Hi, in this changeset you added a few telephone boxes with `colour=white`, and changed one `colour=cream` to `colour=white`.
Telephone boxes in this area are always cream-coloured, with very few exceptions (art installations).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_telephone_box#Kingston_upon_Hull

Hi, was this mass retagging discussed with the local community?
If so, where?

Hello and welcome to OSM!

I've noticed your edits and you seem to be adding separate parts of this building as separate buildings. In OSM a building is the *whole* thing, and seperate parts should be labelled via some other method, such as [`building:part`](https:=*//wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part).

Also, the buildings you added weren't connected together, there was slight overlaps and gaps between them.

I've fixed this in [changeset #110411287](changeset/110411287).

In the future please align your imagery too, in the UK we have the OSMUK Cadastral Parcels, which are usually the best to align to ;)

👍

You also seem to be creating changesets to only edit one element.
This is a bad practice and only causes hassle, it's best to upload changes in an area in one changeset.

Hello :)
Please don't add a name to objects that don't need them, adding `name=grass` to a piece of grass is wrong.
See osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

By this do you mean you aligned to Bing aerial imagery with no offset, or that you used Bing to trace from and aligned the road from some other source?

Sorry for the large, changeset.
Must've forgot to click upload between the two

(I don't mean literally here in this changeset, it'd be best to move to another communication medium)

I think discussion of country-wide tagging should take place with some of those community members here, no? Rather than just you, Tomas.

Can you link to cases of when Brian has not consulted local communities? I'm yet to see proof of this happening.

Used for example image on nonsquare=*

I doubt it would be an April Fools. Certainly not funny if it is.

No need, I've already done it :)

Oh wait nvm it's already done as a historic=wreck, but as a node. I'm stupid.

Linking the wikipage on this object is wrong, as it's already linked on the node

Got this as my Bing daily background and decided to see it was mapped, to my suprised you'd touched it 3hrs ago :)
I think it would be better to map it as a historic=wreck so I'ma do that

It is documented
osm.wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/Procedure/River_modernization
However Lithuania is sticking to the old tagging, so it shouldn't be touched

"Null Island" is a real name for 0,0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_Island

I had added it as `place=locality`:

place=locality
> The `place=locality` tag is used to
> name an unpopulated location for
> which there is no extant feature to
> which the tag could be associated.

In that case reverting every time someone does it is equally as pointless - especially when people also fix errors

And if you're claiming you're opinion is more valid because you've got an older account please stop - that's bogus.

All good data consumers support both schemas, as they have both existed for quite some time.
If you're saying that there are some that don't support natural=water + water=river then I greatly urge you to add support for both schemas.
There are large parts of the map that only use the new one - and if they don't support it their software is broken.