What are you hoping to achieve by acting spiteful?

Welcome to the cult! Mapping with OSM is a highly addictive hobby, so remember to take enough breaks :D

Sounds like you’ve got your work cut out for you!

A practical solution to the addresses issue is to map the addresses as nodes inside the building area, not on the building itself. Then you can map each address individually.

Happy mapping :)

I use GeoNotes to generate GPX files to use as a background layer in JOSM. Sometimes that description is simply the name of a business that I passed by while I was travelling. The result is lines of text descriptions on top of the aerial imagery, and I can very easily make new map data based on the descriptions I wrote. I guess you can do the same with Overture Maps data.

Thank you for clarifying :)

As a side-note: the OSM community is full of pedantic people with strong opinions. In situations like these it helps to keep a calm mind and wait things out. Replying while emotions are still running high is a recipe for disaster.

@NorthCrab https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/why-does-osmf-budget-25-000-on-amazon/102475/101

OSM moderation has taken many of my texts entirely out of context, seemingly to cast me in a negative light. I’m not willing to continue the discussion in such an environment, where there’s an overemphasis on subjective views and a lack of grounded argumentation. Moreover, …

You did indeed say you were unwilling to continue further discussion (yet here you are but that is beside my point), and in this comment, your first comment after Firefishy’s comment, you did mention a lack of grounded argumentation as one of the reasons. I expected that Firefishy’s comment had given you plenty of grounded argumentation, so your reaction here surprised me a bit.

@NorthCrab

I’ve voiced concerns about the project’s direction and transparency, not to attack OSM but to emphasize its importance.

This left a bad taste in the mouths of several people because it sounded more like an accusation than as a concern. A bit more nuance here could have prevented some misunderstandings.

Lastly, I’d appreciate it if you could ensure your arguments are well-considered before presenting them. Continually addressing ambiguities is becoming quite time-consuming for me.

This goes for the people who are replying to your arguments as well. Consider for example Firefishy who spent his holiday time writing a detailed budget report on the forum, only to hear you complaining about “a lack of grounded argumentation” later on without even a “thank you.” None of us wish to have arguments in this way.

Thank you! I updated the query to exclude these results.

Also, you’re not allowed to use Google as source for OSM mapping because of copyright.

I have no idea what happened to that link, but here is my latest version: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1woJ

Thanks for all the nice comments and for your perspectives on the subject.

That’s very helpful info for mapping in Vietnam. Perhaps you could document some of these things on Vietnam / Vietnam Tagging Guidelines on the Wiki.

It’s an interesting approach to runway mapping. I’ve mapped areas on occasion using area:aeroway=runway (so not exactly area:runway). Runways can also be rendered as areas if they have a width=* tag, which could make runway areas more or less redundant for rendering purposes.

The main benefit of linear map features is that they inherently have a direction and a length. It’s possible to tag these things explicitly on areas, but this doesn’t seem to be common practice as of now.

Very few features in real life are lines. Fences may be, but roads and hedges always have a certain width. We still map them as lines as that is useful for many cartographic purposes.

I think it’s destructive to remove runways mapped as lines and I think this idea should go through a formal proposal first.

That’s the spirit! Good luck and happy mapping!

You can see the statistics of your progress on https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?ImmaBeReborn

Thank you very much for the new tool!

Thank you, Guillaume, for your continued good efforts and for this interesting read.

I’m curious as to what counts as mapping an AED perfectly means to you, and how that relates to other mappers’ ideas of mapping an AED perfectly.

There should be a way to standardise this, so not everyone has to have a different opinion on what it means to “map an AED perfectly”.

That sounds like a productive project! Are the addresses perhaps good enough to import, or is manual review a necessity?

I do this sort of cleanup all the time. Thank you for taking up this one. I’m sure that your expertise with historic sites is valuable here.

No one is going to change the border while the war is still going on. You can try of course, but I’m sure the Data Working Group will have something to say about that.