Just happened upon this changeset and some of your other ones adding amenity=prison_camp areas when I was looking at prison-related tagging recently. I'm a bit concerned with the sourcing (Epoch Times is considered a deprecated source by the English Wikipedia, for instance, as "most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact" [1]), but there's clearly at least *something* at these outlined sites. I just feel like this tagging suggests an unwarranted level of certainty about what these places actually are.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EPOCHTIMES

Just realized I didn't change the first source URL from the previous changeset. Should actually be https://beaumontzip.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2-Parkdale-PTRS-4.15.24.pdf.

Forgive me if this is because I'm only looking at the Bing imagery, but is there a reason you're sure the *entire* woods area is appropriate to retag as grass?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166879129

Discussion on this automated edit proposal is now ongoing at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/steak-n-shake-bitcoin-tags/130380

For documentation's sake: I reverted this changeset in changeset #166546258, and discussion on this automated edit proposal is now taking place at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/steak-n-shake-bitcoin-tags/130380

Hi Comino, thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. I noticed that this changeset is missing a source=* tag, which makes it difficult for other mappers to easily determine the reliability of the information you're using to make edits. In the future, please be sure to use the source=* tag to document where you got your information. You can find more details about the source=* tag here: osm.wiki/Key:source.

Additionally, you seem to be part of the BTC Map organized editing project; please add the #btcmap hashtag to the changeset comment of all changesets you submit for this project, in accordance with the Organized Editing Guidelines <https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines#Edits_to_the_map> and BTC Map's contributor instructions <https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-general/wiki/Tagging-Merchants#changeset-comments>.

If you have any questions, feel free to reach out and I'll do my best to help.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166495297

Also, I hope you don't think I'm picking on you in particular! I just decided to start keeping an eye on the BTC Map edits and you've been the most active recently. Thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for being understanding!

"In this case, the source tag 'local knowledge' means that I have extrapolated information from several sources, including that of the business owner, so I can confirm that the place exists in reality even if I haven't been there physically."

The issue is that this is not what "local knowledge" means. I encourage you to consult the OpenStreetMap wiki page addressing common values of the source tag, including "local knowledge": osm.wiki/Key:source#General_sources_commonly_used_by_human_mappers. In short, unless you have seen the feature you're mapping in person, it's not appropriate to use "local knowledge" as your source. A combination of indirect sources of information can indeed create reasonable certainty that the feature exists and that the information you're adding about it is accurate, but it's important to accurately document where exactly you got the information nonetheless.

No, that's fine. It's just a little unclear just from "business owners" whether you personally were in contact with the business owners or not. (I could see checking a business website being considered using the "business owners" as a source, for instance, since it's the business owners who put the information on the website.) It would be clearer to explicitly specify how you were in contact with the business owners, so something like "Telegram conversation with business owners" in this case.

What exactly does "business owners" as the source mean here? Did you contact the business owners? Was this a form submission?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166443007

I think I see the logic with the "local knowledge" source tag here, but as I previously discussed with you, that's still not appropriate unless you're mapping information that you know from having seen it in person. For a changeset like this I'd suggest something like adding the URL to the Gitea issue, then hitting Enter, then entering in something like "email correspondence with business owner", which will create a semicolon-separated source tag that other mappers will understand as meaning you're referring to multiple sources.