I see that in July Pete Owens also considered that sidewalks are better represented as separate ways here. See for example
https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/964452555
, this section is separated not just by a kerb. So I guess they are actually better therefore I restored them.

In most of the cases someone who is not interested in sidewalks can just ignore them. That's not going to work when they are shared cycleways, but why is it not considered to be important information for cyclists?

Anton Khorev
Data Working Group

Pete Owens,
When you said "cycling on pavements is illegal" was it only about this way
https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/964452554 ?

Did you delete this way
https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/964452559
with both bicycle and foot tagging
because the street already had a bicycle tag (`cycleway:right=track`)
and
you don't think that the presence of sidewalks should be tagged at all? (there are no sidewalk tags on the street, therefore there was no duplicate mapping for the sidewalk)

Pete Owens,
did you delete this way
https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/964452559
because it's illegal to cycle on this sidewalk and the bike lane is actually outside of this sidewalk?

*Reducing clutter* and *accuracy* are opposite goals in this case, you can't pursue both by deleting separate paths. Tagging the absence is not "the way to deal with that", it's just *one of the ways*:

osm.wiki/Sidewalks

Pete Owens,
why is it wrong to map this cycleway it separately? In this case it also served as a footway. You don't mind this part of the footway to exist as a separate way:
way/964452554
But you deleted its footway-cycleway combined part:
https://osmcha.org/changesets/111559966/
Why?
Why cycleway:left/right=separate is not a better option?

RiverBearings,
I messaged this user before about untagged ways he was adding and suggested that he needs to add tags and that the most likely tag for these ways is `highway=unclassified`. I guess that danianigabriel misunderstood this as put this tag on everything, maybe because of automatic translation.

Hello, Everoo.

You're repeatedly adding "parks" and "meadows" near the house 608 while another user is deleting them. That happens because your additions to the map are not quite correct. Of course you can add details around the house to the map and you managed to add some correctly.

Here' what you could do with the "park" near the house:

- Since it's not actually a park, don't set its type to a park. Draw this area again
https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/972333527
and set its type to "grass" (`landuse=grass`, see landuse=grass )

- Don't invent names for this area. You already tried calling it "Lard Park Yard", "608 Private Access Park", "Sontino Park" etc. which indicates that there's no real name for it. So just leave the name field empty.

Best regards
Anton Khorev
Data Working Group

Hello.

Are you sure you want to keep deleting driveways like this one?

way/913146169/history

It is already added again by another Amazon contributor:

way/972360729

Do you still think they are "redundant" without nearby buildings?

You're claiming that this is a part of National Road 7. Which *nation* does this national road belong to? Is there a road designation scheme for both North and South Korea? Wasn't ref=AH6 already a correct tag?

Here you tried to tag the entire building as a pharmacy
way/44734459
Which is ok except you tagged it as a vending machine and removed the building tags so now it's not a building. You can fix this by changing the Feature Type to "CVS Pharmacy".

sidelines, if you think that driveways are redundant without houses, why don't you add the houses instead?

Also, why did you delete the shops like this one:
node/2278431079
(I restored it for now). Are they closed and/or were replaced by other shops? If they are, it's better to delete them in a separate changeset with an appropriate comment like "deleted closed shops" instead of "updated Wickliffe".

Additionally I reverted the part of 107513923 that introduced a break in "Obispo Lazcano"
changeset/108635921

Many of your changesets are named "correzioni segnalate da parte di utenti" - "corrections reported by users". Who are these users? Looks like they are not OpenStreetMap users because there aren't any closed notes nearby.

Please don't add name "building" to every building.

For more info on what not to put in names see
osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Рокетдатовцы, возможно, специально Ив Роше двумя точками метят: и как магазин, и как салон красоты, который где-то внутри магазина. Только я не знаю, где именно внутри, и рокетдатовцы, конечно, тоже не знают.

Вы уверены, что территория поликлиники была неправильно отмечена?

Hello
Why did you change the status of this road from `highway=tertiary` to `highway=primary`?
way/541828013

Hello, Bobi Alexiev.

You've deleted a path in this changeset. Unfortunately it's difficult to guess why because your changeset comments are cryptic ("swdwd" here). Can you write clearer comments? Do you edit based on aerial imagery and heatmaps or do you use anything else?

For now I've restored the path way/802459545

Best regards
Anton Khorev
Data Working Group

I edited this place because it was close to highways with names to be redacted. One of orchards was mapped twice:
way/234333295/history
way/633714967/history

Я этот "Ростелеком" отметил как закрытый, а вы поставили ему режим работы:
node/5230428621

Он сейчас работает или вы эту правку давно сделали а maps.me её залил гораздо позже?