there is still a lot to draw ;-)

I don’t understand why you have to “clean up”, why don’t you simply ignore the tags on the ways and deal with the relation only?

Hallo KartoGrapHiti,
bei "Verwaltungsgebäude" mag man sich streiten können, das ist sicherlich auch eine Beschreibung, könnte aber lokal auch als Name genutzt werden. Bei "Zugspitze" oder "Düsseldorf" oder lokal z.B. "Alter Friedhof" oder "Kläranlage Gießen" oder "Stadtwerke Gießen" oder "Weststadt" oder "Botanischer Garten" oder "Altes Schloß" stellst Du die Namen ja auch nicht in Frage, obwohl sie auch beschreibenden Charakter haben, oder?
Ich sehe es so, dass "name=Parkbank" oder "name=Telefonzelle" für eine beliebige Parkbank oder Telefonzelle totaler Quatsch ist, aber wenn man sagt wir treffen uns im "Philosophikum I" und alle wissen was gemeint ist, dann ist das ein "Name", und auch "Verwaltungsgebäude" könnte so ein Fall sein (kenne aber die Lage vor Ort nicht, vielleicht ist das auch Käse). Im Zweifel würde ich Namen eher lassen als löschen, außer es sind wirklich glasklar nur Beschreibungen. Zumindest bei Philosophikum I würde ich das bestreiten.
Dass die Uni sich nicht an der Diskussion beteiligt ist wirklich schade, vielleicht kommt das ja noch...
Grüße,
Martin

Hi KartoGrapHiti, sehe gerade, dass Deine "Korrekturen des name tags" teilweise bedeuten, dass der name tag komplett entfernt wurde (z.B. "Verwaltungsgebäude"), und dass teilweise zumindest Informationen verloren gegangen sind, z.B. hier wurde "Philosophikum I" komplett unterschlagen, way/431688653/history
das hätte man gut z.B. in alt_name unterbringen können, oder?
Gruß, Martin

I believe there is a misconception here, I did not write that I concur with osmose. Are you going to remove the name and historic=citywalls tags as well from the individual ways? I also question the “single real world feature”, and in particular that it is a “site” because it is discontinuous
If you read again what you quoted: “ a site relation is appropriate when the feature must incorporate one or more point features or linear features that cannot be accurately replaced by areas."
The last sentence is the important bit, point or linear features.” then site is not appropriate here because the feature can be accurately replaced by areas.

hm, frankly I do not use osmose because from the experiences I had when I looked at it I was disagreeing with what was highlighted. Do we really want to make edits just to silence a qa tool? I won’t and would oppose.
But we can have a discussion about the best place to add wikipedia references, and I agree that repeating it over and over again seems redundant and repetitive. I am unsure about the site relation though, to me a site is something with limited extent, the idea of city walls as a whole being represented as one “site” (even discontinuous due to interruptions) feels odd. What about the chinese wall, also one site? Sites in connections with city walls, as I understand the term “site”, are usually found around the gates, a city wall is a sequence of many sites.

va benissimo, pensavo lo facessi ;-)

Hello LaraRattaggi, something went wrong with your map edit, there are a bunch of nodes with only the tags natural=wood and description=map for future.
The tag natural=wood is for areas naturally covered with trees, usually these are areas, not nodes.
The tag description is for descriptions of features that get the tag, in natural language, if the content can be described with semantic tags it should be preferred. "map for future" is likely not a description of the wood.
If you want to map individual trees, the tag is natural=tree and these objects are typically mapped with nodes and not areas.
You can find the definitions for these tags here:
natural=wood
description=*
Cheers,
Martin

scusa, mi riferisco a questo: relation/12213226

Ciao Dino Michelini,

cambierei il "name" nel nome italiano. Il resto rimarebbe (compreso name:it se vogliamo), cosa ne pensi?

Ciao,
Martin

cuisine=french

Hi,
just noticed you have removed the cuisine tag from le Bistrot, shouldn’t it have been modified rather than removing it?
Cheers Martin

I wouldn’t necessarily, it is a tag that is often used because it renders, but specifics are scarse, and many companies are tagged with a different scheme (office=* where * is different to “company”)
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/office#values
Only 3000 company=* specific tags
company=*

Cheers
Martin

Zu diesem Thema wird gerade auch im deutschen Forum diskutiert:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=75088

Hi, I have seen you changed the common tag office=it to the rarely used combination office=company and company=software_development
Can you explain your reasoning?
Cheers,
Martin

this is another changeset where the pieces of roundabouts have been merged thereby damaging the bus route relations.

Ciao Michele,
purtroppo trovo tante relazioni "route" rotte perché hai unito i pezzi delle rotonde. Ti chiedo gentilmente di non farlo.

Vorrei segnalare che crossing=marked solitamente si interpreta come "senza semaforo", mentre qui hai aggiunto ad un incrocio di tipo sconosciuto (highway=crossing) un crossing=marked dove c'è un semaforo (crossing=traffic_signals). Ti scrivo perché mi capita spesso di trovare crossing=marked invece di traffic_signals

Ciao VioMaffe,

ho notato che stavi cercando un tag per corte / cortile, e sembrerebbe che alla fine hai deciso di cancellare gli inizi. In realtà c'è un tag, non molto conosciuto, ma comunque utilizzato 21mila volte, man_made=courtyard
Puoi trovare la documentazione qui: osm.wiki/IT:Tag:man_made%3Dcourtyard
In id (l'editore che stai utilizzando) puoi inserire qualsiasi tag aprendo la tendina "tutti i tag" (o simile, non so come lo hanno tradotto in italiano)
buona mappatura,
Martin

Ciao pippo67, ho notato che hai cancellato non solo il vecchio Lidl come attività ma anche tutto l'edificio compreso l'indirizzo. Non ho fatto caso quando ci sono stato la scorsa volta, non rimane niente del fabbricato? Penso l'indirizzo probabilmente sarebbe da ripristinare in ogni caso.
Un saluto,
Martin