Proszę, nie dodawaj zbędnych linków typu wikipedia:pl

Wikipedia ma linki interwiki - mając dowolne hasło można uzyskać jego odpowiedniki w innych językach ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_links )

Dodawanie linków do wszystkich języków śmieci w liście tagów i wymagałoby by dużej ilości zbędnych edycji by to utrzymywać

source=knowledge

Jakie jest źródło tego?
What is the real source of this data?

A, numery dróg które nie są oznakowane (lub oznakowane w praktycznie niezauwżalny sposób) trafiają do unsigned_ref.

unsigned_ref=*

Note that route number that has assigned ref that is not prominently signposted with a reassurance marker must not be added as ref, but as unsigned_ref

Thanks for making note/2058183

I created https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/pull/1868 to make StreetComplete less confusing. This question will not be asked where foot=no is already applied to the crossing.

Change was accepted by the author of StreetComplete and will be applied with the next update.

To make more complicated person from HOT claims that it is not an import

"The surveyors collected data using ODK, then it was pushed to OSM by one person, like I mentioned, ODK works better in places with poor access to internet as it works offline, making data collection easier." and that is what pooled individual edits together and that `source=MSF Data` in changeset/58762350 is a mistake. (on a public Telegram channel, see https://t.me/OpenStreetMapOrg/54461 and earlier)

Is this import documented as required by osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines ?

What is the source of this data? Because it seems unlikely that node/5703341017 was mapped just from aerial images.

BTW, what is the meaning of operational_status=closed combined with amenity=water_point? It seems misleading to map nonexisting water points as amenity=water_point.

In general we are not adding historic data into OSM.

Sorry, maps.me decided first to stop synchronizing and then to become stupid.

I removed most of that import - as anyone may revert undiscussed imports for any reason, without need for any approval.

And this one was adding data with an unclear copyright status and out of scope for OSM.

Are you aware of osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines ?

What is the copyright status of this data?

Also, who is DRC and why it is operator of a private toilets?

Thanks! Not sure whatever it will be useful but I was making similar edits using script, see for example https://github.com/matkoniecz/osm_bot_abstraction_layer

For 800k elements it will take some time, but it can be done using just JOSM - download using overpass query, select all elements and delete tag in all of them.

For example query "mapper=* and source=Akros" then delete this two tags.

Thanks for stopping of adding "mapper" tag (all 800 000+ must be still cleaned, but at least it is not making situation worse).

But looking at recent activity I see at least two concerns

(1)
See https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines "Edits to the map" section

Every single changeset must include link to your wiki documentation page ( osm.wiki/Reveal_Residential_Buildings_Mapping )

(2)

What is the meaning of source=Akros tag? Added for example to way/808909407#map=19/14.58562/-14.32584

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Nassau%20Avenue%20Station?uselang=en appears to be not existing (it was added to node/1423440756/history in this edit)

Thanks! Hopefully everything will go well, including repair of some past data.

Do not hesitate to ask for help on mailing list (or on other communication channel) if something is unclear to you.

One note about "source=akros".

(1) source is for source of data (survey, imagery identifier etc), not about who is source of funding (as typical mapping is not funded anyway)

(2) nowadays standard way of tagging source of data is to place it on a changeset tag, not on a created object (though it is not a major issue)

(1)
Is changeset/72427535 already reviewed by whoever reviews work of mappers that are part of that organized mapping activity?

Because it seems that some buildings and other objects were unintentionally deleted in it https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=72427535

(2)
Are you aware that adding "mapper" tag is against good practice in OSM (we are not putting list of all mappers who edited given object in tags, that is saved as history metadata)?

(3)
When you will instruct your mappers to stop adding "mapper" tag?

(4)
What are your plan to remove over 800 000 "mapper" tags that should not be added and should be removed? When you will do this?

See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/mapper

(5)
Are you aware of osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines ?

(6)
Are you aware of https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines ?

I was not editing links, solely wikipedia/wikidata/brand:wikidata/brand:wikipedia

AFAIK there is (was?) a bot upgrading links to https.

Stare to ale przypominam: nie kopiujemy do OSM danych z internetu.

Jest to OK tylko w szczególnych i wyjątkowych przypadkach ze względu na prawa autorskie i jakość danych ( node/3742523933/history )

Bez "nie dotyczy rowerów"?

Wiki was not clear - I added osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element#Multiple_tags (and made some other improvements there)

rental=bicycle is kind of useless and removing it should be OK (AFAIK it has neither accepted proposal, nor support and amenity=bicycle_rental is in clear use).

But "One feature, one OSM element" is about something a bit different, and using multiple tags to tag one object is not violating it.

But mapping single bicycle rental machine by placing amenity=bicycle_rental in every single slot, or by mapping amenity=fuel at every distributor at petrol station, or using railway=station at every platform of a single railway station would violate it.

(a swoją drogą maraf24 mógłby przeprosić za określanie maro21 jako wandala - by być wandalem trzeba celowo i złośliwie niszczyć OSM)

"Google Maps te odcinki na skrzyżowaniu mają nazwy, więc może stamtąd je wziął?"

Proszę, przestań kontynuować obrażanie innych i insynuowanie rzeczy których nie zrobili.

Dalej nie przeprosiłeś za twoje twierdzenie o rzekomym przywraniu nazw typu "Przyjaźni Polsko-Radzieckiej"/"PKWN"/"Armii Czerwonej". Chodzi o trzeci akapit https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=788080#p788080 .

(jeśli to się wydarzyło - daj linka do edycji)

---

Do dodania nazwy "Krynicka" na kawałku pomiędzy jezdniami Google było całkowicie zbędne, dane OSM do tego w zupełności by wystarczyły.

To że Google nie uznaje tego za osobną nienazwaną drogę nic Interesującego nie wnosi I nie świadczy o kopiowaniu.