Dear Valeri_2408, place=plot is not the correct tag for a building. building=yes is sufficient. Do not use "edificio" as a building name - the name is only there if a building has a special name like "World Trade Center" or something like that.

Dear Luis Manjarrez, please do not create "city blocks" that have the size of a single building. Please do not call these blocks "Valep", that is not the correct name.

A path in OSM is not first and foremost a "walking path" - it is just a path that exist, and who is allowed to do what on that path is something we have other tags for. Same for private driveways. We have a right to record this information, and interfering with our right is vandalism.

We are very interested in depicting the reality on the ground, and we do not want to mislead people into believing they could walk somewhere where they can't. I know for a fact that AllTrails will respect the access=private in routing, i.e. it won't suggest you walk there; as for their cartographic representation, I don't know how they process access=private but if they really don't do that then it is a mistake on their part! For what it's worth, AllTrails themselves recommend using access=private: https://support.alltrails.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058130612-What-if-a-trail-is-on-my-private-property

Dear rj_ruin, I have reverted your deletions and instead marked paths as private where this was not already the case. Correct information about existing infrastructure must not be removed form OSM; OSM is not responsible for "too many people taking the path", and removing such information from OSM is vandalism. Please convey that to the land owner on whose behalf you performed these deletions. (DWG Ticket#2024092410000081)

Are you sure this area of the city is called "manzana maria isabel"? Is it a conincidence that it matches your user name?

Dear MiguelMindiolac, please don't create residential areas with a name of "NOMBRE". Please also make a resdiential area at least encompass the whole building block - don't make mini residential areas for every building!

Hello there EvansGitonga, thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. There is a hot-key in the editor, "Q", that will help you square a building. The imagery you are using is not precise enough to detect the real building shapes anyway so squaring the walls is probably a good approximation ;)

Also, try and group some edits before uploading; you don't have to upload every single building on its own.

See changeset/156298467 in which this edit seems to have been reverted for unclear reasons.

In this changeset you have renamed Portugal Parkway to India Street, which seems wrong to me; see changeset/137457295 and https://www.heraldnews.com/story/news/local/ojornal/2023/06/14/providence-india-street-renamed-to-portugal-parkway-to-honor-portuguese-heritage-contributions-r-i/70323974007/ - can you explain why you renamed the street? Your changeset comment is not quite clear about that.

This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 156745349, 156745974, 156746712, 156786089, 156786248, 156786400, 156786470.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/156865347 where the changeset comment is: Revert der Edits von Benutzer 'Daniel Schlüter', da Zweifel an der Richtigkeit bestehen, siehe https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/neuer-user-mit-allerhand-loschungen/118958

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/156865347 where the changeset comment is: Revert der Edits von Benutzer 'Daniel Schlüter', da Zweifel an der Richtigkeit bestehen, siehe https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/neuer-user-mit-allerhand-loschungen/118958

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/156865347 where the changeset comment is: Revert der Edits von Benutzer 'Daniel Schlüter', da Zweifel an der Richtigkeit bestehen, siehe https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/neuer-user-mit-allerhand-loschungen/118958

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/156865347 where the changeset comment is: Revert der Edits von Benutzer 'Daniel Schlüter', da Zweifel an der Richtigkeit bestehen, siehe https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/neuer-user-mit-allerhand-loschungen/118958

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/156865347 where the changeset comment is: Revert der Edits von Benutzer 'Daniel Schlüter', da Zweifel an der Richtigkeit bestehen, siehe https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/neuer-user-mit-allerhand-loschungen/118958

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/156865347 where the changeset comment is: Revert der Edits von Benutzer 'Daniel Schlüter', da Zweifel an der Richtigkeit bestehen, siehe https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/neuer-user-mit-allerhand-loschungen/118958

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/156865347 where the changeset comment is: Revert der Edits von Benutzer 'Daniel Schlüter', da Zweifel an der Richtigkeit bestehen, siehe https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/neuer-user-mit-allerhand-loschungen/118958

Wenn ein Hochsitz falsch eingetragen ist, kann man den natürlich löschen. Wenn er aber korrekt eingetragen ist, und irgendjemand der Ansicht ist, dass diese Information "niemand etwas angehe", dann ist das kein ausreichender Grund zum Löschen; vielmehr stellt es Vandalismus an unserer Karte dar, die Information zu löschen. Jetzt dürfen wir rätseln, welche der Hochsitze tatsächlich falsch waren und welche unberechtigterweise gelöscht werden. Vermutlich werden wir uns entscheiden, einfach den Status quo ante wiederherzustellen.

Soweit ich informiert bin, ist in Nordrhein-Westfalen auch keine "Duldung" durch den Privatwaldbesitzer notwendig, um den Wald zu betreten; stattdessen gibt es ein gesetzlich verbrieftes Waldbetretungsrecht, das auch vor Privatwald nicht Halt macht, oder liege ich da falsch?

In diesem Changeset wurden über 20 Hochsitze gelöscht. Das ist nur zulässig, wenn diese Hochsitze entweder vorher falsch waren, oder in der Realität abgebaut worden sind. Beides erscheint mir wenig plausibel; kannst Du bitte eine Quelle für diese Änderung angeben?

Dear user gpneal, please provide the source(s) you have used in mapping these hole numbers. There is a "source" field that you can use when uploading data in the future; put "survey" if you have been there yourself, or otherwise point to the relevant material.