As of naming: in case of objects (for example gulfs) which belong to more than one country, we use double names in the name=* tag (like "Bottenviken - Bottenhavet") plus all the language names in name:xx=* tags. It is still one object, but with multiple names. See for example relation/8140878. I've made it exactly like that, but somebody else came and changed the name into English name which I opposed and was waiting for reaction. But before this problem has been resolved, KitonZenobia removed the whole object just because he/she doesn't like on the one of the maps (it is not advised to just remove things without even a contact, even if you don't like how they look).

Hi,

Sure, it's IHO definition - see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Bothnia#Geography

Does your opinion have any source and definition? And what is Gulf of Bothnia then, how would you define it? Do you think it exists?

It's visible now. :-)

You seem to be new OSm editor, please read this article about data/rendering problems: osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

I don't think it was misused - do you think that Gulf of Bothnia doesn't exist? It should not be removed, labels are related only to the specific map style, not the database.

Hi,

What kind of object is this exactly?

node/5863303657

Well, I didn't... Now the whole set is fixed. Thanks for noticing!

Yes, it should be coherent. Why do you ask, didn't I do it?

In my opinion turning a point into an area was adding value, and that's why I did it. It's much closer to reality than a (more or less) random point somewhere inside.

Hi,

Why did you change the name of Gulf of Bothnia? It's a gulf laying between Sweden and Finland, not some English speaking countries, so the name should reflect it in my opinion.

Cześć,

Twoja zmiana spowodowała, że budynek zamienił się w park, i nawet opis tego nie usprawiedliwia, bo w otoczeniu tego budynku nie ma parku. Proszę, edytuj ostrożniej, to nie jest brudnopis, te dane są faktycznie wykorzystywane.

Hi, what castle is there?

OK, thanks for the info.

Interesting, thanks for noticing!

In OSM Carto we treat natural=bay area as the area only for rendering name. The water area is already tagged and we have a different part of code to render it.

In Maps.me they could treat natural=bay area as also water area, which would hide islands, if rendered on top of them.

I would go to the Maps.me and tell them about this problem, so we could discuss it. Please leave the link, as an OSM Carto developer I'm interested in taking part in it.

OK, no to usuń proszę. Bezpośredni rekonesans jest więcej warty niż zdjęcie lotnicze, w dodatku sprzed 2 lat...

Ja to zresztą tylko poprawiałem, a pierwsza edycja jest sprzed 10 lat i droga mogła zarosnąć albo co:

way/23063866/history

Hi,

Is this object:

way/199515650

the same as

http://stpetersbarge.org/

?

Is this still there?

A, racja, dawno to robiłem, teraz tylko poprawiałem przyległe tereny. Masz rację, należy ten park powiększyć żeby zawierał cmentarz i pewnie wtedy ta nazwa stanie się zbędna.

W jego skład wchodzi cmentarz przecież, jak widać, natomiast prawda terenu jest taka, że to jest założenie parkowe, a nie same kwatery z grobami.

Hej,

Jak sądzę ten obszar:

way/401827352

to raczej jakiś teren zielony/rekreacyjny, a tylko pomyłkowo oznaczony jako obszar handlowy?

Hi,

Why did you remove polish name from this island relation: relation/3791269 ?