The permission of the owner of the building is not required for the publication of details about the building if these details can be legally observed (which is clearly the case in an university). Your deletions have damaged OpenStreetMap and violated our contribution terms. I am therefore going to revert your edits.

Dear 99TNT66, please provide an explanation in your changeset comments when you upload an edit. "-" is not a good explanation, especially not when you're deleting lots of indoor room data! See osm.wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications for details.

Dear Oketch Ocheing, is this a data import, or what is the source "Mapbox" supposed to mean? I can see that the buildings you added largely correspond to Bing imagery, but it appears that ESRI imagery might be a much better source for tracing in this area. I wonder what your process was here.

Dear Austine Ochieng, is this a data import, or what is the source "Mapbox" supposed to mean? I can see that the buildings you added correspond to ESRI imagery, but many buildings visible on the imagery have *not* been added so I wonder what your process was here.

Dear Mahmoudshrief, please do not add individual building plots as lanudse=residential; instead, draw large landuse=residential areas around the whole residential block. Also, take care not to draw overlapping landuse areas - here you have drawn farmland and residential areas *inside* a commercial area, but an area cannot be commercial and residential at the same time.

Dear Mahmoudshrief, please do not use the "name" field on buildings for putting in building numbers. If these are house numbers they should go in to the "housenumber" field, or if they are another kind of number they should go into the "ref" field, but never in "name"!

Please also use good changeset comments - "New Edit" is not a good comment because it says nothing about what your intentions were with that edit.

Dear marwa_khalid01, in this changeset you have added a number of "building=yes" objects but when looking at aerial imagery I can see that the actual buildings are much smaller; please use the "building" tag only on the actual building and not on the plot boundary.

Dear marwa_khalid01, please don't add land parcels to OSM. Instead, group neighbouring parcels into one large landuse=residential polygon. We are not interested in parcel boundaries as these are not verifiable on the ground.

I have reverted this edit, it appears to be a mistake and the changeset comment "편집" does not sufficiently explain why these facilities should have ceased to exist.

You are free to do that (providing you are using a source that is not subject to copyright!) but unless you are uploading new data within the next couple of hours, we should restore the old trails until you actually replace them.

Agreed - you will have to explain your deletions if you want them to stand. "Green Trail" is not a suffcient explanation for deleting data that has bee in OSM for over 12 years. Has the area been bulldozed? Have the trails been replaced to build a mine?

Hallo, ich habe die Löschungen zunächst einmal rückgängig gemacht. Das heisst nicht, dass sie falsch sind, allerdings ist das mit den Wildruhezonen und Schonungen eine häufige Schutzbehauptung in der Forstwirtschaft, um das allgemeine Waldbetretungsrecht auszuhebeln. Daher schauen wir in diesen Fällen gern selbst vor Ort genauer hin und erkundigen uns bei Bedarf bei der zuständigen Unteren Naturschutzbehörde, ob in den betr. Gebieten tatsächlich Sperrungen genehmigt sind, und löschen die Wege erst dann (oder markieren sie als gesperrt). Ich habe die Sache unserer Community zur Beurteilung vorgelegt: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/ruckegassen-bei-warstein-kr-soest-nrw/140028

I have reverted all of Sparko000's deletions. I encourage Sparko000 to use access=private tags or similar, as explained in the link above. (DWG Ticket#2026010310000131)

Dear Jobigutenburg, when adding Arabic (or other) names to features, please keep in mind that we do not use the name:xx tags to add translations. For example, if you add an Arabic name to an entity called "Region Nordjylland" then you need to have a source where this Arabic name is actually used (for example: a web site operated by the government and offered in Arabic). It is *not* ok to simply translate the term into Arabic and add that to OSM - if you add an Arabic name it must be one that is actually (and provably) used. In the future when adding Arabic names please cite a source.

Please link to the required import documentation in your changeset uploads to avoid your edits being reverted as undiscussed imports!

I am having second thoughts about the *names* of these trails. I wonder if they are surveyable on the ground. If not, maybe the names need removing. If they are surveyable, some abbreviations might need expanding ("McQueen Lk Blue XC Tr").

The DWG is tracking this in Ticket#2025121810000281. The deletions are against OSM's rules and have been rightfully reverted. Repeated deletion of these tracks violates our terms and will be considered vandalism.

looks legit

These are mobile to a certain degree, right? And what you have mapped here is their configuration on whichever date the aerial imagery has been taken? Does that make sense? Is that not like mapping the location of an airport bus?

Instead of deleting buildings and then re-drawing them, you might use the JOSM "modify geometry" tool to move them to the right place.