THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!
How am I supposed to know what to dial?!?
Should it be 9941-your number or 9949-your number? I'm very confused by borders!
OSM is an international project, even if you are mapping locally. Maybe next week I'll make a footie tour of your country (wherever it is) and want to reserve for me 'ooligans in advance.
VITAL BUSINESS COULD BE LOST!!!
.
(Oh, *now* I get the Hurts Donut reference from Paul earlier.)

Hallo,
Going by DigitalGlobe Standard imagery, I would say:
building=no makes no sense for your area here. I think I see a rectangular structure maybe 5m long. Just a roof? Or an actual enclosed stand? (Or a vehicle at time of the photo?)
Your info-`i' does appear, but nothing to suggest an area, rectangular or random.
Note that the only non-satellite imagery with any detail is also the oldest and pretty useless for mapping any paths seen today or even aligning.

Hallo,
the road segment you deleted can be seen too have existed as a private access road into a field.
However this area can be seen to be very hilly with erosion that has taken out most of the east part imported from TIGER, and instead it takes a switchbacked path to the north now., before emerging onto the driveway mapped to the northeast.
This, if left in, should have been downgraded to a poor track.
Other tracks can be seen criss-crossing the area, and this one does pass an electrical pole without a clear destination, though.

Hallo,
this road segment can be seen as the turning end of a driveway whose path is easy to follow in the archival imagery layer that corresponds fairly well to the ten year age.
Now no other driveways are mapped here yet, such as the one parallel to it and repaved more recently for the house north of here, but they can be seen easily enough, so there is not too much lost here, except the hint that the driveway ends near this point, to make adding it in full easier.

Hallo,
This road you deleted and the house it serves, as well as the others branching off it, are quite easy to see in the imagery I looked at, even USGS (probably the oldest) as your source.
Things do not change much in this part of the world even after well over ten years.
I am not sure why your deletion only affected from the county line to the northwest, and not down to the nearby NC 73 to which it can be seen connecting, along the way passing another house served by this road, and if the TIGER import missed that much..

Hallo,
It looks like here you have deleted one outer way, leaving behind several inner ways detailed for one of the two relations listed below.
You might want to add them as inners to the remaining relation, assuming they match the imagery. I've not looked at this as the outlines look too coarse and mechanical for me to guess what is being done or intended with the slightly-different-but-overlapping polygons.

Hallo,
I am afraid that here you have used poorly-aligned satellite imagery to move roads away from their correct positions, rather than using aerial overflight imagery with much more detail, either from the ESRI community, or from Mapbox.
Your newly added buildings can be seen to be some seven metres misplaced compared to these aerial views of what is probably a hilly area, so that the satellite view does not show a consistent offset.

Hallo,
I am afraid that in this changeset, you used bad satellite imagery to move a building 5 metres, when using much better aerial overflight imagery from the ESRI Comminity up to a sharp detailed zoomlevel 21 will also show the road you bent, really does not fallow that shape.

Hallo,
Unfortunately, you have deleted an accurately-mapped building traced from aerial orthophotos, only to re-draw it crudely from very bad quality satellite imagery that can be seen to have almost ten metres of inaccuracy at this point, and is not at all sharp.

Then such an item should be deleted from the OpenStreetMap database.

I am trying to figure out what you are wanting to do. I see a lot of probable errors that have been accepted, probably in more changesets than just this one.
Can you explain what you want to map, so that either we can do it to your wishes, or better, guide you as to how to do it correctly yourself?

Hallo Georg/5359,
For anyone wanting a good weekend laugh, I refer them to the object history here:
node/5320265121/history
as well as the relevant discussion in the talk-us@ mailing list of the past few days concerning abuse of OSM for adverts and spamming.
I like the comment for revision v2 of this: Updated a clinic
Which sounds to me like the maps.me changeset template, as seen in the note left by maps.me you refer to in your changeset commentary.
Then the revision in v3 of this is particular merriment-inducing by totally inappropriate keywords.
Zooming out shows me a New York, not New Joisy, highway nearby.
Followed by v4 with the uninformative commend, Updated
.
Thanks for deleting the keywords and for setting things to disused in response to the maps.me Fehler/Note left by the same incompetent SEO abuser who was probably trying to use the totally inappropriate maps.me functions for editing in lieu of a Real Editor.
I would personally have deleted the description= field as well as it adds no useful mapping info (other than New York and New Jersey are different) rather than prefixed it with disused: as per the discussion in talk-us@
.
Thanks as always for your quick responses to map-spammers who wish to abuse OSM in order to make a quick profit, rather than becoming productive mapping members of the community.

Hallo cgthigpen,
From an earlier look I took at the aerial imagery, it seems to me as an outsider that the details 5359 added to the outline are correct (going from memory) and are the level of mapping detail I like to think I try to strive for with good aerial imagery sources, a lot of time on my hands, and a quest for detail.
When I compare the shadows from the various imageries, it looks to me that the areas which could be cut out as courtyards may not actually reach ground level (you mentioned levels 2 to 5), but rather the shadows are shorter, cast by additional building parts atop the base.
This would be better represented by a 3d model atop of the outline, if my memory of the imageries is correct.
.
As a long-suffering victim of the Potlatch 2 editor, I agree it can be somewhat better to use for mapping without making many mistakes that the beginner editor iD may lead one into. However, there probably is not as much support out there in an easy-to-find way that can guide one to advanced editing and tricks on how to get the best out of Potlatch. It seems a reasonable compromise, despite its detractors, between a user-friendly-but-limited/more-powerful beginner editor, and the more-advanced yet probably with-steep-learning-curve editor JOSM.
The latter editor is probably overkill if you only want to make a handful of edits here and there, yet feel constrained by iD or if your editing sessions do things you did not want. It is the ultimate goal should you become addicted to mapping and wish to continue (I keep telling myself I can stop whenever I feel like it. I just don't feel like it, honest, guv)
.
I've never done 3D mapping but I'm pretty sure you need to understand it in detail before Potlatch, with limited tagging presets, can be used as a power tool.
.
The best thing is to understand all the details of what and how you want to map, then it's less a question of which tool but how you use it.
A poor craftsman blames his tools, which is why I persist with Potlatch and its whipping-boy history, rather than exposing to the world that I am, in fact, a lousy mapper scattering blame on awful imageries, my miserable editor, lack of sleep, and everyone else's incompetence but my own.
Oh, by the way, if I recall, there are much better imageries like that from Mapbox available that show far more detail and more clearly, while your changeset refers to the Bing default.
Hope this unrelated commentary is useful. Otherwise apologies for wasting your time.

Hallo,
I am going to reply here to your comment in changeset/56807998 because here I see a large island of dry land newly carved out from the basin area Addicks Reservoir, along with a few highways.
the problem here and in the parks you carved out there, is that they can be clearly seen all to be under mucky brown water in satellite imagery of 31.08.2017.
What your changes are implying is that (which I doubt) there have been massive earthmoving projects to add several metres elevation to the roads and the park areas to elevate them out of the flood-susceptible basin as defined.
The aeroport, also seen to be underwater, lies on the other side of an administrative boundary which, without looking at the entire history of the area, may be the basis along with the marked Addicks Dam area, of defining the basin.
I see here that the Reservoir is in its 39th iteration of change, along with the need for the note= added to it, so I am reluctant to take the present heavily-edited boundary as representative of its original intent in OSM.
Unfortunately, the satellite imagery from 30.08.2017 that covers the southwest area where a residential area appears dry today in OSM, has too much cloud cover over top of what looks to me also to be mucky floodwater.

Hallo,
It seems here you have deleted a GIS extensive building outline covering a larger area that can be seen visible in the aerial imageries, and replaced it with an inaccurately-positioned area (not a building) only covering a small part of the full outline.
You have also added a node with nothing but a name which does not describe the function of this amputated building.
Note that I have measured the offset from the lousy satellite imagery you have used, as being nearly 9 metres off compared to more accurately aligned aerial overflights, not to mention GIS data, so you should have first adjusted that background to match the nearby buildings (or better, use a different imagery source that is clearer and better aligned to start with).

Hallo,
In this changeset you have deleted a number of TIGER import residential roads.
However a quick look at the various aerial imageries show me that some of them are fairly to quite visible and many probably should have been re-tagged as a track instead of the default TIGER assigned, rather than being deleted entirely, and perhaps better aligned to the path shown in the aerials.

Hallo,
You seem to have carved out part of a basin in order to create a park in an area which has been the subject of extensive discussion.
Let me draw your attention to the contents of the following note tag applying to this entire area:
note DO NOT TAG THINGS FOR THE RENDERER! It's a drainage basin and should be tagged as such. I know, it looks ugly. But that's Mapnik's fault, not ours.
I suspect that this park, like the others, are located within the basin proper and as such the basin outline should not be cut away.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/56801276 where the changeset comment is: revert remaining vandalism if possible, revert is incomplete but should fix something I overlooked

Hallo,
Can you explain why you have here deleted dozens of car park areas mapped by other mappers in great detail, and made no changes other than deletions here?

Hallo,
Can you explain why you have deleted quite a few car parks mapped in detail in this changeset?