osm.org/node/6350491514 --> Which type of crater ? osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcrater

Tourist attraction is just a "nice to have" tag. The one which stands for a "relation" is type=multipolygon (directly below). So this is the relation osm.org/relation/9586720

Preciser : remove the added info from the "rim" and add it to the relation (if missing)

Please use the relation osm.org/relation/9586720 for the crater info and remove the crater tag, as we otherwise got 1 crater too much. It might be necessary to enhance the tagging description as "Relation:multipolygon" is currently only linked to the "main description page" osm.wiki/Tag:geological=meteor%20crater?uselang=en#Mapping (without "crater" examples). Please note what's not clear on the discussion page osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:geological%3Dmeteor_crater

Asked the community some general questions on the wiki discussion page : osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:geological%3Dmeteor_crater#Which_craters_should_be_mapped_at_all_%28with_which_details%29

Found a similar case of "covered crater" here : osm.org/way/645361498/history, there's even an animation on Wikipedia with "covered/uncovered" views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiawatha_Glacier#Probable_impact_structure (currently not "visible", but "official evidence" and visible by "airborne radar surveys"). Could serve as a "border case" ?

I checked what the wiki says : beside "proofs of existence like satellite images" there are so-called "sources cited as official evidence...subject to OSM Community acceptance". The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Impact_Database could probably serve as such "official evidence". According to this source, the "official" diameter would be 160km http://www.passc.net/EarthImpactDatabase/New%20website_05-2018/Vredefort.html. But I think it should (if at all) be tagged with something else than "crater", as not visible. There's also an "opposite" case here (not really a "crater", but the dome) osm.org/way/598692732/history. At least it's visible. There are currently those for the Vredefort which should be "consolidated" : "center" (not visible) osm.org/node/2086138326/history, "dome museum" (source not clear) osm.org/node/6631014785, this entry here (theoretical diameter) and I mapped the approximate remaining outline "on the ground" osm.org/way/1389346686. Should we probably "move" the discussion to osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:geological%3Dmeteor_crater ?

Probably it's more interesting if you know there are hundreds of people watching https://spacey.space/@spaceflight/114535245443506671

I wouldn't call it "much better", as there are still the "main" infos missing osm.wiki/Tag:geological%3Dmeteor_crater

Probably this was the case because of the natural=crater entry ? Because this could be any kind of hole. In this case it's just the "outer ring" of a meteor_crater. The question is IMHO whether it's "verifiable" (e.g. by a satellite picture, probably radar). Whether it's visible "on the ground" could be expressed using natural=*. Checked with my OsmAnd and couldn't see the ring. Possibly it depends on the map (layer) type ? There could also be some wiki examples how to map "exotic" meteor craters such as this one osm.wiki/File:Manicouagan-EO.JPG. This one will also not be noticed "on the ground" osm.org/way/1063229590/history

Seems to be a rendering problem osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Should be integrated to osm.org/way/569433118 using a relation ?

Und was ist mit der Adresse ? Hofzaunweg 16 ist jetzt nicht mehr auffindbar

There's a description for "balloon tagging", why do you "invent" another one ? osm.wiki/Key:aeroway#Balloons

There's a description for "balloon tagging", why do you "invent" another one ? osm.wiki/Key:aeroway#Balloons

There's a description for "balloon tagging", why do you "invent" another one ? osm.wiki/Key:aeroway#Balloons

There's a description for "balloon tagging", why do you "invent" another one ? osm.wiki/Key:aeroway#Balloons

There's a description for "balloon tagging", why do you "invent" another one ? osm.wiki/Key:aeroway#Balloons

There's a description for "balloon tagging", why do you "invent" another one ? osm.wiki/Key:aeroway#Balloons

Ah, "Aviation" wurde von meinem "Lieblings-Troll" eingeführt osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Tag:museum%3Daviation&action=history. Die Frage ist aus meiner Sicht, brauchen wir mehr "generische" Tags, die dann wieder "unterteilt" werden, oder nennt man es gleich so, wie es ist ? Das ganze "balloon"-Thema war bisher komplett unbehandelt ("gewachsene Struktur"). Speziell Zeppelin wäre daher (aus historischen Gründen) repräsentativ dafür, ob das ein eigenes Thema wird. Bisherige Übersicht siehe osm.wiki/Key:balloon:*. Worauf bezieht sich " im OSM-Wiki werden Ballone, Aerostaten und Blimps als Beispiele genannt" ?