Hallo Daham und Bobbi123, ihr müsst bitte sofort mit dem Edit-War hier aufhören. Das ist nicht zielführend. Faustregel: Wenn einem die Finger jucken, so einen Streit anzufangen - besser mal im Forum fragen, was die anderen denken, das hält dann das eigene Ego ein bisschen im Zaum.

Daham, in der Sache hat Bobby123 insofern recht, als das "Quelle: Bayernwerk" nicht ausreicht. Denn das kann ja jeder behaupten und - da Du selber sagst, dass nur ein "berechtigter Personenkreis" an die Info kommt - niemand überprüfen. Wir wollen aber, dass unsere Daten überprüfbar sind - entweder vor Ort durch Hinschauen, oder wenigstens durch Blick auf eine öffentlich zugängliche Quelle.

This changeset has introduced a very large number of buildings overlaps e.g. osm.org/way/1310618078 and osm.org/way/748630706. It also claims to be using Esri World Imagery but adds many buildings that are not visible on this imagery. Please clarify!

In your latest edit you wrote "paths are allowed to be used by customers" but then you have put access=no instead of, as I suggested above, access=customers!

(Many of) these paths are clearly visible on aerial imagery and therefore will certainly not be removed; but we should endeavour to record them correctly. If these are really off limits even for golfers then they should be recorded as access=no, but if customers are welcome to use them then they should be access=customers.

In this changeset you deleted over 100 buildings that had only been recorded into OSM 4 months ago. Have these buildings all been removed on the ground and replaced by new buildings, or had they been traced based on old aerial imagery? Are you positive that the imagery you are using is more recent?

Dear TayNiels, thank you for your contribution. We have an esablished tagging scheme for golf courses osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course and cart paths osm.wiki/Tag:golf%3Dcartpath - it would be appropriate to amend the existing incorrect "path" tagging accordingly. The outright deletion of paths that you have attempted in this changeset is not the correct solution. I have reverted the deletion and opened a marker here osm.org/note/4394627 asking the local community to look into this. Of course you're welcome to do this yourself but seeing that you're new I thought maybe it might be too taxing!

Dear SarahMThomas86, please consider using changeset comments that are readable by other human beings. "#hotosm-project-17204 #LACH_VC_TC_2024 #BERYL_VC_TC_2024" does not mean anything to the majority of OpenStreetMap contributors :(

Die Schutzgebietsverordnung https://www.landesrecht-hamburg.de/bsha/document/jlr-SievertNatDenkmSchVHArahmen sagt, dass es verboten sei, das Gebiet "das Gebiet außerhalb dafür bestimmter Wege zu betreten", und die Stadt sagt, diese Wege seien nicht "dafür bestimmt" also müssen wir das wohl so hinnehmen. Bezüglich des von komoot gesetzten "bicycle=no", das von Schildern vor Ort gestützt wird, in der Verordnung aber nicht drinsteht, hat die Stadt auf Anfrage ausweichend geantwortet (siehe osm.org/note/4373100). Ich ändere daran jetzt nichts.

Dear M0nty_013, thank you for your contributions. You have added house numbers in different regions. Please specify your source for these additions, and if the source is not a survey that you have undertaken, please ensure that any external sources you have used are not subject to copyright.

Dear aardalperr, many of the buildings you have added in this changeset have some quality issues, they are often not squared (the hotkey "Q" will square it for you), and they sometimes overlap other buildings! The editor will show warnings in these cases but it appears you have ignored these warnings.

Please be more careful in the future. Also, please write a changeset description that other people can understand - not "." as you did in this changeset.

When you change road classifications, please leave a short rationale. In this changeset you have upgraded many roads to "tertiary" which in my view only serve a couple dozen properties and which would clearly be residential where I live.

Please explain where on the cited source https://www.amarillo.gov/safe-streets I can find information about the proposed roundabout between Pecos St/SW 15th Av that you have entered in this changeset.

Dear someone123457, please clarify where on the cited source "www.amarillo.gov/safe-streets" I can find the proposed highway osm.org/way/1296582908

Der Spruch "Nie wieder!" wird oft verwendet, wenn es um den Holocaust geht. In diesem Changeset hast Du aber zuerst gegen "religiösen Extremismus" gewettert. Falls das nicht klar ist: Diejenigen, die den Holocaust zu verantworten haben, haben kein Halal-Fleisch gegessen.

Fest steht: Wenn man in OSM einträgt, ob eine Fleischerei koschere oder halale oder vegane Produkte anbietet, dann ist das nicht "religiöser Extremismus", und wenn jemand - wie Du hier - das dennoch behauptet, dann ist das im *besten* Fall ein Missverständnis, für das er sich entschuldigen sollte. Alle anderen denkbaren Motivationen sind schlechter.

Falscher Hashtag im Changeset. Richtig ist DWG Ticket#2024070510000254

I see you're doing this a lot. Please pause multipoligonizing single-way islands until we have established why this is deemed necessary.

Ah right, I see NNG is the company you work for. But still... I think that this edit was unnecessary. What was the QA complaint?

Could you explain what the added value is in creating one-member multipolygons for these islands? What does #nng stand for?

Guter Punkt. Die Straßenschilder sollen laut Schreiben am 23.8. enthüllt werden, ab 14:00 gibt es an dem Tag eine Veranstaltung auf dem Mnaga-Bell-Platz. Der Teil zwischen Müllerstraße und Manga-Bell-Platz soll in "Anna-Mungunda-Allee" umbenannt werden, das stand in einem zweiten Schreiben, das ich übersehen hatte. Ich mache das gleich.

Please provide evidence that construction has begun, and please cite a source for the street names used here (as they are unlikely to be signposted at this stage).