Hallo "anonymer Nutzer1", ich habe diese Bearbeitung revertiert, weil Du Löcher in Wanderwegrelationen gerissen hast. Um ehrlich zu sein, ist es auch wenig vertrauenswürdig, wenn sich jemand neu anmeldet, "anonymer Nutzer1" nennt, und als erste Aktion bei OSM gleich Dutzende von Wegen löscht. Ich habe hier https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/wegeloschungen-nsg-hohenstein/131441 eine Diskussion dzau eröffnet, an der Du Dich zu beteiligen herzlich eingeladen bist.

Thank you for the clarification! You can make it easier for others if you give a hint about things like this in the changeset comment ("mobile home park shut down c. 2010" or so) in the future. Happy mapping!

Dear Yougs68, the "changeset comment" is an important part of quality control in OSM. When someone deletes a lot of things, like you did here, we look at the changeset comment for a justification - why were these things deleted, did they not exist in the first place or were they wrong or have they been removed etc. - instead the reason you provided was "atk" which doesn't tell us anything. Please explain!

You have deleted a good 50 buildings in this changeset, with a somewhat non-informative changeset of "updates and corrections". Can you explain these deletions - were the buildings bogus, have they been destroyed, or what?

It is correct that it would be great if the software were better. It currently isn't and we have to work with what we have.

After my suggestion to remove your confrontative "I am not reading comments...." from your profile, you have instead chosen to add a paragraph that explains how your time is scarce and that you don't want to be lectured about your contributions.

Now, everyone else's time is scarce too, and by creating unnecessarily large bounding boxes your edits are showing up in the "latest changes" views of many more people than necessary. You are perhaps saving a little time for you, but you are wasting a little time for many others. Please consider that going forward.

Also, quality control is not about "being right" or "lecturing others", it is about our common goal to make a good map (database). It is in everyone's interest to point out mistakes so that they can be avoided in the future.

Hallo ya04, osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments beschreibt den Nutzen von Änderungssatzkommentaren in OSM. Bitte versuche doch, in Zukunft statt "Anpassung" zu schreiben, was Du warum angepasst hast.

Dear user GPMapper, thank you for using proper changeset comments. However, Wikipedia publishes its content under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license which is not compatible with OSM's ODbL license. Please do not copy data from Wikipedia.

If the Wikidata ID describes the trail as a whole then it should only be tagged on the relation that describes the whole trail. You have added the whole-trail wikidata ID to every individual section now which is wrong - only give wikidata tags to the individual sections if there is a wikidata item for that particular section.

Hello StreetSurveyor, your interpretation of access tagging is not in line with the community consensus. An "access restriction" can be legal, it does not have to be physical (and in fact rarely is). The fact that mail delivery and trash collection services are allowed to use a road does not mean that the public is allowed to do so.

I am saying the following with my DWG hat on (and tracking this in DWG ticket 2025060410000023):

Please do not make any changes to access tags (i.e. access=*, foot=*, bicycle=*, vehicle=* etc.) in the future without first having discussed your reasoning on the relevant public OSM forum, https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 for the US. Make a forum post where you write which area you intend to change access tags in (and from what to what), and explain your reasoning. Only continue with your planned changes if there is no major disagreement.

If this is too much of a burden for you, then do not make any access tag changes at all. Your recent changes are suitable to put OpenStreetMap users in danger and damage OSM's reputation. If you believe that land owners are overstepping their rights by putting up "no trespassing" signs then please direct your energy towards challenging the signs, not towards misrepresenting the situation on OSM.

"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.