Dear Verdizulo, it appears that you are changing the "name" tag of entities that do not lie wholly within one language region to Esperanto on the grounds that this was somehow more "neutral". There is no consensus in the community that this makes sense (especially given that Esperanto is just one of many similarly "neutral" languages). Please seek a discussion with the community on the world-wide talk list (lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk) or another suitable forum before you make further edits like that.

Hi, this revert seems to have introduced a couple duplicates. Some come from a *different* user having re-added the POIs in the mean time (I deleted those in changeset/77600377) but in some cases this revert seems to have undeleted pairs of duplicates.

Props for keeping the calm, StudentinGear ;)

Is there really a city-level administrative unit here called "Area A"? relation/7471579 - this leads OSM to generate addresses like "5610, 5th Street, Area A (Baynes Sound), Comox Valley Regional District, British Columbia, V0R 3B0, Canada".

Dear Telluu, please mind your words. I am here because you wrote to DWG, and I have actually translated this discussion so I could read it. It sounds to me like you are the one picking a fight here, first with a condescending "Angielski to nie jest chyba twoja mocna strona więc ci przetłumacze", later with "Przestań roznosić głupoty", and it goes downhill from there. I strongly suggest you take a break before you say something for which you might get moderated.

I would like to understand more about this discussion. What makes this building special? In order for it to qualify as a "townhall" it would have to be special in some way, either serving an administrative function or being a meeting place where citizens will typically hold events, like perhaps a dance or a bazaar or other community meetings. Is this such a building?

Please use a changeset comment that can be understood by humans, instead of "PRIQH2". An adequate changeset comment for this changeset could have been "tracing and realigning buildings in Kisra", for example.

Hallo Ratz41, kannst Du Dich noch erinnern, wie die Wege ausgezeichnet waren, die bei "Varmert" von der B237 abzweigen (way/287702249 und dahinter liegende Waldwege)? Es gab hierzu eine Beschwerde, dass es sich um Privatwege handele. Kennst Du dich da gut genug aus, um etwas dazu zu sagen?

This looks very close to being a data import, especially as you have added a tag to each imported object asking people to "Please verify the accurate position of the hospital/health care centre". You claim that this is a MapRoulette task, can you point to details? I would be interested in finding out who has created that task and what steps they undertook to ensure the quality of this import.

Hello, the changeset comment field is intended to be a human-readable description of what this changeset was meant to do. You are adding 6 hashtags to every one of your changesets, but tomake sense of these hashtags, people have to go to other web sites, tasking managers etc. - please, instead of these hashtags, add a simple line of text like "traced paths in <region>" or something like that.

You can add ruins if they are visible on the ground (!) but you cannot add explanations on who destroyed the building. You can add military bases but you cannot add opinions on whether or not they are legal, neither yours nor that of any international body. For "name" tags you can add the name that is written on the official signs in the area. You are free to add "name:ka" to places that have a Georgian name and then set up a map server that uses the name:ka tag to label all places in the Georgian language.

Ich kontrolliere das von Hand, nachdem der Job durchgelaufen ist. Danke für den Hinweis.

Hello, please stop adding translations to features. The "name:xx" tag is to be used if the feature actually has an own name in that language. It is not for translations or transliterations!

It appears that you're taking data from the Arizona Department of Transport here. It would be better to attribute them directly via a "source" tag in the changeset rather than having users click through a cryptic arcgis.com link that might go away at any time! I know that most government sources in the US are in the public domain but have you verified that this is the case for the ADOT information as well?

Dear Mappuccino, may I ask what logic you apply in selecting which buidings to align and which not? In this changeset you have moved three buldings and the "Topolica" road, but not the other buildings which were equally offset from Maxar imagery. The result is a jumble with some buildings aligned to one, some buildings to other imagery (cf. //www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/tuzla.jpg) - arguably the situation was better before your edit, because even assuming it was wrong before, at least everything was equally wrong! Your moving of the garage or shed between houses #2 and #4 has even led to it intersecting with the building at house #2. What is your mission here?

Zustimmung zu "Diskussion sollte nicht im Changeset geführt werden" -> sind ja auch seit gestern schon über 20 Beiträge hier https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048852.html

Zu den Links, die Galbinus oben geposted hat: Der erste Link schreibt, dass man bei einem Mini-Roundabout typischerweise geradeaus drüberfährt, wenn man das einzige Auto ist. Müsste jemand beurteilen, der da wohnt, mir sieht dieser Roundabout nicht so aus. Die deutsche Übersetzung (2. Link) hat das schwächer ausgedrückt (da stand nur "kann" über die Mitte fahren, nicht "fährt üblicherweise über die Mitte"), ich habe jetzt an den englischen Text angepasst (osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=DE%3ATag%3Ahighway%3Dmini_roundabout&type=revision&diff=1915985&oldid=1876864). Der dritte Link ist die deutsche Version von junction=roundabout, hier hat sich gleich im einleitenden Satz ein "... nicht befahrbare Mittelinsel" eingeschlichen, das im englischen Text so nicht steht. Allerdings steht im englischen Text weiter unten auf der Seite tatsächlich "A roundabout is a one-way street with right-of-way and a non-traversable centre island.", das werde ich mal auf der tagging-Liste zur Sprache bringen.

Ich habe die Tagging-Diskussion so verstanden, dass es sich rechtlich gesehen auch in GB um einen echten Kreisverkehr handelt, der in der Praxis aber nicht wie einer gehandhabt wird. Also "Mini-roundabouts use the same right-of-way rules as standard roundabouts" (gleiche Vorfahrtsregeln wie Kreisverkehr) aber "people treat it more like a normal junction". Von einem Navi erwartet man am Mini-Roundbout ein "biegen Sie links ab" und nicht ein "nehmen Sie die erste Ausfahrt im Kreisverkehr". Soweit die Diskussion auf der Tagging-Liste.

Bei diesem Kreisverkehr hier würde ich ganz klar von meinem Navi ein "nehmen Sie die X. Ausfahrt" erwarten und kein "biegen Sie ab", und dieser Kreisverkehr hier ist sicherlich auch nichts, was Leute wie eine normale Kreuzung behandeln würden. Also für mich sähe das hier aus wie ein junction=roundabout und nicht highway=mini_roundabout.

DaveF, it was good of you to ask before making a change. ika-chan, no need to get all defensive about this, a simple "I thought it made sense at the time, feel free to change" would have been sufficient. DaveF, please let's keep this civil and refrain from quoting Boris Johnson.

Can you provide a link to the MapRoulette challenge? I was unable to find it on the web site.