I have removed a number of non-constructive comments from user 3D打印 on this changeset. Please don't call each other names. I will also review Simon1595's recent edits with regard to damaging borders or deleting data in the border region. This is tracked as DWG Ticket#2025120410000271

regarding the replacing of "St." with "Saint" in place names, please see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/st-stephen-new-brunswick-or-saint-stephen/130485 and participate in that discussion before you repeat this kind of edit.

Ich habe den POI gelöscht. OSM ist kein Dienstleister-Verzeichnis, und schon gar nicht eines für Dienstleister ohne konkrete und korrekte Adresse.

Ich bin jetzt im Kontakt mit der zuständigen Person bei NBB. Es besteht der Verdacht, dass einige unserer Daten unzulässig aus deren Leitungsinformationssystem übernommen sind. Wenn sich das als zutreffend herausstellt (und der/die Original-Mapper keine zulässige Quelle vorweisen können), müssen wir die Daten in OSM natürlich löschen. Aber ich warte da jetzt auf ein paar konkrete Beispiele, damit wir nachforschen können.

Hier ist Dir wohl ein Fehler passiert - Du hast lauter Straßen mit roof-Tags versehen ;) ich revertiere diese Änderung.

Ich habe die Änderungen jetzt alle revertiert und osm.org/user_blocks/18999

reverted, user block in osm.org/user_blocks/18998

This changeset has added a triangular and nonsensical landuse on top of an already existing landuse. If this was done manually, what were you thinking? If this was done by software, the software clearly is buggy.

Thank you to all involved in this discussion for not starting an edit war.

Hello there, the DWG has been made aware of this issue and we're tracking it as
Ticket#2025110310000364.

The general rule is that if we map something in OSM, it has to be visible on the ground. Just because someone who writes a hiking guide decides that a certain trail is a nice one-hour walk, we don't add that to OSM. The CAI is not exempt from that rule; they might be bigger than a single guy writing a guide but if they sit down at their drawing board and decide that a certain walk is nice and gets number ABC-123 that doesn't give them the automatic right to record that in OSM.

However, this is not a rule that is set in stone. For example, if the CAI are planning to (and have the authority to) eventually erect route markers but haven't got around to it yet, a case could be made for allowing these relations. Same if maybe the route markers largely exist but there are some small stretches where they are missing. Or if a route is not marked, but it is so well known that you could practically ask anyone "what's this route I am walking on" and they say "ah, it's the ABC-123 route".

I think this is a matter that deserves a proper discussion on the Italian community forum. I have therefore created a thread here:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/deletion-of-cai-hiking-relations/137727
I have reverted the deletion of the route relations for now but I am not saying the deletion was unwarranted; it was only premature and the outcome of the discussion might still be to delete them.

It appears that the deletions are legit; but please cartecarte do provide better changeset comments than just the word "Actualisations" - especially if you delete things, write a few words about why! See osm.wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications for a good write-up on why changeset comments are important.

Dear Linh, the "changeset coment" field is there so that other (human) users of OpenStreetMap can get an idea of what your edit was about.

Your frequently used changeset comment "#hotosm-project-27430 #CanCross #CRC #MissingMaps #NLWildfires" does not say anything about your edit. I can see (after some clicking and reasoning) that you have refined a building that someone else had mapped a day ago; but none of your changeset hashtags tells me that.

Please put any hashtags in the "hashtags" field, and use the changeset comment to describe the edit (for example in this case: "refine buildings" or something like that).

Thank you!

Hello tomassvo, you have managed to open over 60 changesets here in two minutes. I don't know a lot about Street Complete EE but it must be possible to configure it to group related edits. It would be great if you could do that in the future.

Dear jp1212, when you delete paths from OpenStreetMap, please provide an explanation for that in the changeset comment. "Modification" is not enough - we can see that you have modified something but we want to know why you think the path does not exist!

In this changeset and the previous changeset you have modified almost 13,000 nodes, adding a "source" tag. I don't know how you managed to do that as the changeset comment clearly indicates that you wanted to do something else instead! Whatever you did, please don't do it again. I have reverted these edits. (DWG Ticket#2025102710000142)

osm.org/user_blocks/18867

Hi, thank you for the quick reply. We have a complaint from Farys who suspect that we have copied data from their copyrighted maps. You have made a large number of edits to Farys pipelines in the past months, e.g. way/1392283607, way/1416793845. Are those all from survey and local knowledge as well?

Could you send us a few photos of these markers that you speak of, so that we can tell Farys that these markers clearly indicate where the pipelines are and that the data does not come from their maps?

Also, when you do pipeline mapping in the future, please be sure to always specify a source directly in the changeset to eliminate any doubts.

Dear user Waaslander, could you tell us about your data source for this pipeline edit? We want to make sure that you have not used any copyrighted material to add these pipelines (or if you have accidentally used copyrighted material, we need to remove the data again).

The termn "town" was introduced by an anonymous source into the Wikipedia page without any supporting evidence. I changed it back to "place", and now you have introduced the term "border town" in Wikipedia. You can falsify Wikipedia all you want; I have no authority there. But you cannot do that here on OpenStreetMap, hence osm.org/user_blocks/18769

Siehe auch https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gelnhausen-label-auf-osm-carto/135961