> With regards to the legality of a third party company using OSM data, please re-read the agreements that you signed when you started contributing to OSM

As far as I can tell changeset comments are not covered by the ODbL, simply because it is not part of the map database. Please enlighten us what agreement covers changeset comments because as far as I can tell neither OSMF's terms of service nor the privacy policy mention that commentators relinquish their copyright or agree to transfer rights to a third party.

> (there's a changeset comment fedd for USA+Canada on the OSM US' Slack channel)

Does this mean that changeset comments are automatically and without notice forwarded to a private third party company? If that is so then this practice is surely illegal and may constitute a criminal offense.

> In that case, the 'on the ground' rule doesn't make sense because the signs are not being replaced on the whole street at once.

It was not me who came up with this rule. So, I do not think pointing this out in some edits could be considered as nit picking. I also do believe that this rule has its merits and drawbacks. So far it has worked well for OSM.

Anyhow, since @tguen has explicitly surveyed the area now and the City of Portland is going to replace existing street name signs though slowly but steadily, I think it is best to accept the current state of things in OSM because it reflects the city's intention and eventually reality is going to catch up with OSM's state. @tguen thank you for surveying the area and providing the link to PBOT's announcement. I just wish the OSM changesets had been attributed with sources, so that we would not have been confused and did not need this conversation.

I am not going to vandalize the map and if I ever do so then not on purpose (which in that case is not vandalism anymore). You see, the problem we have here is that you could have spared us this conversation if you had attributed your sources. Since readdressing is a big deal, next time somebody, including the DWG, may come along and revert your changes just because you have provided no sources. You could have or rather should have cited city records or the fact that you may have surveyed the area. Even the DWG needs some sort of evidence or attribution to find out what is going on. So, please cite you sources sufficiently. `source=survey;https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/75814` would have been good enough. Anyhow, if this is what is on the ground I am fine with it.

As far as I can tell the notice only says that city records have been updated and property owners have been notified, including other agencies like the IRS and USPS. If things have visibly changed on the ground then why did you not add a `source=survey` tag?

Again, you have referred to an external source. Where is your on the ground evidence?

Actually, you should have updated the street name to `Southwest Kelly Avenue` here instead because this is what the street name sign says. For example, see street name signs on Southwest Gibbs Street and Southwest Kelly Street. Again, please be careful and double check with what is on the ground. Do not simply copy from other sources and do not assume from one piece of data in OSM on other data.

Anyhow, fortunately because of this mistake we can actually fix the street names now, since Southwest Kelly Street is not the only one which is wrong/incomplete.

Please let me elaborate more on the address issue, or mapping addresses from official address registries. While official address entries may exist in official records they may not “exist” in the real world. OSM's mission is to map, or more specifically model, the existing perceivable world. If a building has multiple addresses but only one or few are perceivable (mostly visible) on the ground then only these addresses should be mapped. I am not aware of any tag which could denote that an address is a synonymous or secondary address. OSM does not map or collect addresses for the post office. Post offices are governed by separate rules and regulations. For example, some entities (usually with large volumes of mail) are addressable exclusively or inclusively by a specific ZIP code. This kind of addresses should not be mapped, unless this is what a building or piece of land is signed with.

> This from is RLIS data on oregonmetro.gov.

It is okay to source or import data from other databases or registries as long as the data is adapted or transformed to the OSM-way of doing things. Please note also that OSM collects data based on the facts on the ground, not according to any legal or other third party registries. Official sources are not authoritative for OSM but only the factual situation at the location. So, please be careful not to simply copying from other sources even if they are official. Despite the fact that OSM does not model primary or secondary addresses—address precedence in that sense—there is nothing which would suggest that the building (or actually compound of buildings) has a primary address. Anyhow, I think that in this case it is okay to have the building outline tagged with an address.

> 971 has been a Portland area code for many years.

I did not know that, so I left it as is. So, according to Wikipedia sources 971 has only been introduced since July 1st, 1999. Well, I guess I always learn something new.
NANP is a national standard. Indeed, few other countries have also adopted NANP as a national standard. Yet, this and the fact that NANP complies in the number plan aspect with ITU does not make NANP an international standard. AFAIK, it is not an ITU standard, nor a subset of any ITU standard either. OSM does not follow national standards for good reason. So naturally, OSM prefers international standards, including the ITU standard for phone number formatting. The main reason why OSM tolerates NANP formatted phone numbers is because everybody can commit to OSM, even unaware newcomers who just do know any better and adhere in good faith to their national standard, and because of the shear count of phone numbers already collected in OSM. Nevertheless, for newly added phone numbers the ITU formatting is preferred.

Oh, do not bother. I have reviewed it more thoroughly. The building has multiple addresses, so I have added one which is visible in the Mapillary imagery.

I not sure about the phone number because the rule of thumb is that land line phone numbers should correlate with the geographical location. So, I just left it as is.

I am a bit confused why the `addr:housenumber` changed. Additionally, the phone number you have added does not feature Portland's area code prefix of 503. Lastly, please use ITU's phone number formatting (see the Wiki) when adding phone numbers to OSM. Could you please explain?

Can you please give a more verbose description of what you have done in this changeset or what was the purpose of it? After reviewing your other recent changesets we have to conclude that your descriptions are actually non-descriptive. “Portland”, “Salisbury”, or “Temple, TX” are not descriptions. For example, you have transitioned buildings in the OSM life cycle in this changeset. How can you be sure the buildings do not exist anymore? If you have done this based on imagery please make sure that perform modifications based on the latest imagery or survey.

Since judging by the count of your commits, you are a new mapper, please refrain from modifying the map for now. Please add new map data instead to learn the basics first.

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.