half_door is two movable parts on top of each other?

Let me know which tags to remove from which objects and I'll remove them when I have time. Thanks for reviewing the changeset.

They are a fallback. You can remove them if they aren't relevant enough.

Hey Minh,

I've added some details in
osm.org/changeset/142515759
( Changes: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=142515759 )

Let me know what you think.

impiaaa adviced against adding an address earlier as most of the other city parks don't have one and 650 is the address for the surrounding apartment complex, but I've left it as-is.

Regards,

Daniel

Proposed cycleway seems to end halfway at
osm.org/node/5515919408

Are you sure there is a dead end here?

Adjusted the parking in
osm.org/changeset/142430294
subsequently
osm.org/changeset/142431095

Someone with local knowledge of how the non-parking areas are used can adjust them where needed later.

No problem.

Hey Victor,

This is clearly a landuse area, not a building. You can see on aerial imagery:
It is an enclosed area, mostly paved, with a building only in the corner.
- Esri Clarity: Outdoor area seems to have been used for selling items, which is common with some shops.
- Bing/Esri: Outdoor area is now used for parking.
- Mapillary: It is still an enclosed landuse area with building only in the corner, imagery only exists of outdoor area being a parking in recent years. Most recent imagery is from August 9, 2023.
There seems to be no need to check any object's extent, as they are clearly defined and have remained the same.

This changeset has been reverted in
osm.org/changeset/142428741
Appropriate changes have been manually re-done in
osm.org/changeset/142429148

As reminder, within the Kilkenny city area, Esri Clarity and Esri (previously also Maxar) are better aligned, clearer and the last one more up-to-date than Bing or other layers.
Also, a large portion of the area now has up-to-date Mapillary -and older Bing Streetside- coverage.

Regards,

Daniel

Hallo steelcroissant,

Im Gebau: paving stones etc.
Auf das Pfad: gravel, wie auf die andere Pfade, oder besser scheint mir fine_gravel, aber ich andere das jetzt nach normale gravel. 'Rock' ist fur nicht-artificiele/mensch-gemachtes untergrund, meistens auf bergpfade.

Sehe
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=666772081591821&focus=photo
und
osm.wiki/Key:surface

Jetzt geandert im
osm.org/changeset/142410323

Schone surveying gewunscht :-)

Grub,

Daniel

It is the street name for (part of)
osm.org/way/33759988

See Mapillary
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=164392059375854&focus=photo

Both are now mapped as a node.

I have made
osm.org/way/1212233244
a fence, as it could be part fence / part gate, but it is not a hedge, which seems to be on either side.

Regards,

Daniel

Please read the first paragraph and the linked page again. So,
- I already understand mapping an object as i.e. both a node and a way is usually considered a duplicate.
- There are, however, cases where it may be useful to keep both, as explained on the linked page.
- The node is representing the functional, routable point on the way at which the way is obstructed by the physical barrier. Properties like access can be added to this node.
- The way is representing the exact geometry of this physical barrier. It is there solely to give further detail. Data consumers can ignore it.

There is only one gate, based on aerial imagery, but it is mapped as both a node and a way where possible to properly detail some of its properties (shape, topology, ...). It is not intended as a duplicate of the node.

There is no consensus on mapping such features as both a node, way, or area. (last one not relevant here)

Again, let me know if anything is unclear.

This changeset reverts the following
- osm.org/changeset/142025595

Some of these changes have been manually re-applied as part of
- osm.org/changeset/142042533

Hey BCNorwich,

I understand your concerns, assuming you are refering to
"One feature, one OSM element"
(only one object for one real object)
However, this is a case of
"Object oriented vs functional oriented mapping" (mapping the shape and connections of the gate, improving the shape of the fence/hedge/...), see
osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element#Situations_where_multiple_elements_may_be_needed
Note, properties other than the main key can and should still be tagged on the relevant objects, preferably only once.

There has been some discussion on mapping gates as ways at
osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate
However, there seems to be no consensus. Note, the documentation on the wiki or a given comment in discussions is advice, it is not consensus.
Some validators will suggest either mapping only as node or way. However, validator warnings are again advice, not consensus or source of truth (use imagery).
This is considered 'mapping for the validator'.
( osm.wiki/Quality_assurance )
Consensus is reached through broader community discussion, see
osm.wiki/User:LeTopographeFou/Consensus
(which is a user draft, but regardless is good advice to consider.);
it can not be resolved by making changes to the data.

As such, this is a case of
"Purposeful removal or degradation of data that are known to be correct"
Removing correct, more detailed data (can be traced from aerial imagery) is usually discouraged.
See also the good practice
"Don't remove objects that you don't need or like"
osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_remove_objects_that_you_don't_need_or_like

I would like to kindly suggest
- reaching consensus on this matter through the tagging mailing list at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ; or
at least reaching consensus with your local community ( OSM-GB ) through their contact channels.
- discussing with the original mapper prior to making such edits in the future.

Let me know if anything is unclear.
I assume you are already aware of all of the pages linked though.

I am personally aware there are very few gates mapped as ways, however I suppose this is due to lack of high quality imagery, mapper time/energy, and organic growth of level of detail in the project.

This changeset has been reverted by
osm.org/changeset/142042340
Geometry has been corrected in
osm.org/changeset/142042533
Your changes
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=142025595

Happy mapping :-)

Regards,

Daniel

Used the following articles for reference only
- https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/nov/18/buy-scottish-island
- https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/inverness/2264444/house-approved-for-tiny-west-coast-island-with-restrictions-on-future-development/
- https://www.highland.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/76683/item_61_-_applicant_mr_paul_nicoll_2000083ful_pls03420

Bonsoir Rambodechalons,

Merci de contribuer à OpenStreetMap !

osm.org/way/1208844538

Veuillez éviter de relier (nous appelons cela "coller") l'utilisation des terres à d'autres objets sans rapport, tels que les routes et les lignes électriques. Vous pouvez le faire en maintenant la touche ALT de votre clavier pendant que vous créez la zone, ou en déplaçant un point qui fait partie de la zone. Vous pouvez aussi toujours les déconnecter en utilisant la touche "D" de votre clavier si nécessaire.

Vos changements
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=141433512

Amélioré en
osm.org/changeset/141435118
Améliorations
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=141435118

Bonne cartographie !

Salut,

Daniel

---

Hey Rambodechalons

Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap!

Please avoid connecting (we call it "glueing") landuse to other unrelated objects like roads and power lines. You can do so by holding the ALT button on your keyboard while creating the area, or moving a point which is part of the area. You can also always disconnect them by using the "D" button on your keyboard if needed.

Your changes
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=141433512

Improved in
osm.org/changeset/141435118
Improvements
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=141435118

Happy mapping!

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Frans,

It seems there are numerous orphaned nodes left now.

Happy mapping :-)

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Nona,

What is the reason for removing this debris node? Here there does look to be some debris, and the imagery quality looks to be okay.
It also seems the road above it has been damaged as well.

As far as I understand you removed others because they were possibly based on bad imagery quality.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey DharmaBum,

Please refrain from tagging roads with highway=tertiary or above, especially if you are unsure if they lead anywhere at all. See the guidelines
osm.wiki/Morocco#How_tagging_the_routes/ways?
If you are unsure of the classification, use minor road highway=unclassified, or alternatively leave it 'unknown' highway=road
Validators will try to tag it properly.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Grant,

I sent you a private message a week ago. Could you give me a quick reply, if possible?

Happy surveying :-)

Regards,

Daniel