Hello MrKooken,
Unfortunately, I can only echo what Marc has already said earlier - "In the meantime, I do ask if you might want to moderate your language a bit towards the other OSM mappers" and "If you disagree, feel free to start a discussion on that point here:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/".
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Unfortunately, these edits have completely broken lots of other features such as relation/11271488/history , relation/4035125 etc. As the mapper here has left this course entirely now - see osm.org/#map=17/51.62132/0.14164&layers=D - I'll revert these.
As a general rule of thumb it is NOT OK to delete everything and remap. Details from the previous mapping will be inevitably lost, and history is also lost.

Hello,
I've added the new roundabout to the various route relations that the road is part of in changeset/139860567 - you can see that at e.g. relation/7346402#map=17/52.24453/-6.34801 .
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
It looks like this edit created a gap in the Chichester Harbour Area of Natural Beauty - you can see that at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1yTs . I've filled it in so that it follows the former service roads that were deleted relation/9336138#map=16/50.8012/-0.9654 . If you know a more correct line here, please do adjust it.
Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks VLD302. Are there any other edits that you have made that might be similar?

Hello corrector321,
The hedge at way/1087763068/history that you deleted in this changeset that is located at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1yRH is actually very clearly visible on aerial imagery.
Although OpenStreetMap has a few recommendations about "what not to map at places like osm.wiki/Any_tags_you_like#What_not_to_map , osm.wiki/Verifiability and osm.wiki/Good_practice , "i don't want these features shown on the map" isn't on its own a good reason.
If you'd like to explain in more detail why these features should not be included in OSM please comment here or email [email protected] with a subject line of "[Ticket#2023081310000024] corrector321".
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Pictures from either end of the current situation would still be most welcome!

Hello,
Are you sure there is a shop here? Imagery suggests nothing but trees.
Best Regards,
Andy

> They are both the same street

The shape of the building in the pictures is different, so that casts a bit of doubt about the location of the second picture.

Whilst I'm sure that way/1193713749/history wasn't named "farm" (to be fair, it was that user's first ever edit), please do have a look at the underlying data. The square building here does not match the imagery, and the farmyard is as yet unmapped.

Hello,
Sometimes the imagery can be slightly offset, but if you turn on the "OSMUK Cadastral Parcels" layer in iD you can see that it's not offset by much, so these two houses are now the best aligned on the street :)

I;m not convinced that node/11051747216 is really a lock_gate - possibly some sort of flood barrier tag to go alongside way/172629852 would be best.

Er, this certainly isn't an "amenity" yet! It's still a building site.

> No, the word "پێشانگای" isn't shared between Arabic and Kurdish

I'm sure that that is generally the case, but on the picture that I have seen it IS shared between the part of the sign written in Kurdish and the part written in Arabic.
However, a quick web search suggests that this company might actually have moved - https://www.facebook.com/KuwaitCarsCompany/ now links to https://www.iqcars.net/redirect/147916?lang=ar , which is clearly a different location!

I was surprised that it was written like this too - but that word is "shared", with just "Kuwait" in different languages above.

For the avoidance of doubt, translations and transliterations don't belong in name fields (people can always translate text if they want). The "word in language X for Y" isn't always "in language X"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pont_Neuf is "Pont Neuf" in English, not "New Bridge".

Sigh. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=youth_club#projects amenity=youth%20centre?uselang=en-GB .

@dpolovinkin the report appeared in our queue this morning - it looks like it wasn't processed the first time, and was hidden to search for some reason after that.

See changeset/139562007 .

@dpolovinkin Normally when a report has been submitted it'll be visible to moderators as open, resolved or ignored or give an error that says we're not allowed to see it because it's in the admin queue. I'd suggest submitting it again.

Also, why were addr:street and email removed? https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/7241622485