Ich habe mir dieses Changeset angeschaut und sehe darin keine Verklebung von Flächen mit Linien. Habe ich etwas übersehen?

Please do not perform large search and replace operations like you did here. It appears that you have added craft=glaziery to quite a few objects where this tag does not match (eg 328531320). Please see osm.wiki/What%27s_the_problem_with_mechanical_edits%3F for details.

Erstens hat das zitierte Proposal nichts mit diesem Edit zu tun. Zweitens hat die "Firma Geofabrik" mit diesem Proposal nichts zu tun. Persönlich habe ich auch dagegen gestimmt, aber das spielt hier keine Rolle.

Ich sehe hier kein Problem. Der vorherige User "bahntech" hatte versehentlich ein Multipolygon erzeugt, das nur einen Way als Mitglied hatte. Das ist ungültig; *keine* Software kann damit etwas anfangen. kartler175 hat dieses ungütige Multipolygon gelöscht und damit die Daten verbessert. Der Kommentar von "beautifulplaces" ergibt keinen Sinn.

Es wäre hilfreich, Details über die verwendeten Quellen anzugeben - welcher Kunstführer genau (damit man prüfen kann, ob es urheberrechtliche Bedenken gegen die Weiterverwendung der Daten gibt), und wo findet man diesen Schematismus (aus dem gleichen Grund). Danke.

I found further areas in this changeset that are *clearly* not residential areas, and will therefore revert it.

Why do you think the "Parque Juan Pablo II" is a residential area? Has it recently been redeveloped? Because on the aerial imagery I see grass and trees.

Hello, there have been complaints to DWG about this situation. The discussion is very long, and I think goes beyond what should be discussed in a changeset - please, continue the discussion on talk-it or the Italian forum if you prefer. Generally, we want to err on the side of caution when it comes to parks - just because there's a grassy area doesn't mean it is a park. However, and without wanting to impose anything on the Milan community, the "Parco Sempione" would *clearly* be tagged leisure=park by most mappers, and not just landuse=grass (come on, it even has trees!). The current mapping, with a huge multipolygon collecting lots of landuse=grass outer rings and cutting out the paths, is unusual; in most other places, you'd make whole thing a leisure=park and draw the paths across it. However, please refrain from any further edit warring, and discuss the matter (with the wider Italian community if need be) in a suitable forum.

Can you double-check your data source. I have compared your mapping with ESRI world imagery and found that the imagery alone is unlikely to be the source of this waterbody mapping. For example, if you look at osm.org/edit?editor=id&way=735168249#map=17/-37.68012/143.30366 - the waterway follows the visible feature only haphazardly (where do you know that this even IS a waterway, since it carries no water) and then branches off to the South-East instead of following the visible feature to the North-East. I'm not saying this isn't a waterway but the source you specified, ESRI world imagery, certainly does not have enough information to say...

Hello Garmin-User, in this changeset you have spent a lot of time fixing a broken import that later had to be reverted. Next time you encounter something like this - a lot of boundaries, apparently imported, without discussion on the relevant mailing lists etc. - it would be better to find out what has happened here and whether perhaps the whole import needs to go. Make contact with the importer, ask if they're aware of the problems, if they have discussed their import with the community, etc...

Da hast Du den falschen erwischt ;)

Ich habe dazu einen längeren Kommentar im Forum geschrieben. Changeset-Diskussionen sind für grundsätzliche Diskussionen eher ungeeignet. Ich möchte alle Beteiligten bitten, in einem geeigneten Forum einen Konsens über das Mapping der B55 zu suchen und sie *danach* ggf. geeignet anzupassen. Nicht *erst* anpassen und dann diskutieren.

Die Kombination "lanes=2" mit "lanes:forward=2" und "lanes:forward=2", die hier zum Teil vergeben wurde, ist nicht sinnvoll.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/75410153 where the changeset comment is: das war quatsch

Hello! The "tianditu" (天地图) imagery may not be legally used for OpenStreetMap because it is copyrighted. Pleae do not use it because any edits you make based on this imagery will have to be removed from OSM. -- Frederik Ramm, OSMF Data Working Group.

Hello! The "tianditu" (天地图) imagery may not be legally used for OpenStreetMap because it is copyrighted. Pleae do not use it because any edits you make based on this imagery will have to be removed from OSM. -- Frederik Ramm, OSMF Data Working Group.

Hello! The "tianditu" imagery may not be legally used for OpenStreetMap because it is copyrighted. Pleae do not use it because any edits you make based on this imagery will have to be removed from OSM. -- Frederik Ramm, OSMF Data Working Group.

Hello! The "tianditu" imagery may not be legally used for OpenStreetMap because it is copyrighted. Pleae do not use it because any edits you make based on this imagery will have to be removed from OSM. -- Frederik Ramm, OSMF Data Working Group.

Hello! The "tianditu" imagery may not be legally used for OpenStreetMap because it is copyrighted. Pleae do not use it because any edits you make based on this imagery will have to be removed from OSM. -- Frederik Ramm, OSMF Data Working Group.

Hello! The "tianditu" imagery may not be legally used for OpenStreetMap because it is copyrighted. Pleae do not use it because any edits you make based on this imagery will have to be removed from OSM. -- Frederik Ramm, OSMF Data Working Group.