Hello!

This is follow disputed tagging work that user nvk started. You can read his diary post about his previous work here. @nvk/diary/390496

We are using relations for all the country border disputes but for these lower level perspective differences we planned to just tag the ways. I'll sync with him on Monday and see if we can just move these tags to a relation as well then get back to you. Sound good?

This is sensitive tagging work so I appreciate the feedback!

-Jeff

Hey NM$L, thanks for quick feedback. This is sensitive work that I want to make sure is done right.

For the first issue, I had included way823046242 in the new relation (relation/13559369) but missed pulling out the old incorrect ways from the parent relation. Good catch there and I have now fixed it.

The eastern section is still included as this relation relation/13559373 and attached to the parent relation if you check the members. Unfortunately, the OSM website doesn't really display relations containing relations well, which is one downside to this approach.

-Jeff

Hi Andy,

Yes, you are correct that this check was based on a pbf where the road names were still present. Thank you for pointing out the error. I removed the invalid name and will discuss with my team to look out for similar instances.

Thanks,
Jeff

Hi Yppenpark,

Thanks for your contributions to OSM

This park relation is currently broken due to the interior ways overlapping each other. Generally, a park should cover all the area within it and not cut out minor interior features, so removing the flowerbeds and manmade features from the relation would solve the issue.

Let me know if I can help :)

-Jeff

Hi Jmilot,

This user left our team recently.

Sure thing. The goal of this mapping is to capture all pedestrian ways and crossings, but I can see we missed some here. I ran through the area and added any that I noticed were missing.

We will also have an additional validation pass as the area gets filled in further as well.

Thanks for reaching out
-Jeff

Hi Baloo Uriza,

Thanks for the feedback. This changeset is part of a project to identify mismatched names on road segments. The connecting roads here carry the State Highway 82A name tag while this one had N4514 Road which is the reason it was flagged.

We appreciate the heads up on the deprecated highway name. Looking at the route, State Highway 82A is still the name on quite a few segments. If I understood your feedback correctly, we can go ahead and remove the State Highway 82A tag and promote the local road names to name. Sound good?

-Jeff

Hello,

Thanks for contributing to OSM. Unfortunately, I have reverted the change to the Mexicali admin feature. Please do not repurpose existing data for totally different features like that. Instead make a new feature if you wish to add a shop.

Please feel free to reach out if you need assistance.

-Jeff

Hi Andromeda64,

You appear to have duplicated a large stretch of coastline with this edit. This could cause major issues for coastline rendering. Was this intentional? If not, I can revert this edit for you.

-Jeff

Hi rah_em,

Thanks for your contributions to this area.

We are actively working to add roads here using a grid based project so over time these floating ways will be resolved by our team as we complete additional task squares. Feel free to fill them in still, but we will address them ourselves as well.

Happy Mapping!
-Jeff

Hey Andy,

We appreciate the feedback. I agree that this is not a necessary change. I reverted the changeset and discussed it with the team so it shouldn't happen going forward.

In regards to the organized editing wiki, sorry its taken a bit, but its ready to go and we'll have it up as soon as we get internal approval to post it. Thanks for your patience in that.

-Jeff

Hi Imagener,

I’ve noticed you’ve made a lot of complex buildings lately but are marking them as type=multipolygon. For rendering these properly, you would be better served using type=building as that matches the style of mapping you are doing. osm.wiki/Relation:building

The only real difference is using the roles outline and part for the final feature, rather than outer and inner.

Let me know if you have any questions :)

-Jeff

こんにちはImagener、

最近、複雑な建物をたくさん作っていることに気づきましたが、それらをtype = multipolygonとしてマークしています。 これらを適切にレンダリングするには、実行しているマッピングのスタイルに一致するtype = buildingを使用する方が適切です。 osm.wiki/Relation:building

唯一の本当の違いは、外側と内側ではなく、役割のアウトラインとパーツを最終的な機能に使用することです。

ご不明な点がございましたらお知らせください :)

-Jeff

Hi lake3kfe9w3,

I’m from the Map With AI team.

We saw you have been adding large amounts of AI data using the JOSM Mapwithai plugin. Some of these large changesets were added in a very short amount of time and contained a lot of AI data without any further improvements which makes it appear that this was not human validated. These AI based features will often need some amount of additional detail or fixes and need to be manually reviewed before uploading to OpenStreetMap.

The plugin has some safeguards in place to discourage this type of mass upload and we are curious if these changesets were unintentional? Either way, could you share your workflow so we can improve the plugin?

If you would like to use Map With AI tools for imports, you can potentially do that, but you will need to follow the import guidelines, which I have linked below, and propose an import to the affected community. Undiscussed imports can be reverted by the DWG, which has happened to many of your changesets.

osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Please feel free to reach out if you have any other questions on using our tooling. We are glad to see you are enthusiastic about Map With AI and want to help you map successfully.

Hi Francescotix,

I saw that this relation wasn't rendering correctly. I updated it to be renderable and kept the building sections you added as separate building:part relations.

Let me know if my corrections were not what you intended and I can change it.

Thanks,
Jeff

Hi Alexey,

I see your solution was to simplify the relation and break the interior pieces into smaller school relations. Is that how you would recommend resolving similar malformed multipolygons while retaining the intent of the creator?

-Jeff

Hi Literan,

This relation captures connected building sections which multipolygons are not really designed to do as they don't work with the normal inner and outer roles. Building relations function similar to multipolygons but work to model these situations better. A building relation will look very similar on Mapnik, but it helps renders understand how to use these extra pieces of the relation properly, whether for 2D or 3D mapping.

osm.wiki/Relation:building

If you feel that it is best to leave it as a multipolygon, that is fine, but this was the reason for the change.

-Jeff

Hi jdd 3,

This changeset was just to address some presumably unintentional damage to these relations from changeset/90385410

If someone wants to tackle breaking up this river into more manageable pieces, they are welcome to of course. :)

-Jeff

Hi goldfndr,

At the time, I believe I was thinking that landuse=residential were unnamed features so these named polygons were more describing a place=neighborhood. However, looking at the wiki, I see that it is less common but perfectly acceptable so I've reverted them back now.

-Jeff

Hi Limes,

This was an accidental revert of an additional changeset while fixing the relation.

I have reverted the changes in Belgium in this changeset. Luckily, it was very minor.
changeset/86740143

Thanks for letting us know!
-Jeff

Hi habi,

Thanks for the feedback. Letting us know when the AI gets things wrong definitely helps! We have significantly improved the model since this time and continue to make improvements on it.

-Jeff

Hi units,

We've been adding a fair amount of paths to the area as the road ways do not appear to be drivable by cars, at least on satellite.

Do you know this area personally? If so, are these narrow tracks drivable typically? We can of course adjust our tagging based on local knowledge and requests, we were just being cautious for routing purposes.

Thanks,
Jeff