+ new elements

Sorry wrong link about deleted way, it was this original way deleted osm.org/way/33224777/history which then i merged with osm.org/way/386174547 since they have equal tags.

Hi! I noticed you deleted this way osm.org/changeset/93197889 I believe you didn't make it in purpose, so please be careful.

Also i noticed you added this way osm.org/way/928252718 but with access=no + other specific mobilities. Key "access" is for all no exception, no need to add more then (i removed already the extra useless tags). Please, can you tell me why you tagged it as "access=no"?

Last time i asked you a question related to illogical access combinations, you didn't answer. osm.org/changeset/73803020 Please be responsive, hence cooperative, otherwise it is badly seen. Thanks for your comprehension!

Hi! What's your new place of worship exactly? Don't you mean the chapel which then your new node is a duplication? I don't recall anything being behind the chapel.

a) Oui je comprend ça, il y a un intérêt pour ce genre de donnée, moi même j'ai ajouté l'Ancienne carrière des Forges de Montauban mais avec abandoned:landuse=quarry
historic=yes, etc... Le problème réside dans le rendu sur carte qui prête à confusion avec une carrière en activité. Des randonneurs pourraient donc ne pas avoir envie de visiter cet endroit en se disant que c'est bruyant, dangereux, etc... En plus, tu me fais porter le chapeau, t'as changé mes éléments cliffs en carrière. 😂

b) Aussi je comprend il y a un intérêt mais pour moi le sol ne fait pas parti de l'objet même en question. C'est comme si tu mettais building=ruins sur un ancien site industriel alors qu'il n'y plus de murs, plus aucune structure, juste le sol bétonné, mais dans ce cas l'élément correct à utiliser serait landuse=brownfield. Donc tes meules n'existent plus. Je sais que les admin. du tourisme parfois font des reconstitutions à certains points, mais c'est ponctuel. Exemple que je connais: osm.org/node/5137226527 Comment faire la distinction si on utilise ce tag pour les deux cas de figure?

c) Oui les éléments du relief méritent d'être dans OSM. C'est pourquoi j'ai mis les falaises mais je n’était pas certain de la valeur historique. Pour Montauban je l'ai fait car c'est clairement un site touristique. Par contre, je ne suis pas d'accord, ils ne répondent pas aux critères d'OSM. Pour a) il n'y a plus d'activité. Dans l'OSM Wiki section "Inactive and former quarries" c'est écrit: "Quarries that are out of use for a longer time and not any more clearly recognized as a quarry shall not be mapped as landuse=quarry but only with lifecycle prefix "abandoned" pour justement éviter la confusion du rendu sur carte. Je me suis alors permis de corriger sur OSM. Si cette ancienne carrière a une valeur historique, là on pourrait la faire apparaître avec les tags pertinents.
Et pour b) comme déjà dit, le sol ne fait pas parti de l'objet même en question.

+ names corrected

De la même façon, ça me rappelle aussi que tu as enregistré pas mal de historic=charcoal_pile, or je doute que tous ont un semblant de restes de meule/charbonnière. Ce qu'on voit sur le LIDAR n'est la forme du sol qui accueillait le dome et donc ne fait pas parti de l'objet même. Une personne qui voudrait en trouver pour voir à quoi ça ressemble et regardera une carte qui montre ces éléments sera déçue de voir qu'il ne reste rien.

Bonjour Pierre! Pourquoi as-tu mis des carrières? Il n'y a plus d'activité, ce sont des anciens sites.

That's the good attitude 🙂 thanks for your understanding! Myself i'm ever learning as there are anyway new tags. I trust you did this just because of misinterpretation, not for tampering data. Nevertheless deactivating or deleting an element has the same consequence for the rendering on the map which is the end product. Unfortunately there are people who delete/deactivate elements which are obvioulsy existing and keep stating that it doesn't exist anymore even though there are touristic structures nearby such as benches or handrails. Crazy!

Wishing you a good weekend!

Nevertheless, thank you for the answer. Better late than never. :)

It's not because it is not anymore usable in your opinion that you should deactivate the higwhay. That's not right, that's rather subjective, you have to consider other people. Just to give the obvious, we do not neither deactivate a road because at a certain point there is a bollard, other kind of users can still use the rest of the highway. The right assessment about creating or deleting elements is if it is still identifiable, or "verifiable" as OSM contributors often say. The tags such as surface, smoothness, etc are there to let and allow each kind of user to asses subjectively. That's why i said that if there are fallen logs, there are tags to express such features on the map.

Of course i take the feedback serious! Wouldn't that be weird if someone gives me a bad rating and I should not consider the reasons whereas i don't want to tamper with OSM's data and disrespect other contributors... Isn't that obvious?

About my mergings... What's the point of separating a big farmland in smaller portions if there is no difference in the tags? The elements i merged didn't have any tag difference. If they had different crops detailed, i would find that relevant and very useful but they were not. It's like if several portions of highways are split with the same tags or split hedges are side to side, it would be useless to keep them separated for nothing and even considered a bad practice. I consider this as data duplication. The next contributors will even have harder time to make their edits whether it's for editing routes, tags, etc. I should have merged even more fields since some don't correspond anymore to the exploited crops seen on latest imagery but I tend to edit more than I intended at first and lose my first intentions, so I stopped.

In extra, as I said in my previous paragraph, fields are not fixed entities. Farmers have agricultural techniques to rest and develop soil's nutrients and they also their adapt fields to demand depending how the year sold. So accordingly they change the sizes and crops time to time (yearly or bi-annual). Many contributors leave so many areas fields without any difference for so many years. In the meantime, fields structure have changed, so if people care about this separation without checking reality, they will rather be deceived. There is no point really. Example where fields changed of perimeter and of purpose 5 times between 2010 and 2019 (see Geoportail.lu photos year by year):
osm.org/way/128482572
osm.org/way/128482574
osm.org/way/348401124

As for meadows, i find them more permanent and useful to differentiate. Yet, they may also change, even converted to another crop than grass (should then be tagged as farmland) and change perimeter. In this example, the farmer merged several fields separated by a fence, a meadow included, in one bigger farmland mono-culture when you compare from Geoportail.lu 2019 Winter layer to most recent: osm.org/way/873210020 osm.org/way/873210015 osm.org/way/873210022

All in all, these arguments explain why i do this. It's not bad practice and certainly not vandalism. Hence why i find those multi-fields not being relevant, not useful, even deceiving and so data consuming (OSMF having new extra server needs each year), add to that, mostly when there is no specific tag differentiation. OSM rule wise or of good practice, I should recall you: osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_features

You gave the argument of parcels, sorry I don't find that valid since OSM is not a land registry. As analogy, OSM contributors neither split residential parcels, even if there is a retail store on the ground floor of a big building but the rest of them are apartments. You gotta have more logical and relevant arguments compared to mine to convince me i should stop such mergings.

If you worry about OSM, it's very confusing that you pay more attention to this futile detail instead of several landuse elements overlapping and conflicting in terms of data, which I corrected. These risk to be rendered differently from layer to different layer depending how the code of each is built or give erroneous data statistics if collected... Again risk of misleading.

It's part the logic adopted via consensus by the community! You should priory read OSM's Wiki instead of wasting contributor's time with your lousy comprehension of OSM's tags. I have to recall you that you were TOTALLY wrong about the tag smoothness=impassable when you advised tomolobla AKA the guy who changes of username because he is too ashamed of the countless vandalism and mistakes he did!

I was there, proof https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erdzC1-UYMdHi8pYKF4lTH4ssTDDAO2_
If you'd like other angles, i have... Oh, i forgot you don't give a damn about facts and fairness. Well, admire the landscape then...

+ access/fixme tags corrected for some trails , see osm.org/changeset/111950025

I asked you which element(s) exactly, such as osm.org/way/107079678, for example. This is one of the very few areas i changed the perimeter. The other areas are:
Actually the others are:
- osm.org/way/11776714 because of multiple overlapping meadows with the forest
- osm.org/way/96744468 because of overlapping farmland and meadows
- osm.org/way/247186289 was overlapping also with forest and actually the perimeter with forest was not correct, i admit still not perfect after my intervention but it's certainly not worse, it is now more enhanced compared to previous state.

The rest were highways.

Well... it seems like it was worth to give me swiftly a bad rating from your part... But what if you made a mistake and it's not me... It happened several times contributors think it's me and i was able to demonstrate i was not the original person who misplaced. Hence why I am asking you exactly which elements... But if you are not able to give me evidences... Indeed it's certainly not worth commenting and i will recall our communication.

Ah! Appliquer un tag (balise) à une fin spécifique de rendu de la carte, c'est considéré comme une mauvaise pratique par la communauté d'OSM. :) Surtout sur d'autres tags fondamentaux qui risquent de prêter confusion. Néanmoins perso, je ne suis pas ultra stricte sur ce sujet "tagging for the rendering" car parfois on n'a pas l'élément parfait. Un exemple que pas mal de monde fait, je suis d'accord pour donner un tire "descriptif" super résumé dans le tag "name=..." faute du bon tag ou d'information pour un élément.

Superbe région la Gavarnie! :)

Again, please be specific, which element(s) are you talking about?

As i am not very familiar with the sources available for this region, for this changeset I realigned a global aerial imagery and corrected the offset to the Heatmap (which has thousands of GPS traces) by carefully matching several ways crossing NS and WE.

Your entire region here is not "perfect", there are elements, whether areas or ways, which are clearly already misaligned compared to your NRW sources. Examples:
- this crossway on a survey_point, which makes me wonder even if the survey-point is correct: osm.org/node/414904172 You can clearly see that the surrounding farmlands are not positioned correctly, at all.
- the curve of this road and the perimeter of nearby forest on north side osm.org/node/129698556

According my changeset comparison with the previous state, I only did few handful position changes on areas. I mostly corrected overlapping polygons, inner MP integrations and duplicates. Anyway I'm waiting for your response about of the elements i misplaced.

Note: NRW ALKIS is Germany's land registry. I know by experience that this kind of data does not reflect accurate positions in reality. Please do not use this resource to demonstrate accurate positions. Example: osm.org/way/205819292 this way's northern end was previously straight like in NRW's ALKIS whereas it is supposed to have a curve as i corrected. You can see on aerial photos from NRW that it is indeed curved.

Finally, are you user )( who contacted me first?

Merci pour l'info! J'ai corrigé.

Hi! You added this monument osm.org/node/1426496985/history in the middle of nowhere, nothing is visible on the aerial photos. I added a fixme tag last year but no one reacted. You didn't add any name, so i guess it's very hard to investigate what it is. Please, can you correct and add more information, at least the name?

Bonjour, s'il y a un parking pourquoi serait-il interdit aux voitures? Si c'est une interdiction temporaire (travaux ou autre) est-ce que ça va vraiment durer longtemps?

Aussi veuillez éviter de combiner des balises conflictuelles tel que access=no (accès général pour tous) avec des moyen de mobilité spécifique tel que bicyle=yes ou foot=yes. Ce n'est pas logique et induit en erreur.