These "Association_of_ Pharmacy_Organizations" prefixes do not seem to make sense to me and this discussion has not managed to explain the use of this rare prefix. I would probably delete something like this if I encountered it in areas where I map. @muschel however, since this is not a country where you or I speak the language - next time maybe sufficient to just place a "note" in such cases to make the community aware of non-standard tags, and move on.

These tags have been moved into a description tag by user mueschel. Since neither First_Small_Prayer_data nor the other tags appear anywhere else in OSM, have not been discussed on any OSM lists, and are not documented on the wiki, putting them in a "note" or "description" makes sense. As for completion_of_construction_date, would the established start_date perhaps make more sense? Everyone in OSM may invent their own tags but that doesn't mean there's an automatic right for any such tags to remain unchanged. If you think that it is important for orthodox churches to have the dates of the first big prayer and the first small prayer to be recorded in a machine-readable fashion, it could make sense to bring this up on a suitable mailing list and discuss.

Please be more careful with accusations of "vandalism". I am not sure if this is perhaps a problem with automatic translation. "Vandalism" is when people make edits in order to harm OSM, or at least edits that harm OSM and people don't care (e.g. graffitti). Accusing other project members who have contributed thousands of edits over many years of "vandalism" should not come easy.

Gah... my mistake, I'm fixing it.

This was a mistake, sorry, I am reverting it again.

Dear Verdizulo, it appears that you are changing the "name" tag of entities that do not lie wholly within one language region to Esperanto on the grounds that this was somehow more "neutral". There is no consensus in the community that this makes sense (especially given that Esperanto is just one of many similarly "neutral" languages). Please seek a discussion with the community on the world-wide talk list (lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk) or another suitable forum before you make further edits like that.

Hi, this revert seems to have introduced a couple duplicates. Some come from a *different* user having re-added the POIs in the mean time (I deleted those in osm.org/changeset/77600377) but in some cases this revert seems to have undeleted pairs of duplicates.

Props for keeping the calm, StudentinGear ;)

Is there really a city-level administrative unit here called "Area A"? osm.org/relation/7471579 - this leads OSM to generate addresses like "5610, 5th Street, Area A (Baynes Sound), Comox Valley Regional District, British Columbia, V0R 3B0, Canada".

Dear Telluu, please mind your words. I am here because you wrote to DWG, and I have actually translated this discussion so I could read it. It sounds to me like you are the one picking a fight here, first with a condescending "Angielski to nie jest chyba twoja mocna strona więc ci przetłumacze", later with "Przestań roznosić głupoty", and it goes downhill from there. I strongly suggest you take a break before you say something for which you might get moderated.

I would like to understand more about this discussion. What makes this building special? In order for it to qualify as a "townhall" it would have to be special in some way, either serving an administrative function or being a meeting place where citizens will typically hold events, like perhaps a dance or a bazaar or other community meetings. Is this such a building?

Please use a changeset comment that can be understood by humans, instead of "PRIQH2". An adequate changeset comment for this changeset could have been "tracing and realigning buildings in Kisra", for example.

Hallo Ratz41, kannst Du Dich noch erinnern, wie die Wege ausgezeichnet waren, die bei "Varmert" von der B237 abzweigen (osm.org/way/287702249 und dahinter liegende Waldwege)? Es gab hierzu eine Beschwerde, dass es sich um Privatwege handele. Kennst Du dich da gut genug aus, um etwas dazu zu sagen?

This looks very close to being a data import, especially as you have added a tag to each imported object asking people to "Please verify the accurate position of the hospital/health care centre". You claim that this is a MapRoulette task, can you point to details? I would be interested in finding out who has created that task and what steps they undertook to ensure the quality of this import.

Hello, the changeset comment field is intended to be a human-readable description of what this changeset was meant to do. You are adding 6 hashtags to every one of your changesets, but tomake sense of these hashtags, people have to go to other web sites, tasking managers etc. - please, instead of these hashtags, add a simple line of text like "traced paths in <region>" or something like that.

You can add ruins if they are visible on the ground (!) but you cannot add explanations on who destroyed the building. You can add military bases but you cannot add opinions on whether or not they are legal, neither yours nor that of any international body. For "name" tags you can add the name that is written on the official signs in the area. You are free to add "name:ka" to places that have a Georgian name and then set up a map server that uses the name:ka tag to label all places in the Georgian language.

Ich kontrolliere das von Hand, nachdem der Job durchgelaufen ist. Danke für den Hinweis.

Hello, please stop adding translations to features. The "name:xx" tag is to be used if the feature actually has an own name in that language. It is not for translations or transliterations!

It appears that you're taking data from the Arizona Department of Transport here. It would be better to attribute them directly via a "source" tag in the changeset rather than having users click through a cryptic arcgis.com link that might go away at any time! I know that most government sources in the US are in the public domain but have you verified that this is the case for the ADOT information as well?

Dear Mappuccino, may I ask what logic you apply in selecting which buidings to align and which not? In this changeset you have moved three buldings and the "Topolica" road, but not the other buildings which were equally offset from Maxar imagery. The result is a jumble with some buildings aligned to one, some buildings to other imagery (cf. //www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/tuzla.jpg) - arguably the situation was better before your edit, because even assuming it was wrong before, at least everything was equally wrong! Your moving of the garage or shed between houses #2 and #4 has even led to it intersecting with the building at house #2. What is your mission here?

Zustimmung zu "Diskussion sollte nicht im Changeset geführt werden" -> sind ja auch seit gestern schon über 20 Beiträge hier https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048852.html