The main reason is a suspected copyright violation; see osm.org/user_blocks/20953 and osm.org/user_blocks/20972

Please do NOT tag every individual building with a source tag. This is not how we do it - I am surprised nobody brought that up in the import discussion. Please also link to the import documentation in you changeset comments.

The user has been in touch with DWG and claimed that this was not an import; however, serious quality doubts remain. Among other things, this changeset added a duplicate and apparently broken village boundary - but that may also be a technical fault?

way/1459545895 seems to not to match aerial imagery, can you check that? The space between the buildings there looks too small to accommodate vehicles. Can you clarify the process by which you created these roads? What led you to believe that there was a road there?

Bitte das nächste Mal klarere Beschreibung im Changeset-Kommentar verwenden - "admin_centre von Berlin entfernt" oder sowas wäre ehrlich und erspart das Nachforschen.

The under-construction roads you have entered here are very coarsely drawn and are not at all visible on Bing aerial imagery. Are you sure that construction is ongoing here - have the trees been removed? Has this road way/1069992947 which conflicts with the construction been removed?

If this is not really being constructed right now, please remove it and wait until construction actually begins on the ground.

Die Webseite umap.openstreetmap.de bietet die Möglichkeit, private Zeichungen auf einem OSM-Hintergrund anzufertigen.

Instead of deleting and re-creating boundaries, try to improve their geometry (thereby keeping the history). The JOSM editor has a tool that allows you to refine or move existing geometries quickly.

Please refrain from restoring USSR names to natural features in Kyrgyzstan.

"#hotosm-project-54621 Mapping buildings for #EbolaDRC2026 #msf #missingmaps" is not a sufficient explanation for a changeset that deletes 250 buildings. Please explain why they were deleted. Was there a bug in the original HOT projects ("#hotosm-project-5660 #osm_cd #ebola2018", "Ituri buildings import #hotosm-project-10928 #MissingMaps #HOTOSM #OSMRDC #HumanitarianGC") in which these buildings were created? Is your deletion a sign that maybe other contributions made in these projects should be examined and possibly deleted?

Dear CikaAki93, the upload comment field is intended for you to supply information about the edit. "CikaAki" is not a good changeset comment. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for details!

"access=no" would mean that the driveway is not usable for anybody, including the owners. If the owners regularly use the driveway, "access=private" would be the correct tag. This would also mean that e.g. a delivery driver (who is generally assumed to have permission to make the delivery) can use the driveway, whereas with an "access=no" driveway the delivery driver would have to park out on the street.

Dear etgg, you have in the past admitted to illegally using OS Mastermap as a source for your OSM contributions. Any contributions copied from OS Mastermap must be removed from OSM, and if OSM were to be found to be a vehicle for copyright violations it would seriously undermine OSM's standing in the UK.

In this changeset, and quite a few others during the last year, you have added information without specifying a source, and this information just so happened to be the same as on OS Mastermap. In order to pre-empt any doubts that people might have, please make it a habit to properly specify your data source when uploading anything it OSM. If your data source is "survey", then be prepared to answer the occasional question about particular data items (for example: how did you determine the locality name "Kiln Dub" added in this changeset); ideally, retain any photos or notes that you have created while surveying so that if someone comes knocking, we can prove that this is indeed a bona fide survey.

If members of the community ask you about the source of something, please don't take that as harassment; they will want to make sure that OSM can prove wrong any accusations of copyright violation. Please answer such questions patiently and truthfully.

I trust that the data you have contributed is indeed from surveys, and the amount of work that must have gone into these surveys is commendable! In the unlikely case, however, that you should repeatedly be unable to supply evidence that something was indeed personally surveyed (or copied from a legal source), then unfortunately OSM would have to assume the worst, namely that the data you contributed wasn't surveyed at all, and would have to delete all your contributions to inoculate us against copyright violation claims.

Dear Sofia_valdez, in this changeset you have drawn rough circles around many individual trees, mapping them as "landcover=trees". Don't do that - place a point and map it "natural=tree" instead. Also, don't place a source tag on the individual objects; place a source tag on the changeset instead. You have tagged your changeset source=bing but your individual areas source=cidi, this is a mismatch.

It is impossible to hold a survey of all people that might perhaps use OSM, and even if it was, it is the makers of OSM that get to decide and not the users. I will not be drawn into discussions - we're not having these styles of names on forest compartments unless the Polish OSM community agrees otherwise. Anyone who has added names like this is requested to remove them again, and anyone who adds these names while being aware that they shouldn't will have their account blocked.

Anyone who insists on adding these names after being told that they shouldn't, will receive an account block (short term at first, longer for repeat offenders). Sock puppet accounts created for the sole purpose of adding these names will be banned outright. If anyone wants to make a map that labels these areas, point them to the umap service where they can do this without impacting the OSM database.

It is not uncommon for a report to identify areas by some sort of name made up for the purpose of that report, but I have a very hard time to believe that if I asked someone where they were today they will reply with "oh, I first thought I might go to 134-letnia Reliktowa Puszcza Borecka but then I changed my mind and took a walk in 120-letnia Ostoja ginących reliktów".

This is a farce. Don't add these names to OSM unless there is a community consensus that adding them in the "name" tag is actually desired in Poland. ("Community consensus" doesn't mean everyone has to say yes, but many more people have to say yes than say no.) It is not enough for you to "present the argument", you need to convince people.

Dear Yog Sot, when adding forest compartments, please specify the data source. Also, "133-letni Grąd w środku Puszczy" is certainly not a NAME - you can add that into the "description" field if you want but please provide suitable sourcing for that information if you do so. Best regards, Frederik Ramm - DWG Ticket #2026070710000391

Please discuss any larger-scale highway type changes in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/road-classification-in-indonesia/145030 before you execute them.

Kannst Du dich erinnern, woher der Name "NatureDome" damals kam, war da ein Schild, oder ein Pressebericht...?