The correct way is to follow the guidelines outlined in the link. Most importantly, you need to discuss your process with the community on a suitable mailing list - the tagging list probably if you plan a world-wide edit or maybe just a country-wide list for country-wide edits. You must explain what you intend to do, which objects you will pick out and how you intend to change them. So that others can point out potential flaws in your logic that might cause damage.

Hello 30d4f4e1ccf24, could you explain what mapping technique you have used here? This changeset created 190 nodes but not the way joining them; that way was added later. It would be very difficult to achieve that result with JOSM (though not impossible).

In this changeset you have changed one "Circle K" store to "disused" and you used the changeset comment "update brand" which doesn't capture the most important change. Also, there is a second "Circle K" just a few metres away. Did you not see that when you looked at the area you were editing?

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/95248959 where the changeset comment is: revert erroneous boundary edits

Why have you removed a legitimate name:en tag in this changeset? Please be more careful when applying the reverter plugin.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/95244982.

This edit broke the coastline of island 24958480. Can you explain why you performed the edit and what you wanted to achieve? The text "." as a changeset comment unfortunately tells us little.

Dear localbirder, I came across this edit because you had accidentally "opened" the coastline which led to the flooding of a large part of the continental US. I fixed that now, and in doing so encountered a number of other smaller problems that arose from your editing, like cart paths folding back onto themselves or overlapping each other, overlapping buildings and so on. If your editor makes you aware of these problems, maybe worth having a look!

This changeset has reversed the line direction of the coastline surrounding the Caspian Sea, thereby breaking it. Can you explain why you did that?

Dear user mahmoudabadi_fm, please try to use good changeset comments that describe what you edited and possibly why. "this change needed" is not a good changeset comment. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for an explanation. If you do not feel confident writing a good changeset comment in English, then writing it in Persian is absolutely fine!

Also um da jedes Missverständnis auszuschliessen: Du, BeKri, hast jede einzelne dieser Hausnummern selbst in Augenschein genommen und garantiert nicht aus irgendeiner Quelle abgezeichnet, das ist Deine Aussage, ja? Und es ist definitiv nicht möglich, dass Du eine Hausnummer eingetragen hast, wo in Wahrheit nur eine Wiese ist, ja?

Please explain why you edited relation/9403798 in this changeset without actually modifying it at all.

Please explain how you identify the objects you are "correcting" in this fashion, what corrections you are making, and how you are complying with the long-established rules for mechanical edits (osm.wiki/Automated_edits).

Could you explain not only *that* you made a random node in the US a member of a German adminbounds relation, but also *why* you did it? Could you also elaborate on what software you are using to make these edits?

ElliotPlack, regarding the question of Slack: Slack is a private communications medium with no public archive that can be viewed by other members of the community who are not signed up to Slack. Of course mappers may use any form of private communication but if the result is a grand plan like this, it is worth at least outlining it in a form that is accessible and archived even for those who are not signed up to Slack, ideally on the talk-us mailing list.

Hallo BeKri, opendcc und "Konrad Ickinger", hier steht eine ernste Anschuldigung im Raum, nämlich dass BeKri aus einer nicht erlaubten Quelle Hausnummern abgezeichnet hat. Wenn das der Fall ist (z.B. Bayernatlas etc.), dann müssten sämtliche auf diese Weise erfassten Hausnummern entfernt werden. Die Frage nach der Quelle ist richtig und wichtig und trägt dazu bei, dass OSM ein rechtlich sauberes Projekt und keine "Piratenkarte" wird. Die Frage geht auch nicht weg, nur indem man ein bisschen flucht und um sich tritt; die Frage geht nur weg, wenn sie beantwortet wird. Ich bitte also BeKri, die Frage nach der Quelle wahrheitsgemäß und ohne Ausflüchte - und vorallem ohne Beleidigungen - zu beantworten. Und wenn die Antwort ist "sorry, ich hab vom Bayernatlas abgemalt, ich wusste es nicht besser", ist das auch keine Schande, dann reparieren wir halt gemeinsam das Problem. Und wenn es eine legale Quelle für diese Hausnummern gibt, dann ist das sogar noch besser, da können dann auch andere noch von profitieren. Dass sich opendcc hier nicht abschütteln oder einschüchtern lässt ist nicht "Nervensäge", das ist genau die richtige Einstellung für OpenStreetMap. Ob opendcc selber eine einzige Hausnummer gemappt hat oder nicht, ist für diese Frage völlig irrelevant und lenkt vom Thema ab.
opendcc, kannst Du ein konkretes Beispiel nennen für eine Baulücke, an der vor Ort garantiert keine Hausnummer steht, wo bei OSM aber eine eingetragen wurde?

Who are the people who have decided on this "collaborative project" - is it just the two of you, or does this have the support of the US community? Has it been discussed anywhere that has a publicly accessible archive (i.e. specifically *not* Slack)?

Further to my previous comment on a different changeset, I now see that this is a systemic problem and that you have executed a mechanical edit changing boundaries to "aboriginal_land" without first-hand knowledge of the regions involved. I will revert these changes. The adopotion of a new tag is NEVER a justification for a wholesale change in existing data!

The changeset comment here is misleading; it sounds as if you were simply removing a redundant tag. What you have done instead is change boundary=protected_area,protect_class=24 to boundary=aboriginal_lands. This should have been clearly stated in the comment.

Hello razor74, in this changeset you have modified two objects (ways 867050598 and 867032789) that were complete rubbish - one a huge mis-shaped forest polygon, the other a populated area, both overlapping with lots of existing stuff in OSM and tagged wrongly. I reverted the edit that created these objects and the revert failed for these two ways because you had edited them. I will now delete them by hand but if you had looked more closely at what you were editing, you would have noticed that these objects had no reason to even *be* in OSM ;)