Hello stadiaarcadia, I am currently investigating a bunch of bad edits in Ayodhya and I noticed that you made a lot of changes here. How did you become aware of the area - are you using some sort of quality control tool? I notice that you are mapping around the world, always with a changeset comment of "Missing buildings added." even if you, like in this changeset, make a lot of other changes as well. I'd like to understand how you are working.

While it currently looks likely that the cited DWG decision will be revised before too long, please do not edit OSM boundaries based on UN resolutions. OSM boundaries are ot (and never have been) decided by UN resolutions. Until the OSMF board or the DWG say otherwise, relation 60199 depicts actual Ukrainian control on the ground and excludes Crimea.

This river meanwhile has 106 object versions, all created by you. The reason seems to be that you're always adding a few points to the river, then saving it again. This inflates the number of versions of the river we have to store, and also falsifies your edit count. Please don't do that. Complete an object, then save it.

Please make sure that the "local knowledge" you are using is not a copyrighted data source, such as a leaflet distributed by the operators of the railway, as the data would otherwise have to be deleted again!

Lieber Johann, bitte sieh davon ab, Verschwörungstheorien in Changeset-Kommentaren zu verbreiten. Nur weil jemand schlampig arbeitet, darfst Du daraus nicht ableiten, dass er (Zitat) "einer Systematig [folgt], welche offensichtlich zum Ziel hat, OpenStreetMap gegenüber in der basemap in Qualität abzuwerten.". Danke.

Dear Bogdan Andrei, in this changeset you changed the name of the cathedral to "Catedrala Umilirii Neamului Românesc" which is not only wrong (and certainly not "local knowledge"), it is also offensive towards practitioners of the religion. There's no place in OSM for comments like that. Please don't do anything like that again.

Frederik Ramm
OSMF Data Working Group

Здравствуйте, як ви вже помітили, робоча група даних OSM нещодавно випустила нову резолюцію щодо Криму https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018-11-14_Crimea. Причина цієї зміни викладена на цьому посиланні. Політика ОСМ щодо оскаржуваних територій полягає в тому, щоб представляти ситуацію на місці (тобто, хто контролює певну область). Політика OSMF щодо суперечливих територій https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf прямо говорить: "наявність назви, межі місцезнаходження або опису в базі даних OpenStreetMap НЕ означає, що це є юридично правильним у будь-якій юрисдикції ". Ми не приймаємо рішення щодо того, яка сторона має контролювати певну територію, лише яка сторона наразі має контроль.

Якщо ви думаєте, що ця політика повинна змінити, вас заохочують обговорювати це з іншою частиною OSMcommunity - існують дискусії щодо переходу до списку розсилки https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/ та в ряд інших форумів на даний момент.

На додаток до меж "лінії контролю" в OSM, ви можете використовувати дані OSM разом з іншими даними, щоб відобразити межі, які ви хочете показати (у наведеному вище PDF-документі зазначається, що "наша структура бази даних дозволяє картувальникам легко ігнорувати це встановіть і заміните іншу, більш відповідну вашим потребам ").

Якщо вам потрібна допомога в тому, як досягти будь-якого з переліченого вище, або будь-які інші питання, будь ласка, зв'яжіться з Робочою групою з питань даних на dwg@osmfoundation.org.

Проте, будь-ласка, не просто змініть тут межі, щоб вони не збігалися з ситуацією на місці без будь-яких консультацій. Такі зміни будуть відновлені, і маппери, що виконують ці зміни, можуть не мати можливості редагувати OpenStreetMap.

З повагою,
Frederik Ramm
OSMF Data Working Group

Hello, as you've noticed, OSM's Data Working Group has recently issued a new resolution on Crimea https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018-11-14_Crimea . The reason for this change is outlined at that link - OSM's policy on disputed territories is to represent the on-the-ground situation (i.e. who has control of a particular area). The OSMF's policy on disputed territories https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf explicitly says "The existence of a name, boundary location or description in the OpenStreetMap database does NOT imply that that it is legally correct in any jurisdiction". We're not making a judgement as to which side _should_ have control of a particular area, only which side has currently _got_ control.

If you think that this policy should change you're encouraged to discuss this with the rest of the OSMcommunity - there are discussions on going on the talk mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/ and in a number of other forums at this moment.

In addition to the "line of control" boundaries in OSM you're welcome to use OSM data together with other data to represent the boundaries that you want to show (as the PDF linked above says "Our database structure enables map­makers to easily ignore this set and substitute another more appropriate to your needs").

If you'd like some help in how to achieve any of the above or have any further questions please contact the Data Working Group at dwg@osmfoundation.org.

However, please don't just change the boundaries here so that they don't match the situation on the ground without any consultation. Such changes will be reverted and the mappers performing those edits may be prevented from editing OpenStreetMap.

Best Regards,
Frederik Ramm
OSMF Data Working Group

Mir ist unklar, wieso hier der Way 648872200 als service=driveway nach einem Wendekreis ausgeführt wurde, aus dem Luftbild ist kein Unterschied zur Straße davor zu erkennen. Ich verstehe auch nicht, wieso u.a. die Gebäude NR. 23 und 36 kleine extra-Teile haben, während die in genau gleicher Bauart angebauten Garagen (?) der Gebäude 31 und 33 mit dem Hauptgebäude eine Einheit bilden. Steckt da ein System dahinter oder ist das Willkür?

Oh sorry, it appears that Bay County data is used for this task. Anyway, check with the task authors for proper attribution.

This is a data import. The OSMUS task manager page clearly says: "You must use a dedicated import account." - please follow the instructions next time. Also, the source you specified ("OpenStreetMap Carto (Standard)") is an error, it should likely be something that points to Microsoft building outlines?

Dear summgri: We had to remove the data you added in this changeset because it contained what appears to be the full names of residents. We can't add such personal data to OpenStreetMap. Perhaps you were not aware that your edits are visible publicly. To make a map with private additions, try umap.openstreetmap.fr!

The automated edit guidelines at osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct say:

Documentation should be placed on the wiki and the proposal should then be discussed on a suitable mailing lists:

Either talk (a general purpose mailing list)
or imports, when discussing imports or issues with previous imports
or if your edit affects only one country or territory then the national-language mailing lists, forums, or other standard communication methods for the territory affected by the change
or if your edit affects only a town or small region, the local mailing list, forums, or other standard communication methods of the area affected by the change.

So thank you for the list of things that you decided to edit and the rationale behind it - but next time it would be really good to post that upfront and ask for comments.

Ein guter Changeset-Kommentar für dieses Changeset wäre gewesen: "historic-Tags und Bilderlinks in Wertheim" oder so.

"Ergänzungen OF0" ist kein guter Changeset-Kommentar.

Has this large-scale and, I presume, mechanical edit been discussed and documented anywhere? If not, it would be against the rules and should be reverted.

Can you explain why you set the created_by tag in this changeset to "JOSM Fuehrer edition" - is this supposed to be funny?

Ok, let me rephrase: Let's keep value judgements out of it. You seem to think of the government as an "illegitimate dictatorship". This should not inform the decision of if and how we tag a local name; this decision should be based on reasons that are independent of whether the government is an illegitimate dictatorship or a stable democracy.

I am not interested in receiving private communications about this matter as it would not help the public debate. If you do not have an account on an image sharing platform, could you open one? Perhaps wikimedia commons - upload image and link with the article you have quoted? Also I note that the name on the English Wikipedia has only been changed to "At Dwala" today (and before that, it has been "Beni Douala" uncontested for 8 years).

Let's not get carried away with politics. We tend to favour local customs over centralist ideas, however a balance needs to be struck - I am sure that there would be also local groups wishing to "name" their village in ways that you, Tamazight2001, would not approve ;) -- yes, a photo uploaded to a photo sharing platform of your choice with a link posted here would be most welcome.

Dear Libor Bednarik, please provide a human-readable changeset comment when uploading edits. "#hotosm-project-3630 #MissingMaps #Bangladesh #Rodekruis #Redcross #infofolio20171213 #amstelveen20171212 #antea20171212" is not sufficient for a human being to understand what your edit is about. Apparently you have deleted a lot of data created a year ago. Why? Please also consider if the multitude of hashtags you are using is actually helpful. Thanks!

Dear jpgon, please explain what you mean by "new high definition images from authorized sources". The "imagery_used" tag that you have uploaded claims you were using Bing imagery. Is this not the case? Please specify exactly which source you were using and what kind of authorization you have for that.