I was wondering how you knew from Bing that the church way/477636053 was roman-catholic. In Achavi it became apparent that the information was from deleted node node/802007097
It would be good practice to keep such node alive, e.g. to use it as a corner of the building, or the entrance if known, without tags of course, to preserve the history of the information.
Thanks

Thanks, plausible additions.
Please use "service=driveway" for private driveways.
Please use a general source tag like Bing on the changeset, not on each object.

This CS apparently creates a large number of disconnected nodes, deletes them in the same changeset, and creates them again.
The CS comment is incorrect, this does not add any farmland or buildings, and does not fix any errors.
Full revert (delete remaining 149 disconnected nodes) in changeset/46608967.

Similar to 46445352, this CS duplicates nearly identical landuses over existing ones, deletes a double-roof farm building to replace it with 2 less correctly mapped. Full revert in changeset/46608850.

Yes I had seen this and was just tuning into the detail analysis.

You were modfying way/123595674 which was serving both as boundary way and road, took away the road attributes and created a new way way/478098420.

You did not realise that the old way was both in a boundary and a bus relation, thus now the bus travels on a boundary instead of a road.

Similarly to changeset/46445352 it seems you are "unglueing" areas, which is not necessary if they are adjacent. And you do it by deleting the existing lines and their history.
http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=46526305

Please consider also that for polygons having a high number of nodes it is reasonable to compose them from multiple ways in a relation, you removed such relations here with redrawing similar ways.

@KDDA - ok, JOSM can add them to the changeset (not the object), in particular if you click "obtain from current layer" in the upload menu it adds all currently visible layers. Cool.)
Back to the topic, the user started some "area unglueing" in Germany some days ago, I am currently analysing and partially reverting those. Most likely those "Irish county border separations" need to be reverted as well. Achavi will help you: http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=46520040

Zeichne bitte Flächen, hier die kleinen Felder, nur dann getrennt, wenn wirklich ein Objekt (z.B. ein Track) dazwischen liegt.

Reverted in changeset/46535594, see reasons there.

It is more efficient to give the source of the geometry in the changeset, not on each building object.

What is the source of your switch tagging? Have you verified these positions, or do you assume just from the rail forking that there must be a switch?
Seems you use Bing often (not cited here) - even there I can see switches in other positions than you have tagged them.

Dein Changset-Kommentar ist irreführend, du hast keine buildings hinzugefügt, und Farmland hast du nur bestehendes ersetzt, siehe oben.
http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=46445352

Kannst du bitte erklären, was du hier machst? Es sieht so aus, als hättest du die Fläche landuse=residential way/198852438/history komplett gelöscht, um sie etwas kleiner komplett neu zu zeichnen, und dabei von umliegenden Landuses abzusetzen.
Das ist falsch, aneinandergrenzende Flächen dürfen gemeinsame Nodes haben. Genau da, wo der Wald anfängt hört das Wohngebiet auf. Du schaffst einen schmalen Streifen Niemandsland. (anders bei Strassen, die nur mit der Mittellinie erfasst sind, hier ist entkleben sinnvoll.)
Auch technisch ist es nicht nötig, die alte Fläche mit ihrer Historie zu löschen, der JOSM hat eine 'unglue'-Funktion.

You were drawing a larger landuse=residential way/477870785 over a smaller, already existing one way/177230853

[German]Du benutzt JOSM/de, falls du kein Englisch verstehst, schreib mir eine PM und ich erkläre die Probleme auf deutsch.[/German]

Can you please explain what you consider a "double contour error"? As in changeset/46523754, you broke a boundary relation, where part of the boundary are _defined_ by a stream. you created a separate stream (way/477870783) in parallel to the boundary way (way/385405090).
What source did you use for this separate geometry?
How familiar are you with legal boundary definitions in Ireland?

Besides the Bing issue, you are messing up county boundaries. Boundaries might be legally defined by a stream or river. Look at this example:
way/71656812 was serving both as a county boundary (admin_level 6) in a boundary relation, and a waterway. It might not be ideal to have the county names on the stream, however you mad the situation worse:
You removed both the waterway and the name tag, and created a new, parallel way, way/478089726 and added the waterway and the county names to the new stream.
Not only you created separate geometries for which would be the same; you also added nonsensically the county names to what is now only a stream.

Well, first of all this is a mechanical edit violating our policies, see osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Second, this change is pointless, as both versions, bing or Bing, correctly explain the source being used, thus you needlessly increase the version count of the objects.

Third, we now prefer to tag the used sources on the changesets, not on the object, unless the object has a very specific source. So we can better track multiple sources used over time.

[German]Du benutzt JOSM/de, falls du kein Englisch verstehst, schreib mir eine PM und ich erkläre die Probleme auf deutsch.[/German]

(@KDDA - my JOSM does not add any source tags to objects automatically?)

Prima. Damit steht es ja jetzt hier. Danke für dein Engagement!

Cool, danke für den Tip. Im Gegenzug: ich nehme inzwischen gern die ALKIS-Layer "Gebäude"+"Lagebezeichnung" für Umringe und Hausnummer, "Flurstücke" für landuse, und "Webatlas" wenn ALKIS schlecht lesbar ist. K5 ist oft zu alt. Alles als WMS.