Bedankt voor het oplossen van opmerking #1117493 bij de A4 in Leiderdorp.

Thanks for checking and fixing!

After I wrote my last reply I did read this Dutch article https://www.trouw.nl/home/waarom-je-in-berlijn-eenvoudig-onvindbaar-bent~ae8e2be7/, eight Berlinerstraße and minimal two "Neue Wiesen's. Based on that I will stop searching for information on "Neue Wiesen" in Berlin. ;-)

Wat about the rest of the previous reply I wrote? It is good fun to find errors but in the end it would be good to agree on how to solve the problem you flagged.

Hi Polarbear,

Yes, the link to the Baugebiet Neue Wiesen was an error, but doing some more searching I think the Neue Wiesen in Berlin is not only the 12 ha park, see for instance http://www.stiftung-naturschutz.de/fileadmin/img/pdf/Kleine_Anfragen/S17-13193.pdf:

"LSG 42 Neue Wiesen,
Verordnung zum Schutz der
Landschaft der Neuen Wiesen im Bezirk Köpenick von
Berlin vom 3. April 1995, GVBl. S. 237, 76,52ha"

While I make errors for sure I think this was not an mistake, way/28361276/history#map=14/52.6036/13.4991 clearly show that the whole area was called "Neue Wiesen" before this change.

Based on your comment I agree that likely not the whole area is called "Neue Wiesen" but probably it is good to contact @osmwandl because he/she added the name to way/28361276 eight years ago.

Would be good to see what was the area when he made the change but I can not find a tool to do that (http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=737385 is erroring out) It might be also good to contact other users that edited way/28361276 after that (@hagax, @Schisch, @g0ldfish, @Papalinux, @Verkersrot, @atpl_pilot, @geozeisig and @anbr as the edited the way and might know more.

Hi Polarbear,

Reading German is not really a problem for me but writing takes much more time, so excuse me for answering in English.

The Berliner Zeitung article indeed gives the name "Stadtrandpark Neue Wiesen" to the 12 Ha = 0.12 qkm area but it seems to me more than the park is called "Neue Wiesen", see for example https://www.verden.de/regional/gebiete/baugebiet-neue-wiesen-900000001-20680.html?titel=Baugebiet+Neue+Wiesen

The only thing I did was indeed moving the name from way/28361276/history to the MP as the areas did overlap.

If there is better information on what the limit is of "Neue Wiesen" I would be good to update the openstreetdata; reverting the change will not improve things I think.

Hi arvdk,

Fixed the problem by changing building:part=yes to building=yes. I must have overseen the ":part"...

Thanks for letting me know.

Hi ratrun,

Please be careful fixing osmi problem without knowing the exact local situation. The Tibullushof is not connected to the footpad, actually there is a fence in between.

Just corrected it this changeset changeset/48191451

Greetings,

Martin.

Hi agab29,

Can you have a look at way/458465255/history#map=19/48.60799/0.88971?

This way has area set to yes but no other tags,

What is it?

Thanks,

Martin.

You are the "on-the-ground expert" so if you think it is better to use a single node, please go ahead, and if it is a multi-tenant I definitely agree.

It is not forbidden or dis-encouraged to place tags like amenity=restaurant as isolated point inside the outer way but I thin it is better to tag the building, that is in my opinion more precise.

See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=restaurant for statistics and keep in mind that in quite some places buildings are not mapped so it is not an option to put the tag on the building.

Hi Polari,

One more question related to multipolygons.

In this changeset you added relation/7130952 but the relation and the inner and outer way do not have tags to indicate what it is. It is also not clear from the Bing imagery, so can you the tags to indicate what it is?

Thanks,

Martin.

Hi,

Thanks for improving restaurant Alexander.

One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/DE:Relation:multipolygon#Verwendung and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html

Martin.

NB: No problem, just a hint.

Hi Torsten,

Thanks for adding details near Waltershausne.

One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/DE:Relation:multipolygon#Verwendung and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html

The problem is with relation/7166928

Martin.

NB: No problem, just a hint.

Hi Night_Raven,

Hi Szydzio,

Thanks for adding addition details to the Klasztor Franciszkanów.

One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/Pl:Relation:multipolygon#U.C5.BCycie and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html

Martin.

NB: No problem, just a hint.

Hi Szydzio,

Thanks for adding addition details to the Szachty park.

One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/Pl:Relation:multipolygon#U.C5.BCycie and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html

Martin.

NB: No problem, just a hint.

Hi Kiekin,

Thanks for adding addition details to Filmpark Babelsberg.

One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/DE:Relation:multipolygon#Verwendung and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html

Martin.

NB: No problem, just a hint.

Hi,

Thanks for adding the "Teich am Blumenauer Kirchweg + Brücke".

One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/DE:Relation:multipolygon#Verwendung and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html

Martin.

NB: No problem, just a hint.

Thanks polari,

Checked https://asiointi.maanmittauslaitos.fi/karttapaikka/ and yes, these inner parts are not part of the national park, strange but true.

I have fixed the relation in the light of http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html, see changeset/47874735

Thanks for your work or making the map more complete!

Hi polari,

What is the source for the Kurjenrahkan kansallispuisto national park?

It is a bit strange it is a relation with an outer (makes sense) and inners. Is the area of these inners no national park??

Greetings,

Martin.

Hi Thoschi,

Thanks for your Ergänzungen Muttental but I noticed it likely broke quite some bicycle and Wanderweg relations.

I fixed some relations but some are still problematic, for example the Energiewirtschaftlicher Wanderweg, relation/3095572 and the Radverkehrsnetz NRW, Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis, relation/2073184 over the Mühlenstraße

If possible, could you have a look at these relations?

Thanks,

Martin.