Dear GoldensFireCool, please use changeset comments that explain what you were doing. This is an important part of quality control in OpenStreetMap. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hello MxxCon, the DWG is looking at the disagreement between you and user catgirlseraid and we are tracking this in our ticket #2025052810000472.

You are right when you say that we normally abide by the "one feature, one object" rule. In an ideal world it would be sufficient to map a pedestrian area as an area. However, with both map renderers and routers being bad at labelling (or routing over) such pedestrian areas, it is indeed a widely practiced mapping style to have both - see the examples provided by Taya.

While I understand you reservations about micro-mapping, your deletion of pedestrian areas has lost some information. For example if you now look at #110 Andes Rd, the map seems to indicate a green area being present between the building and the road when in fact the concrete extends up to the (shrubbery just outside) the building.

Could you please re-instate the pedestrian areas.

Also I see that you have replaced "forest" polygons with single trees which is ok, but some forest polygons seem to have gone missing without being replaced (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=166883890) - maybe you could check that again.

Finally, can I ask you to try and remain objective in changeset comments; a simple "reducing micromapping on Governors Island" would have been better than speaking of "badly mapped features" that require "correction". (I can see that you did indeed correct a few mistakes but most of the edits in this changeset are a matter of taste and not of what is correct and what not - and even IF I correct a mistake that someone else has made I wouldn't usually make a big deal about how that was "bad mapping".)

You have deleted more than 50 buildings in this edit. You have not explained why you are deleting them, other than giving us the word salad "#hotosm-project-18648 #APHub #myOSM #help-mm-earthquake" which does not tell us anything. If these buildings have been destroyed by an earthquake, please write a human-readable explaination - "deleting buildings that have been destroyed" would be good.

Deletions look legit; spot check shows no traces of abandoned rail visible on aerial imagery

Dear km2pb, I have reverted your edits in which you re-added links to 3rd party Youtube URLs. Whether or not these "make the map more interesting" is not the question here; they don't belong in OSM. I have not sufficiently made this clear in my message to Hubert above, but I am saying this in my capacity as a member of OSM's Data Working Group and I sincerely ask you to stop adding links back in that I have removed (or in fact add any links to 3rd party platforms apart from the well-established Wikipedia links).

Ich habe diese Löschung jetzt zunächst einmal rückgangig gemacht, weil ich annehme, dass Chris921 als gerade erst angemeldeter Benutzer den Unterschied zwischen "ist in OpenStreetMap" und "ist auf einer Wanderkarte" nicht kennt. Community-Post dazu hier: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/loschung-von-t6-wegen-im-karwendel-tirol/130321 - das ist keine endgültige Entscheidung, es kann durchaus sein, dass wir die Wege am Ende tatsächlich löschen, es sollte nur nicht einer allein entscheiden und schon gar nicht jemand, dessen allererster Beitrag zu OSM das ist.

Die hier gelöschten Wege waren in OSM ausnahmslos mit "sac_scale=difficult_alpine_hiking" (also T6) gekennzeichnet. Ist Deine Behauptung, dass dies unzutreffend ist, weil die gelöschten Wege sämtlich schwieriger als T6 sind?

Hi there Frankarkohpaintsil, the "changeset comment" is intended to be an explanation of your mapping so that others can see what you have been doing. "Uccyouthmappers16" is not a good changeset comment because it doesn't say anything about your mapping. Better put something like "added buildings" or whatever it is you did! Also, you can combine several edits in one upload, you don't need to upload for every single house.

Hello ^_^, it would be good if you could fill out the "changeset comment" field so that other mappers know what you are doing!

Dear EGYYYY2, in this changeset you performed a very welcome cleanup of spam. If you do that, please put something in the changeset comment ("removing spam nodes" or so) - don't just write "." and let others guess what this was about!

Hello Blue Clip, a decision on whether or not to revert your changes is going to be based on license compatibility, not on your consent or your withdrawing thereof. If English is not your native language, feel free to explain yourself in a language you feel more comfortable with.

I made osm.org/user_blocks/17684 to ensure the user sees this message.

Dear Margitravn, the "changeset comment" field is intended to let other members of the OpenStreetMap project understand what your intent was when uploading. "#ewbswe" is unintelligible to other users; please be so kind as to enter a changeset comment that lets other people understand your mapping.

Also, I noticed that you are using the RapID editor with the "poweruser" flag set. This is not recommended for mappers who have only just signed up; this setting will switch off certain editor features that would keep you from making mistakes and damaging the map.

Please do not change or delete any of the names of the Persian/Arabian Gulf without prior discussion. This edit has been reverted.

After deletions were repeated in changeset/166147300 I blocked the account at osm.org/user_blocks/17678

Dear максонДудолад, please use the "changeset comment" field to write a human-readable description (in Ukrainian or English) of your edit, e.g. "added farmland". Your recent descriptions of "bdfbbbf", "egrdgddbf", "rthererge", or "rgnfvbngfn" are not useful. 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.

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.