Hello VARVAR8,
Can you explain what on earth you were trying to do here?
Take for example way/902349619 (allegedly a fence, added by you, in this changeset). It goes right through a building way/154166406 last edited by you 3 years ago.
Is this just very poor quality work by yourself on behalf of Kaart or some sort of "elaborate troll" trying to annoy other mappers? If it was the latter, then it has succeeded.
Please explain how you plan to correct this mess and over what timescale.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

@VARVAR8 - as a general point, if other mappers are suggesting that your sources are "shit" (in capital letters) then rather than just get offended at the language used, perhaps its also worth looking at whether those sources, and whatever undocumeted "#MapWithAI" processes your using actually produce valuable data worth adding to OSM?
Best Regards Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group)

Hello,
Are you sure that way/981394969/history and way/981394966 actually exist? It doesn't look like they do from the imagery.
Best Regards,
Andy

"Null Island" exists in databases, but not in the real world...

Hi Nick,
I've tidied this up in changeset/114779878 . http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=269708 shows a few small spurs and gaps, some of which can probably be filled in without survey (e.g. if a signed route is on both sides of a bridge, it probably goes across the bridge too!).
Cheers,
Andy

Just for info - these edits did get mentioned to the Data Working Group (hence osm.org/user_blocks/5473 ) and I did wonder whether we need to revert these additions. However, things like way/1005816016 should be easily detectable via QA sites, so I don't thing that there is a need to actually delete the newly added way there.
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

It's possible to further classify farmland with an extra tag, such as "farmland=pasture" for farmland that is predominantly or currently pastoral. I added that as a slightly different colour to https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16&lat=54.08448&lon=-1.04706 - that lighter green is regular farmland, but usually has sheep on it. None of that shows up here https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=14&lat=51.07093&lon=-1.62774 , because I suspect the farmland hasn't been further classified.

"s/only/online", obviously (I can't even type on a regular keyboard, never mind a phone!)

> You shouldn't bother however to translate
I know you do - but the casual local mapper in the area might not. It's just a courtesy to them really, to save people having to cut and paste into an only translator, which can be a pain, especially on mobile.

Hello,
Was the removal of "type=route" and "route=foot" from relation/3551378 here accidental?
Best Regards,
Andy

Ciao Martino,
Se il nome in italiano è "Bocchetta del Nebbione", allora "name:it" sarebbe il tag corretto.
Tuttavia, se il problema è distinguere tra "italiano svizzero" e "italiano italiano", potresti prendere in considerazione qualcosa come i tag del nome su node/267762522 - che ha due nomi in lingua inglese su it, un "name:en_GB" e un "name:en_IE".
Distinti saluti,
Andy

Hello Martino,
If the name in Italian is "Bocchetta del Nebbione", then "name:it" would be the correct tag.
However, if the problem is distinguishing between "Swiss Italian" and "Italian Italian" then you might want to consider something like the name tags on node/267762522 - that has two English language names on it, one "name:en_GB" and one "name:en_IE".
Best Regards,
Andy

That was moved from a dodgy "ourairports.com" import location to a more accurate one, likely based on Google Maps (with an odd "ref=Google Maps" tag). However, Bing imagery confirms the current location as being correct.
There's no valid source of the ICAO code though. Wikipedia isn't a valid source for OSM, and none of the English wikipedia articles primary sources are either.

Zzyzx is pretty famous, actually:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zzyzx%2C_California
(although it certainly gave me a WTF moment moment when I first saw the sign while driving past!)

Great - thanks!

Great, thanks!

Thanks - it's looking a lot more complete now!
I'm guessing the small gap at relation/1230368#map=18/53.34428/-1.32571 could also be added?
Cheers,
Andy

Hello - a quick question about the South West Coast Path west of Polperro. Yesterday this is the route that it took: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1dOc
and today: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1dOd .
Is the removal of the section west of Polperro from the SWCP deliberate or accidental (sometimes things get moved because of bits of paths falling into the sea).
Also now way/1009394481 no longer connects to the path to the west presumably that bit shouldn't be part of the SWCP any more?
Best Regards,
Andy

way/820371339 appears to be still operational as of October 2021, runway is mown and windsock active

(машинний переклад)

Цей набір змін було повністю або частково повернуто набором змін 114291939, де коментар до набору змін: Після звіту для DWG скасовується серія масових видалення в Україні. Дивіться osm.org/user_blocks/5477.