Hi, welcome to OSM.

In your recent changesets, you removed many mapped features. Some of them were created by you (or at least by a very similar account), while other data had been contributed by other users.

Could you please explain the reason for these (mass) deletions?

Best regards,
Pascal

Hi, welcome to OSM.

In your recent changesets, you removed many mapped features. Some of them were created by you (or at least by a very similar account), while other data had been contributed by other users.

Could you please explain the reason for these (mass) deletions?

Best regards,
Pascal

Please stop deleting features!

Thank you!

Best regards, Pascal

Spam/ad has been removed by changeset/176786654

Thanks @user_5359

Thank you, @cuzi, for the constructive feedback.

In this changeset, a description containing SEO-related spam was added. You can verify this by checking versions 1 and 2 of the added node. This addition triggered the automated check, which is designed to flag such content when it appears in descriptions. While the spam was later removed by another contributor, this does not change the fact that it was initially introduced in this changeset.

Please let me know if you have any further feedback or would like to discuss this in more detail.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

In this and some of your recent changesets, you’ve added a large number of features that appear to share very similar tagging. Could you please tell us more about the source of this data and how it was collected? Specifically, I’d like to understand whether this was a data import or derived from an external dataset.

If an external source was used, could you also confirm that its licence is compatible with OpenStreetMap’s ODbL requirements?

Best regards,
Pascal

#DataImport

Thanks @Sakari_N

IMHO at least the following way should be reverted: way/1463835569

#DataImport

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

In this and some of your recent changesets, you’ve added a large number of features that appear to share very similar tagging. Could you please tell us more about the source of this data and how it was collected? Specifically, I’d like to understand whether this was a data import or derived from an external dataset.

If an external source was used, could you also confirm that its licence is compatible with OpenStreetMap’s ODbL requirements?

Best regards,
Pascal

#DataImport

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

In this and some of your recent changesets, you’ve added a large number of features that appear to share very similar tagging. Could you please tell us more about the source of this data and how it was collected? Specifically, I’d like to understand whether this was a data import or derived from an external dataset.

If an external source was used, could you also confirm that its licence is compatible with OpenStreetMap’s ODbL requirements?

Best regards,
Pascal

#DataImport

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

In this and some of your recent changesets, you’ve added a large number of features that appear to share very similar tagging. Could you please tell us more about the source of this data and how it was collected? Specifically, I’d like to understand whether this was a data import or derived from an external dataset.

If an external source was used, could you also confirm that its licence is compatible with OpenStreetMap’s ODbL requirements?

Best regards,
Pascal

Hi, welcome to OSM.

May we know the source of the added street lamps?

Best regards,
Pascal

Hallo,
danke für die Antwort.

Könntet Ihr bitte das erwähnte description-Feld anpassen? Dort steht leider immer noch der sehr werbelastige-Text.

Danke und viele Grüße,
Pascal

Should be reviewed by the local community. IMHO something went wrong, seems like dragged nodes @ Schloßweg ...

Danke und beste Grüße, Pascal

In this case, it seems the reported issues are false positives. The geometries were not changed in a way that would introduce crossings, and the tagging adjustments did not create any new conflicts. I have checked the mentioned elements and can confirm that the current configuration is valid.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks again for your map edits.

Regards,
Pascal

Sorry, the last comment what not correct, it should be:

🚫 Text removed by changeset/176205432
Thanks @user_5359

Do you mean node/10559845231

Thanks for your reply.

Thanks for your reply.