This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 165963605 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: fictional game editing

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 165963605 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: fictional game editing

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 165963605 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: fictional game editing

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 165963605 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: fictional game editing

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 165963605 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: fictional game editing

Hi, you've removed the beach access road as part of this edit, instead of deleting the node, you just need to remove the tags on it. I've reverted this edit and re-done it in that way.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165886436

Revert incorrectly done edit in order to correct it

osm.org/changeset/165914277

Hi there,

Andrew from the Data Working Group here.

The name tag should not be used for descriptive names, it should be for actual names, ones that could be seen on a signpost.

I've removed the descriptive names from these items.

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

(translated with DeepL)

Hola a todos,

Andrew, del Grupo de Trabajo de Datos.

¿Puede explicar por qué ha eliminado los nombres en dos idiomas, que parecen ser bastante habituales en este ámbito? ¿Ha habido algún debate en la comunidad que haya llevado a la decisión de eliminarlos?

Saludos cordiales,
Andrew Welch, Grupo de trabajo de datos OSMF

Hi there,

Andrew from the Data Working Group here.

Can you explain why you've removed the dual language names, that sppear to be fairly standard for this area? Has there been any community discussion that's lead to a decision to remove these?

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

Thanks for confirming that. It's generally preferred to keep the history of items in OSM, so instead of deleting them, you're best to change the current objects. If they no longer exist then removing them is fine.

Hi עומר מדלן,

הדרישות פשוטות למדי וכל ארגון OpenStreetMap צריך להיות מסוגל לעקוב אחריהם. הרגישו חופשיים לבחון ארגונים אחרים ב-Wiki כגון Uber, Microsoft וטוםטום כדי לראות מה נדרש.

המונחים:,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group
(translated with libretranslate.org)

Hi OmerMadlan,

The requirements are fairly simple and any organisation editing OpenStreetMap should be able to follow them. Feel free to look at other organisations on the wiki such as Uber, Microsoft and TomTom to see what's required.

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

Hi there, these don't line up that well compared to the buildings in ESRI, and the Bing imagery is better quality, would you be able to review these and possibly redraw them? For example, way/1382765627 appears to actually cross over the fence into the neighbouring property.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165675601

Those look like they're copyrighted sources, which means they wouldn't be suitable to use for mapping in OSM. If you've been to them and confirmed in person (in some way that means anyone could confirm it) then they're fine, but any that are just coming from those websites will have to be removed.

Hey JohnaDee, for a section like this, you'd usually tag it as a _link road matching the higher of the two roads it links, or have it match Louisa Road.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165615984

Hi Jack, just wondering what the source for this is, considering these roads aren't on aerial imagery yet.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165619651

Hi Captain_Meows,

Andrew from the Data Working Group here.

KevinOs is correct, these aren't cinemas and shouldn't be tagged as such. Please fix these before making any further edits, otherwise they may be removed.

Can you also please let us know your source for these changes, are they something you've been and seen in person, or did you get them online (if so, what website)?

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

It is a little weird, but that's just how our phone numbers are written for international use, and that's what OSM uses.

The linked section for the Australian tagging guidelines has how landlines and mobiles should be, the Burnside Cosmetic one is correct already.

Basically, mobiles get grouped into 3 lots of 3 numbers, so +61 4## ### ###, and landlines are area code, then 2 sets of 4, so +61 # #### ####. How I remembered it to begin with was to just take the full number with the leading 0, but replace the 0 with "+61 ", so 0466 770 558 becomes +61 466 770 558 and 08 7221 2577 becomes +61 8 7221 2577.