It's two days later, and JOSM in this area still reports errors unclosed ways. Please fix your import before importing any more, thanks.

Rather than import huge amounts (>500K changed features on the day of this changeset!), I'd strongly recommend doing smaller sections (like ~10K features/day) so you can check it for errors _before_ uploading, thanks.

When I load a small area around this feature, the JOSM validator reports "Errors: Duplicated ways (98), Duplicated nodes (s), Warning: natural type water - Unclosed way (46)"

Rps, there are some serious issues with this import. For example, consider way way/413668789 It is "water", but unclosed. It is also duplicated, as is all the other sections of water which should have been joined here. PLEASE stop importing millions of features until these issues are addressed.

Hello Davaadulam, I see you changed the english name (name:en) of this street from "Olympic Avenue" to "Олимпийн өргөн чөлөө". The English name is actually "Olympic Avenue, correct? Why did you change it?

Kendall, you added ways which should be paths or service roads, but you tagged them as "motorway" with names like "I-40 West" which is very odd and confusing. I will attempt to fix the tagging, but what did you intend here?

In the preferences, under "advanced", there is a setting called "simplify-way.max-error". It is important to set this to a low number appropriate for the specific geometry; in the case of a very clear lake like this, sub-meter precision can be maintained, hence a value of 0.4

👍

Testing ability to put emojis in chageset comments: 👍🏻👍🏼👍🏽👍🏾👍🏿😊😄😊

Also, where two roads cross, they need to share a node. Please learn about connectivity.

Maykel, you used "service" incorrectly for the roads in the village. They are "residential" roads.

Also, never name roads just "jalan". The name tag is only for the actual name of the road, e.g. "Jln Poror Pinrang-Rappang"

Albert, you damaged the main Pinrang-Rappang highway by incorrectly changing the secondary to a service road. I will fix it now, but please be careful in the future.

Hi maraf24, I believe I only removed a few tags, which were uncontroversially incorrect or extraneous. If there is a page that describes the Wroclaw building import, please direct me to it.

@SomeoneElse, it depends :) In some places the legal boundary is defined as the river, in other places the river was surveyed and that description of the course defined as legal boundary. It takes local knowledge to know the difference in different parts of the world.

I reviewed it personally. There is decimation to remove noise and redundancy, but I also go over what remains manually to compare it to the aerial; many of these wetlands are no longer here and are adjusted accordingly.

I've proceeded to clean it up now.

This looks like a building import, but there were already buildings there. Was there no attempt to integrate and check for overlaps? Is there a plan to clean this up, or should I go ahead and clean it up manually?

Also, I notice that it isn't quite consistent; in some places the parish boundaries share a way with the river, in other places they use two separate ways; perhaps someone determined that on that stretch the "official" boundary differed significantly enough from the river. Some boundaries has the natural feature _as_ the official boundary, so in that case they should always share a way, but again, if you have local knowledge otherwise, you can make them consistent.

Hi tngpoint, mostly this changeset was fixing the riverbanks and adding the islands. The centerline moved only very slightly; it had a few places where it did not appear to correspond to the river flow. I did the best I could using the aerial, but if you have better local knowledge, please feel free to adjust it.