Thanks for the catch (and fix). Appreciate it.

Hey John, I'm looking over some errors in the mapping of golf courses and I came across this course and found that several of the fairways are chopped up and mapped separately, but adjacent. I can't think of a good reason for them to be mapped that way and it goes against mapping "good practice" so I was wondering if I'm missing something or if I should go ahead and join those overlapping areas. Thanks.

Hi Cdurant,
What's the purpose of the "small patches"? They aren't correctly mapped as they are a patch of fairway inside a larger patch of fairway, so it makes no sense topologically. If there is an alternative purpose of the patches (maybe they are yardage markers or something), then they need to have different tags. Please let me know. Thanks.

Thanks for simplifying!

Can you take another look at way/305780252 ? Something bad happened with your latest change. Thx.

A lot of things got really messed up around this area with a change this week. Not sure if this was VLD or someone else, but maybe you could take a look. (See node/875108959 for example)

The number of nodes in way way/1024449202 is excessive. Can you reduce them to a reasonable number (in this ways and any similar ways you create)? Thanks.

We've all been there at one point. Thanks for the contributions.

The summary of that discussion is that a poorly executed and undiscussed import was reverted in this changeset.

Hi Greg,
Can you tell me where you got the building data to import? I want to chase down some errors in it. thanks.

way/663291700 got all messed up recently and zig zags across itself. Can you take a look?

A double sided tag seems like the right answer to me. In the meantime, maybe they can be represented with parallel lines separated by a small distance?

I'm guessing these aren't really curbs, but more appropriately very short walls, right? The fact that the way doubles back on itself (ie. nodes A-B-A) leads me to think this was done on purpose to indicate it is "lower" on both sides. But this triggers various Q/A tools like OSM Inspector since that is invalid topology (as I understand it). So wouldn't a wall be more appropriate here? Or maybe there's another way to keep the Q/A tools happy?

Awesome. Thanks for contributing.

So the sign says "http://www.jersey.police.uk/" and you are unhappy that the bot changes it to "https://jersey.police.uk/". Do I have that correct? I can add some code to skip this one particular node since it seems to upset you, but I won't be able to get to it in the next week, which means that it will switch it back at least one more time. Sorry.

I'm not sure what change you're going to make to make us both be happy. If it has already happened, it isn't correct IMO. Ways shouldn't cross over themselves. They should be split and the layer attribute should be set appropriately. I don't consider this a false positive for QA tools. And if it is, I think the right thing to do would be to go ahead and split it so that even if it was a false positive, it wouldn't clutter up the output of such tools so that work can be focused on other areas without the clutter.

Hey Stereo, the pedestrian stairs from street level up to bridge level need to be split so that the way doesn't cross over itself, which is topologically incorrect. If you look at my changeset (changeset/111830687), you'll see what I'm talking about. Can you please revert your change? Thanks.

Hello there. You broke one of the outer members of the national forest multipolygon. It doesn't enclose anything now as it's just two nodes. Is that something you know how to fix?

@pnorman, probably time you assist with a revert as the importer doesn't appear to be responding in a timely manner.

Looks like someone else has deleted it.