Hall b*k*, der FOSSGIS hat eine Email von dem buddhistischen "Europe Center" erhalten, dass dieser Weg way/106634281 eine Privatstraße sei. Hast Du da Ortskenntnis, kannst Du das bestätigen?

Has he also explained why this source is legal to use, and committed to properly attributing the source in the future?

Hello joserrg12, if this data comes from the AIG as mariotomo claims, then please cite this as a source, and point to their permission to use the data in OSM. If this data does not come from the AIG, then please say where it comes from, and again, cite the source correctly and demonstrate that we have permission to use it.

Hello wellasus, do you have an explanation for this changeset claiming that you have used the 7 different imagery layers "Maxar-Premium", "Bing Streetside", "Mapillary Images", "Mapillary Map Features", "Mapillary Signs", "OpenStreetCam Images", and "Bing" - and all that to add one driveway and modify two other highways? Did you really cycle through all these imagery sources to make these contributions? It is helpful for other mappers to know which imagery was used for a certain object, but a list like that is more confusing than helpful.

jlcc78, please supply a photograph (or link to Mapillary photo) that confirms the street is actually signposted "Calle La Coruña". If you cannot do that, I suggest that this changeset be reverted.

In this changeset you removed waterway=river from way/33814488 - why? Your account has been created 2 days ago; are you new to OpenStreetMap, or have you been using other accounts before?

The DWG would like to ensure that a community consensus exists before this is changed yet again. Please everyone refrain from making further Rio de la Plata edits, and if you want, participate in the discussion on the tagging mailing list.

Hi muralito, please refrain from making any edits to the Rio de la Plata until a community consensus has been established. We (DWG) will raise the issue again on the tagging mailing list, and we (DWG) will decide when it is time to change this and what to change it to. Thank you!

Hallo Wegekundiger2018, Du hast an diesem Punkt hier eine "Paßhöhe" eingetragen: node/434372349/history - nach Auskunft anderer Ortskundiger ist hier aber kein Pass ("Hier ist keine Passhöhe. Die Strasse steigt kontinuierlich durch den Wald bis zum Abzweig K9014/9015."). Wie konnte es zu diesem Irrtum kommen?

Hallo wegekundiger2018, kannst Du die Quelle "Berliner Meilenblätter" präzisieren? Wo kann man die einsehen, und ist deren Lizenz kompatibel mit OpenStreetMap?

Dear floridaeditor, please stop downgrading roads until you have made sure that the US community is actually on board with what you're doing. You seem to have unilaterally decided to be doing the right thing (as is evident from your user profile page) but it doesn't seem you have followed any of the recommendations to discuss with a wider community that were given to you in changeset/88299504#map=10/34.4580/-83.4417 - the fact that other mappers disagree with you should make you pause and seek confirmation, instead of continuing your fight against "too much orange".

Also, please don't add source tags to individual buildings; a source tag on the changeset is sufficent.

Hello. I would like to understand more about the process you have used for mapping here. For example, why was the building way/825338539 added, but not the neighbouring building 50 metres to the west?

Ok. I have removed the name now out of respect for their way of life. I don't think that strictly speaking they have a right to remain unmapped but as long as nobody complains I guess it's fine.

@Der Wilderer, zwar stimme ich persönlich in dieser Sache inhaltlich mit Dir überein, aber wenn Du in Zukunft noch irgendwann einmal einen englischen Kommentar mit "sprich gefälligst Deutsch" oder ähnlichem beantwortest, werde ich Deinen Account sperren. Ich hatte Dich bereits vor Wochen in changeset/86892224 zu einem respektvolleren Umgang ermahnt.

Hello Moritz, a resident of the "Mamaki" community has written to DWG that they were unhappy about their name being on the map (DWG Ticket#2020071910000011). Since you have added this name originally in this changeset - can you say anything about the source? Is there a sign that says "Welcome to Mamaki" (in which case removing it from the map would be silly as someone else is going to add it straight back in) or did you add it from informal knowledge?

Thank you. I have replied to the complainant that as long as the Arch Diocese of Boston doesn't put up signs or fence in the area, things will remain as they are.

Hello AJW92, the DWG has received a complaint from the land owner implying that way/766015130 was a private path and not open to the public. You have added this path as "access=permissive". Are you sure about that, or was that more a guess than a fact? (Ticket#2020071610000053)

Hello m902, this is a very old changeset but I see that you are still active hence this message. DWG has been contacted by the land owner on whose property way/213906398 runs, and they claim that it needs to be marked as private access. As the person who has originally mapped this track, would you concur?

It depends on local laws and customs. If there is reason to believe that the use of the path is legal for everyone then we do not care on whose grounds it is. If there is reason to believe that using the path requires permission from the land owner (perhaps indicated by signs "private property" or some such) and such permission is not automatically granted, we would add an "access=private" tag to the paths in question. We want to do the right thing here - if the path is legal to use then the property owner has no right trying to keep people from doing just that. If on the other hand the path is informal and using it does indeed infringe someone's rights then we should not give map users the wrong impression and get them into trouble with the law.