Hi, ich räume gerade die ganzen Badestellen am Walchsee auf und habe deine fee=xxx€ auf =yes geändert: die Werte gehören wenn überhaupt mit fee:amount o.ä, getagged. Das größte Problem ist, dass sie ja nicht einheitlich sind (Erwachsene vs. Kinder, mit KW-Card vs. ohne usw) und sie ändern sich ja auch mit der Zeit. Es ist deshalb sinnvoller eine URL zur Preisliste anzugeben. LG

Hi Radu, ich habe bemerkt, dass du sehr oft in deinen Edits den name-Tag falsch verwendest, so wie hier. Der name-Tag dient zur Benennung von Dingen, die einen eindeutigen Namen haben, *nicht* der Beschreibung oder Kategorisierung (siehe osm.wiki/DE:Names#name_ist_nur_der_Name), da sie keine zusätzliche Information betragen. D.h. "Picknick" oder "Aussicht" sind nicht OK und sollten entfernt werden (und noch wichtiger: nicht weiterhin hinzugefügt werden ;). Es wäre toll, wenn du deine Änderungen der Vergangenheit korrigieren könntest.
LG

Let me rephrase this: why did you tag every little dwelling as place=village? This is not how it is supposed to be used. I presume you did this to make the name show up on a map. Is this correct? If so please read osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer and correct these errors.

Why is De Rust Caravan Park tagged as place=village?

This looks nonsensical to me. Why did you map it like that?

Du hast hier (zumindest Teile) der Großglockner Hochalpenstraße von highway=secondary auf unclassified geändert. Eigentümer ist zu 80% der Bund und der Rest gehört den Ländern Salzburg und Kärnten. Es fahren dort 100-Tausende Fahrzeuge jedes Jahr. D.h. auch wenn es offiziell keine Landesstraße ist, ist unclassified sehr misleading. Bitte korrigieren oder auf der talk-at mailing-liste diskutieren.

Wie kommst du auf diesen Namen?

Lainzer Tiergarten should actually be class 4 AFAICT (since it is a Naturschutzgebiet) and yes, Naturparks such as this one should be 6 if one follows the wiki (in Germany they seem to be 5 and 6 is unused, which seems odd to me but categorization is often quite odd :). I was asking for references because as you say most of them are not even in OSM yet and I see that you have started(?) to change/unify the classes of the other relations now after my message, thank you.

I wonder if there is a proper tag to make it more obvious that one cannot enter (in terms of tagging for the renderer actually - the clear discernibility of the park and its surroundings was why I noticed the change in the first place). fee=yes is a start and the access=customers should certainly be added too but I think at this protected_class this is not renderer by mapnik. Correct but a bit of a bummer.

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.