I guess that would be better, but the issue with changing the precise location of the original address remains. And the consistency for this particular dataset, as it was a big council-wide import. Which is why I think it would be best to keep these separate (node for address, building footprint without an address).
What was the reason for you to merge? If you think about it, building footprints and actual block that has an address can be quite different, so it’s not surprising to have them separate. People also use address nodes to have them closer to an entrance / the street they correspond to, which also makes sense. Less relevant to the area we’re looking at here, but just a general note…

Hi Reubot!
I was wondering about the merging of the address data into the buildings here. I think you were hoping to reduce duplication of information, but as the address was imported from a BCC dataset, I think it would be best kept as a separate node so there is no confusion with what information (and coordinates) the source tag applies to.
What do you think?

Hi there
Could you please provide more descriptive changeset comments? It looks like you only use “updates”, which is as generic and non-descriptive as it gets. It makes it very difficult for other editors to understand what you are working on and review your changes.

Thanks CJ! 😊

Thank you Nick! :)

For reference:
- Changeset: changeset/73883556
- On OSMcha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/73883556/

Hi jstev

I just found out today that quite a few POIs were missing in this area, a found this changeset from two years ago.
What was the idea with this changeset? You deleted many retail POIs, as well as landuse areas, and building names, without a justification.

You can see your changes visualised on OSMcha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/73883556/

Cheers!

Hi NickRivers!
I saw that you've created quite a few changesets with the comment "been there".
Could you please provide more specific information about what changes you made, to help others understand better what you worked on? That's what the changeset comment is for.
If you want to let others know you were physically there, you can specify that you were on site thanks to the source=survey tag when you close the changeset.
Cheers!

As discussed on mailing list, and given that there was no response via changeset comments or private message, I reverted the changeset here: changeset/104711700

Hi Australets! I was wondering about the motivation between this changeset, as it changed quite a few things in the area where I contribute.
What is the idea behind merging addresses, buildings and points of interest? I know there are different opinions on the matter, but I can see definite drawbacks in the merging you did, at least in some cases. For example, some of the resulting buildings end up having a "source" tag that used to refer to only the address, but now seem to refer to the whole object.
See for example this one: way/401769723/history
In other cases, the main building is apartments but now has the name of one single shop included in it: way/444096785/history
In many cases, one single key could have a different values for a building and a point of interest, even though the general rule "One feature, on OSM element" applies. (e.g. address, name, contact, source...) Separate POIs are also helpful for shops to more precisely show in the building where it is located.
Let me know what you think!

Oh don't say sorry! Great to see that there's enough of us editing the map to even cause conflicts :D
See you around, thanks for checking :)

Hey Martini! Looks like we ended up editing the same new bikeway around the same time. I got a bunch of conflicts in my changeset ( changeset/102902086 ) and it's my first time fixing that many in one go, so if you can have quick look at the what you edited to make sure I didn't mess up everything that would be much appreciated! Cheers :)

Bravo Lamine ! Merci pour tes contributions :)

Hi Dantine
Is there a relevant discussion somewhere about this bulk edit?
I just noticed that some geometries might be affected by your edit. Did you expect your bulk edit to effect coordinates?
See for example this one: node/4974704278

could it be that he the local legendary prolific contributor be back?

Hi GerdP
Thanks for that. Go Map does not suggest that, it was just my go at tagging a way as a crossing, happy to learn the proper way thanks to you! I appreciate it :)

should be fixed with changeset/56277558
Thanks everyone!

yeah you're right, I keep getting confused because the app I use only has "name" in the preset.

Here you go, with more details: changeset/44881894

Sure, I will have a closer look next time I walk past. Cheers :)