The complaint read: "Votre application indique un passage sur un chemin privé et au sein d’un pré dont l’accès est strictement réservé aux propriétaires et locataires.

Plusieurs applications publiques utilisent vos données et cela pose aujourd’hui un vrai problème et de nombreuses incivilités.

Face aux agressions quotidiennes, je vous demande de bien vouloir retirer l’accès de ce chemin à vos usagers et utilisateurs divers de données."

Can you please point us to the discussion and documentation that are mandatory before executing such an import?

Dear Diego_V, can you clarify the license of the data set that you have imported here? The site you specified as a source is not reachable anymore. If the data is not under a suitable open license, I am afraid you will have to delete it again.

I have requested that HaPe-CZ communicate in English when mapping in the US, and also fix the damage done here: osm.org/user_blocks/5977

@BCNorwich, @Vormond, could one of you at some point in the near future perhaps double-check that this path and this gate accurately reflect the situation on the ground (possibly also upload a photo of potential signage somewhere)? The DWG has received a complaint asserting that this path does not exist. (DWG Ticket#2022042810000131)

Alten Namen in osm.org/changeset/120301918 wieder hinzugefügt und Benutzer für 2 Wochen gesperrt.

Ja, man sollte das aufräumen. Leider produziert der Benutzer kjon schneller neue unsinnige Daten (osm.org/changeset/119748620) als wir die alten wegräumen...

Hallo kjon, ist das wirklich sinnvoll, dass man jedem "Ahornweg" in Deutschland ein name:etymology-Tag verpasst, dass auf den Ahorn zeigt? Anhand welcher Information stekkst Du diese Verbindung her, und wenn die Antwort auf diese Frage "am Namen" ist, welchen Nutzen hat die Verbindung dann überhaupt?
Und prüfst Du bei einer Schillerstraße auch anhand lokalen Wissens, dass es wirklich um den Dichter Friedrich Schiller und nicht irgendeinen anderen Schiller geht?

Dear Andrea, you have made frequent edits to these paths: osm.org/way/1035968766 osm.org/way/577297923 - now the DWG has received a complaint from the land owner, accompanied by lots of photos of "private property" signs, saying that this path is and always has been a private path and access to the public was prohibited. Do you have any first-hand knowledge of the area, or are your edits only based on Strava information?

Dear MustafaQasim, when you edited all these objects did you actually verify that they exist and are properly placed, or did you just mass-remove a tag? For example, is osm.org/node/767973519 the actual location of a peak?

Hello ChrissW-R1, I see you have spent some effort creating a Baltic Sea outline but please don't create giant sea polygons like that. Everyone who edits any of the 10,000 coastline segments you have taken to build this relation will have to upload a full new version of the relation which makes editing difficult. Even LOOKING at this relation in your browser takes minutes. -- This is precisely the reason why we have a special treatment for coastlines in OSM, and we don't map a multipolygon called "Eurasia" or something like that. Our tools are not built for it.

Can you point to any source for the boundary between Ingniqhiurvik and Ingilraniq (osm.org/way/1037497356) or have you made that up? Also, since you have been editing the coastline, have you done any research into why the boundary of "Inuvialuit Lands" follows the coastline loosely but not precisely - is that intentional? Is it really the case that some parts of Ingniqhiurvik are inside, and some outside, the Inuvialuit Lands?

osm.org/way/1041425795#map=19/43.61799/6.50970 is not connected to anything on its western end. I assume that is not intentional? -- Most of the trails you have uploaded in recent days are very jagged and near invisible on aerial imagery due to tree cover. Please be 100% sure that you only upload actually existing and legal trails to OSM (if their use is not permitted, add access=no). Also, understand that with highway=path you are adding trails for use by pedestrians and cyclists alike.

Hey there, can you point to any online source mentioning this park with the name "Mountain View Greenbelt"?

Als Beispiel für negative Seiteneffekte dieser blinden Wikidate-Hinzufügerei: Das Hotel "Alexander am Zoo" in Frankfurt ist schon lang kein "Best Western" mehr. Trotzdem hat der User "kjon" vor drei Monaten "brand=Best Western", "brand:wikidata=Q830334" und "brand:wikipedia=en:Best Western" hinzugefügt, da muss ja jeder denken, ok, offenbar sind das aktuelle Informationen. Stattdessen ist es nur ein Aufguss eines vor 10 Jahren eingetragenen Namens ohne eigene Ortskenntnis - gaukelt einem also Aktualität und Datenqualität vor, wo in Wahrheit keine ist.

Bitte verzichte ebenso auf großflächige Anwendung des "alles reparieren"-Buttons im ID-Editor.

Hallo kjon, das ist leider nicht das erste Mal, das Du durch blindes Anwenden von Name-Suggestion-Index-Edits auffällst. Bitte unterlasse das in Zukunft, und korrigiere, bevor Du irgendwelche anderen Edits machst, die Fehler, die Du damit in diesem Changeset erzeugt hast (so haben z.B. auch DSL-Verteilerkästen den Namen "Deutsche Telekom" erhalten). Ich werde künftige Changesets von Dir, in denen unzulässige Anwendungen des NSI vorkommen, komplett revertieren - es kann nicht sein, dass die Community hinter dem aufräumt, was de facto ein automatischer Edit ist. (Das gleiche gilt auch für Wikidata-Tags - füge diese bitte nur dort hinzu, wo Du Dich selbst von der Korrektheit überzeugt hast, und verlasse Dich nicht auf irgendwelche automatischen Vorschläge des Editors.)

Mapping golf features that actually exist, with the tags that OSM has allocated for that, and without ruining other data, is fine. However, distorting reality to cater for programming bugs in the golf course exporter (e.g. downgrading everything to cart_path, removing bridges, not using multipolygons even where they would typically be used and so on) is not ok, and what is definitely not ok is any sort of fictional mapping. The golf course that HammTreetops has been mapping here has moved to osm.org/way/43189724 to make room for a housing development, but even after being made aware of that fact, HammTreetops continued adding these features from outdated aerial imagery.

See osm.org/changeset/118239176 for a DWG comment. The removal of these abandoned/razed railway lines was a good edit. We are not a historic railway atlas.

See osm.org/changeset/118239176 for a DWG comment.