Please clarify what the comment "eo6 e76 a3 a5fwegh" means.

Dear TVGRECCE, the addition of two ramps osm.org/way/1286988244 and osm.org/way/1286988246 is not supported by aerial imagery. I will remove them again. Please only add ramps like this if there is physical separation between the indivdiual lanes.

Also, when deleting large amounts of data, please provide an explanation in the changeset comment (you put "a").

Dear itsmohdx, your recent edits have broken a few boundaries. I have repaired the damage but please be more careful in the future. Thank you!

Sigmatoja, please use a more respectful tone in discussions. "gówno mnie obchodzi" or (from a different changeset discussion) "No i chuj" is not how we talk to each other in OSM, and the DWG will suspend your editing privileges if that happens again. (Ticket#2024051810000261)

Hello, in this changeset you have added just 6 structures which claim to be parking garages but most of them use over 200 nodes. Please remember that OSM's precision is only +/-10cm anyway so there's no need to add that level of detail. Also, these structures are not visible on ESRI imagery which leaves your claimed source of "field survey"; may I inquire just how you conducted a field survey here that ended up in such precision? Is it possible that you are copying from building plans?

Hello there, in this changeset you have added over one hundred mini grass areas using something like 8000 nodes in total. Please don't do that; grass areas of just a few square metres are not of interest to OSM and larger areas should be modeled as one large area, not dozens of smaller ones. Also, don't place a source tag on every single object, the source tag on the changeset itself is sufficient.

Thanks for looking into this! I think there might have been a misunderstanding between me and the complainant. Initially they wrote it was a "gravel road" unsuitable for HGVs. Now they wrote it was "paved"! Which definitely seems to align with the imagery you have dug up. Apparently the problem is that routing engines recommend turning off the US61 here, and going via Veterans road onto US36, rather than using the Hannibal junction. Maybe it is a case of missing speed limits.

In case you hadn't seen this, the US local chapter of the OpenStreetMap Foundation has an initiative going that deals with conflict points of recreation and land management in OSM, here https://openstreetmap.us/our-work/trails/

This is really something that we need to take up with the app developers then; the fact that OSM data is misinterpreted by an app must not lead to falsifying OSM. (Just to be clear, I was not talking about boundaries, but instead adding the "access=private" tag to anything marked as a trail. Of course if people drive their OHV along something that's not even marked as a trail that's another issue... still, knowledge about where these washes are can save lifes in an emergency, and they should not be deleted from OSM just because someone cannot handle the information responsibly.)

Hello chandlerswift, when you changed "Paris Gravel Road" to surface=asphalt in this changeset, did you ACTUALLY survey that or was that just a guess because you thought that all secondary roads were paved? Just asking because DWG has a complaint about this gravel road now frequently being used by HGVs to bypass Hannibal.(Ticket#2024052010000578)

(When I wrote "reverted a couple of waterways" above, what I meant was "removed")

Dear DT29, in this changeset you have reverted a couple of waterways inside the area marked as "Mojave Desert Land Trust". Your changeset comment does not sufficiently explain why those waterways should not exist so I have reverted your edit.

Also, you have deleted a couple of trails inside the area when their existence seems perfectly clear on aerial imagery; if these really do not exist at all, then you should have explained that in your changeset comment. The fact that something is private property is not sufficient reason for deleting it from OSM; instead, you can mark the respective objects as "private access" in the editor which keeps them on the map, but outside of what popular hiking apps would recommend.

(DWG Ticket#2024052010000498)

I have reverted the change as suggested, because the claim that the area in question was actually controlled by Nepal was not substantiated.

apologies, the changeset comment should have been: revert changes to India/Nepal border after the Nepalese position received no support in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/india-territory-in-uttarakhand-state/113008

Hello alfred476, not every change to a boundary is automatically a reason for a revert. If you revert changes to boundaries in the future, please be more specific about why that particular change is assumed to be a mistake, or link to a forum discussion or an unsuccesful attempt to engage the mapper in question.

Dear Marko, OSM would prefer to keep the Asterisk out of Kosovo's name. We are not bound by any UN resolutions; we use the name that people living in the area use. I have reverted your change. (DWG Ticket#2024051710000173)

Hello LockOnGuy, most of the areas deleted here were introduced into OSM less than a month ago, only two are older (and these have been reinstated). The others remain deleted. The IDF does not have jurisdiction to install any kind of zones in Gaza; where they do so nonetheless, it is part of an ongoing military conflict and we don't want to map ongoing military conflicts. If any danger areas, buffer zones etc. remain after the military conflict is over, we can look at mapping them.

Better visualisation here https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=151163703&zoom=18&lat=41.92986&lon=-76.11647&layers=B000000TTTFT

Just to understand this better, is the "connector" of which DUGA says it is the "main thing that has been removed" this one: osm.org/way/147099265/history? Because that one has never been touched by user Messinian...?