> to prove i vandalize data.
I believe that you're "vandalising the community" (to use your word);
I don't know the ground truth of way/965429633/history since I have never been there. I also asked you for source details (specifically "What evidence do you have that
way/965429633/history actually exists as something that someone on the ground would think was an actual highway? ") but have received none.

@SHARCRASH, I've not read all of your text above, but I've read enough to know that when it comes to the OSM community, you are "the vandal" here. as previous messages at @SHARCRASH/blocks make clear.
Please read those again, and in particular osm.org/user_blocks/5866 .

Hello misganaw1493 and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Here https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=119229656 you've tried to add a forest called "eucalyptus". If its actually a forest that contains eucalyptus trees, then you don't want to use the name "eucalyptus", you want to use the tag "genus=Eucalyptus" so that a search like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1hmU will find it.
This is why someone previously commented on changeset/119097970 with some links for you to read.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello ZTR109574135 and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Please don't add canoe routes as bridleways, because they're just not, are they?
If what you're trying to add isn't actually signed on the ground (or in the water), then http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/ is probably the best way to create a map showing that data. If it _is_ signed then an OSM relation with a tag "route=canoe" would be the way to go.
Best Regards,
Andy

Looks like this deleted part of the Shropshire Way?

Hello again Mikhail1412,
What was the source of names used in this changeset? If it was local survey, please say so. If if was something else, please say what it was.
Best Regards,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group
(asking because of unanswered questions at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=2055614 and @Mikhail1412/blocks ).

Hello,
This edit looks just plain wrong. way/1034355697/history doesn't look like a residential road on either Bing or Maxar imagery, which you claim to have used here.
The original changeset changeset/117750726 (not by you) also looks completely at variance with the available imagery as well.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Hello SHARCRASH,
What evidence do you have that
way/965429633/history actually exists as something that someone on the ground would think was an actual highway?
Best Regards,
Andy, from OSM's Data Working Group.

Are you sure that way/987918919/history is wood rather than scrub? That is what it was originally mapped as, before it was changed to a building by mistake.

Your only change to way/1034067200/history was to add an "area=yes" tag. Why did you do this, and how does it relate to the changeset comment of "fixed incorrect tag "?

Please reply to the question above.

Please don't just use changeset comments like "fixed incorrect tag". As noted at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=12511042 , many of the changes you are making are NOT tag corrections.
In this example, how do you know what way/1029412550/history is? Have you visited the place?

Erm, @thelidarking has been blocked until they contact the DWG: osm.org/user_blocks/5535 - is that who you mean?

Who was it who hired you?
Editing of this sort in OpenStreetMap should follow https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines , so that everyone knows what's going on.

Hello indiasc,
Try saying a bit about what you're doing. If you're adding buildings from aerial imagery, then say that (people update OpenStreetMap in lots of ways, including from local survey). Your "imagery_used" says "Bing aerial imagery;.gpx data file" so that might suggest that you did a local survey - if you did, say that too.
Best Regards,
Andy

I see someone has marked way/715879092/history as private?

Hello again indiasc,

Please do square right-angle buildings after drawing with the "q" key, and do zoom in a bit more first.
Also please do include some actual words, not just hashtags, in your changeset comments.

Best Regards,
Andy
PS: As I mentioned mefore, any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

Hello nickvet419,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here.
There seems to have been a problem with this change. You've merged lots of waterway ways together (which results in the large number of way deletions below) and the tags on the deleted ways have been lost.
As an example way/965091105/history has been replaced by way/779003416 , but the tags that were on the previous ways have been changed or lost.
Do you believe that the tags were previously incorrect? If not, then this change will need to be undone - either you can do that manually, also ensuring that whatever changes you wanted to make are also not lost, or we can do that by a revert, and you'll need to reapply whatever changes you were trying to make again.
Please reply here at the earliest opportunity.
Best Regards,
Andy

(source=local_knowledge on the southern changes, obviously)

The 5 pit trail bit of this isn't signed, but the joined-up way there is the only way you can physically or legally do it by bike.