3i4qfZNicyyhj5gnT5iEWcMPM8_Sk-D5oNDkY

https://www.facebook.com/WhitesFerry/posts/pfbid02qwZayTPCuaQ5Hv6PRTgQmeHnoEGztsVvoeQiNRdpowpzT7A8Rs9YMdLLmQ8HzPFvl