mangrove.reviews being the most used client might in part be due to applications that don’t implement the API but link to mangrove.reviews for creating a new review; one such application from the OSM universe would be https://opencampingmap.org/

Hi, kannst Du mal ein konkretes Beispiel nennen wo man das nachvollziehen kann? Ich habe mir gerade stichprobenweise den Änderungsverlauf für einige Gebäude in Behringen angeschaut, und die haben fast alle nur building=yes und auch noch nie andere Tags gehabt, also insbesondere keine Adressangaben. Vielleicht habe ich da ja nur die Ausnahmefälle erwischt? Gruß, Wolfgang

I like the video and what you are doing here. One note regarding tag standardisation: Most useful tags are created by mappers that actually use them, so best team up with other mappers of historic and archaeological sites and compare notes what kinds of tags are useful in actual mapping. The discussion on the wiki is mostly helpful to find out if your planned tagging clashes with established tagging for other subjects and talk about general tagging “rules” that make the tagging fit in with established tags. Keep in mind that most mappers are not experts in the field of archaeology, so the tagging should be designed in a way that everyone can provide the most basic information, and still allow experts to refine that information by adding optional tags. Finally, don’t let yourself be distracted or discouraged by people that claim there is only “the one true way” of tagging, because there isn’t. Wolfgang (lyx@osm)

@historic_bruno On https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/national-bridge-inventory-national-geospatial-data-asset-ngda-bridges they say that they got no license information from their source, but IF this data was prepared by government employees in the course of their work it would be considered an US Government work. The problem here seems to be that they don’t know if this was the case.

I like it. The one thing I think you should change is the ref. Assuming NBI stands for “National Bridge Inventory” I guess more countries in the English speaking world would come up with just the same name, so it might be better to use ref:us:nbi. It would make the task easier for map makers that want to show the link. Otherwise they would have to find out the country first, which is possible of course but might require more computational effort. After looking at the nbi website, the license information for this data appears to be not entirely clear. Maybe it would be better to just add the ref, but not copy the structure and start_date data, just to be safe. Greetings, Wolfgang (lyx@osm)

Great that Edmonton makes those datasets available. However, if you use that data to add information to OSM, please make sure that the required attribution is added to osm.wiki/Contributors It looks like the City of Edmonton is not yet mentioned there.