What was your source for removing the buildings here?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125297072

Hello, and welcome to OSM! I happened to notice your update, but from your changeset comment I'm not sure what you're trying to do. Could you elaborate on that?

Also, 1) the building was already on the map in a way that aligned with imagery, and 2) there was already an existing point for the restaurant.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124167022

This is another example where there was already a point for the business (which I added) inside of the building where it's located, which makes your change a duplicate.
The reason I originally added The Gathering as a node, rather than tagging the building with its information, is because the cafe doesn't occupy the entire building.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124241741

Hello! I commented on another change the problem with buildings overlapping (and other commenters have mentioned this as well), and in this case there's an existing node for Sister Pie already, which makes the change unnecessary.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124241839

Hello! I'm seeing a pattern with some of your additions (including this one): building objects should represent the entirety of the building, not simply a portion of it. That also means that buildings should not overlap each other like this. Since the building was already here, adding the business information to a new point is better practice.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124237303

Thanks for adding this business to the map! However, as documented on the wiki, advertising material is not appropriate for OSM.

I think I get how you came to that conclusion, given the multiple meanings of "center." However, existing practice is prefer a "cultural" or "logical" center over a spatial/"geographic" one, as is made a bit clearer here: osm.wiki/Relation:boundary#Relation_members

> Node representing the place, located at the coordinate where the place is typically labeled. Despite the name of this role, it is not a general mechanism for label placement hints; one can think of it as a "cultural centre" or "logical centre" for the boundary. When placing the node, consider where you would map the place as a point feature if the boundary were unknown or ill-defined. A city's commonly accepted "center" may be at the city hall, a public square, or the origin of the city's street grid, rather than the geographic centroid of the boundary. For example, Chicago's node remains located in the central business district near the lakeshore, even though the city has expanded away from the lakeshore.

Taken together, the pre-existing locations fit much better in both cases.

Got it, thanks for clarifying. That's a case of what the wiki calls "tagging for the renderer," or more accurately, mapping *only* for the renderer. See osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer for more on that, and why it's discouraged.

Instead, the wiki entry for place=city suggests placing these nodes
"at the center of the city, like the central square, a central administrative or religious building or a central road junction" osm.wiki/Tag:place%3Dcity

I'm attempting to revert this and the subsequent changeset 120483753 to replace the nodes.

What was the reason for moving these place nodes?

Fair enough! That lack of tree canopy on Mapbox is definitely really nice--I've recently started taking advantage of it a bit more myself. And good to know on that City database too.

Hi Imum,
Thanks for your contributions! I was recently doing some additional building mapping near here, and noticed that way 1047728077 doesn't exist on Bing imagery. I'm not certain about the Hope Village neighborhood, but I know for sure that Bing is more recent than Mapbox in other parts of Detroit where I've compared the two.