Hello osmmichi, can you confirm that this path

way/208781198

which you have modified in this changeset does (a) actually exist on the ground and is (b) accessible to the public? Asking because a land owner claims it is on private land.

Dear SandipYadav1317, the "changeset comment" field is primarily intended for other human beings. You are expected to explain your edit in a natural language, either English or the lanugage used locally where the changeset is made.

"#hotosm-project-12776 #BIPAD #YILAB # Rapti #DigitalVolunteers" is not a sufficient changeset comment, it does not explain what you did and why, and all those hashtags are only readable for insiders. It is disrespectful towards other mappers if you do not explain your edit.

Hashtags can be used in addition to a good changeset comment but they cannot replace it.

See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for more information.

This is how it looks when I request Maxar imagery for the area changeset/121991066#map=19/37.10495/15.12180:

http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/walls.png

It is impossible to discern the location of inidividual walls on these images. Are you sure you have been using Maxar?

Hello 1T-Money, the data contributed by txemt which you here claim to have been "sloppy" was totally within usual quality standards in OSM. It would not have been necessary to edit after them, and it *certainly* is inappropriate to call these edits "sloppy".

Please stop this aggressive behaviour, and stop demonstratively "improving" contributions by txemt when they are not plainly wrong.

Dear fayor, can you clarify your source for these edits? You have added a large number of walls in the North of the town (Via Luigi Pirandello etc.) and these walls are not visible on aerial imagery.

ZeLoneWolf, thank you (belatedly) for summing up the discussion here.

Dear 1T-Money, please explain why you fully reverted changeset changeset/122047673 in this edit and why you didn't see fit to explain your reasons in the changeset comment right away.

In the future, when making wholesale reverts of the work of others, please ALWAYS give sufficient reason in your changeset comment.

Dear PJ_33, in this changeset, and other recent changesets, you have contributed a lot of information about golf courses that cannot conceivably come from aerial imagery alone. Please use the "source" field that the ID editor displays when saving your edits to state where your information comes from.

Hello arichnad, I am belatedly processing a complaint that DWG received over a year ago. They wrote about this path that "It is on private property, a power line easement through the Lake Ridge Parks and Recreation Association (LRPRA) HOA." and asked us to remove it. I replied with a general explanation about how we deal with trail access. I notice that you explicitly set this to foot=yes and bicycle=yes. I'll trust your judgement on this but perhaps, in the light of the complaint received, you could double-check. Thanks!

Hallo Xxlfussel, bitte unterlasse die Erstellung solcher kleinteiligen Relationen. Grunsdsätzlich ist es gut, die Grenzlinien, die GRÖSSERE Flächen miteinander teilen, mit Hilfe von Relationen nur einmal in der Datenbank zu haben. Das machen wir bei Gemeindegrenzen oder großen Landnutzungsflächen. Aber nicht bei Parkplätzen - da ist es völlig ok, wenn der Parkplatz einen eigenen Way hat, der die Nodes von einigen Nachbarflächen mitbenutzt. Meine persönliche Faustregel ist, dass ich so ab 50 Nodes anfange, über eine Relation nachzudenken. Diese Grenze ist sicher für jeden woanders, aber bestimmt nicht bei 10 Nodes!

I am afraid "looking at Google Maps and then making edits to OSM" is exactly what we call "copying from Google" - it doesn't matter if you do it digitally or in a more analogue fashion. The fact that you are taking copyrighted information from Google and adding that to OSM is what counts. I have reverted your edits.

The node in question was created 2 years ago. I have reset it to the state it was 2 years ago. I have no knowledge about camping in France - if there was any BS on the French map before the illegal import was made, then exactly that same BS is there (again) now.

DUGA, in your profile you explain what you define as "cosmetic changes". Please explain how your deletion of abandoned railways in this changeset fits your own definition of "cosmetic changes".

Dear Mykhailo, please explain why you reverted this changeset. Please also make it a habit to explain the revert reason directly in your changeset comment in the future, rather than just writing "revert".

Hello Jan, in this changeset you have made changes to an underground road without specifying your source of information. In a private message to another contributor you have claimed to use Google Maps as a source. Please never use Google Maps to contribute data to OSM, as everything you base on Google Maps will have to be reverted. Instead, when making edits to features that are not visible on aerial imagery, always specify which (legal) source the edit is based on.

Not only did you uselessly edit tens of thousands of objects - it appears that the "fix" you performed was changing "NAME" into "name", while leaving a dozen similarly useless tags untouched!

Dear Nordpfeil, this mass "correction" of "syntax errors" violated our automated editing guidelines. The next time you stumble over a five-digit number of nodes that are buggy, please do not blindly "fix" them but seek discussion first. In this particular case, it turns out that the nodes stem from a bad import and need to be removed anyway. Your "fixing" only makes the removal harder.

Dear giorgio92, please explain the source of this data or it will have to be removed as an undiscussed import like the others.

Is there a particular reason why you singled out the building Driekastanjelaarsstraat 50 to draw a garden there, but have not done so in any of the neighbouring properties? Is there something special about the garden in No. 50?

Apologies for the huge bbox, this revert also caught some hospitals in Algeria imported by the same mapper; I will review them later.