S'il vous plaît: je vous en prie de lire la wiki pour débutants ( osm.wiki/FR:Guide_du_d%C3%A9butant ) avant de commencer à éditer sur OSM. Il n'y a pas aucune route primaire (primary_link) ici. Aussi vous avez ajouté une autre route tertiaire au SE qui n'existe pas. Merci.

Could you please tell us the source of these 86 objects?
name=* shouldn't be used to name what un object is, but its name. So name=mosquée, name=Église or name=école (just 3 examples) is wrong.
For a mosque you should tag it as:
amenity=place_of_worship
religion=muslim
For a chuch you should tag it as:
amenity=place_of_worship
religion=christian
For a school you should tag it as:
amenity=school
You can add the name of the object if you know it. For example:
name=Grande Mosquée de Kairouan
name=Église Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur d'Asquins
name=École primaire d'application Ferdinand Buisson
You have also added lots of nodes as tourism=information and tourism=viewpoint that look the names of villages or towns. If that's the case, you have to retag them as:
place=village or place=town
But the most important question is to know the source that you use for all the info in this changeset and in others that you uploaded for Burkina Faso.

Merci pour la reponse, Patok.

J'ai annulé ("reverted") les 87 groupes de changements suivants, dans cet ordre:

59403680
59403529
59403422
59403322
59403110
59402905
59402786
59402372
59402158
59402006
59393317
59393265
59393220
59393127
59393080
59393020
59392789
59392684
59392330
59392242
59391870
59391792
59391736
59391683
59391630
59391592
59391567
59391520
59391466
59391398
59391353
59391185 (resolved name and relation members conflict)
59391123
59373465
59373445
59373333
59373285
59373240
59373181
59373124
59373070
59372982
59372934
59372852
59372766
59372572
59372519
59372461
59372421
59372382
59372353
59372310
59372273
59372246
59372180
59372081
59371983
59370864
59370833
59369374
59369331
59369109
59367862
59367791
59367439
59367396
59367349
59366630
59366587
59364126
59364100
59364052
59363784
59363477
59363441
59363402
59363380
59363328
59363305
59363250
59363158
59363064
59362959
59362707
59362594
59362314
59343719

SVP: Si vous n'est pas sûr, avant d'uploader des données d'une institution ou organisation (publique ou privée), veuillez contacter moi ou quelq'un(e) dans la communauté. Pour annuler ces groupes de modifications m'a pris environ 2 heures.

Les données sont maintenant comme ils étaient avant ces modifications.

Votre importation de limites du IGB sans permission ont presque 12000 noeuds de frontière dupliqués et 316 chevauchements de limites, entre autres. Ils ont été importés sans permission (apparentment) du IGB, sans aucune consultation avec la communauté locale OSM, sans suivre la guide d'importation et en utilisant voies au lieu de relations type boundary.
Vous n'avez pas répondu a mon message dans 2 mois. Donc je ferai le "revert" du changeset et les autres similaires.

Your boundary import of IGB data without permission has almost 12000 duplicated boundary nodes and 316 crossing of ways, among others. They have been imported without permission (apparently) from the IGB, without due consultation with local OSM community, it didn't followed the import guidelines and it uses way instead of relation of type boundary.
You haven't answered my message in 2 months, so I will proceed to revert this changeset and its siblings.

La fuente de esos datos es, en realidad, PNOA y catastro. Puse local_knodledge por error. De hecho, la mayoría de objetos les añadí source, así que no hay problema.

Done

Hi all:
As it is controversial, and in any case optional, I have deleted the tags boundary and admin_level from the coastline boundaries. This includes like 23 segments that aren't coastline in any case...
I think this would need a discussion in the tagging list, and a modification in the corresponding wiki (if needed), for clarification.
Thank you all for the input.

"Boundary ways should have boundary=administrative and the admin_level=* for the highest border".

Please see: osm.wiki/Relation:boundary#Way_tags

I've done many boundary imports in different countries so far. Everybody was happy with the proposed tagging schema, not surprisingly, as it is the tagging schema that the OSM community has agreed upon.

So it's not weird at all adding boundary=administrative + admin_level=4 to the coastline, as the coastline is the administrative limit for the autonomous communities in Spain. The Spanish territorial sea is under the central government control, and therefore admin_level 2.

If Navit has a rendering problem, Navit should solve its rendering problem, but not asking the OSM community to change their tagging schema to make Navit happy.

Hi:
As you say that source=Bing, I wonder if you have surveyed both the villages names of Nafona and Mambiré, and their respective school names, or you have used a different and not mentioned source.
In your comment, you refer to a HOT US Tasking Manager project in Sanmatenga, Centre Nord of Burkina Faso, and therefore way far from the mapped area.
Using hashtags only isn't agreed upon as good changeset comment: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

This looks to be an import of UN-OCHA data. But I don't see any reference to that import being discussed with the OSM community. Imports have to follow the imports guidelines [1]. Have you followed those guidelines ?

Isso parece ser uma importação de dados do UN-OCHA. Mas não vejo nenhuma referência a essa importação sendo discutida com a comunidade OSM. As importações devem seguir as diretrizes de importação [1]. Você seguiu essas diretrizes?

[1] osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Vous avez tracé des limites administratives au Burkina Faso, avec source=IGB.
Cela est une importation de données d'une institution, et donc doit suivre les directives d'importation ( osm.wiki/FR:Import/Guidelines ). Est-ce que vous avez discussé cette importation avec la communauté burkinabé ? Est-ce que vous avez permission du IGB pour importer ces données à OSM ?

You have edited administrative limits in Burkina Faso, with source=IGB.
That's a data import from one institution, and therefore it has to follow the import guidelines ( osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines ). Have you discussed this import with the Burkina Faso community ? Have you got permission from the IGB to import these data into OSM ?

Estacionamento, en galego, Iepus! :P

Hi, GSDA1:

First, I hope all people involved are ok with you adding these data to OSM... Otherwise, it would be technically an import, and we do need the permission of the data creators before adding the data to OSM.

Please, bear in mind for the next time that, in OSM, there are usually data already there, so you need to manually conflate new data instead of just uploading it.

Also, the segments you have added contain several tags that shouldn't be there, like:

OBJECTID
SHAPE_Leng
STATUS
TYPE

You need to delete them all or, if they have some interesting info, translate them to existing OSM tags. For example, some roads have a tag NAME, that would translate into name, and the value of name should be in non-capital letters too, like name=1st Utagban Road

Finally, and very important, you should keep all segments that were there before you uploaded, so we keep the oldest ones, and delete your duplicates.

Cheers!

Hi, GSDA1:

I am not sure that you have imported this set of 328 roads. Maybe you have edited them with a GIS software like ArcGIS or QGIS, and then decided to add them to OpenStreetMap.
But even in this case, you have done a mess in the area, because you have added them where many of the roads were already mapped.
I guess the best option is to revert the changes to solve the mess, and then you could, with help of others maybe, add and integrate all the roads/segments that weren't present in OSM before you added them.
In case it is an import (a dataset not created by you), you can't do that, except following the import guidelines: osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Hi, Jean-Marc. In fact I see a lot of very good work in that. But my concern is about that you are using external data to integrate/conflate it with OSM data, and that makes it actually an import, so you should follow the import guidelines for that.
Among other things, I doubt the license is compatible with the ODbL: http://www.basegeo.gouv.sn/Conditions-d-utilisation.html

Hi, Jean-Marc:

You say you have used government data, so that looks at a first glance an import.
Have you discussed this with the local OSM community and the imports list?

224 unset, quería decir.

Une des personnes chargées de cette activation pour la crise du Ebola m'a dit qu'il semble que la ligne est active seulement entre Bumba et Aketi. Je pense le même que vous dites sur la situation actuelle de la ligne dehors le segment Bumba-Aketi.

Je suis d'accord ! / I agree!

Hi:

This looks an undiscussed/undocumented import. Could you explain?