You claim to have used Bing imagery for this changeset, but Bing imagery is too blurry to discern the shape that you have drawn so the source specification must have been a mistake. Can you clarify your source? Have you made this edit as part of a MapRoulette task, and if yes, have you been instructed by anyone to do this?

You claim to have used Bing imagery for this changeset, but Bing imagery in this area is so cloudy that the island shape cannot be discerned, so the source specification must have been a mistake. Can you clarify your source? Have you made this edit as part of a MapRoulette task, and if yes, have you been instructed by anyone to do this?

You fixed this island's coastline in this changeset, but you did not change anything about the nearby other coastlines which were equally imprecise. May I ask what was your workflow here - why were you interested in this one island but completely ignorant of the data around it? Have you made this edit as part of a MapRoulette task, and if yes, have you been instructed by anyone to do this?

You claim to have aligned something to Bing in this changeset, but neither Bing nor Mapbox imagery show anything else than a large blurred area here, certainly nothing from which one could move a node. The source specification must have been a mistake. Can you clarify your source? Have you made this edit as part of a MapRoulette task, and if yes, have you been instructed by anyone to do this?

Hi, you have modified a large number of buildings that had been tagged "area=yes" and you put "building=yes" instead. However the Mapbox imagery you are using shows many more buildings in the area. May I ask why you chose to edit the existing buildings but not to add the missing buildings? Is there a particular aim to these edits? Are you with the "missing maps" project that added the buggy data initially?

You claim to have used Bing imagery for this changeset, but Bing imagery just shows a blurry cloud of white and you can't even see that there's supposed to be an island here so the source specification must have been a mistake. Can you clarify your source? Have you made this edit as part of a MapRoulette task, and if yes, have you been instructed by anyone to do this?

Hello, may I inquire about the source of these added POIs? You have added a bunch of restaurants, cafes and gift shops across the planet, without names or specifying where the data came from.

Hi jcaviborg, it appears that this change set touches a lot of objects without actually changing them (other than the source tag is removed from the objects). What does that mean? Just to pick an example, on way/220619614/history you remove "source=bing", and your own changeset comment says "source=Geodata/survey/knowledge". Does that mean you have somehow resurveyed the way or compared it against a more recent imagery or other data source?

I have looked that the Bing imagery surrounding some of the points and found nothing visible on the ground that I could have used to align the image though. I think the matter deserves a more thorough discussion. We'll revert it for now but that doesn't mean it can never come back.

The survey points seem to contain this message: "Não alterar: coordenadas originais do IBGE". I wonder why they are imported in OSM at all; what use is data that you cannot alter in OSM? Anyone interested in doing anything with the survey points can just use the shape file.

I have also noticed that this import seems to have first been raised on talk-br on March 9, two days before the import was started. Problems like a collection relation with 37k members would have been found before the import if people had actually had time to look at what was proposed.

This import is badly executed. In blatant contravention to the RABA-KGZ import page on the Wiki, polygons have NOT been combined with neighbouring ones (e.g. way/479459103 ends clearly at a grid boundary), and data has NOT been visually compared with existing stuff (see how relation/7054112 is imported without moving the street to its proper location, or see the old "shingle" polygon here way/428692925 which now overlaps imported data). Please: 1. stop your imports immediately; 2. fix your existing imports before you continue to import new stuff (or remove your imports if you don't have the time to fix them), and 3. if you think that doing the import *right* is too much work, then don't do it at all and wait until someone else has the energy to do it right.

I have started a discussion on the tagging mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-March/031453.html

How did you manage to draw this building outline with 40 points when all that the Bing imagery shows is a construction site? Is it possible that you forgot to specify a data source?

Could you please explain the source of this data. It appears that you have added a large number of buildings, but forgot to tag them correctly. You've also added a large number of duplicate nodes. It looks like this might be an import that is not following our imports policy osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines and the lack of discussion has lead to a number of errors in the data.

I'm afraid I will have to remove these imports because they haven't been discussed with the community (as mandated by the import policy), and (probably as a consequence of such lack of discussion) are faulty, using invalid tags and duplicating information that already is in OSM.

You would have to download the area (or parts of it at at time) into JOSM and then manually delete the duplicate data.

Or, if you want I could simply revert the whole changeset in which you uploaded the duplicate data, and then you could go through your improvements offline and add them piece by piece. You will always have to download the data that exists in an area (in JOSM) and then apply your edits and upload again; you cannot (as you seem to have tried here) make a copy of the whole data set and then replace the existing data with your (modified) copy.

It appears you have imported a new road over an already existing road here way/476144200#map=18/49.12053/-70.11346&layers=D and tagged the new road with "lanes=-1"?

Importing Canvec data requires some diligence. You cannot just take a Canvec tile and dump it into OSM (else others would have done it long ago). You need to compare Canvec data to existing data or even aerial imagery to make sure you're not making the map worse. See for example way/476144472 where you have imported a patch of green landcover that sits completely beside the island in Lac Carrier where it belongs - either you need to fix the landcover or the island. Same for almost all the forest you imported bordering Lac Carrier; being of a much inferior resolution compared to the lake itself, the woodland cuts into and out of the lake at random. Please don't insult Canadians by calling this kind of mapping a "patriotic duty", and try to place quality over quantity in the future.

Oh dear, this changeset and the few others you uploaded at the same time have actually *duplicated* almost all the data in the city - now your new data sits on top of the unchanged old data. I think we should remove your new data again, to give you a chance to properly conflate your changes with the existing data. Or what would you suggest?