This edit left a gap in the boundary of Oklahoma City. Please be sure to run the JOSM validator when editing.

Never mind, it's good, I was looking at an old QA output. Sorry for the false alarm!

Hello,

Are you able to fix the border of Anna, TX?

osm.org/relation/6601316

Hello,

Please provide a descriptive changeset comment, so that reviewers can understand what is being changed.

Completed in osm.org/changeset/125711868

Those of you that know me can attest: I don't care about process or procedures or what people describe as "rules" on the project. I tend to think imports and bulk/mechanical edits are a good thing. If a rule is inconvenient to what the community wants and accepts, I freely ignore it. However, when I get that wrong, I accept the community's judgment.

You must understand that we are part of a community that deeply cares about making a high-quality map and working together to build this thing together. OSM is a local endeavor with people that care very much about data quality in areas that are important to them.

You have consistently thumbed your nose at members of the community that care about the quality of data, and are consistently making large-scale and bulk edits that US-based mappers are objecting to. You are argumentative and defensive when presented with criticism. In short, you don't make meaningful attempts to ensure that your edits are welcome by US-based mappers.

I'm pretty confident that a US-based mapper behaving in this manner in Germany would find their edits summarily reverted on short order with a terse admonishment from the DWG with repeat offenses resulting user blocks of increasing severity.

Please, accept the extreme patience that the US community has extended to your bulk mapping as an opportunity to reconsider how your editing approach is viewed here in the US.

I ask that you do two things:

1. Work with the US community to share and vet your plans for bulk editing BEFORE doing so.

2. Accept "no" for an answer if you find that your plans are not enthusiastically received.

We would rather have you as a productive part of our community than the current adversarial relationship in which mappers feel that they have no other choice to address their concerns than to send complaints to the DWG.

If you feel my stance and actions are unreasonable, I invite you to submit your objection to the Data Working Group at data@openstreetmap.org, and I will happily submit to and comply with whatever judgment they determine.

The justification is that the tag provides no specific meaning not already present in highway=service.

The community consensus is that service=driveway2 is nonsense.

I disagree.

Hi, what is "North Woods Boundary" and where did you get that geometry from?

Hi,

I noticed that you used waterway=riverbank to tag river areas. This tag is deprecated in favor of natural=water + water=river.

Note that JOSM reports this warning starting in version 18519, so in the next version of the editor, this will come up as a warning.

Thanks for taking this on!

Thanks for the note, I think we got it squared away. I removed the fragment relation and reordered the actual watershed boundary relation, which is osm.org/relation/12122180

Can you be more specific?

Hi, there are a couple problems with these recent changesets. First off, you're using waterway=riverbank, which is deprecated. The current tagging is natural=water + water=river

Additionally, you put a name tag on the river area. River areas should not get a name tag, only the main waterway=river way.

Is this change consistent with osm.wiki/Proposal:_New_York/Highway_Classification ?

While listed in the proposal namespace, it's been so extensively discussed by NY mappers to the point where it's effectively a consensus position.

Looks like the Mumbai boundary is broken, not sure if this change caused the issue or an earlier change...

This changeset broke the city boundary of Anna, TX, are you able to correct it?

Hi, where is this import documented?