SafwatHalaby's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 53216381 | It seems the majority of this changeset is real, clear cut spam, though. |
|
| 53216381 | Just another comparison to draw a clear line between spam and self-interest driven neutral edits:
|
|
| 53216381 | For comparison, this is something I would flag as spam for the excessive ad tone, and I would justify its removal: node/5135107648/history |
|
| 53216381 | Although the intentions are clearly good, in my humble opinion this is harming the map and must be discussed. |
|
| 53216381 | That was one example, but a significant number of your reverts do not remotely qualify as spam, and I think no one would have had any problem if an experienced mapper had added them. |
|
| 53216381 | Hi woodpeck. I think your definition of spam is too broad. For instance, this random POI: node/4923689269
|
|
| 53205305 | How come it's a cycleway with no cycle access allowed?? |
|
| 53136409 | Welcome to Openstreetmap!
|
|
| 53114647 | Oh, I was reviewing via OSMCHA and I have a long backlog, and it seems that particular node was added back. Please ignore my comment if all the non spammy nodes were reverted. |
|
| 53114647 | For instance, this has a slightly "positive tone" but seems to be a 100% valid node: node/5109075827
|
|
| 53114647 | I think the algorithm is horrible. |
|
| 53065944 | All fixed:
|
|
| 53065944 | Hi matresh, you've made some very destructive edits, but you then fixed them and also some good edits. (You forgot fixing some of them and I'm fixing them now). Is everything OK? |
|
| 53064091 | Reverted obviously bad edit. |
|
| 53065944 | I suspect the user is intentionally vandalizing. |
|
| 53044107 | You forgot junction=roundabout |
|
| 53015761 | Although better than nothing, be careful while transliterating. For instance, it's "sanad ranch" and not "sand ranch" |
|
| 53013175 | Hi Alon,
|
|
| 52948075 | Hi and welcome to OSM. You requested a review. This particular edit looks good :)
|
|
| 51084257 | Please look at way/515207057
|