In this changeset you removed waterway=river from osm.org/way/33814488 - why? Your account has been created 2 days ago; are you new to OpenStreetMap, or have you been using other accounts before?

The DWG would like to ensure that a community consensus exists before this is changed yet again. Please everyone refrain from making further Rio de la Plata edits, and if you want, participate in the discussion on the tagging mailing list.

Hi muralito, please refrain from making any edits to the Rio de la Plata until a community consensus has been established. We (DWG) will raise the issue again on the tagging mailing list, and we (DWG) will decide when it is time to change this and what to change it to. Thank you!

Hallo Wegekundiger2018, Du hast an diesem Punkt hier eine "Paßhöhe" eingetragen: osm.org/node/434372349/history - nach Auskunft anderer Ortskundiger ist hier aber kein Pass ("Hier ist keine Passhöhe. Die Strasse steigt kontinuierlich durch den Wald bis zum Abzweig K9014/9015."). Wie konnte es zu diesem Irrtum kommen?

Hallo wegekundiger2018, kannst Du die Quelle "Berliner Meilenblätter" präzisieren? Wo kann man die einsehen, und ist deren Lizenz kompatibel mit OpenStreetMap?

Dear floridaeditor, please stop downgrading roads until you have made sure that the US community is actually on board with what you're doing. You seem to have unilaterally decided to be doing the right thing (as is evident from your user profile page) but it doesn't seem you have followed any of the recommendations to discuss with a wider community that were given to you in osm.org/changeset/88299504#map=10/34.4580/-83.4417 - the fact that other mappers disagree with you should make you pause and seek confirmation, instead of continuing your fight against "too much orange".

Also, please don't add source tags to individual buildings; a source tag on the changeset is sufficent.

Hello. I would like to understand more about the process you have used for mapping here. For example, why was the building osm.org/way/825338539 added, but not the neighbouring building 50 metres to the west?

Ok. I have removed the name now out of respect for their way of life. I don't think that strictly speaking they have a right to remain unmapped but as long as nobody complains I guess it's fine.

@Der Wilderer, zwar stimme ich persönlich in dieser Sache inhaltlich mit Dir überein, aber wenn Du in Zukunft noch irgendwann einmal einen englischen Kommentar mit "sprich gefälligst Deutsch" oder ähnlichem beantwortest, werde ich Deinen Account sperren. Ich hatte Dich bereits vor Wochen in osm.org/changeset/86892224 zu einem respektvolleren Umgang ermahnt.

Hello Moritz, a resident of the "Mamaki" community has written to DWG that they were unhappy about their name being on the map (DWG Ticket#2020071910000011). Since you have added this name originally in this changeset - can you say anything about the source? Is there a sign that says "Welcome to Mamaki" (in which case removing it from the map would be silly as someone else is going to add it straight back in) or did you add it from informal knowledge?

Thank you. I have replied to the complainant that as long as the Arch Diocese of Boston doesn't put up signs or fence in the area, things will remain as they are.

Hello AJW92, the DWG has received a complaint from the land owner implying that osm.org/way/766015130 was a private path and not open to the public. You have added this path as "access=permissive". Are you sure about that, or was that more a guess than a fact? (Ticket#2020071610000053)

Hello m902, this is a very old changeset but I see that you are still active hence this message. DWG has been contacted by the land owner on whose property osm.org/way/213906398 runs, and they claim that it needs to be marked as private access. As the person who has originally mapped this track, would you concur?

It depends on local laws and customs. If there is reason to believe that the use of the path is legal for everyone then we do not care on whose grounds it is. If there is reason to believe that using the path requires permission from the land owner (perhaps indicated by signs "private property" or some such) and such permission is not automatically granted, we would add an "access=private" tag to the paths in question. We want to do the right thing here - if the path is legal to use then the property owner has no right trying to keep people from doing just that. If on the other hand the path is informal and using it does indeed infringe someone's rights then we should not give map users the wrong impression and get them into trouble with the law.

The complaint reads (with some redacting from me for privacy reasons):

"My name is ... and I have been in contact with All trails regarding a trail
which is posted on their site. Their information is collected through OSM and I have been advised by All Trails to contact you to update and remove this trail. All trails
will be removing it from their site. The trail which I am referring to is at 11 Kipling Rd in Arlington Massachusetts. This property is private property owned by the
Arch Diocese of Boston and NOT THE TOWN OF ARLINGTON. ... As a long time Arlington resident and a home owner on Kipling Road, I have noticed in increase in people not only walking but biking through Kipling Road to enter the woods. (There is no trail) and they have been exiting through my backyard. ... I am asking first to have this removed from your site before alerting the church (Arch Diocese of Boston) of the trespassing. It is PRIVATE property. WAS THERE NO RESEARCH DONE AS TO WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY BEFORE BEING POSTED ON YOUR SITE? This is becoming a safety issue for my family and our neighbors."

I then asked for clarification: "Do I understand you right that there are no paths whatsoever in the forest? Or does the trail that connects Browning Rd with the parking lot on the South End of the forest actually exist? What about the cross connection between 223 Campbell Rd and the parking lot?"

and the reply came

"The path to which you are referring to does not exist. I’ve lived on Kipling for over
20 years. Nobody has ever walked thru. Only within the last weeks has the traffic
increased. The parcel of land to which you are referring to does butt up against
browning rd as well as Campbell rd. Please research this area of land on the Arlington
town site. This is NOT public property. This is owned by the Arch diocese of Boston.
It’s private property. Anyone on this path is trespassing. As I stated earlier. People
are exiting on Browning through the backside of my house."

Since they're a bit combative I'd prefer not to tell them "sort that out with the guy who added it" ;) If you're certain that you walked there (and not through a wood without any paths) then I'd tell them that we'll re-survey the area and I'd put a note. If however there is a possibility of error on your side and you do not recollect actually walking there in person, then maybe it would be proper to remove the tracks until we can re-check.

Hello Danil, in this changeset you added a few footpaths through a wooded area in Arlington (816666445, 816666446). Can you clarify the source of these footpaths, as they are not visible on the "Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta" that you claimed to use. I am asking because a local resident complained to DWG that these did not exist in reality. (DWG Ticket#2020071510000064)

Yes, the deletion happened in osm.org/changeset/87001827 and apparently these had been added by you. I do not know the user who deleted the paths, I suspect that the complaint received by DWG must also have been aired elsewhere and prompted that user's action. The complainant said that she was regularly putting up signs indicating that this was her private property but these signs were torn down again. She even sent us a copy of the land register describing the extent of her plot. Hence the removal of the paths seemed legit. If, of course, you have reason to believe these paths are legal and should be on the map, I'm happy to hear about it.

A resident had complained to Data Working Group about a footpath crossing through their property, and mentioned this in passing (to underline how our maps were wrong in other regards too). I found it interesting that we were showing a situation that was over 55 years outdated - might have been a record even!

PS: Bevor sie bei uns nachgefragt haben, haben die Leute vom LRA bei der Stadt Ochsenfurt nachgefragt und dort die Info erhalten: "Der Weg mit der Bezeichnung „Am Mühlsteig“ taucht in den Widmungsunterlagen nicht auf". Soviel zum Thema "amtliche Daten" ;)