This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108565276, 108568002 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a mixture of edits that includes fantasy mapping and border vandalism. Numerous attempts to engage with the mapper have failed. See osm.org/user_blocks/5233 et al.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108565276, 108568002 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a mixture of edits that includes fantasy mapping and border vandalism. Numerous attempts to engage with the mapper have failed. See osm.org/user_blocks/5233 et al.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108565276, 108568002 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a mixture of edits that includes fantasy mapping and border vandalism. Numerous attempts to engage with the mapper have failed. See osm.org/user_blocks/5233 et al.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108565276, 108568002 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a mixture of edits that includes fantasy mapping and border vandalism. Numerous attempts to engage with the mapper have failed. See osm.org/user_blocks/5233 et al.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108565276, 108568002 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a mixture of edits that includes fantasy mapping and border vandalism. Numerous attempts to engage with the mapper have failed. See osm.org/user_blocks/5233 et al.

Hello,
What was the source of way/963377251 that you added here?
I can't see anything obvious on any of the available imagery in OpenStreetMap.
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
Yes, it will cause confusion when people look at node/105038338/history and find that that had TIGER import tags on it (because it was part of a road) but it is now part of a building.
Why are you re-using nodes like this?
Best Regards,
Andy

Olá Jmarcos,

Espero que não se importe que eu pergunte sobre algo adicionado ao OpenStreetMap 8 anos atrás. way/203784775 foi alterado aqui com uma tag "source = Google Maps" nele. Na verdade, não podemos usar isso como uma fonte no OSM porque a licença do Google não permite que seja usado aqui. Se for uma área com a qual você está familiarizado, source = local_knowledge seria a tag a ser usada.

Cumprimentos
Andy Townsend, em nome do Grupo de Trabalho de Dados da OSM

Hello Jmarcos,

I hope you don't mind me asking about something added to OpenStreetMap 8 years ago. way/203784775 was changed here with a "source=Google Maps" tag on it. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here. If it is an area that you are familiar with, then source=local_knowledge would be the tag to use.

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

I fogot to close with a comment before it auto-closed. Comment would have been:
Undoing some allegedly google-source changes. See changeset/105322114

Hola Calero_talleres1,

Espero que no le importe que le pregunte sobre algo que se agregó a OpenStreetMap hace 3 años. way/40518878 se cambió aquí con una etiqueta "source = Google Maps". En realidad, no podemos usar eso como fuente en OSM porque la licencia de Google no permite que se use aquí. ¿Usó Google para el nombre de la calle o es un área con la que está familiarizado?

Atentamente
Andy Townsend, en nombre del Grupo de trabajo de datos de OSM

Hello Calero_talleres1,

I hope you don't mind me asking about something added to OpenStreetMap 3 years ago. way/40518878 was chanegd here with a "source=Google Maps" tag on it. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here. Did you use Google for the streen name or is it an area that you are familiar with?

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

Hello "predatorbot",
Can you explain why you deleted these address nodes?
Best Regards,
Andy

For context see http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=3586169 and also changeset/103111017 and changeset/107356787 .

Hello fantasticpanda,
Please don't say things like "Admin level 4 " without discussing it with the wider OSM community.
More generally, some of the issues that OSM follows when deciding admin levels is set out in https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . In the case of Somaliland (apart from the occasional bit of vandalism) it's been considered admin level 3 rather than 2 or 4, in the same way as places like Transnistria relation/65335 (essentially a "country in all but recognition").
I'll change it back to 3. If you think that this is wrong, the best place to discuss it currently is probably on the main OSM talk list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk .
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, from OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello Arthur2e5,
Please don't say things like "I think it deserves a level 2 like Taiwan?" without discussing it with the wider OSM community.
More generally, some of the issues that OSM follows when deciding admin levels is set out in https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . In the case of Somaliland (apart from the occasional bit of vandalism) it's been considered admin level 3 rather than 2 or 4, in the same way as places like Transnistria relation/65335 (essentially a "country in all but recognition").
Somaliland has already been changed to 3 (and then 4; I'll change it back to 3). If you think that this is wrong, the best place to discuss it currently is probably on the main OSM talk list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk .
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, from OSM's Data Working Group.

Yes, just to echo what @impiaaa has said above any attempt to "manipulate" history that will result in confusing mappers isn't really a good idea. One of the examplles given at osm.wiki/Keep_the_history#Don.27t_mix_the_history is the reuse of node number 1 , which as you can see from http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=1 has been all over the place.
If you find yourself deleting a node because you've improved the outline of something (by adding other nodes), that's perfectly OK.
Best Regards,
Andy

Thanks John, thanks Elliott, - is everything OK here (in terms of the data now in OSM)?
Best Regards,
Andy

More "Footpaths etc. near Bishop Wilton, from survey 13/06. ". Also waterways from OSSV and survey and hedges from survey and Bing

More "Footpaths near Heslington, from survey 12/6. Also bits from adjacent Bing and OSSV "