Denis, you should be ashamed at trying to pull rank at someone whose comments you don't like. Stick to the facts.

I hope things look a bit better now. samely, I did initially revert many of your changesets so you will have received a bunch of messages, but I had to revert my revert again so most of your edits are still in place (but the problematic ones have been overridden by the margonotmango revert).

Well it doesn't say you need to specify an URL in the source tag. But the source tag is there for a reason. You specified a source tag that was obviously wrong, to anyone who cared to look; not even a local person with local knowledge would have known where to look had they wanted to verify what you added. Proper source tags help to avoid misunderstandings.

Right, so you're saying you have accidentally left out the correct source tag for the imagery you've been using, and that nobody can double-check your statement unless they're students. May I respectfully ask you to be more careful in specifying exactly which imagery you are tracing from in the future? I suspect some of the imagery may be under Canadian OGL-style licenses which, if true, would *require* that you attribute them as the source, and failure to do so could be interpreted as a violation of their imagery license.

Dear user LogicalViolinist. I have reverted an earlier import of yours because it was not sufficiently discussed. Now you claim to be "tracing missing buildings" from sources "Bing; Mapbox". I can say with 100% certainty that for example builidng osm.org/way/460776384 which you added in this changeset cannot have been traced from either of these sources (much to little detail). Do you have a much better imagery source than these? If so, please share. Or is this an accidental import that you have forgotten to discuss and document?

I'll try to fix this with DWG tools.

Hello MDIV, it appears that 2 yrs ago you mapped some buildings twice here, e.g. osm.org/way/29627050 and osm.org/way/330248229 ...

Dear user Geozeisig, you have been told not to make mechanical edits like this in the past. Please adhere to these rules. It is not plausible that you have indeed looked at the objects you modified here individually because some of them contain other tagging inconsistencies that you have not fixed.

You can't reopen it. I meant just for the future, apparently you're not using one of the standard editors, so whatever software you use, make sure you use the "comment" field not "comments".

Regarding the boundary zone. You have mapped a very large area that is up to 10km wide and has whole villages in it where people live as a military area. There might be some restrictions on entering, or some special rules like "carry passport with you at all time", but to qualify as a military area it must be *used* by the military, not by farmers. I won't change it back now because I have no first-hand knowledge of the area but I suggest that you discuss the issue with the local mappers on the Belarus forum https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=35 - many are also hanging out on the https://telegram.me/bygis chat.

Please write your changeset comment in the "comment" field (not "comments") so that it can properly be processed and displayed.

There are two problems with this. First of all, you must not import data into OSM without following our import guidelines which mandate that you discuss the import before you act. Second, you must not import data that is "free except for commercial use", because the license that OSM itself uses allows commercial use, hence the "noncommerical" restriction of the original licensor cannot be kept. This import needs to be removed again. Can you do it, or would you like help?

Hello, could you please explain what the data source "ruian" is? Is this building import documented on the Wiki? Has it been discussed on the mailing list?

We don't publicly discuss reverting imports but we usually seek to get in touch with the importers (in this case, three unsuccessful attempts have been made by various people in osm.org/changeset/37015792 osm.org/changeset/36896136 osm.org/changeset/36853029). Allowing undiscussed and undocumented imports to remain would lead to a situation where everyone would just import their stuff because there's a good chance of it being approved post-hoc. This is undesirable; we must educate users to adhere to the few rules that we have, and that includes that rogue imports are subject to removal.

I would also like to point out that the guidelines do not talk about *announcing* an import; they talk about discussing it and assuring the community is happy for the import to go ahead. A mere announcement is certainly not enough. I'm afraid these edits will have to be reverted.

Many of the buildings added in this changeset intersect water areas (osm.org/way/454731131) or streets (osm.org/way/454731761). Since you claim that you traced these almost 3,000 buildings from aerial imagery, how come you did not spot these errors?

None of the sources in your source tag show a building in this location that you mapped in this changeset: osm.org/way/455322726 - could you please specify the correct source?

This changeset appears to create about 24,000 buildings in one go. Are you sure that you have traced these from aerial imagery, as the source tag implies? The footprint of this building for example osm.org/way/455207307 is hardly decipherable from either Bing or USGS...

I have read your forum entry, and what you are doing there (automatically adding Wikidata IDs with a JOSM plugin) is clearly a mechanical edit. You should not be doing that kind of editing across the globe without involving the local community and discussing your approach on a suitable mailing list, or the entirety of your edits is liable to be reverted for violating the mechanical edit procedures.

This changeset seems to add over 40,000 trees at once. May I ask what the source of this data is?

Teiron, major issue being that this was not sufficiently discussed before it was executed. You had a small number of pepole adding Wikidata entries all over the world, for places they had zero local knowledge about, aided by existing geo-information from Wikidata - which is fundamentally different to someone adding a Wikidata tag to a local thing they know about. It would have required prior reasonably public (i.e. not on a github ticket) discussion to establish if, how, and where to perform these edits, but discussion didn't happen.