Good catch! I haven’t looked into that tag and how it’s used, so I won’t be changing it for now in the scope of the building:roof:* cleanup.

Sorry for this large bbox again! I thought I had divided the edit into very small chunks before uploading.

Sorry, I didn't realise I could upload it in smaller chunks. Will definitely do that in the future!

Hi,

Do you have any reason for leaving these funky "TYPE=#XXX Beskrivning"-tags on the imported buildings or is it okay if I clean them up?

Best regards,
Hidoo

Hi,

On this building way/1177251834 you added a buildin:type=Romney. I assume you were intending of writing building:type, but that's deprecated in favour of just building, which however also is tagged. Perhaps building=romney, which has a few uses in the Netherlands would be a better tag?

Best regards,
Hidoo

Hi,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Yes, that must have been it. Fixed in changeset/136463352

Hi,
You have tagged buildings with "Building=True". Just so you're aware, we never use capitals except in names and abbreviations. Also, for general buildings, the correct tag would be "building=yes". I have fixed all the buildings you have mapped so far, so I wish you the best with further mapping!

Hi,
You have tagged way/1066709847 as build=yes. Is it a typo of building, or what is it supposed to be?
Best regards

Hi,
Sorry for not getting back earlier. And thank you for spotting my mistake! I have fixed it now!

Ja, är inte helt säker på hur man bäst ritar det … Det står att building-outlinen ska innefatta hela byggnaden, men i de fall där entrétaket bara är typ en glasskiva så känns det konstigt, så då ritade jag taket som egen byggnadskropp. Men jag är inte konsekvent 🤷

Hi,
I see that you have tagged the power output in MWh, which I spotted on openinframap, where this plant looked huge! Do you have a source for the correct numbers in MW?
Best regards

Oh absolutely. Didn't find a tag so I went with ATYL, but solar:tracking is obviously superior, then. Feel free to fix them, or I will do it in a few days!

Fick du något svar från kommunen?

Thank you for finding it! Fixed the typo.

Looked into it, and no, couldn't find any information regarding copyright. Should I remove the features not visible from aerial/streetlevel imagery?

Hi! Thanks for the tip! I found a few other buildings as well with redundant nodes. Will keep that in mind in the furture!

Oh, of course. I'm thinking backwards.

Will that impact routing engines though? Because I'd imagine it's more important not to route buses or lorries there, than erroneoysly excluding tractors.

Hi,
Not really sure, to be honest. The main sign used is "Limited vehicle length" (in Swedish: https://transportstyrelsen.se/sv/vagtrafik/Vagmarken/Forbudsmarken/begransad-fordonslangd/), with an additional sign stating "Does not apply to tractors". The additional sign is not defined by law, but the formal definition of "traktor" according to Swedish traffic law is this: https://transportstyrelsen.se/sv/vagtrafik/Fordon/Fordonsregler/Traktor/ This is one of the signs in question: https://www.google.com/maps/@56.1634435,14.7526736,3a,15.7y,306.01h,84.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slNO6UqaRVK3CMGMVLVkqsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
However, the additional sign has since been changed, removing the "with trailer" part. No idea why there is a length limit, or an exception to it, in the first place. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Got it! I assumed all "upgrades" that the iD editor suggests were implemented to make it easy to manually check that all objects are tagged according to the latest standard.