Yes, I am aware that `access` sets the legal access for all modes of transportation, including `foot`. You see, the ways I have tagged `access=permissive` are on private retail property. In this case the property owner grants anybody—the general public—access to the roads and property provided that they adhere to the rules and regulations set forth for using the property. This includes pedestrians or trespassers on foot.

In short, the semantics of `permissive` in OSM is that access is granted to the general public but the owner or proprietor can revoke access at any time. This is different to objects, mostly OSM ways, which are tagged with `access=public` or no `access` tag (which defaults to `access=yes` or `access=public`). No `access` tag, `access=public`, or `access=yes` means that the object is in **public space**. Often this means that the object modeled by the OSM data is state owned, like public roads for example. But, state owned does not necessarily imply a public space. Take military installations for example, which mostly are state owned and operated but where no general public access is granted. So, since `access=yes` is the default there is also no need to tag public roads explicitly, however private roads and property with general public access needs to mapped with `access=permissive`.

You have deleted amenity nodes here too which are co-located in the same building.

osm.org/way/40478031 is another example where multiple amenities are housed in one building. Multiple amenities in one building should be mapped either with multiple nodes inside a building outline or with relations of type `multipolygon` referencing the building in the `outer` role.

@tguen I am happy you are finally starting to realize your issue. No really, I honestly mean it. You see, I did not jump to conclusions simply and solely based on these two edits. Before I posted, I have also reviewed some of your recent work. Whenever I comment on any bad changesets, which I rarely do—I think, it must have been three times now, including this occasion, since I have started mapping for OpenStreetMap—I always check the edit history of contributors, look at OSMCha changeset graphs, and consider the date of a contributor's first changeset and the count of committed changesets (which together gives a weak indication of a contributor's level of experience). This enables me to chose the right approach to address a contributor.

Everything I have written about these two changesets, you could have thought of yourself. I even hinted at it in the hope that it would make you start thinking about it. You did not. This clearly shows that you do not read carefully. Instead, you just read mindlessly. You do not think (about what you read). And finally, you act as quickly as you read; mindlessly.
My advice to you is: Slow down, read, learn, think, “digest”. Especially before you click the commit button.

> Calling me ignorant and arrogant is not the truth. It may be your opinion, but you should ask why I did what I did instead of assuming the worst and attacking me based on those assumptions.

Please look closely at cause and effect. You did not become or have been called ignorant and arrogant because of your poor quality changesets. The cause for your poor quality changesets has been your ignorance and arrogance. Or in other words, the effect of your ignorance have been poor quality changesets. Your changesets will not get better unless you start working on your ignorance.

Why did you transfer amenities from nodes onto building ways? Buildings can have multiple amenities. Please look at osm.org/way/838150437. Do not transfer amenities onto building ways unless a building houses exclusively only one amenity. Please revert your edits where you have done so.

Please @b-jazz, allow me to make a bit more clear what the core issue with these *two* changesets is.

The intention of these changesets are good and acceptable. Consistency is absolutely an acceptable goal for OpenStreetMap and something which is indeed valuable to some consumers of OpenStreetMap. Sometimes, I also value consistency over other aspects in life, including but not limited to OpenStreetMap. Now, if you look closely at these two changesets, note that these are exactly 2—not one but two—changesets which were supposed to do basically the same thing, are also both flawed in exactly the same way:

1. The changesets added empty nodes
2. These empty nodes, which were supposed to map entrances were not actually located on entrances
3. The moved address nodes were moved, however not aligned
4. The changesets were “advertised” as “address improvements”, yet they were both flawed in exactly the same way and added no value
5. Both have been undeniably exercised with same level of carelessness

If it had been just one poorly executed changeset then we could assume in favor of the editor that it was just an unfortunate mistake. However, if we are talking about basically identical flaws then we have to assume either incompetence or ignorance. You cannot first claim consistency and then be inconsistent in your own doing.
OpenStreetMap is not a playground nor a place for prettifying. It is serious business. Yes, mistakes can happen and are permissible in OpenStreetMap because where human beings are at work mistakes can always happen. However, they should not happen, especially not on a streak.

All of the above and @tguen's history of poor quality changesets reveals some obvious concerns. The root cause of @tguen's history of poor quality changesets is apparently @tguen's problematic personality. All we have seen from @tguen so far has been ignorance, arrogance, inability to learn (and to read carefully), and finally the inability to admit any mistakes. I am sorry that I have to be so blatant about this but sometimes things have to be called by name and people have to be exposed to uncomfortable truth because otherwise nothing will change. Speaking uncomfortable truth is not abusive behavior. It is a starting point for improvement.

> I'll assume you took so long to respond because you were searching the wiki for anything suggesting what I did was wrong, and you provided no link because you came up empty-handed.

No. Never assume about other people. So much for arrogance…
But, if you really want to know: Other people have lives and also other obligations. The time it takes for me to answer has nothing to do with you or anybody. I have also other work to do than just answering some messages in a timely manner.

> I've noticed you left those exceptions unspecified, presumably because you couldn't think of any that are relevant here.

I did not. Again, read.

>> I would have kept quiet and accepted your change if it was not for your arrogance on top of ignorance and dilettantism.
>
> Which you inferred from my change because there was no prior communication of any variety between us, which proves this is not true.

I neither did nor had to infer. The evidence is in the changeset history.

>> Have you ever considered why I mapped these specific addresses they way I did?
>
> Not much. I'm not going to waste my time on speculation.

Alright, then here we have your problem.
Mapping is not about speculation or ignorance. It is about collecting verifiable data and caring for the data (do not mistaken this for assuming ownership of the data). And now, I am going to reveal a “secret” to you: This takes time and effort.

> You could have told me, probably in less than it took you to make all these aggressive comments.

First of all, saying the truth is not being aggressive. Just because somebody tells the truth about you or what you did does not mean he or she is insulting you.
Second, not everything can or should be referenced with a specific link. As I have already mentioned, you have already found the necessary information to properly map (in this case) addresses. Then please do so. You see, all it took you was just a little bit of effort and you also were able to do it on your own. Third, apply your newly acquired knowledge in the real world. Verify your knowledge against reality. Fourth, work diligently.

Apparently, @b-jazz seems to understand why I have reverted your changesets. Well, maybe because @b-jazz is more experienced than you are? Or, maybe because @b-jazz thinks before he/she acts?

> There's clearly nothing to be gained by continuing this "debate", so I'm forfeiting. Not because I'm wrong, but because I'm better than you. I'm not going to let you bait me into an edit war. You've failed at being either civil or informative, but through sheer hostility, you've won. Congratulations.

This is not about winning or losing. If you really think this is the case then you truly have a personality problem. OpenStreetMap is about collecting verified map data and sharing it with others. Over time, OpenStreetMap has also developed a certain set of quality standards for data acquisition and data production. This discussion tool has been created exactly for these quality issues. Imho, unfortunately OpenStreetMap still allows for low quality commits. There are advantages to this, like low barrier of entry for newcomers. On the other hand, it becomes problematic for many consumers of the map data if data is modified or even broken by unaware (new) contributors. This is especially the case for businesses and companies who rely on OpenStreetMap data. So, you see, the issue here was your lack of due diligence. Just because OpenStreetMap accepts every commit it does not mean that “hip shot commits” are or should be accepted. In other words this means for you: please do not “prettify” the map. Before you make any changes, even if they are supposed to be consistency changes only (which are welcome), please still verify with the situation on the ground and then be truly diligent when executing the change.

Hurray, you have found the Wiki and started reading it! Well, I guess after all you have successfully made progress.

Now, I know the Wiki and I am also aware of the local consensus in Portland for mapping addresses. However, there is no rule without exceptions. Also, keep in mind that it is just a *consensus*. Have you ever considered why I mapped these specific addresses they way I did? If not then please think about it and verify with the location. Then we can talk.
Besides, the way you have executed your so called “improvement” was dilettantish at best. You have added for no reason nodes which had no values. You also did not align the address nodes either, which is not necessary but desirable. I would have kept quiet and accepted your change if it was not for your arrogance on top of ignorance and dilettantism. Read, learn, think, and verify before you make any changes. If you have no new data to add or you cannot verify the existing data then just do not touch the map.

> Otherwise it will be your fault that I continue to wallow in ignorance.
No, nobody else is responsible for your ignorance than you.

If you had been humble and had read the OpenStreetMap Wiki you would know that it is neither about your way or my way, but definitely your way. It is about about the agreed and community approved mapping scheme. So, don't bother, it is consistent and good enough. Just do not touch anything you may think that it would need any of YOUR improvements.

Oh btw, since we are on the subject of manners: you only get what you deserve for ignorance and arrogance.

Again, stop doing this shit! First of all, learn about OpenStreetMap's data model then learn to use the editor. Just because you can make a change it does not mean you have done it right.

Stop doing this shit! This is no improvement, it adds no value to the map. Read, learn, and think before you edit!

Thank you for your quick response @ConnieDee. Mapillary and OpenStreetCam are OpenStreetMap supporting services which can be used by OpenStreetMap contributors to capture street level imagery and to source map data from that imagery. Just ask your favorite internet search engine about Mapillay and/or OpenStreetCam. These services do basically what you suggest to do. These services enable you to capture geo-tagged street level imagery with your smartphone (or any other camera as long as the imagery is geo-tagged) and upload to the service for everybody to see on the map, and also to use for mapping. These services help mappers to add details to maps and to validate the situation on the ground up to a specific point time. Imho, Mapillary is better suited for beginners because they have a well working apps (for Android and iOS) and the upload process is easy and smooth. Once you browse to Mapillary or OpenStreetCam, you will understand what I mean.

If the connector does not exist anymore, could you please capture some recent imagery for Mapillary or OpenStreetCam to verify (preferably at both ends)? Then we could transition the foot way data into the OSM life cycle. Thank you!

Die Schillerstraße ist KEINE Einbahnstraße!!! Wenn du auf das Verkeherszeichen 220 verweisen kannst, dann und nur dann ist oneway=yes zu kartographieren.
Bitte nichts ändere, wenn du keine Ahnung hast. Und, bitte auch nicht mit Halbwissen Klugscheißen! Die Abbiegebeschränkungen sind sehr wohl notwendig, denn nur so kann der Verkehrsfluss richtig wiedergegeben werden.

Lass mich bitte etwas darüber nachdenken, ob wir diese Stelle auf die 90° Winkelvariante ändern, weil sie eben auch akzeptabel ist. Danke!

Wie Navigationsanwendungen OSM-Daten interpretieren ist deren Implementation überlassen. Wenn sie mit falschen oder naiven Annahmen für bestimmte Zwecke hantieren, dann bedeutet das nicht, dass es ein Problem mit den OSM-Daten gibt. Hier gilt analog das Prinzip „Nicht für den Renderer kartographieren“. Die Realität ist zu erfassen und in Daten abzubilden. Linien mit highway=* bilden lediglich die Straßen- und Wegverläufe ab, wobei bauliche Trennungen zu beachten sind. Wenn man die tatsächlichen Fahrbahnen bzw. Fahrflächen erfassen will, dann gibt es dafür auch ein entsprechendes Schema bzw. Vorschläge dafür. Dann kann ein Verwender gerne Annahmen über Winkel im Fahrbahnraum daraus machen.

Für deinen Zweck, d.h. LKWs und über 90° Kurven könnte man die Stelle auch anders /legitim/ Abbilden, obwohl wie gesagt, das ein absoluter Spezialfall und tatsächlich eine naive — wenn nicht sogar eine dumme — Annahme ist: Der durch die Verkehrsinsel aufgespaltene Zubringer könnte auch durch die highway=primary und highway=secondary laufen. Dann hätte man überall 90° Winkel und die naive LKW-Navigation wäre auch wieder happy. Allerdings, würde das eine bauliche Trennung abbilden die nicht existiert. Naja, falsch wäre diese Datenabbildung nicht, aber ob sie an dieser Stelle wirklich hilfreich ist, ist zu bezweifeln. Ich denke, es wäre besser die Navi-Entwickler auf diesen Fall und ihre Annahmen hinzuweisen.

Eine Verkehrsinsel ist grundsätzlich keine Verkehrsberuhigung. Sie kann eine Verkehrsberuhigung sein, ist es aber in der Regel nicht, so wie an dieser Stelle. Verkehrsinseln dienen grundsätzlich vornehmlich der Ordnung des Verkehrsflusses und sind in OSM in der Regel als bauliche Trennung zu behandeln/kartographieren. Sie dienen auch der Sicherheit, aber nur nachrangig. Verkehrsinseln, die als Verkehrsberuhigung ausgelegt sind dienen wiederum vorrangig der Sicherheit und nur nachrangig der Ordnung des Verkehrsflusses.

Abschließend sei noch einmal dringlichst darauf hingewiesen, tunlichst von Edits abzulassen, die zustande kommen „weil mein Navi dabei spinnt“. Ja, dann spinnt es eben, weil in ihm falsche Annahmen gemacht wurden. Daten können falsch sein, aber bitte zuerst die Navi-Entwickler nerven und erst dann die Daten untersuchen (aber nicht zwingend ändern).

@kreuzschnabel Bitte mache keine Änderungen an Hauptstraßen, wenn du nicht weist was du tust. Die von dir eingeführte Geometrieänderung existiert in der Realität nicht, außerdem hast du Abbiegebeschränkungen, Routen, Ziele und Spuren nicht beachtet. Nur weil man viele Edits gemacht hat, heißt es nicht, dass man etwas richtig macht. Bitte in Zukunft mehr Vorsicht walten lassen, ansonsten bei Unwissenheit die Finger davon lassen.

Hallo ajoessen,

Warum ist der Schlüssel „place=town“ in „de:place“ umgewandelt worden? Der Schlüssel „de:place” wird von keinem Verbraucher verarbeitet, im Gegensatz zu „place“.

Gut, das ist deutlich besser, denn das entspricht eher der OSM-Faustregel „Was auf dem Schild steht, stimmt“. Und, es nicht so irreführend was in der Wikipedia steht. Ich habe keine Ahnung wie der Autor auf Wikipedia auf den Namen „Alt-Siegen“ gekommen ist. Der Name ist einfach in keinen Urkunden, Dokumenten oder auf Schildern verzeichnet. Danke für die Korrektur/Verbesserung!

Hallo Bob,

Woher kommt der Name „Alt-Siegen“ eigentlich? Dieser Name stört mich schon lange, da dieser Name nirgends offiziell verzeichnet ist. Wenn überhaupt, dann deckt sich dieses Gebiet mit dem Bezirk „Siegen-Mitte“, denn diesen gibt es tatsächlich neben anderen, festgelegt in der Gemeindesatzung. Das sind echte administrative Bezirke, mit Bezirksausschuss und so. Ich würde das gerne ändern, was denkst du?