Data imports in OpenStreetMap require prior discussion. Please do not upload road marking data without discussion your data sources and tagging plans with the community beforehand. This import is being reverted. (DWG Ticket#2025073010000115)

@Ctl, don't put blind trust in aerial imagery in the US, it can be misaligned like everywhere else (eg you'll find an offset between Bing and Esri in this particular area). @Derek, while I, too, wonder what drives Ctl to map the way they do, they don't have to explain. Driveways are "a thing" in OSM, even though where I live we tend to use them only for "non-obvious" cases where to reach a building the method "park on the public road in the spot that is nearest to the building" does not yield good results. Ctl seems to add driveways even where they add little information, but MikeN is right - maybe someone comes along and wants to calculate what percentage of ground is asphalted or so and then they are happy to have this info.

It appears that Ctl is using Mapbox satellite imagery which in this area appears to have an almost identical alignment to Bing; therefore I am surprised to hear that adding buildings from Microsoft's data set causes overlaps. This is perhaps a matter that deserves a closer look; if either Mapbox or Microsoft are so misaligned then it would be good to apply some correction when using these sources.

The Data Working Group has become aware of this dispute and is tracking it in Ticket#2025072810000334. Derek, I see that you have removed some of Ctl's driveways for the second time, and Ctl has restored them as many times. If you find yourself in a situation like that - involve the DWG or others, don't just continue deleting and restoring data because if anything is a waste of resources it is that!

I agree with with Derek that adding driveways that do not connect to a building (because the building has not been mapped) looks absolutely silly (osm.org/#map=18/32.708652/-117.017092) - it is a sight well suited to make others chuckle about what goes on in the heads of OSM contributors.

However, it is not against our rules and hence please don't delete Ctl's work. If you want you can raise the matter on community.openstreetmap.org ("Should we tolerate driveways when the associated buildings have not been mapped"), and if the community should then come to the consensus that mapping driveways without mapping the buildings they lead to is unwanted, then (and only then) can you remove such contributions in the future.

Hallo Frau Mauthner, vermutlich gibt es hier ein Missverständnis. Wenn Sie schreiben "hier ist kein Weg", dann meinen Sie, "hier ist kein Wegerecht für die Öffentlchkeit" - denn dass dort eine asphaltierte Fläche zum Zwecke der Bewegung von Fahrzeugen ist, das sieht jeder auf dem Luftbild. Bei OpenStreetMap ist ein "Weg" aber genau das. Wer da laufen/fahren darf, das tragen wir als zusätzliche Information ein.

Der von Ihnen hier (erneut) gelöschte Weg war bereits mit der Zusatzinformation "Privatweg" versehen. Durch Ihre Löschung ist diese Information verloren gegangen, und sobald jemand den Weg vom Luftbild abmalt (auf dem ihn wie gesagt jeder erkennen kann), haben Sie das gleiche Problem wieder.

Die Sache ist im Detail hier erklärt: osm.wiki/DE:Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Bitte sehen Sie von weiteren Löschungen ab; sie beschädigen damit unsere Daten und Sie verstoßen gegen unsere Benutzungsbedingungen.

I have reverted the deletion and added a private access marker.

DWG Ticket#2025072010000018

The land owner said that Parque Kaiken occupies parcels 531-22, 531-48 (the lake), 531-65, as well as one yet un-numbered parcel surrounding the lake, and has sent a map showing these boundaries. I corrected the OSM boundary accordingly. However, should this information be incorrect, feel free to modify quoting an appropriate source.

maraf24, please read the thread and then say if you still believe that "nothing has been decided yet".

maraf24, if you revert a changeset please always state a reason. It appears that the thread https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/stosowanie-tagu-highway-trunk-w-polsce/122106 came to the conclusion that roads marked as red in osm.wiki/Talk:Pl:Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#Zestawienie_dr%C3%B3g_2 are ok to be marked as trunk roads and that the edit you have reverted is in line with the community consensus, meaning your revert would violate community consensus, or am I misreading something?

Dear Chloé_Van_Steenkiste, "landover=trees" in an unusual tag, we would usually either map individual trees or call it "landuse=forest" (or "natural=wood" if unmanaged). Also, you did not set a changeset comment when uploading; it is considered good practice to write a few words about the change you are uploading. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

It matters insofar as all these interactions and utterances are public, and new OSM contributors might shy away from joining a project that appears to have unhinged people run wild.

Dear SantanaVII, thank you for your contributions to OSM. Could you be a little more specific with your changeset comments, and in the future explain what you corrected, instead of just writing "correction"? See also: osm.wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications

DWG has photo of "Privat – Ingen adgang" sign where track branches off Århusvej.

Hallo f0restr1, ich habe die Löschungen rückgängig gemacht. Sie widersprechen unseren Regeln; nur, weil die Nutzung eines Weges durch die Allgemeinheit verboten ist, heisst das nicht, dass er gelöscht werden soll. Im Detail ist das hier osm.wiki/DE:Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F erklärt. Bitte beschränke Löschugnen künftig auf das, was tatsächlich vor Ort nicht mehr sichtbar ist.

The fact that you offended other mappers with terms like "illiterate vandal" (neither of which is factually correct) is the reason I became involved. Behaviour like that tarnishes your reputation and your map contributions even if they are otherwise good, and you risk your account being blocked. So please think twice next time before you offend others. This is a community effort and you're expected to settle any disputes in a civil and grownup manner.

I have restored the name even though I believe that maybe it falls foul of the "no descriptive names" rule; I think it would be good if this were discussed in the community forum BEFORE a change is made.

I have hidden a number of comments in this changeset comment thread because they were unnecessarily confrontative. Please address the content of the changeset and not linguistic details.

DWG here. Everyone please just take it down a notch. The long-form name has been used for over 13 years in OSM. If you cannot agree about the change, involve the community forum and get an opinion there.

osm.org/user_blocks/18411 & changeset/168418277

Just to answer your question, your racist comments in your previous changeset were not "justified". Apparently you did not know that changesets are automatically closed after 60 minutes of inactivity. If you use such unacceptable language again, your account may be suspended.