Correction, I see that way/233857737 still exists but it is not marked as an active military aerodrome anymore. Has it been decommissioned and is now really just a grassy area with a name, rather than a military airfield?

Dear 0M1keE0, in this changeset labelled "Grassed/Meadow area added" you did not add any grassland or meadows, but you *did* delete RNAS Culdrose (from which you had removed the aerodrome and military tags yesterday). A substantial change like this would have demanded a suitable explanation in the changeset comment, e.g. why you believe that RNAS Culdrose has ceased to exist, or was wrongly mapped, or such. If the deletion was in error, please restore the object (or ask for help you don't know how). If the deletion was on purpose, please explain why.

This changeset contains a lot of problematic edits, adding motorways that do not exist on the ground, roads that pass through houses, and other errors. Since the changeset comment "gd" is absolutely useless in explaining why this was done, I'm reverting these edits now.

For reference, both users being asked to play nice in osm.org/user_blocks/2989 osm.org/user_blocks/2990

@BeKri, bitte etwas weniger Aufregung, etwas weniger GROSSBUCHSTABEN, etwas weniger ???? !!!! - dann wirkt es auch gleich nicht mehr so aggressiv. Und vielleicht ein bisschen mehr "leben und leben lassen" bei allen Beteiligten. Ich würde auch empfehlen, die Markierungen des "OSMSuspects" als "hier müsste mal jemand vor Ort ran" zu interpretieren und nicht als "hier müsste mal jemand, der 300km weg wohnt, die Markierungen wegräumen". Ansonsten bitte meinen Kommentar unter changeset/71688947 beachten.

@BeKri, @xogalla - das Hinzufügen einer unvollständigen Adresse zu einem Gebäude ist nicht besonders hilfreich. Wenn man den betr. Mapper dabei ertappen würde, dass er diese Information nicht aufgrund von Ortskenntnis hinzufügt, sondern durch "Raten" der nächstgelegenen Straße (da kann man ja durchaus mal schiefliegen, gerade bei Eckhäusern), dann kann man ihm zurecht auf die Finger klopfen. Das reflexartige Löschen unvollständiger Adressen, nur damit irgendein QA-Tool "grün wird", ist aber nicht statthaft - aus den o.g. Gründen (gehört das Eckhaus jetzt zur A-Straße oder zu B-Straße, sind die Häuser an diesem Feldweg postalisch noch hier oder schon dort...) kann auch eine unvollständige Adresse sinnvoll sein. Ich bitte darum, auf solche Löschungen zu verzichten. @opendcc bitte nur dann unvollständige Adressen eintragen, wenn dies aufgrund von Ortskenntnis geschieht - ein Erraten oder automatisches Setzen von Werten aufgrund von Grenz-/PLZ-Polygonen ist nicht erwünscht. Ebenfalls sind addr:*-Tags an Dingen, die keine Adresse haben, wie Briefkästen, Sitzbänken oder Bäumen unerwünscht. @alle, der nächste, der hier nach dem Motto "revertieren kann ich auch" unsere Zeit verschwendet, kassiert eine Sperre.

Danke für die Aufmerksamkeit
Frederik Ramm, OSMF DWG

Hello Sammyhawkrad, in this changeset you have made a "mechanical edit" which is not a good idea. See here for details: osm.wiki/What%27s_the_problem_with_mechanical_edits%3F
In this particular case, the "Sugaladevi Wewa Feild Canals" that you have edited carry a superfluous tag ("FolderPath") that you could have removed. Also, closer inspection would have shown that way/661932062 is not connected to any other waterway which probably is a mistake, and there is a canal and a stream overlapping here: osm.org/#map=18/7.00695/81.61627

Tagging errors, like a capitalized "Name" tag, often mean that someone has made a bad import or other low-quality contribution, and they can be a valuable pointer telling us that the area needs checking. If you blindly "fix" a problem like this, you throw away the information that there's something that needs checking. Please don't run mechanical edits without first discussing them in a suitable group.

Also, your source for this edit almost certainly not "Bing" as specified in your changeset source tag?

In the future when you revert edits, please explain clearly why you are reverting. The fact that the edits are made by one particular mapper and/or your suspicion that he might be identical to another particular mapper are not sufficient grounds for a revert; you should be able to give a concrete reason for each particular revert.

The landowner originally (politely) requested deletion of the road but I already explained to them that we do not entertain such requests since mapping a way that is physically there will, even if access is not permitted, help with orientation and in emergencies. I have requested clarification on exactly how much of Lighthouse Rd is actually private. I have also asked about any signage on the ground that would inform a would-be hiker of access rights. Depending on what I get back, maybe we should split up the road at the park boundary and mark it private access on the southern half.

See my comment on changeset/71446023 which matches this changeset too!

PS this link lets you compare what you deleted to what you added: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=71446023

Dear Arcman, in this changeset you have deleted a number of buildings previously drawn by user ngt three weeks ago, as part of the same HOT project. You have re-drawn some of them but not all. For example, you have deleted way/692751904 which was a perfectly correct tracing of aerial imagery and now there's only void where that building was. You have not given a reason for your action. Have these buildings been torn down in the mean time? Do you have local knowledge of the area? Have you been asked by someone else to delete this data? Please note that the changeset comment field is not primarily for hashtags, but primarily for explaining what you are doing and why. "#hotosm-project-3708;#Sri;#Kelani;#IHSM" does not tell me anything. What I would expect to see is a human-readable text like "deleted and re-created buildings because <reason>".

Hello keithonearth, in this changeset you have removed access restrictions from the "Lighthouse Road" track. Now DWG has recevied a message from the land owners ("Therah Village Developments Ltd") saying that "This is in fact a private road on our land, and we respectfully request that this road be removed from your website as a means of access to the park." - What was your reason for removing the access restrictions? Should we perhaps reinstate an access=private here?

Hallo klimakas, könntest Du bitte etwas ausführlichere Changeset-Kommentare benutzen als nur "gps, Mapillary". Woher kennst Du die Kapazität und den Betreiber des hier eingezeichneten Parkplatzes? Falls Du selbst da warst, gibt "survey" als Quelle an.

Hello, please try to add meaningful changeset comments (see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments) especially when making large-scale edits like this. In this case, you should have explained why you are changing the road class of these roads and what your source or reasoning is for that, so that other mappers can decide whether they agree with your reasoning or would rather like to ask you to stop.

You have asked the mapper why he increased the road type but you have not given them any time to reply before reverting their work. Please give them more time to reply next time! Why do you think that they were wrong and you were right?

node/6522268845 also sits in the middle of a road

node/5918673271 is one example of a node that sits in the middle of a road.

node/6522268861 is a node that sits in the middle of a road.

I am not sure if you saw my previous message, just to be safe I'm adding a pointer here: osm.org/user_blocks/2855