This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment.

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment.

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment.

See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-March/057524.html

This should be reverted ASAP. Undiscussed import. Wrong source in changeset comment.

please do not mix several distinct buildings into one osm multipoligon , these are different buildings, different ownership, different floorheight, different architect (likely), etc.

are these manually or automatically applied simplifications?

Can you please explain what methodology/workflow you use to determine "redundant nodes"? Which criterion do you apply? You have deleted more than 3500 nodes and although you write you have readded them from the history it appears they are still deleted.

In one of your replies to sbiribizio you (Fredie) have written a lot of alternative facts, which I will comment here:

> All my work is carefully researched used sat data from
> 2016. If you use Bing Sat data make clear that those are pretty > 6
> years old.

Who is the copyright holder of these 2016 aerial imagery, and what is their license? Why do you believe "bing" provided aerials are more than 6 years old? This might be true for other areas but generally in Italy the imagery is much newer (2 years). By explaining that you base your edits on aerial imagery: does that mean you don't have personal knowledge of the area, where you have deleted just based on sat imagery lots of tracks, without looking to discuss this beforehand with anybody? This doesn't seem acceptable.

> ... Overlapping nodes to highway is my personal art
> to map and you may accept or not.

this was already pointed out by Woodpeck: you can decide this for places where you add these features for the first time, but you will have to discuss it when you change what is already there.

> If tracks are deleted then those are
> of no common interest (Agric ac only or priv property with no
> connectivity)

- how do you check connectivity if you don't know the place?
- we don't care if someone thinks something is "of interest" or not, the important thing is that these are there (fact), so purposefully deleting them (facts) is vandalism.

> If you have problems there just readd them;

this is not acceptable, if you made the mistakes and deleted things that shouldn't not be deleted, it is YOU who should revert, not others.

> I won't care
> for anymore. It's unusal to add dozens of small residentials landuse.
> I've never seen such processing any part of map in Europe I passed.
> residential has always the lowest priority in rendering, like
> farmland. no Problem to nest additional landuse without use of
> relation.

you have to take local agreements and mapping style into account. Just because you haven't seen well-mapped, maintainable landuses in other places doesn't mean you should deteriorate the map in this place.

> All my work follows wiki rules. I also have to accept other
> mappers style though not always agree. If you 're local then feel free
> to add any changes you think is necessary.

as you are not local, you should first familiarize with the way the locals have mapped and then add stuff according to this system, or discuss changes. You cannot remotely impose your personal (disputed as you can see) mapping style on other areas where you are not local, and you cannot base these changes on references to the wiki. The mapping was generally conforming to the wiki also _before_ you started fiddling.

3 days have passed and the pile of deleted ways still has not been reverted. Please go and revert your edit yourself.

For the future you should try to make smaller changesets, this will also allow you to add more pertinent changeset comments.

for reference, there is also a thread on talk-it about this: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-February/057032.html

generally, please do not create big landuse areas with a lot of different stuff in it (especially do not create a single landuse=residential around a village, use place areas for this). Thank you.

@geow yes, you are right. In these cases there is no doubt. these are tracks used by the farmers to access their fields.

Also: a path is not wide enough for 4-wheeled vehicles, otherwise it is a "track". E.g. way/4426347702

there was an accidental connection between a powerline and a track. Please try to avoid these topology problems. In JOSM you can hold the "ctrl" key to avoid unwanted connections

please stop adding fictious places and features into OpenStreetMap. You are vandalizing the database.

Please do not vandalize our work by adding invented stuff. Your changeset has been reverted by a community member because there was not much sense in your additions.

This changeset is very likely vandalism. Please do not add invented / phantasy objects to the db, you are vandalizing the work of a community of volunteers and creating work for us to tidy this up.

jedenfalls ist der ehem. user ulilu jetzt nicht mehr bei OSM, zumindest nicht unter diesem Namen. Vom Einzelfall abgesehen finde ich es grundsätzlich auch problematisch, wenn Dinge gelöscht werden weil man denkt, dass "dies nun [keine] kartierungsbedürftige[n] Stützmauern sind". Alleine der Fakt, dass jemand anderes sie eingetragen hat, dürften ja schon darauf hindeuten, dass man sich hier nicht einig ist mit den anderen Mappern, und von daher ist ein schlichtes Löschen sicherlich nicht die richtige Herangehensweise.

well, there could be a way to improve the situation without destroying your work: add a surface tag, and make the inner ways also pedestrian areas (different ones, with surface=marble or surface:material=marble)

this is blatant mapping for the renderer. In order to show the marble intarsies on Saint Peter's square, the mapper has excluded them from the pedestrian area. Please refrain from this kind of "work".