> What was the basis for this edit?
Add owner to a single feature instead of three just describes the edit it doesn't explain what it was based on. This could be a survey, gchg.ch .. etc.

> I honestly think that this issue is not solvable country-wide.
Seems obvious.

I got the same impression from @imagoiq .. even more so in the forum. Maybe I should report their conduct there.

The roof issue is relatively easy to do, but I haven't noticed imagoiq editing roofs, so it might as well be a rhetorical question, one I don't want to volunteer time for.

Oh, I see trivial issue. ID of the relation was applied to a node instead. (I sometimes do that too)

What's the connection between node/19630033/history/1 and version 2 of the node ?

Can you answer my questions?

The question appears to be irrelevant to that thread.

I note that you don't want to provide a clear answer about the basis for your edit.

Once answered, I will try.

I think for this changeset, we would still want a clear answer on the initial question.

I would understand "ground" truth as actually surveying it myself on site, rather than looking at the ground on a copy-pasted aerial view at a misspelled webpage of a federation about its members.

If you seek ways for improvements when hestitating between using one building or several buildings then you should consider adding also building:part for each in the first case. If your task requires you to have one OSM feature for the "barre d'immeubles" you could also draw a way around them or use a relation. Deleting just to match the requirement seems to me like a bad approach.

What owners or operators consider a "bâtiment" rarely matches an OSM building and even when it does, we might not able to map it as such as they might not own or operator it in its entirety.

It appears to me that "owner" cannot be surveyed on the ground (in Switzerland). Even if there is a plaque "owner" it's likely outdated or imprecise.

I don't see any editing of roofs in the changeset so the question seems off topic.

should be ok now: changeset/181842812

There are still more mapped by you at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2oGj . I can change them for you.

Electio confoederationis pro nomine eius est lingua Latina ab saeculo XIX.

https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/it/articles/009827/2020-09-15/

Linguae a cantonibus electae discrepant.

I can fix them if you prefer. It can be done fairly efficiently.

addr:state=DE would be addr:country=DE . For more see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2oEl

addr:state=DE would be addr:country=DE . For more see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2oEl

What's the meaning of this edit?

What's the connection between node/19630033/history/1 and version 2 of the node ?

What's the meaning of this edit?
What's the connection between version 1 and version 2 of the node node/17960327/history

It's a shop sign

As these are country-level changes, I think the geographical size is not unreasonable. It would be different for (small) features in each country.

I asked for the basis and a clear explanation for your edit; https://gchg.ch is what we got. If you feel challenged by questions about your mapping, I understand that can be frustrating, but being defensive isn't helpful. Saying "the internet" isn't a sufficiently specific source for an OSM edit.

FPLC has a nice overview of cooperatively owned properties and lists all three. I find the approach fairly consistent with other buildings in Geneva.