Hi, what data source have you used to add "Ruby's Knoll" to OSM - where did you get the name from? Asking because the DWG has received a complaint about this feature and I would like to find out more. (DWG Ticket#2023051310000021)

Please refrain from making edits in this area that are suitable to further stoke tensions. The previous mapping as highway=path, foot=yes was perfectly fine for OSM and there was no need to "make this consistent".

It is correct that we don't use the name tag for descriptions (e.g. "name=path from x to y" or "name=rest area" or so). However, it is highly unusual for an aerodrome not to have a name, is it not? People flying to this aerodrome will likely say that they went to "Aérodrome de Montardoise" and not to "some aerodrome near Montardoise"...?

Hello Rom1, in this changeset you have removed the name of the Aérodrome de Montardoise (osm.org/way/612354846/) for the second time. Why? The PDF source supplied seems to support that name.

Dear avinet_uk, you have been in discussions with me for several days about the addition of translations and I tried to explain to you that we don't do it. Yet you seem to simply ignore what I am saying to you. Please stop doing these translations or I will have to block your account.

Bitte verweise auf die (für solche Massenedits zwingend notwendige) vorherige Community-Diskussion. In Zukunft wäre es super, wenn Du ohne Aufforderung gleich Changeset-Kommentar machen könntest.

zluuzki, your argument might have a leg to stand on if you had indeed only deleted "trashy" power lines that were untouched for 12 years, but as I mentioned above, you have deleted (and since restored) at least one that was last modified 8 days ago which casts doubts on your selection process. If you could make it a habit to discuss any such large projects with the community in advance - "i plan to overhaul power lines in the area of X, for this i want to delete all that match the criterion Y and then retrace using the source Z, any complaints?" - then mistakes such as this could be spotted before the damage is done and before you find yourself yet again in a situation where you backpedal while at the same time offending everyone who dared criticize your work...

zluuzki, this edit has indeed removed valid and valuable data that had been much improved since being imported from TIGER, e.g. osm.org/way/13569197 - please revert your deletion. Replacing TIGER imports with well-done tracing is a commendable effort but you should only delete the lines at the time of re-tracing them, not months before, and you should not delete lines that have already been painstakingly re-traced (even if the users doing so have accidentally not removed the tiger:reviewed=no tag). [DWG issue #2023042110000114]

Dear m_bakhshipour, please refrain from altering any of the names of the Persian/Arabian gulf without prior discussion on OSM community media. If a discussion involving OSM community members from all regions bordering on this water body comes to the conclusion that a change is appropriate, the change can be made with a reference to a public record of the discussion in the changeset comment (not "no comment"). Any undiscussed changes will be reverted and, when repeated, will lead to account blocks. This issue is tracked in the DWG issue tracker under Ticket#2021050510000129.

Dear user syntex, the DWG has become aware of this dispute. Old railways are a frequent source of dispute among OSM mappers. One thing is absolutely clear: When railway tracks have been built over and no trace remains, they will not be mapped in OSM. This is not a matter of preference - this is community consensus. So please do not revert changes where someone removes such over-built railways from OSM.

Railway lines that are still clearly visible, even when the tracks have been removed, may be mapped as "razed" but regional communities differ in how they handle this (how much exactly must still be visible for this mapping to occur). If your dispute is about such kinds of railways (that are not built-over and at least to a trained eye clearly discernible as former railway lines) then please establish a consensus in a suitable community medium (e.g. the new forum) before continuing.

But I repeat - if the railway line has been built over then there is no place for it in OSM any more, full stop. If you re-instate such railway lines where others remove them for good reason, the edits will be reverted and your account blocked.

This matter is tracked in DWG's issue tracker as Ticket#2023041610000071.

The term "troll tag" is generally used for situations where a minor tag contradicts a major one, for example if you tag "amenity=hospital, ruins=yes" this would potentially mislead people to assume there is an active hospital there. The same with "aeroway=airfield, note=this is disused" - we try to avoid these. See osm.wiki/Trolltag for details.

In this changeset you re-introduced the "aeroway=aerodrome" tag for the Moore Army Airfield, even though a note on the object says it is NOT an airfield any more but instead used for police training. Please either remove the aeroway=aerodrome tag which indicates an active airfield, or fix the note tag if this is not abandoned any more.

We're not deleting private property paths on OSM for a number of reasons. One is that OSM is used by emergency services - e.g. a missing person might have traveled along a private path and knowledge about where those are can save lives. Another reason is that if the path is not in OSM it will sooner or later get added by someone - better to have it in OSM marked private than not to have it. The path will be reinstated - please refrain from deleting it again. If you are worried about AllTrails insufficiently marking private trails, please take that up with AllTrails.

Dear butterfly2sea, can you provide evidence that this boundary is indeed not disputed by Bhutan? If not, then why have you removed the disputed_by tag?

Peer van Daalen, Du wirst aufhören, E-Mail-Adressen, die von anderen erfasst wurden, zu löschen oder zu verfälschen. Ansonsten sperre ich Deinen Account. Du hast in der Community-Diskussion bereits begonnen, Äußerungen umzudeuten (aus dem "ich trage keine Email-Adressen ein" eines Mappers hast Du eine Zustimmung zum Löschen von Email-Adressen gelesen). Daher ist Deine oben gemachte Ankündigung, Dich dem "Ergebnis der Debatte zu unterstellen" witzlos, und ich gebe Dir hier eine klare Ansage. Danke für Deine Aufmerksamkeit. Diesen Kommentar habe ich in meiner Rolle als DWG-Mitglied gemacht, und der Vorgang hat bei der DWG die Ticketnummer 2023011410000115.

Dear jslawin2, please confirm that you have read these messages and that you will refrain from further undiscussed imports.

Sicher dass das "Ganesha Palace" ein tourism=guest_house ist? Konnte auf der Webseite nichts zum Übernachten sehen.

Hello, what is your source for these POIs? They look strinkingly similar to Google data which is not allowed as an OSM data source. I am especially intrigued by "Fahrsicherheitszentrum-Hessen-Shop". Are you sure this exists?

Grundsätzlich ist der Schluss "es gibt ein Konzept auf Wikipedia also hat es auch einen Platz in OSM" erstmal nicht zwingend. Es gibt in Wikipedia auch das heilige römische Reich deutscher Nation, trotzdem kommt die Grenze nicht in OSM. Oder "Mitgliedsstaaten des XYZ-Vertrags" oder ähnliches. Mein Hauptproblem hier ist, dass die friesischen Inseln hier als eigene Geometrie mit eigener Begrenzung erfasst wurden. Das ist leider eine häufige Krankheit in OSM. Wenn überhaupt, dann sollte eine Relation angelegt werden, die die einzelnen INSELN als Mitglieder hat, statt die Bestandteile der Küstenpolygone der einzelnen Inseln.

Abandoned railway lines are a constant bone of contention in OSM but one thing that is absolutely clear is that lines that have been built over - i.e. where absolutely no visbile trace remains, even to the trained eye - have no place in OSM. That would apply e.g. to osm.org/way/1151341862 which should be deleted along with all similar lines.