Out of respect for others in this changeset discussion, I will respond to your message. There is no way to fix a feature that is incorrect. The fact that they are glued does not make them incorrect, it is the fact that the features do not exist. I'm not sure what your point on rail trails is discussing, this here is not a rail trail. I will not be responding to your previous changeset comments or any future comments. There is very little for me to say that has not been said to you by the DWG. If you want to discuss your recent warning, I propose you take it up with them instead of opening a discussion on all of my changesets.

Don't worry, each way is painstakingly retraced throughout the length to make sure no trace exists. This follows the wiki's guidance as well as DWG guidance. Oftentimes these features are glued to actually existing features, so mapping with them can be quite painful. Rails-to-trails projects require remapping the area due to the geometry of the trail not matching an approximation of a rail that may have existed in the area, so having them does not save time in the future.

Readded, this church has not existed for over half of a century

I'm happy to provide specific examples. way/1182420396 goes through two buildings, and the only source for having existed is an unknown "topographical map" which does not pass verifiability. In fact, there has not been a verifiable rail path here in decades. I'm not even sure this rail has ever existed, and may have been a mapping error. You can observe similar phenomena from each of the ways that were deleted, such as 1182420410, which goes through a grain silo. way/1181526151 goes through a building. 167035610 goes through 9 buildings by my count, a stream, and a whole lot of planted crops. I'm not sure how *clearly* visible can be true when there are buildings in the way. The reason I noticed a good chunk of these railroads is because I saw a way pass through a building, which is extremely rare. Since you've asked me to provide significant examples, I'd like to ask for you to provide significant examples of places where the course is very recognizable.

Per documentation, "If it is impossible to determine the former route of a railway from the ground or through aerial imagery you must not map it." I have surveyed a significant proportion of the area you have chosen to revert, and have personally asked the OSMF on guidance in this area. Per OSMF guidance, I have reinstated edits. Please provide specific examples of areas that contain railways, or remnants or railways, via current aerial imagery or on the ground survey. Railways that go through houses are not considered "still visible".

You seem to be mapping buildings with just squares, even when the buildings are clearly not squares. Could you please stop doing this and fix where you did this in the past?