Interesting, so the view is/was to map overlaying lines again and again and again going with the risk not to connect or even overlap areas as was found here where the single wood 'inner' outline went inside the grass zone.

As for rebuilding, In this region I've come across MP's with 2000-4000 members, thousands of nodes single lines, one with even 56000 nodes, which ID Editor today does not seem to allow. Impossible.

Can point to many active mappers that work the way I do, but what I do not do but rarely and see daily is e.g. multiple isolated scrub zones in forest which are then also put in a MP relation so what you get is N rings, all outer in 1 MP, to include scrub pockets that are not even inside the forest. I'd say the admonishing of that user block sample has long been binned or rather, is not widely taken on, certainly by far not taken as working guideline.

I'll try to take the advise though on of not changing the methodology used in an area. Makes sense for those coming after me.

Thanks for sharing.

Hi, moi ancora

You left some unfinished, unconnected with the added cycle path. Not sure what surf=asphalt intersection is meant to do but made it surface. Version 6 it says in the change set with is really strange.

BTW, I'm not tracking you. Osmose is flagging -me- because in the history I once edited an involved element and then makes me forever and ever co owner any new issue involving that object. Of course goes for all mappers. Some clean their list regardless if being the cause or not (moi), some work on their list at times, some never ever do and have 10s of thousands of issues listed to their name.

Anyway see osm.org/changeset/119963795 . It summarises that 3 things were resolved.

Let me know if there's something not left properly corrected.

ciao ciao

Rereading the wiki, the problem is the ever growing 'inner' being mapped by various, 12 mappers, 13 interpretations. Take a big box with 2 squares inside that float in the centre and the 2 squares share 1 side. Some will draw another line around the 2 squares and tag that as inner. Then a 3rd square enters the fray and shares 1 half side with square 1 and the other half of that side with square 2. Now the forest is inner to 1, 2, no role yet on 3. Then the mapper decides to tag that 3rd square as inner and you got the forest running twice between the square. -TO ME- cutting up the outlines of the square is much simpler. Few if not none will go about and delete the old outline around 1-2 and map a new one around 1-2-3.
The largest issue I have with what the wiki samples is, that if you touch any border running between 2 areas is, you only get told what that border is for on 1 area, not roles and memberships of the borders that are 'below' so to speak. One finds at times 3 lines on top each-other. Does not work for me. 1 border in a multi area multiprocessing structure with all it's roles shown I much prefer. No flagging in Inspector regardless of OSM having the render tolerance or not. If Inspector, Osmose, Keepright etc are wrong then maybe they should be adapted to that OSM tolerance. Classic case, 1 says that the spelling 'side= is correct and the says sides= is correct for 2-3-4 sided totems and billboard. Seems there's no agreement what it has to be.

You're correct, I missed to remove that inner forest role that passed between the grass and scrub. Duly removed. We'll see tonight if OSM Inspector is still highlighting all of these with dark blue i.e. borders used in multiple rings that intersect itself.

Hi,

OSM Inspector flagged your sperrstelle: Simple lines and areas cannot be combined in a multipolygon caused open end warning. I've mapped the lines as areas as well of your sperrstelle to resolve. Better may have been to create a relation instead of an multipolygon.

There are 2 wiki's discussing supplemental tagging that could be appropriate to add: defensive_works osm.wiki/Key:defensive_works and barrier=tank_trap. osm.wiki/Tag:barrier=tank_trap. Think Toblerone line is quite fitting to how they look from space. Taginfo shows 58 uses of that value.

ciao

Hi,

I must have been fixing the Wienerwald for the dozenth time in the last month. You, and not only you, need to pay attention to inner and outer roles and where they go. When e.g. scrub and grass share sides, the forest role should not pass in between, the line should be cut and the forest role removed inbetween. Here in fact the scrub is no longer inner anymore since the forest is not 360 degrees surrounding it. There's more of the same problems to the east side forest as well, again scrub and grass sharing a side(s) with each other. The forest outline cant go there, not inner or outer.

Also there was a new line drawn only used by the wald relation, in places it overlays the grass area which caused render issues.

Anyway the corrections are in osm.org/changeset/119943525

Study the changers please and if not understood, ask, as keeping repairing this wood is not good for anything.

Ciao from the Abruzzos

Hi,

Perché hai tolto il nome 'Largo Sant'Eustachio' e poi l'hai ripristinato come Piazza Sant'Eustachio? Si prega di aggiungere il tag source=.... sull'oggetto con la descrizione delle origini.

Ciao,

Buildings removed should be tagged as razed:building and possible have a note added, so other mappers know not to remap or retag. There's also abandoned:xyz and disused:xyz for items no longer there. Then they'll not render but a dotted line will appear in the edit view. See osm.org/changeset/119903309 as to the what I did.

ciao

Hi,

You mapped a school with the same name as the adjacent building. Suggest you remove the names from the buildings and add it to the schoolgrounds as this will surely be flagged by QA.

Also, somewhere in you changeset osm.org/changeset/119880291 you mapped a way that crosses another way without connecting them resulting in a warning. Connection is important as else routing will not function. Please fix.

Ciao

Hi,

sorry but your cleanup failed, in the example a forest should not have a outline or inner relation on a scree area when the scree area is not 360 degrees INSIDE the forest. I've removed several duplicate lines and used single line for the correct adjacent forest relations and added a shingle area as inner to the correct forest.

ciao

Hi,

Looks like you're leaving featureless lines behind. E.g osm.org/way/36711314 is a building. Also something that looks like footways and a self intersection on a parking lot. Fixed, but as for the footpath right top of the parking, a guess. Please check.

ciao

Hi,

May I ask why religious buildings are related to border? There are it seems like hundreds in the region and all got the incorrect role at that which, IF they should be related, would have to be with inner role rather than outer role.

II ask is because all of these relations are flagged by OSM Inspector as incorrect in the Areas view https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?lon=17.97593&lat=50.87432&zoom=11

Awaiting your reply

Ciao

Hi,

You have a reputation of not responding to observations on your edit sets, yes you have and word goes around, and here you managed to map a footway arond a complex junction and only connect it at start and end but not the other dozen + crossing with trams, road, footways and whatnot, in fact after clicking connect on all the alerts the counter stopped at 30. Please pay attention to what you do.

Hai la reputazione di non rispondere alle osservazioni sui tuoi set di modifiche, sì, e gira la voce, e qui sei riuscito a mappare un marciapiede attorno a un incrocio complesso e collegarlo solo all'inizio e alla fine ma non le altre dozzine + incrocio con tram, strada, marciapiedi e quant'altro, infatti dopo aver cliccato su Collegati su tutti gli avvisi lo sportello si è fermato a 30. Per favore fate attenzione a quello che fate.

cheers

PS Also notified by PM. CS osm.org/changeset/119865672

Hi

At least the south east half of the cycleway you tagged with paving stones cover, from where the residential area extends out across the street, has asphalt paving. I know because I cycle this way many times a year.

ciao

Hi,

First a mapper arrived 4 days ago to adjust the path, then you arrive yesterday to adjust the path again. What is this area relation tag on the footpath supposed to mean? Right now it shows as an unclosed footway area, a function that does not exist, if at all should be a pedestrian area. But, ground imagery shows a grass zone, and a path that's actualy steep steps with wooden railing next to a grass slope and a parking that has a ticket vending machine i.e. is a paid parking. At any rate, I've fixed what OSM Inspector has flagged, changed path to steps with railing. Fixed parking, added ticket vending machine. If path was meant to be an area it should be properly mapped in addition to the steps.

ciao

Hi

You mapped some areas in grassland and some given the inner role to the wrong grassland. Also you added some wetland zones without adding the inner role to the surrounding grassland (intentional?), Note that wetland can have sub-tags to qualify what kind of wetland this is such as wet_meadow. Please see wiki osm.wiki/Key:wetland

ciao

Hi,

I've closed the residential area relation flagged by OSM Inspector which you left open on the west side near the river area and a large building there. If the zone is larger it's up to you to complete the job.

ciao

Hi marko,

Is that bus stop middle of a motorway bridge near Antalya for real? Difficult to get there, you'd have to climb the guardrails to get on the road side.

Greetings from Italy

Popular this week to combine German and Turkish edits in 1 CS, First time mapper too now top of list bus stops in Germany and 1 more near Antalya, *middle of a motorway bridge*. A virtual trip there shows double guardrail on the bridge, no gap from footway behind it to main motorway, 2 lanes each direction. Have a hard time thinking of a bus stop there.

Glad you agree with what Osmose flagged is in essence correct... it's function is to signal issues which humans are then to assess as Yes, fix, No, false positive. Site is a good relational function to bind non-continuous objects. Duplication of information is bad. 10 parts of a street with same name and then all 10 parts having the name:etymology:wikipedia when there already is a street relation that binds the parts? The etymology key belongs on the relation. building relations no different, bridge area binds all the roads, footways, cyclepaths etc to cross, no need to repeat the structure of the bridge on each way, and on and on. The wiki is to me abundantly clear as to the appropriate utility in this case

"Rationale: A site relation is appropriate when a single real-world feature, with a common name and other common characteristics, cannot be accurately represented by a single geometry or by multiple areas forming a multipolygon. In other words, a site relation is appropriate when the feature must incorporate one or more point features or linear features that cannot be accurately replaced by areas."

The last sentence is the important bit, point or linear features.

Anyway, I'll go ahead and add the wikipedia link to the site relation where it belongs, no nonsense of 12x the same link.

ciao