The complaint reads (with some redacting from me for privacy reasons):

"My name is ... and I have been in contact with All trails regarding a trail
which is posted on their site. Their information is collected through OSM and I have been advised by All Trails to contact you to update and remove this trail. All trails
will be removing it from their site. The trail which I am referring to is at 11 Kipling Rd in Arlington Massachusetts. This property is private property owned by the
Arch Diocese of Boston and NOT THE TOWN OF ARLINGTON. ... As a long time Arlington resident and a home owner on Kipling Road, I have noticed in increase in people not only walking but biking through Kipling Road to enter the woods. (There is no trail) and they have been exiting through my backyard. ... I am asking first to have this removed from your site before alerting the church (Arch Diocese of Boston) of the trespassing. It is PRIVATE property. WAS THERE NO RESEARCH DONE AS TO WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY BEFORE BEING POSTED ON YOUR SITE? This is becoming a safety issue for my family and our neighbors."

I then asked for clarification: "Do I understand you right that there are no paths whatsoever in the forest? Or does the trail that connects Browning Rd with the parking lot on the South End of the forest actually exist? What about the cross connection between 223 Campbell Rd and the parking lot?"

and the reply came

"The path to which you are referring to does not exist. I’ve lived on Kipling for over
20 years. Nobody has ever walked thru. Only within the last weeks has the traffic
increased. The parcel of land to which you are referring to does butt up against
browning rd as well as Campbell rd. Please research this area of land on the Arlington
town site. This is NOT public property. This is owned by the Arch diocese of Boston.
It’s private property. Anyone on this path is trespassing. As I stated earlier. People
are exiting on Browning through the backside of my house."

Since they're a bit combative I'd prefer not to tell them "sort that out with the guy who added it" ;) If you're certain that you walked there (and not through a wood without any paths) then I'd tell them that we'll re-survey the area and I'd put a note. If however there is a possibility of error on your side and you do not recollect actually walking there in person, then maybe it would be proper to remove the tracks until we can re-check.

Hello Danil, in this changeset you added a few footpaths through a wooded area in Arlington (816666445, 816666446). Can you clarify the source of these footpaths, as they are not visible on the "Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta" that you claimed to use. I am asking because a local resident complained to DWG that these did not exist in reality. (DWG Ticket#2020071510000064)

Yes, the deletion happened in changeset/87001827 and apparently these had been added by you. I do not know the user who deleted the paths, I suspect that the complaint received by DWG must also have been aired elsewhere and prompted that user's action. The complainant said that she was regularly putting up signs indicating that this was her private property but these signs were torn down again. She even sent us a copy of the land register describing the extent of her plot. Hence the removal of the paths seemed legit. If, of course, you have reason to believe these paths are legal and should be on the map, I'm happy to hear about it.

A resident had complained to Data Working Group about a footpath crossing through their property, and mentioned this in passing (to underline how our maps were wrong in other regards too). I found it interesting that we were showing a situation that was over 55 years outdated - might have been a record even!

PS: Bevor sie bei uns nachgefragt haben, haben die Leute vom LRA bei der Stadt Ochsenfurt nachgefragt und dort die Info erhalten: "Der Weg mit der Bezeichnung „Am Mühlsteig“ taucht in den Widmungsunterlagen nicht auf". Soviel zum Thema "amtliche Daten" ;)

Es hat offenbar irgendwas mit Schwerlastverkehr zu tun. Die haben da eine Stelle, die genehmigen muss, wenn jemand irgendwo mit einem dicken Laster langfahren will, und bei dieser Stelle kommen jetzt Anfragen an "ich will den Mühlsteig entlangfahren" und die können dann nichts damit anfangen. Nun vermuten sie, dass die Anfrager den Namen aus OSM haben. Der "Bayernatlas" führt keinen Namen für diese Straße, kannst Du mir genaueres sagen zu der von Dir zitierten Nennung im Geoportal Bayern? Dann würde ich denen das zurückschicken.

Hallo gsperb, Du hast in diesem Changeset einer bis dato unbenannten Straße den Namen "Am Mühlsteig" gegeben. Nun hat sich das Landratsamt Würzburg beim FOSSGIS e.V. gemeldet und schreibt: "Der [auf unserer Karte] als „Am Mühlsteig“ bezeichnete Straßenabschnitt hat keine eigene Bezeichnung, da von ihm aus keine Grundstücke erschlossen werden". Kannst Du Dich erinnern, wie Du auf den Namen gekommen bist? Stand da ein Schild?

If you look at changeset/87385355 you will see a huge rectangle covering half of Russia and Eastern Europe. Anyone who looks at a small area somewhere in this rectangle and clicks the history button will be shown your changeset because it "covers" that area. If you split that into smaller regions (i.e. one changeset per region) then it is easier for people to work with.

Dear Veojson, you are changing name tags in Algeria from Arabic lettering to a mix of French and Arabic. Is there any community agreement on doing this, or is it just something you are doing on your own? If there is community agreement, please point me to the relevant discussions. If you are doing this on your own, please stop.

Hallo Andreas, Du hast das Tempolimit von way/48453714 von "60;50" auf "50" geändert. Ein Mitarbeiter der Allianz-Versicherung hat dem FOSSGIS geschrieben, das Limit sei aber 60. War Deine Änderung eher "geraten", oder hast Du tatsächlich eine 50 beobachtet?

Dear Myazyk, in the future if you don't know a street name, please do not add something that you find funny instead. Just leave the name empty. "Сексуальна вулиця" which you added in another changeset has been removed; are you sure that "Святкова вулиця" (way/364822090) and "Сонячна вулиця" (
way/676659570) are correct? They sound less offensive but would not be typical street names where I live. If these are inventions too, please remove them. In the case of future complaints about fantasy mapping I will have to block your account for longer. It might be a harmless joke for you but not everyone finds it funny.

I have removed a comment I added here, because I belatedly noticed that this discussion was over a year old and reviving it now doesn't help anyone. Sorry.

I think you are exaggerating here. If there is a conflict between users, we have to look for misbehaviour on all sides and ask everyone to be more respectful. This includes that you should not be deleting someone's additions and branding them a vandal without the necessary diligence.

You also removed a whole lot of buildings that seem perfectly valid according to aerial imagery, e.g. way/822914111 (which has since been recreated as way/822988529). Why did you believe that this building constitued "vandalism" that needed to be reverted?

In this changeset you removed the information that way/99573891 is a christian/catholic cemetery. Why?

Dear Rocketdata team, please improve your organised editing description at osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Rocketdata.io by providing links to the community discussion(s) that you have had prior to these activities, and outlining which data you are contributing in which regions and how that data is created. Please also provide a list of team members directly on that wiki page, rather than by link to rocketdata.io. It would also be good if you could limit the geographic extent of your changesets. In addition, your changeset comments are not sufficient, for example in this particular changeset three nodes were deleted and the comment is "yves" which does not explain why they were deleted (neither does any of the pages linked to). Thank you -- Frederik Ramm, OSMF Data Working Group

Why did you delete a motorway bypass in this changeset? Edits of such magnitude certainly deserve a better explanation (changesert comment) than just "00", e.g. "motorway bypass has been demolished", perhaps with a link to an article in the press to corroborate. Can you supply this information?

Can we perhaps reach out to the county GIS department or so to have this cleared up? Property owner is adamant that any way from the street into the park would cross their private land - should be a question that can easily be settled by asking the right people. Can you help me to identify who "the right people" would be in this case?

Hi, the DWG has received a complaint saying that way/458181471 was on private ground, and tons of park visitors were parking there in Brookview Rd to access the park which annoys residents. Do you have information to the contrary, or is it possible/likely that they are right? -- Cheers, Frederik (DWG Ticket #2020062910000174)

Mein Kommentar richtete sich ja an Aposke, der kann ja Englisch. Ich hab ihm nur gesagt, dass er es nicht so raushängen lassen soll.