Project 8886 seems not to exist on HOT website. Please explain what you did in the changeset comment.

Can you please explain why this changeset changed the international border between DRC and UG and why you are doing mass deletions ?

Project 8886 seems not to exist on HOT website. Please explain what you did in the changeset comment.

Can you please explain why this changeset changed the international border between DRC and UG and why you are doing mass deletions ?

Dear, even after validation the buildings remain misaligned. Some are round huts but drawn still as square buildings. In this case the misalignment was caused by previous changes to correct aligned roads according GPS tracks and re-alignment to satellite imagery. Everything is off by 5m now. I created another calibration point in Kibuku and re-aligned the roads again to the correct GPS tracks, UNRA GPS, Mapillary and OpenStreetCam. Please start mapping only after aligning your imagery to GPS tracks in OSM or, if not available the existing roads. The imagery you use is not correct, NOT the map.

No not administrative. All wetlands are government land by law, as well as lakes, rivers etc... The boundaries are never gazetted however, even government violates them, but when it comes to protection and eviction reference can go back to aerial imagery as far as 20 years. WHole wetlands are no longer distinguishable on aerial photograps, because they are completely covered with slums. They do exist underneath the buildings, causing typical wetland behaviour like floods, uncontrolled growth of mosquitos etc... especially in Kampala. So we map them based on historical maps, old imagery like bing and then survey in the field. This might be a daunting and delayed task, the surveying, as you risk your dear life as soon as locals observe you making pictures and notes about the fact their houses are on government land or government wetland as you like. So it's both, administrative but most important physically. If you like to read more about how terrible the situation is read this report:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwih286Uya7wAhUE8eAKHUjoCyoQFjABegQIBBAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ug.undp.org%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fuganda%2Fdocs%2FUNDPUg17%2520-%2520Uganda%2520Wetlands%2520Atlas%2520Volume%2520I%2520_Popular%2520Version.compressed.pdf&usg=AOvVaw06r6l5Zt4FGdbMDnI7UpFh

Might be, so what is the problem moving the tree instead of deleting it. If it's cut then its very important to know because these are large trees and a stub or the roots might still be there, and will remain there for the next 50 years as we have many hardwood trees, in many cases protected by species., something you can't determine from satellite imagery. Anyway, in this case I added them again, I didn't see the any problem with them, are navigational aids and very significant. So feel free to reference the revert, their is no problem with it. I stopped using OSmose, the number of false warning their is so extensive that it's hardly usable, especially in areas like ours with again, limitd resources. I use JOSM, try to solve every warning before uploading and it didn't have any problem with the trees. I also checked them visually before upload and there was nothing wrong with them, shown on all imagery. The reverted changeset is 104073665.

It is not about economical mapping, it's about respect for what other mapper try to achieve, even if it looks terrible. Maybe they just want to map "there is abuilding there" or in the instance when they were surveying not able to access convenient mapping tools. Deletions in most cases are wrong. You keep on sourcing Esri, but the deletions and additions you made are not according to that imagery. The razed: and demolished: prefixes, the lifecylce tagging is used and invented for that purpose, to tag removed items. For your landuse relation I added the disused: prefix, also lifecyle. All common practices to avoid deletions and respect others work. Especially in our region, access to the internet, laptops, smartphones takes a serious financial effort, it doesn't motivate anyone seeing the work and resources worked for so hard to be deleted.

Deletions however are not OK, we defintely disagree on that basis. Not out of respect to the previous editor, neither by the global OSM community. Actually we don't care how outdated the info might be, it's what local communities are able to access, hat was done in previous projects and keeping history available for all, for obvious reasons. There might be some conservative views about this, but we are a free and open community, so opinions change and adopt to the reality and needs as they currently lice in the community. Please, don't delete.

Bing gets updated, but at a much slower pace and recently with images from Digital Globe, some might be identical to the Maxar ones. The comparison on imgur (you made this ?) is just a spot check. Difference between the different imagery sources range up to 20m, I have plenty of examples for that, best one here (major highway offset and overlap with duplicated power poles etc...) (changeset/104005044#map=19/0.08762/32.48671). From one tile to the next there is a jump of 10.5m N-S ! The blurred overlap consists of over 25m E-W. You can't veify this with Esri or Bing, since the imagery in both is so outdated, I am using this stretch of highway on a daily basis for 3 years. Another problem is stretching of imagery on slopes. Also Maxar does a terrible job. Even if you add a calibration point you need to re-allign like every 100m because you notice singular buildings might differ in length and width up to 2m, which is significant in a country with many small buildings. Bing should not be banned, due to it's high resolution it's often a good reference for details hardly recognisable on other imagery, like power poles. My experience with HOTOSM and replies is different. They might not react immediately through comments or feedback on the HOT website, you know our culture is different. People keep quiet when critisied, especially when it comes from the West, the "bosses" on HOT also. A good example is the comment regarding the imagery source on one of the new cities project last week which you left there. It was not noticed even, we don't have the resources to do that. The PM left a reply for you after I noticed him. Our community is very close, rather small , so we use social media as WhatsApp and Telegram, also when it comes to OSM. I am not affiliated with any of them however I am administrator for local guidelines in a limited workgroup. It works fine, we have weekly meetings and physically meet on a regular basis.

Reverted because of deletions of urban trees, not justified. Most changes recovered like correct use of wikipedia tag. Squared some buildings and resolved overlaps with landuse.

Too much deletions, not justified according your source. No consent from the local community. Please revert , don't delete but correct and use lifecycle tagging for demolished buildings.

In this case true, agreed, much appreciated improvement.

Jean-Marc, another kind request, please stop the deletions. I checked this changeset and although some are justified, as trucks on truck parkings should not be mapped as buildings, you keep on deleting poor quality buildings, especially from HOTOSM projects, some of them still ongoing and waiting for validation. You delete like whole city blocks, that is not OK. Correct misalignments, use lifecycle prefixes on buildings please. Many of the users whose data you deleted are well known and valued contributors in our community, very willing to work on improving the quality of our map. Also avoid making such large changesets, as we lack the resources to assist and it's eating all our data. Please start reverting the deletions you made the past 3 weeks or so, it's too much. Mass deletions without community consent is vandalism.

Hello Jean-Marc. Thank you for mapping a missing wetland in Uganda. Kindly make some improvements so we keep our wetlands data significant and of high quality. The wetland should intially be mapped as a boundary, a protected_area with protect_class=15. The reason is that all of them are government land and protected by law. Only apply natural=wetland to this boundary relation. Our wetlands are not uniform, but a mixture of papayrus reedbeds, mudplains, bogs and marshes with some pools and often ponds along the shores. These can be mapped as separate areas, on top of the multipolygon providing the wetland type. Swamps, being wetland mostly covered in trees are not that common, especially not those covering the whole wetland. So it's better to remove the wetland=swamp form the multipolygon or relation, the rendering will be fine. The added details about the biotopes are defined as inner areas on these relations, until we cover the whole wetland. When the whole wetland is covered the natural=wetland tag can be removed from the boundary relation, leaving us with just the boundary which allows neutral and proper handling of land conflicts. Be carefull at the mapping the boundaries. All wetland=* tagged areas should be completely contained within the boundary. Other natural=* areas , especially those overlapping the boundaries should be not. Those completely in the wetland boundaries should. You also are able to map landuse=* this way. Important is that the boundaries are not connected to any feature, this allos flexibility to change them and map them appropiate according field surveys, most wetlands boundaries cannot be mapped accurately from satellite imagery. If you need any additional information please do ask or refer to WikiProject Uganda guidelines and training (osm.wiki/WikiProject_Uganda/Conventions-Categories still under construction but a good starting point to get information about local guidelines, mapping practices, quality of the map and get in contact with the local community). Greetings, Bert Araali

Alpine_huts do exist n the Ugandan context, but in the mountains, like Mount Elgon National Park and the Rwenzori's. In this context, a suburb of Kampala, it is obvious this cannot be the case. Please explain what you were trying to map so we can help. Also avoid all capitals in the names, small letters correctly capitalised is good practice. Anyway, welcome to OSM and thank you for improving our map.

The tea factory at first glance doesn't seem to be a mistake, on the most recent sattelite imagery it seems demolished, I assume becuase it was build on government land in the wetland. I live only a few kilometers away from it so will go there and check one of the coming days. I got the misalignments covered, your work is not lost although I had to revert to recover the deleted buildings and a subset reverting was not feasible. Please stop the deletions, it is not OK in OSM, nowhere. What you call false mapping is vary rare. You might come along misaligned or even worse non squared buildnigs, all added with good intentions by unexperienced mappers. First ask the originator to change it, assist and help to imporve the quality. Actual buildings no longer there, like the tea factory but as I've seen most of the others you deleted should be tagged with lifecycle tags, like razed: or demolished: . Mass deletions are vandalism, no matter the quality of what was mapped before. Changeset comments are a good way to go, however you might get faster and better response on local forums and social media. With the changeset comments my experience is not that bad, I mostly get replies up to 50%, try to be constructive, not destructive, both in mapping practice as in language works best. If you are interested I can send you invites for the local social media groups where you can get much more constructive discussions.

Our experience is the contrary, Bing in most cases is more accurate then Maxar or Esri. Especially Maxar is troublesome, with large misalignments and semi-transparant overlaps between tiles, f.i. here, gaps between tiles, and tiles captured at different dates at different zoom levels (f.i. around Mount Elgon) ! Keep in mind that Maxar is very inaccurate when it comes to mountainous areas, with offset variations up to 15m in short range like 5km. Referencing the OSM GPS layer is good practice, the Imagery Offset Database even better.

They are in conflict with one basic Good Practice of OSM: One feature one tag. I don't care so much about renderers, sure they can be creative and anticipate on incorrect mapping. For other data consumers this is a huge problem though, they find overlapping identical landuse and are not able to decide what to do, ambiguity and duplicate data doesn't belong in OSM. What you promote as a "standard" is in your local context or areas where you was active so far. It surely isn't true for OSM worldwide, the fine grade practice is evenly favoured and getting more support as the map, worldwide gets more detailed. I do agree we are suffering major quality issues with our mapping in UG, however you need to give a chance for the emerging, mostly younger community, to catch up, respecting our limited resources and limited "volunteer" appetite. It doesn't work that way here but we are working on it. I would applaud support in this process instead of reinforcing armchair mapping by people who don't know our culture, our local social issues or don't take the effort to consult the local community or our local guidelines.

No, I mean a calibrated area stored in the Imagery Offset Database (osm.wiki/Imagery_Offset_Database). The calibration was done with multiple GPS tracks, recorded in the field and Mapillary tracks. I didn't use Strava in this case because we had lots of GPS data. We are investigating the possible use and mapping of Geodetic markers. The system was recently completely reinstated and updated in Uganda (I believe in 2018) however most of the markers are not visible on satellite imagery and the Offset database does not allow point data. So our local workgroup has the updated geodetic markers available from some land surveyors in our group and we need to see how we can integrate the information, probably creating accurate GPS data from the markers to some nearby buildings or better larger areas, but that is a long term process. Currently we stick with the Imagery database since most of the data in the past was added by HOTOSM teams, assuming BING as the golden standard, which it is not. So it will be a long process but we will get there, don't rush, do it once and do it good but KISS (keep it simple and...). Important to know, but disregarded because "unknown" is that ALL satellite imagery is misalligned, especially the alignment in the Maxar imagery is of very low quality. This causes major problems since it is the most recent and up to date. Unfortunetaly the Imagery offset database is not supported in iD, so our advise, until we have the whole country covered, is that those mappers should align with existing items or if no mapping is done in the area yet, check GPS data, if that is missing align according to Bing. Never align the map to match your imagery, that is wrong and leads to large scale damage, in doubt contact our local community through the forum or social media groups. Greetings, Bert Araali