This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52581215 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits by Zowie Polie

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52581215 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits by Zowie Polie

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52581215 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits by Zowie Polie

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52581215 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits by Zowie Polie

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52581215 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits by Zowie Polie

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52581215 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits by Zowie Polie

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52581215 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits by Zowie Polie

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52581215 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits by Zowie Polie

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52581215 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits by Zowie Polie

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52581215 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits by Zowie Polie

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52581215 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits by Zowie Polie

nyuriks, you have in the past made edits claimed to be "as per discussion on talk list" when the discussion on the talk list certainly not meant you had an all clear for the edit. Now you claim to make edits "per community discussion in telegram chat", which third parties cannot even check - for all i know, it was you and two sock puppets in that chat at 4am when nobody else was listening. If you want to use a chat discussion as the reason for making an edit, please put the relevant parts of that somewhere, so that others can see if the matter was indeed widely discussed in the community.

Dear osmviborg, the OSMF Data Working group has received several complaints over your use of the source "SDFE-data/survey/knowledge". You are editing all over Denmark. In the future, please make it clear for every edit whether this comes from a survey or from an external data set and if so, which one (SDFE-data is not enough, please specify exactly which data set or imagery you are using). Using "knowledge" in the source tag is ok but it is not plausible that someone has "knowledge" over building shapes all over Denmark. Specifying correct sources allows other mappers to verify what you're doing; an overly broad term like "SDFE-data/survey/knowledge" helps no-one I'm afraid.

Is "stadnina koni" really a tourist attraction?

osm.org/node/5088526122

And your "Wieża widokowa Joanna" has already be deleted by someone else.

Please: Only add data to OSM that is actually verifiable on the ground, and that is correct to your knowledge. Do not say something is a "tourist attraction" just to place it on the map.

Indeed. I'll have a look at reverting these two landuse areas.

This changeset has accidentally broken the geometries osm.org/way/485019675 and osm.org/way/157366833 - they now look "blocky" and have many self-intersections. Can you repair this yourself or would you like help in reverting the edit?

I don't think this is right. Aldi Süd and Aldi Nord are not two different operators of the same brand; the brand is different (different logo, different products on the shelves, etc). I'm unhappy that someone from England feels empowered by Wikidata to make judgements about German supermarkets that he has in all likelihood not seen in person. I am also critical of seeing, in operator:wikidata, an external ID that is worthless without reference to the external source. I propose to remove both operator:wikidata and brand:wikidata.

Dear rondock, there are two issues with this changeset. One is that you aren't giving an appropriate changeset comment - you write "details" but what you are doing is deleting all sidewalks. Your changeset comment should have been "Deleting sidewalks", and it should also have given a reason why you think they should be deleted. You haven't replaced them with appropriate sidewalk tags on the main roads, so - are there no sidewalks where you made the deletions? Are you of the opinion that sidewalks should not be mapped at all? If so, that's a discussion that should be has on a suitable public forum (e.g. the talk-it mailing list) and not expressed through random deletions of sidewalks.

Please note there's a development server at https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org that we recommend to be used for testing out new software. I don't know what your cloud solution entails but please keep in mind that it is very important to OSM that those who contribute information react to changeset discussions (like this) and react to messages sent in OSM. So please ensure that when you somehow allow venue owners to update OSM, OSM can also talk to these venue owners when necessary.

This is an undiscussed import that not only introduces a wrong key ("lenght") but also seems to be totally out of sync with available aerial imagery. Please follow the OSM import guidelines, and discuss such imports before you execute them. The imports will be reverted.