I assume you were mucking about here. Deleting this 'park'.

Many of these are plainly not ditches. Please read guidance as advised before.

Hi nutan11

It would be useful you could answer any comments before renewing changes. More questions from me;

Do all these 'ditches' actually exist? From Bing imagery many of these seem actually to be roads or tracks.
What mapping source did you use for them. They do not seem to align with Bing imagery or the other ones we use. Much better resolution is possible with Bing than you have drawn at.
Have you looked at marking farm fields instead of their boundaries instead? See osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarmland

Thank you for this comment. Single trees are to marked as single trees, not woodland. Please read osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwood and osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforest and use the correct tags. If you still wish to mark the crown outline then propose a separate way of doing it at the talk page of osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree . Thank you.

Woodlands should be marked according their actual boundary, not in in perfect circle.

Hi nutan11

Why did you mark all these farm fields as coastline? I've reverted these now. If you are in doubt of the tag to use, please look in the wiki or ask in the forums or the mailing list. See https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=65 and osm.wiki/Mailing_lists

Thanks, from user indigomc

What is the purpose of this way?

Please add a descriptive comment when making changes. fddhdhgd means nothing to most of us.

Hi aintgd

In this changeset you added a road marked as 'highway=primary_link', overlaying an existing road, part of SH249. You seem to have been adjusting the existing on the basis of gps traces, but this should have been done by adjusting the existing road. Currently there are two roads marked. Please also review the use of 'highway=primary_link', this is not a link road. Thanks, user indigomc.

When you added this road and neighbouring minor roads, you added a new roads though there already were roads marked there there somewhat offset from yours. The earlier one has not been removed, and you changed their classification to unclassified from the previous 'residential'. Your added roads seem to be residential, not 'unclassified' as you have added it. Please review all these. Thanks.

Another existing road, wrongly tagged unclassified again, and the geometry seems to have been made worse. Comments appreciated please.

How did you 'add a new road' here?

Hi

In this and lots of your edits, you are changing roads that appear to be residential and are marked as such to 'unclassified'. You furthermore add edit comments stating that you 'added a new road', which is plainly wrong. Could you please explain?
Thanks.

Hi; please note that these roads are not motorways as you changed them. Please read the tagging guidelines at osm.wiki/Main_Page before making more such changes. I'm reverting this change.

Reverted pending an explanation.

Please follow guidelines when classifying roads. Thanks.

Hi

I've deleted this and your other advertising in Goa. I can also see what appears to be adverts for a restaurant in Crimea, you should remove that. Thanks you.

Hi Barlanki

Can you explain what you have put here please. An apartment in what seems to be in an empty field?

Also, the same questions apply to your other additions on the same date.

Hi Doc
The Mandovi was created flowing uphill at Dudhsagar!

Thanks. I think it was the names that I noticed, multiple instances of the same name next to each other. And I appear to have made my comment on the changeset without making the location clear, sorry if you had trouble working out what I was referring to.

Thank you for your reply. I'm still not clear what this is about. But that is probably because of my question being unclear (I assumed that the changeset referred to one relation only). I should have made it clear that I was talking about relation osm.org/relation/5881273 with name 'ORR", for which I cannot see a purpose. I can see a purpose for the full outer ring road relation referred to in my first comment however.