Reverted in osm.org/changeset/150404433

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/150404373

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/150404335

reverted in osm.org/changeset/150404272

Reverted in osm.org/changeset/150404216

Vandalising the map out of spite is a quick way to attract the attention of the DWG. You would do well to change your workflow and to follow SomeoneElse's advice.

I don't care about Spaghetti Monster's claims, or how many of these exactly you left. I'm just politely requesting that you leave the supporting pieces out of your uploads, and nothing more than that. I hope that's within reason.

Thank you for replying so quickly.
Those supporting pieces do not really belong in OSM, so could you leave those out of your future uploads, please? It should be a trivial matter to finish what you're working on, remove the supporting pieces and only then press the upload button.

Hello Map-Finder. Why did you map these alignment ways here, only to delete them again in your next changeset?

maro21 was complaining about bboxes, so that's what I was commenting on.

@maro21, I concur with ablevi here. There's no consensus on this, and there are some very good cases for large bboxes.

But if you really think your POV is the only right one, you can plead your case over at the OWG and ask them to block all changesets with a huge bbox. I'm sure they can figure out how to configure the API that way.

Hallo. Ik kan de Bever niet vinden op https://www.bever.nl/winkels.html. Is deze nog actueel?

@Kovirii I agree with your latest update of way 437189759. That said, keeping outdated name=...(closed) on objects would be unhelpful in most cases. An exception I can think of is osm.org/way/373633500, where the words "Ex Cinema" are literally on a sign on the building.

Some ways were indeed completely deleted, because there was no valuable info left, for example a closed camp site with only a POI tag and name tag. I don't see a reason to turn OSM into OHM.

I appreciate your feedback.

@silversurfer @dieterdreist The "cleanup of this scale" consists of 105 edits. Nobody is going to email you for a stamp of approval each time they make 105 map edits.

there are other tools than just the osm.org history viewer, which are much more fit for purpose, for example https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=149843868 or custom filters on https://osmcha.org/.

Complaining to mappers each time they make a big bbox isn't going to improve OSM in any way. You can direct those complaints to the OWG and ask them to implement better tools on the website.

That point aside, these POIs have already been reviewed locally by the mappers who tagged them as being closed. I'm just doing a simple cleanup job here.

@maro21 That's a tech issue, not a mapping issue

1. How does it make people's lives harder?
2. As I wrote in the CS comment this isn't an automated edit.
3. Spatial extent isn't a concern with a thematically simple edit that isn't so big in scale.
4. These are guidelines, not rules.

osmuser, you mentioned address tags. I made sure to mark all closed POIs with address tags as disused.

pitfire, where did you get that interpretation from?

silversurfer, the review has already been done by the mappers who have marked the POIs as closed.

A vacant shop isn't a shop so there wouldn't be anything to map there.

What you save by deleting outdated objects is that you get them out of mappers' way. Otherwise we might as well implement a policy of stripping outdated objects of their tags and then leaving them around, which I suppose wouldn't bother any end users and would satisfy the "keep the history" guideline, but I have a strong suspicion that that idea would upset more than a few mappers.

What do you mean, don't delete them? If you want to fill a map with. purely historical data, add it to OpenHistoricalMap. Following OSM guidelines, removing objects that no longer exist is in fact the right thing to do.

In cases where there was relevant data left over (address tags etc.) I retagged the businesses with the "disused" lifecycle prefix, so those aren't gone, but empty objects with only lifecycle prefixes on them would only clutter the database without contributing anything useful, so I chose to remove them.

Hi nyoma,

Why did you make a copy of Ashkam Airport (osm.org/node/1042100984) and named it "closed", and why are you mapping closed aerodromes all over South Africa?