Perhaps it would make sense to use old_name=something?

Was it wise to remove the name "Tung Chung Valley" in this changeset? It seems to be a placename of relative importance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tung_Chung#Tung_Chung_Valley) - if it is not a "suburb" then surely it is something else, and could have been fixed instead of being removed?

Gerold, kannst Du bitte mal zum Inhalt und nicht zur Form Stellung nehmen? Ist es Deiner Ansicht nach nur ein "vermeintlicher" Fehler und soll deshalb so bleiben, oder ist es ein "tatsächlicher" Fehler, und wenn ja, wirst Du ihn korrigieren, oder wartest Du, bis es jemand anders macht? Immerhin war es ja Dein Ziel in diesem Changeset, "dummen Schwachsinn" zu korrigieren - wer sowas schreibt, von dem darf man doch mindestens erwarten, dass er es dann richtig macht, oder?

The reason for this revert is that these automated edits have not been - as far as I could see - discussed before. Several users had complained about station names like "123 km" being transliterated/translated into a multitude of languages (e.g. 14 names in node/3781302157/history) even though we have a clear rule that we don't use name:xx for transliterations/translations.

The ESR code was added by the same undiscussed automated process so I removed it too while I was at it, though I'm happy to reinstate it if the community agrees it is useful.

osm.org/user_blocks/3326 for continuing to upset people long before the discussion has come to a conclusion. To be crystal clear: It is good to have a discussion. Until such time as the discussion clearly comes to the consensus that a certain solution is better than what we had before Verdizulo started changing name tags, the name tags we had before Verdizulo will stay in place. We will not apply any of the "ideas" raised in the discussion before we find a solution that works for all, or at least a sizable majority.

Can you explain why you have changed a few objects that are clearly schools to universities in this an neighbouring changesets?

This carpark way/729184813 and this way/729184810 intersect with buildings. Was there no QA/conflation done in this import?

This wall goes through buildings and a river: way/753459719

These two buildings way/740565056 way/740565057 are extremely deformed and do not look like buildings on aerial imagery at all. What was the QA process in this import?

This wall goes through buildings: way/753459676

How can it be source=survey and then so wrong? solmaps2, were you actually there to check, or was your source=survey incorrect?

Wo kommt der Name "Eichsfeld unteilbar" her. Ist da ein Schild, das diesem Garten den Namen gibt? Ist der vor Ort so bekannt?

Diese Grasflächer hat sicher nicht den Namen "Grasfläche mit Kolpinggedenkstein". Siehe: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

osm.org/user_blocks/3309

Thank you.

http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=70533121 shows the deleted power line (in red). I tried to find evidence for this power line on aerial imagery but saw nothing. Sowa1980, can you specify the source for your mapping of this power line last year? You wrote "source=knowledge" but surely you do not know the exact geometry of a power line. Perhaps these existing power lines way/320746060 way/320735774 replace the one that has been deleted? @sqrr can you say something about this?

These "Association_of_ Pharmacy_Organizations" prefixes do not seem to make sense to me and this discussion has not managed to explain the use of this rare prefix. I would probably delete something like this if I encountered it in areas where I map. @muschel however, since this is not a country where you or I speak the language - next time maybe sufficient to just place a "note" in such cases to make the community aware of non-standard tags, and move on.

These tags have been moved into a description tag by user mueschel. Since neither First_Small_Prayer_data nor the other tags appear anywhere else in OSM, have not been discussed on any OSM lists, and are not documented on the wiki, putting them in a "note" or "description" makes sense. As for completion_of_construction_date, would the established start_date perhaps make more sense? Everyone in OSM may invent their own tags but that doesn't mean there's an automatic right for any such tags to remain unchanged. If you think that it is important for orthodox churches to have the dates of the first big prayer and the first small prayer to be recorded in a machine-readable fashion, it could make sense to bring this up on a suitable mailing list and discuss.

Please be more careful with accusations of "vandalism". I am not sure if this is perhaps a problem with automatic translation. "Vandalism" is when people make edits in order to harm OSM, or at least edits that harm OSM and people don't care (e.g. graffitti). Accusing other project members who have contributed thousands of edits over many years of "vandalism" should not come easy.

Gah... my mistake, I'm fixing it.

This was a mistake, sorry, I am reverting it again.