Hey kenguest,

osm.org/node/9929532269

It seems like you have created an empty node. This shouldn't happen if you just add a waste basket.

Let me know if you meant to add something there.

If you didn't create this node intentionally, it may be worth reporting it as a bug;
https://github.com/MarcusWolschon/osmeditor4android/issues

(ie. "User is able to create empty node")

Regards,

Daniel

PS: Any pictures (Mapillary / KartaView) would be appreciated if you're able to take them.

Geen probleem. We hebben nog genoeg gaten in de wandelroutes ;-)

Hey Tilia,

osm.org/node/9906007796/history

Als je kan zien dat de brug hier al begint, zou je dan de brug kunnen aanpassen? Nu zit er een gat tussen het spoorgebied en de brug.

Groet,

Daniel

Hey Reisinformatiegroep,

osm.org/way/432220619

Hier zijn een aantal validator-oplossingen geaccepteerd zonder te kijken naar de satellietfoto.
Alle wegen die hier lopen, lopen onder de spoorbrug door. Er is geen sprake van een kruising.
"A level crossing (where a road crosses a railway on the same level; i.e., without a bridge)"
osm.wiki/Tag:railway%3Dlevel_crossing
(Hetzelfde voor railway=crossing, al staat dit niet op de wiki beschreven);
osm.wiki/Tag:railway%3Dcrossing

Daarnaast is er geen goede changeset comment geschreven, wat er staat is van een andere edit.
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Groet,

Daniel

Hey Dmithry,

In the Netherlands, we add the POI on the address node, not on the building.
You can also find this feedback here;
https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/393

Regards,

Daniel

osm.org/way/836425922

natural=cliff ist besser auf ein way(line) element. Jetzt seht man da nichts von.

osm.org/node/9911565684/history

Seems like a duplicate of
osm.org/node/8243101113/history

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2907001619573438&focus=photo

Try to keep the history, please.
osm.wiki/Keep_the_history
(see for editing technique)

Also, you can see the bit sticking out of the back-side of the building on Esri and here;
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=854142845188633&focus=photo
I'd suggest adding it back.

I'd preferably revert and re-do such changes, but it's not really inappropriate here, so it's ok.

Hey tsanren89,

Use good changeset comments, please. See
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

When saving your changes, you can additionally add, under "source";
- "local knowledge" (if you have been there in the past); or
- "survey" (if you have been there recently)

Also, please reply to changeset comments. This way other contributors know you are reading them. You should get an email notification if you receive one.
There is one changeset comment you have not replied to;
osm.org/changeset/122670359

Regards,

Daniel

Resolved by
osm.org/changeset/123982789

You should exclude the static part of the URL, including "File:".

Note, the image was uploaded as PNG. It should preferably be an SVG. If you'd like to link to the PNG anyways, replace ".svg" by ".png" in the wiki:symbol tag.

When uploading the SVG, you'll have to upload it as a new file - you can not add it as an updated version of the PNG file, as different file formats are stored seperately on the wiki. (it will warn you if you try to do this.)

The full URL of the file on the wiki;
osm.wiki/File:MacGiollophadraig_Way.png
(Do not use this for the wiki:symbol tag)

From osm.org/note/3263525

osm.org/way/862406520/history

It looks like this segment has been mostly abandoned in favour of
- the track which continues on the west side of US 191
osm.org/way/16835230/history
- via an intersection on US 191, getting to the continuation of this old road.
osm.org/way/1076164809/history

I would suggest adding the "abandoned:" lifecycle prefix, as it is still somewhat visible due to the little traffic it may still get. Otherwise, it's suggested to remove it.

Also, please leave a comment on the note mentioned at the top of this comment (and close it once this has been changed or otherwise resolved).

Be aware using any Google, or incompatibly licensed data for your edits is prohibited.
osm.wiki/FAQ#Why_don't_you_just_use_Google_Maps/whoever_for_your_data?

If any of your contributions are based on or derive from such sources, you should work with the Data Working Group to take proper action -ie. reverting them-.

*Should be Cillín Hill Centre Car Park

Sorry if I sound prescriptive, it is not my intention.

These are only suggestions. You do not have to follow up any of them.

The bounding box coordinates of a changeset are listed as an example of useless information here (part of the first example);
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments#Examples
Anyone can see what the bounding box of your changeset is without looking at the changeset comment, as explained in my comment.

请把 "F**k DWG "部分从你的资料中删除。尊重你的志愿者伙伴/贡献者。这包括DWG。该信息可能被认为是不恰当的，不管你是否审查了一个不恰当的词或打算把它作为一个笑话。

任何人都可以在你的修改集上发表评论，例如询问你所使用的标签是什么意思。这样，其他贡献者可以了解你正在做什么修改，以及你为什么要这样做。
如果你认为一个评论是不恰当的，请向DWG报告。
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group#I.27ve_seen_a_problem.3B_what_should_I_do.3F

如果你认为你受到了DWG的不公正对待，请参见
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group#I_feel_that_I_have_been_treated_unfairly_by_DWG

--

Hey 喵耳引力波 ,

Remove the "F**k DWG" section from your profile, please. Respect your fellow volunteers / contributors. This includes the DWG. The message may be considered inappropriate, regardless if you censor an inappropriate word or intend it as a joke.

Anyone can comment on your changeset to for example ask what a tag you are using means. This way, other contributors can understand what changes you are making and why you are making them.
If you think a comment is inappropriate, report it to the DWG;
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group#I.27ve_seen_a_problem.3B_what_should_I_do.3F

If you think you have been treated unfairly by DWG, see
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group#I_feel_that_I_have_been_treated_unfairly_by_DWG

Regards,

Daniel

It is almost always useful to add "added", "changed", or in this case "removed" to your changeset description.
When changing and especially when removing tags, it can be useful to mention the reason why you removed a tag. I'll assume here it is because it is redundant.
This will make it easier for users to understand your changes.

Suggested changeset description:
"Removed is_in tag (redundant)"
(Or simply
"Removed redundant is_in tag")

If it was on an object it shouldn't be on, you could also specify this;
"Changed is_in tag on building to addr tag (incorrect)"
Or,
"Removed is_in tag from building (incorrect, redundant)"

Also, it may be useful to discuss with your community if it is a good idea to create a MapRoulette task to remove this tag from all objects in the area. This way you may get community consensus and if accepted, it would be more efficiently removed.
( See also
osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct )

It is good practice to use the same changeset description, regardless of where or when it was made. If it's related to a notable place, you can add it. Otherwise, you can leave the place out.

Just fyi; consider
1) Is it relevant?
Users can click your changeset and see what coordinates it has, simply by briefly closing the changeset and looking at the url bar, or right clicking the map and asking for the location -to some extent-.
2) Does it help identify your changeset?
Users can query for changesets near certain coordinates using the history page, or the monitoring tools listed on wiki.osm.org .
Most users don't associate coordinates with a place.
Changesets adding the same thing in a large bounding box are not tied to places or coordinates. It is well possible that (nearly) none of those changes are anywhere near those coordinates. To identify a changeset, the following are much more useful - most are already available from your changeset by default:
- the changeset number (unique id), on which the user's changes can be seen.
- the user profile on which the user's history can be found.
- the changeset description to describe what was changed and if needed, why it was changed (ie. if there's a new building being constructed).
- hashtags to group changes into projects -or organizations-.
Coordinates or numbers mostly add clutter to changeset descriptions. They don't convey any useful information which can not be found out otherwise -without looking at the contents of the changeset itself-.
As such, it can be considered as spam.

website should preferably be brand:website or operator:website instead, since it belongs to the chain, not the store itself.