Zdravo, molim te nemoj da mijenjaš klasifikaciju puteva ako nisi upoznat sa detaljima. Stavio si potpuno pogrešnu klasifikaciju za nekoliko puteva, a to je trunk_link. Vratio sam ih u prvobitno stanje, to jest u highway=track.

Ukoliko imaš nekih pitanja ili ti treba pomoć u mapiranju, možeš da kontaktiraš nekog iz OSM Srbija zajednice ili nam se obratiš na OSM forumu.

Sve najbolje

Hi dada24,

You have left these ways untagged

osm.org/way/1394907666

osm.org/way/1394907666

Please fix this.

Also, next time provide brief description of what you did in changeset comment.

Hi dada24,

You have left this way osm.org/way/1393855624 untagged. Please fix this.

Also provide brief description of what you did in changeset comment.

Hi Hsai Lurn Leng,

Could you elaborate a bit on this border edit? This is second time that you have deleted this way osm.org/way/1391567645

which is/was part of this relation osm.org/relation/17883478

As you can see, this relation is now open on one end, and due to that it's "broken" and not valid. For boundary relation to be valid it needs to form closed circle.

Could you fix the boundary relation or explain in detail what are you trying to achieve? Because you stated that your intention is to fix presumably border but this only created an additional issue.

Best regards

Zdravo, zanimljivo je da ne znaš kako je došlo do neke greške ali znaš da sam to bio ja? Sumnjam da je došlo do nekog prekida u relaciji zbog izmjena koje sam napravio u ovom changeset-u.

Da pokušam da obrazložim. Konkretno što se tiče ovog kružnog toka, urađene su tri stvari:

Prvo, kružni tok koji je bio jedna cjelina (jedan way), kao takav se je nalazio u relaciji još od ranije. Presječen je na dva dijela kako bih dodao putokaz. Tako je dobijen ovaj way osm.org/way/1385633307. Pošto je kružni tok već bio u relaciji, samim presjecanjem nije moglo da dođe do prekida, jer u tom slučaju, relacija pored onog postojećeg koji će da preuzme istoriju, dobiće i novi way, to jest ovaj koji sam već poslao iznad.

Drugo, ispravljena je geometrija ova dva jednosmjerna puta osm.org/way/1301174138 ; osm.org/way/1301174139. Što takođe nije moglo da pocijepa relaciju ni na koji način, jer su jednostavno dodati nodovi i ta dva puta se spajaju kao i ranije samo na drugoj pozicji. Što se isto tako može lako vidjeti ako se učitaju stariji podaci, prije mojih izmjena.

Treće, ovaj put osm.org/way/68849034 koji se prije mojih izmjena spajao na dvosmjerni dio Ribarske ulice, što je potpuno pogrešno, to se može vidjeti na najnovijim Mapilary snimcima, ispravio sam i sada se spaja na jednosmjernu ulicu malo prije kružnog toka.

Pored ovoga, ako pogledaš čitav changeset, vidjećeš da su samo dodati ili modifikovani putevi i nodovi. Dodati su zbog presjecanja istih kako bi se dodala ograničenja brzina, a izbrisana su samo 3 noda koja nikako nisu mogla da utiču na to da relacija na bilo koji način bude "zeznuta". Nije izbrisan nijedan put, baš iz razloga da se ne bi nijedna relacija prekinula.

Pošto vidim da si ti dodatno presjekao kružni tok i iz EuroVelo relacije izbacio ova dva way-a osm.org/way/1385658523 ; osm.org/way/1385658524, a pritom uzmemo u obzir činjenicu da ja nisam ni dodavao inicijalno ovaj kružni tok u EuroVelo relaciju, niti kao cjelinu niti kao više way-eva, jer to nije u mojoj sferi intersovanja. Prihvatimo da je ovo što si ti sad popravio tačno, možemo zaključiti da je onda stanje bilo pogrešno još od ranije, jer je taj kružni tok bio unutar EuroVelo relacije u cjelini, prije mojih izmjena, pa ćeš samim tim morati da tragaš dalje ko je tu i šta zenuo.

Ne bi bilo loše da u buduće prije nego što doneseš zaključak da je neko nešto zeznuo, pogledaš malo detaljnije istoriju elemenata kao i izmjene koje su napravljene u changeset-u.

Sve najbolje i srećno mapiranje!

Hi user_5359!

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. This tag shouldn't be there in the first place; it must've somehow slipped through when I was copying the rest of the tags. I have removed it from the relation and couple of ways.

Sorry for the overlook on my side, I will be more careful in the future.

Best regards

Hi dada24,

At least dozens of times I have asked you to utilize building:part tag when doing 3D mapping. Please stop using building=part (and other variants) which create overlapping issues. Also pay more attention when doing 3D mapping. The number of errors and issues just keep increasing in Budva after your edits.

I urge you once again, to read all documentation about 3D mapping and find out how to properly use it, because fixing all this takes way more time and effort, meanwhile it would take only fraction of that time if it was done properly the first time.

Once again, if something is unclear or you have questions, please reach out here, via private messages or on official forum where more experienced mappers can help you out.

Best regards

Hi dada24,

Why did you change building:parts to building=yes once again? I will revert this back to building:parts in the upcoming days, it would be nice of you to shed some light on your edits. Also, take some time and read this osm.wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings in more detail so we can evade issues caused by your edits.

Hi dada24

I would like to point out two things that keep reoccurring in your edits in Budva.

First, you delete outlines of buildings and replace them with new 3D versions. As i already said in other comment, by doing this, we are losing history and there is high chance to lose details. Like in the case where you have deleted old building osm.org/way/183678986
, replaced it with the new one and you haven't added the school tags that previously existed. Now the new version is only tagged as building and we lost detail that it's actually a school. The best practice is to preserve old outline and reshape it as needed, it can be tedious but please delete elements only as last resort. In this case there was no reason for deletion

Second thing, you keep using "buildingpart" tag which is wrong! it should be "building:part", you omit ":" for some reason so please pay attention to that. As it can be seen in this changeset: osm.org/changeset/162599385

If you have any further questions feel free to reach out here or via private message.

Best regards

Hi dada24

I have fixed this and two more buildings near it where you have used key "buildingpart" instead of "building:part". There are more issues like this which showed up after your edits so please take some time to fix those.

Also I fixed outline of the building to cover whole area of that specific building and then left different parts within it with their own properties. You can see those changes in this changeset:

osm.org/changeset/162533370

Also important thing to note. I have seen that you deleted previous outlines of the buildings which were added in 2013. Please do not do that. Try to preserve old elements, in this case outlines of buildings, and then move/refine their geometry if needed. Deleting objects should be used as last resort, because it can lead to losing various details by accident or simply losing history and making it hard to see who previously worked in the area.

Hi dada24,

Could you provide some more information about these ships that you have mapped. The tag you have used building=ship is used only for decommissioned ships that became tourist attractions as it can be read here:

osm.wiki/Tag:building=ship

In case these are not that, then they shouldn't be mapped like this and should be deleted. I assume that these ships are simply tourist ships that come here to take or drop off tourists.

Hi, what is the reason for deleting this building and corresponding POI? Is building demolished or what is the case here?

It would be helpful if you would provide more information about your edits in changeset comment.

Reverted in changeset: osm.org/changeset/161266307

Reverted in changeset: osm.org/changeset/161264592

Even this changeset has some questionable edits.

Like this way osm.org/way/1344810647 is not tunnel, it's simply path that goes under a roof of fuel station.

And I'm curious about this one osm.org/way/1170359535 how does one trace, and distinguish different things within playground from current set of available imageries and their respective quality. Looking at Bing imagery, which upc92 stated that he used as source, outside of this (possible) playhouse which can be seen as dark splotch, swings and slides are unrecognizable to me.

So, that makes me wonder, what was the source for these additions?

I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160462729

Important thing to keep in mind. You have added 130 km/h maxspeed to segment of the road which is not motorway but trunk (motoput). Default value for trunk road in Serbia is 100 km/h unless signs alongside road change that value to lower one.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards

I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160462708

Important thing to keep in mind. You have added 130 km/h maxspeed to segment of the road which is not motorway but trunk (motoput). Default value for trunk road in Serbia is 100 km/h unless signs alongside road change that value to lower one.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards

I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160462504

Important thing to keep in mind. You have added 130 km/h maxspeed to segment of the road which is not motorway but trunk (motoput). Default value for trunk road in Serbia is 100 km/h unless signs alongside road change that value to lower one.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards

I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160124858

Important thing to keep in mind, while 130 km/h is correct default maxspeed value on motorways in Serbia, there are plenty of traffic signs on certain segments of motorway that change that value to something else.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards

I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160462375

Important thing to keep in mind, while 130 km/h is correct default maxspeed value on motorways in Serbia, there are plenty of traffic signs on certain segments of motorway that change that value to something else.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards