I agree with archie this should be reverted.

bosseln could you please stop deleting and reverting and focus instead on adding stuff that is missing in the next weeks until you gain more experience as a mapper?

maybe find a mentor? contact your local mapping community through one of the mailing lists and have someone help you learn how to do it right.

Hi, Welcome to OSM
What did you try to do in this edit?
It seems wrong to me as you deleted a lot of nodes.

Could you please elaborate?

Hi, you deleted a lot of address nodes in this edit.
Did you check beforehand with the german community that these nodes should be merged with the buildings?

Hej. Välkommen till OSM.
Denna ändring är korrekt, tack! Jag önskar mig att du skriver i kommentaren vad precis du har ändrat och varför. Då bliver det lättare för andra att kolla igenom.
Mvh

I support archie on this. Please discuss the relevant changesets before reverting anything. Reverting non-vandalism should only be done very seldom by experienced mappers who discussed the issue beforehand.

Hi, I really dislike this use of revert_plugin without discussing the issue first.

bosseln could you please elaborate, why did you revert this?

If we get no answer within a week from this user I think we should revert this back.

Hi.
You deleted tags brand:wikipedia in this edit. See here for details: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=76301147
Could you please clarify clearly why?

Thanks in advance.

Got them from here: https://ens.dk/en/our-services/oil-and-gas-related-data/shape-files-maps
Unfortunately ens.dk does not specify a license for these files.
I wrote them today asking them to clearly state the license.

Hi.
Sorry for the late reply.
These areas are special because they are illegal to sail into if I understood correctly.
I have no problem with the change. We might want to add a source for the coordinates also but I forgot where I found them. Probably ens.dk.

Hi. I took a look.
Thanks for improving the map!
I personally dislike when woods are not drawn over the roads as this leads to ugly white stripes on the map.
Carto has no problem drawing roads over woodland so I prefer to ignore the roads when mapping landuse.
Also I prefer multipolygons when mapping large areas as it makes it easier to map adjacent landuse without drawing multiple ways on top of each other. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7SPb0JtheA
Happy mapping :)

Hej. Har du läst https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2278#issuecomment-473656155 ?
Vet du hur man skapar dessa polygoner utifrån kustlinjer i PostGIS så som föreslås?

Nu är den borta tack vara Archie. :)

Nej, jag raderar den här igen. I övrigt har jag läst upp på varför inga av dessa place=sea visas på OSM-carto i dagsläget. Se https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2278#issuecomment-473656155

Hi Mateusz.
Thanks for the follow up and tip about adding it to WD instead. I have not discussed it on talk-se and I like your arguments.

I have now removed them see osm.org/changeset/69923836
Best wishes
pangoSE

Anvendte du overpass til til at finde dem? Jeg har lavet den her søgning som jeg tror viser sådanne som du nævner.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/IEC
Jeg fandt netop en her som jeg slettede: osm.org/node/4692146112

Tak fordi du kigger efter i sømmene. Jeg anvendte dette værktøj: https://osm.wikidata.link/
Du er velkommen til at fortsætte arbejdet med resten af DK så holder jeg mig til Sverige hvor der også findes meget at gøre.

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Imw
This seems to have them all and it looks quite good to me with huts in almost all ends.

Hi
I understand your concern. I made this overpass query: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Imv
Does it show what you need to know?
(I recommend making overpass queries from within JOSM to download what you need)

Hi
Thanks for taking the time to write a response.
I dislike this practice for 3 reasons:
1) It clutters the relations and possibly hinders measuring the full length of the route
2) It is annoying to have these points in the routes e.g. when changing the points to buildings according to usual mapping practices.
3) It is not documented nor discussed what I know of and I have only seen it massively used here on these FIN*-routes.

I would prefer to delete this from the routes and generate the gpx files in a way that computes and includes nearby tourism=* or whatever you find relevant.

Personally I use OsmAnd to follow routes and there all the POIs show up with no problems so there is no need for the routes to contain this extra information.

Do you agree to deleting this extra information?

Hi.
Why did you put huts into the relations?
I have seen this elsewhere but this practice is not documented at all it seems and I wonder what good it is for.
Cheers
pangoSE