Same request for the 27631546 changeset ( changeset/27631546 ).

I would like to know why the 27631195 changeset ( changeset/27631195 ) has been reverted. What is the problem? The changes in this changeset were not done automatically. And nobody complain in the discussion of the changeset.

I would like to know why the 27630561 changeset ( changeset/27661940 ) has been reverted. What is the problem? The changes in this changeset were not done automatically. And nobody complain in the discussion of the changeset.

Same request for the 27661940 changesert ( changeset/27661940 ) which can't be smaller because it change the way the river is tagged.

Same request for the 27662224 changesert ( changeset/27662224 ) which can't be smaller because it change the way the river is tagged.

Same request for the 27662544 changeset ( changeset/27662544 ) which can't be smaller because it deals with a river.

Same request for the 27662643 changeset ( changeset/27662643 ) which can't be smaller because it change the way the river is tagged.

Same request for the 27641137 changeset ( changeset/27641137 ), which was a local edit that fixed an obvious mistake.

I would like to know why the 27640972 changeset ( changeset/27640972 ) which is clearly not a mass edit as been reverted by this changeset.

I have said the sentence that you quote because I misinterpreted what you have said. Sorry for that.

I get what you say and I agree with you. I sometimes take the time to explain to a user a mistake that I have spotted. But for practical reasons, I can't do this each time.

Contacting the original mapper is unecessary, because the mistake is obvious.

"cycleway=left:track" has the same meaning that "cycleway:left=track". Thus, the tags are redundant. "cycleway:left=track" is the good one, thus "cycleway=left:track" should be deleted.

The same mapper has added the good tag after adding the wrong one. Thus, this mapper already know how to correctly tag a cycleway.

Setting "landuse=wood" ( landuse=wood_%28Don%27t_use%29 ) instead of "landuse=forest" seems a mistake according to the OSM wiki.

The data was not correct, because "landuse=wood" is a mistaken tag, as the OSM wiki states : landuse=wood_%28Don%27t_use%29

Thus, this edit was not vandalism.

iWowik, you seem to not understand the difference between "natural=wood" and "landuse=wood".

Thanks SomeoneElse to explain how deciduous tree is not necessarily broadleaved. The JOSM warning don't explain that.

iWowik : the OSM wiki does not say at all that "natural=wood" is appropriate for any type of group of trees.

Please watch your language and do not call me a vandal.

No, this is the result of the Bing imagery.

"natural=wood" may be more appropriate, but it seems dubious that it's an ancient or virgin woodland.

"landuse=wood" tag is commonly used by mistake. So, "landuse=forest" is a more appropriate tag.

As specified in the source of the changeset, this information is in the OSM wiki.
osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Park_and_Ride
"Status: Obsoleted (inactive)"

Tout à fait. J'ai corrigé. Merci.

These two attributes :
* highway=noexit
* noexit=yes
have obviously the same meaning (check the wiki page of the Key:noexit).

the Key:noexit is heavily used (340 000 according to taginfo), highway=noexit is rarely used (150: 0,04% of the key:noexit).

Moreover, highway=noexit is undocumented. The OSM wiki does not have any reference to this attribute.

So, according to these facts, I have changed highway=noexit to noexit=yes.

This improvement to the OSM database seems so obvious to me that I didn't consider to have a public discussion about it.