If the official dataset still has the old brand, months after the luschi has detected a different brand on the ground, it is just another piece in the MISE puzzle which seems to show their data doesn’t comply with the OSM quality expectations. Not only have we imported April data in August, we also know now for sure that April data can be much older than April.

Looking at this node, it seems somehow the audit tool doesn’t show the current data: http://audit.osmz.ru/map/IFS#15/46.6446/11.6746

Do I interpret this correctly that the node was manually checked and set to ok?

Can you please point me to the discussion on the import mailing list about this import? Where and when was concluded to perform the import of this data?

This is an undiscussed and automated edit and should be reverted.

You should not remove all things of a category, this is (particularly together with the other changesets) an automated edit and must have been discussed before executing it. If you can see that your edit will likely be disputed (e.g. you remove a certain typology of things for which others had opted to map them), you should discuss your edit _before_ you do it.
@Nakaner-repair thank you for reverting.

You should not remove all things of a category, this is (particularly together with the other changesets) an automated edit and must have been discussed before executing it. If you can see that your edit will likely be disputed (e.g. you remove a certain typology of things for which others had opted to map them), you should discuss your edit _before_ you do it.
@Nakaner-repair thank you for reverting.

You should not remove all things of a category, this is (particularly together with the other changesets) an automated edit and must have been discussed before executing it. If you can see that your edit will likely be disputed (e.g. you remove a certain typology of things for which others had opted to map them), you should discuss your edit _before_ you do it.
@Nakaner-repair thank you for reverting.

You should not remove all things of a category, this is (particularly together with the other changesets) an automated edit and must have been discussed before executing it. If you can see that your edit will likely be disputed (e.g. you remove a certain typology of things for which others had opted to map them), you should discuss your edit _before_ you do it.
@Nakaner-repair thank you for reverting.

You should not remove all things of a category, this is (particularly together with the other changesets) an automated edit and must have been discussed before executing it. If you can see that your edit will likely be disputed (e.g. you remove a certain typology of things for which others had opted to map them), you should discuss your edit _before_ you do it.
@Nakaner-repair thank you for reverting.

You should not remove all things of a category, this is (particularly together with the other changesets) an automated edit and must have been discussed before executing it. If you can see that your edit will likely be disputed (e.g. you remove a certain typology of things for which others had opted to map them), you should discuss your edit _before_ you do it.

anche a me non risulta esistente. Cancello...

please do not abuse the name tag for descriptions

IMHO YES, either spam or an error by accident, I’d tend to the former, but let’s see if the author replies

why did you add “Uscita 3” to the name of the motorway exit and put the actual name in parentheses? In my opinion if there is a prominent object like this which exists for 10 years and more, which is currently in version 28, it would be more sensible to discuss name changes with the local community rather than simply doing it.

Hi, I have seen you added the Aranciera di San Sisto as locality. This seems weird, maybe it could be better added as "garden" (maybe with the garden:type and garden:style attributes)?

@mateusz I am not aware. I agree the tag does not seem to make a lot of sense.

AFAIR it was confirmed retroactively by the Italian community that the import was OK (source was OK, it would have helped no one to revert it, it was agreed the information was sufficiently good for importing). https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-March/057524.html
I had also written to active local contributors and the reply I got was that quality is ok.
Furthermore, there was an import of 2016: osm.wiki/IT:Emilia_Romagna_import_numeri_civici_2016
but not exactly the same data (because those imported here are supposed to be in CC0 from the municipality).

According to the recent discussion, there is not a clear winner between man_made=tower with tower:type=cooling and the tag man_made=cooling_tower, they are both used in similar numbers.
If you tag these as man_made=tower you will not create more consistency (there are already other objects with "tower" in the name which are established, e.g. man_made=water_tower (84000 uses) and power=tower. The definition of man_made=tower is in conflict with cooling towers for several reasons (not accessible, no platforms, not a building), so IMHO this is not a good solution. What are the advantages of requiring looking at the tower:type tag to see if it is an actual tower, or some other structure like a cooling tower?

I propose you fix the Russian translation of the wiki definition for man_made=cooling_tower
The tag is not deprecated, although there is some discussion because of the 2 alternative ways to tag them

Hi iLaw,
I just noticed by coincidence that you have changed the object for the valle dell'Aniene nature reserve to "park". There is already a park object for the Valle dell'Aniene since 2008, but with this modification we loose the nature reserve. Just wanted to let you know I have now re-instated the nature reserve. Cheers,
Martin