I reverted all cemetery import changesets except one, where the revert had conflicts with changes by Tomas. Perhaps Tomas did manual deletes which caused that.

soshial, it would be sufficient for the data owner to allow importing it in OSM without changing the original licence - if they are legally allowed to do it.
https://timenote.info/lv/copy says the team is a few individuals, and "~8800 other persons". On top of that, the sourcing of that data might be a problem. RM87 mentioned some coming from Wikimapia, and other sources might be a problem, too.

As for discussing, if you'd like to aim for the 3 Baltic states, go for the talk-baltics mailing list, mentioned before. If you'd like to tackle Latvia only first, then go for talk-lv - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-lv .

Note that there were data quality problems in Latvia, too - names included addresses, cemeteries split in multiple polygons, cemeteries imported over existing objects (especially in Riga)...

Looks like the licence might be the first challenge - see osm.wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility .

Thank you for the quick response, really appreciated - and thank you again for the interest in this topic. The first thing to do is go by the import process, outlined at osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines .
Given that this is spanning 3 countries, initial discussion would be best placed in the mailing list talk-baltics, https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-baltics .

Hi there. This seems to be the first changeset in a series of cemetery imports in the Baltic states. It is really great to see interest in this topic - I've mapped a few missing cemeteries myself and love see additional data.
Unfortunately, this import has not been discussed, and there are quality issues with the imported data. For now we have to revert the changes - let's discuss how we can make a quality import happen soon.

Noticed in #osm that for another location it was suggested to leave the outlines in place, prefixing them with demolished: - demolished=*: .

Does that sound good?

Dang, thank you - they looked fairly fresh on the sat layer ;)
Perhaps a "note" tag around here could help future mappers.

Hi, this changeset removed name from way/224286093 , added a name to way/646431456 and changed the name of way/646431457 .
What was the source of these changes?

Yay, thank you. And for the record, here's a Mapillary image: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/7bLLuAWEUpmdkUW7rhbgzw

Ha - thank you for the quick catch :)
This had to wait for me checking the images (also coming up on Mapillary). This is http://www.skrastas.lt/?data=2009-09-22&rub=1065924831&id=1253544039 - but checking spelling and capitalisation would be appreciated.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap. I noticed that this changeset added two untagged ways, way/655966964 and way/655966965 - this duplicated some of the existing ways and did not seem useful so I have reverted this changeset. Please let me know if there was an intent I have missed.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap. I noticed that this changeset added an untagged way, way/655967272 - this duplicated the existing track and did not seem useful so I have reverted this changeset. Please let me know if there was an intent I have missed.

Hi, I noticed that this changeset has created a new water area that overlaps with older water areas, and seems to include some non-water, based on ortophoto.
osm.org/#map=17/57.11687/24.67541

What's the source of this area, was this a mechanical edit?

Hi there and thank you for the improvements to OSM.
This changeset added building=yes to way/132364752 . From the imagery it is obvious that this whole area is not a building, so I have removed this tag.
Could you please check whether you have added building=yes to similar ways, and if so, remove it?
Thank you and happy mapping :)

Ah, that's great - thank you for improving the map and for the quick reply.

Hi there. Addresses do not have a requirement to be on buildings, quite the opposite - they are even legally points in some countries. Have you removed any other addresses that were mapped as points?

this changeset added several large "buildings" where actually multiple smaller buildings exist. one of these huge buildings is not shown to exist in any of the imagery layers - way/471741241 . i will remove this one and add notes to the ones that need fixing.

dear coventry32, you have continued adding such fake features. that's really not cool, as people are creating a wonderful, free resource for all to use.

hi there. could you please clarify what is the data source for these additions/edits ?

hi. several of these ways look unlikely to be useful - like one 5-node "hook" over the buildings in ogre. was this by any chance direct conversion of a gps track ?
would you have the time to check all of the ways in the changeset and clean up any that were added accidentally ?