Hallo ChrisFromRV, trotz mehrfachen Bittens ist hier wieder ein Änderungssatz von Dir ohne Kommentar. Wenn man sich die Mühe macht, nachzusehen, was Du geändert hast, kommt man auf:
1. Metzgerei Walser Swaderer sowie 3 weitere Gebäude von building:demolished auf building_demolished geändert. Das ist falsch oder zumindest sehr unüblich und bedürfte einer Erklärung.
2. Way 758368426: highway=cycleway in highway=footway, bicycle=yes geändert. Das ist korrekt, falls vor Ort ein blaues Fußwegschild mit Zusatz "Radfahrer frei" ist. Ist das der Fall? Dann hätte man das im Changeset-Kommentar als Änderungsgrund angeben können.
Gibt es denn wenigstens einen Grund, wieso Du unsere fortgesetzten Bitten um brauchbare Changeset-Kommentare ignorierst? Ich habe in der Vergangenheit, wenn sich Leute über Deine Edits beschwert haben, immer dafür geworben, mit Dir zu reden statt sich über Dich zu beschweren, aber lange kann ich das nicht mehr tun, wenn Du Dich so beratungsresistent verhältst.

Frederik Ramm - für die OSMF Data Working Group

Nachricht an petrich-andy mit Bitte um Kommentar: osm.org/user_blocks/3769

Hi, could you specify a source for your name additions? If you are you adding them because you record the street names locally, add a "source=survey" tag to your changeset, or if you are taking them from other (non copyrighted) material please specify that.

The offensive language in this discussion is not acceptable, and I am not convinced by numide's reasoning. While local knowledge will always be considered paramount in OSM, it doesn't mean that local mappers get to act as if the Arabic alphabet didn't exist. I have blocked user numide here osm.org/user_blocks/3758 until the matter can be resolved but anyone else name-fiddling in the region will meet a similar fate.

Please explain your deletion of way 809280062 which had been subject to an edit war in the last couple of days. A deletion like that should not fly under a comment of "mapping and correcting".

Please explain your deletion of Arabic names from node 4053665695.

Dear user numide, please urgently explain why you deleted Arabic names from osm.org/way/547968088/history. As you are probably aware, a number of vandals have made similar edits in the recent past. You have also touched a number of other objects that were subject to that same edit war. What is your relation to the accounts jatoca, wixomi, vereka, wocefen, xogoce?

How did you arrive at the width of 3.048 for the intermittent "West Fork of North Branch of Chicago River"?

Please fix the name of node 7137672118. It is certainly not a construction site called "DEMOLISHED". If the construction site has a name, add that; if it has no name, delete the name tag.

Please fix the name. "BASIN" is certainly not the name of this thing. If the basin has a name, but that in the name tag; if it is unnamed, delete the name tag.

"see wikipedia" is not a good example for a changeset comment. Ideally the changeset comment should explain what you did and why; now, people have to look at the object history to find out what you changed, then refer to wikipedia for a clue as to why you changed it. In addition, Wikipedia is not an admissable source for OSM since it has a license that is not compatible to ours.

Hallo Til Man, Du hast hier ein Neubaugebiet erfasst und als Quelle "Maps4BW" angegeben. Die Hausnummern und Straßennamen sind aber weder vor Ort sichtbar, noch bei Maps4BW drin. Woher stammen diese Informationen?

Hallo ChrisFromRV, versuche Doch, Dir anzugewöhnen, auch bei scheinbar unbedeutenden Änderungen einen kleinen Kommentar/Quellenangabe zu machen. Hier zum Beispiel hast Du ein winziges Stückchen Falkenweg hinzugefügt - das ist auf keinem der Luftbilder und auch nicht auf Maps4BW zu sehen. Bei sowas hilft dann ein Hinweis wie "Wege ergänzt nach Ortsbegehung" oder sowas enorm.

Dear marjorieeaguilar, thank you for your contributions to OSM. Could you try to use the "name" tag only when a building or other thing actually has a name. In this changeset you tagged a lot of buildings with a name of "vivienda" but these buildings are certainly not named "vivienda"! There is information on the proper use of the name tag here: osm.wiki/ES:Nombres -- Also, may I ask that you use proper changeset comments that actually explain what you were editing? See more here osm.wiki/ES:Buenos_comentarios_en_conjuntos_de_cambios

For the OSMF Data Working Group -- Frederik Ramm

Elaborating on the previous comment, I'm not sure if you were aware, fieldoflilies, that your deletions actually have an effect on everyone, not just on your view of the map!

This import has also introduced many duplicates. Please explain what processes, if any, have been employed to avoid data duplication.

Please specify the data source for this undiscussed data import. If the stated source "bing" refers to Bing aerial imagery it is clearly wrong since aerial imagery cannot be the source for 5,800 peaks and their names. If "bing" refers to Bing maps then the use is not legal for OSM.

Dear khoeam2008, you need to use better changeset comments that describe the contribution you are making. "dssssssssssssss" is not a suitable comment, and disrespectful towards your fellow mappers. Please read more about this here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments -- Thank you, Frederik Ramm for the OSMF Data Working Group.

Dear BlueRanger, could you provide a more detailed link to your source "IGAC", especially one that allows us to verify that their data is legal to use for OpenStreetMap?

The street names added in this changeset seem to be a joke. Please explain. Please also respond to the comment I made in osm.org/changeset/82788287.