osm.org/way/1268330700 which you created in this changeset is recorded as a building but it contains other buildings on the inside. This does not look right!

Please do not add "addr:street" tags to roads; a street name in the "name" tag is fully sufficient.

Hallo Andreas, dieser Parkplatz, den Du in diesem Changeset von "access=permissive" auf "access=customers" umgetaggt hast, für wessen Kunden ist der denn gedacht? Jemand hat sich beim FOSSGIS beschwert, es wäre *kein* Parkplatz sondern Privatgelände. Vom Luftbild her scheint es mir ja schon zum Parken benutzt zu werden... ist es vielleicht einfach access=private statt access=customers?

osm.org/user_blocks/16113 osm.org/changeset/152274723

Please do not mis-label legitimate OpenStreetMap quality assurance as "harrassment". We are making this map together, and we're all interested in OSM being a high quality map - which includes being legally spotless.

You say that you have recorded these street names in person. A good way to bolster that claim in the future is to take a few photos of street signs which proves that you've actually been there. It's not something we would ask of someone adding the odd street name, but if someone adds streets names for a whole quarter and they just happen to be the same as Google's, then a few photos will go a long way to lift suspicions.

Your claim to be adding maps to Tom Tom, Google, and Apple simultaneously sounds implausible, especially as, while the NAMES in your OSM mapping are all identical to Google's, the geometries are not. If this is a story you want to stick to, we'll need some proof that allows us to see that roads have actually been added to these maps at the same time as they have been added to OSM.

Your work for the county GIS system is commendable but please keep it separate from OSM; the county might have a different bar for contributions than OSM.

I suggest to raise the matter in a public discussion on the OSM forum. It is likely that you are right (and any "Zones" of any sort in Gaza declared by IDF should be removed) but it cannot hurt to bring this to the attention of whoever has created "#hotosm-project-16446", otherwise it might turn out to be a fight against windmills.

Danke für Deinen Einsatz!

Hello cm81447, it is highly unusual for a new contributor to OSM to embark on such a massive road re-classification scheme as you apparently have; and even more unusual to ignore requests of other mappers to take it slow and consider if maybe things are like they are for a reason! I've reverted your edits of the last four days, and I second Joseph's request above to discuss your plans before you execute them The community forum on community.openstreetmap.org is a good place for this.

Hallo Pathumthani, ich habe den Parkplatz an der Alpe Stubental gelöscht, weil sich die Betreiber bitterlich bei uns beschwert haben, der Weg sei für PKW verboten und der Parkplatz nicht existent, und das blaue "P" auf der OSM-Karte würde Autofahrer verleiten, verbotenerweise den Weg zu befahren. Jetzt weiss ich natürlich nicht, ob die mir einen Bären aufgebunden haben - oder ob der Parkplatz vielleicht vor 4 Jahren noch öffentlich war?

Dear kilgor, please use better changeset comments than just "update". See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for details!

Dear user raycock, in this changeset you have added lots of street names that are 100% identical to what Google Maps has. In some areas Google is missing names on some streets, and in these areas you have added names to all streets except those missing on Google. This makes the explanation "I was there on a survey" very unlikely.

I understand how it can be frustrating not to have a name to add to a road you have traced from imagery, but please resist the urge to violate Google's copyright; you must not copy names from Google maps, or else you risk to tarnish OSM's reputation as a whole (and needless to say, that of your original contributions as well).

In at least one other situation you have added a point of interest that is still on Google Maps but long closed in reality, which also is suspicious and cannot be explained by a bona fide survey.

Please stick to legal sources in the future, and properly name your sources when uploading (write "survey" as a source when you have surveyed the area in person but please be honest here - looking things up on Google is not a "survey").

I will have to withdraw some of your recently added names from OSM.

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?