See my comment on changeset/71446023 which matches this changeset too!

PS this link lets you compare what you deleted to what you added: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=71446023

Dear Arcman, in this changeset you have deleted a number of buildings previously drawn by user ngt three weeks ago, as part of the same HOT project. You have re-drawn some of them but not all. For example, you have deleted way/692751904 which was a perfectly correct tracing of aerial imagery and now there's only void where that building was. You have not given a reason for your action. Have these buildings been torn down in the mean time? Do you have local knowledge of the area? Have you been asked by someone else to delete this data? Please note that the changeset comment field is not primarily for hashtags, but primarily for explaining what you are doing and why. "#hotosm-project-3708;#Sri;#Kelani;#IHSM" does not tell me anything. What I would expect to see is a human-readable text like "deleted and re-created buildings because <reason>".

Hello keithonearth, in this changeset you have removed access restrictions from the "Lighthouse Road" track. Now DWG has recevied a message from the land owners ("Therah Village Developments Ltd") saying that "This is in fact a private road on our land, and we respectfully request that this road be removed from your website as a means of access to the park." - What was your reason for removing the access restrictions? Should we perhaps reinstate an access=private here?

Hallo klimakas, könntest Du bitte etwas ausführlichere Changeset-Kommentare benutzen als nur "gps, Mapillary". Woher kennst Du die Kapazität und den Betreiber des hier eingezeichneten Parkplatzes? Falls Du selbst da warst, gibt "survey" als Quelle an.

Hello, please try to add meaningful changeset comments (see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments) especially when making large-scale edits like this. In this case, you should have explained why you are changing the road class of these roads and what your source or reasoning is for that, so that other mappers can decide whether they agree with your reasoning or would rather like to ask you to stop.

You have asked the mapper why he increased the road type but you have not given them any time to reply before reverting their work. Please give them more time to reply next time! Why do you think that they were wrong and you were right?

node/6522268845 also sits in the middle of a road

node/5918673271 is one example of a node that sits in the middle of a road.

node/6522268861 is a node that sits in the middle of a road.

I am not sure if you saw my previous message, just to be safe I'm adding a pointer here: osm.org/user_blocks/2855

Dear Lex Legis, please try to use good changeset comments instead of just "." - you are an experienced mapper and you should be setting a good example for others. osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments has an explanation of why this makes sense.

If possible, please try to keep your changesets to one continent, and open a new changeset for edits in a different continent, just so that the bounding box doesn't span half the planet. Thanks!

In case this is still an issue for anyone, here's a DWG statement on it: names in foreign languages are a rare exception to the "on the ground" rule. The group of people who have the best knowledge about the Thai name of a river in Finland are most like Thai mappers, not Finnish mappers. If the Finnish mappers then revert the Thai name because "this river is on Finnish terrain" then that is silly. HOWEVER, there may be situations where political sensitivities dictate a cautious approach; for example, when a German mapper happily adds German names to formerly occupied places in, say, Poland, that will have a sour taste for the Polish mappers and it *could* happen that the DWG would ask these mappers to tread carefully. So: in general, you cannot say that just because this is Ukraine the Ukrainain mappers get to define every name in every language for an object. But at the same time, Russian mappers should act with some caution. And a side note: We generally don't map pure transliterations.

In this changeset you "converted" a mosque in Mosul into a synagogue without giving any sources or reasons. Could you explain what information led you to make this edit?

KKS, it was not necessary to delete the "tourism=artwork" here. Yes I am sure opinions can be divided about what is art but try to err on the side of being friendly towards other mappers.

Dear Jon, using the Bing "bird's eye" images is not permitted on OSM (Bing have only granted permission for the standard aerial imagery). Please don't use it.

Organised editing teams (like yours) are expected to have documentation on the Wiki that outlines what their targets are and what sources they use in their work (see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines). We'd expect Kaart to have (at least) one entry in osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities. Among other things, this enables other mappers to give you a heads-up if they notice you're using inadmissible sources, and situations like this here can be avoided in the future.

Also, I disagree with creating groups of islands like the nNicobar Islands here relation/9493294 by taking all the individual coastline bits and putting them into one big relation in addition to the individual island relations they are already in. I also think that *if* such mapping made sense, using a type=multipolygon is the wrong relation type to use. If you feel a need to combine these individual islands into one group, I would make the individual island relations a member of a super relation, instead of duplicating information. Someone wanting to edit, say. the coast of Camorta Island will now not only edit a coastline way, but three relations. This is confusing to mappers.

Hello Olyon, I disagree with mapping bays, straits, channels, and various other named water areas as precise, hundreds-of-members polygons in OSM. I think a named node is sufficient. Using polygons means you are creating arbitrary cut lines between various bodies of water, like e.g. way/684290011. This kind of mapping is very difficult to maintain, prone to breakage, a burden on other mappers working in the area, and adds very little information. I would prefer it if you could stop copying this data into OSM from external sources, or else, have a proper discussion about it on one of the suitable international mailing lists before you embark on global mapping projects like this.

Alles vor Ort überprüft. In changeset/69761980 habe ich ein paar Geometrien etwas korrigiert, aber die Nummern stehen vor Ort definitiv genau so wie gemappt!