Is source given in the changeset comments involved with this tagging? no. therefore it is not redundant information here and by deleting it you have caused a loss of info that was presented in an accepted format at the time it was created, as well as a defended possibility even today (there was a statement from a DWG member, probably not in official capacity, that source-tagging individual objects is an accepted and encouraged procedure as of a week or so ago for certain types of mapping).

If source= is not damaging the data, it should not specifically be deleted, particularly when people are more concerned about legal source data rights than in the past.

If you do not understand the osm.wiki/Tag:note=, then your schooling was lacking, but for those unfortunate enough not to have had to learn and speak fluent latin before we were even allowed to *think* about learning german or any living romance language, you should refer to a dictionary, in which the actual north-american-biased legal specifics of one coöperative living, which term is clearly based on the more generic definition applicable here, does not even appear until much further down in the list of possible definitions.

A machine translation is highly likely to be more US-centric and reflect the increasing dominance of that culture and is equally likely to give more howlers like that in a search for a simple if not logical replacement of a term without actually having any understanding or trying to impart some wisdom. (which is why i do not even refer to such translations for my worldwide work in osm.)

Try feeding this load of bollocks into a machine translation into your native tongue, and see if i'm not right.

if you do not understand, as your last question appears to indicate, then show your fellow mappers some respect before destroying their contributions out of ignorance and depriving others, such as myself who appreciated seeing and learning of the condomium relationship without need to ask, `what the fsck is this'.

If my tone here is inappropriate for osm communication and needs work, it is because i have been unable to sleep for well over a week as my osm activity will reveal, and probably because i am overreacting to the actions and comments here in typical osmf-list manner, as well as dealing with a growing number of increasingly aggressive anonymous osm users. for which i apologise.

(seeks some other way to let off steam, and spies a little puppy to be kicked)

Hola Team Lyft / Spencer,

can i ask you to take a look at this changeset, using the cycle layer as the background for its bbox,
changeset/64420119#map=17/37.43184/-122.14026&layers=CN
?

It looks to me that there is a gap in the cycle route 03 here, that i would expect to be mostly continuous.

I found this with a specific view towards the route relations touched by other changes, including
relation/105445#map=14/37.4291/-122.1326&layers=CN
which i manually checked for gaps similar to the bus routing, and happened to notice near the north end of it, a nearby gap just west, that i suspect to be related to these edits.

i am not familiar with this cycle route, nor how it has been mapped in the past, but it looks to me a bit strange that the gap seems to correspond to lyft edit boundaries, as seen to the right of this comment.

thanks.

as i do not know a better way, i am manually inspecting the different route relations in this area for obvious gaps, as while i was able to refer to the osm inspector to better visualise things, i fear i do not know how to use it, or any other route validator tools out there, as i am but a beginner despite my years in the project.

thanks!

thanks, barbari

by the way, i then took a look at a dozen or so random items in this general area, and every single entity was indeed from jjyach two years or more ago and of a high standard.
so not a real puzzler for me anymore... :-)

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/64982527 where the changeset comment is: delete Yet Another bogus maps.me castle

looking at the v2 node details to see it has a location difference but little else from v1, i somehow suspect this to be the sort of inadvertent node pull that happens rather often with editor iD.

Viewing the actual visual representation of what changed in https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=64936006
and seeing just how far the node was moved compared to everything else edited, even though it ended up at the location near related businesses, i am willing to wager it is an error rather than an unfinished edit, and can simply be restored to its old position, but it seems odd for a random move to happen after over two years to the same user's node.

unless mapper density here is too low for anyone else of note to have added to the area.

i will put my detective costume away for now and go back to playing in traffic.

hallo reemal,
i am trying to understand how it is happening in the changesets you are making in this area to split roads, it is seeming that some of these split segments are losing one particular public transport membership.

you should be able to see the discontinuities here along page mill road, by the gaps in the orange at
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=-122.15415&lat=37.40792&zoom=17&opacity=0.66&overlays=ptv2_routes_,ptv2_routes_valid,ptv2_routes_invalid,ptv2_error_,ptv2_error_ways,ptv2_error_nodes
there look to be three in this local area.

i have been mentioning this to one of your lyft cow-orkers in nearby osm Notes less than a km to the east, where a similar new gap in this same route relation has been introduced, as well as the obvious newly-divided highway issue which started this all.

do you do anything special when you make these splits? do you have to copy the route relationships over by hand, or do they get automatically copied over to both sections?

i am thinking this might be a problem introduced by the iD editor much of your team appears to use, as i have read of problems in editing such things, with the recommendation to use the JOSM editor for route editing.

it seems strange that the two below sections of road, the v3 and new v1 ways, contain the same mapper osm.wiki/Tag:`note=' comment and most everything else i could see was identical, only that one of the six or seven relationship memberships was absent.

thank you if you or your team can clarify this.

regards,

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/64962146 where the changeset comment is: delete Yet Another bogus maps.me castle

actually, what you have now is two overlapping outlines, the resurrected one with slightly different geometry visible in the map data seen on way/205718455/history if you zoom in close enough and enable the map data layer such as, oh,
way/205718455/history#map=20/37.39123/-122.08003&layers=CND
The cycle map allows a few more steps to zoom in and better discern the outlines and compare them.

i have not done anything regarding replacing what you have re-drawn, as i am allowing you to work some magic with JOSM in order to restore the building history as contributed over the years, with what looks to your better geometry based on the newer mapbox aerials.

since i do not use, nor even know JOSM, but i know it does offer the opportunity to merge geometry and keeping the way history, there is not much more i could do of use, and as our new mapper reports, it will be razed soon enough, so feel welcome to use this as your playground for honing your skills on some uncritical data.

i will not try to finish typing what as i started earlier as it pretty much degenerated into me getting ever more frustrated with my kezboard as it toggled between states i have yet to fully understand and i come over as a shouty incompetent alternating in and out of ALL CAPS. which is pretty true.

but osm is indeed a learning experience, with it having taken me years before feeling comfortable to do repair work like this, and you should not feel that pressured to learn or do everything, and there are usually enough mappers who will be more than happy to help out with simple fixes like this, given that your editor does not have the ability to do this fairly uncommon operation.

the worst case is someone might get to the overlapping buildings (which should be an error) and deletes the wrong one before b-jass works the needed magic.

as an off-topic aside, i am not familiar with black friday (sounds like a stock market celebration to me) but as i had the radio on last week, each advert block before the news was full of that term, even if i was not paying enough attention to remember if it was spoken in english or another language or both.

new laptop? no chance.
21:52:13 up 661 days, 3:27, 4 users, load average: 0,68, 0,70, 0,61
i have resigned meself to everything gradually decaying around me.

thanks for the work, and now that i have caught up with the pretty ugly flame wars that came up when i was offline (must be something about the weather) and finally uploaded this outline and its history, i'll sign off here and let y'all at it.

cheers...

moin moin,

an anonymous note comment in note/1601330 led me to this changset where i see below you deleted three ways, one of which apparently was 18th street.

can you check this? as you use josm, i trust you don't need me to upload the undeletion i made with potlatch 1.

thanks.

hi all,
just want to let ye'awl know that i have not forgotten about this, but rather that my distracted attention has been diverted to osm forum or mailing list discussions, first on Crimea, and now seems to be a language issue that i am trying to catch up upon reading backwards.

tricalnikhil, sorry for this trial by fire, but you have done nothing wrong and instead are suffering through a pair of senile ol'

in the unlikely even someone is confused by the inapplicable hogs/dogs changeset comment, refer to resolved note note/1600389 to clarify or muddle the waters as you see fit. or something.

thanks. maybe. or not. who am i, and why am i here? 42.

Hola,

Out of idle curiosity slash boredom, I threw my set of tools (Potlatch 1) in the general direction of the deleted building outline some hours ago, and successfully undeleted it to what I believe is prolific Mapbox mapper dannykath's state.

But i have not uploaded this.

Your outline looks Not Too Bad[tm] even if it lacks the way history, based on aerial imagery.

Would you like me to upload me change, Jazzy Bee, in order that you may attempt to merge the geometry and/or history with your resulting overlapping building?

If your tools fail you, you can always delete the offensive outline.

cheers,
this signature intentionally left blank

This sounds like an invitation for a DWG-issued user-block for failing to interact in a timely way with community feedback, which responsiveness is expected in this project.

See the various reasons given in osm.org/user_blocks?page=4 and later, where short-term blocks start to appear. As I write this, there are several blocks seen on that page just for this reason of failing to respond in a timely manner (which should correspond to OSM activity like frequency of edits) to issues raised by others.

By publicly stating you intend to ignore others and flaunt the rules, your own contributions will be viewed in an unfavourable light for the overall health of the project, which is not your own personal sandbox to play by your own arbitrary made-up rules.

This is not a threat per se, but intended as a friendly warning, as you are no stranger to previous bans.

On behalf of the Internet Stalking Conspiracy (ISC),
Your Greatest Fan

Please keep communications about OpenStreetMap public, not in private mail, as there is a worldwide community of professional Stalkers following your every move under the excuse of OPEN in OpenStreetMap, with an interest in seeing that errors are properly remedied.

Taking communication private deprives us of the bread and butter that comprises our meaningless, holier-than-thou, existence that feeds upon belittling others with our lack of interpersonal communication skills.

ADVthanksANCE.
A Fan.

the original history of this node leads me to believe it forms part of a trail in Oregon, and is irrelevant to Tübingen, germany.

i see this error has been manually reverted outside of this gateway account.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/64592834 where the changeset comment is: restore default names covering multiple languages in use locally, deleted with the grounds that each individual language is present, causing them to disappear entirely from language-agnostic renderings.

This is bollocks.

You have deleted the generic language-agnostic default name that is used by renderers such as seen on osm.org/ that do not fallback to any particular imperialist language selection.

This is also a huge problem with maps.me rubbish edits that mangle languages and fail to provide a universal default fallback.

this change shall be reverted.

yes, i am not in a good mood. wanna make something of it?

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/64590491 where the changeset comment is: yes. reverting pokemon spam.

thanks for this.

the road segment should only be split in cases like a bridge out, or where the surface has been removed (which is not the case here), or perhaps been completely buried under an earthen wall for economic reasons. in the latter cases, there will often be an impromptu path created over tine from use between the two segments suitable for foot and simple vehicle (cycle) traffic.

In this particular case, select vehicles appear to be able to pass the mapped barrier. Whether they are legally allowed is something I cannot infer from the aerial imagery, but it looks to me that bicycles, which in my location (rules may differ here) are forbidden from using pavements after a certain rider age, can easily go around the barrier, which i would call not just bollards, but also a kerb.

Even if the free width may make it precarious for an uncoördinated rider to pass to the side, it is certainly possible to dismount and pass walking the cycle, provided it is not too heavy or widely packed, between the posts.

The same appears true for rollers, skateboards, Mofas, and perhaps for motorcycles, for some of which a legal limitation, not visible from the aerials, may restrict them, and that tagging, when known, should apply to the barrier.

Further, where I am, pedestrians are permitted to use all roads save for signed motorways and Autobahnen, unless otherwise signed, and certain rules that often apply to me require me to cede the pavement and walk in the street. Other pedestrians may have difficulty navigating kerbs, which around me can be nearly 30cm which even i have difficulty conquering in me old age, so plenty of OAPs can be seen in their mobility scooters or zimmer frames on the road proper.

For all of able-bodied pedestrians, horses, and off-road bikes, I do not see the additional kerb as well as the bollards posing an insurmountable challenge any more than the other mapped barriers I have difficulty navigating with a fully-loaded pushbike.

By creating a gap in the road, if it were to be near me you would be breaking cycle routing which i am guessing was not the intent of the planners who ordered the barrier to be installed, as I often have seen comparable designated free space to the side of a motorised-vehicle-barrier, specifically set aside for cycles even though it falls briefly far under the minimum two-metre width required legally to allow riding.

much of what i write is edge cases, made more difficult by this being not just a simple row of bollards, but also what i would categorise as a kerb. also, my interpretation is skewed by my local rules, most of which may not apply in this country where this mapping is taking place. and most such edge cases are beyond what osm maps, where i would refer to reality rather than what appears on a map rendering.

personally, if i were to map this, i would micro-map each individual bollard as well as the kerb, although the mapbox aerial imagery was deliberately degraded in resolution some time ago and no longer appears in the sharp detail of the original, where now are blocky pixels. this is far beyond your business-oriented mapping, and does nowt to help routing based on the schematic line of the road and the single point representing the barrier area, but may help someone studying the map to decide if a heavily-loaded long cycle trip is do-able along here.

sorry for the long-winded reply. i hope something in it makes sense.

cheers!