Hi! Thanks for working on the map. I just wanted to call out that some of the features you mapped in this changeset could be better tagged. You created a bunch of "golf courses" that are really individual holes on a mini-golf course.

There's already an area for the mini golf course. I'd suggest re-tagging the individual holes, perhaps as a Putting Green.

Whoops, that was my mistake. I was cleaning that up but I also split the way and propagated it to the new ways. I'll take care of it.

Just to muddy the waters, Climax Township has a map calling it "LaFevers Lake." https://399da70a-bd9d-4c4a-8bc4-efff71abaeb7.filesusr.com/ugd/c714ae_53df38dc6e704b179f16d8a2943bd510.pdf?index=true

There doesn't seem to be a good, authoritative source for this. I'll add an alt_name, but now I'm hesitant to change the name without a better source.

Should "Le Ferre Lake" really be named "LeFevre Lake"? That's the name on the USGS topo layer, and the Internet doesn't seem to know anything about a "Le Ferre" Lake in Kalamazoo County.

Hey, not sure if you're still working on this area, but it looks like one of the ways you created didn't get any tags: way/972696828/history

Hey, what's up with the two golf cart paths you created running along I-75? That doesn't seem accurate to me.

Hey! Thanks for working on the map, just wanted to make sure you were aware that aerial imagery can often be mis-aligned from reality, and that's the case with Bing here in TC. So quite a few of the changes you made here are not really improvements. Here's a section from iD's help text about the issue:

Imagery is sometimes offset slightly from accurate map data. If you see a lot of roads or buildings shifted from the background imagery, it may be the imagery that's incorrect, so don't move them all to match the background. Instead, you can adjust the background so that it matches the existing data by expanding the "Imagery Offset" section at the bottom of the Background Settings pane.

?? I'm not sure what to make of those photos. That the lagoons are small? There are almost 1.3 million swimming pools mapped in OSM. Size doesn't matter. leisure=swimming_pool

P.S. There really aren't many hard "rules" in OSM, but this page includes a relevant guideline osm.wiki/How_We_Map

"Do not delete data unless you know (or have very strong reason to believe) that it is incorrect."

The waterway you deleted was tagged as natural=water, not waterway=riverbank. Also, the sentence that you quote ends with "but it might still be interesting, especially if it is irregular." I believe that to be the case here. For example, Spider Island has a detailed boundary, but as of right now, the water around it (that makes it an island) does not. There's a lot of detail in the Botanic Gardens that is interesting and appropriate for a dense feature like this, even if you might not map them elsewhere.

Also, it's bad practice in OSM to delete something unless it's inaccurate or harmful in some way (which this is not). I'm planning on adding this back to the map, and I hope you'll agree to let it be.

Here's another one: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/931390285
The map is less detailed without these features. Can you explain your reasoning for why you're removing them?

Hey, I'm curious why you're deleting detail that I added to the Botanic Gardens. For example, this way that showed the outlines of the water passage next to the visitor center: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/931541882

Yeah, relations aren't the most straightforward thing. You're close, the only thing to do still is to take the tags off of the individual ways that you added to the relation. That way the information is only entered once.

FYI these new Sleeping Bear areas that you added should get added to the larger Sleeping Bear relation: relation/812810#map=13/44.6879/-86.1013

Here's some documentation of the tagging guidelines for golf cart paths: golf=cartpath

Hi! I noticed you added a lot of cart paths to this golf course on top of existing roads. This is not a good mapping practice--it means there are two ways in the same space that overlap, cross, and otherwise interfere with each other.

You may have noticed iD giving you lots of tagging warnings when you made your changes, and this is why.

The right way to do this, in cases where carts are allowed to drive in the road, is to add golf_cart=designated to an existing road.

Hi! Thanks for contributing to the map. I haven't looked closely at your changes, but based on your changeset comment, I thought I should note that we shouldn't delete something from the map just because it's on private property. If it exists in the real world then it can be mapped, regardless of whether the general public has access to it or not.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93815450

Looks good! Thanks for contributing!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92531697

As I mentioned on your other changeset, the ways that you deleted were tagged appropriately as driveways. If that accurately reflects reality on the ground, then they should remain in the map.

Hey Brian! Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap. FYI, this way appears to have been correctly mapped as a driveway, so I'm not sure why you deleted it. Does it no longer exist?