An andere: siehe dazu auch https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/39626/alte-relationen-der-kurwege-wilhelmshohe-loschen

Since you have inspected all objects manually, you did notice at node/462685385 that medical=aed was added by Carlos_Sánchez just two months ago in addition to emergency=defibrillator, right? Did you talk with this user? Essentially you have undid his addition. Maybe he has good reasons to add this tag. In any case you should tell him otherwise he will continue to use this tag.

Why do you think that here there are defibrillators at all four corners of the building? node/1954431108

By the way: your changeset "source" seems to be wrong.

It seems this changeset was reverted in the meantime (at 17 Dec 2014 21:40:00 by changeset/27540041 )

It seems this changeset was reverted in the meantime (at 17 Dec 2014 21:40:00 by changeset/27540041 )

judging from the element counts and the timing this seems to be reverting changeset/27515219 and changeset/27522772 (both amenity=shop and similar)

I had told the user six hours BEFORE this edit in changeset/27515219 about automated edits. Apparently this was not understood at this time.

@pyrog: regarding the fixme boxes: In the meantime I have added a hopefully clear advice there. :-) Regarding too much information: yes, I know.

@DaCor: would be nice if you could name them. ;-)

@DaCor: it is just the often-used "iterative refinement" (see osm.wiki/Any_tags_you_like#Syntactic_conventions_for_new_tags ). It is an amenity of type shop. Which type of shop? - Blafoo. We have no fixed tagging rules. So this could be used. And if we decide that this is rally crap, maybe because shops just fall out of what amenities are, then this may fine too. But this needs to be discussed before. This did not happen here. And in addition, here were several (partly unclear or half-manually done) edit types merged in one mass edit. That's not good to clearly see what has been changed.

Our mass edit guidelines are quite clear that this should be reverted. Otherwise it will get usual that people just do mass edits (with poor documentation and concept) and ask never.

"that have already shop=*" is a very useful info. Thanks, that you made it more detailed now. Without this restriction your edit would be clearly not welcome.

"wiki seem to be clear ?" Do you mean those "fixme" boxes at the bottom? Those boxes do not call for automated edits (which a search-replace for many objects is). It seems you have misunderstood them.

Note that the JOSM validator just does suggestions what *may* be wrong. It is still your task to ensure that it really is wrong. Also you should not blindly apply its automatic fixes to a large number of objects like here.

I see that I linked not the best page above. osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct or osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy is better. A discussion before such an edit is required to make sure that such an edit is really wanted by the community and to ensure that the edit algorithm (your overpass query and search-replace terms) are accurate. Yes, of course you are not a bot, but your edit could is done as if you were a bot - there is no difference, if you do not look at every single of those over thousand objects.

Now, is there still a problem? I am not sure. Of course, a problem is that there was not a discussion before your automated mass edit. Regarding the actual edit content: I am not very pleased with this (although I appreciate your intention to cleanup). There may be reasons where mappers intentionally used the amenity=shop tag in addition to shop=blafoo. For example you would not have seen any note-Tags (or even changeset comments) by these users. So I would tend to revert it, but I would like to hear other people's opinions.

Why I am asking. See osm.wiki/Automated_Edits

Which other tags did you modify? Deletion? Replacement?

You write "Remove tags amenity=shop or amenity=shopping" - why? Where is the discussion for this mass edit? What was your algorithm? Or did you check every single object manually?

Ich habe Christian eine Mail dazu geschrieben.

Nachtrag: ... und beim Hohen Berg die Ressource hinzugefügt

Okay, danke! Falls du das öfters machst, dann schreib das vielleicht am besten auf eine Wikiseite (Unterseite deines Benutzernamens) und gib einen Link dorthin im Änderungssatzkommentar an.

Zu "bedarf wohl keiner Diskussion": das wurde schon oft gedacht und dann stellte sich nachträglich raus, dass es doch Diskussions-/Vorgehenskorrekturbedarf gibt. ;-)

Zum layer=0: naja, prinzipiell schon. Aber es könnte z.B. auch absichtlich explizit verwendet worden sein, weil man bedingt durch die Ortssituation auch etwas anderes annehmen könnte. Ja, das sollte vielleicht(!) eher ein "note"-Tag sein, aber das hat ja nichts mit dieser automatischen Korrektur zu tun. Ich würde keine solche automatischen Validator-Korrekturen in so einem unkontrollierten Massenedit machen. Es stirbt auch keiner an den paar möglicherweise überflüssigen layer=0-Angaben, oder?

Hallo Kartler175, gibt es zu deinem automatischen(?) Massenedit eine Diskussion, wenn ja wo? Außerdem fiel mir auf, dass du z.B. auch layer=0 entferntest. Bitte dokumentiere soetwas besser. Welchen Algorithmus hast du bei deiner Korrektur angewandt?

Einfach mal ... Danke! Auch für die gute Doku!

Hamed, please do not save test edits.

Thank you!