My changesets these last days have been of quite reasonable size and typical of one doing a survey by vehicle where uploading each individual change on mobile would be awkward and time-consuming. However, if you are editing from a computer (as I assume from the fact that you are reviewing and then uploading such immense changeset), then it would be little trouble for you to 1) leave a quick comment on my changeset first before reverting, and 2) if you must revert, then do it in a dedicated changeset. This would be polite and helpful.

No, there is a distinction between tracktype 2 and tracktype 3 even on maintained roads that is commonly used for bicycle route-planning purposes. Tracktype 2 is high-quality gravel that remains a hard surface all the time. Tracktype 3 is either:

1) Gravel mixed with loose soil and sand that is not sandy enough to be surface=sand, but soft and slippery enough for cyclists that some would prefer to avoid it, or:

2) Roads that turn muddy after rain.

Thus, routing may guide a cyclist down type-2 roads, but it would avoid type-3 roads unless the cyclist specifies a trekking profile. By my personal survey of the road to which you link, this is type 3.

And no, these tags are not "pointless" even if you think the local community shows little interest in them. Residential roads in Finland are of equal standard to Lithuania's, i.e. track types 2 and 3, but many residential roads there now have the tracktype= tag. There is absolutely no reason that a mapper cannot come along and add these tags (which are verifiable, just get a bike and cycle after some rain) in whatever country on earth.

Also, this is not the first time that you have reverted a change which I made within a very large changeset that involves many other things. It is not easy to find the way/POI for which there is disagreement. Please do not do this again – and in general discuss these matters with me first before reverting – or I will have to bring this to the attention of the DWG.

For reference, see the wiki entry for tracktype: "It usually applies to highway=track but is often used for non-tracks too, especially in less-developed places where many main roads are unpaved."

Nevermind, that particular memorial was my mistake. However, my comment about tracktype= still stands.

Please do not remove tracktype= tags from highway=residential. Tracktype= tags are used to provide routing guidance for e.g. cyclists on unpaved roads.

I examined this POI firsthand yesterday, and it is not a memorial (it is not in memory of any individual or group) but rather a monument.

Please do not set tracktype=grade1 for roads that are unpaved. Grade1 is reserved for segments of tracks that have some kind of hard covering like concrete or asphalt.

Osmose generates a bug when it detects a combination of tracktype=grade1 plus surface=unpaved. Unfortunately, there are now hundreds of examples of this inappropriate tagging in rural Finland, and they need to be fixed.

Why did you set surface=asphalt for the parking lot outside the shop in Raattama? During my personal survey of the area, I found that it was unpaved (gravel). Please be more careful.

What are these ways all over Savo tagged only as follows?

operator=PSMKK
snowmobile=permissive
toll=snowmobile

If they are snowmobile tracks, they need some kind of highway= tag. Also, in many places they overlap properly tagged roads, and this triggers an error in many OSM tools.

If you revert, please specify what you are reverting. Your only recent changeset is a large one, and it is not easy to examine it and determine what changes of mine you reverted.

In this case, I assume that you changed one of my highway=tertiary back to a highway=secondary purely because it is a paved road. Was there anything besides that one instance?

Wild camping spots do not belong on OSM. If a tourism=camp_site is not signposted as a camping ground, it is not verifiable. (Instead, the iOverlander app, for example, has become a popular place to list wild camping opportunities.) So, if these camp sites are merely places you think it would be comfortable to camp, and not formal infrastructure, please remove them.

The main entrance is at the top of stairs without a wheelchair ramp. Therefore, I tagged it wheelchair=no.

However, the POI in general is wheelchair-accessible: at the foot of those stairs is a button with a wheelchair symbol that disabled visitors can press. I assume that they are then shown to an alternative entrance=yes somewhere else in the building, or staff come out of the building to serve them outside.

This same setup is found on many government buildings in Poland, I find it often on village post offices.

Yes, I have noticed this. However, I do not think this usage of an ad hoc tag, mainly limited to a single Polish city and with no wiki description, is ideal. There is a way to tag these objects so that they are readily available both to worldwide consumers of OSM data (who would appreciate being able to extract artwork_type=sculpture here) and to mappers concerned with the Wroclaw gnomes specifically. I am presently working on a proposal for the OSM forum to get the views of others.

Further changes are coming.

Also, in English the customary term for these kind of figures depicted in statues is "gnome", not "dwarf". See Google results: the number of hits for "Wroclaw dwarf" is less than a third that of for "Wroclaw gnome".

Yes, but the problem is that you have set artwork_type to a value that is not even suggested by the wiki:

artwork_type=*

You set the artwork_type to what the artwork *depicts*, and not what the *type of artwork* is. Consequently, this POI will be missed by, for example, consumers of OSM data who are interested in extracting data on all sculptures.

I see that you replaced indoor=corridor with highway=corridor. Why did you feel that this tagging was more appropriate?

As the wiki explains, "Some more recent tagging systems, such as Simple Indoor Tagging, use a different set of tags under the indoor=* key."

highway=corridor

And it is the Simple Indoor Tagging schema that I am trying to use in my own indoor mapping.

Thanks for the explanation. Now could you please set artwork_type to a tag that will be universally understood?

"It's perfect now because it doesn't cover an address and other POI."

This is mapping for the renderer, which as you know if often discouraged. Plus, OSM.org, OSMAnd and Maps.me, etc. will show or hide POIs and addresses differently.

In this case, it doesn’t make a difference because I didn’t go into the building up to the other floors. However, sometimes when mapping I do go into buildings and try to position the POIs in the right places, so in the future please don’t move POIs I set without at least giving me a heads up in a changeset comment