Sockpuppet, fake peaks:

Hello PeaksearchWG,

Your recent edits suggests that this account is nothing more than a sockpuppet account created to avoid the previous problems you’ve had with the community which can be seen at osm.org/user/andyb109/blocks , http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=2574131 , osm.org/user/CYM1988/blocks and http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=2991492 .

From this account comments on your edits suggest similar problems - see http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=9755362 - and I’ve also seen complaints via OSM message and on IRC.

In the past the accounts with which you have been associated with have been accused of flat-out lying about sources. I’ll therefore request that any edit that you make to a peak (either adding a “new” one or editing an existing feature to contain a peak tag) is accompanied by photographic evidence of the data that you are adding. For example if you say “I read the name and elevation on an information board”, let’s see a photo of that information board showing the name and elevation. If you say “the name and elevation is available on an OOC map” let’s see a snapshot of the background that you used.

For the avoidance of doubt, this sort of request is very unusual within OSM. Verifiability is a very important concept, but we rarely need to request such explicit source information. Unfortunately the activities of your new account (even leaving aside those of your previous ones) leave us no option.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM’s Data Working Group.