All of the user's 8 changesets at Lac du Der-Chantecoq: 147258986, 147259044, 147259115, 147259218, 147259360, 147259432, 147259458, 147259539
are reverted as very damaging to the map. The correct lake name was already present on the multipolygon and did not need adding to the lake outer way, and all of the other changes were deletion of well mapped features which looks like vandalism but might possibly be new mapper inexperience. A reply from user webhound on these changes (and others) would be appreciated.

Changesets 147808414 and 147808706 reverted as badly damaging the map, with no indication of what, if anything, was the intent of the change.

Hi Bernard,
Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like there was an update to the area including realignment to Cadastral-aligned-Bing yesterday in https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=147708927 which moved all except 8 nodes of the 3d shape. So I've selectively reverted that shift for this building then realigned the whole as intended. Thanks again,
Cebderby (Clive)

The same as commented a few days ago at changeset/146598861
this way was basically correct, having access=no except foot=yes, psv=yes. It was not a footpath, and it was wrong to set that all motor vehicles have legal access along here. Actually, with psv covering bus and taxi, it was a little too open; I have re-removed your wrong motor_vehicle=yes and changed psv=yes to bus=yes.
You can read up on all the complexities of access tagging at:
access=*

Hi WestWyreWanderer,
Welcome to OSM and thanks for your map updates. Please note the Esri imagery is a little newer than Bing (here, at the moment - it varies by location and over time) so it's worth checking both to compare to your valuable local knowledge. The Esri is often slightly less clear and more variable in alignment than Bing, but still useful. I've undeleted a pond which was added only a couple of weeks ago by another mapper.
Happy mapping,
Cebderby (Clive)

It looks like *way* 109208134 was part of that roundabout badly damaged by node drags, and that is the number of this changeset.
But also way/109208132 was the same, and your changeset/146597431 has reverted changeset/109208132 (just set/removed fee=no on some parking in Germany) so that should be reversed too, probably the only other affected?

Hi vw999 and welcome to OSM.
I've undone this change as the road already had oneway:psv=no (psv is bus and taxi) as well as oneway:bicycle=no to go with oneway=yes (for everyone else) and other tags relevant to this. Also you dragged a railway node - which is rather easy to do if you move the map in iD while editting (if the cursor is not the 'open hand' shape when you drag the map, it means something is under there and may be shifted). There were also 2 node drags in your other edit which are repaired (and the speed limit you added there is kept, thanks for that).

So is the road permanently 10 mph speed limit then? It was signed as 10 mph during the adjacent building works because of the construction - hence maxspeed:type=construction.

Duplicate additions removed as requested, that was unlucky and a pity as that was a nice set of buildings added.

landuse=cemetery
landuse=grass

Hi archie,
Thanks, I hadn't done so (was assuming they would be Swedish but I see their changeset comments are all English and maybe editing from England too), so have commented at changeset/145832552
Happy mapping,
Cebderby (Clive)

Hello Crusaider and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Please note that the imagery (in this case Bing) is not always well aligned. In this case the Bing imagery is really quite bad - there is even a big step in it down the road near Uteby. The Esri imagery is reasonable here, and you can use the local orthophoto imagery (Lantmäteriet) and the "OpenStreetMap GPS traces" (some GPS tracks available on the main roads to north and south) to confirm what is 'correct' - the existing mapping looks to be fine. I've tidied things back to a consistent alignment.
Cebderby (Clive)

Ich war mir nicht sicher, ob es Absicht war, den Namen von way/558228240 (Luible Logistik GmbH, An der Rollbahn 1, Leipheim) zu löschen. Es gab verschleppte Knoten, die es berührten, alle repariert. Der Name wurde vorerst wiederhergestellt; Wenn es beabsichtigt war, können Sie eine weitere Änderung vornehmen, um den Namen wieder zu entfernen.

Die Knoten (17, glaube ich), die Sie beim Bearbeiten versehentlich gezogen haben, wurden alle auf ihre ursprünglichen Positionen zurückgesetzt. Bitte seien Sie vorsichtig, wenn Sie die Karte im iD-Editor verschieben.

Yes, galaxytransitUK tried reversing a couple of ways first, before more harmful changes...
Anyway, I went back through the change list and rechecked, finished off repairing the ones we were waiting for replies on (their 1st edit and the Fastrack barrier+bridge area, also one other trashed turn restriction I hadn't gone back to) and now all is fixed up.

Great. A few other random thoughts I noted while I think of them:

Try to keep your changeset comments specific, so that you and others can see the basic content and reason for the change; as a rough guide you should be able to look down your list of changes and fairly easily remember which was which and others should be able to see whether they are interested in them. Most of yours are great, but avoid "small adjustment" or similar generic phrases.

We like to keep the history (of ways, and single tagged nodes - but ordinary untagged nodes of ways aren't valuable though) so if you rework a building, road or even a shop node that's already mapped, try to keep the old way/single node and change the tags eg shop to vacant or whatever. Obviously if there's demolition and rebuilding something else, then delete and re-add as necessary.

A couple of times you've made a building of parts by having untagged closed areas grouped by a building relation. This is actually not usual, I made the areas into building:part areas and drew an outline around the whole as the building way. ('building:part' can be used to do 3d buildings which is a whole other area you can look into some time if you fancy it). Multipolygons are mostly used where there is a hole inside, I put one at one of the school buildings where there's grass in the middle.

You took out the pedestrianised 'linear' way at Spring Gardens (and some connecting side ways). I've put these back, as OSM is not just one (or more) renders of a map like you see on the OSM website, its really a database of connected ways (etc), and for calculating routes and other purposes the linear ways are more significant. Also there was a cycle route relation (an ordered list of ways representing a named followable route) down Spring Gardens which got broken, but all is good now.

Have fun mapping,
Cebderby (Clive)

Thanks for the quick reply and the confirmation of the nature of what was triggering changes. The only thing I've found in any of the places edited was one of the right turn restrictions you disrupted (by deleting either a 'from' or 'to' way) was missing an 'except psv' condition, which I added when I repaired it. But bases on an earlier edit you would have needed to trash that anyway. You also found a badly set tag as psv=bus on a couple of ways which was good to fix but would not have affected anything as bus=yes was set. *Everything* else was perfect as it was in OSM and it was wrong to change it.
The 'router' the web service is using is presumably not configured to follow the rules of a bus which can go on bus-only ways and take bus-only turns, and go on private ways if necessary. This is what I guessed from your edits. This is a configuration problem with that site, not OSM data. By trying to allow yourself to follow these ways, to are defining that all road users *in the real world* are allowed to be routed along these ways. Accordingly all these changes (that I have not already done...) will be put back. The busmiles website must be changed to allow routing using the OSM rules for a bus.
Cebderby

Hi galaxytransitUK,
Further to the other changeset comments, and having reviewed your changes, are you able to confirm that what you were doing is trying to drive (or simulate driving) a bus including on bus-only and/or private ways and using bus-only turns, while using a satnav/routing software set as if you were a private car using public roads only. And that you were prepared to change OSM data to try to force this to work for you. Can you also confirm that this is going to stop as this is not acceptable. Wilful damage to good OSM data will not be tolerated.
Hoping you will be able to confirm this,
Cebderby (Clive)

Hi HaBaSm,
It looks like the badly non-vertical imagery around Buxton has lead you to choose a large offset eg -8.2,-0.8 ? on Bing imagery for much of your mapping. This kind of offset is only useful temporarily while tracing roofs of a certain height at the town centre, and never for ground level roads, paths etc or at other places where the imagery is non-vertical in a different direction. For ALL other purposes, the (ground level) offset for Bing imagery looks to be pretty consistently around -1.4,-0.7 or within a fraction of a metre of this around here.
You can check/set this by turning on the 'OSMUK Cadastral' overlay and aligning ground level features (there are usually some pavement edges or low walls around to pick from, avoid anything taller). Then you can deal with anything taller by tracing around top/gutter line (ignore anything locally taller/shorter like gable or local low roof and imagine where the building would be if flat) then drag the resulting shape to the base of the visible walls. Don't be tempted to follow the roof one side and the base of walls the other. If it's right, it should look equally decent with Esri or Bing imagery, although the Bing is clearer. Also the 'q' key will square buildings when you know they are only supposed to contain right angles (typically domestic buildings, garages etc, not many old Buxton buildings though!). I've tidied some stuff back to nice alignment, so all is well and don't be put off. Please feel free to reply/send message if you need any help/clarification. Happy mapping, Cebderby (Clive)

Can you confirm if Mill Street has been opened to all traffic in both directions, as N-bound was for bus and bicycle only in imagery and OSM. If you had used a meaningful changeset comment describing your intention it would be possible to tell which of two possible tagging errors you have made here.