”->(I can’t understand what it means)” - probably part of changeset comment should mention that it is a part of an organised mapping activity.

“the community should be informed as soon as is practical” is especially absurd and open to abuse.

You linked directly to the pdf download. Is there a place that describes status of this file? I am not sure is it a proposal, discarded draft or a something else.

“was proposed by DWG” - where and when it was proposed?

@Verdy_p

In case you are unaware - almost everybody, except extreme Trump supporters, would consider describing somebody as “Trump-nominated puppet” to be an insult.

Thanks for posting this! And thanks for including images, especially Yangy Kala Canyon is really impressive!

The main problem here is an opportunity cost.

So, first of all, we need somebody who will set up something initially (either as a hobby or someone needs to raise funds for that or spend OSMF funds).

And later it would be necessary to maintain, upgrade and in general keep system working.

I am not sure whatever benefits are larger than drawbacks, though I am in a group that is most likely to not notice problems of Github being programmer-oriented.

I am also worried that it will end like trac or help.openstreetmap.org - effort was spend to set it up and it is quite clunky, with poor usability. I am not sure how likely is that this new issue tracking platform will be overall better than Github.

Thanks for your surveying and posts!

I am also sorry for that insults above by one of posters. Hopefully it will not be repeated.

Great feature! Thanks for everybody involved!

“Why address this nervousness regarding education about at. Transparency is only good. Some wells are deep, digs are often in this interesting to the fore. For example, why Europeans, American IT corporations with their products drive us so in the ears. Somewhere the dog has to be buried with us, maybe also in the address well.” - FYI, this is utterly unclear and looks like poor automatic translation

not combined highway and cycleway

should be “not combined footway and cycleway” (sorry, there is no edit function)

I get concerned seeing cycleways now being rendered by OSM specially in parks where before it was an area where pedestrians could enjoy some tranquility.

What is wrong with rendering cycleways as cycleways? And if that are footways with merely allowed cycling (not combined highway and cycleway) and highway=path + bicycle=designated is wrong, I would use highway=footway, bicycle=yes for that (like at osm.org/way/28837572#map=18/50.07207/19.99189 )

and as a cyclist myself I would opt for the cycleways to avoid areas of pedestrians. But, now I am guided precisely into these areas.

For cycling purposes I would recommend using cycling-focused map style, not a general one. Currently for cycling I am using maps from https://www.openandromaps.org/en/

As the author of a cycle routing and mapping website (cycle.travel) I wish highway=path would just die in a fire.

As an author and co-author of some map styles (including one criticized in this diary entry) I consider highway=path as evil, stupid and broken. See osm.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35389 - “New road style for the Default map style - highway=path is evil”

Why rendering highway=path with bicycle=designated as cycleway would be wrong?

Yes, it is code intended to be run manually on updating documentation, for example once a year.

I thought about potential for misuse, that is why I mentioned Tile Usage Policy but I was not considering that someone may use such script automatically (on, for example each page load) rather than manually.

I see nothing wrong with mass deleting low or zero quality imports. In fact I consider it as a very valuable edits.

And I encourage everybody to do that, there is quite hard to find something more frustrating than editing in area spammed by useless data.

I encountered

• fictional TIGER roads,
• areas where multiple imports of the same data happened,
• data representing artefacts in original database (forest where only parts owned by state were added in an import, it formed barcode pattern with long strips of forest separated by strips of unmapped fores),
• LIDAR database dumped into OSM, 100k+ nodes
• and many more

Cases mentioned above may be still present elsewhere but in other places as I deleted all of them. In some cases where imported data was useful I used it, in some cases (barcode forest) I simply deleted everything and remapped from scratch.

“untouched residential without a name should a deletion candidate” - so someone would still need to look at it…

Is there an Overpass Query to find such candidates? I am sometimes in a mood to go through faulty imports and delete stuff :)

“like the masses of residentials in rural Texas where there is literally nothing” - is it doable by an automatic process?

Because manual mass-purging of faulty imported data, done manually seems to be accepted.

At least I made some edits like that based on aerial images. I do it rarely, as I try to limit armchair-edits and I live on a different continent but so far nobody complained.

would -> should in my previous comment, sorry

BTW, on local meeting of Polish community one of problems mentioned was that obvious vandals would receive permanent blocks immediately.

“only 16,431 were editing during the past week [1]. On the other hand, I have counted roughly 1,800 user blocks [2]. “

This is an useless comparison - you seem to be unaware that vandals tend to create multiple accounts.

Some projects encountered trolls creating hundreds or thousands of accounts, some people vandalise projects for decades.

Without excluding sockpuppet accounts such comparison is utterly useless.

“I like to use it on the slight bit of road that connects the motorway to the motorway_link road.” - there is also highway=motorway_link tag on that highlighted section of road, right?

osm.org/user/daniel-j-h/diary/41777#comment39306 “Up-to-date results can be found here:”

At least for me this map is blank.