If you have more up-to-date pictures please discuss on the forum. Something at https://community.openstreetmap.org/tags/c/help-and-support/7/all/iraq would be a good place to start.

I have to say, node/29027798/history does look like a mini-roundabout rather than an actual roundabout on the imagery (unless that's out of date, of course).
Perhaps this would have been a good candidate for asking about at the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk/86 first? Sometimes what's mapped does need changing (the bus gate mapped by another mapper as a police checkpoint in the other changeset might be an example of that) and sometimes it might not (here, unless the road's changed).
"how to map things" in OSM can be tricky, and we all make mistakes at first (well I certainly did), so sometimes it helps to ask.

Ah yes - it was added 11 months ago by "Smudge the Cat". It'd be interesting to know what the current situation is.
Bus gates tend to get handled by conditional restrictions on the road itself - see osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions for that. In this case way/552174846 already has "motor_vehicle=no; psv=yes".

Hello demisee,
way/1238686932 has been mapped as a "police=checkpoint" with a name of "Bus Gate" and a long description.
Are you sure that's correct?
What I'd suggest that you do is to post a photo of it to the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/uk/86 and ask people there what the best way to tag it is.
Best Regards,
Andy

Please do not try and communicate with the DWG via private messages to individual members. If you want to reply to a ticket, reply to an email or message associated with that ticket.
If you want to comment publicly on a changeset, do that.
If you want to comment somewhere that everyone in the community can see, please use the forum, perhaps https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/iraq .

Source was the picture I linked in the first comment above. You were asked to comment on it but instead talked about the current mayor's desk.

I've reverted it in way/332658571 . If you can find evidence of actual signage being change, please provide it. Until then, please do not waste the DWG's time.

@LockOnGuy Can you provide evidence of current external mainly-Arab signage? It is you who is "wasting the DWG's time" with "a nameplate on [the current mayor's] desk written exclusively in Arabic".

Hello again LockOnGuy,
You've used "updated name " as a changeset comment here. This isn't good enough - you should explain what source you used and what changes were actually made to names.
In addition, someone has provided the DWG with https://ibb.co/kydcgQH , which claims to show the Kurdish name used as the main / only name here. Do you have any comment on that?
Best Regards,
Andy, from OSM's Data Working Group

@desertivy - I am trying to help you here. You can ignore my suggestions and carry on as before, but as you've seen that isn't working out so well.

The top-down model that you are suggesting simply won't work for OSM. I agree that right now there is no functioning OSM community in Iraq (there are only people representing their own narrow interests). I am suggesting that you try and get the community beyond Iraq's borders involved to work around that.

You and LockOnGuy are both part of the problem, and you both try and pretend that you are right and the "other side" is wrong.

Actually - one more question - does the cycleway really join the top of the bridge at node/9396732243 ?

@DodoTheDev Thanks for tidying this up. I've removed a bit more of the duplication to the west and also joined up a gap there - http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=151858&noCache=true&_noCache=on

> then I believe nothing will convince you.

To be clear - there is a lot of information in that private message to the DWG. Unfortunately, that tells us only what we know already - that one side of a name dispute has one view about what things should be called.

I know of plenty of places (including within my own country) where there are disputes and it's easy to find statements from government officials that back up _both_ sides - because different levels of government support different sides of the argument.
That's why I suggested discussing opening in the forum, where everyone can see it.

Please can you explain, on the forum c.osm.org , why you think that node/11629870960/history should be deleted.
In osm.org/user_blocks/16885 you have just now been warned about this sort of "tit for tat" deletion - if you believe that something is wrong you must discuss it on the forum before changing it.

@maro21 - proszę odpowiedz na pytania, które Ci tutaj zadano.

@maro21 - please do reply to the questions that you have been asked here.

Looking at way/1135361639 , I'm struggling to see any evidence on current imagery. Do you have any suggestions of better imagery (or as suggested before, on the ground photos)?

You appear to be involved in an editor war over way/1135361639/history . Don't do that.

You appear to be involved in an editor war over way/1135361639/history . Don't do that.

Yes, I was aware of osm.org/user_blocks/16811 . Unlike my DWG colleague, I had thought that the now-removed profile text was something of a joke and a statement about "individual mapper empowerment" :)
Some edits perhaps do deserve discussion - I suspect that a chat about node/5860019950/history on the forum would see people favouring both forms of the name, but in that case the forum is surely the better place for it.