This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 63360720, 63359357, 63361699 where the changeset comment is: revert buggy automatic edit to traffic sign directions by yopaseopor - contrary to what is claimed, there is no consensus on the tagging list about this

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 63360720, 63359357, 63361699 where the changeset comment is: revert buggy automatic edit to traffic sign directions by yopaseopor - contrary to what is claimed, there is no consensus on the tagging list about this

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 63360720, 63359357, 63361699 where the changeset comment is: revert buggy automatic edit to traffic sign directions by yopaseopor - contrary to what is claimed, there is no consensus on the tagging list about this

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 63360720, 63359357, 63361699 where the changeset comment is: revert buggy automatic edit to traffic sign directions by yopaseopor - contrary to what is claimed, there is no consensus on the tagging list about this

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 63360720, 63359357, 63361699 where the changeset comment is: revert buggy automatic edit to traffic sign directions by yopaseopor - contrary to what is claimed, there is no consensus on the tagging list about this

Ach, ncohwas zum Thema "Stalking" - bitte nicht versuchen, andere Mapper mit juristischen Drohungen an berechtigter Qualitätskontrolle zu hindern. Es gibt "Stalking" in OSM, aber wenn einer nachweislich in der Vergangenheit Mist gebaut hat, ist es völlig legitim, wenn andere Mapper sich dessen Arbeit genau anschauen.

Verstehe ich das richtig, hier wurden irgendwelche nicht fertig verarbeiteten Daten mal zu OSM hochgeladen, mit dem Plan, sie später noch zu überarbeiten, weil, wenn man versucht, die Daten vor dem Upload zu korrigeren, die Absturz-Wahrscheinlichkeit zu hoch ist?

Aber wenn das so ist, warum hat der Autor die offenbar notwendigen Verbesserungen nicht direkt im Anschluss durchgeführt, sondern stattdessen zahlreiche andere Edits gemacht?

Und was hat das mit addresshistory.org zu tun?

Ich schlage vor, solche inhaltlichen/geschichtlichen Auseinandersetzungen anderswo zu führen als in OSM-Changesets. Es wäre höchst unerfreulich, wenn "Reichsbürger" und ihre Gegner auf die Idee kommen, auf dem Rücken von OSM ihre Differenzen auszufechten.

Wieso steht im Changeset-Kommentar etwas von "Reichsgrenzgebiet (bis 1918)"? Wäre es nicht sinnvoll, den heute gebräuchlichen Namen der Gegend anzugeben? Gibt es für die Wahl dieses Namens einen vernünftigen Grund, oder ist das nur Provokation?

In what way does this changeset which removes a single node that I never touched "repair vandalism" as you claim in the changeset comment?

Dear Papou, if you find that any of my edits amount to "vandalism", please let me (or the DWG at data@osmfoundation.org if you prefer) know and I/we will look into the issue. Adding a ton of changesets that call out a particular mapper by name - whether it is me or anyone else - without even contacting them beforehand about the perceived problem is really bad style! The only change I can see that I ever made to these admin boundaries is removing name tags from them, because there is a consensus among mappers that admin boundary ways should not usually carry name tags.

Apropos, please stop introducing name tags to administrative boundary ways.

The "small concession" you are asking is essentially for us all to lower our standards so you can have your fun. We will not do this, and if you make allowing your fantasy parks a condition of your further contribution, then we have to pass on that further contribution.

Also, a general request, even if not everyone here might be grown-up let's as least act as if we were, and skip the frequent "lol", "lmao" etc., as well as any expletives.

As a rule of thumb, if something is less than one acre, it would need very good reasons to be marked a park. One such reason would be if it was listed as a park somewhere on the web site of the city, or commonly known in the neighbourhood as "xyz park", or if there was a sign (that isn't self made by the mapper).

This sidewalk osm.org/way/628610759 is not connected to the road network, or any sidewalks across the road, except in the NW corner. This may look pretty on the map but it foils any attempt at pedestrian routing, and certainly doesn't match what I see on the aerial imagery.

osm.org/way/202635077 doesn't seem to be a building to me on the aerial image.

None of osm.org/way/617356591 and the neighbouring footways are discernible on the Bing aerial imagery that you claim to have used. Where does the footpath information come from, and are you sure it is correct?

A little grass strip around a footway (osm.org/way/628472148) is not a park, please don't map it as such.

Please don't give buildings a name like "housing" (osm.org/way/602285887). Use building=residential (or house, or apartments, or similar) instead, and do not specify a name.

Please don't give buildings "names" like "825 NE Crest Dr". Instead, use "addr:housenumber" and "addr:street" tags for that.