Hallo JTS51,

Ik vroeg me af waarom jij hier relation/13455150 een relation hebt gemaakt? Aangezien het een toponym is en maar 1 willekeurig stukje bos als inner heeft.

Ik wou zelf dit toponym verwijderen, omdat de omtrek van dit gebied niet overeen komt met de werkelijkheid en Nationaal Park Dwingelerveld ook al gewoon bestaat. Maar ik dacht dat ik het maar beter eerst even zou kunnen vragen, aangezien iemand anders ook een note met "outer van MP, niet verwijderen" heeft toegevoegd

Groeten,
Taya

Ik denk niet dat je hier spoedig een reactie op gaat krijgen. Zou het gewoon terug veranderen. Het was namelijk al uitgebreid besproken, en nu zomaar met de reden "these turns are not desired" terug gedraaid.

The Pompekliniek node is kinda weird yeah. No changes, not even moved. Archavi doesnt even highlight it.

Just randomly accusing a user of doing an import seems kinda rude to me. OSMCha's "possible import" warning is pretty bad. I'm pretty sure it just uses some sort of add to modify+delete ratio. Its very unreliable.

Dit soort foutjes schieten er soms veel te makkelijk in ja.

Ik ben de afgelopen week flink bezig geweest met dit natuur gebied. Ik zag gewoon dat er een changeset was in het gebied waar ik bezig was en dat maakte mij nieuwsgierig.

Hallo Geim,

Klopt het dat deze track voor dit hele stuk oneway is? Het lijkt me een beetje vreemd aangezien deze ineens ophoudt.
way/430210725

Groeten,
Taya

Interesting. Thank you

Hi,
Question, whats the source of this nature reserve? I'm a bit confused since it crosses borders and also includes a lot of farmland and towns

Sincerely,
Taya

Hallo,
zou je in het vervolg paden niet willen vastmaken aan landuses/naturals. Dit maakt het erg lastig om de paden te bewerken zonder alles los the moeten maken.

Groeten,
Taya

Een gebouw uit de toekomst? :P

(heb dit al veranderd)

The issue with these sorts of undiscussed mechanical edits is their potential for unintended side effects.
This wiki page describes it very well
osm.wiki/What%27s_the_problem_with_mechanical_edits%3F

These edits could be totally fine, but it could also turn out that there is some kind of issue with them that the editor didnt foresee. and if that happens, then it would be all over the map, things would need to be potentially reverted and suddenly its a way bigger issue.

This is why mechanical edits are best discussed beforehand. To make sure everyone is on board and people can discuss and bring up potential issues and pitfalls.

You might also want to give the nodes you changed a check. A lot of them seem ... questionably tagged at best.

Briefly looking at a few I'm already seeing:
- A fire hydrant
- node above an existing body of water with a description as name
- A water tank bunker(?)
- things that should probably be storage_tank's
and more.

osm.wiki/What%27s_the_problem_with_mechanical_edits%3F

I'd also like to offer this wiki page in addition to the one Silversurfer already shared. It provides a good reasoning and explanation for why mechanical edits, even ones that seem harmless or obvious can have bad side effects.

I'm honestly not quite sure either why we like to be quirky here compared to the rest of the world. Pretty sure its a decision made somewhere in 2013 when the BAG imports were being first worked out.

Yeah, I might have been a bit quick to revert, you're right. Sorry about that.

With regards to the node position, those are free to be moved about.

I have reverted this changeset in changeset/136528170

Hello,

I regret to inform you that this is not a correct change. In the Netherlands we keep buildings and Adress nodes seperate, this has to do with the fact that they are all imported and maintained by an external source.
See: osm.wiki/Addresses#Netherlands

The same goes for editing existing building shapes.

Sincerely,
Taya

Hello, I've got some feedback for you and all the other accounts you or your organisation uses and the edits they have made.

Firstly, it is not needed to create a new account for every organisation/building/company. You can just reuse the same account. In fact I would advice you not to, as it is confusing and suspicious to other users whenever dozens of the same accounts pop up all doing the same thing.

- Phone numbers are supposed to be written in the format described here: phone=*

- The tag operator:type=public is reserved for government linked organisations.

- Descriptions are supposed to be neutral and fact based. This is not a place to put SEO/marketing talk.

- Opening_hours are supposed to be in the format described here: opening_hours=* Writing out the full days is not a valid format.

- Please take care in making sure the addresses are all correct. I am noticing some mistakes and inconsistencies there. Examining the neighbouring buildings and streets can be useful.

I'm sure I havent mentioned everything, but for some more information, you could examine these changesets, which corrected a number of your or your organisations edits.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=136525170
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=136393976

Ah, top. Bedankt voor de info!

Hallo,

Ik weet dat dit ondertussen al 4 jaar oud is, maar ik vroeg me af hoe je bij de naam "Gebben Sien Veentien" bent gekomen? Van wat ik kan zien is op topografische kaarten sinds 1964 de naam "De Kijl" in gebruik.

MVG,
Taya

huh, a funny mistake. I have no idea how that got there.
Thanks for noticing