Thanks, I fixed up the rest of relation/4780282 so good to go on my front!

Hello, I noted you created turn restrictions here and then "deleted" them by removing just the 'via' member. For completeness the whole relation should be removed, including the remaining members (from, to; which are necessary to remove the relations). Let me know if you need more details on what I mean.

Spotted this issue relation/4780282 while inspecting errors from another tool, marking as a dependency. No U-turn restricion at node/55962287 was lost

I did some tweaking to the TRs in changeset # 108658041 - those TRs detailed above were incomplete, they were missing members.

Should be good now I think, though might still get angle warnings.

and I meant to write relation/10138282

Actually 12594073 is fine

BTW: these are the broken TR's:
relation/12594073
relation/10138281
relation/10138284

Oh don't worry too much about "OSMCha" -it's just a tool to view changes, I just happened to be looking at the change in this tool. Anyway the turn restrictions got broken when the link was taken out, if you could fix them, great; if not, let me know and I can clean them up.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103113315

Hi thanks for your additions, Just some comments - some of the stuff you have tagged landuse=recreation ground, I'd think that was for things like parks or sports complexes(which have another tag) . Perhaps just tagging them as natural=grass would be good. You may also want to run the 'square' tool on buildings so they have perpendicular corners. Also, note that gabled roofs might make it look like buildings have dents in them, but in actuality the sides are straight and that's what's touching the ground (though things like eaves make it really hard to tell sometimes). Good luck!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108638494

Is it no longer legal to pass through the highway however unsafe it may be (I'm not local, so I can't verify)? A bunch of TR's here are broken here and wonder if they should be fixed or a link needs to be drawn back in between the highway as it's possible to go through. Seems it's legal to go through from StreetView which is my only data point - if you're local you trump StreetView.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103113315

hey, thanks for your edits, just wanted to let you know that I made changeset # 108208627 that fixes the turn direction in a roundabout, we drive on the right here in the USA and roundabouts turn counterclockwise. No big deal, just something to keep in mind!

Hi, thanks for your contribution, but I wonder, I don't see this water in imagery. Did you have some proprietary source that backs up this fact?

disaster averted - reverted in changeset/108016997

OOps this is a mistake,need to revert
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108016085

yes indeed...also waterway/highway collisions need to be addressed too.. West Creek itself has shifted too.

Yeah I got tricked by old imagery before, but now at least I try to see if things exist anymore. How often are incorrect buildings added here?

I figured that since there was a larger building was built on top of the old one it was sufficient to delete the small one, and people would generally assume things get bigger as time progress (build back bigger!) Perhaps there needs to be a client side warning in iD that Esri Clarity is oldest for pretty much every situation.

Anyway I only edited this region as I may go up there this weekend and noticed a lot of discrepancies. And then I remembered the flood and did research to find the current configuration.

Alas still undecided whether I'll go due to gas prices...

Is there a need to retain buildings that were destroyed in the flood, and then rebuilt with a completely new one? Perhaps at best the history should be kept with the new building but it seems best to let go of the past and just leave it in the logs?

Hi,
Just wondering about Mail Creek Ditch - I suppose it's being used as a water hazard and thus your interest in editing it in Southridge Golf Course, but rivers were meant to be natural waterways. Mail Creek Ditch (as opposed to Mail Creek) was historically dug out by people to irrigate farmland.

I suppose the "stream" test is "jump across" (and natural) but I would say Mail Creek Ditch should remain a ditch or at most a canal (since Larimer County Canal was named as such despite it also being an irrigation ditch). What is your opinion?

Sorry, I should have checked more carefully, Thanks, carry on.

I guess I'll also put a comment here, perhaps the building should be marked building=collapsed as I don't think anyone deliberately wanted to demolish the building. Hope they find all survivors soon, clock is ticking :(