Hi mboeringa,
I think your concerns are valid, although the same user also tagged drinking water sources in the immediate surrounding area.
The wild_camping tagging is introduced on the Tag:tourism=camp_site wiki page at 19-04-2017, so it is fairly new. I did not know it until I found similar camp_sites in another changeset that were actually having 4 stars assigned :-S:
changeset/34252985
By commenting that changeset I reached out to the user actually visiting the area and we worked together to enrich the map.
Off course we are not tagging for the renderer, which naturally lags in implemented new tagging. This is also where the personal responsibility of the user of the data comes in. Having a map does not take away personal responsibilities of people going into the mountains.
Hence I still doubt the action you took. A comment in the changeset introducing these camp sites would have quickly resolved these issues. It would have actually enriched the data, while now you more or less bluntly removed it.
By coincidence I've met user nurdarfur in person, this user mainly maps while on the go (which is also described in his OSM profile for anybody to read) and which is hinted to because Vespucci is mainly used. So I'm 99% sure this was personally surveyed before entered (this is also mentioned as source in the changeset). Additionally, replies from nurdafur are typically very quick, but if you don't try to send a comment, you won't get a reply either.
As an avid mountain hiker and wild camper, I am very welcoming to information about wild camping sites, hence the persistence :-).
So my main point is that it was premature to just remove these sites from the armchair without discussion with the mapper introducing the POIs or survey on location.
I will contact nurdafur and then revert and enrich the data.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Please disregard the source, I forgot to update the text.
These were interpretations of tourism=attractions which were mistakenly added by user Elvis Mehic.

I meant this changeset
changeset/42341070

Hi mboeringa,
I agree that it should be marked that these are wild camping spots. However, in the mountains it can be pretty helpful if wild camping sites are marked, since flat surfaces may be scarce. Removing them seems a bit hasty in my opinion.
camp_type=wildcamp and a description tag with the amount of tents that fit at the location would for example improve the detail in my opinion.
Why would you just plainly remove these sites instead of start a discussion first? The changeset in which these sites were introduced (changeset/42344084) does not include any comments asking for these details. You could have requested user nurdafur for these details and enrich the map instead of depriving it of this information completely.
I suggest we do this and put them back when the details are available. What are your thoughts?
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hi Simon,
Thanks for getting back this quickly. There is a 2m high statue with a plaque remembering the 1970-74 working years to finish the Passstrasse. It doesn't exactly say it's at Passhöhe, but it's pretty obvious when you're there. I move the pass node to this place, trying to maintain the OSM history.

Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hi Simon,
This was a while ago, so you may not remember. You removed the node for Pragelpass next to the Pragelpass-Denkmal (node/2425350426) and left the Pass node close to the restaurant (node/1533696169). I was there this weekend, and think it should actually be the other way around. I checked with both a barometric elevation measurement and and inclination measurement on my compass, the elevation at the position of the current node for Pragelpass is about 5 m below the elevation of the road next to the Denkmal.
Therefor I think the node should be moved. Since you state Bing as a source in this changeset I suppose you did not do the measurements on location.

Do you agree with the with the change?

Cheers,
dikkeknodel

And the islet westward:
changeset/58779543

Hi Jenseblume,
I'm writing about your action on way/151305499 in this changeset. You've set it to scree, while it is actually shingle.
Although both surface types are similar in that it's both loose rocks, they are actually different. Scree is along the steep face of a mountain, where rocks that come loose from the mountain collect. Shingle is loose rocks, or pebbles that are transported by water.
To make it more complex, at some places there may be an arbitrary transition point from scree to shingle when a river is close to a scree field. That is not the case here however.
I've already made the change in changeset/58779449.
Keep up the happy mapping.
Cheers, dikkeknodel

Hallo Pudu,
Veilleicht hast du auch zu viele Brücke 'gebaut' :-). Kannst du dir diese mal anschauen:
way/196957200
Ich bin dort selbst (noch) nicht gewesen, aber auf die Satelitenbilden seht es aus ob da keine Brücke ist.
Liebe Grüsse, dikkeknodel

Agreement was reached via PM, changes have been implemented in changeset/58687442

Hi thliborius,
Thanks for getting back this quickly. I understand the difficulty, and don't really have a solution either. I am not really familiar with what is relevant to map at high altitude. Although IMHO a high point in between two low points would be a peak and a low point in between two high point would be a saddle, without the relevance of having a name. So when you say 'the highest point in the environment' then I would be inclined to call it a peak. It is however arbitrary which prominence (and how to calculate) is needed to asign these terms.
Since I am not the high altitude specialist, I will leave it up to you.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hallo Geonick,
Ich verstehe die Aufteilung von Museum und Gebaude. Sollte aber nicht auch die Öffnungszeiten, Website, uzw. zür Museum node verlegt werden?
Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel

Hi Sammelmuetze,
I noticed that you only did minor changes, but very far apart (Brno and south of France). In this way your changeset bounding box (the orange box) spans multiple countries. This means that many people involved in quality control within the whole box are attended to your changeset, while this is not relevant.

Would you please be so kind to make your next changesets (geographically) smaller?

Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Lieber BAK365,
dan mach ich es so, die Änderung ist durchgeführt.
changeset/58669459
Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel

Hi thliborius,
You have added a locality P.2860, this name does not sound like a typical name in use. Considering the altitude in the direct environment, could this actually be a peak without name?
If yes, then please change to natural=peak combined with ele=2860.
Keep up the high altitude mapping, I don't dare to go there yet.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hallo BAK365,
Ich war erstaunt wenn ich, zufälligerweise, sah das der Punkt der ich geändert habe war markiert als 'peak', oder Spitz, aber ohne Höhe war. Ich könnte nicht glauben das die Höhe des Spitzes, der vermutlich das Kanton seine Name gegeben hat, nicht bekannt ist. Deswegen habe ich eine Suche gemacht und dann gefunden das Glärnisch das Massiv ist. Aber von dein Kommentar verstehe ich das der Gipfel Bächistock auch manchmal Glärnisch genannt wird. Dann wurde ein alt_name=Glärnisch natürlich Tipp Topp sein.
Stimmt es dann das auf die Positioin der in diese changeset geänderte Punkt kein Gipfel ist der "Glärnisch" heisst?
Soll ich die Änderung machen?
Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel
P.S. Ich hoffe das die Glarner, trotz meiner Frechheit, mich nächstes Mal auch wieder in Ihr schönes Land zulassen :-P.

Hi hpduwe,

Could you please restrict your changesets to a smaller area than the whole world. This would make reviewing what happened in a certain area easier. Now your changeset pops up when I am reviewing South Georgia in the Southern Atlantic Ocean, because the box covers almost the complete world. Since there are no addresses there, I expect you did not change anything there though...
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Romosola agreed via PM.

Hi Eriks Zelenka,
I see you have added multiple in this region, does the same apply to them?
node/3037823724
node/3044608246
node/3038878082
node/3037830861
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hi Eriks Zelenka,
I found a camp site you mapped some time ago
node/3759545415
Do I understand correctly that this is not an official camp site, but a wild camping site that fits to the definition 'locations that are not set up to offer camping, but are more suitable for camping than other places in the neighbourhood and therefore valuable to know' as described at
camp_type=* ?

If yes, then I suggest adding camp_type=wildcamp and removing the stars since they imply some formal level of service which is definitely (and luckily :-p) not available at a wild camping spot.

Cheers,
dikkeknodel