I also believe the "squaring" creates another kind of problems:
1. by using a threshold for squaring, those buildings that haven't been squared are now standing out and it may look as if they are actually like this (e.g. way/589667129 ),
2. By squaring each building individually, the angles between 2 adjacent buildings often get worse compared to before and the flight of buildings with respect to the street (typically parallel in many areas of the world) as well.

I didn't write T-shaped buildings were now squared, what I meant was that a rectangle with perfect 90° angles is generally not a better representation for a T, an L or any other polygonal shape than the approximate building outlines that have been there before, arguably some will be worst afterwards.
My comment stands, this is an undiscussed automated edit and violating the guidelines: osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

This looks like an undiscussed mechanical edit. All kind of buildings have been "squared", also T-shaped and L-shaped buildings which are currently represented by 4-corner-polygons. Or buildings with a lot of protruding geometries: way/589638244
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/69948294

Mi sembra qualcosa sia andato male con questo changeset, ci sono stato molte più cancellazioni che creazioni, per esempio sono stati cancellati questa foresta: way/386948865, il fiume arno: way/23584997 e questo track: way/239862624
Anche nel caso ci sia un oggetto con mancanti tag (landuse=orchard) come way/386948859 sarebbe stato meglio aggiungere il tag che cancellare la geometria.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/69672877

Has there been feedback from the mapper yet? In this case way/568519130 it looks as if a demolished house was added from outdated imagery (or my imagery was outdated and it was reconstructed in the meantime). In the Sammamish case, e.g. here way/568519130 there seem to be newly constructed buildings now, although they do not look exactly like the situation in OSM: https://www.google.it/maps/@47.6055462,-122.0376117,3a,75y,328.03h,99.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5qFVkqKIg_nF8wjdc2BSyA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/69958417

Fabio Portinaro, per favore, puoi rispondere ai commenti? Sembrebbe un import.
Grazie

Für offizielle Namen gibt es official_name
Der tag name ist für den üblichen Namen, loc_name macht nur als Alternative Sinn, nicht als einziger Namenstag

Ciao, ho visto che la strada way/267872301 è stata cambiata in un track. Non conosco la zona, ma escluderei da quel che si vede che si potesse trattare di un track, è l'unica strada che collega una zona abbastanza grande e con tante abitazioni...

ieri ho parlato con altri residenti e mi hanno detto che non sempre si passa, a quanto pare l’intenzione è proprio di non far passare nessuno, quindi sono un po’ indeciso, anche se penso la strada (non legalmente utilizzabile) c’è (in contrasto a situazioni dove la strada stessa è frenata, oppure dove un tratto di strada è tutto coperto di massi). Intanto lascio così come hai fatto, vediamo come si sviluppa la situazione in futuro...

A questo punto direi: vietato ma non viene ne rispettato, ne viene fatto rispettare il divieto (questo anche perché le transenne sono fatte in maniera da non sembrare che volessero veramente bloccare i pedoni, altrimenti avrebbero messe delle recinzioni più alti e collegati tra di loro). Forse non è permissive, ma credo si potrebbe rimettere la strada (che ci sta) e mettere soltanto le transenne come blocco (access=no, barrier=fence su due nodi sotto e sopra).

I have noticed you retagged a lot of isolated dwellings to localities, according to your sources based on parcel data by the Regione. Can you explain why locality is an appropriate tag and which exact data point indicated that there was noone living there? How current is the data?
It looks as if this is an undiscussed import, are you aware of the import guidelines?
osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

undiscussed import

undiscussed import, deletes than refining

This is likely an undiscussed import and should be reverted.

Ciao, ho visto che hai chiuso via delle sette chiese dov'è franata. Sicuro che non si passi a piedi?

Hallo Silverman,
ich weiss nicht genau, ob Du das so angelegt hast oder das schon so war (schreibe hier, weil das die letzte Bearbeitung des Unicampus Tal war). M.E. sollten die Straßen ausgenommen werden, sie sind nicht Teil des Unigeländes sondern öffentliches Straßenland.

bitte nicht die gemeinsame Karte für Vandalismus missbrauchen.

thank you, I’ve fixed it here.

Thank you, but I would still consider this a setback, can you explain what you wanted to achieve with the original edit / why you changed the tags on this building?

looks somehow like an automated edit, for example the entrance building here: way/452061296
was mistagged to be an entrance (part of a building) but it is a building in itself.
You should not follow blindly the suggestions of the validators, they are only hints, they may be wrong, Your judgement is required, otherwise they could be performed automatically.