Is there any indicator how old it is?

Congratulations!

IMO the number of quests solved, “stars”, are saved centrally on a server from WNO.

It is recorded in changeset tags, not on central server operated by Tobias. Sooner or later statistics server will be restarted and reload data from changesets by parsing past user edits.

At the same time data displayed by SC right now is supplied by this central server operated by Tobias.

Old changesets by SC with version <X are not parsed. If you still had the stars in your app when version X was introduced, they were used as start value instead of 0 stars.

This is likely to be true.

Stars are not exactly saved - all edits ever made are parsed based on public changeset info.

But maybe SC cannot parse such old edits?

Thanks for analysis!

The evaluation showed, one third of the users did not solve a single quest that was disabled by default.

Is it possible that it counts users who solved now disabled quests when they were enabled by default? For example roof shape quest was disabled recently.

osm.wiki/Why_we_won’t_delete_roads_on_private_property and osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information are relevant here (mostly in “Privacy status quo” context)

Few people are responsible for the majority of all solved quests.

Note that it is true for editing also with other editors (with JOSM to even greater degree if someone fails to exclude imports).

I am using different devices and i “lost” stars in the beginnings of the app due to reinstalls or simply using another device.

Note that stars may reappear after delay but they are not lost by changing devices.

O, bardzo udane! Dzięki za podzielenie się tym.

Myślałeś by to gdzieś na wiki podlinkować?

Approach 2 example presented here is not problematic as turn lane is very short

But it gets blatantly wrong when turn lane is much longer (hundreds of meters, sometimes more on motorways).

Neither of examples presented in the post has both

(1) preserving geometry of link road (2) avoiding fake sharp angles (3) mapping turn lane as a separate carriageway

@daniel-j-h/diary/43148#comment40737 is almost matching what I consider as standard. Though I would likely put just a bit to right to fully preserve geometry of link road. Or move nodes on link road a bit from centerline to achieve similar effect.

osm.wiki/File:Theoretical_gore_tagging_3.png is for me representing proper mapping.

Discussion on this topic restarted in osm.wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Add_a_systhematic_location_to_put_the_merging_node_when_merging_exit_ramps_on_motorways_or_other_highways

Yay, long standing problem of too much positivity on OSM Wiki will be finally solved!

How osm.wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_API_by_Example#.C2.AB_n_.C2.BB_adjacent_ways exactly works?

What complete(4) is doing there? I changed to complete(1) with hope of understanding the query but results still confuse me.

osm.wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_QL#The_block_statement_complete indicates that it is a loop count, but

( way(111435507); complete(1) { way(around:0)[highway~"."][highway!~"path|track|cycleway|footway"]; }; ); out geom;

includes not only way/111435507 and directly connecting way/111435449 but also way/111435478

(to konto wyżej jest moje)

Na osm.wiki/Pl:Tag:emergency%3Ddefibrillator tego nie ma, gdzieś indziej ma sens jeszcze sprawdzić?

permissive - Urządzenie ma bardzo ograniczony dostęp, na co dzień dla pracowników np. w domu opieki w przypadku zagrożenia życia.

access=permissive ma inne znaczenie!

access=permissive oznacza to samo co access=yes, tyle że zgoda ta w każdym momencie może być wycofana!

Mappers do not think about maintenance.

I just added one more thing to StreetComplete: it will ask whether old defibrillators are still present. Added in https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/commit/f822241d5827beffa8f5cce717a64ce079298076

These annoyances stack up and at some point you as a data consumer start asking yourself “is it even worth trying to use OSM data?”.

I agree, and I am not claiming that it is always a bad idea. Just that distorting situation and claiming that it is the largest problem ever is simply incorrect.

And it is necessary to be aware that existing data consumers processing OSM data are not happy about retaggings which force them to start supporting new tags, just to hadle things which were covered by deprecated tagging.

Even if such changes would be overall justified - current data users are going to be the grumpiest as they have all negatives without positives.

In general I expect that if someone organized mapping campaign, let other people that something specific was worth mapping - then it is the reason for more objects being mapped.

Not retagging itself. And that the same growth would be achieved without retagging.

world-scale replacement

I am not convinced that the growth rate increased as result of retagging.

I rather expect that both retagging and higher growth rate was caused by some other effect.

Not to mention replacement of waterway=riverbank with natural=water + water=river during last 2 years with already more water=river than legacy riverbanks.

And to compare actual growth rate it is necessary to take into account both tagging methods - both before and after.

how can one state (…) [that] letting duplicate tagging scheme without convergence perspective isn’t critical?

I just did, based on my experience and comments that I have heard from other users of OSM data.

how can one state tagging replacement is globally bad

I have not stated this, and in fact I participated and initiated some of them.

That could be good as well to provide figures like I do to discuss such points. Please provide facts.

fact: at least some data users and people writing software using OSM data do not consider duplicated/deprecated tagging schemes in use as a critical problem. In this specific post presented sample size is small (n=1: me), but I heard similar comments from other people. Maybe I should track down comments that I remember or try to survey such people.

If anyone else wishes: feel free to steal that idea, I have more plans and ideas than I can do in my lifetime and proper overview from other people using or trying to use OSM data may be interesting.

I am curious what would be listed as top issues, though I am betting that “duplicate tagging schemes” would be:

• not listed the biggest problem (96% confidence, and only because there is risk of very badly done poll)
• outside top 5 biggest problem (90% confidence)
• outside top 10 biggest problems (75% confidence)
• within top 20 biggest problems (80% confidence)