This CS was fully reverted in 99621725
where the comment is:
US: revert graffti/vandalism from changeset/94712787 94367853 94315606
DWG Ticket #202102191000019994307928

This CS was fully reverted in 99621725
where the comment is:
US: revert graffti/vandalism from changeset/94712787 94367853 94315606
DWG Ticket #202102191000019994307928

This CS was fully reverted in 99621725
where the comment is:
US: revert graffti/vandalism from changeset/94712787 94367853 94315606
DWG Ticket #202102191000019994307928

Hi namprati,
there is no "natural=grassland" within a city.
Use landuse=grass and landcover=grass.

Hi namprati,
why are you removing the 'highway' tags from the service roads?
You just leave "type=pedestrian", which is meaningless alone, and an unusual tagging anyway.
Without the highway tag, you lose the connection of the campus to the road network.

@user_5359 - no worries. I added half the street's shops now from mapillary to proof the location, and restore the original node:
changeset/98927511
@DRAD user, please read osm.org/user_blocks/4745 before you continue. It explains again what you are welcome to do, and what not.
As for location, there is strong evidence that it is where I put it. You can help verifying it by taking geo-referenced pictures and uploading it to open streetview platforms such as Mapillary.

Thanks. Even further improved by fellow mappers fixing my own address typos. ;-)

Absolutely, that's what we all were. Just the followup approach was different. Hitting 'delete' is easy, verifying them, separating hype from reality, and educating new users needs more effort.

Yes that is correct. Anyway a as an experienced mapper you often can combine bits of information from various sources, e.g. street and aerial perspective.

Mapillary shows the entrance matching the imagery on the operator's website, being opposite the city hall.

The POI was just created yesterday. Indeed the tagging was not yet compliant with OSM standards. But you did not even wait a single day for a response, or a fix by the user. A week is usually appropriate in OSM as a volunteer project.
Further, you fully ignored my CS comment given 30 min before yours. You deleted the node 1 min before you commented it.
So, how do you expect the new user to respond to the help you allegedly offered?
Finally, why do you consider a social facility being OSM-useless ?
If you read my CS in restoring it, I verified it (and corrected the position) via mapillary imagery, why do you assume I was using G Maps?

Thanks!
Interestingly, since my address tool auto-completed the city name, that indicated that there were even more POIs misspelled. Found further two :-)

Sorry @ user_5359 - your response is inappropriate.
I have now verified the object, location corrected, tagging improved.
Business statements that were inappropriate to OSM were removed.

Object verified, location corrected, tagging improved.

What is a "Standard name", and why did you delete the value instead of changing the key to "description"?

When you say in the CS you reverted, there are "not positive verifiable address data", what effort did you make to verify those?
What was put in the note did match the street and town, at least?
Are you following the current discussion on osm-talk?

Dear user,
thanks for your interest in OpenStreetMap. Please consider the following:
- do not use the changeset comment for messages unrelated to your editing action. This is for describing your edit, only, in this case "adding a facility"
- specify what the object is that you are editing, e.g. is it an office with a callcentre, an outreach facility with direct contact to the clients (social_facility), etc.
- check that the node is in the correct location according to the address, and use the standardised address scheme with addr:* tagging.

Dear PolGeoNow,
OSM is an international project and has to be extra careful when it comes to copyright issues. What might be legal in one country might be problematic in another.
Please stick to the OSM guidelines.
Tom
Data Working Group,
ticket 2021012110000025

Hi juf Carla,
in this CS you accidentally straightened two roads:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=94019020
The problem has been fixed, just be careful next time.
One more advice: keep your changesets to smaller areas, and one topic. That helps yourself to avoid mistakes, and others to analyse them. Describe what you want to achieve in the changeset comments, in addition to those hashtags.

DWG ticket 2021020310000165

Hallo "ADAC Kartographie", was ist der Grund dieser Änderung?
Die jeweilige Richtungsfahrbahn wird in 4 Segmente aufgeteilt, ohne dass diese unterschiedliche Eigenschaften haben.
Warum?
Habe ich etwas übersehen?