3 years issue with individual making subjective deletions, created 8 accounts, etc

Good to hear another perspective @Kugelbaum . Can you confirm that the 8 accounts listed in the document are/were yours?

1 Like

Thank you so much for your post! Please keep reading, I could demonstrate how Kugelbaum made me responsible for a mistake that himself made (my paragraph with Screenshot of reverted changeset 96931968) and how his claims are biased.

Photos that obviously you misplace conveniently while shooting unrelated objects.

Digital-line is another contributor since 2017 i know personally. It happened we contributed at the same moment with different JOSM versions.
Him 2023.09.13 at 13:16 and 2023.09.13 at 13:05
Me 2023.09.13 at 13:19 and 2023.09.13 at 13:08
Pitty we don’t have access to IP logs to show we are from different countries…

No-more-anger is indeed an account I had created, but I don’t use it really, it has only 14 edits. I created it because I found it unfair that woodpeck blocked me whereas I gave him evidence I had been on terrain. This is another issue where i need to contact the board members.

Agree with the definition… Nevertheless you do delete ways that are totally walkable. About 25 examples i’ve enclosed here are evidence with photos, videos and even several other people! What’s your excuse for those deletions? You are not the one who decides if there are many or not. That’s a subjective selection!

Same goes when you use decide what is authorized or not, or use the term illegal whereas there is nothing to prove so.
Beautiful example on this note: you deleted a track over grass for the reason “Let people take the semi paved way around”, despite vehicle traces and a touristic info board in the middle of that grass area. Where is the logic? Can’t you realize that maybe some years ago there were heavier vehicle trails and since then grass has grown, or is it because it’s not crossable as you say? No huge weeds, branches, fallen trunks though, according your definition!

By the way, what do you have to say to the person who reported his constant mail issues because of your false building addresses?

changeset 102199648: Just a normal discussion between 2 contributors, everything explained, none of your direct business.

way 603101581: it is usable on the S side as visible on your photo yet you erased it. N end, there is a trail for 15m I surveyed during night and I could find the entrance but the hill is steep and it’s possible that at its end people try to find different safe portions between trees hence less visible. It’s one of those ambiguous trails.

changeset 124929084: just another normal discussion, none of your direct business

changeset 145249532: a track i created five years ago and he deleted a month ago! Isn’t nature allowed to grow/evolve? You can’t even realize that…

changeset 131245821: You talk about way 892073686 going on field, I’ve been there from N side. Revert my CS 96931968 and you will see it’s a new way after splitting your track, yes you are the original creator of that track! On terrain the only continuity possible was on the field’s border. On OSM, I had make sense out of you mistaken addition, cut and displace further E on the field because it was not crossable where you placed it. YOU HAVE SUCH A NERVE to say i created it!!!
Screenshot of reverted changese 96931968! I had explained you this years ago, you still don’t get it…

Khushaldas%20Badhan notes: all paths have been created at least 3 years ago, some more, are paths leading to hunting stands and are rarely used, for the tracks + walls I’m not concerned at all. Again, your analysis is flawed just like the previous example.

Overpass-Turbo query: is this how I’ve been able to count all these 756 steps? Or are those also from LIDAR?

Overpass-Turbo query: is this how I’ve been able to warn people on notes that Geopoertail.lu Topo has mistakes? I’ve started writing these 7 years ago because people were trusting it blindly.

I’ve contributed to OSM for a decade, encountering occasional differing opinions but nothing serious. You, as what I have observed, are a very unethical. You use sock-puppet accounts like eyasonu here, you propagate rumours about my private life (according @woodpeck ), you create misplaced photos and claim objects do not exist…

To the real contributors reading, I’ve learned with time that OSM success hinges on objective actions: go on terrain, observe existence, insert it in OSM with the appropriate tags. I just hope people here will check at least some of my counter-argumentation to realize what is really going on.

I digged through the user blocks and found the original block issued by the DWG and a follow-up that suspected block evasion.

This might give additional perspective so I thought it’s worth sharing here.

My personal summary of the DWG position: Both mappers should not make edits that could be viewed as controversial and should seek community consensus for their mapping disagreements. They should both refrain from personal attacks and bad-mouthing the other person.

So I think the approach of both here is flawed: They should try to find a consensus on mapping styles within the community that they both can then adhere to. Instead this thread seems to feature many personal attacks which the DWG warned against.

1 Like

I appreciate that your try to sort this out, thanks! However that’s not the original block. Everything started on this one 3 years ago. The last 9 blocks are all because of this complex issue. Dare I say, woodpeck is still in charge of the ticket since the issue was never given any verbal conclusion. I was waiting in the hope but then ex tomolobla changed account to occult himself. Because of woodpeck’s silence, I tried to expose this person through comments and fixme tags explaining directly on data. UnfortunatelySomeoneElse and woodeck interpreted this as ad-hominem. According definition or see this diagram, I was rather trying to counterargument with the aim to stop the on going deletions.

I totally would love to find a consensus and get rid of this issue but this is only possible with reasonable people who are honest and ethical. All my speech here is just an attempt to demonstrate this person is not at all reasonable. Also how could I also forgive someone who spreads rumours about my private life and creates sock-puppet accounts to contact others and discredit me…

Edit: also this issue is not only about mapping style. In my point of view, it’s about deletions of features that exist on the ground.

At least for now, could we just talk about whether a specific feature (or perhaps two or three at most) should be mapped or deleted?


Yes sure, that’s all I want in the end: the existing features rendered back on the map. Thanks for refocusing!
● On my Komoot activity with GPS and photos there are 2 deleted ways

● Finally, this path is a connection between the village Goebelsmühle and a road at top of the hill, very valuable and safe for hikers since the road CR348 has no sidewalk.
Unrendered v4 by Digital-circle. See video and clear start photo for reference to the train station.

Pheeew! You two have a lot of energy.

You could be a highly productive team, you could be Luxemburg Allstars on OSM, a shining example of dedication, if you used this energy in a constructive way.


With the motivation we have, we really could be. I actually once made a proposal to coordinate individual surveys but the tilt had already happened.
Which leads me to ask S to please, please calm down :peace_symbol:

Following requests (I’ll also do the fixes):
way 123096070 There has been added a fence, as mapped, blocking off the access to the road. I’ve seen the fence while passing there.
way 149684381 Good, the 2021 imagery showed another tendance.
way 892809415 Weird one, see the fixme. Oddly, I remember see a private sign for a few months on that stairs after the local hiking trail was removed. But ok, can be put back, I also checked the parcels.
way 603101581 Ok, first 15m from N to be de-deactivated, sorry but S is rapidly decaying as the official hiking trail has been removed. This is in line with the new user’s feedback.
Leading me to: Your page long changeset comments do shoo away new contributors. The new contributors I featured only follow the tracks-to-map definition I wrote above. Sorry, but they don’t need essays on your personal preferences. People just block off.

I am (too) tolerant but I am not fine with you painting the picture that you exclusively map what you survey. You did map for years nearly exclusively off of lidar and strava heatmap. Creating many quite crucial path/track links that don’t exist. This indeed led me to distrust your edits. Not finding mapped ways on the ground is very frustrating. I’ve received feedback from several active people having planned (oc unbeknown) off of OSM data who encountered many inexisting or overgrown ways. (Leaving away their expletives.) That is a reality.

I am also not tolerating how and what you wrote on my photo notes in Belgium. See Note: 4065292 | OpenStreetMap The photos are clear, the leaves have fallen months ago.
The private sign at Note: 4064823 | OpenStreetMap leaves room for interpretation, yes people do ignore private signs (which ironically aren’t always legal but we map them). Your further remark, with your screenshot, on the heat of the E path shows exactly your recurring wrong interpretation of strava heatmap. It shows here that a few people got lost searching for ways. As a meanwhile deleted photo note (https://i.postimg.cc/tC9G1Qfh/192587.jpg) showed, there is definitely no connection. Again, this is a perfect example of how faint heatmap looks that should not be mapped without surveying or photos from other people. If you’d map following this, most our problems would instantly be gone. I am not exaggerating.


Please - try and make a case for how things should be mapped without making a case against other mappers. On this block I wrote “However, any attempt to bully other OSM contributors will be dealt with harshly.”. You’ve been dangerously close to that both in this thread and your previous one. It’s great that you’re discussing things here but you have to do that in a way that doesn’t belittle other people.

1 Like

We are not done. I wanted to leave some time so that the community comments on the last examples I gave…

It’s not a tagging problem, it is mainly about deletions of existing features and other falsifications like the false address!
For these last 3 ways, Kugelbaum confirmed himself that he was not right to erase.
Plus 2 ways (link to village and concrete bridge) we discussed here more above and he pseudo-restored.
Plus these steps he deleted in 2021 then restored here after I posted evidences here.
Plus a path leading to a bench he deleted v5 in 2021, I restored, then he deletes again v7 in 2023 but he restores v8. Seriously!
Plus 2 ways confirmed by contributors Stijn Bossuyt here and loukote here, these guys are part of the community.

TEN FEATURES FALSIFIED confirmed here and ZERO confirmation i added fake ways. Reminder, I listed about 35 issues in my external file.
So what… isn’t this enough to confirm he repetitively falsifies data!
Do we need more??? I’m getting tired of wasting my energy!

I said (and you quoted me above) “try and make a case for how things should be mapped without making a case against other mappers”. In your reply above you have completely failed to do that.

You are just repeating some of the same things, such as:

As I’m sure everyone here is aware your addition of “fake ways” was extensively discussed here, and was one of the things mentioned in this block here as well.

With regard to your interpretation of “paths” (or historical paths) in Luxembourg. I’ve reviewed copious evidence provided by “both sides” in the dispute. One view isn’t exclusively correct and the other side wrong - what is needed is a bit of common sense and a bit of compromise. Messages such as the one that you have just posted unfortunately suggest that you are utterly incapable of that.

OpenStreetMap, by its very nature, is a shared enterprise. If you can’t work together with other people I can only suggest that it is not the project for you.

(to be clear, I’m writing as one of the Data Working Group people who has been involved in this dispute over the years).


EXCUSE ME??? I just synthesised what has been confirmed in this post, by other contributors and I counted how much has been confirmed.

You are ignoring the demonstrations and try to reverse the situation by making a case against me ! You just allowed youself to do what you’ve suggested us to avoid. Since you are going on that pathetic path, I’ll defend myself.

To all contributors reading, please keep a neutral critical mindset based on facts. Like on this post, my experience has raised questions about potential conflicts of interest among certain DWG members. Instead of prioritizing impartial assessment based on data and facts, some have overlooked misjudgments to maintain favorable relationships with their peers. Hello favoritism/nepotism! Be aware that several of these individuals run businesses that benefit from OSM data. Unlike them, I am solely a volunteer with no commercial ties to OSM.

The DWG is prone to errors also, they are certainly not perfect! They are supposed to intervene for OSM’s data and rely on facts with knowledge. Yet, as I’ve demonstrated here, I’ve been able to teach SomeoneElse something after he dared jumping on me with “As xxx makes clear” " thinking i had reverted a CS but he was just fooled by the software. @SomeoneElse, you didn’t even excuse yourself! Awful style!

You failed here too claiming @mariotomo was bullying but others thought his comments were OK. He just genuinely cares about data.

So it would be more relevant to have evidence to support what you’re saying about me otherwise that is defamation and punishable by law! You have never been able to point directly with text or data showing i have bad behaviour throughout the multiple times I’ve asked in order to understand. No wonder I’m pissed off!

All my blocks explained:

  1. 2016, I was using MPs to ease my contributions because iD is a hassle. I’ve admited this and corrected myself.
  2. 2021, is when this issue started, woodpeck asked both parts to only contribute what we had surveyed while DWG would investigate, no investigation response was ever given though.
  3. 3 days later, even though the day before i sent woodpeck GPS data, photos etc of my survey, this unfair block states my CS was not based on a survey. This is the block that made me lose hope about the DWG.
  4. unfair block on a desperate attempt to warn my region (LU is small) directly on fixmes or CS with evidence, because after several months there was still no investigation response from DWG, deletions were still going on.
  5. unfair block about a feature I’ve demonstrated correct
        1. unfair blocks because I was still attempting to warn my region.
  1. unfair block because woodpeck was fed up after I reported ltwo AKA Kugelbaum for deleting cliffs.

All this non sense yet I keep my account!? I know where i stand!

That thread from dpolovinkin you linked has nothing to do with “me adding fake ways”! It’s a complaint about “too many cliffs based on LIDAR”, he dared to erase many before discussion. Several people @Mammi71 @Vinzenz_Mai @tekim @yvecai either confirmed what he did was “bad style”, the cliffs I contributed were correct and/or that LIDAR is a good tool. dpolovinkin even restored them!

Indeed I don’t want to work with a person having unethical behaviours and questionable contributions demonstrated in this post! Yet you ignore it all… I’ve always welcomed others to discuss with me, should it be critics with evidences. I don’t mind and would gladly correct myself!

oh, another thread!
just to mention, there were also some people there in my thread who were saying that such lidar mapping is redundant/unnecessary, you just, as I see, decided not to mention it here, when you obviously went through all the thread collecting usernames for this thread for make this…argument…? :slight_smile:

And oh, you again warping the situation here, I restored those cliffs not because I saw that they are correct, don’t make a wrong assumption, but because it is only right, I realised, to not change anything before there is a consensus in community.

And it’s actually quite perplexing, putting topic aside, to see someone with 10 blocks in his profile who really thinks that virtually all of them are unfair and he was so wronged.

To rephrase: “if everywhere you go smells bad, maybe it’s time to check your shoes”, don’t you think?

I hope that both (@dpolovinkin and @SHARCRASH) of you realize that you are not collecting any brownie points for your continuous arguing and that you are both well on the way to joining the small and exclusive group of people that have been perma-banned from participating in OSM.

If you can’t reach consensus on how to map something specific, then simply stop mapping it and leave it to other people. There are always more than enough other things to do in OSM.


hi Simon, is there a mistake here, what are you talking about, which continuous arguing? I see other people having big and heated discussions here, I literally just chimed in. And me perma-banned from OSM - for which exact reason?

1 Like

While you might be the innocent bystander, you are still fuelling the conflagration, so please simply stop.


Hi Simon,

I’m trying to highlight that several features already properly tagged and positioned have been abusively deleted. The author of the deletions acknowledged himself his errors and restored some, albeit with mistakes. That’s why I told SomeoneElse it’s not a “tagging issue” rather a “deletion issue”.

@ZeLonewolf emphasized “The important thing is to establish an editing issue and then a pattern in the first place.” I’ve waited 3 weeks so that people here can acknowledge and/or comment if there is any tagging issue, no one commented. So in my post i compiled them back to demonstrate what seems to me a pattern. If it’s not, please explain and give the number of examples needed.

Please feel free to point out the words, the phrase in my post that shows I’m flaming the discussion.

I’m just following suggestions here yet some people bark at me.
So again in order to follow suggestions, what do I have to do now?
Continue posting every deletion in the forum?
Wait a tagging discussion about elements there were already properly tagged?
Gentle reminder: 3 years old issue…

The main patterns and editing issues I see here are:

  1. Inability of @SHARCRASH to get to the point
  2. Ten DWG blocks without change in behavior
  3. @SHARCRASH’s exhausting communication style that makes people not want to deal with them

Therefore I assess that:

  1. @SHARCRASH is probably in the right on many or most of their editing disputes
  2. It doesn’t matter that much because the signal to noise ratio of their communication style is so low that it massively demotivates anyone that might want try to investigate or intervene
  3. DWG shares some blame in allowing an account with ten blocks to continue editing
  4. The forum moderators share some blame in allowing this thread to continue and lend credence to the idea that anything about this word salad of a complaint is normal.

@SHARCRASH I hope you will understand that the main reason nobody is listening to you is because your messages are incredibly time-intensive to read, parse, and comprehend. They bring up long editing disputes from the past that require the reader to jump into deep rabbit holes to get up to speed on.

All this adds up to my conclusion that you are so utterly disrespectful of people’s time that you think nothing of asking them to spend massive amounts of time on what amounts to a research project.