Re " The language is not even on the ground and it is just a translation " do you have a photo to back that up? I ask because you've helpfully provided photos elsewhere to show where multiple languages were signed on the ground and another mapper had removed them.

@LockOnGuy You're making a number of accusations here, but is any information to support any of what you've said available in public? If not, please move the discussion to the public realm on c.osm.org .

The way data with a "note:chaire_mobilite" tag on it as of 12:00 UTC today can be found at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1ywN . That list won't ever go away, and you can amend that query however you like (for example, https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1ywP is similar for nodes).

I'll remove the data that says e.g. only "it'd be nice if there was a cycleway here". OpenStreetMap servers are not for that; I suggested above that you might want to ask how to create what you need over at the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org , but you have not done that yet.

The sentence above should have read " While mappers from any community can discuss OSM wherever they like, suggesting that discussions should only use some private channel and not one that is open to all is discriminatory"

@LockOnGuy There are a number of problems here.

I got here via the link from your changeset that removed a language from https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/966067085 . It is not OK to remove names for political reasons. It is also not OK to refer to other mappers as "foreign users" as a perjorative when they are apparently mapping from survey (which is I suspect is more than you have ever done here).

With regard to the object here, I can confirm that "Registration of this grave does not conflict with OSM rules."

With regard to the request to "please come to the Iraqi OSM community group in telegram" that is not OK. While mappers from any community should use some private channel and not one that is open to all is discriminatory. I'd suggest instead using the community forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/iraq - that is open to all with an OSM account. There's not much there right now but that is a much more open forum for discussions going forward.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

It is not OK to "just revert" changesets that add a language that you do not like for political reasons.

@dpolovinkin what is the DWG ticket number? I don't see a ticket or a report for either "miBoieq" (the current name of this user) or "avinet ua") the previous name.
-- Andy from the DWG

Is node/6961546173 still there? I didn't notice it the other day.

Thanks for removing the kerb on node/1425374758/history . However, the driveways are both still disconnected from the road, and way/129133905 still has a "turning circle" almost exactly on top of another node tagged "noexit=yes".

Hello,
Something very odd seems to be going on at node/1425374758 - there is a kerb in the middle of the road, almost exactly adjacent to a turning circle node/8415809694 .
Also I presume that way/494324129 does actually connect to way/129133905 ?

Those comments have been hidden. Pascal Neis' site just hasn't been updated.
No-one's account has been hacked. Someone just created an account to create lots of offensive comments

No, the offensive comments weren'r from you! They were from another person in another country and entirely unrelated to this edit. The offensive comments have now all been hidden by the admins.

So, er, not "Club owners and the club site" but "The guy that deals with martial arts"?

What URL? https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fgdramirojose.blogspot.com%2F%20bitcoin finds nothing

Hello,
Quick question - node/290261947/history has four nodes - the junctions with the road and the footpath, and then the turning circle (fair enough), but after that there's another one for an extra node with "noexit=yes" on it, which seems to be in almost exactly the same place as the turning circle. Is that deliberate?
Best Regards,
Andy

Hello,
What was the source of this data?
Best Regards,
Andy

I suspect that quite a few of these might need undoing from "highway=footway" to "highway=track". https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1yks is a list of about 1800 that may need looking at.

Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. Re "A footpath is a footpath regardless of width of path" - unless the imagery is severely out of date, way/48131545 should not be a "highway=footway" - it's clearly an agricultural track. It should however be a "designation=public_footpath", as it's actually also designated as a public footpath (as can be seen at e.g. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#19/51.77162/-2.33870/H/P ).
I'd expect that the basic tagging for this would be:

highway=track
foot=yes
bridge:name=Stonepitts Bridge
surface=dirt
designation=public_footpath

If bicycle or horse access is permitted then I'd also add bicycle=permissive or horse=permissive

Best Regards,
Andy

You still haven't answered who actually uses this "data" and how they use it.

@hrhino I've hidden the silly offensive comments