Hi, why did you make this? Which other parks are you referring to?

Hi SelfishSeahorse,
the tags you were using to indicate the sexes of this toilet are wrong/non-standard. Please take a look at osm.wiki/Key:male

This is nonsense and you should have known that since this is one of the most famous statues in Vienna and naturally already in the database. The correct node is here: osm.org/node/262932599

Hi, please do not use names that are not names. See osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions and osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

You can always "name" something by just adding a node with a name=... attribute but I guess you mean that you want it also to be shown on most types of maps. This is considered a bad habit as explained here: osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

In short, the data entered should be truthful and use the correct tagging schemes. It's the renderer's responsibility to present it to the user in an appropriate designer.

Sometimes that means that the objects' names are not shown even if there is a name tag. This is not a bad thing at all.

Hi Leovlie,
you added osm.org/way/151419038 as living_street. However, I think this part (at least when seen from Achteromweg in the north) should be tagged as footway since there is respective sign and it is less than 1.5m.

Is this really a hamlet (osm.wiki/Tag:place=hamlet)? Or should it be a garden (osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden)?

Hi,
pfu... weiß ich nicht mehr und ich hab die Fotos vom Tracken nicht aufgehoben. Aber es kann nur von einem Wegweiser/Karte dort gewesen sein. Direkt vorbei oder drüber gegangen sind wir damals jedenfalls nicht, sondern von der Bodenwiese über die Rohrbacher Lacken zum Rohrbach runter... aber ausgedacht werd ich's mir nicht haben. :)

recreation_ground? osm.org/way/589835023

If you think adding a name tag to OSM with some arbitrary value that nobody but the person itself is aware of at the time is "a commonly accepted procedure" to establish a name for a landmark than I seriously doubt that you should edit any collaborative worldwide content at all. Also, there is still 0 proof that the name is used by anybody but two anonymous OSM users with few contributions. Thus if you want to apply [9] the peak does not have a name because nobody in the vicinity knows it by any name.

The discussion about the topic at hand on the respective mailing list is pretty clear. Please don't start another futile edit war.

the place exists but the name does not. as explained above *all* references are directly from osm/peterpp which actually shows how important it is to ensure good data quality. [5] for example was a picture uploaded by peterpp to wikimedia commons which got removed from there (because of the peak in question) and will vanish from the net eventually (hopefully). i don't know strava but if they are using outdated osm data (else the name could only be visible relatively shortly) and some users fell for that this is no reason to prolong their fallacy. neither [8] nor [9] really apply here either (their is no dispute between governmental bodies or different sources). apart from all of that i would additional argue that the proposed name should not be used due to general prevention (Generalprävention), i.e. to show potential other vandals that faking names (i presume you agree as well that this started as a fake) is futile.

not every peak needs or has a name, but if people want to give this one a name it should be original and anything but the fake name. maybe even your community can come up with and establish a more suitable name :)

Hi willebrord,

there is a guy (apparently called Peter-Paul) who tried really hard to
name the peak in question after himself. He lied on multiple occasions when
questioned about his source and apparently even installed the cross you
linked in the changeset. There have been quite some discussions on how
to deal with him (at the at-talk mailing list) and your change did
spark another one, unfortunately.

All and every reference that is linked to the name "Peter-Paul-Berg"
are directly manufactured by this guy or indirectly derived from his
OSM edits - like your linked reference from freytag&berndt, which has
the OSM attribution directly on the map showing the false name.

Ok... ganz so einfach ist's dann doch nicht. Weil für den "Hauptteil" vom ZFH gibt's keine geeignete relation... und site relations sind noch immer nicht durchstandardisiert... auch erbärmlich. Du hast meinen Segen (haha) zu jedweder Änderung...

Das 4. Tor was früher das 5. und wurde mit der Zuteilung des NJFH umbenannt oder so, hab die Details schon wieder verdrängt - jedenfalls hab's ich es als weiteres Indiz für eine grundsätzliche Zugehörigkeit interpretiert.

Der ZFH ist als site relation getagged (und nochmal als cemetery, aber das war nicht ich (osm.org/relation/1450360). ;) Die hier diskutierten Friedhöfe sind jeweils einzeln als cemetery getagged und in der site als member. Ich sehe an der Konstellation kein wirkliches Problem (bzgl. deines Einwands wegen operator usw. - das kann man ja problemlos taggen) und vl. reden wir auch nur aneinander vorbei... ich hab die 1450360 zuvor nicht bemerkt. Deren Tags gehören IMHO in die site (2875338) migriert (ohne cemetery).

Was BTW auch noch in der site relation fehlt: der Urnenhain nördlich vom 2. Tor

Über den Verlauf der Relationsgrenze kann ich auch nichts mehr sagen - das dürfte wohl großteils übernommen sein bzw. ist es auch im offiziellen Übersichtsplan so: https://www.friedhoefewien.at/eportal2/ep/downloadTracker.do/path/media/files/2015/orientierungsplan_153134.pdf?oid=78019&type=pdf In dem Teil war ich jedenfalls nie physisch... also wenn das Tor vor Ort ununterscheidbar vom restlichen jüdischen Friedhof ist...

Bzgl. "kein Teil" der Relation Zentralfriedhof sehe ich wenig Anhaltspunkte außer der Mauer und den Öffnungszeiten. Die Webseite der Bestattung Wien und Wikipedia stellen den NJFH (und evangelischen FH) als Teil des ZFH dar (mit ein paar wenigen Ausnahmen). Der evangelische Teil wird auch selbstverwaltet und da wäre es auch etwas seltsam ihn auszunehmen IMHO. Du widersprichst dem auch ein bissl selber, wenn du das 4. Tor des Zentralfriedhofs zum NJFH zählst den NJFH aber nicht zum ZFH :)

I don't think that sports_centre is fitting either. This is just an ordinary park where someone has put up disc golf goals... I am pretty sure this is not what people creating and using the sports_center tag have usually in mind... Additionally, the whole park/area is tagged as recreational area so I think the landuse/area is already covered quite well. It would probably be better (and also more useful to actual players of the game) if the start and goal positions would be mapped instead of mangling of existing (name) tags and inappropriate use of others like this one.

This is not "better" naming - this is just as wrong as before. It's understandable that people get excited when their favorite sport gets some public space to play on but many tags in the area where disc golf is played in Prater are simply wrong as of now, especially the naming tags. The meadow in question is named Sonnenscheinwiese AFAICT for example. This is even pointed out on Putterfly website... please fix these errors after reviewing osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Du hast mit dieser Änderung einen Großteil der Glocknerstraße zu einer parking aisle degradiert. Bitte umgehend korrigieren!

Bitte hör auf dich hier zu verewigen.

Ich hab sie nicht gelöscht sondern den viewpoint auf disused gesetzt. Vom Boden aus ist es keine tollen Aussicht und rauf darf man nicht... ergo genau das, was ich getaggt habe.