Hi,
would you please stop adding new buildings until we solve all problems with your workflow and osm.wiki/M-NCPPC_Planning_Department is updated.
This CS added a duplicate (osm.org/way/616651451
osm.org/way/1164235921). Yes, you have fixed it in osm.org/changeset/135161887 but you have deleted the old object instead of the new one and removed `roof:shape` and `height`. Why?
Greetings,
skyper

Hi Deepikja,
meanwhile I think you do not want to take time to understand the problems and the tagging. The last changeset did not fix anything and even moved the split per direction further to the east instead of the west and the traffic_signal was still wrongly placed. I finally fix it in osm.org/changeset/135173471.
Please, stop making changes to intersections where you do not fully understand the tagging and all involved relations.
Greetings from a totally disappointed skyper

Hi anilkgba.
You did not properly fix the relations nor properly map the intersection like the `highway=traffic_signal` and more. Did you even read all my previous comments? What did you not understand? See osm.org/changeset/132036902 and osm.org/changeset/133473551.
I finally fix it in osm.org/changeset/135173471 but, please, do not make changes where you do not fully understand the tags and the relations.
Thanks skyper

P.S.: Bitte antworte indem Du unter meinem Kommentar im weißen Kasten schreibst (osm.org/changeset/133942992).

Hallo SG Gieboldehausen,
nachträglich ein herzliches Willkommen bei OSM. Schön, dass Du mithilfst die Daten zu verbessern.
Ich habe ein paar Hinweise und Fragen:

Luftbilder sind ja grundsätzlich nach aktuellen Umbaumaßnahmen veraltet, allerdings gibt es Unterschiede. So ist Bing meist besser was die Qualität angeht, jedoch Maxar meist aktuelle. Somit ist es sinnvoll möglichst viele verschieden zu verwenden.

Straßen werden nur bei baulicher Trennung aufgeteilt. Für einzelne Fahrspuren gibt es das :lanes-Tagging (osm.wiki/DE:Lanes), was leider von iD bisher nicht unterstützt wird. iD zeigt erst mal sogar sehr viele Merkmale nicht an. Dafür sollte es aber eine Option "Alle Merkmale anzeigen" geben.

*_link sind nur Auf- bzw Abfahrten und eine Straße sollte bis zur Kreuzung ohne *_link gehen.

Für gemeinsame Fuß- und Radwege wird in D `highway=path` + `bicycle=designated` + `foot=designated` verwendet. Sind folgende Wege (osm.org/way/1156067331,
osm.org/way/435506377 und
osm.org/way/1156067332) reine Radwege?

Bei Fragen ist das Forum (https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/de/56) eine gute Anlaufstelle.

Ich habe die Kreuzung mal aufgeräumt.

Viele Grüße,
skyper

Hallo Hunter1811,
bitte schreibe doch aussagekräftiger Änderungssatzkommentare. Was hast Du denn geändert bzw. verbessert?
Auch bitte ich Dich bei Osmose vorsichtig zu sein und nur das zu verbessern, was Du auch verstehst.
Konkret verstehe ich nicht, warum Du die beiden Straßenabschnitte (osm.org/way/339833723 und osm.org/way/1014908846) gelöscht hast. Dadurch hast Du einige Relationen beschädigt.
Fragende Grüße,
skyper

JOSM validator results:
* Errors (13)
* Duplicated way nodes (11)
* Way contains segment twice (2)
* Warnings (18)
* Self crossing ways (4)
* Self-intersecting ways (11)
* Unconnected nodes without physical tags - No tags (3)

Hi,
again broken shapes, e.g. osm.org/way/1162578706.
Again unconnected nodes, e.g. osm.org/node/5832248498
osm.org/node/5832248511.
Again deleting objects and adding new ones at the same position:
osm.org/way/616941653 -> osm.org/way/1162578696,
osm.org/way/616943738 -> osm.org/way/1162578692.
Please stop your import.
Regards,
skyper

Hi b-jazz,
instead of cleaning up the mess it might more efficient to ask the user to stop the broken import and to come up with a proper workflow. See osm.org/changeset/134232663 and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagless-points-and-lines-in-greenbelt-md/97992.
All the best,
skyper

Hi,
again some buildings were deleted and new ones created at the same place:
osm.org/way/616769526 -> osm.org/way/1162253412
osm.org/way/616769563 -> osm.org/way/1162253410
How good is your source? osm.org/way/616769637 is still visable on Bing from 2022. Are you sure it does not exist anymore?
On your wiki page (osm.wiki/M-NCPPC_Planning_Department) I read about JOSM and the conflation plugin but now you are using ArcGIS Editor for OpenStreetMap. Why? Does it include a similar action than Replace Geometry? Does it include any validation prior to upload?
Regards,
skyper

Hi,
see osm.org/changeset/134232663 and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagless-points-and-lines-in-greenbelt-md.
All the best,
skyper

Hi,
see also osm.org/changeset/134232663 and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagless-points-and-lines-in-greenbelt-md.

Yet, again `building=Yes` (with capital Y). Additional `addr:city=UPPER MARLBORO` which should be `addr:city=Upper Marlboro`, I guess.

Many objects have been already corrected but as already said, please review all your changes of the last weeks to make sure nothing was missed.

Thanks and greetings
skyper

Hi,
there are several problems with your import:
1. `building=Yes` is wrong, please do not use capital letters (e.g. osm.org/way/1157999874)
2. many building shapes contain several nodes more than once (e.g. osm.org/way/1158000014 fixed already)
3. ways without any tag (e.g. again osm.org/way/1158000014)
4. Useless nodes in building shapes without any angle to next nodes.
5. unconnected nodes without tag (e.g. osm.org/node/1158392708)
6. Deleting objects and redrawing new ones on the same spot instead of updating or replacing the old one.

Please, review all your changes at least of the last three or four weeks.
Please, stop importing new objects and work on your workflow which probably would profit from a QA tool like JOSM Validator prior to uploading.

See also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagless-points-and-lines-in-greenbelt-md/97992

Thanks in advance,
greetings
skyper

Strange. Why does the history tell a different story?
Anyway, I've change it: osm.org/changeset/134575087

ciao

Hi SekeRob,
osm.org/relation/15687044 should be deleted. By the way that is the object validator warns about "being a too big islet".
Why did you add the islet (osm.org/way/1102307128) to the wood MP (osm.org/relation/5450548)? It is much straight forward to simply tag the islet with `natural=wood` instead of extending MPs without need.
All the best,
skyper

Hi Deepikja,
please, do not forget that, for me, OSM is just a hobby. I do not get paid for edits nor for reviewing (which is even more time-consuming) neither for teaching paid mappers.
If you start editing in an area with lot's of detailed tags, you need to take your time to look at all tags and read the wiki pages or even ask the mapper who added the tags.
I do not know iD but what I read and hear about it it lacks support for some well established tagging systems like lanes tagging (osm.wiki/Lanes). Support for relations seems to be limited, as-well, especially if we look at `type=route` relations with strict rules for members and where connectivity matters. As a company you have the choice to use a more flexible editing software, like JOSM, for the complex cases or actively help to improve iD and leave the data untouched until you understand the tagging and know how to correctly change the data even with the limitations of iD.
With all that written, it would take me much less time to simply correct the data but that won't help us in a long-term perspective.
To sum up the requested edit, I want you to:
* move the node where the road splits into separate ways per direction to the correct location
* think about the traffic signal and use a solution which properly represents the reality
* check and correct all tags like `sidewalk[:*]=*` and `*:lanes[:*]=*` on Westerstieg and Sachsenring
* fix all route relations that no way is used in the wrong direction and that the order of the members is correct.

If all that is too demanding, please, say so. I will fix it but I would expect that in the future you will not make changes in situations like this anymore. Thanks.

Regards,
skyper

Ja, es wurden einige Bugs behoben, allerdings immer noch nicht alle, siehe https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/announcing-id-editor-monthly-meetings-chats/8950/3.
LG skyper

Hey,
da im Unterschied zu anderen Regionen bei Euch in Aachen die Quellen ja verwendet werden dürfen, halte auch ich nichts von Löschen und erneut Eintragen.
Eine Dokumentation ist natürlich trotzdem begrüßenswert und Ihr könnt ja bei den Verbesserungen gleich Euer System für Updates prüfen.

Viele Grüße,
skyper

Hallo Dreisamfuchs,
danke für das Korrigieren der Werte der Bahnübergänge von `crossing` zu `level_crossing`. Bei den Fahrradwegen ist/war allerdings `crossing` richtig.
Habe es korrigiert:
osm.org/changeset/134321797

Grüße,
skyper

Hi,
mal abgesehen von Routern finde ich die Verwendung von `barrier=kerb` an dem gemeinsamen Knoten von Straße und Fußweg unpassend. Erstens befindet sich der Bordstein ja nicht an der Stelle und zweitens ist nicht klar ersichtlich auf welchen der Wege sich der Tag bezieht.
Wäre es nicht schlauer einen Knoten mit den Tags an der exakten Stelle des Bordsteins zu verwenden?

Viele Grüße,
skyper