I'm not getting into the politics of it. Go talk to the Israeli / Gaza community or the DWG.

I am familiar with how this works. I just missed where exactly the coastline broke, because my changeset covers most of NJ. Thank you for pointing it out. I'll be extra careful next time.

They keep creating sockpuppet accounts to turn half of Gaza into landuse=military. The DWG is already involved.

Thank you very much for providing this detailed insight into your workflow.

You mentioned how overlapping edges of ways would be challenging to unglue, but I don't see how this would be true. With a simple alt + left-click on the edge in JOSM you can easily select the next object in cases of overlap. It's not like you'll ever see five or more ways with overlapping edges, so I don't see how this would be a limiting factor to your (or anyone’s workflow).

On the other hand, these very large multipolygons are an issue for many mappers and data users alike. This method of mapping violates the "One feature, one OSM element" principle we have, which dictates that each field should be represented by its own polygon, where you have mapped all fields together as a single object. This gives data analysts the wrong idea that there are only a handful of landuse polygons mapped on the entire island, while the map clearly shows thousands of polygons. It’s also a substantial problem for other all other OSM mappers, who have never mapped like this, might fail to understand the complexity of these multipolygons and will undoubtly have trouble loading the data into their editors.

We do have a technical limit imposed on the number of members in a relation, although you’re not likely to hit that anytime soon: osm.wiki/Relation#Size. This Wiki page also recommends keeping relations small whenever possible.

My suggestion to you is that you change your mapping style to work with lines and areas that may have overlapping edges. This will improve the map for users and will make it easier for other mappers to contribute.

I (together with several mappers that I spoke to on Discord) would also like to see the existing multipolygons being converted into closed ways with the exception of cases where multipolygons are strictly necessary. If this is technically challenging for you, I’ll be happy to lend a hand, as I have experience with reconstructing large and complex multipolygons.

Let me know what you think of this, so we can figure out a plan that can satisfy everyone.

Best regards,

Casper

Thank you for the clarification.

I can see how areas set aside for growing food can be tagged as orchards or farmland, especially when the land is plowed or has fruit trees on it.

Allotments are communal places where multiple families may own or rent a plot to grow their food. Private backyards are not that. That said, I do see the need to distinguish these areas from large fields where farmers use their tractors etc.

Would it make sense to you to retag the landuse=allotments that are not actually allotments to leisure=garden + access=private with a relevant garden:type=vegetable_garden? The last tag is currently undocumented, but is already in use according to Taginfo and seems to fit your description well.

Best regards,

Casper

Hi. This must have been an error on my part. Sorry for that. Could you point out for me where that happened, so I can learn from my mistake?

Are you sure the urban patches of greenery are all correctly classified? way/1263019270 for example looks neither like an orchard nor like allotments, but more like someone's backyard.

I can help you to split up the large multipolygons.

Why are they so huge in the first place? Wouldn't it make more sense to turn them into closed ways, one for each individual area?

Sounds good to me. Let people map something away from the front lines. OSM doesn't need to play a role in the information war that surrounds this (or any other) military conflict.

But if you really must, I won't stop you from putting those tracks back on the map.

The only reason these tracks were mapped was because they linked the pontoon to the road network.

Thank you for blocking them, Fizzie. I have reverted the edit.

changeset/155719790

Hoi IIVQ,

Klopt de brandweerkazerne op node/9100036294 ? er is er namelijk ook één vlakbij gemapt op node/7024311190.

Mvg,
Casper

Hoi emvee. Heeft Wolfheze 2 brandweerkazernes? node/3378619568 kan ik me herinneren van een recente treinrit, maar way/297591444 die je hier gemapt hebt staat me niet bij.

Hi. Please refrain from mapping military features near active combat zones. OSM is not the place where you can follow the war in real-time, or where you can translate your daily news into map data. We don't want to become a part of the information war.

I have reverted the military stuff you mapped in changeset/155616200.

Hoi emvee. Ik kom hier met de luchtfoto een hoop "30" op de wegen tegen bij het Kellen industriegebied. Zie bijv. de zuidzijde van way/6928788 en de westzijde van way/6928287. Is dat allemaal recent verwijderd en verhoogd naar 50?

I think this counts as a descriptive name, which shouldn't be in the name tag.

I have reverted your changeset, because OSM is not a log of things that happened. Please only map static objects on OSM.

changeset/153929694

tyvm Marc :)

No. The DWG has told you about the guidelines before. This situation IRL is very volatile, so it has been decided to leave it alone until this quiets down. I'll send the DWG a message to get this sockpuppet account deleted. You can discuss your mapping practices with the DWG.

This changeset has been reverted in full.

changeset/153906250