Hello!

I am slightly confused because the tags are very similar to each other, however I will reinstate the tagging and I do sincerely apologise for my brash decision making. I’ll add a note as well not to remove it.

Kind regards,
yasslay

Hello!

I have removed your changes to the disused railway under the big A228 roundabout as you appeared to have added unnecessary tagging (added a disused:railway=rail tag despite a railway=disused tag already being present) in changeset/125193390.

Kind regards,
yasslay

Hello,

You still have not answered my question on whether or not you discussed this mechanical edit prior to publishing this changeset. Mechanical edits are classed as large imports of data or large changesets on a geographical scale, like this one. Please answer this question. Also, please answer the question I asked at changeset/125109844, thank you.

Knowledge about the physical world is far more important and this is recognised by OpenStreetMap and some mappers do advocate for other mappers to survey locations before publishing edits.

You seemed to have misunderstood what I meant by the proposal process. Data can be added freely to OpenStreetMap, however certain features (which, for the most part, are tags, e.g. highway=residential) which do not exactly match what you're looking for have been added to OpenStreetMap yet, and typically the community as to what I can understand goes through a voting process on whether or not to accept the addition of a new feature. I provided an example of this as well and this does not apply to edits/changesets.

If you do want to leave OSM then go ahead, however I advise that you should not take this attitude to threatening to leave OSM if an operator does revert your data in the end. Also, reverts are typically discussed to my knowledge before being executed.

We should both stop arguing about this and wait for a DWG correspondent as this is not going anywhere.

Kind regards,
yasslay

Hello,

The reverting of changesets occurs because it has been proven that the data added to OSM goes against the guidelines of OSM and such. For example, duplicating features deliberately vandalising the map etc can lead to your changeset being reverted. That being said this discussion should not be turned into an unrelated debate regarding the reverting of changesets.

Kind regards,
yasslay

Hello!

Emwavenet, although I am not the intended recipient of your message as it seems, other users want to see all the sources you're using, no matter if it is just one source. Unless they were implying you used one source I don't think they were.

In regards to the developer comment, I am sure features added to OpenStreetMap are often voted upon by the community to be officially added after it has been proposed. If you wish to have more information on the topic, please see the wiki page regarding it. (osm.wiki/Proposal_process)

OpenStreetMap could be one of the best public maps, however I do not exactly get your comment regarding keeping it open, or whatever you were going on about it being "draft-phobic." OpenStreetMap will and always will remain open to all users from anywhere on this planet, however it is important that all mappers adhere to good practices as stated above, however all OSM users are liable to action being taken upon them if they are found to be adding inaccurate, dubious or otherwise intentionally adding falsified data to OSM.

Additionally, I would like it if you could answer my question on whether or not this mechanical edit was discussed with the community, and also your future edits should be geographically sized. See osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct and osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets.

Kind regards,
yasslay (formerly AOOSMU)

Hello!

The names and tags you have added to the ways involved in the changeset seem rather dubious. I doubt that an Antiproton Decelerator path (way/1087351986) would be a cycleway...

Kind regards,
AOOSMU

Hello!

Was this mechanical edit discussed prior to being published? If so, please provide the link to where it was discussed. (see osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct)

Kind regards,
AOOSMU

Hello! I do apologise for commenting on this old changeset but is there a source for the junction name? I’ve searched about however there is no official documentation naming this junction as Aldborough Gate with the only sources being ones like the SABRE Wiki, which are not authoritative and information relating to this junction may be inaccurate.

Kind regards,
AOOSMU

Oops! I meant naming...

Hello! I just looked at this and wondered if you meant to add a tag like demolished:building=yes? Also, did you see this by surveying the site, which I presume you have? Just wondering and wishing to help out!

Kind regards,
AOOSMU

Hello! St Saviour's Close appears to be a cul-de-sac with a grassy patch in the middle and I have addressed the fixme request.

Kind regards,
AOOSMU

Alright, thank you!

Hello! I was attempting to add road area to the junction here but I believe I did something wrong and I'm not sure if I didn't make sure it was an area or not. Sorry!

Oh no, did I do something else on mistake? The changeset is larger than it should be...

Hi! Is there a source for the names of the bridges you have added, as for example the "A12 Chelmsford By-pass Overline Bridge"?

Kind regards,
AOOSMU

Also, I'm sorry for how I worded my previous changeset comment, it came off as really rude! Sorry for that!

Apologies for that. Also, I just wanted to say there are similar ways which are tagged as track roughly follow the line of the Cotswold AONB boundary and the newly added Stonehill Lane in some areas, so I am not sure if someone has already mapped Stonehill Lane and the associated tracks in said areas but could not find a source for the name...

https://gyazo.com/8532a7cd0cf684f2fd32c8cb7e74caa4 (picture showing an example of this)

Kind regards,
AOOSMU

Are you sure? Please provide a road number as B roads which are classed as secondary roads on OSM are always assigned a number.

Hello! May you explain why you changed this way to a secondary road? It appears that this edit is vandalism and there is no credible source as to how this is a secondary road (B road), and no number has been allocated to this way in the edit.

Kind regards,
AOOSMU

Hi, I am sorry for the short notice however I will be reverting this changeset since it seems erroneous and it has been asked a month prior to this by another user as to whether this can be verified. If this is proven otherwise, please let me know.

Kind regards,
AOOSMU