stevea (2020-01-07 21:44:33+00:00): At the risk of both of us being warned about very long change sets, I'll answer.

#1:  This was not a revert, as that is a specific thing and this wasn't that.  It was a correction to some data you changed which left them in an inferior state from how they were.  I simply edited three items (two ways, one relation) so they were "back to correct."  I don't know if "blaming" your software is correct, but I have seen that before (as with bdiscoe) and even done it myself (inadvertently) before I figured out how to avoid it.  To be clear:  in places with existing data (which is correct), there are three possible results from editing there:  improvement (yay, I'm all for it), adding things while leaving what was there alone (fine, so long as what is added is correct), and altering existing data so it becomes inferior.  That does happen, as it did in this case and I don't know how (exactly), except that you were the last one to edit it (and it was fine before that).  Hence, I "put it back to correct."  That's not a revert, it is a correction to an error to existing data.

#2:  A "revert" is using JOSM's "Revert Changeset" command (for example; there are other ways to do this very specific-to-OSM's-database "software verb," but I find the JOSM method to be the most software-straightforward).  This simply wasn't that, it is a verifiable, computer-science-definable fact.

#3:  The data were in worse shape (not terribly, but enough to need fixing) after your edit:  polygons were misaligned ("smeared," there is no pejorative associated with that word in this context, it's a sort of geometric description), they had your name on the edit and I simply "put them back in alignment."  I am perfectly fine with that, OSM is perfectly fine with that.  This was not a revert.  That is not semantics, simply a fact.

#4:  Yes, it does.  The only thing that means "revert" is literally "revert" (in an OSM context).  What I did was correct data edited by you into a slightly incorrect state back to the correct state it was in before your edit.  And there is nothing wrong with doing so.

#5:  There is vandalism (I have seen it and corrected it) and this was not that, I never said it was.  THEN, there is "editing existing data to (slightly) degrade it from how it was written before."  That is what happened with your edit and I "un-degraded" those data back to their "more correct" state.  There is nothing wrong with doing so.  Same with bdiscoe's edits.

#6:  No, it isn't opinion, it is simply geometry, and the "smear" errors were substantial enough that JOSM's validator complained about "overlapping landuse polygons" and other warnings and errors I corrected.  There is nothing wrong with improving geometric errors in OSM, so I do (did).

#7:  See www.thefreedictionary.com/smear definition 1c:  "To cause to be blurry or spread in unwanted places."  No pejorative, simply the geometric effect of placing two polygons on top of one another (one correctly placed, the other not) resulting in them being "smeared" when compared with one another.

#8:  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sloppy definition 1 says "Marked by or given to a lack of neatness or order; untidy."  However, it also says (as def 2) "Showing or in the habit of using little care or attention" which is NOT how I mean this, as I think that you do show care and attention to your edits.  (But in this specific case, you could have shown more care towards the existing data).  OK, I'll concede a poor choice of word on my part with that, and for that I apologize.  (Smear, I'm OK with, sloppy, poor choice).

#9:  Adam, you don't always contact every single user when you make a correction in the map which is obvious, so let's (both of us) not be the pot calling the kettle black.  I and others in this map, frequently "simply correct obvious errors."  This includes you doing so, too.

#10:  I don't know who you mean by "plenty of people" and I don't know exactly what you mean by "do this around here."  That vagueness is what doesn't cut it.  I do my best to address your concerns, but when they are non-specific, I literally cannot.

#11:  Your doubt is mistaken; I did review.  I was quite careful as I am experienced in seeing these polygons as I have edited them many times and seen various sorts of errors associated with them.  (Have you?)

There is no back-pedaling here, I stand behind everything I did and everything I said (and say).

Now, let's do what DWG just suggested in changeset/79263054 and stay out of each other's sandboxes.  OSM is much better as both of us avoid each other's edits.  California is a big place with much cleanup/improvement that can be done.  Being hundreds of km away from me, surely you can find things to edit closer to home (and you have, until recently).

Peace.  Out.