The story of bridge:name is another particularity of the history of OSM. Basically it stems from our reluctance to introduce a bridge object. It took us 15 years to get a tag for bridges into OSM (talking about man_made=bridge here). Until then, the only way to find bridges was indirectly by looking for things on a bridge and inferring that there must be a bridge somewhere below (or many, because this systems didn’t tell you how many nearby bridges there were, separate carriageways on the same or on parallel bridges). If man_made=bridge would have been introduced earlier, we likely wouldn’t have gotten a bridge:name at all. If we had waited even more, we could have gotten bridge:wikipedia and more. We don’t use street_name for things that are on a street, do we? (Well, we might, because until there are area highways we also can’t tell reliably whether something is on a street or only close).

hierarchy vs flat

IMHO there is a difference between “alt_name” and “building:levels”. ## colon stands for hierarchy If you use the colon, the information is structured (building: and then all the properties refering to building) ## underscore doesn’t imply hierarchy The underscore replaces the space and means the term has to be read “as one term”, although it is several actual words. Like in “tourist_bus”, “public_transport”, “alt_name”, “start_date”. Yes, a start date is a date, a tourist bus is a bus and public transport is a part of transport, but there is no hierarchy, you have to understand the term to make sense of it, order of words doesn’t imply which part is more important and which is the qualifier. “man_made” might even be a part of everything “made”, but for example “leaf_type” is not a part of all “types” (well, only if you twist your brain). Similarly “is_in”, “opening_hours” or “passenger_lines”.

spam

@Richard yes, you’re right of course, I have redacted the post

@SimonPoole the wiki in 2008 first said crossing=zebra and was modified 2 months later on July 17th to basically what is there til now, and after some revert and forth, apparently as a compromise, the current situation went into the wiki in August 2008: crossing=uncontrolled was documented for zebra crossings (with crossing_ref=zebra) and crossing=zebra was documented as UK shortcut.

I actually agree that a zebra crossing is kind of controlled. crossing=zebra rather than setting 2 tags (with semantic problems) therefore is the better solution for me, but I would have liked an explicit transition (i.e. changing the wiki, possibly presets in other software, etc.), not “silently” bringing “new” variations into the db

Yes, new mappers make more mistakes than experienced ones, but HOT has a systematic problem: they encourage people to do armchair mapping in areas they mostly never have been to. Remote mapping is generally more difficult than mapping what you know, so it shouldn’t be the first thing you do when you come to OSM. Also HOT areas are typically lacking active mappers who could assist newbies with their first steps.

Obviously, errors like those reported in this diary post will likely not happen with anyone just slightly responsible and careful. Uploading something like this to a shared database is either vandalism or complete incompetence and reluctance.

sorry for the clickbait ;-)

viva la comunità di OSM. Grande Andrea!

Thank you, Tippecanoe seems to work fine.

it is already tested, no need to waste your time on tests

What are the different types of membership and how to become a member: https://join.osmfoundation.org/

Local Chapters: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Local_Chapters

The startpage of the foundation: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page

If you’re interested, I posted the history queries and results to talk-it.

Or these for 6 months not paid as limit for inclusion: total: 381

70 United States

69 United Kingdom

62 Germany

17 France

15 Switzerland

15 Canada

13 Netherlands

12 Russian Federation

11 Italy

8 Spain

8 Belgium

6 Australia

I get 396 normal members if I remove everyone whose membership expired before 2016-05-22 (some members pay later, but after a while you would assume they are not interested any more, something seems slightly strange anyway).

On 7, Jan 2017 (and members paid up until three months earlier) I get these numbers: total: 349

63 United States

63 United Kingdom

56 Germany

15 Switzerland

14 France

13 Canada

12 Russian Federation

12 Netherlands

10 Italy

8 Spain

8 Belgium

6 Australia

You are correct, on closer inspection I counted expired memberships as well.

On 2014-11-30 there were 245 regular members, so this seems quite possible. The data above is from Jan 6, 2017

other european countries: other EU: 19 Non-EU: 5

Total normal members: 485

102 United States

88 Germany

75 United Kingdom

21 France

18 Canada

16 Switzerland

15 Russian Federation

15 Netherlands

15 Italy

10 Spain

8 Sweden

8 Belgium

7 Ireland

7 Austria

7 Australia

6 Norway

I’m now using the OSM history file and will publish the results shortly. Likely they will be different, but I am not sure if they will be better ;-) I’ll make a new diary post for the method and the results.

I just saw that I can pass the data to other OSMF members.