"boundary_name:cs" is not a sufficient explanation for a revert, especially when many of the reverted objects did not have a boundary_name:cs tag before the revert and don't have one after. Please explain your reverts.

Hello StreetSurveyor, during your survey have you encountered this sign https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Buttonwoods_private_community_sign.jpg which says "private roads, no trespassing" and have you decided that somehow this sign should be interpreted as "access=permissive", or have you not encountered this sign? It is located where Mill Wheel Rd branches off Buttonwoods Av. so it applies at least to everything South-East of that intersection.

Dear 2894, can you explain these edits you have been making recently? "boundary_name:cs ; source_type_GPS" doesn't explain what you have been doing and why.

Perhaps we could (all!) cut back on the drama here. Disagreements between mappers are frequent; nobody owns a place and nobody does it right all the time. Barging into an area someone else is spending a lot of care on and establishing one's own (micro)mapping style can lead to conflict; being territorial about the area one has spent a lot of care on can also lead to conflict. An area where nobody reviews new changesets can quickly deteriorate; an area where someone over-reviews everything can stagnate.

About 8,000 people edit OpenStreetMap every day, there's bound to be different viewpoints and we need to find ways that work for everyone. If you feel offended by something, take a deep breath, maybe do something else for a day, and if you still find something is wrong, raise it on a community forum so that others who are not emotionally involved can give you a hint.

If you've done OSM for 15 years and liked it, don't throw your toys out of the pram just because of a single conflict; weigh that against the positive feelings that contributing to this fantastic team (!!!) effort has given you over the years - and allow others to have a little of that too.

Hallo sundew, bitte verzichte unbedingt auf die Entfernung von "wikidata"-Tags (oder *:wikidata) an Briefkästen (und anderswo), da wir Dich sonst für die weitere Bearbeitung von OSM sperren müssten, das wäre schade. Du hast damals an der Diskussion in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mit-id-hinzugefugte-wikidata-tags-in-hamburg/125506 ja selbst teilgenommen und kennst die Haltung der Community.

User deleted their own mapping - apparently place=plot which is unwanted anyway?

I am reverting this deletion which claims to be "for safety reasons". Please do not delete existing infrastructure from OSM for any reason.

Dear Makiah Clark, thank you for your contributions to OSM. OSM is a community project, and changeset comments are an important part of our quality control process. Your changeset comments contain hashtags only ("#hotosm-project-18438 #amazonia #niño #forest #Mapeo_Amazonia #Amazonprogram"), and almost nobody in OSM will be able to understand what this means, what you were mapping, and why. Please restrict hashtags to the "hashtags" field, and write a human-readable comment in the upload comment field. See osm.wiki/ES:Buenos_comentarios_en_conjuntos_de_cambios for details. Thank you!

Dear GoldensFireCool, please use changeset comments that explain what you were doing. This is an important part of quality control in OpenStreetMap. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hello MxxCon, the DWG is looking at the disagreement between you and user catgirlseraid and we are tracking this in our ticket #2025052810000472.

You are right when you say that we normally abide by the "one feature, one object" rule. In an ideal world it would be sufficient to map a pedestrian area as an area. However, with both map renderers and routers being bad at labelling (or routing over) such pedestrian areas, it is indeed a widely practiced mapping style to have both - see the examples provided by Taya.

While I understand you reservations about micro-mapping, your deletion of pedestrian areas has lost some information. For example if you now look at #110 Andes Rd, the map seems to indicate a green area being present between the building and the road when in fact the concrete extends up to the (shrubbery just outside) the building.

Could you please re-instate the pedestrian areas.

Also I see that you have replaced "forest" polygons with single trees which is ok, but some forest polygons seem to have gone missing without being replaced (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=166883890) - maybe you could check that again.

Finally, can I ask you to try and remain objective in changeset comments; a simple "reducing micromapping on Governors Island" would have been better than speaking of "badly mapped features" that require "correction". (I can see that you did indeed correct a few mistakes but most of the edits in this changeset are a matter of taste and not of what is correct and what not - and even IF I correct a mistake that someone else has made I wouldn't usually make a big deal about how that was "bad mapping".)

You have deleted more than 50 buildings in this edit. You have not explained why you are deleting them, other than giving us the word salad "#hotosm-project-18648 #APHub #myOSM #help-mm-earthquake" which does not tell us anything. If these buildings have been destroyed by an earthquake, please write a human-readable explaination - "deleting buildings that have been destroyed" would be good.

Deletions look legit; spot check shows no traces of abandoned rail visible on aerial imagery

Dear km2pb, I have reverted your edits in which you re-added links to 3rd party Youtube URLs. Whether or not these "make the map more interesting" is not the question here; they don't belong in OSM. I have not sufficiently made this clear in my message to Hubert above, but I am saying this in my capacity as a member of OSM's Data Working Group and I sincerely ask you to stop adding links back in that I have removed (or in fact add any links to 3rd party platforms apart from the well-established Wikipedia links).

Ich habe diese Löschung jetzt zunächst einmal rückgangig gemacht, weil ich annehme, dass Chris921 als gerade erst angemeldeter Benutzer den Unterschied zwischen "ist in OpenStreetMap" und "ist auf einer Wanderkarte" nicht kennt. Community-Post dazu hier: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/loschung-von-t6-wegen-im-karwendel-tirol/130321 - das ist keine endgültige Entscheidung, es kann durchaus sein, dass wir die Wege am Ende tatsächlich löschen, es sollte nur nicht einer allein entscheiden und schon gar nicht jemand, dessen allererster Beitrag zu OSM das ist.

Die hier gelöschten Wege waren in OSM ausnahmslos mit "sac_scale=difficult_alpine_hiking" (also T6) gekennzeichnet. Ist Deine Behauptung, dass dies unzutreffend ist, weil die gelöschten Wege sämtlich schwieriger als T6 sind?

Hi there Frankarkohpaintsil, the "changeset comment" is intended to be an explanation of your mapping so that others can see what you have been doing. "Uccyouthmappers16" is not a good changeset comment because it doesn't say anything about your mapping. Better put something like "added buildings" or whatever it is you did! Also, you can combine several edits in one upload, you don't need to upload for every single house.

Hello ^_^, it would be good if you could fill out the "changeset comment" field so that other mappers know what you are doing!

Dear EGYYYY2, in this changeset you performed a very welcome cleanup of spam. If you do that, please put something in the changeset comment ("removing spam nodes" or so) - don't just write "." and let others guess what this was about!

Hello Blue Clip, a decision on whether or not to revert your changes is going to be based on license compatibility, not on your consent or your withdrawing thereof. If English is not your native language, feel free to explain yourself in a language you feel more comfortable with.

I made osm.org/user_blocks/17684 to ensure the user sees this message.