Again, I am noticing that you are "lollipoping" landcovers. Rather than using a multirelation, you are trying to mimick a hole in one landcover by creating a thin strip where it doesn't touch. Please read up here to avoid further mapping pitfalls.:

leisure=golf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

I have already contacted you about this. Continued poor mapping will result in escalation to DWG.

Again, I am noticing that you are "lollipoping" landcovers. Rather than using a multirelation, you are trying to mimick a hole in one landcover by creating a thin strip where it doesn't touch. Please read up here to avoid further mapping pitfalls.:

leisure=golf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

I have already contacted you about this. Continued poor mapping will result in escalation to DWG.

Again, I am noticing that you are "lollipoping" landcovers. Rather than using a multirelation, you are trying to mimick a hole in one landcover by creating a thin strip where it doesn't touch. Please read up here to avoid further mapping pitfalls.:

leisure=golf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

I have already contacted you about this. Continued poor mapping will result in escalation to DWG.

Again, I am noticing that you are "lollipoping" landcovers. Rather than using a multirelation, you are trying to mimick a hole in one landcover by creating a thin strip where it doesn't touch. Please read up here to avoid further mapping pitfalls.:

leisure=golf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

I have already contacted you about this. Continued poor mapping will result in escalation to DWG.

Why did you not connect the golf cartpaths with a bridge where there is one? You seem very detail oriented, so I encourage you to add the last bit of detail. I have gone ahead and added the cartpath bridge for you.

Again, I am noticing that you are "lollipoping" landcovers. Rather than using a multirelation, you are trying to mimick a hole in one landcover by creating a thin strip where it doesn't touch. Please read up here to avoid further mapping pitfalls.:

leisure=golf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

I have already contacted you about this. Continued poor mapping will result in escalation to DWG.

Please do not overlap landcovers. I have cleaned it up for this golf course. I highly recommend you review common golf mapping pitfalls here:
leisure=golf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145015929

'Changeset has been reverted. Do not delete features just because they are "private". You can read more on why here:

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property'

changeset/145020680

What source did you use to change the name of the street? "Memes Street" sounds mighty sus.

So realistically, it ahould be tagged as "Under Cobstruction" instead, not proposed?

Please use a more detailed changeset comment than "yes". This doesn't tell me anything. You can read more about changeset comments and advice for better comments here:

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#:~:text=A%20good%20changeset%20comment%20should,have%20edited%20on%20the%20map.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144708166

Note to others. This user created an alt account.

@Chris%20Denomy

I am pretty sure I have cautioned you for this before, but do not create "lollipop" areas. Multirelation polygons should be used instead. I have corrected it here.

Please read:
leisure=golf_course#:~:text=Wrapping%20polygon%20areas%20around%20a%20hole%20and%20leaving%20a%20tiny%20open%20gap.

What's up with not connecting this cartpath segment to the other ones on either end, even though they are right next to each other?

I have gone through and correct this for you.

If the cartpath has a bridge over water, please map it as a bridge, not just a water ford. I have corrected this for you in this instance.

'Changeset(s) have been reverted. As made evident in discussion on changeset/144781857, this was mapped for personal reasons. Despite that discussion, the user made further edits to this non-existing POI and generated notes.

Non-existing features should not mapped. Mapping things solely for your personal bookmark is not permitted on OSM, and as such, the node has been removed.'

changeset/144804583

'Changeset(s) have been reverted. As made evident in discussion on changeset/144781857, this was mapped for personal reasons. Despite that discussion, the user made further edits to this non-existing POI and generated notes.

Non-existing features should not mapped. Mapping things solely for your personal bookmark is not permitted on OSM, and as such, the node has been removed.'

changeset/144804583

'Changeset(s) have been reverted. As made evident in discussion on changeset/144781857, this was mapped for personal reasons. Despite that discussion, the user made further edits to this non-existing POI and generated notes.

Non-existing features should not mapped. Mapping things solely for your personal bookmark is not permitted on OSM, and as such, the node has been removed.'

changeset/144804583

'Changeset(s) have been reverted. As made evident in discussion on changeset/144781857, this was mapped for personal reasons. Despite that discussion, the user made further edits to this non-existing POI and generated notes.

Non-existing features should not mapped. Mapping things solely for your personal bookmark is not permitted on OSM, and as such, the node has been removed.'

changeset/144804583

'Changeset(s) have been reverted. As made evident in discussion on changeset/144781857, this was mapped for personal reasons. Despite that discussion, the user made further edits to this non-existing POI and generated notes.

Non-existing features should not mapped. Mapping things solely for your personal bookmark is not permitted on OSM, and as such, the node has been removed.'

changeset/144804583