It appears to me that rather than being impolite, I was *too* polite and therefore didn't get my point across.

What I wanted to say is: "fixes" that superficially fix something - like you did here - are unwanted and complicate the *real* fixing. They make OSM worse, not better. Your lecturing about "craftsmanship" rings hollow when it is the other mappers (who actually fix things) of whom you expect such craftsmanship, while not being willing to invest the same yourself.

In the future, when you fix something because of a geometry error, you are expected to use reason to ensure that the whole thing isn't totally fictitious (or a broken import or something else that warrants a different kind of attention than just a geometry fix). If you are unwilling or unable to bring that amount of "craftsmanship" to the table because you can only invest two minutes per "fix", then please refrain from making the edit in the first place, and leave it to someone who can do it with the necessary diligence.

If you encounter something where you believe a proper fix might require local knowledge, the same applies - just leave it to the locals.

Please explain the meaning of your changeset comment "nb nghgnb nb SXSXDDDDDDDDDXXCFGFGGGGGGGGGGGGGTGTTTTTT".

Please explain the meaning of your changeset comment "dersdferaERtq4a 35u7qq".

What is "u7404p+9579++636+21++2+624+-5" supposed to mean?

Hello TyJack, the placeholder in your changeset comment "[Kindly replace this text and share what you've been working on, like adding buildings or other edits]" was meant to be replaced with a meaningful message by you. Please do that the next time you upload an edit to OSM.

Grundsätzlich ist "ich kann den Weg auf dem Luftbild nicht sehen" kein ausreichendes Kriterium für eine Wegelöschung in bewaldetem Gebiet. Bitte Ortsbegehung durchführen, und wo angebracht, "Lebenszyklus-Prefix" verwenden wie oben vorgeschlagen. Ich revertiere die Löschungen jetzt.

Fixed in osm.org/changeset/158161432

Dear MM_KE_MM, please try to write human-readable changeset comments. This changeset touched an area twice as large as the Czech republic yet anyone trying to understand what it was about will be very puzzled by your comment.

Dear gscholz, in this changeset you have blindly "fixed" a self-intersection of a completely fictional airport that someone had added. Your modification makes it more difficult for other community members to revert the bad edit.

It is good that you are looking out for OSM quality but please keep both eyes open while doing so. If someone sees a horse and maps it as a "kow", and you then "fix" that mistake by changing it to "cow", you haven't actually improved anything ;)

Dear Paweł Walkowiak, thank you for your contributions to OSM. This is the fifth time you have changed this one node: osm.org/node/12250472179/history - don't over-do it, we're not looking for millimeter precision ;)

Also, you don't have to save every single change you make. Just edit a few buildings and then upload all in one go.

For the "changeset comment" field, don't put tomorrow's date - instead, put an explanation of your edit (e.g. "corrected building locations in CITYNAME" or so).

I have reverted this edit in osm.org/changeset/157959663 because there was no sufficient explanation for the deletion even after the question above. The information board shown on https://imgur.com/wrJ50Pu seems to indicate these paths do indeed exist.

see osm.org/user_blocks/16781

Please fix the data urgently. There are still lots of objects tagged place=city_block and building=* at the same time, there are lots of industrial landuses named "0", lots of buildings named "casa", lots of objects tagged "place=plot". I will remove this data if it is not cleaned up.

Ah, we hadn't seen that you deleted your *own* work instead of someone else's! But I don't see an issue with the stuff you deleted - if anyone feels the woods are crowding out houses they can use a map style that shows houses more prominently. -- The go-to resource for written docs is wiki.openstreetmap.org and if you'd like to raise a question to your fellow mappers, use community.openstreetmap.org

Have you seen my comment in osm.org/changeset/157588919 three days ago? I specifically asked you not to edit boundaries while adding border marks, but again you have changed 23 relations (among them the boundaries of Germany and Czechia) in this edit. Why?

Hello Winston Sung, a change in editor presets (or a change in the Wiki) is NEVER a sufficient reason to apply word-wide changes to OpenStreetMap. Such changes must be discussed with the community independently of any editor presets. The forum community.openstreetmap.org is a suitable venue for this.

Dear Winston Sung, far-ranging automated/mechanical edits like the ones you're making are governed by a policy (osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct). Primarily this requires that you discuss your editing plans with the community before you execute them. Please provide links to the community discussion about the renaming of language tags and classrooms. In the future, please make sure to include these links with your edits.

I have reverted this edit. Please do not change the name of the Persian/Arabian Gulf without prior community discussion.

Dear Sunil Tewari, in this changeset you have deleted over 250 buildings from the map. Your changeset comment "#hotosm-project-17520 #OSMIndia #AndhraMapping24 #tt_event" is an inadequate explanation for such a deletion. Please explain why you deleted the buildings. Have they been destroyed? In that case, "removing buildings that were destroyed by <cause>" would have been an appropriate changeset comment. Please do not use hashtag-only changesets in the future - always make sure that there is at least some human-readable component there.

Could you try to avoid creating new versions of dozens of relations while mapping border marks? It should be possible to edit border marks without changing the relations they are part of. Also please do not assign "name" tags to border marks.