Thanks for the quick response.

1. Sorry, I should have been more clear. You deleted this highway=path (trail) way/458546306 while tagging this service road as access=no , in your most recent changeset I see you deleted it completely way/1555153164
2. Again, if the road or path actually exists in the real world, then people can map it--the community owns the map, not any one person. However, if you are the property owner, you do get to decide the access=* of the road or path, i.e. access=private (assuming there aren't other rights of public access to private property in play in your country, e.g. freedom to roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam ). As mentioned, the correct way to tag that is thus with access=private (which I'm happy to do for you, if you like), which will be shown accordingly on rendered maps and mean that navigation apps will not route users through such and warn them its private if they do. Otherwise, another mapper is liable to simply add them back later, without those appropriate tags. Again, see osm.wiki/Why_can't_I_delete_this_trail%3F and osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property for more details.
3/4. Thanks for the explanation. At least as far as access rights go, that's up to you, assuming you are the property owner (and while I believe you on the trash, photos of it don't have any direct bearing on its tagging in OSM). Do you own all of this land covered by the trail, or only the part near the road and hotel?

Therefore, I'm happy to correctly tag both the road and the trail for you as access=private , assuming you can confirm you own all of this property and not just the immediate area around the hotel.

BTW, it seems likely to me that a language barrier is making it difficult for us to communicate--I suggest writing in the language you are most comfortable in and I'll machine-translate it, or doing the latter yourself.

I'm not sure how either of these changes is intended to accomplish that? As mentioned, you tagged it as an (implicitly _public_) park, i.e. a feature explicitly intended for human use, rather than a natural area (that absent other tagging typically doesn't imply a right of public access).

It seems likely to me that a language barrier is making it more difficult for us to communicate--I suggest writing in the language you are most comfortable in and I'll machine-translate it, or doing the latter yourself.

Once again, your hotel is already mapped as node/11332910335 . One of the basic rules of OSM is "One feature, one OSM element" so the same hotel shouldn't be mapped two different ways osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Furthermore, it seems pretty clearly incorrect to map this entire area as a leisure=park leisure=park, which is defined on OSM as "an area of open space for recreational use", specifically "This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed greenery, located within settlements and nearly always open to general public." when this is clearly a natural area of scrub, or perhaps in fact natural=wood , rather than anything resembling the definition.

Therefore, is there any reason this changeset should not once again be reverted? Please explain.

Hi, first off I appreciate you finally replying, so we can actually have a conversation about this. As such, I will hold off on further reverts for now until we come to a resolution.

Could you please point to where you've "told [us] 100 times" (or any time) that the "road" (the object you deleted was mapped as a foot trail highway=path not a road) "doesnt exist"?

As previously noted, this is the first time you've replied to a single one of the 12 comments I've left you on your changesets over the past week (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=24315611 ), and all of your descriptions for your changesets touching either of these features (including this one, and the one you just made) consisted of either random keyboard-mashing characters, the single word "private" or in one case "o bro i dont know who make this but its private." None of this makes any reference to the claimed fact that one of these features (still unspecified) "doesnt exist"; only that _something_ is "private" which as I've explained to you multiple times, deletion is not the correct approach to handle.

As the property owner, you are in a privileged position to definitely declare the access=* rights for private roads, paths, parking and points of interest on your property, as well as leverage valuable on the ground insight about what's present there. However, like any other mapper you are expected to write useful changeset descriptions that clearly explain why you made your changes (see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments ), cite a source=* for them (which can be "Property Owner" or similar), and respond in a reasonable amount of time to comments raising issues or asking questions about your changesets--especially deleting an object that's been present on the map for over ten years and been edited by a number of other local mappers including only a couple weeks ago, and when you have an apparent financial interest in the property.

Therefore, could you please clearly explain:

- *Which* of these objects, the path or the service road you previously referred to as "private" and now are saying "doesnt exist"?
- What is the actual situation and your intention with your changes to each object?
- Why you referred to it/them as "private" before?
- When and why the object(s) were completely removed? (Imagery suggests bot the rail and the road existed at least as recently as 2025)
- If you have any documentation of this you can share (photos, videos, etc)

Thanks.

Again, as I already explained to you in changeset/189808074 and previous changesets, adding the name of a hotel to a natural=scrub area is not correct and is considered SEO spam. Therefore, reverted again in changeset/189909904

Again, if you disagree or have questions *please* actually respond to any of our repeated changeset comments instead of simply repeating your actions with no explanation. Thanks.

Again, as I already explained to you in changeset/189808074 and previous changesets, the correct approach to map a private way is to simply tag it as such (access=private) rather than deleting it entirely. As for the service road, access=no means no one, not even you/the property owners or registered guests, are permitted to use it, which seems highly implausible.

Furthermore, instead of simply reverting again with another inscrutable changeset description, you should actually reply to my comments on your changesets to actually explain your intentions and your source for this, as I've requested numerous times now.

Reverted again in changeset/189909904

Again, if you disagree or have questions *please* actually respond to any of our repeated changeset comments instead of simply repeating your actions with no explanation. Thanks.

First off, if you had good faith questions about this or believed your edits were correct, I'm not sure why you wouldn't simply reply saying so to my very first comment on your changesets a week ago, instead of only doing indirectly in a changeset description after I had to successively revert or fix 12 of your SEO spam changesets. In fact, I reminded you exactly that in that very comment:

> If you have any questions or would like further guidance on the specific issues here, please don't hesitate to reply on this changeset and I'll be happy to explain further. Thanks.

Furthermore, if you'd read the link I included in my very first changeset comment to you, you'd know that on OSM we operate based on community consensus rather than corporate fiat ("approved business details"), and that carefully following OSM conventions and discussing and working with the community is essential to your success--especially as a brand new user and paid SEO mapper.

In any case, no, "East Cherry Creek North Drive" is not "wrong"; as anyone with a basic familiarity with how addresses work in the United States could tell you, "Cherry Creek N Dr" is merely the abbreviated short form of that very name (with the "East" directional address prefix included as part of the street name, per local convention). It is a basic OSM convention that abbreviations are always written out in full in OSM tag values, especially addr:street=* See osm.wiki/Abbreviations and addr:street=* . The same is true for addr:unit=* ; "Ste 801" is of course the short-form abbreviation of "Suite 801".

As for name=*, on OSM it is the primary common name of the feature in the real world--if asked "What lawyer are you going to?", most normal people would answer "Johnson Law Group", not the full corporate title "Johnson Law Group, LLC", which belongs under operator=* or official_name=* instead (I already did the favor of moving it to the former for you instead of just deleting it). See name=* for more details. (This, incidentally, is also more marketable to potential clients)

Finally, note that use of Google Maps, Google Earth, their satellite and street-level imagery, and related Google products as a source for OSM is strictly prohibited by both OSM's and Google's policies and may violate copyright law, which would be grounds for reverting your POI additions entirely -- see osm.wiki/Google for more details.

As such, I've had to revert your damage to your own client's data once again, in changeset/189909129 . If you continue to have questions, you are welcome to reply here and I can explain further, or you can raise your concerns with the OSM Data Working Group--although I can assure you from dealing with thousands of other SEO spammers that they will tell you the same thing that I have, or else remove everything you added entirely.

SEO spam addition of hotel name to scrub area reverted in changeset/189858535

Then it should be tagged as such, not repeatedly deleted with no explanation, and you should actually respond when repeatedly asked for one. See osm.wiki/Why_can't_I_delete_this_trail%3F and osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

Reverted in changeset/189858535

All you are doing is making the POIs you are being paid to promote strictly _less_ up to date and visible to users by taking the existing correct address, phone and name and making them malformed and invalid, and moving it from an actual building to in the middle of a parking lot. I am doing you and your client a *favor* by reverting your "updates"--as you created the SEO spam POI in the first place, in a location that does not make sense, I could just as well delete it instead.

Reverted in changeset/189858447

SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Please see osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Partially reverted changing existing valid name=* and addr:city=* values to malformed SEO spam junk as well as adding an invalid phone=* in changeset:

changeset/189805650

If you have any questions or would like further guidance on the specific issues here, please don't hesitate to reply on this changeset and I'll be happy to explain further. Thanks.

SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Please see osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Reverted changing existing valid name=* and phone=* values to malformed SEO spam junk in changeset:

changeset/189805542

If you have any questions or would like further guidance on the specific issues here, please don't hesitate to reply on this changeset and I'll be happy to explain further. Thanks.

You've been asked many times over the past >week to please properly (or at all) explain your edits and deletions of existing objects instead of no source=* and nonsense changeset comments, and particularly as a SEO account with a financial interest in the outcome, you've failed to make any effort to engage with a single one.

Let me be quite clear--you can either put a minimum of effort toward actually replying, explaining yourself and engage with the community, or you can continue wasting your own time getting any of your suspicious changesets immediately reverted. I would strongly recommend the former, but I have no qualms about enforcing the latter, indefinitely if necessary.

Reverted due to continued unexplained deletion of existing objects with zero response to any changeset comments in changeset/189805033

Reverted due to continued mapping with zero response to any changeset comments in changeset/189805033

Thanks Stanislav! Cheers, and happy mapping!

Took more time than I thought as I also fixed a load of one-off issues with one of the many tags used to fix and make consistent, but its all done in changeset/189758052 for the CONUS and Canada, changeset/189758068 for the UK and changeset/189758080 for Alaska.

Just to note, there was one widespread issue I couldn't entirely fix--many POIs are tagged with malformed/invalid opening_date=*. Besides the fact that it is only specified to be used for a planned future opening date, not when the POI has actually existed at that location since which is start_date=* (which would be otherwise trivial to fix en mass), of the ~100 POIs which have this tag well over half have an arbitrary, invalid format (instead of the standard YYYY-MM-DD), which unlike most other tags I cannot easily mass-correct without going through them one by one and fixing them manually.

Thanks, and happy mapping.

BTW, you can see the comments on your changesets that haven't yet been responded to here: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=22291106&noownanswer

Hi @visitingangels ,

Thanks for your prompt and responsive reply. Replying to other mappers when they have feedback, questions or concerns on your changesets and cooperating with them to resolve them, as you've done here, is the best way to maximize the mutual benefits of your work to both your clients and the OpenStreetMap, and avoid any unfortunate consequences. If you haven't already, you'll want to make sure you're familiar with osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers (it seems you've already learned most of these lessons and are following them now, but best to be sure)

1) I checked your tagging on the latest POI you submitted, and it looked pretty good. I can mass change them for you on all your existing ones.
2) opening_hours=* means the hours the physical office location on the map is open for customers, clients, home nurses, etc. to visit. If you know those for each location, you can enter them in the appropriate format (see the linked wiki page); for now I'll just remove opening_hours=24/7 from the existing POIs
3) Yup, I see you haven't added that recently; I'd noticed you'd gotten some feedback on that before so I will remove it for you from any existing older POIs.

I have work now, but I'll comment here later when its done. It shouldn't take me long with a short Overpass query, JOSM and some plugins.

Happy mapping.

NB, I understand where you're coming from (that was my first naive thought too), but after I looked into it social_facility=ambulatory_care is a more correct, precise and (~10x) more widely used tag for explicitly describing "administrative offices for home nurses", i.e. exactly what this is, rather than the generic and not totally applicable here as it doesn't really provide direct healthcare in a traditional sense.

Given the mass SEO nature of the changesets (>750 in all), the lack of response, the inconsistent existing tagging and the fact that all of them are for the same POI type, I'm considering a similarly-scaled fix to apply this, remove the spurious opening_hours=24/7 (even if their _services_ are available 24/7 it is unlikely the physical office is open for visitors around the clock) and clean up any other common spammy tags (e.g. description=*). Normally I apply fixes or cleanup changeset by changeset whenever possible, but given the enormous scale of the problem doing it in one go seems the only feasible way.,

Okay, thanks for clarifying! Cheers!