Hello Poschon, there is still some discussion on the italian ML as you might have seen. I have told them that you are wiling to solve the few duplicates and that I have the impression you have understood now that there are import guidelines that have to be respected. Although the data doesn't require legally attribution (cc0) it would still have made sense to provide it (so others can see where the data came from). There are some active mappers in the area, and they will be asked to make an assessment of the input data quality. If they come to the conclusion that the data quality is sufficient the data will likely not be reverted (but this is only my personal guess, not a community decision).

also you should use a dedicated account for imports, especially if you are uploading a lot of stuff like you did.

Hello Poschon, thank you for replying. The most important critique from the mailing list is that you didn't follow the import guidelines and didn't contact the local community, otherwise you would have learnt that there was already an established structure and guidelines for importing this data: osm.wiki/IT:Emilia_Romagna_import_numeri_civici_2016
The second point is the absence of any kind of conflation, leading to many duplicates

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment. See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-March/057524.html

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment. See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-March/057524.html

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment. See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-March/057524.html

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment. See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-March/057524.html

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment. See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-March/057524.html

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment. See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-March/057524.html

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment. See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-March/057524.html

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment. See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-March/057524.html

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment. See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-March/057524.html

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment.

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment.

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment.

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment.

See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-March/057524.html

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment.

please do not mix several distinct buildings into one osm multipoligon , these are different buildings, different ownership, different floorheight, different architect (likely), etc.

are these manually or automatically applied simplifications?