+ tags corrected on this way osm.org/way/226886069

+ some positions enhanced

I've corrected with the motor vehicle tag. If this is not the right restriction, please let me know. Thanks!

Thanks for the update! :)
But now i'm wondering why this way is still not accessible, even for pedestrians since "access=*" is actually a tag for all means of mobility?
osm.org/way/860661513
If it is only restricted to motorized vehicles, the right tag is "motor_vehicle=no"

Hi! Why did you set this way as private? osm.org/way/515748731

If you don't know what it is to have a data conflict in OSM: it's when 2 users are working at the same time on one element, the 1st of them saves his contributions earlier than the 2nd, so when the 2nd wants to save his edits, he will be saving an outdated version, so a conflict window appears in iD or JOSM and believe me it's the most complicated thing to handle to make sure no data from both contributors is not lost. A real brainstorm hassle!

Why delete and reconstruct??? This will take time if you do it properly with the necessary precision, thus you risc to encounter a conflict with another contributor who will be editing at the same time. I had many times this problem when I was contributing with the editor iD.

Also there are many ways that are at the perimeter of the forest, so the ways and perimeter are glued together at their nodes to avoid unnecessary data.

This will be a huge waste of time whereas you don't need. Well, I'm guessing you want to do so because it's hard to handle and reshape complex elements with iD. If you want to work faster and dedicate the saved time to more precision or just save time, you should contribute with the software editor JOSM and its plugins. At first I was reluctant to leave the editor iD because there is a learning curve but it is really worth. It has many functions, tools, sources... which help a lot to reshape or create various elements. You really should try. If you are interested, here are the plugins that will add the tools to work faster:
- continuous download (downloads new osm data while you move around)
- contour merge (glues 2 very close areas or ways together to make them share their nodes)
- reltoolbox (a relation manager if the one in JOSM is not enough)
- utilsplugin2 (various tools which inludes tools to split an area or merge several areas)
- building_tools (helps create buildings faster)

Also you can save your favorite layers in a joz file without data to have them ready to start a contribution session.

osm.org/way/859683492/history

Hi,
You keep splitting MP outers. Can you please correct? osm.org/way/859683492

Surface=paved incompatible with grade5

dismiss main changeset comment, tags added only

Hello! I see you are a new contributor. Welcome to the mapping of OSM! I noticed some awkward things though i would like to tell you because I've mapped a lot in this region and i would like contributors to keep it clean for several reasons.
- I see you have added residential and parking areas over the same kind of elements (residential and parkings), please do not this because it duplicates data and OSM has already difficulties in keeping servers up to their tasks.
- The tag residential=rural does not exist apparently in OSM's Wiki, i haven't found it, otherwise please link me here. To create new tags, you need to create a whole procedure through OSM's community.
- You had detached these meadow areas and possibly others: osm.org/way/835794436/history
osm.org/way/835784305/history
Please do not do this as it leaves gaps in the rendering of the map, making it less clear, creating extra nodes, thus extra data to handle for the servers...
- for names of localities, instead of putting the name over an area rather use a node with the tags name=Am Partounika + place=locality

I will correct the elements i will find but please avoid repeating these as people have put a lot of work in the map to make it look clean and clear. Thanks for your comprehension!

Hi

Hello! Please be careful to not cut other elements when cutting on a node like here: osm.org/node/559488963/history Because you also cut the perimeter of the forest, which poses handling problems for the other contributors and complicates the reunification of the split perimeters.
osm.org/way/44000597/history
osm.org/way/844627379/history
osm.org/way/844627375/history
osm.org/way/842229027/history
I see you are using the iD editor, so to prevent this from happening again, first select the node to cut, then while keeping shift pressed select the line to cut, finally cut with X. The shift+click function to select works with several elements, so the list of selected elements is displayed on the left, click the cross of one of the elements to deselect.

Je vais corriger

Bonjour! Veuillez faire attention à ne pas couper d'autres éléments dans la foulée lorsque vous coupez un autre élément spécifique comme ici: osm.org/node/2804579607/history#map=19/49.75564/6.03797
Car du coup vous avez aussi coupé le périmètre de la foret, ce qui pose des problèmes de manipulation pour les autres contributeurs et complique la réunification des deux.
osm.org/way/29565943/history
Je vois que vous utilisez l’éditeur iD, donc pour éviter que ça n'arrive à nouveau, sélectionner d'abord le noeud à couper, ensuite en gardant shift appuyé sélectionnez la ligne à couper, finalement coupez avec X. La fonction shift+click pour sélectionner fonctionne avec plusieurs éléments, la liste des éléments sélectionnés sont affichés à gauche, cliquez la croix d'un des éléments pour désélectionner.

+ tags added

@sebastic In the anticipation of a change, i agree. My example was bad... But if the outer feature is inherently part of the MP's perimeter, like the fence of a big field with inner elements... i think it would be valid.

OK by "old style MP" you mean when the tags featuring the area are actually on the outer way instead of being in the relation. So a MP being the inner of another MP and sharing the same ring is totally possible. Really i was not seeing the point in creating another ring to represent the same perimeter. Thanks will correct it!

This brings up a question about another
type of situation i'd like to ask you. Let's imagine a MP forest which has inner elements like fields, areas of scrubs, a lake with an tiny island, etc... and the entire forest, inner elements included are part of a natural reserve. I guess it's still OK to use leisure=natural_reserve on the outer of the MP just to avoid creating an extra way, right? It would really be a waste of time creating it and add superfluous data.

I already had communicated often with wilda69, i know he has difficulties to handle MP. I think this fact is because he contributes with Potlatch, the interface is really cumbersome and outdated.

Hello! Please be careful with the edits you do osm.org/node/7823516806/history
Thanks for the comprehension! :)

Hi!Has this been discussed somewhere? I still get a "duplicate way" error and logically yeah it's 2 ways for the same feature. Personally i don't see the point.

By the way, you had left a also a duplicated natural=water on the outer and inner. Basically you just copied one of the ways and made it smaller, which is not really clean either, so I corrected.