Machine translation from Czech: "Your comment is not clear to me. The rules of service and marshalling yards are generally the same worldwide (perhaps outside 3 countries)."

I would prefer that you continue this conversation in English, or at least attempt a machine translation to English, because the mapping community in the United States generally uses English to discuss local tagging issues.

How do these marshalling and service yard rules you speak of correspond to OSM tagging? What is the relationship between them and the North American concept of "track other than main track"? What tagging guidelines are you using here?

The way you are tagging railways in North America is not in accordance with tagging guidelines. This is, what we call in North America, "track other than main track". Please restore the service=* tag to the segments of railway where you have removed it.

I am still not sure what you are trying to say here, but the way you are tagging railways in North America is not in accordance with tagging guidelines. This is, what we call in North America, "track other than main track". Please restore the service=* tag to these segments of railway.

Hi, could you please answer the questions on other changeset comments before you continue editing railroads in Houston? You can see your changesets with comments here: http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11276832

I am not sure what is meant by the sentence "is it the main or secondary or military or tourist railway?"

Here is a yard track where you removed the service=yard tag in this changeset. The previous tagging was correct: osm.org/way/1054881652

I am not sure what is meant by that sentence.

Here is a spur track where you have removed the service=spur tag in this changeset. The previous tagging was correct: osm.org/way/41428007

Hi HaPe-CZ,

The railway you retagged from service=yard to usage=industrial should not have been changed. This is a yard track, not a main track. Why did you change it?

Hello HaPe-CZ,

Why did you change all these segments of service=spur track near Houston to usage=industrial? Nearly all of the tracks you have retagged as usage=industrial are track other than main track. You have tagged a lot of railways wrong and it will take a lot of work to clean up this damage.

And could you be more specific in your changeset comments than "fix railway"? It is not enough to say you have "fixed" something. What did you add, remove or change?

-Clay

Hi there—I noticed you retagged the station building as a train station here. When mapped as an area, railway=station is meant to cover the entire station grounds, including platforms. Baltimore Camden Station is currently mapped as a node, which is also acceptable. Station buildings should be building=train_station, without railway=station.

I went ahead and fixed this here: osm.org/changeset/120000388

If it is the case that your own copyrighted work has been plagiarized, then I would strongly recommend talking directly to the Data Working Group. You can email them at data@openstreetmap.org

Hi maplovr,

What you are doing here is not redacting; it is reverting. 'Redaction' implies it being purged from the database, which you and I don't have the power to do. The history of the objects remains publicly available when you revert a changeset.

If you are concerned about copyright violation, perhaps you could discuss it with other mappers or bring it up to the Data Working Group to be certain that it doesn't belong on OSM. I see you have not commented on any changesets of the mapper who originally added this data. Have you attempted to contact them?

Hi Trevor,

I had originally tagged the segment of FM 351 north of US 59 as trunk because it is signed as a truck route. It carries all the long-distance truck traffic as an alternative to US 59 through the center of town.

What should we do in situations like these? I know Andrews and Crane are a couple other towns where long-distance truck traffic must follow a bypass roadway. They're already tagged with the proper values of hgv, but since they effectively split the stream of traffic in two through town, I'm not sure how that should affect classification (if at all).

Fair enough. I agree, the administrative boundary on OSM should have the name of the reservation, not the name of the ethnic group.

The addition of multilingual and alternative names are generally okay, as long as they refer to the reservation and not the tribe. We may need to review NFZANMNIM's edits to ensure that the rest of the country's reservations retain their reservation names. I'll post this on the OSM-US Slack and ask for others' thoughts.

Hi michael60634,

NFZANMNIM did not remove any names here. Why did you revert this change?

When adding these street names, you removed the existing county road numbers. Next time, please retain the county road numbers in the ref tag when you replace their names, and don't abbreviate street names.

Could you provide more details about your "team" and its purpose? Please read the Organized Editing Guidelines and ensure that you are following them:

osm.wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

Reverted here: osm.org/changeset/118338975

Reverted here: osm.org/changeset/118338975

Please respond to the comments on your previous changesets.

Reverted here: osm.org/changeset/118338975

Please respond to the comments on your previous changesets.

Reverted here: osm.org/changeset/118338975