I will not be drawn into an argument about what the local name for "Pacific Ocean" is but you have already violated your parole by removing some of these names a second time after being told not to; should you attempt to fiddle with these names again, you will be barred from further contributions.

The were especially concerned about the service road that parallels the A247 from Summers to the Clandon Park car park, and said that this was private also.

The same user has performed similar deletions again which I reverted in osm.org/changeset/146081198, and sent them a 0-hour block message.

Hello there mgrubbsjr, in this changeset you have deleted a whole number of objects, only to re-create them again with a slight offset. Don't do that - it loses the history of objects. For example, it now looks as if you were the original author of osm.org/way/1238440645 when in truth that very same object had been created over five years ago by another user osm.org/way/676698134. Additionally, that other user had explicitly recorded this to be a sandy area - information that is now lost after your edit. Same with osm.org/way/676698137 which was explicitly marked as being grass, and which you replaced with the near-identical osm.org/way/1238440642, now without that additional information. The ID editor has support for moving features if they are misaligned, or if ID's capabilities are insufficient for what you want to do, check out the JOSM editor. Keep in mind, however, that aerial imagery can easily be off by 5 meters - if you cycle through different backgrounds in ID you will see how each imagery is slightly different. Do not blindly trust one imagery over the other without having calibrated it with the help of precise GPS tracks.

Deletion reverted - see osm.org/user_blocks/15565

Hello and welcome Darya Khan! Please don't put things like "d10" in the "name" field. If the house has the number 10, then there's an extra "house number" field for that. The "name" field is usually left empty for residential properties.

Also, you don't have to press "save" for every single house; you can draw a handful of houses and then save all at once.

Hello Ivan Tarasenko, are you the same person who previously used the "asdgvbfhdg" account? It would be a good idea to avoid making mini-uploads for every building... better to create 10 or 20 buildings and then upload them at once.

Hey there asdgvbfhdg, no need to click the "save" button after every individual building you upload. You can create 10 or 20 buildings and then upload them all together!

Hello there, please do not do wholesale imports of MS building footprints through the RapID editor. You must check the data for correctness before you upload. In this changeset, at least the buildings osm.org/way/1237882803 and osm.org/way/1237882828 are definitely incorrect and should not have been added like that.

Dear Muhammad Zeeshan Khan,

hello and welcome to OSM!

In OSM, we use small letters and capital letters - not capital letters only. A house would be "House" but not "HOUSE". But moreover, we only use the name field for actual names like "Sunshine House" or "Mermaid Hotel", not for numbering like "HOUSE60". House numbers belong on the addr:housenumber field or alternatively some "ref" tag but not in the name.

The same is true for grassland areas; they would not normally be called "PLOTxx". Use the grassland tag only for actual grassland, not for building plots. Building plots are not generally recorded in OSM at all.

Hello there Dunkaist, our "on the ground" policy means that in order to carry a name:be tag, something must actually carry a sign or advertise itself using that name, or at least be widely known under that name. "Language classes at school and existing OSM data" are not generally a sufficient reason to add or modify a "name:be" tag for a pub in the middle of Ukraine...

Regarding the question of where to direct legal correspondence to: all the details are at https://blog.openstreetmap.org/about/, but I would not advise that course of action before other less confrontational avenues have been exhausted since it is unlikely to yield results in any meaningful timeframe and would unnecessarily stir up tensions between the map making community and the CdA Tribe.

Hello, Frederik Ramm from OSMF's Data Working Group here. I have reverted the deletions that were mentioned here because there appears to be a consensus among OSM community members that the deletions do not have merit.

Jason Brown, thank you for being honest with us and straightforward about whose interests you represent; others in the same situation as you sometimes try to edit OSM in "stealth mode" which is not conductive to trust.

My revert does not mean that the abandoned railway lines are here to stay; I would invite everyone to take the discussion to the public forum at community.openstreetmap.org and find an amicable solution there. (In fact, I have frequently removed abandoned railway lines from OSM where they were added by railway fans but in practice they had long been built over - things that only exist in memory do not belong in OSM.)

My revert does, however, mean that it is not a property owner's right to decide what does and does not get recorded about their property in OSM - no matter if the property owner is a smallholder, a nation state, or an Indian Reservation. The land owner owns the land but we own the map, and what happens in OSM is decided by the OSM community.

OSM wants to be a good map - and a good map should never mislead its users into believing they could do something which in reality they can't. So the CdA tribe and OSM have the a shared interest here and I am sure a solution can be found.

Hallo mxkllnr, in diesem Changeset hast Du eine von Komoot gesetzte Zugangsbeschränkung entfernt und "in Prüfung durch Gemeinde" kommentiert. Nach Aussage des Grundstückseigentümers, der sich jetzt an die DWG gewendet hat, befindet sich hier überhaupt kein Weg. Auf dem Luftbild kann ich (wegen Wald) auch nichts erkennen. Kannst Du mehr zu dieser "Prüfung" sagen, von der Du im Changeset-Kommentar sprichst?

Reverted & block issued in osm.org/user_blocks/15523

Reverted & user blocked in osm.org/user_blocks/15522

Dear TawhidAhmad, in this changeset you have deleted the sidewalk north of Sugarloaf Parkway along the YMCA facility (osm.org/way/1227227158 et al.). Why? The sidewalk is still visible on aerial imagery. Your changeset comments are not helpful; everyone who edits OSM wants to enhance the data quality! What we're looking for in a changeset comment is "deleted sidewalk because it has been demolished" or something like that, so people like me don't have to ask questions like this!

Dear Zorina Pachuau, in this edit you have re-drawn a number of boundaries in a detailed way; what is the source for this information? Surely these boundaries are not visible on aerial imagery?

Hallo, die Badestelle, die Du hier hinzugefügt hast, liegt lt. einer Zuschrift an die DWG in einem Schutzgebiet und das Baden ist hier nicht erlaubt. Kannst Du dazu etwas sagen?

Please specify the correct source of this edit. "survey" is not a plausible source for such a national park boundary - or did you walk along a fence with your GPS?