Road suffixes should be expanded (Ct -> Court, Blvd -> Boulevard). Additionally, names should not be used as descriptions like "Cycle, Walking and Jogging Pathway".

He's still doing this? At what point can we cast him out the airlock?

Not limited to that intersection, the ones on 8th in this changeset all look odd.

Just the weird geometry of the crosswalks

*What* is going on here?! way/984590058

Make sure to square buildings before uploading by selecting them and pressing Q.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for your contributions! When drawing buildings, make sure to square the corners to improve their accuracy. This can be done by selecting them and pressing Q.

For schools, it is generally better to add information to the grounds rather than the building. Especially because the address and name were already present on grounds, this just duplicated the information. I've gone ahead and drawn the school grounds now, though.

Hey dummy, you forgot about the stuff around Elmore Lake and the golf course.

That's a serious offer, by the way. I'm probably running close to a block of my own with this commentary. I'd like to close this off beforehand. Perhaps me reverting this now and just shutting up is the best way to end this discussion. Does that work, or will that just add fuel to the fire?

You started this back up. Could've let it be, and maybe no one would've bothered to revert this import...

The lie came just as predicted. The small portion of your data can apparently be quickly and easily observed. If it's so easily seen by me to be wrong, why not you? Is it because you think two hours is a reasonable amount of time in which to review tens of thousands of buildings?

Pointing out perceived "contradictions" in my statement doesn't accomplish anything. It's sarcasm (perhaps inappropriate). I'm not happy to give you a list. You should have picked up on these and never uploaded them, or at least gone back and fixed them. But I do think it's worthwhile to show the world that you're willing to completely make things up.

The shame should be that the DWG has pretty much said what amounts to "this is an undocumented import" and you're still trying to say it's not. The only people whose take on the matter has any weight have weighed in.

You are free to leave the discussion any time! You just have to stop defending your buildings. I'll be here as long as you're still trying to muddy the waters of whether these changesets should be reverted. You could end the discussion with your "time to contribute something actually useful" by fixing these errors! Or reverting them, in all likelihood.

Your entire claim about the low error rate is defeated by the simple fact that you haven't caught these errors. You haven't gone back and fixed them. You haven't done squat with this data on OSM to really justify adding it in the first place. No building types, no business info, no addresses. You don't even map here much at all!

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say this and its neighbor were visible on all aerial when you made this edit: way/1022020937

way/1010562596 is totally off

way/1010563197 and the rest of the mobile home park don't approximate the shape well at all

way/1022017715 doesn't exist

way/1010566126 is a house with attached carport, not a single building, and the garage nearby includes a bit of driveway

way/1010566407 was definitely visibly gone when you made this changeset, or perhaps never even existed

way/1010566759 should just be a rectangle, not this mess

way/1010568913 is a weird fusion of multiple mobile homes

way/1010561528, another fusion

way/1022020663, anti-fusion (splitting?)

way/1022022691, very wrong

I'll do more later, but I'm busy.

way/1147138477 seems not to exist, or maybe it's misaligned. Any insight?

I generally agree MikeN, but that is not the case here. Other imports of this sort of data by the same user have been proven problematic and even acknowledged as such by the DWG.

It's not your work. We've been over this: your "manual review" is either a façade or product of incompetence. Everyone knows what you've done here, including the DWG. Continuing to lie about it just makes people mad. I'm happy to give you a list of bad footprints, but at this point it's clear that you have no sense of shame and doing so will just prompt your newest lie about how "that's such a small percentage of the data!". We both know it's coming, so you can save yourself the trouble.

Cut it out with the whataboutism. I don't care what data dumping they're doing in other countries. I don't map there. I do map in the US!

What will you do if someone reverts this changeset, revert it back? You'll just get blocked again. But by all means, keep digging. I'll be working on the list of low-quality buildings; not for you, but for anyone with lingering doubts.

It's preferred to map as building=detached, assuming these are single-family. It is more specific than building=house. Thanks for adding these!

Oh dear, seems I copied the same link twice. The building I meant to link to in my third link was just to the west of the second one.

These are just the worst examples. There are plenty of buildings that are just not aligned, or have oversimplified shapes. Sometimes it is better to ignore the Bing building and do it by hand instead.

It would be good to review these buildings carefully instead of adding them blindly. For example, way/1150289618 is actually two buildings. The garage is separate, the roof just happens to overlap with the house's porch. And another example, though not in this changeset: way/1150289947. This shape is totally wrong. It should be a simple rectangle, but here you've mapped it with a bit jutting out. A neighboring building, way/1150289647, is no better. You've mapped a detached garage as part of the house.

It is clear by the RapiD (pun intended) pace at which you're uploading these changesets that these buildings are not being properly reviewed, and thus this constitutes an undocumented import.

I believe if you revert all the changesets at once, and just choose to resolve any conflicts toward what's on the server (assume edits made after the import make the building now usable) you can correct most of the damage.

May be good to ask for help in the OSM Slack. There are definitely some experts there. And it's likely that the DWG would work to revert these edits as well.

The unreviewed Bing import that got this user blocked for 10 years is bad? Guess you have to revert it...