siehe auch osm.org/changeset/148728960

Der in diesem Changeset eingezeichnete Wendekreisel osm.org/way/1263205395 ist unsinnig und nicht vom Luftbild gestützt. Er wurde vom User "thobrist" daher schon einmal in osm.org/changeset/148374578 enfternt. Ich werde ihn jetzt erneut entfernen und bitte darum, auf eine Neueinzeichnung zu verzichten.

Dear traveleditor, it would be great if you could apply your mapping skills to where you're at home. Don't copy data from IDF's website or other sources documenting the ongoing conflict. Also make sure to always specify your data source, it is hardly going to be "survey" for the 20-odd place names you have added in this changeset.

Many buildings apparently re-drawn in osm.org/changeset/151952803 - please write better changeset comments so that people know what your intentions are.

In this changeset you deleted a large number of buildings which still seem to exist according to available aerial imagery. Your changeset comment gives absolutely no explanation for the deletion of over 100 buildings. Is this a mistake?

Is osm.org/way/1274557269 (a oneway street that cannot be entered) really an unclassified road or maybe just a left-over part of a construction site?

osm.org/way/119696984 certainly doesn't look like a "primary_link"?

I have removed osm.org/way/1286748121 again as there was nothing there that would support the intersection layout you mapped.

Can you explain (or fix) the intermingling of osm.org/way/1286177044 and osm.org/way/968371094 in osm.org/#map=19/38.64239/21.45338?

Please clarify what the comment "eo6 e76 a3 a5fwegh" means.

Dear TVGRECCE, the addition of two ramps osm.org/way/1286988244 and osm.org/way/1286988246 is not supported by aerial imagery. I will remove them again. Please only add ramps like this if there is physical separation between the indivdiual lanes.

Also, when deleting large amounts of data, please provide an explanation in the changeset comment (you put "a").

Dear itsmohdx, your recent edits have broken a few boundaries. I have repaired the damage but please be more careful in the future. Thank you!

Sigmatoja, please use a more respectful tone in discussions. "gówno mnie obchodzi" or (from a different changeset discussion) "No i chuj" is not how we talk to each other in OSM, and the DWG will suspend your editing privileges if that happens again. (Ticket#2024051810000261)

Hello, in this changeset you have added just 6 structures which claim to be parking garages but most of them use over 200 nodes. Please remember that OSM's precision is only +/-10cm anyway so there's no need to add that level of detail. Also, these structures are not visible on ESRI imagery which leaves your claimed source of "field survey"; may I inquire just how you conducted a field survey here that ended up in such precision? Is it possible that you are copying from building plans?

Hello there, in this changeset you have added over one hundred mini grass areas using something like 8000 nodes in total. Please don't do that; grass areas of just a few square metres are not of interest to OSM and larger areas should be modeled as one large area, not dozens of smaller ones. Also, don't place a source tag on every single object, the source tag on the changeset itself is sufficient.

Thanks for looking into this! I think there might have been a misunderstanding between me and the complainant. Initially they wrote it was a "gravel road" unsuitable for HGVs. Now they wrote it was "paved"! Which definitely seems to align with the imagery you have dug up. Apparently the problem is that routing engines recommend turning off the US61 here, and going via Veterans road onto US36, rather than using the Hannibal junction. Maybe it is a case of missing speed limits.

In case you hadn't seen this, the US local chapter of the OpenStreetMap Foundation has an initiative going that deals with conflict points of recreation and land management in OSM, here https://openstreetmap.us/our-work/trails/

This is really something that we need to take up with the app developers then; the fact that OSM data is misinterpreted by an app must not lead to falsifying OSM. (Just to be clear, I was not talking about boundaries, but instead adding the "access=private" tag to anything marked as a trail. Of course if people drive their OHV along something that's not even marked as a trail that's another issue... still, knowledge about where these washes are can save lifes in an emergency, and they should not be deleted from OSM just because someone cannot handle the information responsibly.)

Hello chandlerswift, when you changed "Paris Gravel Road" to surface=asphalt in this changeset, did you ACTUALLY survey that or was that just a guess because you thought that all secondary roads were paved? Just asking because DWG has a complaint about this gravel road now frequently being used by HGVs to bypass Hannibal.(Ticket#2024052010000578)