Très bonne suggestion, merci d'avoir relevé l'erreur.

Cordialement

I have add the name “Aire de Capellen” on the 6 main roads of the service area.

I think that naming all the road in the service area is unnecessary. Do you agree?

According to the wiki highway=services , area=yes is not implied.

I'm going to "Aire de Capellen" as the street name if you think it is useful.

Thanks for your comment.

Why haven't you asked me what changeset are mechanical? If you had notified me of the revert of my 80 changesets before, I would gladly have provided you the ones that were mechanical.

"I would normally have reverted *everything* done by you in that time span". That is a very wrong way to deal with the changes I have done. The correct way is to carefully analyse each changeset. You should take a look on this page: osm.wiki/Vandalism . "If the edits are dubious but it can't be proved to be incorrect then we should contact the person and ask for some additional information"

If you find an insufficiently described edit, the right way is to ask the author for explanations.

You seems to underestimate the scope of the "collateral damage". So far, I have found 14 changesets that appears to have been wrongly reverted. Several of them represents hours of work. Moreover, I will spend several hours to redo them.

I would like to know why the changeset/27643485 has been reverted: not a mechanical edit, just a group of modifications that have been review one by one thanks to Bing and based of the nearby streets in OSM.

I would like to know why the changeset/27643284 has been reverted: not a mechanical edit, just a group of modifications that have been review one by one thanks to Bing.

I would like to know why the changeset/27643030 has been reverted: not a mechanical edit, just a group of two very local changes.

@RM87
Thank you for this clarification. I now understand.

I see several reasons to not change the current lack of implication between highway=services and area=yes. So I won't try to change that by discussing it on the tagging list.

So do you agree that right now, a service area which is tagged with highway=services and without area=yes is an obvious error?

Nevertheless, the important point is that the changesets I mentionned earlier that concerns this issue were not mechanical edits. I had checked each service area with Bing. And I'm pretty sure that grouping several edited ways into one changeset is not a reason to revert.

@SomeoneElse
Thank you for this detailed response, I get your point. I don't know if you had intended to answer my questions with this message, but they are left unanswered.

I have read the mechanical edit policy. Right now, I do *not* complain about the revert of my mechanical edits, I rather try to understand why some of my changeset *that are not mechanical edits* have been reverted as mechanical edit.

@RM87
"You should have made this change in the wiki not in the data": I don't understand at all this sentence. Can you explain in details? Thanks.

@SomeoneElse
Before my first comment, I didn't understand that this changeset reverts 80 of my changesets. I thougth that it was the revert of only one changeset. That's why I discuss the correctness. Then I understand.

"Your changesets have not been reverted because the content was wrong, but because the process was wrong": that exactly why I asked my questions. I don't understand what is wrong with the process of several reverted changesets. I would like to understand to avoid that in the future.

About changeset/27640972 , you discuss the correctness of the changeset, but you miss the point: why a non-mass edit changeset have been reverted in this changeset?

The correctness should have been discussed **before** the revert.

About changeset/27641137 , you just state that it seems ok, but you don't explain why it has been reverted. I would like to know.

"good changeset is in the middle of not so good changesets it might be not noticed": are you implying that all these changesets have been reverted without understanding them?

The size of the relation is irrelevant. The changsets on river has been reverted because of « un-discussed mass edits », wich they are not. Where is the discussion about the size of the relation of these changesets before this revert?

About "highway=services": the OSM wiki clearly state: "Make sure you add the area=yes tag in case you tag a way, because it is not considered the default for closed ways."

Same request for the 27632063 changeset ( changeset/27632063 ). Not an automatic edit, no complaint.

Same request for the 27631975 changeset ( changeset/27631975 ). Not an automatic edit, no complaint.

Same request for the 27631744 changeset ( changeset/27631744 ). Again: not an automatic edit, no complaint.

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.