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.

¡Hola Rockedf! Gracias por su contribución a OpenStreetMap, pero he revertido este conjunto de cambios por un par de razones.

En primer lugar, y lo más importante, este local de Steak 'n Shake lleva cerrado desde 2023. La única razón de que la información como el nombre todavía está en el objeto es porque la marca Steak 'n Shake todavía es visible en el edificio.

En segundo lugar, su uso de la etiqueta check_date es inapropiado en este caso. Esta etiqueta se refiere a la última vez que se comprobó el objeto en su conjunto, generalmente para la existencia por encuesta presencial, lo que claramente no hizo en este caso, si no, habría visto que el restaurante está cerrado. Véase osm.wiki/ES:Key:check_date para obtener más detalles.

Además, estoy un poco preocupado por su uso de "local knowledge" en la etiqueta source de conjunto de cambios. He revisado sus conjuntos de cambios recientes y noté que ha utilizado esta etiqueta source en conjuntos de cambios en muchos lugares diferentes, que no todos pueden ser correctos. En este caso, "local knowledge" se refiere a información que el cartógrafo sabe que es cierta porque vive cerca del objeto en cuestión y está familiarizado con él, pero no necesariamente se ha complicado la vida por específicamente visitar el objeto y anotar la información (lo que sería "survey"). Puede leer más al respecto en osm.wiki/ES:Key:source#Fuentes_generales_usadas_com%C3%BAnmente_por_mapeadores_humanos.

Por tu comentario de conjunto de cambios, parece que quería decir que tu fuente era el sitio web de Steak 'n Shake, que como he verificado, de manera un poco irritante, ciertamente todavía incorrectamente lista este como local activo. Esta URL puede ir en la etiqueta source en vez de "local knowledge".

osm.org/changeset/166404142

I just noticed some of your zip_left and zip_right tags differed from the tiger:zip_left and tiger:zip_right tags. What was your data source for this information?

turn:lanes:both_ways=1 is incorrect tagging. What you're looking for is lanes:both_ways=1 + turn:lanes:both_ways=left. (I've corrected the instances of the error in this changeset, but just for future reference.)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165349269

Agh, I'm so embarrassed 😆 Nice catch, thanks!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165348123

I just fixed several ways that were tagged access=private in this changeset. Private access is only appropriate for cases where access requires explicit permission on an individual basis. For commercial areas where access should be expected for people visiting to patronize the business (in these cases, guests staying at the hotels), the correct tagging is access=customers.

Thank you for addressing my fixme, but for future reference, it seems shop=printing is the preferred tag for this kind of shop. Fixed here in changeset #165091411.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165059298

Did you read my changeset description wrong? I don't think we're in disagreement here. They were hamlets before, I changed them to neighbourhoods.

Possibly debatable but it is highlighted by Osmose as an issue: <https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-backend/blob/dev/plugins/TagFix_MultipleTag2.py>. The rationale is one feature, one OSM element: as the generated Osmose issue says, the amenity is under the roof, not part of it. Maybe didn't need to be Fixed now that I know about how that's kinda part of the broader amenity on building debate, but I did these to resolve the Osmose issues at the time.

That's what I did, yeah. As for users who have it enabled, it's disabled by default and the warning for enabling it mentions that it's "not useful in some regions" so I think that's basically as covered as we can reasonably expect.