Who is 'we' here?

Keep in mind that planning and organizing of mapping activities and development of mapping conventions should be public.

Although there is not yet a formal policy on organized mapping activities it is good practice to document such activities and reference this in changeset comments/tags. If you develop a mapping system for woodlands in Nepal for others to take cue from this needs to be documented and open for scrutiny, critique and modification by other mappers.

I would like to add that what bdiscoe did here was not in any way destroying a detailed map. He removed nodes which had a very little influence on the overall geometry because they were almost exactly in the middle between the next and the previous node. See http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=49549696

Since the original mapping here contains a mixture of too few and too many nodes (too few in the sense that there are many sharp corners in the mapping which do not actually exist in reality, too many in the sense that the influence they have on the shape is small compared to the level of detail of mapping) this is a sensible step. If it is worth the trouble is a different question of course.

Regarding the mechanical nature of your edits please read the 'Scope' section on osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

When you add dozens of name tag in different languages in minutes intervals there is no way you can verify this information so this is a mechanical edit even if done with an interactive tool.

Regarding semantic issues - there are a lot of errors in wikipedia and wikidata - wrong names, wrong classifications of objects, interwiki links not representing identical objects etc. We do not want these errors in OSM. You are clearly not familiar with many of the regions you make edits in so you are not able to recognize many of these errors.

Regarding legal issues - while using wikidata as a source of information for manual mapping is not critical (although you should never use it as an only source) using it as a bulk data source is. Wikidata has no strict policies regarding sources of the information, many of the things there have been copied from Google Maps and other restricted sources. Such data should not be entered in bulk into OSM and which is part of the reason why imports need to go through a review process (osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines). See also https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=618536#p618536

So once more: please do not continue with your edits before discussing them in a broader scope (due to the international scope best would be the talk mailing list).

Hello radek-drlicka,

you continue making mechanical additions of names as well as new features without following the automated edits policy (osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct) despite having been asked not to in osm.org/changeset/47907976

Please stop making those edits and document and discuss what you do before continuing. There are various both legal and semantic issues with mass addition of information from wikipedia/wikidata.

I mentioned this primarily in

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2013-October/002300.html

and in subsequent discussion (continuing in June 2014)

I was referring to the "No point editing stuff in this area." remark which is pretty unfriendly to someone manually mapping stuff in the area.

As far as the "semantic nonsense" is concerned - i pointed out some of the problems in the import discussion - in particular regarding waterways and wetlands - and could point you to a lot of cases where the imported data is factually wrong because of that. But this is not really the point here.

The point is you should value and respect manual contributions at any time - even if they are untimely for your import - and even if you consider the data you import to be better or more valuable in some way.

So you want to ban manual mapping from Norway to make it easier to create and maintain a map based on 'official' data there? That would be an extremely short sighted attitude.

If you want to address problems with the alignment of images (which are indeed severe in some parts of Norway) a good way would be to provide a rendering of the 'official' map data mappers can then use to align images.

But just because 'official' map data has better positional accuracy does not necessarily mean it is more accurate than what is manually mapped otherwise. The Kartverket imports are full of semantic nonsense and geometry errors.

Hello radek-drlicka,

this changeset creates an untagged node and one mapping a feature that is already mapped in OSM otherwise using incorrect tagging.

Please correct this and please be more careful when editing and do not make mechanical additions based on external data without following the mechanical edits policy.

Kotelny Island is far beyond the polar tree growth limit, as you can see on https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ru:Котельный average temperature in July is only 2.9 degrees.

I am sorry for not being able to reply in Russian.

Hello freeExec,

you might want to check your tagging here - natural=wood is fairly unlikely in this area.

Hello Jenny,

why do you think 4rch drew the coastline you tried to 'align' here the way he did in

osm.org/changeset/35508175

If you think that mapping was faulty it would be a good idea to actually talk the mapper who did this first, especially if - like here - this is an experienced mapper who has drawn hundreds of kilometers of coastline in the area.

Hint: if you'd actually look at the image sources JOSM offers you for the area you map in you might also find images that are a decent depiction of reality.

Hello Philip,

despite having been told not to combine several unrelated edits far apart in a single changeset by manoharuss in

osm.org/changeset/47404357

you continue to do so. Stop doing that! This kind of edits are extremely annoying for your fellow mappers.

Hello Sandro,

your edits to Остров Кверини are factually incorrect, please revert them.

If you do not have reliable data or are not able to reliably interpret the data you have you cannot edit in this area.

Also note you have unnecessarily created five new versions of this island within a few hours:

osm.org/way/240306213/history

but at the same time combine several unrelated edits far apart in this changeset and others. Stop doing that, you are causing a lot of trouble and unnecessary work for your fellow mappers.

Hello Ashley,

this edit and other edits in similar setting are factually incorrect, you are 'improving' existing mapping based on fairly accurate 2-3 year old imagery by 4rch using exceptionally poor, snow impaired 15 year old images in Bing. Please don't do that and revert your past edits in such areas.

Hello Eva,

your edits claims to be based on Bing imagery but Bing apparently has no coverage in this area. Could you explain the basis of this edit?

Hello Shaun,

your edits claims to be based on Bing imagery but Bing apparently has no coverage in this area. Could you explain the basis of this edit?

Hello ELadner,

has this change been discussed anywhere? It has been a long time consensus that the Caspian Sea is to be tagged as natural=coastline which is also documented on the wiki:

osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline

Changing that will require a broader discussion and should not happen without a broad agreement within the community.

Hello TACRfan,

what do you base this mapping on? Both tagging and geometries in large parts seem fairly implausible. Please no not perform fantasy mapping here.

Well - the 'how to map' section on the wiki does not represent common mapping practice here and contradicts the basic definition of natural=beach as a landform.

The wiki by the way currently also says you should tag the part of a beach below the high water line as natural=shoal - which of course does not make much sense.

I would be open to clarifying the wiki in either way but using your concept would both require a lot of change in mapping all over the world and would cause additional problems (like which part of the beach the name tag is to be applied to).

My main reason for messaging you here is to let you know that this size of change affects the coastline processing and you plan future changes accordingly.

Independent of that I cannot really recognize the idea behind the current position of the coastline, i.e. why it is there and not further upstream or downstream. The lowest parts of all these 'rivers' seem part of Chesapeake Bay, in particular what is mapped as Miles River here:

osm.org/relation/6840770

seems to be a side bay (Eastern Bay) with separate connections to the main bay in three directions (north, west and southwest) and likely dominated by tidal currents rather than river currents. But i am no expert in this area so this is up to you to assess.

I remember there was a discussion on talk-us some time ago if to take Chesapeake Bay out of the coastline. Removing all side bays makes less sense since you end up with a meaningless residual bay that mostly consists of vitual geometries (i.e. coastlines that do not actually represent the edge of a waterbody).