Can you look at note/3344901 ?

Can this playground surface be described as woodchips?

Can you look at note/3344903 ? Can this playground surface be described as woodchips?

continues in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2022-September/087734.html

Have you taken osm.wiki/File:50770912471_2e20dd6dfc_k.jpg picture? If yes - do you consider it to be OK if others will use it according to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ rules like other OSM Wiki content?

Or is it found somewhere on the internet?

Sorry for bothering you but I am trying to clarify licensing status of media at OSM Wiki.

Dodam że nalepiej zrobić więcej edycji, każdą z jednego źródła i podać je w opisie edycji

Skąd wiesz że są tu dwa budynki nazwane "RATCHEM Paweł Kukawka"?

So if you reviewed each building: why you decided to mark this ones as valid and useful mapping?

""... you decided that OSM data will benefit from adding such geometries?". Not those buildings in particular - But in my opinion, those few bad buildings are justified, because the overwhelming majority of the buildings are good and those 130k good buildings outweigh the -let it be 50- bad buildings. (no, I didn't add them intentionally) "

So "All buildings are manually reviewed before uploading." from @zluuzki_Import was a lie, right?

Please: never, ever import anything into OSM again. It is just waste of your and our time.

And if you really think that only 50 buildings in this dataset were of such low quality...

You can see geometries and area via: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1ltV osm.org/edit?editor=id#map=18/30.53552/-88.11248

So you claim that you seen buildings from "This was a randomly chosen building from your edit. The error rate is almost certainly higher than 0.015%." comment and decided that OSM data will benefit from adding such geometries?

Also, how long you were reviewing this buildings?

How many buildings you imported here? About 200 000, right?

> Have you ever looked at some "random" HOT-buildings? They look poorer than the country they're in, but no one cares.

Yes, and I deleted hundreds of them and many other invalid data.

And even if not: then it is not relevant.

---

"Your "manual review" is bad enough that your data quality is harmfully low, or you lied about manual review."

Which one is the case here?

Have you remapped Bridgewater instead of reverting their edits?

I reverted their edit and now I see that many (all?) ways are duplicated.

Maybe I should revert changeset/125549753 ?

tourism=camp_site is for camp sites, not for all places good for camping

For example: is node/9897423721 a camping site named "wonderful spot, 3 tents"? Or is it a good place to set up 3 tents?

note/3336834 - są jakieś ślady w terenie?

Jakie pozostałości way/999516255/history są widoczne w terenie?

Can you look at note/1480240 ?

Can you look at note/1480240 ?

Can you look at note/1480240 ?

Can you look at note/1480240 ?