Hi and welcome to OSM!

Thanks for your recent additions! :)

One hint: If possible, it's best to try to avoid using the name= tag as a description, it should be reserved for the actual names of things. If a pool was called the "McCabe Olympic Pool" then you would put that name, but the actual details would be defined using other tags such as leisure=swimming_pool

Thanks again :)

Happy mapping!

Hey and welcome to OSM!

Thanks for your recent additions.

You've about a third of Gunn Park crossing the Marmaton River here and covering a fair bit of farm and urban land - are you sure that's correct?

Does the trail actually exist? It might be better to change it to access=private rather than just removing it

Hi Ghostdudes and welcome to OpenStreetMap :)

Parks on OSM are defined in a specific way, and that doesn't typically include residential yards or houses. You can read more on the OSM wiki: leisure=park?uselang=en

Hi Threadgill and welcome to OSM :)

When you add buildings such as houses, it's best to only draw them over the building rather than covering the whole block/plot it occupies, you can see existing examples close the houses you added in this changeset.

Happy mapping!

Hi ClockCruncher and welcome to OSM!

So you're aware, in this edit you changed the administrative boundary for Mattawan to a road. Obviously, this wasn't intentional, so I set it back. You might want to double-check any future changes you make though, just to be safe :).

Happy mapping!

This seems like an interesting place? A beach, park, church, and dinner all in the same location?

Hi and welcome to OSM! This is how we define a park:
leisure=park?uselang=en
Unfortunately, a backyard doesn't count. In order to keep the map useful, please map carefully :).

Hi Meedit67 and welcome to OSM.

Regarding your recent edit: Do you have more information about this park? It looks very much like a private rural property.

This is how we define a park on OpenStreetMap:
leisure=park?uselang=en

Por favor no agregue características falsas al mapa.

Oh! That's no problem at all!

I personally have tended to favour churchyard in contexts where a church has additional associated features such as a community hall, playground or other similar outside features over religious landuse because I feel the latter lacks a certain specificity (christian+religious landuse could imply any number of things).

They're both normally perfectly valid in these kind of contexts (landuse=religious) and (landuse=churchyard).

I'd hazard a guess that eventually, some day in the future, the standards for landuse=religious will probably be further refined (maybe something like religious=churchyard?) and landuse=churchyard will probably be declared superseded. But things on OSM happen slowly and not always in the way one would predict.

Hi Meyer,

Are you sure these are tennis courts are definitely here? Some imagery that looks like it might be newer than Bing at this time shows that these might have been replaced with a parking lot and building?

I've also followed up with the mapper who originally added the park (within the past 24 hours) as some imagery that appears to be newer than Bing seems to indicate that these courts may have been removed.

Hi, Welcome back to OSM! Have you checked out the OSM wiki? osm.wiki/Main_Page
You can find many ways to tag new features listed there. The name= key should be reserved for actual names such as the "Carl Sagan Gazebo" as opposed to just a description like "Pool". I updated some of the changes you made here so you can check them if you need some examples.
Happy mapping :)

Thank you for fixing this up, edbort.

This is much better now.

I noticed you were trying to punch a hole for the garden bed - the best way to do this is to use a multipolygon and an "inner" area, I did one for you so you can see. holes in other features are much easier to draw this way and cause less issues rendering etc.

Best thing is, you still get your nesting area and it all appears to be real. Well done :)

Please do not add fake features to OSM. They will be removed.

You've got to be trolling, jeez louise.

Yeah, I don't think you understand how this works. No zigzagging paths = no zigzagging paths, even if you take 1,000 pictures of other, unrelated paths.

Honestly, man, just re-read what you wrote in the context of this discussion and then maybe pack away your strawman argument. If you want to add the path *between your shed and house* or to your pool shelter, by all means, do it.

Further vandalism will be removed and you will be reported to the DWG again should it happen.

Do I really need to explain what you're doing here to you? I think you're quite aware of it.

My request was "showing literally any footway at this location that zigzags remotely like this".

You've cherry picked the first part of my request and sent me photos of the footpath between the house and the garage/shed and a few stepping stones out to garden features. no long zigzagging looping paths to be seen.