The almost-square residential areas in this changeset look wrong?

Can you explain the details of the "vandalism" you mention here?

Language like that is not acceptable in changeset comments. If someone points out an error in your mapping, rather than fixing it themselves, it is to prevent you from repeating the error over and over in the future. Often, engaging with a mapper and explaining what they did wrong is more work than fixing it - and it isn't made more attractive if in return people are called "useless git".

OSM is a huge project with hundreds of new mappers every day. If the existing mappers stopped expending their time to teach new(er) mappers how we do things in OSM, then the whole thing would quickly go down the drain.

So please, if you make a mistake and it is pointed out to you, then own it, fix it, and learn from it, and don't throw around offenses like you did above. Yes, some people can be over-zealous in protecting the map quality, but your immature reaction is not appropriate.

Frederik Ramm / OSMF Data Working Group

Please be generally careful when adding wikidata links. These *must* be manually checked; you cannot simply hop from an OSM wikipedia link to the wikidata item, because there are situations where the OSM wikipedia link points to something that is not conceptually identical with the object in OSM. It seems to be ok in this case - I am just saying this to make clear that under no circumstances must this be done in a scripted fashion.

In this changeset you accidentally made a park out of a whole residential area. The edit has been reverted by another user in the mean time.

This changeset adds lots of tombs and memorials world-wide. What is the source for this information?

Hallo NickNicky, bitte verwende nicht "Internet" als Quellenangabe, denn sehr viele Dinge, die man im "Internet" findet, sind tatsächlich urheberrechtlich geschützt! Vermutlich sind die Gebäude, die Du hier eingezeichnet hast, auch gar nicht aus "dem Internet" sondern vom Bing- Luftbild - dann kannst Du das ja so angeben. -- Vor zwei Wochen hatte Dich ein anderer Nutzer angeschrieben wegen der Verwendung von Daten aus einem "Flussführer". Bitte nimm dazu noch Stellung; wenn Dir keine Genehmigung vorliegt, müssen wir die aus dem Flussführer entnomenen Daten leider wieder löschen. Du kannst das entweder selber tun, oder uns eine Mail an data@osmfoundation.org schreiben, in der Du erklärst, welche Daten Du entnommen hast, dann kümmern wir uns darum.

It occurs to me that many Kaart Group mappers use the suffix "KG" in their user name. If you have a business or employment relationship with Kaart Group, please document this relationship in your user profile.

Hello DingoKG, in this changeset you have accidentally used a description ("correct name") that does not match your actual edit (adding a street).

You're making very many edits in diverse locations - edits that cannot come from aerial imagery. So, are you actually travelling to all these places to map, or what is your data source? It would be good if you could specify a source when uploading changes. Thank you!

Instead of changing wikipedia=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEDi to wikipedia=de:TEDi, the wikipedia tag should have been deleted because it does not point to an entry about this particular object (see: osm.wiki/Key:wikipedia#Secondary_Wikipedia_links)

My usual response to people requesting the deletion of objects is "as long as it is clearly visible from aerial imagery, deleting it does not make sense since it will only be re-added again by someone else". In this particular case, I wonder why you added a road which was 50% guesswork. It makes it harder for me to argue that "it will be re-added by someone else"...

Der Constable, what is the actual imagery source of these edits? The private driveway 672974607 is not visible on any of the three imagery sources that you specify.

I think it would have been ok to delete this relation with an empty "type" and not other tags and just one member, rather than adding "fixme" tags to it.

Hello SteffiB, hello yaelb, I notice that you have recently done a lot of "Pjs mapping" in South Africa, but you're using OSM tags in a very unusual way. You give strange names to buildings (maybe these are reference numbers but certainly not names). You use the name tag for other descriptive things (e.g. name=community leader) or you mark private gardens as landuse=allotments name=Private Yard. Please seehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only . You use the tags "door" and "gate" with a value of "1". All this is so non-standard that it really needs some explanation: What exactly are you doing here, and for what purpose? However, neither your changeset comments ("Pjs mapping") nor your user profiles point to any explanation of this project that you're doing. Who is organising this? Which documentation are you following that tells you to use things like "door=1" or "name=628/DN-016"? What is the extent of your project? Please get in touch with the Data Working Group at data@osmfoundation.org to discuss before you make any further edits. Thank you!

Hello SteffiB, hello yaelb, I notice that you have recently done a lot of "Pjs mapping" in South Africa, but you're using OSM tags in a very unusual way. You give strange names to buildings (maybe these are reference numbers but certainly not names). You use the name tag for other descriptive things (e.g. name=community leader) or you mark private gardens as landuse=allotments name=Private Yard. Please seehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only . You use the tags "door" and "gate" with a value of "1". All this is so non-standard that it really needs some explanation: What exactly are you doing here, and for what purpose? However, neither your changeset comments ("Pjs mapping") nor your user profiles point to any explanation of this project that you're doing. Who is organising this? Which documentation are you following that tells you to use things like "door=1" or "name=628/DN-016"? What is the extent of your project? Please get in touch with the Data Working Group at data@osmfoundation.org to discuss before you make any further edits. Thank you!

I have reverted this import. Please follow the import rules next time. The best way for newbies to learn that there are rules is to enforce them. If you want to re-import the data, fix it up before importing, not after. Thank you.

I don't think this edit was a good idea. Why replace the Baffin Bay node with a made-up area way? Just to make it show up on zoom level 2 (as of this writing, the only label to show on zoom 2 at all)?

Why did you change the "ele" value on node 67225940 but not consider removing the useless "time" tag at the same time? Is it possible that this is an automated edit where you didn't really look at each object you changed? In that case, where's the documentation & prior discussion please?

I am reverting this changeset for lack of previous discussion and adding a lot of buggy (and hence useless) tags. Please consult osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines for instructions on how to do proper imports.

DWG has reverted this import after receiving a complaint. Since edits made with this account were generally sensible in the past, I assume it must have been some kind of error condition that led to this large import. Please fix your process by adding suitable safeguards (like "if number of objects to create > 100 then issue warning to operator" or so).