You have improved the coastline for this island, but there's an out-of-sync admin boundary half overlapping the island. Did you notice that? It would have been good if, while modifying the island, you had corrected the admin boundary as well. (Admin boundaries are broken all over the place but if you start editing in an area, it can't hurt to fix them.)

You have aligned this one island with Bing imagery, but the three nearby islands were horribly out of sync with imagery and you haven't even made an attempt to repair them too. Why the focus on this one island? Have you made this edit as part of a MapRoulette task, and if yes, have you been instructed by anyone to do this?

You have neatly aligned this island with the imagery, but you left the jagged 6-node form of the other nearby Roberts Island unchanged. Why the focus on this one particular island, instead of repairing other things that catch your eye too? Have you made this edit as part of a MapRoulette task, and if yes, have you been instructed by anyone to do this?

You have aligned this island to Bing imagery but the nearby coastline, which is equally out of sync, has not been touched by you. Why the focus on this island? Have you made this edit as part of a MapRoulette task, and if yes, have you been instructed by anyone to do this?

You claim to have used Bing imagery for this changeset, but Bing imagery is too blurry to discern the shape that you have drawn so the source specification must have been a mistake. Can you clarify your source? Have you made this edit as part of a MapRoulette task, and if yes, have you been instructed by anyone to do this?

You claim to have used Bing imagery for this changeset, but Bing imagery in this area is so cloudy that the island shape cannot be discerned, so the source specification must have been a mistake. Can you clarify your source? Have you made this edit as part of a MapRoulette task, and if yes, have you been instructed by anyone to do this?

You fixed this island's coastline in this changeset, but you did not change anything about the nearby other coastlines which were equally imprecise. May I ask what was your workflow here - why were you interested in this one island but completely ignorant of the data around it? Have you made this edit as part of a MapRoulette task, and if yes, have you been instructed by anyone to do this?

You claim to have aligned something to Bing in this changeset, but neither Bing nor Mapbox imagery show anything else than a large blurred area here, certainly nothing from which one could move a node. The source specification must have been a mistake. Can you clarify your source? Have you made this edit as part of a MapRoulette task, and if yes, have you been instructed by anyone to do this?

Hi, you have modified a large number of buildings that had been tagged "area=yes" and you put "building=yes" instead. However the Mapbox imagery you are using shows many more buildings in the area. May I ask why you chose to edit the existing buildings but not to add the missing buildings? Is there a particular aim to these edits? Are you with the "missing maps" project that added the buggy data initially?

You claim to have used Bing imagery for this changeset, but Bing imagery just shows a blurry cloud of white and you can't even see that there's supposed to be an island here so the source specification must have been a mistake. Can you clarify your source? Have you made this edit as part of a MapRoulette task, and if yes, have you been instructed by anyone to do this?

Hello, may I inquire about the source of these added POIs? You have added a bunch of restaurants, cafes and gift shops across the planet, without names or specifying where the data came from.

Hi jcaviborg, it appears that this change set touches a lot of objects without actually changing them (other than the source tag is removed from the objects). What does that mean? Just to pick an example, on osm.org/way/220619614/history you remove "source=bing", and your own changeset comment says "source=Geodata/survey/knowledge". Does that mean you have somehow resurveyed the way or compared it against a more recent imagery or other data source?

I have looked that the Bing imagery surrounding some of the points and found nothing visible on the ground that I could have used to align the image though. I think the matter deserves a more thorough discussion. We'll revert it for now but that doesn't mean it can never come back.

The survey points seem to contain this message: "Não alterar: coordenadas originais do IBGE". I wonder why they are imported in OSM at all; what use is data that you cannot alter in OSM? Anyone interested in doing anything with the survey points can just use the shape file.

I have also noticed that this import seems to have first been raised on talk-br on March 9, two days before the import was started. Problems like a collection relation with 37k members would have been found before the import if people had actually had time to look at what was proposed.

This import is badly executed. In blatant contravention to the RABA-KGZ import page on the Wiki, polygons have NOT been combined with neighbouring ones (e.g. osm.org/way/479459103 ends clearly at a grid boundary), and data has NOT been visually compared with existing stuff (see how osm.org/relation/7054112 is imported without moving the street to its proper location, or see the old "shingle" polygon here osm.org/way/428692925 which now overlaps imported data). Please: 1. stop your imports immediately; 2. fix your existing imports before you continue to import new stuff (or remove your imports if you don't have the time to fix them), and 3. if you think that doing the import *right* is too much work, then don't do it at all and wait until someone else has the energy to do it right.

I have started a discussion on the tagging mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-March/031453.html

How did you manage to draw this building outline with 40 points when all that the Bing imagery shows is a construction site? Is it possible that you forgot to specify a data source?

Could you please explain the source of this data. It appears that you have added a large number of buildings, but forgot to tag them correctly. You've also added a large number of duplicate nodes. It looks like this might be an import that is not following our imports policy osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines and the lack of discussion has lead to a number of errors in the data.

I'm afraid I will have to remove these imports because they haven't been discussed with the community (as mandated by the import policy), and (probably as a consequence of such lack of discussion) are faulty, using invalid tags and duplicating information that already is in OSM.