I have summarily reverted this change in changeset 120683519 based on a pattern of POI edits that remove information and also appear to be copying from Google Maps. Also, based on your recent changeset comments, I should remind you that it is expected that you communicate with other editors in the community respectfully. If you believe this action was in error, please email data@openstreetmap.org

The reason that users are complaining of vandalism is because you removed tree objects and changed more specific shop tags (example, shop=tattoo) to shop=yes. This removes data from the database for data consumers that use it and that's why users are upset.

Remember that there are many data consumers, so if you remove a piece of information to satisfy one data consumer, it removes it from all data consumers.

OpenStreetMap aims to create a database of geographic facts. If a particular application or service is not using OpenStreetMap data in a way that you think they should be, the correct course of action is to notify the developers of that application or service so that it can be corrected.

Hi again. I've just gone through and bulk downloaded all the the objects that you've tagged as shop=yes to either add the correct shop tag or to restore it to its previous value. Please do not change valid shop tags to shop=yes, this makes the map worse. We want to make nice clean maps that EVERYONE can use, and that includes having valid shop tags :)

Hello,
In this changeset, you changed "San Pedro Lock & Key" from shop=locksmith to the generic shop=yes. I am reverting this change because this is clearly a locksmith. Also, please use the form addr:city=Los Angeles rather than the upper case LOS ANGELES, for consistency.

Reverted in changeset 120645205

If you're looking to establish an international consensus, it would be best to clearly describe the issue you're trying to solve, how you propose to address it, and post it to the global tagging mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Mateusz, Spaghetti, and I are not the ones you need to form a consensus with. What we are describing and defending here is simply the current global status quo.

It is customary to map what is on the ground in OSM, in accordance with global conventions on how to map. And that convention is not to draw separate ways for road sections that are separated only by painted lines. If highway ramps are mapped differently in Quebec, that would make navigation software work differently in Quebec than it does in the rest of the world, which is quite undesirable for a global project.

The amount of snowfall in Quebec is quite irrelevant.

I don't understand the rationale here. There is specific tagging for lanes that's perfectly capable of supporting autonomous vehicles or navigation software.

Hi there - I've made a few fixes to boundaries out of this changeset. Some of the boundary relations were missing "roles" of "outer" or "inner" which are required. Unfortunately iD does not warn you of this error...

Hi there. I noticed that some of the boundaries you added were missing relation role entries (for example, Madison Township fixed in osm.org/changeset/120396640).

Boundary relation member ways should have roles "outer" and "inner" as appropriate.

Hello! This edit broke the boundary of Rosebery because two of the member ways are missing relation roles. Did you notice if the the editor reported any warnings when editing the boundary?

In general it's not typical practice to tag conservation easements (which is what it sounds like these are) as nature reserves, and there has been debate on whether these are even objects that should be mapped. The closest tagging that would probably make sense is landuse=conservation, and even that is probably controversial.

There is a very active chat community and mappers talk to each other :) I would invite you to join Slack (slack.openstreetmap.us) or Discord (https://discord.gg/openstreetmap) for a more interactive experience.

Hi, you mapped a bunch of objects that are tagged as nature reserves, can you clarify what these are?

Hello, can you explain what this object is?

osm.org/relation/3722312

Hello,

Unfortunately this edit broke the boundary polygon of Bixby. I've corrected it in osm.org/changeset/120143395

This is an issue with the iD editor, unfortunately it gives you no warning when this happens (see https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8286)

I would strongly advise you to use JOSM when editing boundaries!

Broken boundary of Birmingham fixed in osm.org/changeset/120143296

Hi there - please note a number of your recent boundary edits have left broken boundaries behind. iD is not a good choice for boundary edits, because it doesn't validate that the boundary is correctly constructed. I would strongly recommend that you use JOSM when editing boundaries, as it has full validation capabilities.

See https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8286 for documentation of the current issue with iD.

Sock puppet documented at osm.wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/Sockpuppets

Harassments account krusefahrer documented at osm.wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/Sockpuppets