As multiple mappers and myself have each reached out to this contributor multiple times on multiple of their changesets over the past month (including four days ago regarding a number of breaking changes to East/West AJ) the great majority of which have had a destructive effect (intentional or not) on the existing valid map data while not making meaningful improvements, it seems the next step has to be contacting DWG.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176282025

As multiple mappers and myself have each reached out to this contributor multiple times on multiple of their changesets over the past month (including four days ago regarding a number of breaking changes to East/West AJ) the great majority of which have had a destructive effect (intentional or not) on the existing valid map data while not making meaningful improvements, it seems the next step has to be contacting DWG.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176281215

I reverted both these changesets as I can personally verify that the Pritchard courtyard and passage to it exists (having lived in the building my freshman year), and this new mapper has amassed a consistent history of edits inexplicably deleting or disrupting other buildings (including East/West AJ) in a similar fashion.

changeset/176289694

I reverted both these changesets as I can personally verify that the Pritchard courtyard and passage to it exists (having lived in the building my freshman year), and this new mapper has amassed a consistent history of edits inexplicably deleting or disrupting other buildings (including East/West AJ) in a similar fashion.

changeset/176289694

Once again, same issue as in most of your other recent changesets--the outer way tagged as a generic building in this changeset was already part of a (much more comprehensively tagged) building multipolygon.

Many editors (like JOSM) would immediately warn you about this mistake before you upload your changeset, but if iD doesn't, you can check yourself to see if a way is already part of a building multipolygon by scrolling down to "Relations" in the left hand "Edit feature" panel.

Happy mapping!
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175808457

Changset reverted as like the others, it merely added a nested, conflicting and duplicative building=yes and name tag on the outer way when (much more detailed and precise) building tagging was already present on the encompassing multipolygon.

changeset/176170198

Same issue here--the outer way tagged as a generic building in this changeset was already part of a (much more comprehensively tagged) building multipolygon.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175766718

Changset reverted as like the others, it merely added a nested, conflicting and duplicative building=yes and name tag on the outer way when (much more detailed and precise) building tagging was already present on the encompassing multipolygon.

changeset/176170061

I certainly understand that this is a pretty complex situation for a new mapper to figure out. As such, it is a good idea to tread especially carefully around such unusually complicated mapping situations, and be wary of changing things until you fully understand why the original contributor mapped it the way they did and why it should be changed, given they are in all likelihood going to have much more experience than a newbie (and in this case, the contributor in question happens to be one of the most knowledgeable, experienced and widely respected mappers in the United States :). Thanks, and happy mapping.

Hi Thomas, unfortunately this changeset further compounded the problem introduced in changeset #175766539 changeset/175766539 as it added a _third_ layer of nested building inside the building:part multipolygon (turned building), itself inside the actual building multipolygon. Namely, it added another `building=yes` tag to the inner way of the original building:part, making for three buildings in the same space (two with identical outlines), and again conflicting with the more precise building tags on the outer building. As such, I once again had to revert the change.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175766843

Given many of your other changesets share the same basic issue, I'd really advise consulting the OSM wiki to help you understand how building tagging works in OSM, particularly the simple buildings schema: wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings , and I'd be glad to explain further if there is anything you still aren't clear on. Thanks, and happy mapping.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175766539

Hi Thomas, I'm not really clear what you were trying to do with this changeset (a descriptive changset summary, like you did on changeset #176142278 , goes a long way toward that).

The multipolygon you modified, which itself was one part of a larger building (with a single overall name, address and properties), was already correctly tagged as such with `building:part`, with the encompassing overall building tagged `building=university`. This changeset tagged the central part of that that latter building as a nested building (which is not considered valid OSM tagging; two entirely buildings cannot physically occupy the same space, unlike a building:part). Furthermore, it tagged it as `building=yes`, which is less precise and conflicting tagging with the outer building. Therefore, given it was strictly a regression from the existing correct tagging, I reverted both changesets.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175766539

Changset reverted due to triple-nested and conflicting tagging of building=yes on a way and two levels of multipolygon, when the original building:part tagging on the part multipolygon and building on the full building was entirely correct, and more precise.

changeset/176168947

Changset reverted due to triple-nested and conflicting tagging of building=yes on a way and two levels of multipolygon, when the original building:part tagging on the part multipolygon and building on the full building was entirely correct, and more precise.

changeset/176168947

Also, if I understand you correctly that you are mapping on behalf of or for a benefit of a client, or your mapping is otherwise connected to what you are paid to do, this is allowed but you will want to carefully consult OSM's Organized Editing policy: osm.wiki/Organised_Editing and follow the relevant guidelines https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

And more importantly, it is even more strictly prohibited by OSM policy (above and beyond what the law specifically requires); any such contaminated or potentially contaminated changeset will need to be purged.

Could you please confirm that you understand this and will take care to abide by it, and whether it was used for any of your other changesets? Thanks, and happy mapping.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174478608

Just to clarify, the changset was reverted per the above; please see my comments on changeset #176142278 changeset/176142278
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176142769

Just to clarify, the changset was reverted per the above; please see my comments on changeset #176142278 changeset/176142278

Also, please be sure to take a second to provide a useful changeset summary per the OSM guidelines: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments , or at the very least a meaningful one, to allow other mappers like myself to easily understand what you've done and why. Your previous changeset was in fact fine example of a useful one, that helped me at least start to understand what you were trying to do there. Thanks.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176142639

As others have previously reminded you a couple times now, OSM is a production database relied on in some form by perhaps billions of people across the world, so it is important to take at least basic care when making changes that could disrupt the map. Unfortunately, many if not most of your other changesets so far have consistently caused similar breakage and disruption that needed to be fixed or reverted by other mappers, several of which were previously pointed out to you. While mistakes happen, I would strongly encourage you to take advantage of the many knowledge resources available (the wiki, forum, Discord, Slack, other mappers like myself, etc.) and take care when mapping to make sure this pattern doesn't continue.

Thanks, and happy mapping.

I can see from the changeset metadata that your editor, iD, detected and warned you about several of the most critical issues across multiple changesets, but these warnings were dismissed and the changeset uploaded anyway. While not every validator warning always needs to be fixed before submitting a changeset, especially as a new contributor using a beginner-focused editor it is important to pay careful attention to likely mistakes, and not dismiss a warning unless you fully understand it and are reasonably sure it is a false positive (and indeed, the particular issues it flagged are basically always errors that will break something), especially if it was introduced by your changeset.