See discussion on tagging mailing list.

See discussion on tagging list.

Please see discussion on tagging list.

I have hidden two URLs from this comment thread that were accidentally published by Wilco_VR_IJsselland but not meant for public consumption.

Hello Gabriel0322, not everything where a pedestrian can walk is a footpath. Much as pedestrians can cross a meadow anywhere they like, they can also traverse a graveyard. Don't try to record all these options as footways please.

Dear ziedellouze, welcome to OSM and thank you for your contribution. In this upload you have added a pharmacy POI and a pharmacy building. On the map this now looks like TWO pharmacies ;) next time, one is enough - either a POI or a building. Also, you have marked one of them with "dispensing=no" and one with "dispensing=yes". Perhaps you can correct that?

(automatic translation:)
Cher ziedellouze, bienvenue à OSM et merci pour votre contribution. Dans ce téléchargement, vous avez ajouté un POI de pharmacie et un bâtiment de pharmacie. Sur la carte, cela ressemble maintenant à DEUX pharmacies;) la prochaine fois, une seule suffit - soit un POI ou un bâtiment. De plus, vous avez marqué l'un d'eux avec "dispensing=no" et un avec "dispensing = yes". Peut-être pouvez-vous corriger cela?

nikospag, you write "The old sections of EO2 must have old_ref=ΕΟ2 and be renamed according to local destinations." - is this a rule that comes from the Greek government or a custom among the Greek community? How does one determine *which* local destinations to use in naming a road?

In this changeset you changed way/690332491 from "trunk" to "primary" even though a note on that way said "when the new highway is built this changes to primary" - and the new highway is apparently not yet build. What is the basis for your downgrading this way to "primary"?

In this changeset you have removed the "nat_ref=EO38" tag from way/698292408. Can you explain in how far this is "community consensus"; is the problem with nat_ref or does the community say EO38 is elsewhere or what is the issue?

Can I see the official document that says that the street depicted by way/655441474 is officially called "Πτολεμαίδας - Φλώρινας"?

Dear Rick Sanchez, it appears that you have another perception of what "reflects reality" than other members of the Greek community. It would be desirable to find a consensus here, potentially by participating in forum discussions here: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=27 - please refrain from changing the names or "ref" tags of roads before such consensus has been achieved.

Please stop name-calling other users.

nikospag, can you explain why the name "Πτολεμαίδας - Φλώρινας" is somehow "more correct" than the name "Φλώρινας - Έδεσσας" for a way like 655441474? To me they both seem to be made-up names that should be removed entirely; does the road really carry that *name* in practice - are there signs that say "this is the Πτολεμαίδας - Φλώρινας road"?

Hello Rick Sanchez, can you explain why in this changeset together with changeset/79740959 you changed the "ref" of the A1 motorway to a "nat_ref=19"? The Wikipedia entry for the A1 motorway clearly says that it goes all the way to Evzonoi, and the OSM route relation says the same. Why do you believe that some parts of it should not carry the ref=A1 tag?

Have you verified that the large number of "brand" and wikidata tags you have added are actually correct according to your own knowledge, or have you simply applied suggestions without checking them?

Dear AyoubGouriba, please explain why in your opinion this security wall does not exist.

If the shared footpath if separated from the road by any physical barrier (even if just a kerb or strip of grass that *could* be traversed by a vehicle) then mapping the shared footpath as a separate way is always acceptable, even though it might be worth checking around especially when it comes to sidewalks along residential roads. In some areas mappers frown upon mapping them as separate geometries because it can make the map more difficult to handle.

Dear user Pilsa, please provide meaningful changeset comments when you upload changes to OSM. Adding these comments will make it unnecessary for others to ask: why did you do this or that - if you add a comment explaining what you did and why, that improces the quality of your contributions greatly!

Unsere mechanical edit guidelines betreffen alles, was nicht durch einen Menschen überprüft wurde, egal ob man sie mit JOSM macht oder mit einem Skript. Und diese Edits hier hast Du sicherlich nicht überprüft, sonst wäre Dir ja aufgefallen, das hier mehr nötig ist als ein bloßes Entfernen von Duplikaten. Was Du gemacht hast, war keine "Korrektur" - das war so, als ob jemand ein Pferd mappt mit animal=kow und Du "korrigierst" das dann auf animal=cow. Die Verantwortung für diesem Fehler trägst Du, die kannst Du nicht auf "inkompetente Editor-Programmierer" abwälzen, und die feine Art ist das überdies auch nicht gerade. Die Suche nach Duplikaten ist sicherlich sinnvoll - eventuell kann das eines der verbreiteten QA-Tools schon, ansonsten müsste man das mal in den OSMI, Osmose, oder Keepright einbauen. Aber einmal gefundene Duplikate müssen mit Sorgfalt untersucht und entfernt werden und nicht mit dem Holzhammer; wenn Deine Zeit nur für den Holzhammer ausreicht, dann ist es besser, jemand anders kümmert sich darum.

Dear Andre68, please stop your automatic edits. It is ok if you use scripts to find duplicates, but removing them automatically is a violation of our mechanical edit guidelines. If you had looked at the data you were "improving" here for just one second, you would have seen that this data is rubbish and needs to be removed wholesale. Instead you ran your scripts that make it *harder* for others to detect the problem, and make it harder for me to actually delete the problematic data.