This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/55906430 where the changeset comment is: Restoring my carefully-mapped unappreciated work

Hello,
I put in a lot of time adding the driveways to make your neighbourhood look more complete and accurate.
Items on the ground that are true and verifiable, such as with the excellent ESRI imagery, are not clutter. The map looks barren now.
I will be reverting these deletions, as I do not like to see that the time I spent trying to help you, was not appreciated and I should have left your neck of the woods alone.
It was fun adding things in your area, but now I'm sorry I bothered.

Dear Team Freedom Fighter America Vader:
Can you explain why you have again deleted the same schools as before?
Can you at least add a little variety to your vandaliism?
It is getting tedious revisiting all the same places.
-- a fan

Can their software handle the case of a misplaced node, I wonder? More on that later...
.
Pieter, I have no connection to the DWG (apart from probably making them or the OSMF cringe with my behaviour).
I have tried avoiding being involved with reverting, preferring to leave that to others better qualified, although the recent Pokemon vandalism may force me to take matters into me own hands far more often.
.
I have recently concentrated on the behind-the-scenes facilities of OSM more than mapping, to try to improve the map. So I consider myself still a novice with too much time on my hands to mix myself in matters of communication where it's better that I don't.
.
Another plus for the area-as-amenity mode of mapping is that it is more resistant to accidental tampering that is not so obvious, which I see far too often when surfing the map. (This still hasn't come up in the forum discussion in progress.)
An actual case of this was something I repaired somewhere in Austria, where a beginner had unknowingly grabbed ahold of a node for the discounter Hofer (Aldi elsewhere) and dragging it many hundred metres away onto a different building to which it was then automatically attached to become a part. That was not so trivial to fix.
Had the Hofer been mapped as an area instead of the single node, then the accidental (or malicious) repositioning of a single node would be quickly spotted as an out-of-shape building and repaired.
.
Would they be able to recognise and act on this in a way compatible with OSM which gives precedence to the mapper's way of doing things? That is, if a mapper repositions a node and tags it as an entrance on the building outline, thereby adding useful information (although now that entrances are rendered as well, a standalone node for that would work as well as the current common practise of locating the business node or housenumber node at the entrance...)
And not to seek a revert of such a change, even though the geolocation data no longer matches what was imported?
But to seek a revert if this Parfumerie node in discussion moves the same distance northeast into an adjoining shop area? (I don't know where it had been positioned before as a standalone node)
And what about the case where somebody traces building outlines or re-aligns them to some horribly georeferenced satellite imagery many metres offset, putting a node outside of the area, then it gets moved to the wrong absolute position, yet one that follows the OSM practise many follow of prioritising existing data over repositioning it?
.
I see in this area that like in many others, there are several mapping conventions at play, including areas with amenity data.
OSM is not a single monolithic entity driven by orders from above (yet), but many thousands of independent mappers doing their own thing in any area, hardly any of whom will be aware of these discussions or resulting policies. One participant has decided the proper way of mapping is to delete the carefully mapped buildings in the area of a particular business, as well as anything else like car parks, pools, and such to clean out space for a single node for a hotel that had been mapped already in detail.
Any of these mappers (cats and herding come to mind) may decide to unify things to match a particular style in an area, so that a standalone node will stand out and call attention to itself, accelerating the rate at which this happens.
.
I'm sure this has all already been hashed out in the past, but it bears repeating to stress anything I repeat is not an isolated opinion flying in the face of convention.
.
Why am I still awake?

Hallo,
May I ask how you found the names `cheaters lake' and `cheaters park test' and how they are in an area which is clearly dry and residential?
You should not be adding fictional information to OpenStreetMap, a serious map that only records facts.
Nor should you be carrying out tests here.
I see many other details nearby that do not match the aerial imagery.

Woah. Woah... WOAH. WOAH!!!
They could be onto something BIG...
description=...`` services that will upgrade the lives of their clients.''
I swear, *my* life could DEFINITELY use an upgrade!
WHY HAS THIS *IMPORTANT* and _VALUABLE_ SERVICE (and no doubt, a bargain at half the price) of LIFE UPGRADES been HIDDEN from the CIVILISED WORLD (and those other places) for SO LONG ?????
I FEEL WE SHOULD ALL BE TOLD!!!
WOW!!!!!!!!
HOW DO I UPGRADE MY LIFE?!?!?!?
(does it have something to do with leaving OpenStreetMap alone for a set time?)
PLZ REPLY KTHXBYEEEEE

There is no reason to revert this change. The shop is correctly mapped as an area and fits perfectly with the OpenStreetMap way of doing things and is far more accurate than a single node which is a very coarse representation of an object which occupies an area.
As soon as you add map data in OSM, it is no longer yours, and it becomes Fair Game for anyone to do as they wish, and improvements by refining the data are welcome and in fact what OSM strives for.
A building area can be geolocated just as trivially as a randomly-placed node, as the location of the single icon in the centre of the building makes clear.
The only place a node by itself in the case near me has benefit, is to mark the precise entrance, which is not the case of the supplied data I had checked (not here) and again would mean altering the data, just as if someone were to worsen the position of the node by relocating it onto the street, as appears to be a common attempt to map things.
Remember, OSM is not your corporate geodatabank, but belongs to the mapping community, whose rules your data is expected to follow, and not `our company data, our rules' -- it's no longer Your data.

We nerds know that Google Maps and Google images are copyright by Google.
Only copyrighted sources for which OSM has explicit permission may be used for mapping purposes.
Google has invested heavily in acquiring their data and imagery, has *not* given OSM permission to use them in any way (with very rare humanitarian exceptions).
Therefore many mapper nerds, myself included, don't even bother to view Google maps or imageries, for fear of tainting OSM data.
The maps that could legally get away with using your imagery, would be Google Maps themselves, where perhaps you might have better luck. Or a commercial mapping service who pays for access to the Google imageries.
The only images legally available to us are ones that are often obsolete and therefore non-competitive. And in all those cases, what OSM can legally add to the map may be out-of-date, but it is unquestionably legal and permitted.
The other means of verification is an on-the-ground survey, but unless this area has been razed and turned into a giant public park, I suspect any mapper who turns up in person to observe the on-the-ground situation will likely end up being shot rather than welcomed. I know that's my experience in on-the-ground address gathering.
Your data needs to pass the verification test to remain within OSM.
.
The second thing we nerds care about, besides the legality of the data, is the correctness of the data.
A `lake' in OSM definition only applies to a natural larger body of water, and that does not cover an area formed by the depression of removal of a man-made structure. There can never be a lake here.
A reservoir in OSM definition would similarly not apply here, with no dam structure for the purpose of a larger-scale water reserve.
What could apply is a construction site formed by removal of the structure, or perhaps a basin if it is a permanent feature and not just a temporary condition or intermittent, just as OSM does not map every puddle that forms, often for weeks after a heavy rain, as either a basin or a pond.
Other more experienced mappers may know what best applies, but without a building and other visible outlines and features from legal imagery in the area, or addresses to aid in geolocation and deliveries, I suspect most mappers can't be arsed for such selective micro-mapping.

If I got the right one, it's back awaiting demolition now, so it's all yours
(dons hardhat)

Sure, the grounds and the name are deleted already.
Should I restore the deleted building for you? It's easy if one knows what to do. The learning may not be so trivial.
Then you can edit it to adjust as needed.
(Also you wrote it's slated for demolition, which I take it means it still stands, and as a generic non-school building will have a perfect place in OSM, at least, until the wrecking ball is delivered...)
(I will assume yes, so if I guessed wrong, you can delete it again ;-)

Hi,
I see you're adding things again.
Have you discovered how to align the background imagery so your new additions appear in the right places?
I see some places where intersecting new roads look good, but other places which need work (or later adjustment)...
I looked through a list of iD shortcuts, but I didn't see any mention of this function. I'll try to remember to search for it...

Google Maps und Bilder sind leider fuer OpenStreetMap absolut tabu.
Andere erklaeren sicher weiter...
Tut mir leid

Hallo,
Your edits in this area are fictional.
You have covered an entire city block of buildings as a park, and added a large lake where there is only a small swimming pool to be seen.
The adjoining city block is no longer a park, but you should not have added it in the first place.
OpenStreetMap is a serious project based on the truth, and neither tests nor fake data have any place in it.

Hi,
About that deletion - my suggestion is that even if demolished, the outline of the building be left in the OpenStreetMap data for now.
The grounds being, the area is lacking many buildings, and imageries used to add things are years out of date, so that it's possible someone else will come in and add many buildings, including the no-longer-present-school outline.
If something is present in the map data, but prefixed with an appropriate lifecycle prefix, then the mapper will see that and ideally not re-add the building from an obsolete source.
thanks...

This is not much better; this, like most of your changesets, is pure and simple vandalism.
If you do not stop doing this, you risk being banned from OpenStreetMap.

You may like lakes, but OpenStreetMap does not appreciate your adding fake lakes, vandalising the factual map and flooding schools, businesses and residential neighbourhoods.

This is very clearly an above-ground, temporary swimming pool and not a pond and has been that way for many, many years.
If you expect anyone to take you seriously, you will need to provide clear photographic evidence, otherwise it will be turned back into a swimming pool.
(Georg, beim ``verbesserung'' hast du leider Bing als Quelle, dabei zu weit nach Norden, fast am Hausumriss gezeichnet... Sieht fuer mich unglaubwurdig aus)

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/55820191 where the changeset comment is: user requested revert of aligning ways to poor Bing aerials, rather than aligning background image to ways

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/55819893 where the changeset comment is: revert unauthorised use of Pokemon in changeset description

Hello Katie -
This changeset description caught my eye when you mention moving roads.
And I confirmed, you are using bad Bing imagery which shows very poor alignment and correction.
Maybe you would be interested in an almost-identical discussion I am now having with changeset/55787946 ?
I can see there is far better aerial imagery for your area both from Mapbox and DigitalGlobe, as one area where you have had to severely move the roads looks to be rather hilly, where Mapbox is photographed from almost straight overhead.
Just an idea to try to keep you from doing too much unneeded or incorrect work...
Thanks!