Hello, welcome to OSM. Features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Thanks for the reply. No worries, I fixed the ones I saw, Happy mapping!

Hello, so how access works is you can set the tag "foot=yes" and the rest as no, but if its public leave "access=*" set to yes.

Setting it "access=no" and "foot=yes" means its a foot path but NOT for public access. I dont think thats what you ment to do.

access=*

Hello, welcome to OSM. Features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Hello, welcome to OSM. Features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Hello welcome to OSM. Please don't remove valid features, instead use the access tag system.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Hello, I was wondering why you changed all the access tags to "no" for all these trails? Seems like these are all trails at Rocky Hill Wildlife Sanctuary, and they are indeed open to the public. Thanks

Hello, again, not trying to hound you but also wanted to let you know features like this should not be deleted either. If the feature exists its valid and can be mapped even if its "little stuff".

Hello, welcome to OSM. Features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. "Cleaning up runnable roads for wandrer" is an invalid reason to remove OSM data. Removing features that exist or modifying data incorrectly for a game or app can actually be considered vandalism.

I've restored some of the features, just wanted to let you know going forwards, thanks!

Thanks for the reply and your understanding. Yes, once they are removed completely from the ground, they can be removed from OSM.

Hello, welcome to OSM. Features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. They were created 15 years ago, and they still show significant heatmap traffic within the last 12 months. Not being public access or "unauthorized social trail" areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

You had it right before, the correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

Hi welcome to OSM. Could you explain why you removed these roads loading into parking lots?

You don't have hobbies? Yes it does exist, don't be a vandal and a liar. https://i.imgur.com/wPH15cv.png

Hello again, please stop removing valid features.

You now should be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Contiuniueing to do this is considered vandalism.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

Hello again, please stop removing valid features.

You now should be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Contiuniueing to do this is considered vandalism.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

Hi welcome to OSM. Please don't remove features that exist on the ground, even if private. Instead, use the tagging system.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

Hi welcome to OSM. Can you discribe what you are doing in this changeset and why you removed these roads?

Please leave good changeset comment "e" tell other users nothing about why you are doing things. osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hello, Could you explain why you have moving roads from tertiary → secondary in a ton of changesets? What is your source?

Note you should be explaining this in the changeset comments, "Fixed road" does tell anyone reviewing changes why you are doing things. osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hey, You have misspelled "Hospital"

Hello, could you explain why you have removed the grass feature from all these locations?

When removing a ton of stuff people describe why in your changeset comments.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments