Is there a source for the name "Senator Joe Manchin III Alley" that you have assigned in this changeset? Also, please use better changeset comments in the future; "UPDATE" is not a sufficient description.

It sounds implausible that the road in this changeset would really be called "Bucket Road". What is the source of this information?

In addition, this changeset seems to be using a custom imagery layer that points to Google aerial imagery, something which is not permitted when editing OpenStreetMap. While this is unlikely to be the source for this particular change, edits based on this imagery source would have to be removed anyway.

This appears to be a building import. Has this been discussed with the OSM community as per the guidelines on osm.wiki/Import?

It appears that in this changeset you have created a number of buildings on top of existing tennis courts. Can you have a look and repair? e.g. way/886309952

Does it really make sense to import buildings with an amount of detail like way/935085672 (note the little "chink" in the northern wall... probably 10 or 20cm in reality...)?

In this changeset you have uploaded 12 nodes at the identical location lat="50.8273394" lon="3.5068377" - was that intentional? Can you fix it?

In this changeset you have added 21 charcoal piles at the identical location lat="49.7779837" lon="5.2644575" - was that intentional? Can you fix it?

In this changeset you have added 34 nodes at the exact same location node/8655213475 - was that intentional?

The DWG has been alerted to this discussion, also in light of recent edits by robw commented just with "Sigh" (changeset/103294979). Our statement is as follows: user_5589 has been a little obsessive about the level of detail and his interpretation about what "signposted" means. A junction mapped with less detail is very much "good enough" for OSM. user_5589 has been somewhat condescending in his initial changeset comment. The response by robw ("consider it an opportunity for you to fix it") wasn't any better though it seems he has made amends later. Discussion about whether someone has a day job or not is totally inappropriate in OSM changeset comments. Folks, there's so much good you can both do for OSM instead of fighting about just how much detail a roundabout needs. Remember that by and large we're all on the same side! Just a few meters away from this roundabout there are hundreds of buildings without house numbers, and within 30km I can see whole villages without buildings. Don't obsess over details; OSM must remain manageable and understandable to newbies. Most of all, let's try to keep it a friendly place.

Please don't use changeset comments like "Sigh" because they are (a) unhelpful to almost everyone and (b) disparaging towards the person whose edits you are reverting. Simply state clearly what you are doing and why. And if you find yourself having to revert something so frequently that it prompts a sigh, it might be time to contact DWG instead of heading into an edit war.

Dear vootza, in this changeset you changed the Ukrainian name "Дитсадок №184" to the Russian name "Детский сад №184". Can you supply any evidence for this name change?

Dear NM$L, in this changeset you have taken a statement I made about a different area as a justification for making an edit to the Aksai Chin area. Please refrain from doing that, and please also refrain from making any other edits to any boundaries that are subject to a conflict between China and other countries. If you encounter a boundary that is mapped incorrectly, inform the data working group and we will look at the issue. Thank you.

In this changeset you write that you "added a missing road", but instead you added a sports pitch which, judging from aerial imagery, is certainly not used for sports. Can you have a look and repair that?

The motorways you have added in this changeset are certainly not motorways in reality. Can you have a look and fix the mistake?

In this changeset you added a huge leisure=pitch area covering and area as big as the city of Raignaj. What happened?

Hallo friedrichshainer, im Falle einer Umbenennung wie hier kann es sinnvoll sein, den alten Namen im Tag "old_name" beizubehalten. Dann kann jemand, der nach "Flaschenhals-Park" sucht, den immer noch finden!

Der oben zitierte Way hatte vor der Bearbeitung 28 Punkte und nach der Bearbeitung 34 Punkte. Wäre tatsächlich die Funktion "Linien vereinfachen" angewendet worden, so hätte sich m.E. die Anzahl der Punkte verringern und nicht erhöhen müssen. @cxs, hast Du dazu einen Kommentar? Hat beautifulplaces2020 sich nur bei diesem einen Weg geirrt, und an anderen Stellen hast Du Linien vereinfacht?

Der Konsens im Forum ist, dass *mindestens* ein loc_name=Alte Kanonenbahn völlig in Ordnung ist; viele Forumsmitglieder fänden sogar ein name=Alte Kanonenbahn akzeptabel. Um des lieben Friedens willen schlage ich vor, dass wir uns zunächst mit einem loc_name begnügen. Ich bitte Safetying, das entsprechend umzusetzen, und haster, sich hier der Mehrheitsmeinung zu beugen, auch wenn er sie als falsch empfinden mag. Im Grunde ist es gut und richtig, Namen zu hinterfragen und keine Namens-Erfindungen mit OSM zu propagieren, aber für diesen Namen gibt es genug Referenzen außerhalb von OSM, um einen loc_name zu rechtfertigen.

Dear uran-236, do you have a source for your naming of this lake?

Дорогой uran-236, есть ли у вас источник названия этого озера?