The driveway connecting 111th and 107th has been removed again by the owner, and a complaint lodged with DWG as Ticket #2025050710000421. I reverted the deletion and explained to them that access=private is sufficient to deter trespassers.

Hi, the wiki import page still talks of this import as being "at the planning stage". It would be good if that could be updated.

Dear Blue_on_the_time, the "changeset comment" field is where you explain to your fellow mappers what your edit is about. "a" is not a good description for a changeset with > 900 edits. A few more words would be good! See osm.wiki/Uk:%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B2_%D0%B7%D0%BC%D1%96%D0%BD for details.

There was a large land-use polygon that covered sectors 8 and 9 before. You have deleted that and instead created a land-use polygon for sector 9 only. Hence sector 8 is now without.

After your edit, this area changeset/165661865#map=19/19.276776/72.864776 is now without landuse=residential (the map background is white not gray). Is that intentional? It was residential before.

La page que j'ai mentionnée répertorie de nombreuses raisons pour lesquelles un chemin privé devrait figurer sur la carte.

Dear LouisSchaechterle, in OpenStreetMap we add the marker "access=private" to private paths, instead of deleting them. I have reverted your edits. See osm.wiki/FR:Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F for an explanation of the issue. (DWG Ticket#2025043010000488)

Hello and welcome CedriC8722! In your first edits you have patiently filled out the "changeset comment" field which is great! That way, you give other mappers a chance to see at one glance what your edits was about.

In your most recent changesets you have switched to using just "." as a changeset comment. It would be very welcome if you could return to writing good comments. It is really helpful!

See changeset/165444323#map=19/41.689263/44.733119 where I commented on the repeated deletion of this. If it is an informal place maybe it should be tagged accordingly.

Has this photo been taken in the same spot as https://imgur.com/a/PFYLzw1? Have the logs that were arranged for sitting down been removed?

Please understand that in OSM we map "what is there", and not "what is legal". If making a fire is not allowed here, then we can set the appropriate tags. If this is an "informal" picnic site then we can set the appropriate tags.

If the logs have been removed and this is "just a random place in the woods" then it can be removed from OSM but if someobody has arranged logs on the ground so people can sit down and have a picninc then it is worth mapping. (DWG Ticket#2025042610000245)
Being a certified professional does not give you any superiority in our mapping community.

Dear Yovani V, consider creating multiple buildings and then uploading them in one go, instead of saving every single building. It's fewer mouse clicks for you, and easier to follow for your fellow mappers.

Dear Angie Ocampos, please use the changeset comment field to place a short description of your edit. "UCAP" is not a sufficient description. You would normally say what you did and why (maybe "deleted superfluous landuse areas" in this case).

Roland, Ruben, bitte unterlasst diesen Edit-War hier.

Fest steht, und da seid ihr Euch beide einige, dass ein Weg, der beidseitig mit VZ240 (oder auch einem anderen VZ, das sich an den Fahrradverkehr richtet) beschildert ist, nicht "oneway" ist.

Strittig ist offenbar, ob es sich bei dem straßenbegleitenden kombinierten Fuß/Radweg um einen "path" oder einen "sidewalk" handelt, hier habt ihr Eure Edits gegenseitig zurückgeändert. Strittig ist ferner, ob der Weg im konkreten Fall für Radfahrer ein Einbahnweg ist. Mir ist unklar, ob Rolands Argument lautet: "Im Grunde sind straßenbegleitende Radwege schon oneway, bloß dies hier ist kein straßenbegleitender Weg, sondern ein unabhängiger Weg, daher auch highway=path satt highway=footway,footway=sidewalk", oder ob Roland nicht bestreitet, dass dieser Weg straßenbegleitend ist, aber aufgrund der Streuscheiben in den Ampeln von einer Ausnahme zu der allgemeinen Regel ausgeht. Vielleicht müsste man hierzu mal bei der Stadt anfragen, wie das ganze gedacht war?

Ich habe die Community gebeten, hierzu ihre Meinung zu sagen, vielleicht könnt Ihr Euren Standpunkt hier auch noch einmal darlegen, falls meine Zusammenfassung nicht präzise genug ist:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/oneway-auf-strassenbegleitenden-kombinierten-fuss-radwegen/129084

Ich würde Euch auch bitten, falls sich in diesem Thread eine vorherrschende Meinung herauskristallisiert, diese zu beherzigen. Auch die besten machen mal Fehler.

Klar ist, dass keiner von Euch ein Vandale ist, und daher bitte ich Euch auch, solche öffentlichen Anfeindungen zu unterlassen. Wenn sich zwei so erfahrene Mapper wie ihr in dieser Sache nicht einigen können, dann würde das ein ziemlich schlechtes Licht auf das Projekt insgesamt werfen.

Dear Ana Gastelum, when you participate in OSM, out of respect to other contributors, please use the "changeset comment" to put a human-readable description of what you did. "#hotosm-project-16289;#OSM_Guatemala;#Quetzaltenango;#Kaart" is word salad that nobody can understand. There is a "hashtags" field that you can use to place these tags; in the "comment" field please put something like "added roads" or "traced buildings" or something like that.

osm.org/user_blocks/17550

Hello natiely12345, you can create several buildings and then upload them together, you don't need to save every single building! Also, consider using the "Q" hotkey in the editor to make the building square.

You may want to look at the "Q" keyboard shortcut in the editor that helps you make square buildings.

Dear ClaireChivers, you have added new objects for "War Memorial Park" but they already existed before: way/24472121 - please be careful not to add duplicates to OSM. Please also note our rules for "organised editing" - https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines - if "#TeamGen" is a group that receives instructions from someone then it would be required to document your team on the OSM wiki.

In this changeset you have removed/changed some names of the Persian/Arabian gulf. This is a major edit and not covered at all by your changeset comment "added details. Road improves, fixed some warnings, improved some buildings". I have therefore reverted the whole changeset. Please do not change any of the names of this waterbody without prior discussion.

It is possible that this waterbody is actually called "Arabian Gulf" in some languages. Please don't change any of its names without first seeking a consensus on the OSM forum. This edit has been reverted.