This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/57557543 where the changeset comment is: Pokemon vandalism, roads and buildings flooded

Unf0rtunately, the BIPA in picturesque Sankt Ge0rgen is still t0 be found in a library building in Maryland, n0where near Gustav Klimt's summer lake...

Sorry for the delay.
There is probably a wiki page in english about aerial imageries.
Me, I go from experience viewing various imageries all over.
I just got through writing a lengthy analysis of the available imageries in New York, where a poor victim used the default which is nearly ten metres off from all the alternatives.
But when I moved into a nearby town in the changeset, the imageries were completely different from how I described, so every area I have to analyse independently.
.
The reference would be surveyor-grade GPS points and seeing how well they line up. As this is not practical, some sources of imageries will list their resolution and typical accuracy.
In general, the more detail, I expect the more care is taken to be correct. When available, the Bing z20 imageries show such distortions of buildings to make it appear they are viewed from above, that I assume their elevation models are pretty good.
More detail does not necessarily mean better, as I've seen places where the Mapbox detailed imagery shows a 3 metre offset of a ground-level sidewalk between different overhead passes, despite most buildings appearing to be filmed from overhead rather than at an angle.
But as a general rule, I've found the USGS low-resolution matches well the archived Bing aerials as ESRI Classic, and Bing z20 where available, and I cycle through all the available imageries to get a feel for relative age and clarity of each as well as obvious offset.
In your area here, ESRI looks to be older than Mapbox, but both are well under a metre of each other at one building top I checked.
However at ground level, where ESRI Classic matches newer ESRI, Mapbox shows about 2m offset yet is close to USGS position in its blurriness.
The Bing and other DigitalGlobe Standard imageries both are satellite and show significant perspective distortion, which means items at different elevations like a straight line over a hill or through a valley will appear curved.
A 46 metre high building (from the data) shows 16m of offset from base to roof...
.
In summary, for mapping Arlington, either ESRI or Mapbox is the best choice, although I would have to check over a larger area than the three city blocks to catch my interest. The metre or two difference is acceptable, and not worth moving anything for.
It appears that what you have not yet adjusted at North wilson and North Edgewood was aligned to ESRI. South of there at Clarendon you can see the difference. 6m here. If anything, since the Mapbox imagery is newer, most things have probably been traced from ESRI, so I would verify that then align Mapbox as background to match just for consistency, until someone can show otherwise or offers still better imagery.
Okay, I've typed far too much. I'm sorry.

Hi,
Here you deleted a road with a name:
name West County Road 400 North
I do not see a road at present at this location, but I see two possible candidates, one into the field north, as well as a road to the south that seems to lead to two houses.
As TIGER roads have been known to be inaccurate, do you know if maybe it was just mapped in the wrong location, which I have seen too often, or if it may have existed here in the past and now is no more?
I ask because of the loss of the name, in case that applies maybe to the house addresses to the south.
Thanks

If they're going to delete the opening_hours you fixed for them, perhaps they are trying to tell you it's now closed, and should be deleted from the map.
(As a non-speaker, I can only parse OSM keys in their defined format, and can't figure out half the rubbish there is here. Like `Hours'? Must be a typo for the OSM key whores=value )

Oooh, it *was* late, seeing how badly I wrote. Luckily I completed the fix seconds before falling asleep.
You can verify the location of the building when editing by either switching the background imagery to ESRI Classic, or adjusting any other imagery that is newer until all the other buildings align up, and then your office should pop into place.
I just wrote a lengthy explanation of this for a place in New York.
.
A tip: Now your office appears just as a label, but with proper tagging it will show up as a monstrous maroon molar with your name, which might stand out more.
You have a building= tag as Dentist_office, which certainly isn't standard, and also use a building_1 tag which is pretty meaningless. You should probably delete the building_1 tag, and transfer its content to be just building=commercial .
Your phone number should be in international format with +countrycode at the start and no parentheses, so I can call you from here halfway around the world to complain about a bit of lettuce stuck between my teeth.
.
And most importantly, you need something to explain what you are beyond just your name and commercial building, if someone is looking for a dentist by category.
amenity=dentist is probably exactly what you seek to actually be something in the database. Less calories, more filling.
.
Thanks, normally something like this might have passed unnoticed, but I happened to look into the details of several changes in a bored attempt to keep data standards high.
Thanks for being so agreeable, and if you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Hi again,
Just thought I'd offer some imagery alignment tips as here you added some buildings I saw were rather far offset from the ESRI background I chose to explore the area.
Here in the golf course you added a car park next to a building. You used Bing satellite imagery (not sure why it's called aerial here) which I see to give that building some 9,9 metres offset from its position in ESRI Community aerials (up to zoomlevel 19, Bing satellite is overzoomed from 17 or so).
Another, much older source for reference, is what used to be Bing aerial imageries, now archived as the ESRI Clarity or here as the Mapbox layer. This shows about 8,5m offset in the same direction.
There are also NYS Orthos my editor does not support, and low-resolution USGS imagery that is also usually well aligned. The latter gives some 8m (plus or minus a bit) again in the same direction.
DigitalGlobe Premium matches your Bing up to zoomlevel 19, then at z20 appears to have a pixely overzoom of archive Bing. DG supplies the satellite imagery used by Bing here.
DG Standard offers a winter satellite view of the area with snow and few leaves and hazy air, here I measure it again as 9,9 metres offset in the same direction as the others.
As far as age, the archive ESRI colourful imagery is missing the building and driveway loop just southwest of the golf course, as it's probably nearing ten years old.
I haven't studied the others for missing details, but I'd personally use the ESRI aerial imageries that align well with the roads, and make all your further edits to that.
And if you feel like it, shift the items you've added to match their positions there.
Alternatively, trace something from that and align your Bing imagery to that. But the ESRI imagery is so much clearer that I'd just use that by default.
Note too that the satellite imageries I've investigated have a varying offset depending on hills and the like, that most aerial imageries try to correct. Ten metres is pretty extreme though, I will have to compare in town.
Sometime you may see much sharper and newer Mapbox imagery as is available in other parts of the country, which will be much easier to work with.
.
Hope these tips help, as I see you are already doing a lot of mapping and I'd rather you do the best possible from the start.
tl;dr - Sorry for the length of this explanation.

I'm almost thinking that the TIGER/Line Identification (tiger:tlid) field can be useful for debugging the inconsistencies being pointed out by the Telenav team.
One random sample I pulled below had that deleted, I think.
Then again, other earlier changesets have purged many of those, and others below were left intact (if I remember my samples properly)

They were badly positioned and without info.
Looks like it was an attempt to point out the FeWo at Schumanngasse 50: Vienna Top Apartment (their own name) which is not yet mapped to render.
(Fabelhaft? in Wien? Пфффф.)
Thanks for cleaning up the maps.me mess.

Hi WinfredC,
We were all beginners once. you were given useful advice by plitschepatsch (whose nick I've surely misspelt ;-) about a chance to test in a safe sandbox.
I have seen your other changesets where you have successfully deleted your own additions, so that has worked.
What I wondered is why these things you had not added were deleted, if there was a reason I could not see in the imagery -- I can see the lakes/dams need to be added nearby...
Deleting your own account is not necessary, and an overreaction if this was a simple honest mistake.
However, I will offer to restore all the service drives you deleted here to their previous state, provided you do not object, or if you do not respond in some days (if you've self-destructed successfully). That way you can continue with whatever you had in mind for this area, be it adding more details, correcting things, or carefully deleting things that do not exist.
Let me know and I'll return these woods to their previous state with more access paths than seen now.
Thanks.

This was done based on your forum post.
The edit looked simple enough you could have just deleted all your added tags in any editor like the iD you used, and change building back from church.
As I'm seeing pre-/post- tiles simultaneously, there was no geometry change or anything that could not be dealt with very simply, so next time, wait -- there won't be a next time now!

This change was so trivial, a full revert is not really needed...
You or anyone could start up any editor like iD and delete the three Luna/pizza tags that you added. and it will be as good as new.
If it gets really messed up, then an expert can step in.
Try it! Much easier when you encounter the limitations of maps.me

Thanks for the quick reply and explanation.
In OpenStreetMap, we also map private driveways as well as service drives and tracks not generally open to the public.
For that you can use the access=private tag.
So the houses do not receive post or deliveries to a Turkey Ridge address?
In any case, you can either leave this drive deleted, or you could change its category from residential to service with driveway as needed and add the name if you see fit -- it need not be an official name, but something that exists on a sign, and that it had made it into the TIGER Census data, means someone took it seriously enough.
Essentially, OSM maps what is on the ground, and if I were do perform one of my armchair mapping blitzkriegs in the area to add missing buildings and driveways to try to build out the US data comprehensiveness, I would just re-add it without knowing the name or access status.
Not that that is much of a threat, the imageries here are too poor and lacking detail so I'd look elsewhere like to Connecticut to add details there.
Anyway, the TIGER import data has a number of problems, and if you can correct the data when possible as well as delete where implausible, that would be great. Your other deletions looked superficially not worthy of attention, but this one caught my eye.
Sorry you made the changes in a quiet time when I was bored...
Thanks again.

Hallo,
in a quick review of this changeset, I see you deleted a number of private driveways that may have been poorly positioned or not present.
But you also deleted a named residential drive, Turkey Ridge, way/5655961/history
This viewed in https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=57073430 seems to appear in for example, ESRI imagery to two houses. But I have not compared too closely.
Did you perhaps delete this in error, or do you know more about it than is not shown in the imagery?
Thanks.

Just curious -
Why did you trace the outline of the Wal*Mart building visible in the Mapbox aerial imagery, only to delete it so soon after?

Take a look at a visualisation of what you have done here at https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=56848671
There is so much wrong that I don't know where to start, someone with more experience guiding a beginner through iD may do better than I can.
First suggestion from me is to compare the background of z20 Bing with that of the ESRI Community or of Mapbox, where I can see that your route differs slightly from what is on the ground.
Second, Mapbox shows what looks to be an auto and a truck along what you call a path (footpath) so I suspect it needs to be labelled as service drive or similar.
Does Northwest 10th really extend past NW 38th into the park, or does it end by that name there?
And finally, is that a tralier park or campground to the south of the loop you drew? To add the service drives into and from there, the much older archive imagery from ESRI (Clarity) which is lacking part of what you drew can be helpful with so much treecover.
.
Yikes, I sorta know this area, looks like I traced what I then tagged as a simple-preset lake here back in my foolish youth.
Hope this is helpful, try taking more of the tutorial in iD (which I've never done).

Hallo,
Here in Camillus Park, you have drawn footpaths that immediately arouse suspicion.
You were using Bing Satellite imagery with full tree cover.
Can you try instead selecting the Mapbox aerial imagery which clearly shows the actual position of the footpaths, with no leaves on the trees to block the view?
I think you will be able to do a much better job with that, including tracing a major path that now meets up with the road to the west of the park.
If you do not feel you can see the paths well enough, perhaps someone with more experience looking at imagery where the paths are partly covered with fallen leaves may be able to help.

Hallo,
Here you deleted two roads, one Acadia Street which can be seen obviously was wrong, but also Sioux Street north-south.
That one can be seen present in all available aerial imageries -- under construction in the oldest, and ir seems well-used to give access to unmapped school car parking.
Does that no longer exist, and what about the carpark areas?
Thanks

Also I don't think hotel is the right classification of something going by the name `Bed & Breakfast'

Here you have deleted 11 service drives, which can be clearly seen in aerial imagery, giving access to buildings, a dam, parking, and what appears to be a campground.
Can you explain why you have done so?