Dear user "assenizator0", it would be great if you could make it a habit to use a more descriptive changeset comment than "db assenization". Out of interest, in which language is this a word? Best I could find online was "to make something look like the (Dutch) city of Assen", but I fail to see how your edits do that.

Dear Dinamik, could you please explain why you have added the word "озеро" to the names of these lakes. It does not seem to be a part of the the proper name?

Also, please use real changeset comments (an appropriate changeset comment here would have been "change the names of Вуокса and Судаковское"). The comment "Leningradskaya Oblast" is useless because it does not describe your intentions and doesn't help anyone reviewing your edits. (Of course you may write your changeset comments in Russian if you edit in Russia.)

Wieso wurde in diesem Changeset der Fussweg 617525519 mit dem Gebäude 303185448 verknüpft?

Bitte unterlasse diesen aggresiven Tonfall in Changeset-Kommentaren. Was Du hier gelöscht hast, war kein "Migrolino", sondern ein Objekt, das mit "disused:shop" getaggt war - es stand also schon da, dass es sich hier um etwas handelt, das mal ein shop *war*.

PierZen, I have looked at the way in an editor showing imagery, and I could immediately identify some equally dense housing extending past the area, so the creation of the area is totally arbitrary. For this one way alone, I can spot quite a few houses where it is totally illogical that the area was not extended to contain them as well. Are you saying that you have manually revised the 2.000 polygons in this changeset? How much time did you allow for that? -- Whether or not this data is helpful to fight Ebola is a different matter from whether or not it deserves to be on OpenStreetMap; it is quite possible for something to be of value in a humanitarian situation but be unsuitable for adding to OSM.

Hello clairedelune, as you likely know we have some rules regarding data imports, including that a proposed import and the methodology should be discussed with the community before it is executed. The un-verified import of computer generated geometries is generally not welcome. Can you explain the "manual review" process that you mention in your changeset comment, and explain whether a geometry like way/614459980 is an acceptable depiction of reality in your opinion?

Dear spietsnaz, I am increasingly skeptical of your adding of "Italian" names. In this changeset you added the name "Vecchia strada carreggiabile Hilbe" but it seems to me that this exists only in your imagination. You seem to have translated the German name to Italian, but that is NOT how names work. Even the official "geo browser" of the Bozen region, when used in Italian, does not show this name. If you have a source for the name then please tell us what it is. If you have simply translated the name, please stop doing this. Names that are simply translated and not corroborated by any source or evidence are liable to be removed.

I have asked you three months ago about your sources for Italian names, but never received a reply:

changeset/58104748

If you do not reply to this changeset comment either, I will have to assume that there is something not working with the messaging system and will block your account with a must-read message to ensure I have your attention.

I have removed and redacted the contents of this changeset.

Some of the buildings you have mapped are not visible on the Bing aerial imagery. Can you clarify which "data file" you have loaded information from, or which other data source led you to draw e.g. this building: way/616249837 -- also, if you are reasonably confident that buildings in the area you are mapping are square, try the "S" key in the ID editor which will make a building square even if it is not drawn well.

Please do not upload plus codes to OpenStreetMap. Apart from being an undiscussed import, it does not make sense - it is as if you were to add a "osm.wiki/Tag:lat=..., osm.wiki/Tag:lon=..." tag to a building. The plus codes can be determined by an algorithm from the coordinates, they do not have to be stored in OSM.

Historic boundaries should be added to a suitable project e.g. openhistoricalmap, not OSM. Boundaries are problematic in OSM in every case since they are rarely observable; the only reason we have county boundaries at all is that their usefulness (not least to mappers) outweighs their lack of observability. The boundaries added here are even *less* observable on the ground, and don't have any of the "usefulness" reasons going for them. I agree it's an interesting topic but we can't add historic data like that to OSM. It should be removed again.

In diesem Changeset wurde der "Schiffs-Spielplatz" seiner Spielplatz-Eigenschaft beraubt, und der benachbarte Park ist nun kein Park mehr. Warum? Und was hat das mit dem Changeset-Kommentar "Geocaching" zu tun?

Hallo FranzF, beim FOSSGIS ist eine Beschwerde über die Ways way/117236720 und way/117236722 eingegangen. Angeblich endet der Weg von norden kommend an dem Haus, danach führt nur noch ein privater Feldweg auf die Wiese, und weiter geht es nicht. Zitat: "Hinter dieser Wiese beginnt ein Wald, der durch einen Bach geteilt wird. Dort gehören die Grundstücke bereits jemand anderem und sind auf beiden Seiten mit Stacheldraht abgezäunt. Hat man diese Zäune überwunden (was mit Fahrrad und Gepäck sicher keinen Spaß macht) geht es einen steilen Hang hinauf, auf dem Kühe ihre Sommerweide haben. Diese Weide ist ebenfalls mehrfach gezäunt." -- vermutlich bist Du nicht zufällig in der Gegend, um das prüfen zu können, oder? Soll ich den Weg über die Wiese besser löschen?

Dear Зелёный Кошак, there has been a copyright complaint about the track layout of the Anetta Valley & Western Railroad. Could you explain more about your data source? If you have used copyrighted material, like a leaflet or their web site, then we have to remove the information from OpenStreetMap.

Hi, young mapper yourself. Please be advised that what you have done *is* a mechanical edit, whether it contains mistakes or not. Any edit where you change objects without inspecting the individual object is a mechanical edit and MUST be discussed with the relevant community beforehand (in this case, either locally with the community in China or on an international mailing list or forum). Whether or not the wiki documents something as outdated does NOT make a difference, and crucially is NOT an excuse for an un-discussed mechanical edit (note that wiki pages do not necessarily reflect what is "correct" either). If you had checked your edits then you would for example have spotted that the cooling towers in osm.org/query?lat=40.46248&lon=90.85942#map=19/40.46219/90.85908&layers=D which you have modified contain a "chimney" node which is not how cooling towers ought to be mapped. Reverting an un-discussed mechanical edit (what stromo did) is ok; reverting such a revert (what you did) is the start of an edit war. Don't do it.

Hallo, ich habe diesen Editwar in changeset/59861459 kommentiert. Würde Dich aber bitten, auch bei Meinungsverschiedenheiten mit anderen Mappern respektvoll umzugehen und bei Uneinigkeit Dritte hinzuzuziehen (Forum, Mailingliste o.ä.) statt einfach "EOT" und "ich habe recht" zu schreiben ;)

Es ist zu unterscheiden zwischen dem Namen eines Gebäudes und dem Namen eines Geschäfts, das das ganze Gebäude oder den Teil eines Gebäudes innehat. Die allermeisten Geschäftsgebäude haben gar keinen Namen, und dann taggt man oft sowas wie name=Migros direkt an das Gebäude. Wenn aber das Gebäude einen Namen hat, und das scheint mir hier der Fall zu sein (unter Architkten zumindest ist der Namen "Feldpausch-Haus" offenbar ein Begriff: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_Hotz "Seit dem Ende der Achtzigerjahre errichtete Hotz mit ... dem Feldpausch-Haus ... Bauten frei von historisierender Nostalgie.") dann sollte man den Namen des Gebäudes im name-Tag des building-Objekts=* haben und den Namen des Geschäfts in einem separaten Objekt, was ja in node/693318563 gegeben ist. Langer Rede kurzer Sinn, ich denke, hier hat d_berger recht: Dieses Gebäude heisst nicht "PKZ Woman". Zwar ist nicht von der Hand zu weisen, dass das Gebäude auch als Bekleidungsladen eine gewisse Bekanntheit hat ("Der Flagship-Store an der Zürcher Bahnhofstrasse ist das grösste Schweizer Modehaus überhaupt" behauptet die Webseite), aber ich denke, im Vergleich zu der bauhistorischen Bedeutung muss die gegenwärtige gewerbliche Nutzung hintanstehen.

Dear 融融 young, I wish to support BaKaUma's statement. I see the bridge is scheduled to open for vehicular traffic on July 1st, about 2 weeks from now. Please leave the "highway=construction" in place until the bridge is actually open. Thank you!

Are you sure that "Gardens of Memory" is a park and not a cemetery?

"Museum Courtyard" and "Porter Park" and "Poplar Head Park" do not look like parks to me. Are you sure? Is there an online resource that has something about these parks?