appena visto che in questo changeset è stato cancellato la via d’accesso agli uffi del comune, way/546596234

Perché?

Buongiorno Nuvolabianca,

ho notato che hai segnato il way/61009814 come access=private, ma mi sembra dai dati delle Regione Valle D'Aosta ci passi il sentiero 3. Forse ti riccordi ancora?

Grazie,
Martin

Ciao Gian Mario, grazie per la risposta, quindi mi confermi che il divieto di transito si applica anche ai pedoni. Apposto, non bisogna fare nulla, access=private ci sta in questo caso. Ho cambiato la classe della strada in "service", visto che si tratta di una strada di accesso, o diresti è meglio "residential"?

saluti,
Martin

anyway, while you should try to respect the guidelines, I think this particular edit has its merit, the "file:"-URLs in the image tag, where everybody expects an http-link, had their problems. Thank you for performing it and discussing about it.

"No, I retag it to the key that we have for Wikimedia Commons images. I thought I mentioned this already."

you are removing tags and adding different tags. That's what it looks like. You can pretend you are "transforming" tags, but what you actually do is removing tags and adding the values with a different key.

"break other people’s apps -
I'm not responsible for other people's apps, "

no, but you may be responsible for breaking them, by performing huge edits which might force the devs of other software to add code in order to maintain the status quo, even without any notice.

"next comes imgur, flickr, panoramio whatever as keys? -
Well, we already have Mapillary, but I doubt the others will follow anytime soon because of licensing reasons."

hm, not quite desirable IMHO to have a key for every service that can be used to share pictures. I can understand we could make a case for wikimedia, as they are so huge and terms are open, but it is not an approach that scales well for _every_ image hoster

You confirm that you are removing tags and break other people’s apps without prior notification or timeline or respecting the rules for such large scale retagging, so clearly I am not happy having it discovered. On the other hand, personally it doesn’t matter much to me, because some time ago I added a check for the wikimedia_commons tag as well, and it could be seen as “better” to make an exception for commons (not so clear though, next comes imgur, flickr, panoramio whatever as keys?), IIRR this was already discussed some time ago and no decision could be reached.
Not sure where the url escaping came from, maybe GoMap!! does it automatically?

did you have a look at the pictures? Have you seen a fountain picture or two? ;-)

ok. but you are removing tags. E.g. I added all the images as "image" and now I do not find them anymore, because you not only added the wikimedia_commons tag, you also removed the "image" tag.

buongiorno Gian Mario Navillod,

ho notato che hai messo delle strade ad "access=private", per esempio way/340494099
Guardando la situazione, sembra ci passi un sentiero escursionistico gestito dalla Regione. Forse invece di access=private si dovrebbe taggare motor_vehicle=private?
Generalmente, una "strada privata" tratta della proprietà della strada, non dei dirittti di accesso. Non conosco la situazione on the ground, forse tu invece sì?
Grazie, Martin

Buongiorno Erik,

ho notato che hai inserito tanti "turn restrictions" che non sono da mappare perché sono già impliciti dalla geometria (senso unico delle strade). In sostanza non mappiamo una restrizione per ogni cartello che si trova, ma soltanto i punti dove la restrizione non è implicita.

Buona mappatura,
Martin

Hi, this is an automated edit but I don’t find documentation here: osm.wiki/Category:Automated_edits_log

Have you discussed your plans and sought community approval for this edit?

Cheers
Martin

messo, grazie per il tuo aiuto.

saluti,
Martin

ah ok, grazie della veloce risposta, allora ci metto un divieto per mezzi motorizzati ad eccezione di uso agricolo?
Perché la distinzione tra path e track è la larghezza. I sentieri possono anche essere track (talvolta hanno anche tratti su strada).

Ciao Alequey,
ho notato che hai cambiato la sterrata qui: way/141079021
da track in path, ma dalle foto aerei sembra proprio un track. Mi puoi confermare che la modifica in path è stata coscientemente e non per sbaglio?

Grazie,
Martin

ciao, ho notato che hai aggiunto il tag crossing=zebra agli incroci con semafori, il tag corretto è crossing=traffic_signals

saluti
Martin

Please find my answer on one of the other offending changesets: changeset/126418481

Regarding to usage chronology, I invite you to have a look at "crossing": https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/crossing#chronology
(only organic growth) and on
"crossing_ref", which clearly shows automated tagging operations at least twice (despite none of them following the rules):
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/crossing_ref#chronology

In any case, retagging tens or hundreds of objects, (not to speak of tens of thousands of objects as was done here) without any doubt requires discussion with the community to see if we want to do it at all.

Dear GBAB, what you call "changing the tag crossing to crossing_ref", effectively means removing the crossing tag. There is no reason to do this, you can add crossing_ref tags to crossings without removing the "crossing" tag.
Generally, all automated edits have to follow the rules set up for this kind of edit, you can find them here: osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
You have done nothing from this list of requirements, you did not document nor discuss you plans, you simply did it.

I am not interested in discussing usage for the tags, as crossing=zebra still has half a million of instances, and the meaning of crossing=zebra is uncontested, but if we wanted to speak about usage I would emphasize that "crossing" has 6.6 million uses while "crossing_ref" only has 1 million, so if we only could have one tag to describe the kind of crossing, we would probably have to deprecate crossing_ref and retag it to crossing. On the other hand, the tag "crossing_ref" according to the wiki docs does not have a clear documentation, there is a disclaimer on top of the wiki page stating "This article or section contains questionable, contentious or controversial information."
crossing_ref=*

FWIW, crossing is still the standard tag to describe crossing typology, crossing_ref is not even a sixth: http://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/crossing/&***/crossing_ref/
Please revert your undicussed mass edits and respect the guidelines for such edits.

did you discuss this mechanical edit? Your similar edits in Italy have already been reverted by the data working group, please do not remove "crossing" tags from objects.