Du hast hier mit way/1419028218 einen kreisförmige Landstrasse über andere Strassen gezogen. War das Absicht? Aus dem Luftfoto ist hier überhaupt nichts zu erkennen.

Hi. Du hast hier das Gleis 11 als separaten Bahnhof in Biel erfasst: node/11769832782

War das Absicht? Ist irgendetwas speziell am Gleis 11 dass es ein separater Bahnhof sein muss?

and I think there is one basketball field too, in the west

sorry, I don't understand the error. Are those fields on the asphalt here not for sports? maybe 2 tennis and 1 football?

An example here of bad data quality on a changeset I haven't reverted (yet maybe). Look for instance at the building way/47410770 it used to have an address on it, but you deleted it and replaced it with node/12368699975 which is a node _outside_ of the building which goes against osm.wiki/Addresses#How_to_map and makes it difficult to access by data consumers.

And there are many similar buildings in this area where the addresses are misplaced.

Now, in one way it would of course be possible to manually correct your import and move those nodes where they need to be.

But it is still very rude to overwrite other people's correct manual mapping with a quick and dirty import that just overwrites data without even checking its quality first.

Can you send me a link to the approvals discussion that you made before the imports?

It is your responsibility as someone who makes an automatic data import to ensure that it is nondestructive. It especially needs to ensure it does not destroy any data that has been manually added by a human editor, and does not blindly duplicate data.

A 30% error rate as in this case is not acceptable for an automated report. I do realize and accept that the other 70% were at least partially positive edits and added to the map. Others of your (unapproved) imports that had an error rate below 10% were left alone by me, I have only reverted those that destroyed a significant amount of human-made edits.

It is your responsibility as someone who makes an automatic data import to ensure that it is nondestructive. It especially needs to ensure it does not destroy any data that has been manually added by a human editor, and does not blindly duplicate data.

A 27% error rate as in this case is not acceptable for an automated report. I do realize and accept that the other 73% were at least partially positive edits and added to the map. Others of your (unapproved) imports that had an error rate below 10% were left alone by me, I have only reverted those that destroyed a significant amount of human-made edits.

It is your responsibility as someone who makes an automatic data import to ensure that it is nondestructive. It especially needs to ensure it does not destroy any data that has been manually added by a human editor, and does not blindly duplicate data.

A 52% error rate as in this case is not acceptable for an automated report. I do realize and accept that the other 48% were at least partially positive edits and added to the map. Others of your (unapproved) imports that had an error rate below 10% were left alone by me, I have only reverted those that destroyed a significant amount of human-made edits.

It is your responsibility as someone who makes an automatic data import to ensure that it is nondestructive. It especially needs to ensure it does not destroy any data that has been manually added by a human editor, and does not blindly duplicate data.

A 46% error rate as in this case is not acceptable for an automated report. I do realize and accept that the other 54% were at least partially. Others of your (unapproved) imports that had an error rate below 10% were left alone by me, I have only reverted those that destroyed a significant amount of human-made edits.

I have reverted this change because it made the map quality significantly worse

changeset/166004560

I have reverted this change because it made the map quality significantly worse

changeset/166004406

I have reverted this change because it made the map quality significantly worse

changeset/165996088

I have reverted this change because it made the map quality significantly worse

changeset/165992595

I have reverted this change because it made the map quality significantly worse

changeset/165992428

I have reverted this change because it made the map quality significantly worse

changeset/165992254

I have reverted this change in 165959430

Yeah this one was a particularly bad import that destroyed. I think not all of his imports have to be reverted (even though all of them should've been discussed at first, some actually add a lot of addresses where there were none at first). But the imports in places that deleted almost as many addresses as they've added should definitely go.

I have specifically reverted only the changes that destroyed significantly more data than they added. Other changesets that added a lot of address nodes but only deleted few addresses on buildings I've left alone.

On this specific changeset you deleted 265 building addresses to add 584 nodes. But after a cursory review of those nodes, at least 30% of them seemed to be very low quality and badly positioned so the value was not there.

I have reverted this change because it made the map quality significantly worse

changeset/165959777