Here is another example where a residential landuse area stretched along a road - which could have been correctly approximated by a rectangular way using four nodes - has instead been approximated by three circles, two of them overlapping, and two others leaving a gap that does very well have buildings in it: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/landuse-circles2.jpg - this is indeed lazy and careless, and wa waste of resources on top of everything (using 60 nodes instead of 4 and still giving a worse approximation). I have identified about 10,000 such residential landuses added by Pilou@nowhere which have not been improved since they were added, and will remove them now.

I have commented on this issue in osm.org/changeset/113616927 and will now remove these circular landuses.

Dear Pilou@nowhere, while it is generally acceptable to "approximate" when mapping, drawing guesswork micro-circles across the landscape helps no-one and makes our map the laughing stock of users. I looked at the circles you created and found them more or less random - some circles had no buildings in them, lots of other buildings were outside any circles you drew. If you have some specialist use case for which such guesswork mapping is useful, please find a way to execute the guesswork mapping inside your own toolchain, and not in OSM.

Here is a screenshot of your random residential circles and their problems: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/landuse-circles.jpg

You've had 8 months to clean this up and haven't found it worth doing, so I'll now revert these circles.

iriman, please explain these edits. I can see in the discussion on osm.org/changeset/123455005 that LockOnGuy cited a number of sources supporting the claim that far from being "clearly Iranian", these islands are indeed subject to a dispute and tagging the boundaries as disputed sounds like the correct solution to me. You have not given any sources for your claim.

Dear seandebasti, could you please use changset comments that are human-readable? "#are #bldg #emporis" leaves me guessing what it is you might have edited here, just like most of your other changesets...

Hello Maturi0n, what is the source of these name:ru tags that you have been adding here?

I think you have overreacted, and have thrown out a number of useful edits together with the problematic ones, for example the addition of fees to toll gantries (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/node/1846273046) which you also wrongly changed back to toll booths. destination:ref tags that had been added in the changeset (which were correct and are useful for turn-by-turn navigation) were removed by you. A lot of valuable information has been lost because of your knee-jerk reaction to a few sharp kinks. Your revert may have repaired a few things but it would have been easier and friendlier had you given the mapper a chance to rectify these issues instead of asserting local dominance and in-your-face reverting the lot. It is too late now to revert your revert without unwanted side effects, else I would have done it, but please never do this again.

Hallo walloHerbrechtingen, ich habe den in diesem Changeset von Dir neu angelegten Weg osm.org/way/1039687696/history gelöscht, nachdem sich der Landwirt bei OSM beschwert hatte, dass ihm Wanderer durch seinen Acker laufen. Falls Du sicher bist, dass es sich um einen öffentlichen Weg handelt, kannst Du ihn gern wiederherstellen - ich habe jetzt einfach mal der Beschwerde geglaubt.

Hello osmmichi, can you confirm that this path

osm.org/way/208781198

which you have modified in this changeset does (a) actually exist on the ground and is (b) accessible to the public? Asking because a land owner claims it is on private land.

Dear SandipYadav1317, the "changeset comment" field is primarily intended for other human beings. You are expected to explain your edit in a natural language, either English or the lanugage used locally where the changeset is made.

"#hotosm-project-12776 #BIPAD #YILAB # Rapti #DigitalVolunteers" is not a sufficient changeset comment, it does not explain what you did and why, and all those hashtags are only readable for insiders. It is disrespectful towards other mappers if you do not explain your edit.

Hashtags can be used in addition to a good changeset comment but they cannot replace it.

See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for more information.

This is how it looks when I request Maxar imagery for the area osm.org/changeset/121991066#map=19/37.10495/15.12180:

http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/walls.png

It is impossible to discern the location of inidividual walls on these images. Are you sure you have been using Maxar?

Hello 1T-Money, the data contributed by txemt which you here claim to have been "sloppy" was totally within usual quality standards in OSM. It would not have been necessary to edit after them, and it *certainly* is inappropriate to call these edits "sloppy".

Please stop this aggressive behaviour, and stop demonstratively "improving" contributions by txemt when they are not plainly wrong.

Dear fayor, can you clarify your source for these edits? You have added a large number of walls in the North of the town (Via Luigi Pirandello etc.) and these walls are not visible on aerial imagery.

ZeLoneWolf, thank you (belatedly) for summing up the discussion here.

Dear 1T-Money, please explain why you fully reverted changeset osm.org/changeset/122047673 in this edit and why you didn't see fit to explain your reasons in the changeset comment right away.

In the future, when making wholesale reverts of the work of others, please ALWAYS give sufficient reason in your changeset comment.

Dear PJ_33, in this changeset, and other recent changesets, you have contributed a lot of information about golf courses that cannot conceivably come from aerial imagery alone. Please use the "source" field that the ID editor displays when saving your edits to state where your information comes from.

Hello arichnad, I am belatedly processing a complaint that DWG received over a year ago. They wrote about this path that "It is on private property, a power line easement through the Lake Ridge Parks and Recreation Association (LRPRA) HOA." and asked us to remove it. I replied with a general explanation about how we deal with trail access. I notice that you explicitly set this to foot=yes and bicycle=yes. I'll trust your judgement on this but perhaps, in the light of the complaint received, you could double-check. Thanks!

Hallo Xxlfussel, bitte unterlasse die Erstellung solcher kleinteiligen Relationen. Grunsdsätzlich ist es gut, die Grenzlinien, die GRÖSSERE Flächen miteinander teilen, mit Hilfe von Relationen nur einmal in der Datenbank zu haben. Das machen wir bei Gemeindegrenzen oder großen Landnutzungsflächen. Aber nicht bei Parkplätzen - da ist es völlig ok, wenn der Parkplatz einen eigenen Way hat, der die Nodes von einigen Nachbarflächen mitbenutzt. Meine persönliche Faustregel ist, dass ich so ab 50 Nodes anfange, über eine Relation nachzudenken. Diese Grenze ist sicher für jeden woanders, aber bestimmt nicht bei 10 Nodes!

I am afraid "looking at Google Maps and then making edits to OSM" is exactly what we call "copying from Google" - it doesn't matter if you do it digitally or in a more analogue fashion. The fact that you are taking copyrighted information from Google and adding that to OSM is what counts. I have reverted your edits.

The node in question was created 2 years ago. I have reset it to the state it was 2 years ago. I have no knowledge about camping in France - if there was any BS on the French map before the illegal import was made, then exactly that same BS is there (again) now.