Reverted

changeset/172242708

Reverted

changeset/172242708

Reverted

changeset/172242708

Reverted

changeset/172242708

Reverted

changeset/172242708

Reverted

changeset/172242708

It seems that someone deleted the old Soul buoy/null island a bit before you created a new one. I've asked the user that deleted it why they did so.

node/3815077900/history
changeset/169531102

Question, why did you delete the null-island/Soul Buoy in this changeset?

Actually, `roundabout=yes' itself is also pretty meaningless and even discouraged junction=roundabout

You might want to check `roof:shape=y` on way/32844781

I have removed the relations and the id=0 tags in changeset/172100209

Reverted destructive edits DWG Ticket#2025091810000091

changeset/172099214

Reverted destructive edits DWG Ticket#2025091810000091

changeset/172099214

Reverted destructive edits DWG Ticket#2025091810000091

changeset/172099214

Reverted destructive edits DWG Ticket#2025091810000091

changeset/172099214

Reverted destructive edits DWG Ticket#2025091810000091

changeset/172099214

Nodes like this node/287558718 do not describe any features that exist in real life, they just describe the shape of other objects. Such nodes should not have an operator tag.

You might also want to check objects such as
way/1376728533, and make sure you're not adding this tag to public roads incorrectly.

When you add the operator tag you're essentially stating that they control that object and have the ability to close it down, and that they are responsible for it.

Best regards,
Taya Snijder

Hello,

In this changeset you added the operator tag to everything including thousands of untagged nodes and several untagged ways used by relations. Please revert those changes.

Best regard,
Taya Snijder

The normal workflow would be to just adjust the existing objects instead of replacing them with new ones.

You always have to be mindful of already existing data. Otherwise you might end up with situations like this, where a previously mapped road overlaps with newly added buildings way/1115154608

Thank you for your response RKhabib,

Please in the future list the sources you used in the changeset.

Furthermore, it is generally encouraged to not delete old data and replace it but rather update the existing data. So please be mindful of that.

And also please do not create relations for buildings like you've done now.Both relation/19610655 and relation/19607211 should be deleted. Each individual building should just be tagged on its own with no relation at all.

Please also explain what you mean by "id=0" which you've added to all the buildings (Example: way/1430433074)

Best regards,
Taya Snijder