Hello again kiwiAs,
You were asked (by private message and in the changeset comment above) to apologise to michael60634 and have not, as far as I can tell, done so.
For the avoidance of doubt - http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=248764278 shows that you have not, as you have said above, "corrected yet again the name tag", but have merely removed alt_name.
Sometimes people in OSM have different views about things - we need to discuss them like adults rather than sulking like stroppy teenagers and understand each others' point of view if the project is to avoid becoming full of pointless edit wars (and "a vs ā" is pretty high up the list of pointless edit wars).
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, from OSM's Data Working Group

Hello again,
Can you please eplain why the previous change to http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=248764278 to this one was "edit warring"? You've set the alt_name value back to the same as the name, which makes no sense.
It appears that the previous editor has accepted your argument that "most signs say a not ā" but you've still reverted their change to alt_name. I think that you owe them an apology.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, from OSM's Data Working Group

Hello again,
Can you please eplain why the previous change to http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=248764278 to this one was "vandalism"? You've set the alt_name value to the alternative to what the "name" was, but how was the previous change vandalism?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, from OSM's Data Working Group

Silav Rênas Azad,
Li ser navê vî bajarî nîqaş hatin kirin
changeset/113104060, lê wisa dixuye ku ew hîn negihîştiye encamekê.
Hûn dikarin hin agahdarî bidin ku destnîşan dikin ka çima navê weya bijartî rast e?
Ligel rêzê,
Andy

Hello Renas Azad,
There's been a discussion about the name of this city going on in
changeset/113104060 , but it doesn't seem as if that has come to any conclusion yet.
Can you provide some information that suggests why your preferred name is correct?
Best Regards,
Andy

Reverts previous to this were done from the wrong user, from changeset/113562261 on for 4 changesets.

This changeset (and the 3 after it) should have been done from @SomeoneElse_Revert , not this user - sorry about that.

This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 113556168, 113556173, 113556179.

This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 113556168, 113556173, 113556179.

This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 113556168, 113556173, 113556179.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 113565332, 113563927, 113566871 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some deletions in Chad following a request by the original mapper.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 113565332, 113563927, 113566871 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some deletions in Chad following a request by the original mapper.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 113565332, 113563927, 113566871 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some deletions in Chad following a request by the original mapper.

Oops - it looks like the tagging of way/971370581/history in changeset/109350798 makes this appear like "one big house". Presumably tthat wasn't what you intended?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello and weclome to OpenStreetMap.
Are you sure that way/550006581/history is really no longer a road?
Best Regards,
Andy

The problem is that removing "tag=unlikely_value" doesn't actually fix the problem the _next_ time that mapper uses _unlikely_value_ - and it doesn't actually improve the quality of OSM data at all since everyone who's consuming it will just ignore _unlikey_value_ anyway.

> but right now tools doesn't really help this kind of activity, and it takes exponentially more time to manually conversate hundreds of changes.
Well one way to reduce the number of changesets to check would be to look at changes in a smaller area first...

Re way/988331792/history , it was only a month ago. Rather than removing something that was "obviously wrong" (which adds no value), why not ask the mapper what they meant? In that case "ground" would be a guess, but you'll find out if you ask them.

Hello,
What source did you use to remove the name name from areas here? The changeset tags suggest only "Maxar Premium Imagery (Beta)" - which doesn't have any name information on it.
Where a particular name is unlikely (as it is here) I'd suggest mentioning it the the original adder (in this case, still somewhat active and they do reply to changeset comments - http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=2662203 ).
Simply removing the name using maproulette doesn't help educate the mappers who added them in the first place.
Maproulette is surely here just as a way of performing an automated edit, and osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct should really have been followed.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (from OSM's Data Working Group)

Actually, after checking messages, I apparently did message them a couple of their changes (not these relations) back in 2012, but didn't get a rpely.
Best Regards,
Andy