(When I wrote "reverted a couple of waterways" above, what I meant was "removed")

Dear DT29, in this changeset you have reverted a couple of waterways inside the area marked as "Mojave Desert Land Trust". Your changeset comment does not sufficiently explain why those waterways should not exist so I have reverted your edit.

Also, you have deleted a couple of trails inside the area when their existence seems perfectly clear on aerial imagery; if these really do not exist at all, then you should have explained that in your changeset comment. The fact that something is private property is not sufficient reason for deleting it from OSM; instead, you can mark the respective objects as "private access" in the editor which keeps them on the map, but outside of what popular hiking apps would recommend.

(DWG Ticket#2024052010000498)

I have reverted the change as suggested, because the claim that the area in question was actually controlled by Nepal was not substantiated.

apologies, the changeset comment should have been: revert changes to India/Nepal border after the Nepalese position received no support in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/india-territory-in-uttarakhand-state/113008

Hello alfred476, not every change to a boundary is automatically a reason for a revert. If you revert changes to boundaries in the future, please be more specific about why that particular change is assumed to be a mistake, or link to a forum discussion or an unsuccesful attempt to engage the mapper in question.

Dear Marko, OSM would prefer to keep the Asterisk out of Kosovo's name. We are not bound by any UN resolutions; we use the name that people living in the area use. I have reverted your change. (DWG Ticket#2024051710000173)

Hello LockOnGuy, most of the areas deleted here were introduced into OSM less than a month ago, only two are older (and these have been reinstated). The others remain deleted. The IDF does not have jurisdiction to install any kind of zones in Gaza; where they do so nonetheless, it is part of an ongoing military conflict and we don't want to map ongoing military conflicts. If any danger areas, buffer zones etc. remain after the military conflict is over, we can look at mapping them.

Better visualisation here https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=151163703&zoom=18&lat=41.92986&lon=-76.11647&layers=B000000TTTFT

Just to understand this better, is the "connector" of which DUGA says it is the "main thing that has been removed" this one: osm.org/way/147099265/history? Because that one has never been touched by user Messinian...?

Hallo SG86, silversurfer83 hat leider recht. Mit dem Urheberrecht verhält es sich so: Wenn auf einer Karte nicht draufsteht, dass man die Daten unter einer bestimmten Lizenz weiternutzen darf, dann gilt, dass jede Weiternutzung eine Erlaubnis der Urhebers braucht. Das gilt auch dann, wenn es sich "nur" um Fakten handelt, die man einer Karte entnimmt (dann ist es u.U. nicht das Urheber-, sondern das Datenbankschutzrecht, aber die Folgen sind die gleichen). Eine Ausnahme gibt es höchstens bei amtlichen Veröffentlichungen wie z.B. in Zusammenhang mit einer Wahl oder einem Bebauungsplan - nicht aber bei Webseiten oder Karten von Stadtwerken. Bitte frage also bei den entsprechenden Dateninhabern nach, ob Du diese Daten bei OpenStreetMap eintragen darfst. Erhältst Du keine (oder eine negative) Antwort, dann lösche bitte alles wieder, was Du nicht durch eigene Anschauung ermittelt hast.

While we would normally look at who controls an area (rather than who has legal jurisdiction), there's also the rule that we don't map day-to-day changes in an ongoing conflict. Any alterations to borders or installation of military zones etc. should wait until the war is over.

Hello miluethi, please don't add fragmented "boundary=administrative" relations based on pure guesswork like you did here in osm.org/relation/17545087 - it is ok to guess landuse=residential from imagery but you have no clue where any actual boundary is, or whether the "boundary" of San Cristóbal actually is three different parts with some non-San Cristóbal territory in between. This is a pseudo accuracy that doesn't help OSM.

Dear Lucas Marques, please stop any and all mapping efforts on the territory of Ukraine until the war is over. See also: osm.wiki/Russian–Ukrainian_war

Changeset discussions are not a suitable venue for such a detailed discussion, they lack essential formatting and threading. This should be discussed in the community forum thread linked above.

Frederik from OSM's Data Working Group here. Boundaries in OSM should follow actual control, not what some government claims. Among other things, we would ask things like: If you want to travel to this area, do you need a Nepalese visa or an Indian visa? Do the people living in this area pay taxes to the Nepalese authorities or to the Indian authorities? If a crime happens in this region, will it be the Nepalese police investigating, or the Indian police? Questions like this will determine how to map the boundary in OSM - never a government web site. I would ask all involved parties to come to an amicable solution here (potentially involving other community members) https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/india-territory-in-uttarakhand-state/113008 before making further edits. DWG Ticket#2024051010000293

Was war die Datenquelle für diese relativ lagegenaue Einzeichnung unterirdischer Kabelverläufe?

Hallo bahnpirat, in diesem Changeset wurde ein Teil der 380kV-Transversale von einer geraden Linie auf eine Linie mit 15 Nodes verfeinert - kannst Du Dich noch erinnern, welche Datenquelle Du dafür verwendet hast?

Hallo Bahnpirat, kannst Du Dich an die Datenquelle für die hier eingezeichneten unterirdischen Leitungen erinnern?

Der Anwohner hat mir eine Beschreibung des neuen Verlaufs des Wanderwegs geschickt, ich habe den so eingepflegt, wenn Du willst, kannst Du ja mal drüberschauen ob alles korrekt ist.

Hallo Emilio96, ich habe gesehen, dass Du anderweitig mit Mappen beschäftigt bist, kannst Du zu dieser Situation hier etwas sagen oder bist Du nicht mehr in der Region...?