Dear Jay May, please take the time to use proper changeset comments that explain what you did in *this* particular changeset, and do not use the same changeset comment for everything you do.

The bus route osm.org/relation/12848426 you have edited in this changeset makes a huge detour to Centro Medico Mae Lewis without having any stops there. Is that really correct? The "reverse" direction looks very different. Please, editing bus routes is a difficult task - let other community members help you learn a couple of quality control tools so that you don't break them!

Ich habe diese Relation jetzt ich Changeset 112294357 gelöscht. OpenStreetMap ist kein historischer Eisenbahnatlas.

erickdeoliveiraleal, can you explain which sources you have used to determine that this "path" should be a "track" instead? You haven't specified any sources in your changeset. Thank you.

I have reverted three other deletions by the same user, see osm.org/user_blocks/5366

The DWG has had a complaint about this line, especially the "proposed" part osm.org/way/261185619, claiming that showing this proposed railway "has caused many economic impacts as the land value has reduced through which the route is shown and many people who have to sell land for the education and marriage of their kids are getting only cheap value for their
land. ... The government has not finalized the route and showing an incorrect route causes severe impact in the life of many people".

Can you verify that the current route is in line with actual government planning? Or if the state of affairs is just that this is "one of several proposed alternatives", then perhaps consider removing it from OSM until one of the alternatives has been settled on.

I have told the complainant that we'll pass on the request to the local community but DWG is not going to be further involved.

(Ticket#2021100710000053)

@Sharcrash, the combination "access=private" + "foot=yes" (or "bicycle=yes") is perfectly fine and frequently used in Germany. Don't "fix" that please.

Sharcrash, please do not blindly apply the logic that something can never be a driveway if other paths branch off of it; this is not a universal rule. You can do that if you have personally surveyed the are. Otherwise don't.

Nach Rückfrage: Parkplatz und Hubschrauber-Landeplatz existieren noch.

Herman, the changeset that you have reverted had the following changeset comment: "This area, together with the Doklam plateau, are under investigation by the DWG. Please, do not change them in the meantime." -- Have you seen that comment and ignored it deliberately, or have you accidentally overlooked that comment?

I have reverted this edit in osm.org/changeset/111284153 - please do not change the names of this water body without prior discussion.

cheatach, the DWG has little patience with users who (on purpose) make erroneous and malicious edits. If you can point to any such edits made by the funny-face user or any other account you claim to be a reincarnation of RotaniMile then we're happy to act on that. However this particular edit, the deletion of a non-existent street name, was correct.

What do you think that "foot:physical" means? In how far do you think that replacing foot:phyiscal with foot:physical is something that improves OSM?

Hello Maskulinum, I think you're over-doing it with your attempts at "streamlining" OpenStreetMap data. This is just one changeset of many but I think that there are better uses of your time than playing with taginfo and finding rare tags and guessing what might have been meant by them. You have zero local knowledge in most of the areas you're editing in. Try going out mapping for a change.

Hello user with a funny face as username, please stop participating in this edit war. If you believe that there is a problem with this street, please message the DWG. @everyone else, I see what you're trying to do here but it is not good for OSM to give the impression that people can map "invented" names even if it is for a good purpose. We will have to find other ways to detect map plagiarism.

Hallo hangy, bist Du sicher, dass diese Änderungen korrekt sind im Sinne von "zur Sitaution vor Ort passend"? Ist die Beschilderung/Beschriftung aller dieser Gebäude bereits angepasst? Wir wollen in OSM nämlich nicht das mappen, was in irgendeiner Firmenzentrale beschlossen wird, sondern das, was man vor Ort sieht...

Anfangs- und Endstück des gelöschten Weges sind übrigens auch im "BayernAtlas" sichtbar (der vom Bayerischen Staatsministerium für FInanzen und für Heimat herausgegeben wird), und dort nicht einmal als Privatwege gekennzeichnet. Ganz so "illegal" können die also wohl nicht sein...

Mapper MS1@ hat diesen Fall der DWG gemeldet (
Ticket#2021090110000111), dadurch bin ich auf dem Fall aufmerksam geworden und habe Ihn gebeten, unberechtigte Löschungen sowie juristische Drohungen zu unterlassen. Dass tatsächlich nicht existierende Wege gelöscht und Wege mit Betretungsverbot entsprechend als Privatwege gekennzeichnet werden, ist natürlich erwünscht, aber die Löschung tatsächlich existierender Wege ist Vandalismus.

Ich schließe mich den Zweifeln an der Löschung an. Auf dem Luftbild ist ganz klar ein Track zu erkennen, der zum Gebäude osm.org/way/153030711 führt, und auch die "Lenihütte" dürfte nicht nur mit Gummistiefeln durch die Wiese erreichbar sein. Solche Tracks zeichnen wir ein, und wenn sie privat sind, dann eben mit access=private. Dafür gibt es verschiedene Gründe, nicht zuletzt auch den, dass sich zunehmend auch Rettungsdienste auf OSM verlassen. Niemand kann uns verbieten, einen Weg, der in der Realität existiert, auch einzuzeichnen - weder die Naturschutzbehörde noch der Grundstückseigentümer. Die Note
osm.org/note/2787348 ist zurecht gesetzt; diese Situation muss vor Ort von einem unabhängigen Beobachter anhand der Beschilderung überprüft werden. So, wie es jetzt im Augenblick in OSM ist, ist es auf jeden Fall falsch.

Vandalism requires an intent to damage OSM. The user tomolobla, which you seem to have successfully driven away from OSM, has never shown this intent. In fact, he's been one of the top five contributors to Luxembourg data in OSM. Please stop bad-mouthing him.