That is normal behaviour on the part of the software. Somehow I missed that there was that relation in Laos that had also been modified. I ran the edit through a history viewer (http://osmhistory.appspot.com/ I think) and didn't notice the change in Laos, but all I needed to do was look just under this text box... oops.

That's really interesting. So you'd uploaded all the changes in Laos, but the area was still included in the bounding box! That's kind of shitty. I guess I'm not the first one to find the history function on OSM.org to be not very useful, but this was one weakness that I'd not been aware of.

Hi katpatuka,

Do you have any idea why an edit like this, to a region in Turkey, shows such a huge bounding box? It seems really common, but I don't understand the reason.

In addition to my concern about potential lack of discussion prior to an import, I have concerns about the quality and accuracy of this data. Of the 1270 nodes originally added with this edit 183 of them have identical coordinates with one or more other nodes. They were originally added as polling stations, and later edited to schools "so they can show in map", this seems like a pretty clear case of tagging for the renderer. While many polling stations may be located in schools, are they *always* located in schools? It seems unlikely to me. Additionally many of these "schools" are not visible in the Bing imagery, with empty fields or woods clearly visible. Most are located in areas with many buildings, and it's not possible to determine if there is a school present or not.

I hope thevikas will be able to clear up my concerns.

Hi Purple Platapus, thanks for your edits, good to see new people mapping on OSM. You seem to have local knolage of these schools, and that's always a great addition to the map.

I did notice a few things that seem to be errors in Kerrisdale Park and Point Grey School. I've made an edit, cleaning up some errors, other things I am not sure about. I've remapped the soccer field w/in the track, as it should just be the field itself, not out of bound areas. I cleaned up the routing of the service road.

You made a pretty significant modification to the park boundry, and it now overlaps with the school grounds. This is a mistake, as areas are either under the authority of the Parks Board or the School Board, but I do not know if you've made the park more accurate, and the school grounds need fixing, or the park should just be put back how it was.

One thing to avoid is to "map for the renderer" (osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer). That is to say to enter incorrect data to make the map look like we think it should. I noticed an oddly shaped sports field to the West of Point Grey school. I suspect that this is just a grassy area, that you wanted to show up green on the map. This would be a mistake, however conveniently we have the "landuse=grass" tag that will show up green on the map. Perhaps this area should be changed?

I'm wondering if your change to the park boundary is a similar thing, because the park shows up green on the map.

One more thing to point out before I shut up: iD (the editor you are using) has the ability to make map objects have 90 degree angles. This makes things like sports fields look *way* better. Click on an object, then in the pop up menu click on the button with the square icon.

Sorry for the wall of text, I hope some of that info is helpful. Thanks again for your edits, and happy mapping!

This edit introduces some nodes with bad tagging. The ones that stand out for me are the ones with name and ele tags, and no more. The ele value is non-numerical and identical with the name. If no info is added as to what these names represent (locality, piste, etc) then I'm going to remove them.

I think seasonal is the best choice too. Especially after looking at the OSM wiki entry on ice_roads (ice_road=*).

Keep in mind that OSM tags may have different meaning that in common usage. So whether or not locals call the roads that are only passible when the mud is frozen "ice roads" isn't relevant, it's just a question of how the tag is used on OSM. (The OSM wiki is usually useful in this regard, but may lack information, or even not reflect actual usage accurately).

In any case we seem to be in agreement. Thanks for your work on Northern Canada, it's good to see someone editing in this area.

Thanks for answering my note (note/835213), your knowledge on the Mackenzie river crossing, and the ice_road tag, I didn't know about that one.

I did do a minor edit to following yours, as you had applied the ice_road tag to a large length of road, that was both on the river and on the land.

If you want to apply a tag to a section of a road, you first need to cut the way. In iD this is done by clicking on the node where you want to cut it (make a new node at this location if necessary), and then clicking on the scissors icon.

I've done this for the road in question, and removed the ice_road tag from the inappropriate section. But I thought you might be interested in the process.

If I'm not being clear please let me know, and feel free to ask any questions if you have them, I'll do my best to answer.

This is a highly political edit, and OSM is interested in the reality on the ground, not Historic agreements.

Species? What does this edit summary mean?

Why are these two nodes tagged as tailors, but have the names of tattoo studios?

I also left comments on changeset (changeset/21702908) that originally added this (and 1269 other similar nodes) if there's been discussion before importing this data.

I'm a bit concerned by the edit summary of this changeset, as it states "so they can show in map", this sounds like it might be tagging for the renderer (see osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer). Is it certain that all of these are schools? If so why were they not originally added as schools?

I understand that these are polling stations, and that polling stations are often in schools. Are they always held in schools? Also why are there so many duplicate nodes with identical locations?

Oops, I see that the second edit (changeset/21877729) by thevikas provides a source of "election commission of india - public data". So it was an import. As such I'd like more information about any discussion that took place before the import was done. More info about the source would be great too.

Where did this data come from? It appears to be an import. Was it discussed prior to importing? If so please provide a link to the discussion.

Thank you for any information that can be provided.

This seems to be a common pattern, especially in India. The older route takes a more roundabout route, as roads get upgraded a bigger bridge, with more direct routing is built.

I'd say that anytime the the main road takes a detour at a side valley, and a minor road takes the direct route, it's worth looking more closely at if they are correctly classified.

This edit is an improvement over the previous lack of waterways.

This changeset changes the name of Tangmarg to "Tangmarg, Jammu&Kashmir". I am changing the name back, as it is incorrect to include the state name in a village's name.

I forgot to add GPS to the source. There are plenty GPS tracks on the main highway, and I used these to confirm tile alignment.

Once again I forgot to update the source field in JOSM. The imagery used was *BC Mosaic* not Bing. I pretty much always use BC Mosaic for the area it covers, only occasional comparing it with Bing, as the Bing imagery seems to be more up to date.

Sorry if my last comment seemed a bit curt. I'm sure the edit was benificial, I'm happy to get speed limits and turn restrictions added.

Accidentally dragging and dropping a node is an easy thing to do. I've looked into the edit history of the node, and it seems like it'd already been added back at the correct location, so I just deleted the one in the incorrect location.

I don't think you need to do anything now, but if you want to double check my work I did it with this changeset: changeset/44229455