What, `disued:amenity' #newkeyagain #hashtagsRdumb ? ;-P~
This cntributin has nt any err0rs

GRRRRREAT Pr*>pop<*thudKLONK*itish bounds...
Has anybody seen me teeth?

Hallo all,
5359, I understood what you were trying to say, when I started to clean up the driveways.
I think a great deal of the problem is that it seems the iD editor, used here, and intended for beginners, is seemingly too eager to grab and re-use existing nodes. I have seen this in several other things I have tried to clean up, asking myself how could things have gotten in such a state.
(My first experience with this was when a separate drainage ditch, tree, and power line, one on the other side of a road, were all merged at a single point with a boundary... Took much time to fix)
In one case here, the driveway was connected at three points to the house. And when I deleted one of those points, the drawn shape of the house snapped back close to its image outline.
I use Potlatch, an intermediate editor, which also will join to an existing line or point, but with warning (appearance changes when near) and only within two or three pixels. And only if I deliberately choose to do so, could I draw like this. Mostly it does what I want and I have learned to expect, with a few issues I have discovered over time.
My iD experience the first time was a shock that it seemed I could probably do a lot of damage, so I quickly exited. I have the curse of muscle memory to follow my workflow, which makes learning anything new difficult.
I changed most of the driveways. But I did not fix all the errors I saw -- one house remains tagged as an area only (another peculiarity of iD?) and too many things (sidewalk, driveways) remain connected to the building shapes.
Ah, purslane Drive. Portulak. Portulaca. What nourishes me through the summer, until pulled out as an unwanted weed...
5359, from what I have seen here, I think you can write, a driveway should not normally connect to a house shape, nor should it share part of its length with the side of the house (as I believe is still the case).
Someone more experienced with iD can say if it is to blame here.
This area still needs much work to detach the many roads, houses, and such from each other and the park, and fix the overlaps.

Harald,
Mruphy's Law srikes again! Good catch. :-) I was thinking of software lifecycles. Now I cannot really think of any mapped items (apart from tags) where deprecated would apply...
@4rch, du hast `depracted' in deinem Antwort wiederholt. Was bedeutet es? In Google habe ich nur englische Tippfehler fuer `deprecated' auf der schnelle gesehen... Merci
Harald, I should probably do something else, but I think `crub' in Finland you commented on is a typo for `curb' which is an americanisation of `kerb', which I think, without checking, is appropriate (prepares to put foot in mouth again). Thanks for suggesting corrections, as often an obvious typo is not noticed by the accused.

Hoi,
Fuer mich ist klar, `depracted' [sic] ist ein Tippfehler, oder english flasch gelernt.
Richtig ist `deprecated' -- leider hat Harald sowas hier nicht explicit vorgeschlagen.
Meine Fehler duerfen alle sammeln und behalten.
Ihr
Freibier

(Du darfst gern auf deutsch schreiben)
(As you know, changeset comments and discussions are public, and I guess I was just awake at the right time to see yours)

What I wrote earlier, then lost, was that I wanted to know the thinking behind martin0203's actions, which the first changeset comment gave me no clue what, nor why, was being done.
Cleaning/simplifying ones own data like GPS track points taken regularly can be a legitimate use of such a feature. Luckily my Potlatch has a `straighten way' function which I tried, and indeed, it did reduce a complicated curvy track with comparable switchbacks to the Prochenberg, to a nice straight line between two points, so no danger from that ;-)
I suppose repeated simplification of OSM ways would have the same effect...
I am not aware of martin0203 defending or explaining these actions, but I have not yet looked. I also hesitate to involve the DWG for what could be over-eager ignorance, as I would rather see community agreement that changing, say a zig-zag line with, say, a metre offset every 10 or 20m is abuse, which is what these Sauberkeit actions to the forest outlines appears to me, introducing small inaccuracies, rather than eliminating redundancies. As more detail is available to map, these inaccuracies add up.
Must add -- just read the SimplifyWay default is up to 3 metres inaccuracy, when I have been tracing 10cm imagery. Aieee.

Hallo 5359,
I think what you want to say is better written as: don't draw the whole property, but rather try to trace the building outline.
(Ich verstehe auch nicht richtig, `mostly no compound')
Ingrid, I can understand your desire to add so much as quickly as possible, and I also see how difficult it is to trace around such complex outlines, that I personally would leave for a more experienced mapper, with better tools.
It is a shame you were not assigned to a better neighbourhood!
I have tried to trace the outline of one of these houses, compensating for the shadows, palm trees, and the distortion that with experience I have seen from the Bing orthorectification. I think it took over a minute and still I know I could have done better by my standards, and you probably added the entire neighbourhood in this time.
I appreciate your wishes to contribute to improving the map and adding all buildings in such a short time for such a disaster! Thanks!

Hallo,
$MUTTERSPRACHE == English
Also, I hope to catch the attention of some who do not read german. Ich kann nur Schlechterduutsch schreiben...
After losing a long comment (damn kezboard) again, I have looked at more changesets in the area entitled `Bereinungen Forst & Wiesen Prochenberg' and I feel they should be reverted as like this changeset, and those you mentioned in talk-at, `clean' things thereby losing accuracy which I verified against the imagery.
I am unfamiliar with JOSM, thus I cannot myself perform a revert, but might these simplifications be the result of applying SimplifyWay within?
I disagree with applying this (with which I am not familiar) to the work of others who have made the effort to add the detail and accuracy -- here we are talking of well over a metre difference from reality, and on the roads, curves turned into sharp angles.
The debate belongs elsewhere, but having relocated roads formerly under construction yesterday and trying to smoothly reflect their curves, I would be displeased to see that turned into jagged lines at the detail I worked with.
That has shortened my original long reply :-/
Freibier, kein Pingu

Hi,
(excuse my kezb0ard problems)
Thanks, y0u have confirmed a text-only lynx br0wser search does n0t always return useful map results! Interestingly, a search for Yoxf0rd and Houston returned only the same PDF I found from 2012. Perhaps that was its planning name at that time?
Sadly, TIGERweb 2017 and Current show nothing, despite the range of time of the available imagery.
Nor do I get any useful go0gle results for Brevis Lane from here.
Westminster Village returns loads of realty listings for homes from 2016 and 2017 on a street not shown in 0SM, which is how I chose to repeat a search, this time seeking directions, which one listing gave. There may be two variants of Wilthorne Gardens, with or without the Court.
Hmmm, n0w I cannot get any useful g00gle results apart from realty listings, from which I could pr0bably put address numbers 0n th0se 11 h0mes I added, using what I would think t0 be more precise search terms. Is it just me, or has Thee Internet bec0me less useful f0r information?
I agree, I local survey is probably needed until updated TIGER data covers this new area. I won't bother to remove or correct my additi0ns, n0r will I object if someone deletes them. They are based 0n my interpretati0n of multiple texts referencing this area, and not from anything graphical 0r pictorial. (Perhaps I should st0p doing almost all browsing and searching with lynx, and join the 1990s?)
Thanks again f0r checking this.

Hallo fkv,
Thank you for bringing this to public attention and poking my old memories.
I have investigated the area against a poor selection of orthophotos and my worse memory and compared achavi to see the changes. I would not call these changes just simplification, but a loss of accuracy/precision and actual introduction of errors and ambiguity.
I know imagery can be misleading, but a deleted path is clearly visible in a place where the simplified representation would leave me wondering how to continue -- way/437251882. Further, better rounded curves are now awkward angles and multiple junctions such as near the summit are now schematically represented in a confusing manner, where I would be misled to follow a path to reach a junction which actually would have been on the curve had it been present.
I may well have found the current markings adequate when I was in this area with no 0SM (damn kezb0ard) experience and starting t0 learn a Garmin GPS, perhaps bef0re kn0wing h0w t0 effectively use EGN0S in the treec0ver. But I cann0t agree the current lack 0f preciseness w0uld be g00d t0day, having just mapped in hurricane areas against z20 and even better z21 imagery and trying t0 d0 my best against that, where the Haselstein Gipfelkreuz cannot even be seen in the imagery I viewed, and the twisted path up to it is shown for simplicity as a straight line (I was too much a beginner to enter my GPS traces back then).
Then again, now it seems m0re pe0ple are mapping using a Handy or tablet with no EGN0S/WAAS, which puts me in the river 0n wh0se banks I sit n0w while my Garmin puts me 0n the 0SM sh0reline/beach.
I never traced fr0m my GPS traces, but had I attempted t0 trace the imagery t0 f0llow the path centre as I w0uld t0day with perhaps better accuracy than the 2m (usually better) GPS/EGN0S error, then I would n0t be happy to see such accuracy deleted. A m0untain trail does not foll0w a straight line between tw0 points for d0zens 0f metres where earlier d0zens 0f p0ints traced a path cl0ser t0 the curves seen 0n the imagery.
There are 0ther things t0 bother me, unrelated t0 this changeset, such as the p0siti0n of the Prochenberg summit near a basemap.at backgr0und at 1116m, when I th0ught I remembered the summit marked cl0ser t0 the Aussichtsturm years ag0, which is higher than the Gipfelkreuz I photographed against the fascinating (as a valley dweller) sky.
I cann0t see the simplificati0ns f0rced by the later changesets and similar Verschlimmbesserungen elsewhere as an impr0vement, where the accurate truth has been l0st.
Just my 2 Groschen
-- Freibier
t00 lazy to swap kezb0ard when leet-speak d0es the j0b (sort 0f)

Darf ich auf englisch schreiben? Nein? Na gut.
As Simon wrote, there has been a discussion in talk-ch, starting with
https://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/2017-August/004156.html
which you can see without subscribing -- follow the links for the thread.
It is probably best to subscirbe there and participate to reach a larger community than here in the changeset comments that probably mostly see freaks like myself looking in for technical or administrative reasons.
'tschuldingung if you have already looked in.
Ihr
Freibier
who was confronted by more red in Potlatch1 than current data in this area whilst checking history and has not reviewed against orthophotos

Hallo get B. (may I call you get?)
I cannot speak for the community either, nor have I looked at any details of this conversation, but I would welcome the addition of sidewalk data in Ohio and elsewhere, just as I have tried to contribute missing data regardless of importance or appropriateness. So from me, please go ahead.

I tell ya, it is a CONSPIRACY of me KEZBOARD to prevent me from making meaningless^H^H^H^Hful comments.

Be that as it may...
The ESRI imagery is now officially available for direct OSM tracing. Previously I had used the imagery for this area, a nice but poorly-aligned winter leaf-off imagery to identify buildings hidden by the Bing z20 summery leaves-obscure-everything-and-then-some, and selectively add from Bing those simple yet ambiguous outlines.
Now I can trace directly from ESRI, particularly where the Bing outline is too unclear or sometimes utterly hidden, and then align as best as possible these additions to the Bing imagery, believed to be well orthorectified and aligned based on spot-checks.
The ESRI imagery is not consistently offset ref. Bing z20 here, thus every added building (mostly garages or sheds or equally meaningless) has been manually adjusted, often in different directions. This is most pronounced in hilly areas, or where ESRI winter images are taken at a significant angle.
With this, I have made a start in the woodsy leafy shady green areas where too many buildings are irregular, causing me to wish for the simplicity of the rectangular roof outlines of North Korea or something.

That is what I wanted to typo in 255 characters or less before the proximity of the ' simple apostrophe to the Return key caused this comment to be prematurely submitted. Causing me to appear even more of an idiot than I pretend not to be.
Advert:
For sale, used kezboard, many key markings absent, food crumbs within can feed a large family for a week.

Hallo user 5359,
As you can see from the different aerial imagery, the way you point to here does not exist, being some 71 metres south and at best a driveway that traverses a small pond.
This, sadly, is typical of the ``quality'' of the original TIGER data import.
So this imported old data can be deleted, as the only useful info left over is the highway classification -- without checking, I have the feeling that ``living street'' applied to the Real Mustang Drive is not quite correct, if it is a european concept not applicable to the american countryside.
That is my view from the Wrong side of the pond.
And again Mr/Ms Mustang Dr 168, thanks for your contribution!

Hallo ydrgbjo (hope I typed that right)

If you are Andreas Buerki, who re-created the footway along Helvetiastr. as in the talk-ch mailing list, in changeset/51412772, you can review its history in, oh, try
way/256702239/history
to see it was deleted about a month ago in changeset/50333882 with other deletions, by a very prolific mapper.
Hope this helps you, if you have not yet learned of this, to explain what has happened to your mapping.

Apologies for wasting your time if you already know this.

Ihr
Freibier

OOOOPS.

It seems this manual upload was not needed, as I guess I was able to unstick the network sockets to enable the upload that repeatedly failed after a long wait.

After closing those file descriptors, the original extensive changeset uploaded fine without errors or bugs I had been expecting to debug.

Sorry for prematurely salvaging my labours -- I bet every item uploaded here has resulted in duplicated nodes and overlapping buildings (a quick Potlatch viewing appears to show this).

If someone with experience would care to revert this changeset only, to get rid of these dupes, I'll be so happy not to learn any more revert tools that I'll abstain from further vandalising the map for a few hours or days.

ADVthanksANCE, and I'll try to be less trigger-happy in the future...

After a quick review, all this user's changesets outside Nigeria, that is - in Texas, should be reverted, as they add fictional data. They all use this same changeset comment. See the nearby `MY HOUSE' to the northeast with some 250 metre walls... And the TRAIN STATION to the north...

If the node is still present, then there is no chance of someone re-adding it with out-of-date information...

Hallo all,
The actual attraction within the woods is already mapped since 2012 and appears on OSM from zoomlevel 18.
node/1825598023 (typed by hand)
The path/track has the same name; three months ago user Micha2307 added the note, roughly translated as ``as of 2017; path closed since 2015'' (so it is not just short-term storm damage as I expected from local experience).
The imagery (Mapbox seems best, == DigitalGlobe Std) shows a track (auto-tire-width, two spurs) to the point where it disappears below the trees and Micha2307 changed the access to no on the path.
Was ist (genau) auf dem Schild geschrieben?
To hadw, I believe this ``attraction'' should really be a sign, an Infotafel, if you will. I also do not know how accurate the position of the signpost is, whether at the start of the track, or where the access as mapped changes -- and what additional physical barrier may be present if any, but I can believe a change where mapped from track to path into the woods.
User geo-ranger also noted the path was closed in 2016.
User Hifi has just used iD to change this node, so I hope it would be simple to change to tourism=information if it is agreed to be most correct.
That is how I see it from afar...

I'd guess name:en should be
Hoedinger Tobel (closed)
(sorry for lack of diaeresis on my kezboard layout) or
... (no entry)
MAPS.ME . 'Nuff said. The user added an attraction (ha ha) which probably should have been a change to the path access -- without knowledge of the area, I cannot say more. A bollard? A swing gate? Private path? Temporary storm damage?
created_by MAPS.ME ios 7.4.0
Furrfu.
-- Freibier