Failure to abide by the terms (co-operation with the rest of the OSM community) set in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15905 .

Edit: Just to outline some of the reasoning behind this block:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15905 requested that you apologise, and went on to say:

“After that, we’ll expect you do behaving in a respectful way towards the rest of the community, engage in adult discussion over the points where you may disagree and accept the consensus that results.”

The apology can be seen at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/my-apology-to-my-fellow-osm-editors/111649 . That said “… and I will change the way I communicate”. Unfortunately there has been little evidence of that. There’s been little at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/oceania/73 , and what can be seen at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=435139 / https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=435139&commented doesn’t really include an attempt at justification for (for example) the “junction=yes”. You eventually just reverted that in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150094405 , with no attempt at wider discussion.

In terms of how we go forward from here, I think we’d need to see something suggesting a genunine change of attitude. I find it genuinely amazing that on https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/149827539 you can write “because they were deleted again I have reverted the deletion and reported the user for vandalism for deleting perfectly fine data from the map. based on lack of understanding the wiki page. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150094405” and not expect a problem. I’ve reset the length of this block https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15954 to 1 month (the same as https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15621 was).

After it has expired I can only suggest that if you see someone has changed a tag from X to Y (and you think it should be X) that you don’t feel tempted to change back to X. Just leave it. Go and map something else instead.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM’s Data Working Group.

Edit 2 28/4/2024:

The DWG has recently received a message from this user saying “ok, when I am allowed to edit I will be changing the classification of roads to match up with our official source, if anybody thinks a road is not classified correctly after that they can open a discussion about it afterwards.”

That is not OK, and this block has therefore been extended until they promise NOT to do that. When we receive that promise, and it seems that that promise is actually trustworthy, we will reduce this block to a smaller number approximating to the amount of the original block (19 days or so from now).

Edit 3 3/5/2024:

The DWG has recently received a message from this user saying they won’t unilaterally changing highway class. I’ll therefore reduce the length of this block back towards the original length (with the caveat that we can’t set arbitrary blocks of X days for any X). Hopefully we don’t have to go round this mulberry bush any more times.