This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/165008686 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert - fictional game editing

Google isn't a source we can use, it's copyrighted.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164793552

Hi, a lack of a footpath doesn't inherently mean pedestrians aren't allowed there. If there's no signage, then foot=no should be removed.

I've reverted it back to version 7, however I'd recommend restoring any tags you've removed that are still valid, and double checking that your sources are correct before making changes.

You also should have reverted it back to the state it was previously in when you found out your edit was incorrect.

Hi,

Please don't delete data that is still valid, this changeset was completely incorrect if that area is not just grass. If you're going to make changes, make them straight away, there was a significant delay before this "grass" area was changed, and it still lacks significant detail compared to its previous state.

Please also don't remove valid names from OpenStreetMap.

Hi there,

You've got a highway=track crossing a barrier=fence, is there a gate there or something that could be mapped to show that it's possible to go through?

Also, can you please be a bit more descriptive than "added stuff" in your changeset comments, it's good to explain at a basic level what your changeset does.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hi there, can you please add a comment to your changesets describing what you're doing in them.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hi, the changeset comment should be used to describe what your changeset is doing, not the source.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164806652

Most of that way has parking along it, and the parts that aren't I wouldn't really class as an alley, wouldn't they be better just left as a generic service road
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164799948

Hi there, i'ts best to edit existing data, not delete it and replace it, as we lose the history attached to that object.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164800107

Translated via libretranslate.com

嗨,乐尼可

数据工作组的安德鲁

请解释你为什么从一个分站删除细节(显示在列出的图像上被使用)并将其设定为土地利用=草?

敬请
安德鲁·韦尔奇,OSMF 数据工作组

Hi LokNeko,

Andrew from the Data Working Group here,

Could you please explain why you removed details from a water plant that shows as such on the imagery you claim to have used?

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

Translated via libretranslate.com

嗨,乐尼可

数据工作组的安德鲁

请解释你为什么从一个分站删除细节(显示在列出的图像上被使用)并将其设定为土地利用=草?

敬请
安德鲁·韦尔奇,OSMF 数据工作组

Hi LokNeko,

Andrew from the Data Working Group here,

Could you please explain why you removed details from a substation (that shows on the imagery listed as being used) and set it to be landuse=grass instead?

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

Reverted by DWG

changeset/164789826

Please see osm.org/user_blocks/17536

Hi, is this canal signposted as "Irrigation", it seems like a descriptive name, which shouldn't be in the name tag.

Hi yliguenes,

Andrew from the Data Working Group here, are you able to share the reason for the deletions here, as some of the natural=wood ways do appear as dense tree areas from aerial imagery.

I'll also add, can you please make sure your changesets have a comment on them describing them?

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

Hi tpatte02,

I do have to agree with some of Allison P's last message, it's completely fair to be upset when community members try to assist (especially with something as frowned upon as testing on the live map) and then ignoring/arguing until the DWG has stepped in, especially considering some of your original responses. Please leave it be, and in future, engage constructively when someone comments on your changesets.

Allison, please keep your comments civil. There's nothing making it obvious their comments are from ChatGPT, and they've apologised for the problematic edits. I can understand your frustration, as well as theirs, but continuing like this does nothing to help the situation.

If you have concerns on any of their future changesets, please raise it with them politely, or report it to the DWG if required.