Hi agab29,

Can you have a look at osm.org/way/458465255/history#map=19/48.60799/0.88971?

This way has area set to yes but no other tags,

What is it?

Thanks,

Martin.

You are the "on-the-ground expert" so if you think it is better to use a single node, please go ahead, and if it is a multi-tenant I definitely agree.

It is not forbidden or dis-encouraged to place tags like amenity=restaurant as isolated point inside the outer way but I thin it is better to tag the building, that is in my opinion more precise.

See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=restaurant for statistics and keep in mind that in quite some places buildings are not mapped so it is not an option to put the tag on the building.

Hi Polari,

One more question related to multipolygons.

In this changeset you added osm.org/relation/7130952 but the relation and the inner and outer way do not have tags to indicate what it is. It is also not clear from the Bing imagery, so can you the tags to indicate what it is?

Thanks,

Martin.

Hi,

Thanks for improving restaurant Alexander.

One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/DE:Relation:multipolygon#Verwendung and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html

Martin.

NB: No problem, just a hint.

Hi Torsten,

Thanks for adding details near Waltershausne.

One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/DE:Relation:multipolygon#Verwendung and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html

The problem is with osm.org/relation/7166928

Martin.

NB: No problem, just a hint.

Hi Night_Raven,

Hi Szydzio,

Thanks for adding addition details to the Klasztor Franciszkanów.

One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/Pl:Relation:multipolygon#U.C5.BCycie and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html

Martin.

NB: No problem, just a hint.

Hi Szydzio,

Thanks for adding addition details to the Szachty park.

One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/Pl:Relation:multipolygon#U.C5.BCycie and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html

Martin.

NB: No problem, just a hint.

Hi Kiekin,

Thanks for adding addition details to Filmpark Babelsberg.

One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/DE:Relation:multipolygon#Verwendung and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html

Martin.

NB: No problem, just a hint.

Hi,

Thanks for adding the "Teich am Blumenauer Kirchweg + Brücke".

One note: When creating relations, the tags should not be on the outer way, but on the relation itself, see osm.wiki/DE:Relation:multipolygon#Verwendung and http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html

Martin.

NB: No problem, just a hint.

Thanks polari,

Checked https://asiointi.maanmittauslaitos.fi/karttapaikka/ and yes, these inner parts are not part of the national park, strange but true.

I have fixed the relation in the light of http://area.jochentopf.com/old-style-josm.html, see osm.org/changeset/47874735

Thanks for your work or making the map more complete!

Hi polari,

What is the source for the Kurjenrahkan kansallispuisto national park?

It is a bit strange it is a relation with an outer (makes sense) and inners. Is the area of these inners no national park??

Greetings,

Martin.

Hi Thoschi,

Thanks for your Ergänzungen Muttental but I noticed it likely broke quite some bicycle and Wanderweg relations.

I fixed some relations but some are still problematic, for example the Energiewirtschaftlicher Wanderweg, osm.org/relation/3095572 and the Radverkehrsnetz NRW, Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis, osm.org/relation/2073184 over the Mühlenstraße

If possible, could you have a look at these relations?

Thanks,

Martin.

Hi Sven,

Thanks for the feedback, great somebody is watching.

I learned something new, if "boundary=protected_area", the relation type should be boundary instead of multipolygon.

Yes, I already concluded touching rings are not always errors although I think it is often possible to change the data such that there are no touching rings. I did not do any of these type of cleanups tough.

Regards,

Martin.

Hi Sebasic,

Goed bezig; ik was ook bezig maar toen ik wilde uploaden kwamen er allerlei conflicten op dus ben ik maar richting Duitsland verhuist ;-)

Groeten,

Martin.

Hi Jimiiee
I see you already deleted the streetlamps with "source=Google Maps", good!

For trees that are really in a line natural=tree_row is useful but I am also not against mapping individual trees, the "Gemeente Rotterdam" has and App that has all trees in the city with the type so why not openstreetmap ;-)

Hi Jimiiee

In this changeset you added streetlamps, great but with a "source=Google Maps".

Google Maps can not be used as source for openstreetmap data, see osm.wiki/FAQ#Why_don.27t_you_just_use_Google_Maps.2Fwhoever_for_your_data.3F

Can you either remove these lamps or do a survey, check the lamps and remove only the "source=Google Maps" tag?

Hoi,

Bedankt voor het terug-corrigeren, osmore geeft een foutmelding op rwn_ref en ik was even niet scherp genoeg om te zien dat dit een bogus foutmelding was.

Bedankt,

Groeten,

Martin.

Als onderdeel van deze changeset zijn de Daan Schammerstraat en Pietje Bellstraat toegevoegd maar zover ik weet bestaan die helemaal niet.

Hi MeghaShrestha,

I saw that with this changeset several hospitals were added for example in Dharapani, osm.org/node/3494714639#map=18/28.45185/83.37409

I have been there last year and I am quite sure there is no hospital there. Maybe there is an doctor there (although I doubt it) and if so amenity=doctors seems to be more appropriate.

Regards,

Martin.