This changeset contains nodes at latitude 0, longitude 0. Please fix this buggy import.

You say in your changeset comment that "Name is supposed to be the legal name", but strictly speaking the actual OSM position is as set out in
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf - it's not that straightforward. Exactly this edit has been reverted before - see changeset/33865373 and changeset/36656564 for the reasoning given there. You've made this edit before and it has been changed back - please don't engage in tit-for-tat editing like this. It's true that having "two names in one" is less than ideal, but it's pretty much the least worst option we have in OSM right now.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.
If you'd like to contact the Data Working Group, you can do so by sending an email to data@osmfoundation.org .

Oops - looks like you accidentally uploaded the learnosm test data to OpenStreetMap.
I've deleted it.
Best Regards,
Andy

Oops - something went wrong here. Some of these houses were added at latitude 0, longitude 0. I've deleted them.

Hi,
Please don't add test data to the live database. If you want to test API calls, you can do them with http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hi,
Are you sure that way/25825505/history really is a road? I've not been there this year yet, but my recollection was that it certainly never used to be a road. I'm assuming (based on imagery_used=Bing and no other information on the changeset) that you've just made this change based on aerial imagery? Or was there some other source?
Also, it would be really helpful if you could use changeset comments when making changes; that way every knows what you changed and what the source of the change was.
OpenStreetMap is a collaborative project; we all need to work together if we're going to create the best map. As you know, I'll happily reply when asked questions about changes and will always try and provide information about surveys and sources. It would be really helpful if you could do the same.
Cheers,
Andy

Hi, can you explain what "remove self intersection from area outline" means? Also, is there really no gate, for example at
node/4108536510 ? If not, and you're not local, I'd suggest contacting the previous mapper to ask them, and if you don't get a reply, adding an OSM note.

For change rollback, have a read of osm.wiki/Change_rollback . Generally I'd use JOSM's reverter plugin (but care needs to be taken to do changes in the right order). If you'd like help with reverting a series of changes, try asking on IRC (#osm on oftc - see osm.wiki/IRC ).

@Pakenhamin Can you explain what you mean by "The navigator"? Many OSM-based routers exist - if there's a serious bug in one (such as not routing to things that aren't also buildings) it should be reported.

Just checking - is Giddy Edge really a public footpath? If so, presumably some connection bits should be too?

(in English)
Hello,
Can you explain what the source here? It does not match the imagery.
Best Regards,
Andy, on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.

你好，
你能解释一下这里的来源？它不匹配的图像。
最好的问候，
安迪代表OpenStreetMap的数据工作组。

Ah, OK - I'll have to check myself. By the way, it can be problematical "correcting" tags - when betting vs bookmaking was discussed on the talk-gb list at least one person sought to make a distinction between a bookmaker who sets his own odds and "runs his own book" and a shop manager who merely takes bets at odds dictated by head office and looks after a shopful of fixed-odds terminals. It's not a problem here (I mapped these and didn't make that distinction), but if someone is using the "wrong" tag it's always worth mentioning the change; if you don't they'll use the "wrong" tag again.
Cheers,
Andy

Just checking - is node/3430894262/history (a) still there and (b) in the right place? Looking at it now I suspect that Brighthouse extends a bit further to the west.

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
You've added a "viewpoint" called "Sit and Stay Dog Walking" in the middle of a building site. That doesn't make a lot of sense on any level :)
What were you trying to add here? It's perhaps worth mentioning that OSM is all about what's visible "on the ground"; it's not a business directory so "virtual businesses" don't really belong. However if there's a clearly identifiable shop of that name then it's a different matter.
Hope you don't mind me mentioning this; just trying to help.
Cheers,
Andy

Hello,
The mapper who's work you reverted here tried to contact you 5 days ago in changeset/38427540 and you didn't reply.
OpenStreetMap is a collaborative project; we need to work togther to create the best map.
Boundaries can be particularly tricky where there are conflicts - the "line of control" may be in flux and in sea areas difficult to establish.
If you think that something in OSM is mapped incorrectly please do explain what the problem is. Most discussion about international boundaries happens in the forum at http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53173 so that would be a good place to start.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
I don't think there's an actual bank in Chesterfield station is there? If it's just an ATM, then "amenity=atm" will work (http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=atm#values ) currently it's mapped as if there's a bank with an ATM in there. To tell the truth I don't remember an ATM there, but any time I pass through I'm usually half asleep so I'll take your word for that...
Cheers,
Andy

How do you explain the tagging of node/3984337590 ? Neither the building:levels nor the name make much sense there. In a case like that, I'd suggest contacting the author of the original changeset (see changeset/36959783) and explaining the problem. It looks like they just didn't understand what they were trying to do.

You still haven't explained where any discussion took place.

If I was going to change a bunch of objects across Europe and Africa because they were "tagged incorrectly", I'd do the following:
I'd contact the previous mappers, explaining the problem. I'd draw their attention to where "how to map cranes" was discussed beforehand (not just the wiki page).
I'd ask them how likely it is that the facilities visible on aerial imagery are still valid (industrial yards disappear every day; large-scale facilities needing large cranes are also regularly repurposed into smaller scale ones).
Out of courtesy, I'd also mention it on an appropriate list or forum the change that you want to make - that way people who may not be familiar with the problem will become familiar, and people who may disagree with your opinion get a chance to do so.
There is a problem with widespread edits based on experience of only a small part of the world; they miss things and make invalid assumptions. It's possible that you may be a world-leading expert on gantry cranes (if so, please say so) and therefore your views have some merit; but if not it's important to proceed cautiously when you have experience neither of a particular physical location nor of the class of things that you're tagging.
If in doubt please add an OSM note instead of editing by guesswork.
A map that is edited purely based on aerial imagery without survey looks authoritative but may be misleading; there's no guarantee that things match the real world.

It'd also be useful to know what the source was :)