Ich hatte vor einigen Monaten schonmal auf die Problematik hingewiesen (osm.org/user_blocks/2517) und im Anschluss einige Änderungen von ulamm revertiert. Ich hatte gehofft, dass das "was ich irgendwo nachgucken kann ist öffentlich"-Missverständnis dadurch aufgeklärt wäre. In Deutschland gilt keinesfalls, dass Fakten automatisch ohne Urheberrecht sind, und es gibt sogar Gerichtsurteile, in denen gedruckte Topo-Karten eine Datenbank genannt werden. Also, bevor man aus der DTK was abschreibt, einfach nachfragen ob es ok ist. Nur: was machen wir jetzt mit all den ulamm-Edits der letzten Monate (oder Jahre), denen offenbar eine sehr liberale "jeder darf in die DTK schauen"-Auffassung zugrunde liegt? Offenbar sind ja nciht nur Namen aus Fremdquellen übernommen, z.B. ist für diesen Graben way/684354475, der in diesem Changeset hier erfasst wurde, die Quelle "bing imagery" sicherlich falsch (der Graben ist im Luftbild nicht sichtbar).

Dear Perrine L, thank you for your contribution to OpenStreetMap. In this changeset you have added more than 50 roads and marked them to be "secondary" roads, which is a relatively big type of road. On the available aerial imagery, these roads look more like agricultural tracks and hence could have been marked "track" instead of "secondary". Has anyone already contacted you about the issue?

(automatic translation)
Chère Perrine L, merci de votre contribution à OpenStreetMap. Dans cet ensemble de modifications, vous avez ajouté plus de 50 routes et les avez désignées comme routes "secondaires", ce qui représente un type de route relativement important. Sur les images aériennes disponibles, ces routes ressemblent davantage à des pistes agricoles et auraient donc pu être marquées "piste" au lieu de "secondaires". Quelqu'un vous a-t-il déjà contacté à ce sujet?

The areas you have highlighted are clearly low-quality mapping, and it is certainly worth analyzing and discussing whether the processes and funding model of HOT are currently adequate to create mapping with any long-term benefit. However, this was not what I was asking. My main point is that I would like you to write more accurate changeset comments. "Re-work 1234" doesn't really help a lot, because nobody knows what 1234 is, and nobody knows what you mean by "re-work". You could write "improve road classification" or "correct building geometries" or "remove invalid landuses". Or, if you desperately want to express your opinion on HOT's mapping quality, you can also write "Making sure this tile actually conforms to the instructions given in [URL] - it should never have been validated like that" or so. But a factual statement on what you're doing would be best, and if done well could also be helpful for the mappers whose mi stakes you are fixing. See also osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

So you are saying that when you "re-work" something you are ensuring that the data conforms to the instructions you quoted, and that the mappers using the tasking manager disregard these instructions?

Hallo rab, I assume that your "5833" is a reference to a HOT project but it is not obvious; can you make this clearer in your changeset comments? Also, can you explain why you are "reworking" something here - what are the issues you are fixing? If these are systematic problems, where the same mistake is made regularly, have you made an attempt to reach out to the mapper(s) responsible?

The changeset has been completely reverted becuause it looked like vandalism.

Why delete way/681639717/history ?

In this changeset described as "Atualizar escola e hotel" you have deleted many buildings, shops, and a residential area. Was the deletion a mistake, or is the changeset comment wrong? If the latter, what is the reason for the deletion?

Dieses Changeset hat eine Reihe von Häusern in der Straße "In der Treff" gelöscht, aber (entgegen dem Changeset-Kommentar) nicht neu gezeichnet: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=67930452 - bitte erstelle die fehlenden Häuser oder nimm die Löschung zurück.

Is it intentional that the southern border of Taos Pueblo loosely follows the Carson National Forest border, sometimes leaving a little no-man's-land between the forest and the reservation, sometimes having both overlap a little?

This looks awfully wrong. Are you aware of existing rules about data imports in OpenStreetMap - that imports need to be discussed before they can be executed?

Hello release_candidate, DWG has received a complaint from a resident saying that the path way/330874722 does not exist and is on private property. I realize it's been a while, but do you remember anything about adding this path and is it possible that they are right?

I notice that this problem is much bigger than I first saw. You have added thousands of nodes wrongly tagged. I will revert your imports.

In this changeset you have added the tag "boundary=protected_area" to all *nodes* making up the boundary of a protected area. JOSM should actually show warnings for that, please double check! Also from the amount of data you added this looks like an import. As you know imports require prior discussion in the community. Please show me where your import has been discussed. Thanks!

Could you please specify your sources exactly, as in give an URL where we can look at the sources you are using. I am especially suspicious of the large amount of circular holes in the forest you added here osm.org/#map=17/57.07518/24.17087 as they appear on none of the available aerial imagery. Thank you!

The almost-square residential area in this changeset looks wrong. There are buildings all around it which it should encompass!

The almost-square residential areas in this changeset look wrong?

Can you explain the details of the "vandalism" you mention here?

Language like that is not acceptable in changeset comments. If someone points out an error in your mapping, rather than fixing it themselves, it is to prevent you from repeating the error over and over in the future. Often, engaging with a mapper and explaining what they did wrong is more work than fixing it - and it isn't made more attractive if in return people are called "useless git".

OSM is a huge project with hundreds of new mappers every day. If the existing mappers stopped expending their time to teach new(er) mappers how we do things in OSM, then the whole thing would quickly go down the drain.

So please, if you make a mistake and it is pointed out to you, then own it, fix it, and learn from it, and don't throw around offenses like you did above. Yes, some people can be over-zealous in protecting the map quality, but your immature reaction is not appropriate.

Frederik Ramm / OSMF Data Working Group

Please be generally careful when adding wikidata links. These *must* be manually checked; you cannot simply hop from an OSM wikipedia link to the wikidata item, because there are situations where the OSM wikipedia link points to something that is not conceptually identical with the object in OSM. It seems to be ok in this case - I am just saying this to make clear that under no circumstances must this be done in a scripted fashion.