relation/12121247 (whicjh you have deleted) contained the information that these islands were natural=bare_rock. As far as I can see, this information is now lost. Was that on purpose?

All of them - all that were created by user "mortensonfan". A list is here: @mortensonfan/history

Hello, have you discussed this rather wide-ranging boundary change with anyone (especially in Greece and/or Turkey) before you executed it? If I interpret your source correctly you have more or less guessed all these boundaries from coastlines? -- Also, could you ensure that both the eastern and western boundary line around Imia/Kardak is marked disputed, currently you've only done that with the western one.

Уважаемый old_wolf, пожалуйста, не рисуйте мини-сельхозугодья, такие как way/994072157 - если это сельхозугодья, окруженные ничем иным, как другими сельхозугодьями, просто нарисуйте одну большую область вместо множества маленьких.

Dear old_wolf, please don't draw mini farmland like way/994072157 - if this is a farmland area surrounded by nothing but other farmland, just draw one big area instead of many small areas.

Benutzer gesperrt bis zur Klärung der Vorkommnisse

Sorry, that was a mistake.

Dear jmontane, based on which information did you "fix" this down name? The town calls itself, on its own web site, "Maó - Mahón".

Dear komoot employee, please indicate what kind of written proof you have received in this matter and forward it to the OSMF data working group quoting Ticket#2021101010000074. Thank you.

OpenStreetMap could be maximally improved if you stuck to editing areas where you have first-hand knowledge, instead of guessing things from aerial imagery in places where you don't even speak the language. Changing a natural=marsh to natural=wetland; wetland=marsh might seem a harmless edit to you but are you really sure what you're doing here? Do you even know that natural=marsh was right in the first place? Maybe the user who put natural=marsh was completely clueless and meant something entirely different? To quote an old example, if someone tags a horse as "animal=kow" and you then "improve" that to "animal=cow", what has been gained?

Hallo kjon, ich habe eine Rückfrage zu diesen Gebäuden, die Du hier einträgst. Wenn ich im iD-Editor das von Dir angegebene Hintergrundbild auswähle, dann sehen way/988892143 und way/988892144 wie ein Haus aus, Du hast aber zwei Hälften eingemalt. Und way/988892167 sieht auf dem Luftbild auch anders aus als das, was Du eingezeichnet hast. Kannst Du erklären, wie es zu diesen Diskrepanzen kommt?

Jay May, you must observe copyright when contributing to OSM. The DWG is not the institution that decided where copyright applies; it's the laws of the place where the map was published. Usually maps will have a copyright notice. If they don't then the law usually assigns copyright nonetheless. Copyright usually expires a given time after the death of the author; for institutional publishers, copyright expiry rules might be different. It is your job to research that and to specify proper sources when uploading your data. If you receive special permission from the map publisher or a legal representative, get that in writing and upload it somehwere where others can see.

Dear Jay May, please take the time to use proper changeset comments that explain what you did in *this* particular changeset, and do not use the same changeset comment for everything you do.

The bus route relation/12848426 you have edited in this changeset makes a huge detour to Centro Medico Mae Lewis without having any stops there. Is that really correct? The "reverse" direction looks very different. Please, editing bus routes is a difficult task - let other community members help you learn a couple of quality control tools so that you don't break them!

Ich habe diese Relation jetzt ich changeset/112294357 gelöscht. OpenStreetMap ist kein historischer Eisenbahnatlas.

erickdeoliveiraleal, can you explain which sources you have used to determine that this "path" should be a "track" instead? You haven't specified any sources in your changeset. Thank you.

I have reverted three other deletions by the same user, see osm.org/user_blocks/5366

The DWG has had a complaint about this line, especially the "proposed" part way/261185619, claiming that showing this proposed railway "has caused many economic impacts as the land value has reduced through which the route is shown and many people who have to sell land for the education and marriage of their kids are getting only cheap value for their
land. ... The government has not finalized the route and showing an incorrect route causes severe impact in the life of many people".

Can you verify that the current route is in line with actual government planning? Or if the state of affairs is just that this is "one of several proposed alternatives", then perhaps consider removing it from OSM until one of the alternatives has been settled on.

I have told the complainant that we'll pass on the request to the local community but DWG is not going to be further involved.

(Ticket#2021100710000053)

@Sharcrash, the combination "access=private" + "foot=yes" (or "bicycle=yes") is perfectly fine and frequently used in Germany. Don't "fix" that please.

Sharcrash, please do not blindly apply the logic that something can never be a driveway if other paths branch off of it; this is not a universal rule. You can do that if you have personally surveyed the are. Otherwise don't.