Yes, I have seen the other removed path which looked like a shortcut but the land owner has sent a screenshot and specifically circled *this* path.

Thank you. Do you know which organisation is responsible for the signposted routes? Maybe I could contact them and ask if the routes have changed.

Dear StijnRR, a long time ago you added the relations "Tienbundersbos Blauwe rechthoek" and "Tienbundersbos Gele bol" in this changeset. Now the DWG has a complaint from a landowner saying that way/339199641 - which is part of both these relations - is "unofficial" and "on their property" and they would like to have it removed from OSM. Can you verify if that path is really part of the signposted hiking relations (in which case the land owner would have to take it up with the organisation who defines the hiking routes), or if this was perhaps included by mistake?

The name you have specified for this Auto dealership is implausible. The website URL you have specified does not lead to anything related to this dealership. Please fix these errors.

In this changeset you removed the old "Toyota Bammer" location at house number 41 and added the address to a different location. Since other POIs in the old building retain the house number 41, it is not plausible that the new location also has the house number 41 (which you have added). Please double-check. Also, your edit has lost the opening hours that were attached to the old location. Please restore them.

Please do not create giant multipolygons (this one had > 200.000 members) just to add a place name to OSM. A node would have been sufficient.

Hallo hofoen, in diesem Changeset hast Du eine alte Bahnstrecke von route=tracks auf route=railway geändert: relation/10283483/history
Diese Änderung ist falsch, route=railway wird für Kursbuchstrecken (dreistellige Nummern) verwendet. route=tracks war hier korrekt (vierstellige VzG-Nummer).

Noch eine grundsätzliche Anmerkungen zu Deinen Edits: Bitte gib immer aussagekräftige Kommentare an - z.B. "Wikipedia-Tags entfernt" bzw. "Wikipedia-Tags hinzugefügt", "route-Tag korrigiert" und so weiter. "railway details" ist keine ausreichend präzise Beschreibung. Gib ausserdem auch Deine Datenquellen korrekt an - bei Dir steht "source=Bing", was definitiv bei 99% Deiner Änderungen nicht passt, weil sie nichts mit irgendetwas zu tun haben, was man auf dem Luftbild sehen könnte.

Abschliessend möchte ich Dich bitten, in bezug auf historische Eisenbahninfrastruktur besondere Vorsicht walten zu lassen. Nur, weil zu einer Bahnstrecke, die es irgendwann einmal gegeben hat, ein Wikipedia-Artikel existiert, heisst das noch lange nicht, dass wir in OSM dafür auch eine Relation anlegen. Von wenigen Ausnahmen abgesehen, ist OSM eine Datenbank dessen, was heute existiert, und keine Datenbank dessen, was früher einmal existiert hat.

The building geometries had thousands of self-intersections. This could have been fixed in a collaborative effort, but given that the import was undocumented and undiscussed, any work invested in fixing the geometry issues would have been for nothing :(

Warum hast Du die Hausnummer wieder entfernt, sie war doch korrekt?

osm.org/user_blocks/5573 osm.org/user_blocks/5574 osm.org/user_blocks/5575

Can you state exactly when that survey has happened? Since the mapper who previously added some surface/tracktype values claims to have video proof of his survey. Precisely when did you personally visit way/28557785 and verify that the surface was not grass?

Hallo SWF8, bitte gibt bei Deinen Changesets einen sinnvollen Kommentar ein (z.B. "Operator ÖBB hinzugefügt") und spezifiziere auch die Quelle dieser Information. Danke!

I had previously asked you not to make these kinds of changes. Now reiterated that request with osm.org/user_blocks/5537

I have reverted this edit. The naming of this water body is being discussed on the "talk" mailing list.

Dear microzorzo, a very long time ago you added way/317178713 as an unclassified road. It has meanwhile been downgraded to "service"; however we now have a complaint from a land owner saying that this was a "strada privata con divieto al transito". Further it is claimed that way/30044415 which you last edited a year ago and which has foot=yes,horse=yes,bicycle=yes in OSM, was an "argine privato". The complaint further claims that "il tratto di argine dall'incrocio del Timonchio-Bacchiglioncello (poi Bacchiglione) verso Villaverla è sedime arginato in piena proprietà scrivente per il quale è interdetto/vietato ogni tipo di accesso (con sbarramento di divisione colturale)." -- Is this something that you could help us with? Do you think these claims are true?

Ich habe den Namen jetzt in changeset/114612163 wieder auf "Hindenburgstraße" geändert, weil mir ein Anwohner versichert hat, dass das so noch auf den Schildern steht. Siehe auch https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=848743#p848743 - sobald die Schilder getauscht werden, können wir das ändern (dann aber bitte den Hindenburg in old_name behalten).

Dear Sosha1996, please immediately cease any edits to the Persian/Arabian gulf. Do not "fix" anything no matter how wrong you think it is. Propose any changes you think are necessary on the osm-talk list and let the DWG make the edit. Anything else will just cause unnecessary tensions in the community. Thank you.

Hallo Princeofpersia, in changeset/101250778 hatte ich darum gebeten, bei der Umbenennung der Hindenburgstraße strikt nach den Straßenschildern zu gehen und nicht nach Beschlüssen. Kannst Du bestätigen, dass auf den Straßenschildern mittlerweile "Loebensteinstraße" steht? Ansonsten bitte so lange den Hindenburg drin lassen, bis die Schilder geändert sind. Den von Dir als Quelle genannten Artikel kann ich leider nicht lesen (Paywall), dem Titel nach scheint es da gar nicht um die Hindenburg/Loebensteinstraße zu gehen?

Yes, the matter was not given sufficient time. Also, "Recently OSM carto tiles has been blocked in Iran by certain ISPs" (quote from mailing list article) should never be a reason for any change in OSM because we cannot let national ISPs decide what to show on our maps.

Hallo GelikaS, ich habe den Namen Deines Hotels auf "Parkhotel Ruhpolding" geändert, denn der Zusatz in Klammern, der die Angebote des Hotels beschreibt, gehört nicht auf die Karte. Ebenso ist es unnötig, dem Gebäude UND dem Hotel-POI einen Namen zu geben - es reicht, das beim POI zu tun.