Please do not do changes across the world in a single changeset

Yeah this is pointless. The school is already mapped as an amenity here: way/943956343 This is just amenity inside amenity which is wrong.

Yep, please do not change tracks to paths. Paths in Norway are naturally formed trails or shortcuts by people or animals walking there repeatedly.
Tracks should normally not be used by regular cars, they are for agricultural use.

Hi, and welcome to OSM.

Setting negative values like that is kind of a waste of time tbh. No tag means that there is no such feature normally.
If we are going to add negative values for all features the tag list would be extremely long.

So... Any plans to fix these? Been months. Even found out you attached landcover to a tunnel.

Posted a comment on one of the changesets.

Please don't merge houses with numbers. They are separate for a reason here in Norway. Number should be at or near the main entrance. Also I do believe the address update script will undo any merging with houses anyway, so your work is pointless.

I have reverted all your merging and did some other tiny changes.

The roads and the gate was set to private from the start I belive. Think his tunnel will remain in the future to access the tunnel from this area. The tunnel will eventually be extended to Ulven as well.

Why? This tunnel is just a service tunnel. Cable will go straight up through a vertical shaft to the new indoor switchgear building.

Road classes in Norway are generally set based on owner, not function.
E routes and national roads are trunk, county roads numbered below 999 are primary.
You basically set wrong class in Bergen city center.

Big bounding box due to long power lines modified.

Please do not use Bing in Norway! Only use Norway Orthophoto layer. Other aerials are not properly georectified. Other aerials can be adjusted to fit this layer in case some parts are newer.

Please be more specific about what you changed. A single word like this is not acceptable.

No invention needed. Simply use the name the chain uses in its database and/or maps. Those tend to be quite descriptive and good.

Tbh I don't care what you do in Sweden as I'm not going there anytime soon. But good to know I should use Google instead if going there :P

At least we got a good naming system here in Norway that works well with all car navigation systems and apps.

I'm not going to continue this discussion as I've already made my point.

In order for the OSM database to be usable we can't do weird things like leave name= blank because we move "Tesla Superchager" to the osm.wiki/Tag:brand=. Do that and you can't search for the charger at all in navigation systems in cars or phone apps.

Why are you talking about a building?
That is totally different.

I'm talking names of chargers and shops/fuel stations that have locations all over the place.

If you only put name=St1 in all fuel stations then a search for fuel will return a long list of St1 and nothing else.
How do I know which one it is near Kungãlv when there are like 4 around the area with the same name?

Did you even read what I wrote?

If the name field only contains "Tesla Supercharger" for all superchargers then a search in navigation will only show a list with that, nothing else.
You probably also get the distance to that location, but nothing more.
So my question is, how do you know what charger is where?

And what do you think happens if a user searches for Tesla chargers in the navigation in the car or app? They will just get a long list of Tesla Supercharger and nothing more. How is the user supposed to figure out where they are unless they check each one?

The silly on the ground rule is fine for some things, but to be able to get a meaningful search result when navigating the name field need to be more descriptive.

AFAIK Tesla themselves use the location in the name if you search in the navigation system, so why not OSM?

As you probably figured out, I'm not a fan of mapping hydro power stations as sites regardless. I could maybe accept it if the whole site relation thing was better defined, but probably not.

If you want to keep doing it like this I can't stop you, but I'll hand over power mapping. I can't be part of a mapping practice I don't agree with.

There are around 900-1000 hydro power stations still missing that I had planned to map.

If a consumer is using generators as center point, what happens if generators are missing? Not all plants have generators defined as they might not be known.

Unless there is a proper system for site relation with roles aimed at power plants for each component it is going to be a mess for them to figure out the center point.