Dear SHARCRASH, you seem to have reverted this revert in the meantime, but stil I think the user tomolobla whose work you have thought so worthless as to warrant a revert without any comment deserves an explanation. What has happened here, and why did it happen, and what steps will you undertake to make sure you will not repeat the mistake in the future?

Der SHARCRASH, this reasoning is an absolute no-no for OSM. Third parties wrongly interpreting OSM data should not be a reason to tweak OSM data so that it matches the third party's wrong expectations. And such edits should never be contained in a changeset explained with "massive edit, see details/history of the element" because the history of the element does precisely *not* deliver the required explanation. Please undelete the ways in question.

Dear SHARCRASH, using the reverter plugin should be something you do in exceptional circumstances, not your everyday way of editing. Using the reverter plugin without providing a reason for the revert, like you did in this changset, is an affront against the person whose work you are reverting. Don't do it.

I would agree with hesdrib here. Certainly not a building! Please, User58383747, repair this error. Also, please try and give better changeset comments than "Modification ajoutee" which is useless as it can be used for basically any edit to the map. Especially seeing that your edits are often faulty and need to be repaired by others, it is very helpful to explain what you *wanted* to do.

"Diese Benennung war im Amtsblatt Nr. 05 vom 05. Februar 2021 bekannt gegeben. Die
Widerspruchsfrist endete ohne dass Bedenken oder Widersprüche bekannt geworden sind, die
Benennung wird somit am 04. Juni 2021 wirksam." - hast Du vermutlich eh auf dem Radar, oder ;)

Hello there, I see you have mapped the "Bosque Creek Habitat Preserve Trail" in this changeset. Is this a public footpath? There has been a complaint by the Bosque Creek Homeowners association claiming that the path - or parts of it, I am still trying to clarify with them - are on their private grounds.

Dear Dirk, when uploading data to OSM please specify a changeset comment that is human-readable. None of "#hotosm-project-10739 #MissingMaps_DRK #redcross #missingmaps " fulfil this requirement. Explain to someone not familiar with HOT or DRK or MissingMaps what you have done and why. Also, when adding buildings, while sometimes buildings are indeed ajar, most buildings are actually square! The editor has a function to automatically square a building if you have traced it imperfectly. Use that where it makes sense.

Dear Hidoo00, please do not "upgrade" tags when the iD editor suggests that you should, without knowing precisely what you do. This particular river has been changed back after such an "upgrade" once already; if you want to discuss the details, get in touch with the mapper who has made that change, but don't just "upgrade" the tags.

In this changeset you upgraded a number of highways to motorways even though you were, two days ago in osm.org/changeset/105004562, asked to use motorway tags sparingly. Please act accordingly.

In this changeset you have deleted a huge number of "parking_aisle" ways and replaced them with new ways. You shouldn't be doing that; it loses the history of the objects. Now it looks like you were the one to first introduce parking aisles on that car park, when instead another user did this in 2013! Next time, just modify the existing objects. If you find this too taxing with the iD editor, use an editor that easily allows moving a large group of objects (e.g. JOSM).

Dear Персидский залив - you are adding industrial areas all over the world and you are specifying a source of "Maxar, Esri World, Bing". This cannot be your only source - you must be working off some sort of list? Why are you choosing exactly these sites for your mapping? What is your purpose? -- In osm.org/way/945554195 and osm.org/way/945554198 you have added a way without any tags, please review that.

This changeset contained a massive change to the coastline along Rio de la Plata, removing coastline tags from lots of ways and introducing a new pseudo-costline across the Rio. The Rio de La Plata has been the subject of much discussion in the past. Don't just change it without prior consultation. I have reverted this edit.

In this changeset you have created a polygonal footway not connected to anything else and added a "name" of "its a house not a path". If something is a house then please tag it as such. Also, please use proper changeset comments instead of "tyhrhrht", "gbrgbrgb", and other gibberish.

Wohngebiete werden üblicherweise großzügig gezeichnet so a la (Beispiel aus Bayern) osm.org/way/55102217 - ein Wohngebiet umfasst normalerweise mehrere Gebäude, für einzelne Gehöfte wird oftmals gar keins gezeichnet. landuse=residential sollte man da nutzen, wo "bebautes Gebiet" ist, nicht wo zwei Leute im Wald wohnen.

Zu "warum erst jetzt" möchte ich auch auf osm.org/user_blocks/4634 vom Dez. 2020 hinweisen: "OSM hat ebenfalls kein Interesse an über-detaillierten Landuse-Flächen wie in osm.org/way/351374600 von Dir beigetragen."

I am not sure if it is a good idea to model legal constructs (i.e. treaties) in OSM. NATO is one of the biggies but where do you draw the line, there a thousands of multilateral treaties. Is something like that (= non-geographic facts about the world) not better left to Wikidata?

I have deleted this relation, for the reasons given above, and also because *if* one wanted to have a grouping like that in OSM it would be appropriate to add the individual pieces to a simple relation instead of creating yet another giant boundary relation that will attract edits whenever any of the constituting boundaries is edited.

Bitte "kleinteiligstes" Mapping wie in diesem Changeset (Bespiel: osm.org/way/943464983#) dringendst zu unterlassen, wie bereits mehrfach von verschiedenen anderen Mappern angemahnt. Eine großzügige gemeinsame "residential"-Area mit 8 oder 10 Nodes für die Fläche beiderseits der Straße wäre hier ausreichend; stattdessen wurden 4 residential areas mit über 50 Nodes gemappt, Für die zahlreichen "Zipfelchen" der genannten Fläche gibt es keine Rechtfertigung.

Bitte sich an osm.org/user_blocks/4634 erinnern und die Verbesserung Salzburgs den Salzburgern überlassen. Danke.

Dear alkushi, pleasy try to add proper changeset comments to your edits, instead of just one-letter comments. These are not useful for anyone :(