OK, mein Fehler, danke für die Korrektur. Ich habe mir vor dem Mappen den Änderungsverlauf zwar angeschaut, aber übersehen, dass du das Überleitgleis im Changeset 124594488 (no comment) entfernt hast.

Während ich deine Aufmerksamkeit habe, erwähne ich gleich das nahegelegene Node 5480520736. Vermutlich ist damit das gleiche Signal wie das von dir später ergänzte Signal VHT104 gemeint. Angesichts dessen, wie oft du im Änderungsverlauf auftauchst, kennst du dich aber bestimmt besser aus.

Hallo, in den Betriebsangaben der Wiener Linien wird der Prozentsatz der Gleise angeführt, die "getrennt vom Individualverkehr" sind. In anderen Worten, bei Stau stehen Autos (Individualverkehr), aber keine Straßenbahnen. Ich möchte diese Bevorrangungmaßnahme genauer analysieren, allerdings stellen die Wiener Linien diese Daten nicht zur Verfügung.

Daher arbeite ich an einem Proposal für diesen Tag und verwende ihn schon, um mein Verständnis für die verschiedenen Arten von Separierungen zu verbessern. Falls im Verlauf des Proposals andere Tags präferiert werden oder Änderungen notwendig sind, werde ich das selbstverständlich nachtragen.

Hi Elisabeth, I took some time to update the highways in the area. Adding ford=yes would not have resolved errors like connections to administrative borders. Fixing Validation errors should come after resolving obvious issues. Because we agreed regarding intermittent, I have updated the water areas along the Tangting and Biring.

The OSM Wiki for the key ford does mention intermittent. I do not see any problem with adding intermittent to a ford segment of a highway but the wiki does not explicitly say to do that.

I didn't mean to map the flood prone area. Instead I mapped the area that is (still) predominantly shaped by the river. The last flood might be years ago but the area still lacks larger rooted plants which makes it difficult to traverse (drive through). Because this is an area without permanent flow intermittent=yes could be used. The most accurate way would include natural=shingle and natural=wetland areas. The way it is mapped varies across the world. Therefore, I mapped water=river consistent with the surrounding area.

I don’t think it is wrong to map those roads with flood_prone. However, it is not particularly useful either. This is because the flood zone is constantly changing with the meandering of the river. The highways that enter this area without a ford are tagged as highway=track. (The tag does not describe the condition, but the usage of the road.) These roads only connect to the destination and in a flood the destination is either flooded or a new road around the flooded area replaces it. They are probably not permanent and everybody that uses them is aware of floods.

Further south you can see residential roads that cross the river. Would you map those as flood prone or fords? When they are flooded they stop existing and alternative roads are created. I would focus on errors within the general-purpose road network.

Hi Irma, the bridge probably no longer exists. However, a bridge-like structure is visible in Esri (clarified) and Mapbox, although that's most likely not passable for cars. I suspect that these are older imageries because in some places some buildings are missing.

It is not uncommon that bridges are destroyed within one year (in some regions). There should be nothing wrong with updating/deleting it without asking. I would suggest that you delete the bridge and update the unclassified road because it seems more of a footpath to me (partially at least).

With all that said it seems unlikely that a bridge for cars is built there. The strong currents would explain why foot bridges were build there. Therefore, I would not map a ford and no bridge either without imagery to support that.

Given the newer imagery I would have mapped it that way (I chose the most recent at the time). And I can still do it if you prefer.

* Changeset 128395835

Mit Changeset 122699343 sind die Fahrradparkplätze nun wieder getrennt von der Stadtbahn-Haltestelle. Ich habe deine Namensänderung dabei übernommen, weil Einheitlichkeit durchaus wichtiger sein kann als Abkürzungen zu vermeiden.

Da ich nicht ausschließen kann, dass es kein Versehen war, ist deine Erlaubnis nicht wirklich mein Ziel gewesen. Du wirst den Namen nicht grundlos geändert haben und vielleicht hast du es mit anderen Mappern in Köln abgesprochen.

Ich wäre offen gewesen,
mehr über deine Entscheidungsgrundlage zu hören, aber wenn du das nicht willst oder dir gar nicht so viel dabei gedacht hast ist das auch OK. Danke für die schnelle Antwort und ich hoffe wir haben beide was dazu gelernt.

Da du in über zwei Wochen weder die Daten angepasst hast noch auf mein Kommentar eingegangen bist, möchte ich dich daran erinnern, dass die OSM-Community darauf Wert legt, dass man Nachrichten anderer Nutzer nicht einfach ignoriert.

Wir müssen uns nicht einig sein und Fehler machen ist OK. Ich möchte dein Changeset nicht einfach reverten. Schließlich würde ich das bei meinen eigenen Änderungen auch ungern sehen.

Last year this changeset added several buildings that had existed for years. In some cases I prefer your geometry (due to more recent imagery). However, almost all of them would benefit from the iD function square (shortcut q). Furthermore, the existing buildings have addresses associated with them, which is not the case with yours.

Therefore, I would suggest that someone deletes your buildings and adjust the geometry for the existing buildings if needed to avoid having duplicates. Is that ok with you? Do you prefer to do it yourself or is it ok if I do it?

Ich nehme an, du hast unabsichtlich die Fahrradparkplätze und die Stadtbahn-Haltestelle vereint (siehe gelöschtes Node). Selbst wenn die Fahrräder auf den Gleisen abgestellt werden, wäre es sinnvoll die Nodes getrennt zu halten.

Hauptbahnhof auszuschreiben ist laut Wiki nicht falsch. Da in der Durchsage nicht Hbf gesagt wird, sind Abkürzungen von Wörtern eigentlich ungewollt. Aushänge und Schilder kürzen nicht ab weil es ausgeschrieben falsch wäre, sondern um Platz zu sparen. osm.wiki/DE:Namen#Hinweise

Thanks for fixing my typo.

Thank you for improving my edits. I remember that in the moment I first saw the double area my intuition wanted to change it. But on a closer look I wasn't sure enough that the motel shouldn't be an area to actually correct it.

If I had mapped it I would have split the building so that the south part is seperated like the north part. At least in the imagery both connections seem similar and both parts seem to have the same height but the building part parallel to the street at the entrance is higher. In case you have been there or have more detailed imagery you might know better and I just wanted to know whether you made a conscious decision not to separate it.

Furthermore, I assume not all routers do that but I think some will route you to the buildings node with entrance=main. entrance=yes would allow multiple entrances to be associated with the motel itself and not just a generic building.

Hi, thank you, I explained why I made that mistake and how I corrected it in changeset 108985753.

Hi,
thank you, that was not what I wanted to do, I corrected it in Changeset 108985753. I tried to outsmart iD and it backfired. I drew two buildings together and didn't want to draw both again therefore I deleted building=yes so that I can split the way and then close both before I retag them as buildings. Unfortunately when you use the wrong order of those steps iD wants to assist you by creating a relation but doesn't indicate it clear enough. Therefore I should use the JOSM tool that can split buildings along a line.

It is always good to know that someone notices my mistakes. It sometimes feels like no one notices/appreciates my changes even though I add hundreds of buildings in some of my changesets. Feel free to tell me if you notice a third relation like that. I can't rule it out that I made the mistake more than twice from what I remember.

Hi ravali_78,
can you please mention which imagery you used to confirm that those roads do not exist? In both Maxar and Mapbox, the source values of your changeset, the way 965155631 is indeed visible even though I agree that it can be argued that it should not be unclassified but agricultural whereas way 747747160 right next to it is not visible and I assume that you did not delete it intentionally.

At first I thought that I created those unclassified highways by splitting but it wasn't even some highway=road that I encountered around that time. I have no problem that you deleted those highways but it would have been easier for me to understand which roads you deleted if you would have waited with deleting those roads until I answered on your comment. Not everyone has the skills to take a look at deleted objects and it could cause confusion for unexperienced mappers instead of helping them to understand their mistakes. I did it with overpass [date:"2021-07-18T19:20:00Z"];way(id:965155631,965155630,965155628);out geom;.

In a community it is beneficial to don't immediately review a changeset as bad because of 3 out of 126 ways don't exist on your imagery. You should not blame users that use a different/outdated imagery as long as they don't delete/destroy the work of other users that are more recent on a large scale. A more detailed map (creating roads/buidlings) can outweight some less recent updates to existing roads. And even if you think that I made those mistakes on purpose it would be nice to give me a chance to explain myself.

Thank you for taking a look at my changesets. I appreciate to have a second perspective on my changeset and I can't find all of my mistakes.

Hola, I am thankful for this valid feedback. I am pretty sure that this isn't my only changeset I mapped like that. Furthermore, I can't remember all changesets that far in the past, therefore I would need to go back quite a while in my changeset history. In case you would like that I correct my changes I won't be able to start right now I hope it is not time-sensitive.

I would love to map individual houses however those need more precission and are more time consuming. My thought process was that residential areas without buildings in it are pretty much equivalent to "here is data missing". Furthermore, typically those houses are surrounded by treeless areas with varing purposes. I can't really tell the exact purpose and there might me overlapping areas for each purpose but all are related to living (in a residence) and it is easy to map a line that surrounds those areas combined. As there a multiple cultural differences in purposes I think residential is a good fit and it is a common hotosm strategy for multiple houses. However I understand that this doesn't fit all cultures and if the community has agreed on a good compromise or is open for the discussion I am here for it but I am not familiar with how to get in touch with the community.

La diversidad de idiomas y culturas es hermosa pero difícil de estructurar.

The iD-Editor is probably prefered because it can be instantly used inside the browser without installing additional software. I am a fan of this and see no reason why the issue checking differs from josm.

Some brands include very specific tags but I have to admit that I did not find them inside the wikidata database, so I did not know how to add tags. Such a change could be automaticly applied to all refering osm nodes/areas and shops that will be added in the future will get this tags too.

You are right, the Panda shop is not part of the Panda Express brand. I do not know how this mistake could happen. Maybe I clicked on the wrong button.

I would be very thankful if you could revert my changeset. I currently have no access to a computer with JOSM and I am unfamiliar with the progress. I will redo the changes that do not cause problems when I have more time.

Hi, I want you to know that I regret this and other changesets. I am sorry that I cannot fix this immediately. As soon as I have enough time I will go through my changesets and fix the changes.

I nearly did not start my first changeset because I do not want to use wrong tags. But the iD-Editor information was very clear that the tag is obsolete but fits into a standardized tag and I trusted the information because of same domain authority. In my opinion standardization is fundamental for meaningful maps. While going through the warnings I checked if the new tag somehow fits with the meaning of the old tag. (A deviation is often necessary for standardization) Futhermore, I checked if satellite images can confirm a building where e.g. a shop can be and try to spot obvious mistakes. So, I hope my changesets are not useless but probably changeset revertion is the best correction.

Concerning Panda Express, company names/franchises are protected. Especially in shopping streets the shop is one of many brands. If I can see many non-branded local shops are in the area and I am not certain I check the offical homepage and leave a fixme instead of updateing the tags when I am not sure. The tag fast_food=cafeteria should be probably added to the brand standard tags instead of appling it to each node/area itself. So future nodes that will be added to this brand get the changes too.

Thank you for the information about entrances, I thought they are supposed to specify the type of entrance more easier.

I can revert the changes to the embassies but I knew that office=embassy should not be applied to e.g. the ambassadors home.

Vielen Dank für die Korrektur

Der Relationentyp building:hospital wird weltweit bereits 4 474 Mal verwendet, also existiert dieser anscheinend. Der Tag building wird in Relationen allgemein oft verwendet.

Ich war auch verdutzt als ich gelesen habe, dass die optionale (daher nicht nötige) Relation zusätzlich zur Umrissfläche erzeugt wird und die Umrissfläche sogar ein Teil der Relation ist. Vielleicht weicht die deutschsprachige Wiki auch davon ab.

Das ich den Tag building=hospital bei Tiefgaragen verwendet habe wäre mir neu und müsste wenn überhaupt länger her sein. Vielleicht aus einer Zeit in der ich mehr auf die Tags des iD-Editors vertraut habe.

Der Tag building:part=bridge könnte alternativ für das Vordach verwendet werden. Damit ist der Layer dann so wie es auch die Gehfläche verlangt. Im Prinzip ist das Vordach eigentlich eine Brücke und da sie Teil des Gebäudes ist, ist man_made nicht zutreffend.