Great, well done. It's always good to provide a copy of those communications in the talk group (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-africa), they also exist for other countries (osm.wiki/Mailing_lists). Telegram is not OSM's preferred communication channel, a lot of community members don't use it, same like facebook and twitter. Or you could provide more details on your organised editing wiki page about which communities you contacted and when, just to avoid this kind of confusion. MapUganda surely represents a large community (is not a local chapter) in Uganda. You might get in touch with others through telegram, OSM RDC (Democratic Republic of Congo) also uses it but many others don't. Always willing to help, greetings, Bert Araali.

We have WikiProject Uganda. On all related pages all the contacts and contact channels are listed. We also have talk-ug. We have the user pages per country... . I agree communication to the broader OSM community, outside of HOTOSM, has been problematic, but they are there. Let me take a look at the community pages and your diary Andy, didn't do that so far. See how I can help to improve it with consent of the community.

I was reading all of that carefully Andy. But do you find that sufficient? Are they affiliated with other interests or just a group of local enthusiasts ? Also to be fair - the changes they have done so far (most about 4 months ago) seem to be of good quality and so far don't violate our local tagging guidelines. But I am worried about some statements they make like checking the accuracy of already mapped roads with GPS information they so far don't share with the community. Also they want to engage local teams to check ground truth, but as far as my contacts go they have not done that yet, at least not in Uganda. Do they have local community members who create new accounts to work in this group ? I don't know, I have not contacted the broader community here but surely will do in the coming days.

Yep, except Bolt004. So what does this mean ? That after providing the requested links 3 days ago now the group is growing rapidly disregarding... ? How big is this going to grow. Who creates these accounts ? Is there a problem adding the information when the accounts are created ?

Sorry Andy, I was a bit sloppy, the numbers consists of 3 numbers, so it's Bolt004, Bolt007, Bolt012, Bolt013, Bolt014, Bolt015, Bolt016, Bolt022 and Bolt023. They are listed on their Organised Edit wiki page. I didn't search if there are more, just checked those. Sorry for the confusion.

I see only very few updated profiles. Of the 23 currently created the following still show no link: Bolt0004, Bolt0007, Bolt0012, Bolt0013, Bolt0014, Bolt0015, Bolt0016, Bolt0022 and Bolt0023. So it's to bold to say all, 9 out of 23 are not. Regarding to your Organised Editing Guidelines you state you always contact the local communities or an active community member before starting your activities. However I have not seen any of that in Uganda, no trace on talk-ug of any attempt. As a very active community member in Uganda I already have concerns regarding proper imagery alignment and our specific road classification. Also I have noticed some unclear comments on changesets by your own members, f.i. changeset/92881255. So when and how are you going to improve this since you are very active in mapping changes recently ? In Uganda your activities are of growing worries and concern to the local community.

True, copy paste mistake. Corrected it. Thanks for the help.

OK thanks so much ! Will check out the deep history add on. Can be very useful.

Hello mueschel, seen you changed some of the boundaries I recently added. Was there a problem ? Please share what you changed since I can't figure it out from the changeset. Try to avoid for coming borders since they are many. Greetings.

Thank you for restoring Lake Victoria. Will take a look at the boundary issue. Can you inform okwii that they should not revert or restore ? He's quite new so probaly doesn't know what to do now.

OK rab, see it now on lowest zoom level, thanks so much !

Hello rab, seen the restore changeset/87817475. Guess we have to wiat for the renderer to update the tiles. Will take a look at the boundary problem.

Hello rab, have you restored it ? I have downloaded both relations and did a dummy change on it, so can upload it. I am still not seeing the Lake in OSM yet.

Hello, confirmed, we are missing Lake Victoria, please revert this chageset or restore it, is URGENT ! Lots of people are working on it.

Some overlapping ways caused the whole Lake Victoria to render incorrectly. Took the community nearly a month to find and resolve. Please next time check your warnings for overlapping ways and resolve them.

Hello Andy, it mainly is. The landuse=residential tag is added consistent with refugee camp tagging used elsewhere in Uganda and International. It came out of a long discussion and the lack of a specific landuse tag for refugee camps. The relation shows the border and land assigned by the government for refugee settlement. Although not all of the land might be "for residential" use yet, it grows continuously. A lot of land is used for agriculture, by refugees, but typically have their homes on that land. You find more about the tagging convention here: osm.wiki/Refugee_Camp_Mapping and osm.wiki/WikiProject_Uganda/Conventions and osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Refugee_Camp_Boundaries.

Hello, I did some more research which showed that traffic signs which are not tagged as parts or nodes on a highway are completely ignored. Now they are essential parts in traffic control and in mapping in general. So I think the best solution is to go for a compromise being adding a node at the actual location beside of the way and additionally putting a node on the highway as from where the traffic sign takes effect. This way both mapping is correct and the functionality of traffic control is also integrated in the maps. I also found that this way of tagging is used in many other countries.

Very much true. I did the same for Ugandan traffic signs. Using the keys traffic_sign=UG:number. However, if you look in the wiki for the Highway tag you find values like give_way and stop, as the wiki says to indicate the location of a give_way or stop sign. The highway key however doesn't give this description for the roundabout sign. So to be consistent I used a same key with a value "roundabout" not described yet in the wiki. I think we have an inconsistency here with the stop and give_way descriptions in the highway tag. Or is the highway tag only used to indicate the postion of the marker line on the highway ? It's very unclear. Maybe we should take this to a forum discussion on the highway tag ? I could add the nodes again for the roundabout signs with only the traffic_sign tag. How do you see it ?

Hi, the routing apps I meant are maps.me (OSRM based) and OsmAnd. I use those to test routes when moving around.
Mueschel's comment explains it clearly but my intention was different. The nodes with the junction=roundabout was tagged to define the location of the traffic signposts. For traffic signs I use both methods, node on the way and a node next to the way. If we delete the nodes on the way the routing software doesn't announce or show the traffic sign ? (still testing this). If we delete them and only focus on the mapping of the highway sections I fully agree and understand Mueschel's and the Wiki, but this doesn't cover the location of traffic signs.

Hello Gerd,
Thank you for helping to improve. I'm not really getting your point about the junction=roundabout issue. You say we should not use it on a node ? Or do you mean not use it on the short access roads to the junction ? I know I mostly use two methods because in differences in routing apps. I use hoghway=junction on the road section part of the roundabout and I put a node at every beginning of the roundabout on the highway with junction=<type of junction> . To my experience this works best in most commonly used routing apps. How do you see it different ?