If you need translation - write here and I will translate text of the note.

Zerkniesz na note/1409436 ?

Can you look at note/1409424 ?

Utworzyłem changeset/53362107#map=16/53.4085/14.5256&layers=N - do zamknięcia jak tylko wyjaśni się jaki jest stan tego obiektu.

To way/536857820 jest zburzony czy nie? Dodany jest demolished=yes a tag budynku nie został skasowany.

I also opened note/1409415

way/216273133#map=19/50.40326/4.43645&layers=N - is this object demolished or not? If demolished, it should be deleted (if still present at least on some aerial images it should be tagged in a better way - for example object with note='demolished on 2017-10' ), if not demolished then it is wrong to tag it as demolished=yes

Can you explain why you added "(historical)" to node/151451105 ?

Is it no longer used name? Is it really a name with (historical) as its part?

In that case building tag should not be used (it is only for existing buildings).

Buildings that are demolished but may be mistakenly remapped are typically mapped as "demolished:building=yes" or in a similar way.

I run a check due to request at osm.wiki/Talk:Key:aerodrome:type and I found that geozeisig removed at least 478 aerodrome tags since 2018-01-01.

List is at https://gist.github.com/matkoniecz/23bd62764cac4ed81984bb1f8af52dc8 and I am currently running second check that may catch some additional cases.

Note that this was apparently done to convince others that aerodrome tag has no support among mappers (see osm.wiki/Talk:Key:aerodrome:type with "aerodrome is used 954 times" )

Note that this user made previously undiscussed mechanical edits in attempt to force results in tagging discussions - see changeset/57705945#map=7/51.925/18.153

====

In case that somebody has no idea and considers this semi-automated removal of aerodrome tag as a mistake I recommend contacting DWG (I can help if someone has no idea how to do that)

====

<rant>
And that kind of malicious mechanical edits is causing problems for people who instead of making useful tool-assisted edits must convince others that their plan is not some trickery.
</rant>

I run a check due to request at osm.wiki/Talk:Key:aerodrome:type and I found that geozeisig removed at least 478 aerodrome tags since 2018-01-01.

List is at https://gist.github.com/matkoniecz/23bd62764cac4ed81984bb1f8af52dc8 and I am currently running second check that may catch some additional cases.

Note that this was apparently done to convince others that aerodrome tag has no support among mappers (see osm.wiki/Talk:Key:aerodrome:type with "aerodrome is used 954 times"

Note that this user made previously undiscussed mechanical edits in attempts to force results in tagging discussions - see changeset/57705945#map=7/51.925/18.153

====

In case that somebody has no idea and considers this semi-automated removal of aerodrome tag as a mistake I recommend contacting DWG (I can help if someone has no idea how to do that)

====

<rant>
And that kind of malicious mechanical edits is causing problems for people who instead of making useful tool-assisted edits must convince others that their plan is not some trickery.
</rant>

"as historical" - so these schools no longer exist?

Please, stop making globe spanning edits and split them into smaller parts.

I have no idea what happened here, I modified only some objects to avoid globe-spanning bbox :(

for example node/5411858960/history#map=3/13.07/17.40 is not modified at all from what I see and still included here.

I z 2174 innymi miejscami do których dodałeś fixme="Popraw kod pocztowy", nawet tam gdzie kodu pocztowego brak?

What should be done with outdated/clearly misplaced objects like node/358975095/history at the parking lot?

At this moment I keep deleting them but maybe there is a better solution.

Is way/574248940/history existing or not? You added it with "demolished=yes" and comment " added houses in Wayne " what is quite confusing

And this kind of validator warning is not indicating something causing problems - it indicates that something is wrong with object and requires investigation.

Removing indication of problem without investigating it is merely hiding issue and is not helpful at all.

Have you verified by survey that node/5167358121/history#map=19/50.06066/19.93561&layers=N has no name "Internet, Print"?

This edit merely made problem harder to spot.

Stawową i Sosnowiecką chyba zostawię bez zmian - ale zastawiam się czy highway=service nie pasuje też tam...

choć warto zauważyć że nawet tam gdzie zmienię na highway=sercie highway=unclassified też jest do obrony (to w dużej mierze kwestia giustu i podejścia) - na pewno nie był to błąd