There's no way Bing imagery can tell you what the speed limit is. So if it's Bing Maps. it needs to be removed.

What is this? It's a blank area?

There are comments on your changesets, can you please reply to them? If not, then these questionable edits will need to be reverted.

It looks like ChrissW-R1 hasn't been active for about two months, so it's unlikely they'll reply. I think a revert of this probably makes sense, and either I can do it or you can Peter.

This is clearly an import. Did you go through the required Import Guidelines? osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

What is the source of the name of this object?

What is the source for this data? This looks a bit like an import to me.

Also, please do not put hashtag notes in objects.

This changeset is a bit strange. What is the source of this data?

It's not Bing, as indicated, because there's no way to know some of the information that's on the object, just from Bing.

In addition, the changeset comment does not explain the change at all.

sorry I was looking at the wrong changeset here

It is not possible that Bing imagery has the name of this cave entrance, so where are you getting it from?

This changeset includes a few tracks that have been deleted, and doesn't include a changeset comment. Can you please explain why you're deleting tracks?

All of your changesets have the same comment. This is not very helpful. Can you please use changeset comments that are meaningful and describe the specific thing that you've done?

Stalker61, why are you abbreviating the names of the lakes? They were already correct. As per the OSM naming guidelines:

osm.wiki/Names

Names should be unabbreviated.

This import is harming the emergency mapping efforts in Nepal. Reverting.

The fact that there is an earthquake doesn't change the fact that we, as a community, have not had the opportunity to vet this import. We have already had complaints about how it's been disruptive to the emergency mapping.

Will you revert it (and the other import changesets?

This appears to be an import. I don't see discussion of it as per the import guidelines. If I am wrong and there has been a discussion, please reply back to this changeset ASAP so we can resolve this.

If I don't hear anything soon, I will need to revert this changeset.

This changeset has been reverted.

This changeset has been reverted.

Helina, please respond ASAP to this changeset discussion or we will need to revert this and changset 30581704.

> signifying that track segment is part of a high speed line.

There's no evidence of that from what I read.

> To show my continuing good faith and hopefully to assuage the situation somewhat

Why don't you just do what everyone can agree is correct, and tag the route, rather than the individual ways? The route is absolutely high speed, but when you say the tracks are, that's where there's a disagreement.

To me, a track that's labeled high speed is like a road that's labeled max_speed.

Saying the route is high speed makes sense, but these individual tracks... I can't get behind that.

Steve, if you want a route to have a specific tag, that's fine, use a relation and apply the tag to that route as a whole.

By tagging each way, you are saying "This track is high speed capable", which isn't true for some of these ways. I don't know which tracks are high speed capable and which aren't, other than by my observation having taken this route that the train seems to slow down during certain times, and speed up during others (all while the train being on schedule). I also know that the news reports that Amtrak wants to upgrade tracks alone this route to make them high speed capable.

If you can find out which tracks are high speed capable and which aren't, then that would be wonderful, but until we have that, please stop tagging individual ways with these tags saying that they're capable of high speed travel.