Sorry for the delay - I was hoping that "Geothings Inc" would reply since they have replied to private emails in the past (which I sent here as well). I've reverted this in changeset/45996711 .

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Whilst it's great to see new mappers, it makes people slightly nervous to see someone updating 977 roads with "lit=yes" or "lit=no". That's an awful lot of surveying to have saved up from somewhere; unless of course the source was other than survey. If so, what was it, and under what licence was it made available?
Also - I'm not convinced about some of the changes. My recollection is that the junction at Apleyhead is quite well lit from all sides, yet you've changed way/148833971/history from "lit" to "not lit". Are you sure about that?
Best Regards,
Andy

How on earth can you think that way/459718300 is still an active amenity=parking? It's around what is probably _the_ most iconic building in the area https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1402678 . The Bing imagery presumably dates to it's most recent use as a Little Chef, but that's long gone now. There are barriers preventing access from the road and the area's all a bit overgrown, as any of the thousands of people that drive up and down the A1 every day will be able to vouch for.

Oops - this was just a 1-node building.

Hi Kev,
Just wondered if you thought whether this road (the old A46) was still labelled the B687? My recollection is that there's no signage here (but that's based on driving up here only once, and could be wrong). OS OpenData and OS Locator suggests B692 (which I've not seen signed either).
I'm asking you because I suspect you're more familiar with this area than me.
Best Regards,
Andy

Unfortunately some information has been lost, for example from way/465154598/history - that used to say "Opening times dependent on custom" but now someone looking at the shop would think it had fixed opening and closing times.

This was so wrong based on my recollection of the area that I've reverted it (but also tried to incorporate future changes that seemed plausible, e.g. that the main street in Milton is lit).

The node that you added as node/3989393999 was already mapped (and spelt correctly) as way/242753178 .

You've changed way/4967734/history from highway=unclassified to highway=minor. What sort of road is that supposed to be?

Hello,
You've changed way/343529096/history from being not lit to being lit. Are you sure about this, and are you sure that the bit the the east is still not lit?
Things might have changed since I was last there of course, it was a couple of years ago.
When did you survey it?

I wouldn't say "aggressive", but I would say "irrelevant" - anything that parses mph speed limits is going to parse "30mph".
Also, this change is making the tidying up of some earlier problem edits much, much harder.

Hi Bernard,

Did you even look at the underlying features that you made changes to here?

The way that you have edited way/151615229/history started out as a wood (see http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/lNO ) and was changed to a duplicate park by a Pokemon mapper in changeset/45198448 . They're a new mapper, so after I contacted them about another edit http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=5007097 I was waiting a while for a reply before immediately reverting.

By making purely geometrical changes with a meaningless changeset comment without using any common sense you're actually making the fixing process harder, not easier - you're part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Also, please do try and reply to more of the issues that have been raised with you about this sort of "geometrical" edit:
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=322785 .

Best Regards,
Andy

Hi lewismv2002,
Please don't add imaginery things like way/471442533 to OpenStreetMap. I'll remove that - please don't add more things like it.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.

> What do you propose?
I'd change the ones that were shop previously (like way/351521115/history ) back to shop, and if any of them had other tags that were changed into "office" at the same time, I'd change those back too.

Thanks for that!

(Tradução automática)

Olá sazrodrigo,

Este changeset parece ser uma importação de informações de construção de uma fonte externa. Lembre-se de que todas as importações devem seguir o procedimento documentado em osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines - é importante que todas as etapas sejam seguidas. Antes de fazer mais alterações (importações como essa ou exclusões em massa, como changeset/45831264 ), por favor, leia isso e siga as etapas que você perdeu. Em particular, você precisará discutir suas mudanças com a comunidade brasileira de OSM e explicando sob qual licença os dados do "Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Londrina" foram disponibilizados.

Responda também aos utilizadores que o contactaram através dos comentários de discussão do changeset (você pode encontrá-los facilmente consultando http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=4619403 ).

Cumprimentos,

Andy Townsend,
Em nome do Grupo de Trabalho de Dados da OSM.

Hello sazrodrigo,

This changeset appears to be a import of building information from an external source. Please be aware that all imports must follow the procedure documented at osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines - it's important that all the stages there are followed. Before making any more changes (either imports like this one or mass deletions like changeset/45831264 ) please do read that, and go through any steps that you have missed out. In particular, you'll need to discuss your changes with the wider Brazilian OSM community, and by explaining under what licence the data from "Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Londrina" was made available.

Please also reply to those users who have contacted you via changeset discussion comments (you can find those easily by looking at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=4619403 ).

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend,
on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Bonjour,

> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-August/014582.html

Ce fil n'était pas de changer "direction=backward" vers "traffic_signals:direction=backward", et est venu à aucune conclusion (comme la plupart des discussions de liste "tagging").

Je ne comprends pas ce que "La mise à jour a bien été mesurée et vérifiée" signifie.

> Je peux cependant ajouter à mon journal cette intervention si cela s'avère nécessaire.

Non, ce n'est pas suffisant. Https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Code_de_conduite_des_modifications_automatis%C3%A9es dit: "Si vous planifiez de faire une édition automatisée, annoncez l'avant et parlez sur la liste de diffusion adéquate". Vous ne l'avez pas fait.

Si vous ne le faites pas (ou si vous le faites et que les gens s'opposent à cette modification mécanique), ces changements seront rétablis.

Indépendamment de la façon dont une bonne idée d'un changement est, les gens comme les consommateurs de données doivent savoir sur un changement mécanique comme celui-ci. Si c'est une bonne idée les gens ne s'opposeront pas.
Meilleures salutations,
Andy Townsend,

Donc vous n'avez pas discuté avec personne du tout? Https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Code_de_conduite_des_modifications_automatis%C3%A9es#Discuter_de_vos_plans dit: "Si vous planifiez de faire une édition automatisée, annoncez l'avant et parlez sur la liste de diffusion adéquate (une liste régionale, nationale, Ou internationale selon l'échelle de vos changements). "

Bonjour,
Vous avez utilisé https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/ comme source ici - est-ce que c'est compatible avec OSM? Le texte sur https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page suggérerait pas.
Meilleures salutations,
Andy