Hello MxxCon, the DWG is looking at the disagreement between you and user catgirlseraid and we are tracking this in our ticket #2025052810000472.

You are right when you say that we normally abide by the "one feature, one object" rule. In an ideal world it would be sufficient to map a pedestrian area as an area. However, with both map renderers and routers being bad at labelling (or routing over) such pedestrian areas, it is indeed a widely practiced mapping style to have both - see the examples provided by Taya.

While I understand you reservations about micro-mapping, your deletion of pedestrian areas has lost some information. For example if you now look at #110 Andes Rd, the map seems to indicate a green area being present between the building and the road when in fact the concrete extends up to the (shrubbery just outside) the building. 

Could you please re-instate the pedestrian areas.

Also I see that you have replaced "forest" polygons with single trees which is ok, but some forest polygons seem to have gone missing without being replaced (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=166883890) - maybe you could check that again. 

Finally, can I ask you to try and remain objective in changeset comments; a simple "reducing micromapping on Governors Island" would have been better than speaking of "badly mapped features" that require "correction". (I can see that you did indeed correct a few mistakes but most of the edits in this changeset are a matter of taste and not of what is correct and what not - and even IF I correct a mistake that someone else has made I wouldn't usually make a big deal about how that was "bad mapping".)