Hello courage325, please take the time to follow tutorials from the mapgive and learnosm sites. You've wrongly mapped some highways as streams and major roads as path.

http://mapgive.state.gov/learn-to-map/
http://learnosm.org/en/

Hello Peter, Bing imagery has huge distortions in the high mountains (especially along ridges and peaks) and is therefore unsuitable for tracing ridges.

A mixture of Landsat imagery and SRTM heigh data to verify if the imagery is correctly aligned (for example OpenCycleMap Layer in JOSM) would fit your needs.

Regards, Arch

Hello Poshan, please do not upload bulk boundary ways which do not match with the already existing boundaries. Please use boundary relations [1] instead. When you import something you also have to follow the import guidelines [2] and make sure that you do not infringe copyright.

Regards, Arch

[1] osm.wiki/Relation:boundary
[2] osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Hallo seichter, mir ist gerade aufgefallen, dass du ein paar Grate anhand von Bing-Bildern eingetragen hast. Leider sind die Bing-Bilder im Hochgebirge, vor allem entlang der Grate und Gipfel ziemlich verzerrt. Landsat-Aufnahmen hingengen sind meinem Gefühl nach wenig bis garnicht verzerrt. Zur Kontrolle vergleiche ich dann immer noch mit SRTM-Höhendaten (z.B. die OpenCycleMap in JOSM enthält Höhendaten).

Gruß Arch

Hello Steve Bower, please do not copy from Google Satellite. Copying from Google Satellite is a infringement of Google's copyright as OpenStreetMap has no permission to use this imagery.

You can use imagery from Bing or Mapbox as those gave permission to OpenStreetMap to use their imagery for mapping purposes.

If you don't know how to classify a road please leave the classification as it is. When you draw new roads you can tag them with highway=road so that a mapper with more experience will take a look at it.

Tagging rural vehicular highways: osm.wiki/Nepal/Roads#Tagging_rural_vehicular_highways

Hello Roshni Roy, motorable ways shouldn't be tagged as path.

Hello ninjamask, please do not merge those glaciers. The glaciers flow in completely different directions and do not belong together.

Regards Arch

(done) - has control of the territory --> No. Just because someone went to a place and placed a flag there does not mean that he controls this territory. Liberland currently has no control over the territory. The flag was removed and the Croation police prevents that unauthorized persons can enter the territory. [1]

(what you mean?) - the territory must include land mass --> for example Sealand has no land territory, it is only an installation at sea within the British territory (not relevant for Liberland).

(in progress) - is recognized by a reasonable number of other states (How many states recognized Transnistria? why they still vandalize Moldavian Map? --> Transnistria isn't mapped as an independent state (it isn’t tagged with admin_level=2 and it is included in the Moldovian territory).

"This would be of course a matter of discussion with the OSM community."

sounds like we are not part of community
--> Sorry, I don’t want to say that you aren’t part of the community. Please forget this sentence. The sentence was formulated incomprehensible.

[1] https://liberland.org/en/forum/?threadID=1990459895531850e4e7da

achso, ok. Dann hängt wohl der Renderingserver ziemlich stark mit dem neurendern der Kacheln hinterher.

Hallo, mir ist gerade aufgefallen dass der Langtang Nationalpark nicht mehr gerendert wird. Ich vermute, dass das umtaggen der äußeren Linien auf boundary=protected_area diesen Fehler ausgelöst hat und habe die Linien nun mit boundary=national_park getaggt. Gruß Arch

On the fly I'd say that the following requirements should be fullfilled before Liberland can be added into the OSM database:

- has control of the territory

- has citizens

- has state authority (government, head of state, parliament, police, court etc.)

- the territory must include land mass

- is recognized by a reasonable number of other states

This would be of course a matter of discussion with the OSM community.

Yes, I'd propose to set the boundary along the middle of the main navigable channel of the Danube as I've visualized: http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/de/map/line-of-control-serbia-croatia_38142

Hello Poshan, please do not upload bulk boundary ways which do not match with the already existing boundaries. Please use boundary relations [1] instead. When you import something you also have to follow the import guidelines [2] and make sure that you do not infringe copyright.

Regards, Arch

[1] osm.wiki/Relation:boundary
[2] osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Hello Samuel, please stop adding fictional countries. If you want to map Liberland you can use services like http://opengeofiction.net/ or http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/ for your purpose.

@mitzip, my motivation is to make boundaries in OSM worldwide as accurate as possible. You’re right, Google etc. can’t be taken as reference as they’ve also poor boundaries in some cases.

The current boundary along the Danube doesn’t reflect OSM policies [1]. It represents the Croatian viewpoint (along the old river course) and not the de facto boundary.

The combination of parts of the Croatian claim with parts of the Serbian claim (as shown by their GIS agencies) makes no sense as those claims are incompatible with each other. The claims only make sense when you look at them separately.

Nevertheless, the different claims (as shown by the national GIS agencies) are irrelevant for OSM. OSM is only interested in the line of control as boundary. [2] This line lies in the middle of the main navigable channel. [3][4] I’ve visualized the line of control. [5]

[1] compare with http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf
[2] http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf
[3] Page 25, https://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/publications/view/?id=218
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia%E2%80%93Serbia_border_dispute#Territorial_claims
[5] http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/de/map/line-of-control-serbia-croatia_38142

I've removed the misplaced parts of the riverbed: changeset/30592087

Bing/Mapbox imagery is heavily distorted in some parts around Budhi Gandaki. Source: comparison with GPS-Tracks, SRTM-Data, Landsat Imagery.

See also:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#15/28.4220/84.8907&num=4&mt0=mapnik&mt1=google-map&mt2=bing-satellite&mt3=google-satellite

Hello Helina, I've informed the Data Working Group about this undiscussed import which causes various problems.
I've forwarded my mail also to the HOT mailinglist [1] to avoid that further undiscussed imports happen.

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/hot/2015-April/008309.html

by pressing "s" in the iD-editor you can make buildings rectangular.

Bing/Mapbox imagery is distorted in this area. Please do not adjust the ways. http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#16/28.3297/84.9075&num=4&mt0=mapnik&mt1=bing-map&mt2=bing-satellite&mt3=google-satellite