GITNE (2020-09-01 02:59:43+00:00): > I'll assume you took so long to respond because you were searching the wiki for anything suggesting what I did was wrong, and you provided no link because you came up empty-handed.

No. Never assume about other people. So much for arrogance…
But, if you really want to know: Other people have lives and also other obligations. The time it takes for me to answer has nothing to do with you or anybody. I have also other work to do than just answering some messages in a timely manner.

> I've noticed you left those exceptions unspecified, presumably because you couldn't think of any that are relevant here.

I did not. Again, read.

>> I would have kept quiet and accepted your change if it was not for your arrogance on top of ignorance and dilettantism.
> 
> Which you inferred from my change because there was no prior communication of any variety between us, which proves this is not true.

I neither did nor had to infer. The evidence is in the changeset history.

>> Have you ever considered why I mapped these specific addresses they way I did?
> 
> Not much. I'm not going to waste my time on speculation.

Alright, then here we have your problem.
Mapping is not about speculation or ignorance. It is about collecting verifiable data and caring for the data (do not mistaken this for assuming ownership of the data). And now, I am going to reveal a “secret” to you: This takes time and effort.

> You could have told me, probably in less than it took you to make all these aggressive comments.

First of all, saying the truth is not being aggressive. Just because somebody tells the truth about you or what you did does not mean he or she is insulting you.
Second, not everything can or should be referenced with a specific link. As I have already mentioned, you have already found the necessary information to properly map (in this case) addresses. Then please do so. You see, all it took you was just a little bit of effort and you also were able to do it on your own. Third, apply your newly acquired knowledge in the real world. Verify your knowledge against reality. Fourth, work diligently.

Apparently, @b-jazz seems to understand why I have reverted your changesets. Well, maybe because @b-jazz is more experienced than you are? Or, maybe because @b-jazz thinks before he/she acts?

> There's clearly nothing to be gained by continuing this "debate", so I'm forfeiting. Not because I'm wrong, but because I'm better than you. I'm not going to let you bait me into an edit war. You've failed at being either civil or informative, but through sheer hostility, you've won. Congratulations.

This is not about winning or losing. If you really think this is the case then you truly have a personality problem. OpenStreetMap is about collecting verified map data and sharing it with others. Over time, OpenStreetMap has also developed a certain set of quality standards for data acquisition and data production. This discussion tool has been created exactly for these quality issues. Imho, unfortunately OpenStreetMap still allows for low quality commits. There are advantages to this, like low barrier of entry for newcomers. On the other hand, it becomes problematic for many consumers of the map data if data is modified or even broken by unaware (new) contributors. This is especially the case for businesses and companies who rely on OpenStreetMap data. So, you see, the issue here was your lack of due diligence. Just because OpenStreetMap accepts every commit it does not mean that “hip shot commits” are or should be accepted. In other words this means for you: please do not “prettify” the map. Before you make any changes, even if they are supposed to be consistency changes only (which are welcome), please still verify with the situation on the ground and then be truly diligent when executing the change.