Ik begrijp wat je bedoelt. Ik heb het stuk ten oosten van de Wirdumerpoortbrug opnieuw water=moat gemaakt.

Ik heb laatst een heleboel grachten gemapt. Met Overpass Turbo krijg je nu interessante resultaten :)

Is dit goed? osm.org/changeset/105689844 / https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=105689844

Is goed, ik zal het aanpassen. Stay tuned.

Dear Tomas Straupis,

1. Here follows a link to the documentation: osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details#Deprecation I am happy to inform you that 10 years after approval, broad renderer support for water details has been achieved, which means that legacy tagging schemes can be safely deprecated.

2. As woodpeck asked before, could you point out how the Lithuanian community made the decision to tag moats in a certain way? The tags you mentioned earlier are not in use, and I would be glad to know which tagging scheme for moats the Lithuanian community has agreed upon.

3. I should not have to tell you that water detail tagging has been a part of OSM for much longer than I have been. Furthermore, the fact that this water body is a moat is of interest to historians, which makes tagging it as a moat valuable information.

4. I know some military history and my country has a very high density of moats. That should qualify me to identify moats at forts. In our discussion here I also noticed that we seem to be in agreement that this body of water is in fact a moat, which makes me wonder why you removed the related tag.

I would like to remind you friendly that no communities within OSM are unimportant and that Brian Sperlongano's mass retagging is well-documented, has been conducted only after local community approval and so far does not concern any moats, which by the way are a rare sight in the USA.

I ask you to stop gatekeeping, acting hostile and vandalising the map.

Regards,

Intruder Ghost

I would like to mention that these tags aren't in use and that I intended to make a positive impact to map this feature as a moat with the existing and documented tagging scheme.

water=* is not a duplicate, it's a replacement. This was introduced in the approved 2011 proposal for water details. Tags for basins and rivers are not uniformly tagged as natural=water at this moment, but for moats this is the only documented tagging scheme and as I said before, it's clearly a water body and not a basin.

Calling it "the duplicate nerds water schema" is rude and unnecessarily dismissive, which is a poor attitude to have as an OSM mapper.

Retagging a moat as a basin means that you're removing the meaning, which is sabotage of data and is the sign of an edit war.

You should stop gatekeeping your tagging scheme yesterday, because you're opposing the international OSM community and vandalising data.

Basins are areas designated for water retention/detention/infiltration. Moats are water bodies for defence of a fort. The meanings are very different and each has its own tagging scheme.

comment moet "landuse update" zijn. JOSM bug

Hallo TWHB,

Bedankt voor je update hier. Ziet er mooi uit. Mag ik vragen waarom je Maxar beelden gebruikt in plaats van de PDOK beelden die in NL veelal gebruikt worden?

Mvg,

Casper

Thank you for replying.

My advice would be to remove the ways you mapped in this changeset and map them again in JOSM by replacing the geometry of the old neighbourhoods (see osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/utilsplugin2#Replace_geometry_.28Ctrl.2BShift.2BG.29 for more info). This helps to keep the history of the old ones, which is a good practice.

Make sure that the updated neighbourhoods do not have an @id tag, because this tag is useless and possibly even problematic because of the @-symbol.

If others have more advice to offer, please add it.

Happy mapping!

comment should be "landuse update"

comment should be "updated type to leaf_cycle"

Changeset comment is incorrect. Should be "updated type to leaf_cycle and updated name:botanical to species"

Comment is incorrect. Should be "updated type to leaf_cycle"

comment is incorrect. Should be "removed type=Physical tags on nodes and ways"

comment is incorrect. Should have been "updated building=Permanent Dwelling Unit to building=house"

I'm glad to see that others are noticing these issues as well. Since the mapper is not responding, would it be of merit to revert this changeset?

Thank you for updating the tags of these shops. I didn't know this tag existed.

Hello JJIglesias. The tag type=* is meant only for relation type objects, not for information on POIs.

Hi Tomas.
The tag water=wastewater has been widely accepted, see osm.wiki/Tag:water%3Dwastewater

These objects here carried the tag basin=wastewater, which has about 1% of the total usage of water=wastewater. I am doing my best to make the tagging consistent.

That said, I understand and share your concerns regarding this topic. I am working with ZeLonewolf on a proposal for water treatment basins/tanks, see osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Process_tanks

I invite you to take a look at the proposal and leave a comment. All input is welcome. Keep in mind that it is very much a work in progress.

Kind regards,

Casper

P.s. I will let you have your basins this time, but the next time you revert my changes without my consent I will escalate the matter to the DWG. Consider this a warning.