Das wäre auch freundlicher gegangen.

Hello Chellopuddin, can you send a photograph of the alleged signage to data@osmfoundation.org, or alternatively point to any official city or government web site that mentions "Chello Park"? Thank you.

These edits have been reverted by a community member. The current borders are the result of a long decision making process in OSM and cannot be modified unilaterally. Please email data@osmfoundation.org if you want to register a complaint.

These edits have been reverted by a community member. The current borders are the result of a long decision making process in OSM and cannot be modified unilaterally. Please email data@osmfoundation.org if you want to register a complaint.

Data Working Group here. You have bother been asked in the past to refrain from fiddling with data contributed by the other. @Adamant1, there is lots of rubbish data all over California that you could fix; could you be persuaded to concentrate your efforts in areas not originally worked by stevea? @stevea, it is an unnecessary slight to brandish someone "sloppy" in a changeset comment. Please don't. To be frank, data like way/281209814 with the tags "OBJECTID", "Zoning", "SHAPE_STAr" and "SHAPE_STLe" should never have been imported that way in the first place; this would never pass muster on today's import guidelines. I would prefer if Adamant1 had not edited this, but editing it and not getting rid of the rubbish tags is doubly bad. But it is what it is! @Both: We have asked you repeatedly to keep the peace and if you don't we will have no choice but give you both a cool-off account block so that you can enjoy the beautiful non-OSM life out there for a while.

The overwhelming majority of OSM contributors are hobbyists or, slightly better-sounding, volunteers - you don't have to say that each time you write a changeset comment ;)

Hello, why have you set the "name:ar" tag of node/6369206439 to "گوڵاڵە" which is clearly not Arabic?

I cannot see a castle on aerial imagery at node/5058776734 - is it possible that this was an accident? I am exasperated at these useless auto-generated changeset comments; if this were a human-written comment we could compare the content of the message to the actual action, but with the message simply being deducted from the action, it loses this value altogether.

Dear Tomiii, in this changeset you added the name "Cigánytelep" to a street in Zámoly. We have received a message from someone in Zámoly saying that the street really does not have a name, and that this is a mistake. Do you know the town and this street name yourself, or do you remember if there was a street sign... or is it possible that this was indeed a mistake? Thank you - Frederik (DWG) (Ticket#2020010210000116)

Perhaps it would make sense to use old_name=something?

Was it wise to remove the name "Tung Chung Valley" in this changeset? It seems to be a placename of relative importance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tung_Chung#Tung_Chung_Valley) - if it is not a "suburb" then surely it is something else, and could have been fixed instead of being removed?

Gerold, kannst Du bitte mal zum Inhalt und nicht zur Form Stellung nehmen? Ist es Deiner Ansicht nach nur ein "vermeintlicher" Fehler und soll deshalb so bleiben, oder ist es ein "tatsächlicher" Fehler, und wenn ja, wirst Du ihn korrigieren, oder wartest Du, bis es jemand anders macht? Immerhin war es ja Dein Ziel in diesem Changeset, "dummen Schwachsinn" zu korrigieren - wer sowas schreibt, von dem darf man doch mindestens erwarten, dass er es dann richtig macht, oder?

The reason for this revert is that these automated edits have not been - as far as I could see - discussed before. Several users had complained about station names like "123 km" being transliterated/translated into a multitude of languages (e.g. 14 names in node/3781302157/history) even though we have a clear rule that we don't use name:xx for transliterations/translations.

The ESR code was added by the same undiscussed automated process so I removed it too while I was at it, though I'm happy to reinstate it if the community agrees it is useful.

osm.org/user_blocks/3326 for continuing to upset people long before the discussion has come to a conclusion. To be crystal clear: It is good to have a discussion. Until such time as the discussion clearly comes to the consensus that a certain solution is better than what we had before Verdizulo started changing name tags, the name tags we had before Verdizulo will stay in place. We will not apply any of the "ideas" raised in the discussion before we find a solution that works for all, or at least a sizable majority.

Can you explain why you have changed a few objects that are clearly schools to universities in this an neighbouring changesets?

This carpark way/729184813 and this way/729184810 intersect with buildings. Was there no QA/conflation done in this import?

This wall goes through buildings and a river: way/753459719

These two buildings way/740565056 way/740565057 are extremely deformed and do not look like buildings on aerial imagery at all. What was the QA process in this import?

This wall goes through buildings: way/753459676

How can it be source=survey and then so wrong? solmaps2, were you actually there to check, or was your source=survey incorrect?