I am concerned that your adding of area data for motorways will make editing unnecessarily complicated. We don't normally do that in OSM - have you discussed these plans with the Polish community?

I did a spot-check of some of the "fixed" objects and found that in many cases, only a part of the original problem had been repaired - sometimes a tag was fixed but the location was still in the middle of the road, or vice versa. In your particular example, you did fix the amenity tag but you left an advertising tracking ID in the "linkedin" URL. Now of course you can't be expected to even detect such rubbish but I thought that there's bound to be similar problems with all the "fixed" objects, and better to get rid of them altogether.

You moved the node "satyashor shiva mandir" a little bit - why? The Bing imagery doesn't really agree with the new position. Did you notice that the node was tagged "addr;city" (instead of addr:city), or that it is part of an useless, untagged rectangle that you could have deleted? I am trying to understand (1) how did you stumble across this particular object and (2) why did you then move it a bit but not fix the obvious bugs? What is the purpose of this edit?

Eliot, feel free to point out those non-discussed other imports and we can deal with them appropriately. -- I notice that you've placed "ref" tags on these address points which is highly unusual and seems to contradict your own wiki page. Don't add "ref" tags.

Yes, the bulk was deleted in osm.org/changeset/49484818 but some that had been edited by other people remained; it turned out that those edited by others were mostly still useless and they were then deleted in this changeset.

Hello MTBGuru, could you explain more about this "place of worship" named "ALMIGHTY 2WHEEL GODS" that you have added here? I could not discern anything on the aerial imagery that you quoted as a source. Please note that adding fictional data to OSM throws a bad light on *all* your contributions and they might be removed as a consequence.

Hello MTBGuru, can you please explain the source for the names you have assigned in this changeset, especially "Mat(t) Sav Construction Climb", "Tily's Run", and "Princess Kubiak"? As you surely are aware, mapping names requires verifiability, and you can't just add any name you like. If I were to ask a local mountain biker, would they confirm these names or have you made them up?

Hello MTBGuru, could you please explain why you believe that the correct name for this path is "Princess Kubiak", as you seem to have asserted in multiple edits over the past years?

Are you aware of the guidelines about "mechanical edits"? Please don't make large-scale changes like this without looking at the objects you're editing. See osm.wiki/What's_the_problem_with_mechanical_edits%3F for an explanation of the issue.

Hallo donovaly, Du hast bislang nicht auf osm.org/user_blocks/1344 reagiert. Bitte lasse uns bis zum 18.6.2017 eine Liste aller Änderungen, bei denen Du Dich auf GWR-Daten oder andere nicht explizit freigegebene Quellen gestützt hast, zukommen. (Es reicht auch eine wie auch immer algorithmisch verarbeitbare Beschreibung a la "alle Edits in diesem geografischen Bereich und diesem Zeitraum" o.ä,) Ansonsten müssen wir annehmen, dass *alle* Deine Edits betroffen sind und werden sie entfernen.

This changeset has uploaded alomost 5000 objects tagged as "shop=TD". What does that mean? And what does the highway tag with a numeric value mean? Further, you have not specificed a data source. Is this from a survey? If not, are you aware of the OSM data import policy?

Hello 25or6to4, it appears that you're importing data from an NRHP data set in this and other similar change sets. Could you please ensure that the import is properly documented on the Wiki (I checked and at least it didn't seem obvious), and that you specify proper sources when making the edits? The edits in this changeset cannot possibly have come from the two sources you specified ("Texas Orthoimagery, Bing").

Hallo Miple, es gibt vermehrt Zweifel an der urheberrechtlichen Eignung Deiner Quellen. Bitte gib künftig routinemäßig bei Deinen Edits die Quelle an - "survey", wenn Du es selbst vor Ort erfasst hast, oder eben welches Luftbild es ist, oder bei Straßennamen oder Grenzverläufen die zulässige Quelle. Ansonsten riskierst Du, dass alle Deine Edits - auch die, die Jahre zurückliegen - zur Sicherheit entfernt werden müssen, um OSM vor rechtlichen Schwierigkeiten zu schützen. Bitte nimm das Ernst - Abschreiben von Quellen, die nicht explizit dafür freigegeben sind, ist kein Kavaliersdelikt. Dass irgendwas irgendwo auf einer Webseite steht, ist in keinem Fall ausreichende Berechtigung, es bei OSM einzutragen!

Hello jeijei66, it would be super helpful if you could make it a habit to add meaningful changeset comments to your edits, instead of ".". See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for a more detailed explanation.

Hallo Graf Westerholt, bitte beschränke Dich mit solchen Änderungen künftig auf Gegenden, in denen Du Ortskenntnis besitzt.

It appears that this changeset accidentally moved a large number of nodes. Strangely, the longitude has not been changed, and the latitude has been reduced by approximately 0.01 (~ 1 kilometre) for all nodes. See http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/9232412.png (temporary link) for a screenshot of the resulting breakage. It would be very good to find out how this could happen, so that the software you have used could be improved to avoid such issues in the future!

Hello justascii, your data import technically violates the import guidelines which require prior discussion. It is much appreciated that you seem to be local to the area so you know what you're importing - but still, before you import anything larger, please check out and follow osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines to have a second pair of eyes checking the license and method. For example, you seem to have imported as "house" something that is most likely just a garden shed osm.org/way/494953331. Also many buildings seem to be "over-noded" (they have more than 4 nodes even if they're perfectly square), and some of the county GIS data seems quite out of symc with Bing (e.g. the house just west of the above-mentioned shed) - it would be interesting to find out just how old the county data is.

I'm afraid this, again, is a change that breaks the map instead of improving it. I will revert your problematic edits now.

Und die DWG hat sich hier in Verbindung gesetzt: osm.org/user_blocks/1344

Wenn wir klären können, woher dieser User seine Informationen hat, ob die Quelle zulässig ist, und wenn er aufhört, bei seinen Edits so viele Kollateralschäden zu verursachen, dass sie sich ständig Leute über ihn beschweren, dann können wir ja einige/viele/alle seiner Edits wiederherstellen. Dazu bedarf es einer gewissen Einsicht mit Mithilfe des Users, die bislang trotz mehrfacher Aufforderung nicht erkennbar war.