I’d say yes. See the response to https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/62884/inventing-names-for-essentially-unnamed-private-airstrips

Pretty much all contributors make changes to data without notifying previous editors. In fact I don’t think I’ve ever (in ~9 years) seen anyone advise previous editors before making changes and I don’t really think there’s anything we can do about that. The way you “protect your contributions” in OSM is by using tools such as OSMcha or WhoDidIt to detect activity in the areas you care most about. Both of the above tools can produce rss feeds, which within a few minutes can notify you of any changes in those areas.

I’m responsible for one of those changesets :-). I didn’t touch the bridge itself, because I noticed from it’s history that enough people had done that already and I didn’t feel like adding to the (minor) chaos,. I just fixed some minor technical issues near it, because, well, I like to check on how well areas are mapped. Rather than outright delete objects still visible in current imagery, i also like to use lifecycle prefixes to notify other mappers that objects that for some reason doesnt physically exist anymore, wasn’t just “not-yet-mapped” or “mistakenly-deleted”. The Ponte Morandi I would tag collapsed:bridge=yes and leave it like that for as long as necessary (possibly years).

Make sure to compare with any gps tracks found in the area to determine which imagery might be better aligned. Not to say that gps tracks are necessarily perfect, but, especially if there are several, they may nevertheless give valuable hints.

Yes, before doing anything you really should make sure that the satellite image you’re looking at really is all that well aligned. We’re constantly seeing newbies looking at different satellite images, which in some areas can be off by up to 100 m, move buildings, roads etc around and away from their actual positions. Before “adjusting” buildings etc, please make sure that the images line up fairly well with gps traces in the area.

I agree that this is designed to thoroughly drive mad unsuspecting users.

rorym. what tool did you use to create that gif?

At https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/wiN building:part tags has been used to map and name parts of buildings. Here the names also doesn’t render on the default view though.

I tend to be too busy mapping to really care about my stats :-)

I love your conclusions. I didn’t see the thread you mention, but in other areas I have observed exactly the same :-)

Jason. Which “official applications” do you refer to?

It’s been more than 2 weeks since the last edit on this account: osm.org/user/Meg_W/history , so no need to worry :-)

GraphHopper and other navigators needs to first download a copy of the OSM database and then process the data into special formats suitable for their purpose. This process can be quite computing intensive and that’s why you should expect navigators to take at least a day (some much longer) to pick up changes to the OSM database.

I’ve played PoGo periodically and find the switch great as it made a lot of footways, cycleways, forest tracks etc. in my area appear. I’ve been a very active OSM contributor for quite a few years, so of course OSM is a lot more complete here than G Maps ever were :-)

I was wondering about new footways etc suddenly showing in the game. So this why.

In Denmark (the country in north Europe) I know of one case of roads mapped as areas: The area around osm.org/way/441584563.

This doesn’t show on our standard layer, but imho has a number of advantages.

See more at osm.wiki/Proposed_features/area:highway

I have been watching the authors own instance at https://osm.expandable.dk/ (which also acts as a running demo) covering the country Denmark almost daily for nearly 2 years now and have found it immensely usefull for keeping track of activity and spotting mistakes. Quite a few times I’ve been able to correct mistakes (mostly done by newbies) within as little as 5 minutes. Actual vandalism doesn’t happen very often, but of course I’ve been able to quickly discover and revert a few cases.

Am i to understand that 90 +/- 5 degree turns will not trigger your test? I’m looking at the “fix” at osm.org/#map=19/55.40320/8.72897, which I consider both unnecessary and downright ugly. I’ve been looking at number of similar “solutions” around Denmark (by the same mapper) and when I look at stuff like that I feel quite tempted to just plain revert it. I think it should be fixed by either putting it in the exceptions file mentioned in https://github.com/b-jazz/sharp-turns-onto-ramps or possibly make sure the segment connecting to Darumvej is 90 degrees.

Note that recording name of imagery + rough date of it can be very useful in this context

You would probably want to add these to your profile page (osm.org/user/map-hard) as well as point to your own wiki account rather than Malenki’s

Note the date: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/archives/8950