Is a bulk revert planned or should I revert the changesets one by one?

All changes in Bar Hill by this user should be reverted asap. I would advise a temporary ban to be placed on the user as well before more damage is done.

Why not simply remove or edit description tags? There is nothing to suggest these POIs were wrong. Can you bring them back?

Hi, can you comment more on the current status, please. Were these roads under construction, or planned at all, were they incorrect, temporary?
If I remember correctly, there are already some houses built there, so I would expect some residential roads, possibly under construction, to exist.

Hi Dan, thank you for your contributions. Good stuff. Some advices, I hope you don't mind: Please be careful when panning the view in the iD editor. It is *very* easy to accidentaly drag a node instead. Also, when you draw buildings, do try and "square" them afterwards (context menu or an "s" key).

This changeset has been reverted in
osm.org/changeset/58107526

The Houghton street has been manually corrected in osm.org/changeset/58085679

I just noticed it is your first changeset and you have requested a review. Sorry for the harsh feedback and I hope it will not discourage you from further contributions.

Nevertheless there are some issues with this changeset that should be resolved and I think the best way of doing it is to revert it and reapply the part that is useful.

Flagging this changeset for revert.

Several problems:
- hijacked place=town node (Romford)
- advertisemenent in the description tag
- dragged node (Houghton street)

Pity, because it contains otherwise useful address data.

Personally I think ndm's interpretation of project quality standards and copyright laws is overly strict and should not be treated as an official opinion of the osm community. (neither should be mine)

Indeed it is good to discuss larger contributions like this in public, and perhaps get yha involved too, but it is not by any means a requirement for further contributions.

Hi Craig, nice work. You may find it useful: https://youtu.be/tH3qzY4vSP8
For example, some of these houses look connected.

Nazwa budynku - blok 53. Czesc istniejacych budynkow byla w ten sposob nazwana juz wczescniej. Uzylem tej konwencji dla spojnosci z istniejacymi danymi.

W przeszlosci na budynkach byl napis "BL 53", obecnie jest to tylko "53" ale to mogloby sie mylic z numerem domu.

Hi, thank you for your contributions. Good stuff, especially house numbering and road name corrections.

When you edit a building shape please "square" it ("s" key after selecting a building) to align shape angles. Rotate (r), move (m), and copy-paste (c-c, c-p) operations can also be handy.

Nice work!

Hi Tim, two problems with this edit: (1) you used misaligned imagery and some roads and buildings have been moved to wrong locations (please align aerial photos to prevailing gps traces/major roads before editing, especially Esri ones), (2) although sharing nodes between areas and ways can be a matter of preference, you should not attach roads to major areas such as suburb and town boundaries. Last week I spent two hours untangling these only to see them all merged again (I'm OK with merging roads and smaller residential areas etc, it that's what you like).

I've just read the note. So, this change is indeed incorrect, sorry about that. Too many changes, too late at night. Next time I will enable the notes!

I will revert this changeset later today. If someone could do it now that would be greatly appreciated.

Can someone please verify the layout of the b4006 b4289 roundabout? The new version matches all aerials photos, but since the previous version and other online maps display the same "error", it may not be an error after all. If the layout has changed since the aerial photos were taken, I will promptly revert this change.

Hi, looks like you have accidentally moved this node: osm.org/node/1538178119

Thanks. There were multiple problems with this changeset so I have reverted it entirely in #55281179 (along with glglgl's changeset #54651523 that fixed other errors). As for the imagery, I was using both Bing and Esri (Esri showed an empty construction area). I've got confused by the fact that the area #4294836 is tagged as "industrial" and assumed the Bing's version must therefore be newer.

Hi, I see you are doing a lot of fantastic work these days. Just an advice - to make these buildings look tidier you can "square their corners" ("s" key in iD). Ctrl+c/v, r, m, y and t keys can be useful as well.

Thanks, much appreciated. Wouldn't have noticed it myself.