Ah, we hadn't seen that you deleted your *own* work instead of someone else's! But I don't see an issue with the stuff you deleted - if anyone feels the woods are crowding out houses they can use a map style that shows houses more prominently. -- The go-to resource for written docs is wiki.openstreetmap.org and if you'd like to raise a question to your fellow mappers, use community.openstreetmap.org

Have you seen my comment in changeset/157588919 three days ago? I specifically asked you not to edit boundaries while adding border marks, but again you have changed 23 relations (among them the boundaries of Germany and Czechia) in this edit. Why?

Hello Winston Sung, a change in editor presets (or a change in the Wiki) is NEVER a sufficient reason to apply word-wide changes to OpenStreetMap. Such changes must be discussed with the community independently of any editor presets. The forum community.openstreetmap.org is a suitable venue for this.

Dear Winston Sung, far-ranging automated/mechanical edits like the ones you're making are governed by a policy (osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct). Primarily this requires that you discuss your editing plans with the community before you execute them. Please provide links to the community discussion about the renaming of language tags and classrooms. In the future, please make sure to include these links with your edits.

I have reverted this edit. Please do not change the name of the Persian/Arabian Gulf without prior community discussion.

Dear Sunil Tewari, in this changeset you have deleted over 250 buildings from the map. Your changeset comment "#hotosm-project-17520 #OSMIndia #AndhraMapping24 #tt_event" is an inadequate explanation for such a deletion. Please explain why you deleted the buildings. Have they been destroyed? In that case, "removing buildings that were destroyed by <cause>" would have been an appropriate changeset comment. Please do not use hashtag-only changesets in the future - always make sure that there is at least some human-readable component there.

Could you try to avoid creating new versions of dozens of relations while mapping border marks? It should be possible to edit border marks without changing the relations they are part of. Also please do not assign "name" tags to border marks.

Thank you for your contributions to OSM. Please don't use "." as your changeset comment - use something that accurately and human-readably describes what you've edited. You don't need to upload every single edit - you can make 20 edits and then upload them togehter with a comment like "added points of interest in Someplace" or so.

DWG here. Please use "Wattle Glen" as the name tag until photo evidence shows the station signage to be "Wattleglen". (Ticket#2024100810000261)

Hallo SInt E7, die Data Working Group ist auf Deine Edits aufmerksam geworden. Bitte verzichte in Zukunft in Deutschland auf das Umbenennen von Haltestellen, solange Du nicht vor Ort gewesen bist und Dich persönlich davon überzeugt hast, dass der von Dir eingesetzte Name auch vor Ort so verwendet wird. (Ticket#2024100410000222)

Automated edits require prior community discussion (and consensus). Your forum announcement was three days ago. This is not sufficient time for the community to form an opinion. Please give the community at least 14 days, and if any criticism of your plans comes up, even more time might be required until the community agrees on any form of mechanical edit.

Dear Heinz_V, when modifying borders please always provide a source that allows others to verify your change.

Ok. So it is definitely not "disused"; it is at best "abandoned" but that would require that someone who is not a railway buff can see: Oh, apparently there used to be a railway here. The photo on railway=abandoned illustrates that quite well. If it is just "space next to the road" that leads someone with "an eye for the railways" to deduct that there must once have been a railway here, don't map it in OpenStreetMap. There is a project called "OpenHistoricalMap" that lets you map these things.

A "disused" railway is one where "the track and infrastructure remain in place". This does not seem to be the case here; it is at best "abandoned". If not visible on the ground any more (and Wikipedia research is required to give you an idea where tracks once have been) then it does NOT belong in OpenStreetMap at all.

You have used "railway=disused" for this, but you have put "abandoned" in the name. The wiki says, for "disused": "A section of railway which is no longer used but where the track and infrastructure remain in place." This is certainly not the case here, is it?

Hello, thank you for your contributions to OSM. You do not have to upload every single building to OSM, you can create a few dozen and then upload them all at once. Please also specify a human-readable changeset comment; almost nobody in OSM understands what #osmus-tasks-653 is supposed to mean.

Hello Badojo, can you explain your source for changing many "level_crossing" to "tram_level_crossing" here?

Dear user Kenjie Calcita, thank you for your contributions to OSM! You don't need to save each building separately; you can add a few of them and then save together. And then please add a good changeset comment like "added buildings in Jipapad" or so - "." is not a good comment.

Hello CurlingMan13, I have attempted to add the proper access tags to the trails in question, though a survey is probably required to confirm.

Kannst Du bitte auch die korrekte Quelle angeben, "knowledge" ist für eine Geometrie-Änderung wie way/174942653 oder way/178035075 ja wohl eher nicht angebracht.