Please explain your deletion of way/809280062 which had been subject to an edit war in the last couple of days. A deletion like that should not fly under a comment of "mapping and correcting".

Please explain your deletion of Arabic names from node/4053665695.

Dear user numide, please urgently explain why you deleted Arabic names from way/547968088/history. As you are probably aware, a number of vandals have made similar edits in the recent past. You have also touched a number of other objects that were subject to that same edit war. What is your relation to the accounts jatoca, wixomi, vereka, wocefen, xogoce?

How did you arrive at the width of 3.048 for the intermittent "West Fork of North Branch of Chicago River"?

Please fix the name of node/7137672118. It is certainly not a construction site called "DEMOLISHED". If the construction site has a name, add that; if it has no name, delete the name tag.

Please fix the name. "BASIN" is certainly not the name of this thing. If the basin has a name, but that in the name tag; if it is unnamed, delete the name tag.

"see wikipedia" is not a good example for a changeset comment. Ideally the changeset comment should explain what you did and why; now, people have to look at the object history to find out what you changed, then refer to wikipedia for a clue as to why you changed it. In addition, Wikipedia is not an admissable source for OSM since it has a license that is not compatible to ours.

Hallo Til Man, Du hast hier ein Neubaugebiet erfasst und als Quelle "Maps4BW" angegeben. Die Hausnummern und Straßennamen sind aber weder vor Ort sichtbar, noch bei Maps4BW drin. Woher stammen diese Informationen?

Hallo ChrisFromRV, versuche Doch, Dir anzugewöhnen, auch bei scheinbar unbedeutenden Änderungen einen kleinen Kommentar/Quellenangabe zu machen. Hier zum Beispiel hast Du ein winziges Stückchen Falkenweg hinzugefügt - das ist auf keinem der Luftbilder und auch nicht auf Maps4BW zu sehen. Bei sowas hilft dann ein Hinweis wie "Wege ergänzt nach Ortsbegehung" oder sowas enorm.

Dear marjorieeaguilar, thank you for your contributions to OSM. Could you try to use the "name" tag only when a building or other thing actually has a name. In this changeset you tagged a lot of buildings with a name of "vivienda" but these buildings are certainly not named "vivienda"! There is information on the proper use of the name tag here: osm.wiki/ES:Nombres -- Also, may I ask that you use proper changeset comments that actually explain what you were editing? See more here osm.wiki/ES:Buenos_comentarios_en_conjuntos_de_cambios

For the OSMF Data Working Group -- Frederik Ramm

Elaborating on the previous comment, I'm not sure if you were aware, fieldoflilies, that your deletions actually have an effect on everyone, not just on your view of the map!

This import has also introduced many duplicates. Please explain what processes, if any, have been employed to avoid data duplication.

Please specify the data source for this undiscussed data import. If the stated source "bing" refers to Bing aerial imagery it is clearly wrong since aerial imagery cannot be the source for 5,800 peaks and their names. If "bing" refers to Bing maps then the use is not legal for OSM.

Dear khoeam2008, you need to use better changeset comments that describe the contribution you are making. "dssssssssssssss" is not a suitable comment, and disrespectful towards your fellow mappers. Please read more about this here: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments -- Thank you, Frederik Ramm for the OSMF Data Working Group.

Dear BlueRanger, could you provide a more detailed link to your source "IGAC", especially one that allows us to verify that their data is legal to use for OpenStreetMap?

The street names added in this changeset seem to be a joke. Please explain. Please also respond to the comment I made in changeset/82788287.

Hallo, bitte lies doch mal diesen Artikel hier osm.wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments und versuche, Deine Änderungssatzkommentare etwas sprechender zu gestalten, das erleichtert anderen Leuten, zu sehen, was Du gemacht hast. Beispielsweise wäre hier sowas gut gewesen wie: "Herrlinghausen: einige neue Häuser hinzugefügt, und building:type in building-Tag umgewandelt" oder so. Ich weiss, man denkt immer erst "wozu denn, das sehen die Leute doch auch so", aber es ist wirklich hilfreich, zu lesen, was der andere eigentlich machen wollte. -- Persönlich wundere ich mich, wieso Du building:type entfernt, building:use aber stehengelassen hast; ein building:use=residential ergibt an einem building=house eigentlich wenig Sinn.

I meant to write "Camp Navajo" not "Lake Navajo", sorry.

I find Coconino National Forest strange in many respects. Is the checkerboard pattern south of Lake Navajo really correct
In the village of Pine Glade, is it correct that a small part of Lake Mary Road is inside the National Forest, or that the mobile home at 2000-50 East Frontier Ave lies partly inside, and partly outside the National Forest? At Flagstaff airport, that a small bit of the runway lies inside the National Forest, as well as various disjunct bits of I17? Are the various names this forest carries really *names* or just an attempt at translating the original name into other languages? South of the Cave Springs campground there's an area around "Shady Lane" where tiny bits are cut out of the National Forest area which seems to make very little sense... what is the source of all this, and is that source reliable at all?

Please clarify. The Bing imagery which you claim to have been using here does still show the train tracks that you have deleted. Have these tracks indeed been removed?