Mazda05 - regarding closed roads, when there are conflicts we usually invoke our "on the ground policy", and we frequently ask complainants to show us proof that there are signs (or fences, or gates) at the location that say a road is closed (or reserved for private use etc.). Am I right in assuming that, were I to visit this border crossing, I would find no signs that prohibit a border crossing, and I would see many people crossing this border without being stopped by anybody?

Am I right in assuming that, even though this area is not currently controlled by Ukraine and people may cross freely, if someone were filmed crossing this border and the person would later find themselves in an Ukrainian-controlled area, they could be subject to criminal proceedings for illegal border crossing?

So you are saying that Mazda05 is correct in saying that Ukrainian law forbids the use of this road, but since Ukraine does not currently control this part of the country, they cannot enforce the law?

I am now undeleting ~100 swimming pools that you have deleted. If you wish to discuss whether or not private swimming pools have a place in OSM, please do that on the mailing list. Do not continue removing them unless of course they have ceased to exist.

Dear EUMapper, please do not delete objects from the map without giving a reason. Your changeset comment "Divers Lanes Maxspeed etc" is misleading for a changeset that contains the deletion of private swimming pools.

Dear BigKev97, you frequently use the term "fixture" in your changeset comments when you want to say that you have corrected something; the meaning of the word "fixture" is something entirely different though - see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fixture

In this particular changeset, you have capitalised a name, however the name is totally wrong in the first place; this area is certainly not called "Área de Protección". See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only - if this is a nature reserve then there are appropriate tags for that.

I am also concerned about street names that you add across all of Latin America; it is unlikely that you know all these areas or visit them yourself, so you must be copying the names from another source. This other source *must* be given in the source tag when you upload your changes, otherwise there is a suspicion of copying from copyrighted sources like Google Maps. Example: way/22139890/history#map=17/18.086077/-66.151310 - how did you know that this road in Puerto Rico is called "Camino El Alemán"?

Mazda05, please stop this edit war (and all other edit wars). Instead contact DWG to resolve the issue. I have now commented on changeset/159583208

Dear user TesDen, please explain why you believe that this stretch of motorway should *not* have an access=no tag. Is the source cited by mazda05 incorrect? You say "source=survey", does that mean that you have travelled here and have first-hand experience of this road being open?

Dear Aiman, in this changeset and about a dozen others you claim to be fixing "vandalism" commited by another mapper. Please don't do that. Other mappers can make mistakes; write a changeset comment to explain the problem to them. I will remind LeoBorGiov to read these comments and react accordingly.

Dear RaquelSlope, "Camio de practica" or "Practicando" are not sufficient descriptions for a change in which you delete half a golf course.

Please choose a good changeset comment in which you describe what you did and why, and also what your data sources are (if any).

Could we spend a little more time educating compo_RK about why their edits had to be reverted? Going back through the comments that their edits have attracted, I see frequent outrage but little substance in regards to what exactly they did wrong.

See osm.org/user_blocks/16949

Dear Haskan865, please write better changeset comments than "ed" or "de". These are not helpful.

This changeset seems to have removed some addresses like e.g. here node/342302798/history - was that intentional and if yes, why?

Dear Aiman, please use better changeset comments than "Aggiunta dettagli". This is a changeset comment that matches 90% of all edits in OSM and hence it is relatively useless. Perhaps if you could make fewer changesets grouping more edits together, you could take the time to write a meaningful message.

Hallo Anton, es ist offensichtlich, dass Du Daten aus maps.rlp.de abschreibst. Das muss sofort aufhören, die Lizenz dieser Daten ist derzeit nicht mit OSM kompatibel. Fast alle place=locality, die Du einträgst, finden sich "zufällig" an genau dem gleichen Punkt auf der RLP-Karte. Andere Benutzer haben Dich darauf aufmerksam gemacht, Du scheinst das aber zu ignorieren. Wenn Du damit weitermachst, riskierst Du, dass wir *alle* Deine Edits - auch die, die Du wirklich selbst vor Ort erhoben hast - entfernen müssen, weil nicht klar ist, was selbst erstellt und was abgeschrieben ist.

Hallo bwbuz, Du würdest es anderen Mappern extrem erleichtern, wenn Du (a) gute Changeset-Kommentare abliefern und (b) Edits, die Du in einer Sitzung machst, einfach als ein gemeinsames Changeset hochladen würdest. Dann kannst Du 100 Edits in Zerbst mit einem sinnvollen Kommentar wie "Adressen in Zerbst nach Ortsbegehung erfasst" oder sowas hochladen, statt dass Du 100 einzelne Changesets mit dem nichtssagenden "Erhebung vor Ort" hochlädst ;)

Dass irgendwas zu einer Routing-Penalty führt, ist kein ausreichendes Argument für seine Löschung. Zugleich ist die von Zrop präferierte Lösung hier weit weniger verbreitet in Deutschland (4500mal vs. 164.000mal) und hat den Nachteil, dass sie die Verkehrsampel doppelt - einmal explizit als Ampel und einmal implizit als crossing=traffic_signals. Bitte unterlasst den Edit War und kommt im Forum zu einer Lösung. (DWG-Ticket#2024112810000195)

Hallo BNH, in diesem Chageset hast Du eine Brücke als entfernt markiert. Es gibt jedoch einen Wanderweg und drei MTB-Trails, die diese Brücke nutzen (Harzklub-Weg 12B, "Brüche & Bäche", "Radau Wasserfall-Trail" und "Schwarze Rabentour"). Was ist mit denen? Wo gehen die jetzt lang, oder haben die zu existieren aufgehört?

In this changeset you have deleted a couple of buildings and re-created them in slightly different geometry, with sometimes a different number of levels, and dropping the name that was there before. The changeset comment "terrain generation" is completely insufficient for this kind of edit; please explain why you felt the need to delete these buildings and replace them. https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=159643311 shows the changes that have been made.

way/1336807590 is a building that exactly matches the *roof* location on ESRI imagery (not the building base), and doesn't match anything on Bing imagery. Can you explain where this shape came from?