An amenity=parking_space does not need capacity=1; this is implicit.

Please review way/1507572737 - the tagging "multiple=yes, stones=yes" does not make sense.

DWG here. Please do not take important discussions offline into commercial silos (Telegram) where they are not properly visible for other mappers and not recorded. Please ALWAYS discuss the merits (or not) of changesets in the changeset discussions, and if a larger discussion is needed, use the community forum. You are of course free to discuss anything on Telegram *additionally* but never try to move a public discussion away from here to Telegram.

The "JOSM" editor will allow you to select a number of objects and move them, or even align a large number of rectangles along a common direction. Through a plugin, you can also use the "replace geometry" function which will replace the old object's geometry with one newly drawn: osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/utilsplugin2#Replace_geometry_(Ctrl+Shift+G) Having said that, the JOSM editor does have a bit of a learning curve when you first start using it.

Dear Ville Helenius, please do not invent beaches where there are none in reality. A beach requires adjacent water. A sandy area in a forest is NOT a beach.

Hello PGL0, in this changeset you have deleted a number of buildings only to re-add them with a slight offset. This is not wrong but we prefer if existing objects are moved/corrected to reflect reality, rather than deleting and recreating them, because the former retains the object history.

Thank you for deleting this undiscussed import again. Please remember that if you want to upload this third-party data source to OSM, you have to go through the import process osm.wiki/Import which mandates prior discussion with the community.

Hello there Arnay, in this changeset you have deleted detailed building information for a number of apartment blocks and replaced this with a generic landuse polygon, while other apartments to the North and South of this area remain unchanged. Can you explain why? Your changeset comment, "update", does not really tell us anything.

This changeset which uploaded over 7,000 buildings in one session claims to be based on "Esri World Imagery; Bing" yet the buildings are offset compared to these imagery sources, and some like e.g. way/1503911147 are not visible on these sources at all. Please clarify.

Dear eerib, please do not revert edits made by others without explaining why the revert was done. No action required in this case since I will deal with it, but please keep it in mind for the future. Thank you. (DWG Ticket#2026042310000589)

Dear Maddy Michelle, welcome to OSM. In this edit you have mapped new buildings but you have also deleted many that existed in our data before. It is good practice to add something to the upload comment that explains why you deleted data - for example "mapped buildings, and removed those that were not visible on Bing imagery" or so. You can drop the hashtags from the changeset comment, we are not interested in those.

Dear Bibi Maryam, this undiscussed and buggy import has been reverted. You must discuss any data imports with the community in advance. Had you done this, the community would have alerted you to many problems with your plan, such as duplicating existing roads, or that we don't want a "Street_ID" attribute in OSM, or a source attribute on every object. Please follow our rules on imports osm.wiki/Import if you want to import data into OSM.

Dear EverydayKnight, many of the "beaches" you added here look nothing like a beach on aerial imagery. Therefore I believe you are trying to game OSM to get an advantage at Pokemon Go. Don't add fake beaches; it won't help as the makers of Pokemon Go have anticipated this and are working off an older version of OSM data.

The LWG has received a message about this from a lawyer claiming to represent the owner of 95 Cameron Way. I responded that the connection between the property and Starr Lane has been severed in OSM, trusting the owner's word that trees have been planted there. I have also explained that, should we find out upon survey that the connection does in fact exist and is only blocked by legal, not physical, means, it will be reinstated in OSM and marked with access=private.

This looks like an accident to me, reverting.

Hello there, I have reverted this edit because we want even those roads in our data that have limited or no public access (see osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F). I notice that you have placed some "access=no" tags which was a good start, though if these are accessible to authorized personnel then "access=private" would have been a better choice.

Dear borbalo_kj, the name:xx tags in OSM are *not* intended for translations. Please do not add translated names to OSM.

This is an undiscussed import that has placed trees in the middle of streets and tram tracks, e.g. node/13457106214. I will raise it on the Polish community forum and then probably revert.

Mapper deleted their own data

Hi istrait, as a general note we don't delete a trail from OSM just because it is "not maintained" (we don't even delete a trail that is "illegal") - see osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F for background on this. In this particular case, I guess that if the trail has not been maintained for 20 years it is likely to be unrecognizable which would make your deletion correct - however if the trail was still recognizable on the ground, then the mere fact of being unmaintained would not be reason for deletion.