What happened with this waterway=ditch: way/473778221

The change does not look correct. Could you please explain?

Sorry, I deleted too much of an overlapping track. Fixed with changeset/125818697

See osm.wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing

Hello!

Can you please explain what you tried with these changesets? It looks as you intentionally duplicated a lot of ways which are now found as errors by openstreetmap inspector tool: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=47.84446&lat=-22.10744&zoom=11&overlays=snap_points,unconnected_open_ends_1

From my point of view all the changesets described as "modifier un chemin non fusionner" need to be reverted.

Hi!

You have duplicated a lot of existing ways, Please stop uploading whole gps files and making a relation out of these with a single element only.
If you want to map hiking relations you need to split the exisiting segments and put these segments as members into your hiking relation.
Additionally please comment you uploads.
I hope that you find the time to correct your latestst uploads, which seem to be created according to the same bad pattern.
best regards
ratrun

Sorry, I don't speak Swedish. Please note that my changes only connected some unconnected nodes and that I do not have local area knowledge such that I could say anything to the classification of the ways.

Hi,

please stop tagging each tree with a name. The name tag is not foreseen to contain the species of the tree. See the bad new rendereing!

Yes, in case that nodes comes close to a way it is the correct way to enter noexit=yes at the node if someone knows the situation. From remote it is sometimes hard to detect if there is a barrier in between or not, so sometimes I cannot avoid errors by detecting from the image. Sorry for this.

Hi!
Could you please check way/1033177622 ? It does not seem correct as this way isn't connected to the rest of the network, partially overlaps existing ways and is not visible at all on the PNOA imaginary which you referenced as source.

Hi! I see that this is your first changeset. Please check way/286068840, this doesn`t seem correct as it is not connected to the rest of the road network.
In the north it is crossing the train without any visual indication on Maxar imaginary.
Also the tagging highway=residential with maxspeed=10 looks unrealistic to me.

Can you please check your new way
way/1025833722#map=20/31.97154/35.88667&layers=C

Where does this tunnel end?

Additionaly the new motorways are not connected correctly and the highway classification as highway=motorway for the links is incorrect.

Sorry, I cannot answer your question. I only reverted obvious errors. I would ask you to raise this question in changeset changeset/116228316#map=16/41.9418/8.7522

Thanks Benedcto Adamu for answering. It would be good if you described in more detail how it could happen that you imported so many duplicates in such short amount of time. I mean how did you manage this technically? I see that you uploaded your changes via JOSM, but where did you get the data from? It would be also good if you describe who "we" are, as it is impossible for a single person gather so many details. If you already had an import discussion please point me to it.
Last but not least I would like to know how you intend to clean the data. Do you plan to do this manually changeset after changeset or so you intend to do this somehow automatically again? I'm asking because I fear that you might make the situation even more complicated if you started and introduced new errors.
Thank you.

@tonny John: Thanks for joining the discussion. Can you please answer my initial question first: What are all these changes marked as "#SWM Field Survey 2021" about? To me this looks as like a bad import which is not aligned with the OSM rules for an import. What are the sources for all this changes?

I sent a mail to the data workinggroup and asked for their help.

This changeset is not the only one which introduced lots of duplications. I tried to revert this changeset via the JOSM reverter, but there are a couple of of more changesets involved, e.g. 113943511. This seems to be an issue for the data working group.

Can you please describe the purpose of the change in more detail? This changeset is duplicating a couple of ways, resulting in OSM inspector to detect lots of errors. See http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=39.25848&lat=-6.80448&zoom=14&overlays=snap_points,unconnected_open_ends_1 . I therefore think that this changeset should be reverted.

The new Strada Comunale Castel Pagano looks suspicous. It is not connected in the south and according to mapillary (from 2016) there is no such tertiary road, please check. What are you sources? This does not become clear from your changesset comment.

Hi,
If you look in detail you will see that I only deleted overlapping duplicated ways. At least one of your new ways is still there.