i don't see in the linked wiki page mentioned, any indication that this is a deprecated tagging (status de facto), nor any mention of the additional tags that iD is so eager to add.

if iD is presenting these as actually deprecated, that does not appear to be justified by the documentation i see without research; the same is true for other suggested changes that have caused me grief.

in fact, grabbing one of the first changes below, this is *not* something that should be changed without review and familiarity with the local laws (bet it's the zebra crossings that near me have meaning lost on the iD developers)

arrgh, more alpine huts in this town to swat. that and castle nodes would be a useful thing for iD to flag.

howdy,

could i pick your brain to understand your intention behind the residential boundary relation/397331 , presently broken?

your changeset comment points to the brokenness at the west end of way/49085161 where the other end of the boundary arrives from the north, but at this point intersects not this road but the slightly offset boundary parallel to this highway, to which this boundary does not belong.

would it be better to have the neighbourhood follow boundary lines where possible (until the end of the mentioned highway segment) or were your intentions to connect the boundary line to the physical highway with a short (centimetre?) link where what defines the outline changes, keeping boundaries separate?

i hope you understand i can see too many ways to fix this, but i'd prefer to know your intentions for mixed cases like this.

thansk

mojn,

your josm didn't perchance warn your changeset was breaking relations like relation/2416295 - which i've just repaired so far as i can see, in a way likely very different from how it was originally mapped along the lake outline, so no need to take action.

i'm just trying to gather as much background info to help me understand what may have gone titsup with the multitude of damaged unclosed rings thrown up by osmi all across your country, when the element histories allow me to re-create the missing segments. or better, to try to understand the thinking behind the editor operators, as there seem to be as many ways to map as there are mappers.

thnks

why don't you simply fix things, rather than breaking things in the process.

bonehead.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/70997106 where the changeset comment is: this is no alpine hut and it is already mapped with the right category

the v1 nodes (not that many here) are largely duplicates of existing mapped areas. not all, but several.

looking more closely at more v1 nodes, only one was in a plausible location. most of them are useless to import into osm in this automated fashion, such as node/6522268884 when the building itself is already mapped with the used address.

i suggest this changeset be reverted and tried again after getting the locations correct. this isn't doing any favour to osm.

i'll look at further changesets' v1 entries to see if this is a general issue.

the two added nodes i spot-checked are positioned on the road, not at the actual location of the shop, and should not have been imported to osm like this.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/70974338 where the changeset comment is: revert vandalistic deletions

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/70948651 where the changeset comment is: if none of this is legit, then why add it to osm in the first place? we expect more of our mappers. and learn how to spell principal.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/70948541 where the changeset comment is: if none of this is legit, then why add it to osm in the first place? there are other geofiction sites to be had.

further, living_street is pretty much exclusively a european legal concept and should not be used in the us as a general rule.

much like zebra crossings which again in europe have a special status legally for both pedestrians and drivers, as opposed to being a generic road marking in the us, but that is a whole 'nother kettle of worms.

in my opinion no -- i have reverted the clearly vandalistic changesets, found near miami, an exclusive island i can't remember, and two random us locations i didn't try to figure out.

this is an armhair mapper working from a limited set of imageries, but who has an issue i am trying to understand, why did three changesets devastate near miami, taking me several days to clean up (and my work-in-progress got interrupted today, aaaargh)

some areas like here are minimally vandalised, so a selective revert here, [ and somewhere else that appears to be a mountainous resort where a house got deleted in a second not-reverted changeset, after a first i reverted wiped out anything in the area not golf-related, ] is enough to restore the data if the damage is not too bad.
(brackets added for clarity after that run-on sentence got expanded into an unholy hell, sorry, my gramma needz werk)

i am of course going after this mapper's contributions with a fine-toothed comb, inspecting every deletion or version change, in order to maintain the data integrity of other mappers. wishing i had not been required to sever my internet cable just before the major incidents.

if further reversions are desired, that would be a DWG decision, as i've pointed to these problem edits. failing to note new construction from the comfy chair is no big sin, but the repeated deletion of nearby data is still a puzzle to me.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/70904092 where the changeset comment is: mass deletion reverted. it is obvious the mapped items still exist plus more, and it appears this mappers modus operandi is to start with a clean slate, wiping anything not suited to the narrow interest s/he has and not caring for other mappers work

what is up with https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/40875963 mangled in this changeset and earlier?

it looks like up until v4 it was consistent, then it appears that today's GolfMapper has been treating it as something in the way to be shoved aside as s/he sees fit and to hell with the positional accuracy it is supposed to represent.

it rather lept out at me in https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=68000225 and has been since further adjusted by user glglglglglgl (wait...) although not back to its earlier imported position.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/70903440 where the changeset comment is: undo unjustified damage to map data with no mapper response

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/70903275 where the changeset comment is: revert an unexplained and unjustified vandalism edit that defies all logic

blimey. you have deleted a car park, when nothing suggests it no longer exists.

also you have added items in the area based on outdated aerial imageries when newer imagery shows significant construction has taken place atop what you have added to the map.

i am restoring the carpark. osm is a shared map of reality, and not your personal private map to rid of things that do not match your own personal worldview.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/70902708 where the changeset comment is: undo damage to map data

if you were not aware, the orphan nodes were left behind from a restoration after serious vandalismus incidents, when the restoration process somehow went titsup, uploading a number of nodes but almost no ways to connect them.

my attempts to restore this failed due to the activity that modified the nodes comprising nearly everything deleted, so i spent the night manually restoring everything from Potlatch 1 as far as i could see from the changesets.

there is still one object that has been bothering me, as it used to have several nodes that you deleted, and the automated step recreated the outline without those nodes (trimming, as i read in the source).

i was wondering if my Potlatch Lazarus experience resulted in these old node numbers being pulled back to life and re-used, and it is the case. every one of the half dozen nodes i checked below is in use again.

it is a pity you included more than just deleting the nodes, otherwise i would be tempted to revert your deletion and seeing where and how many nodes re-appear, in case there are things i have overlooked, as the vandal did not limit himself to just wiping the golf course clean.

anyway, on my lack of sleep, ii think i will try to find more vandalism i overlooked.

no real point for me to type all this, was there...

thanks