Sorry Nathan, but this isn’t completely true and I’m concerned about previous edits as well. One of your bigger contributors stated that:
I usually just check against Google Maps
and:
I would check against Google Maps. If the place is marked as open, it’s enough of proof imo
when another user of your community wrote:
I typed “Google” in the edit box in OSM once and it [another OSM user] yelled at me
the same user replied:
Yea, I wouldn’t mention Google in change set comments. There is no need to mention the source or to be too explicit, “Delete nonexistent place” should suffice
This seems very fishy to me. The “Organized Edits Guidelines” states that:
What NOT to do
- Trying to hide activities or make them difficult to follow
- being dishonest in discussions
- specifying wrong sources.
the same user wrote:
I usually check the same location on Google Maps
Also, Google Maps provides a lot of fields which can be copied to OSM
Again, a user in your community wrote:
so should we just trust the submissions or try to verify somehow
to which you replied:
We should try and verify. Quick Google usually suffices.
Another github issue that proves that you partly use invalid sources with non-compatible licences as Google and Bitcoin Events to verify POIs: here
I would suggest you to stop relying on Google and Google Maps data as your source, and possibly deleting the data that comes from those sources that was already added to the OSM database.
Another problem I noticed is that some of your contributors do not reply to changeset comments while keeping editing on OSM and being active in your community. I quote the guidelines once again:
Contributors should respond to communication attempts made in good faith by other contributors.
The “Galoy hiccup” user didn’t replied publicly, but wrote in your community:
And now I just re-uploaded the Peruvian ones he deleted, 77 new nodes (half of the 154 they deleted)
So all 361 from the demo yesterday are back up and should be in a good state
This isn’t a collaborative behaviour in my opinion (such as this wiki edit war from today).
Maybe they have a now invalid email and/or they do not receive changeset comments e-mails notifications? Could you check it with them please?
The Github wiki has some problems as well. The wiki/Content page features a tutorial video for new mappers that explains that the changeset comments are meaningless. I would add a post scriptum to that video linking to this page: Good changeset comments - OpenStreetMap Wiki.
The wiki/Tagging Instructions page states that:
Points, not Ways
Please tag points and not ways. If ways already exist, consider adding a point in addition.
This goes against the One feature, one OSM element - OpenStreetMap Wiki principle. The same rule is wrote here: Cryptocurrency - OpenStreetMap Wiki
What this means in practice is that we advice using the currency=* on a point
As I also wrote in the Wiki discussion page, who is “we”? Where was this discussed? Some elements can totally be tagged as ways. Such as some shops in a gallery tagged as indoor=room, or a kiosk as building=kiosk, or a mall with building=retail ecc. You have an open issue about this, I don’t personally think it’s an issue. I think it would be easier for your map to render ways as well, not every mapper would like to see his surveyed area shifted into a less detailed node because of Bitcoin rendering.
Another problem from the GH Wiki is the suggestion to use survey:date=*. Some contributors use the same survey:date with the same day value for edits in 2-3 different continents. Maybe you want to change it with a source:date suggestion.
Anyway, I’m happy to read you will start following the guidelines, maybe you didn’t know about licences until now, you can read more about it here. You could also link this forum to your community so they have a broader community to ask questions about mapping if they have doubts and questions 
I would also like to read more feedback from other users about the “prefer nodes over ways” hint that is wrote in the GH and OSM Wiki.