I've asked about this at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/stadhuis-of-stadhuis-enschede/103056 .

Just to be clear - as per osm.wiki/Verifiability , all data in OSM needs to be verifiable. There are a couple of examples around the world where one language has multiple ways of writing it (see osm.wiki/Names#Transliteration for examples).
However, generally speaking, transliteration and translation should be avoided. If there really is a sign in a certain language, or some other licence-compatible way of verifying that name, then it makes sense for a place to have multiple languages. If there isn't, it doesn't.
As an example, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a verifiable Unkrainian name for relation/1644131 , but I'd be very surprised if all of the examples that were recently changed were verifiable.
That said, that doesn't mean that the actual name:uk in this changeset are correct. The one used for https://osm.mapki.com/history/relation/1644131 was the same as was added in changeset/135670474 by someone whose work was (in the Ukrainian forum) notorious for its poor quality.
-- Andy, from OSM's Data Working Group

As ever with these, it'd be really helpful if someone could provide evidence that a particular name does or does not appear on e.g. the front of a building, or is or is not visible.
I'd also suggest a slightly less confrontational initial approach than on changeset/140296500 (currently the only comment at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=19874231 ).

Some of the names here (e.g. "Manchester Airport") are I'm sure verifiable as name:ru without resorting to translations, but some may be more difficult to verify.
However, a mass wave of name removal (and other vandalism) is not ideal to spend time thinking about which names may be valid and which may not be - that's probably best done when things have calmed down.

Thanks!

Hello,
Thanks for the revert here, but if you look at https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/241114899 you'll see that it was only as far back as the previous vandalism, not the "benjamintchik" version.
Cheers,
Andy

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/utilizzo-del-tag-highway-trunk-in-italia/101471/49

Hello,
Is http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=10739762 OK in Youghal now? There seems to be a couple of gaps
Best Regards,
Andy

"Birmingham Road" isn't a secondary, and isn't signed as such at the north end, and nothing on OSSV or OS OM Local backs up that name. I've left the name on the Charlecote end because someone presumably added that for a reason.
It is also I believe 60mph not 50mph (the A road is 50 here),
You could maybe argue for a tertiary for the northern part of it, but it's a bit of a stretch. No road is _named_ after the cycleway here.

Data here (new) is correct based on OSM-compatible imagery (Bing)

Data here (new) is correct based on OSM-compatible imagery (Bing)

Data here is verifiable based on OSM-compatible imagery (Bing). Previous data was incorrect

Hello,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 6 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=Google" tag on way/201738316 here. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

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

The wrong account was used for this; should have been @SomeoneElse_Revert

The wrong account was used for this; should have been @SomeoneElse_Revert

Your hosted version of iD seems to be writing "changesets_count=1" every time :)

I'd suggest that "note:opening_hours:covid19" on at least way/634146183/history should probably go too. Perhaps you'd like to check the rest of these individually?

Generally speaking just deleting data that you don't understand and is "obviously wrong" is a bad idea. Here for example, on the trees "highway" should probably be height. The recommended approach is to talk to the users who made the error to verify that rather than "just deleting the tag". After deleting the tag, there will still be an error, but no-one will be able to tell.

For the avoidance of doubt, we aren't allowed to copy from OS maps that show rights of way. Some councils have made this data available under a compatible licence (the overlay at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#18/51.77215/-2.33899/O/P is an example of a map that shows that), but there isn't a current OS map that shows PRoWs with a suitable licence.

سلام Osm1980،
امیدوارم از سوال من در مورد ویرایش 6 سال پیش ناراحت نباشید. از تگ "imagery_used" در اینجا به نظر می رسد که شما در اینجا از تصاویر مبتنی بر StreetView Google استفاده کرده اید. ما در واقع نمی‌توانیم از آن به‌عنوان منبع در OSM استفاده کنیم، زیرا مجوز Google اجازه استفاده از آن را در اینجا نمی‌دهد - اگر مشخص شود که از Google Maps به‌عنوان منبع استفاده می‌کنیم، مشکلات واقعی برای پروژه ایجاد می‌شود.
اگر این جایی است که شما با آن آشنا هستید، پس «source=local_knowledge» کاملاً خوب است.

با احترام
اندی تاونسند، به نمایندگی از گروه کاری داده OSM