I have hidden a series of comments here in which user KlopanRin used racist language to express their exasperation at OSM closing changesets after one hour of inactivity, which they apparently did not know.

Thank you for the link. I have sent that to the person who complained to us.

The "changeset comment" field is intended for exactly this kind of information - explain what you did and why to other human beings. It would have been appropriate to write "deleted buildings, I am in the process of redrawing them because they were done incorrectly". Instead, you wrote the hashtag-salad "#hotosm-project-16207;#DisasterResponse;#ESADisasterResponse;#DRCFloods;#DRC" which nobody outside a close circle of humanitarian mappers will be able to understand. Please put hashtags in the hashtags field, and a human-readable message in the changeset comment.

Dear user Korgorr, in this changeset you have identified a construction area as "Aménagements F15 + MQ-9B". What is your data source for this information? Is this public knowledge? I am asking because the Belgian Military has contacted OSM complaining about details like this being visible. If it is public information then of course we can map it - but if you have retrieved this information from some confidential source then we might have to remove it.

In diesem Änderungssatz ist leider der Stadt Meißen die Verwaltungsgrenzen-Eigenschaft verloren gegangen und sie wurde von boundary=administrative auf boundary=site umgetaggt. Ich habe das korrigiert, damit man Meißen auch wieder findet...

Hallo Webel, bist Du mit der Seite osm.wiki/DE:Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F vertraut? Kannst Du bestätigen, dass dieser Weg tatsächlich vor Ort nicht existiert (=nicht sichtbar ist), oder ist es möglich, dass dieser Weg existiert, vielleicht aber mit entsprechenden access-Tags markiert hätte werden sollen? Denn ansonsten besteht die Gefahr, dass der nächste, der hier vorbeikommt, den Weg gleich wieder neu einträgt...

Hi there KadoMill, in this changeset you have deleted a large number of fairways only to re-draw them in the exact same spot. This is something we try to avoid because it loses the history. Some of the things you deleted have been in OSM for over five years, but now looking at the golf course it looks like it has all been newly created by you. It would have been more respectful towards the work of other mappers if you had simply refined existing things rather than throwing them all out and redrawing them.

As pippo6 says, you can use either "osm.wiki/Tag:abandoned:highway=..." or you can use "highway=abandoned" but you should NEVER use "highway=secondary, abandoned=yes" - this is so-called "troll tragging" that will mislead applications unaware of the "abandoned" tag.

Gerade habe ich auch noch Hagen und Dortmund reparieren müssen ;) also normalerweise sollte der JOSM das richtig machen, wenn Du einen Way splittest, dass die zwei neuen Teile dann in allen Relationen Mitglied werden. Man kann das aber auch prüfen, wenn man von Hand im Relationen-Editor die PLZ-Relation öffnet und schaut, ob sie schön ein geschlossenes Polygon bildet oder irgendwo "offen" ist - so habe ich die Fehler jetzt korrigiert.

Ich habe das in changeset/168184757 korrigiert, allerdings dabei ein bisschen "geraten" anhand der von HansjMR gezeichneten Admingrenzen...

Hallo Oberon-von-Amber, Du hast in den letzten Tagen versehentlich zwei Postleitzahlengebiete "zerschossen". Bitte achte darauf, wenn Du einen Way aufteilst, der in einer PLZ-Grenzen-Relation liegt, dass nachher auch beide neuen Teile in der Relation sind und nicht nur einer! Ich habe die PLZ von Schwerte und Ennepetal in changeset/168183884 und changeset/168183663 repariert, aber das war mühsam - manchmal revertieren Leute auch gleich ein ganzes Changeset, wenn da solche Fehler drin sind.

osm.org/user_blocks/18387

Dear chris14679, please don't use names like "Footpath to school" - see osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions for a discussion of the concept.

The DWG has received this complaint but we will not intervene. It is acceptable for the complainant to add "informal=yes" if they want (or even "access=private" if they clearly mark the area as private access); it is not acceptable to delete the footpath altogether if it is visible on the ground.

Hello Phút, can you explain on what basis you changed the Vietnam border in this changeset?

Also, please make it a habit to use "good changeset comments" as described in osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments - don't write "hi" in the changeset comment field.

Hello Tewuzij, please be friendlier in your interactions with other mappers. User Phút has only been with OSM for a few days, and while they did make a mistake here, there's no reason to shout commands at them in capital letters.

Hello Tewuzij, please don't just revert a changeset created by another mapper - explain why you feel a revert is necessary, and inform the other mapper why you did a revert. If something is disputed, seek a consensus in the community before you revert.

Dear Trần Xuân, when you upload changes of administrative boundaries, please provide a source (since these are not visible on aerial imagery, you must be copying them from somewhere), so that we can be sure that the source is good and legal to use.

Dear MenKauRa, pleae explain why in this changeset you removed name:ru from many places. This deletion is not sufficiently explained by your changeset comment.

Dear Mehmet Bey, can you tell me the source of this edit? Is there a sign on the building that explains this is "Aliağa Kaymakamlık Lojmanı"? Is this a government office or a private residence?