Hallo kjon, ist das wirklich sinnvoll, dass man jedem "Ahornweg" in Deutschland ein name:etymology-Tag verpasst, dass auf den Ahorn zeigt? Anhand welcher Information stekkst Du diese Verbindung her, und wenn die Antwort auf diese Frage "am Namen" ist, welchen Nutzen hat die Verbindung dann überhaupt?
Und prüfst Du bei einer Schillerstraße auch anhand lokalen Wissens, dass es wirklich um den Dichter Friedrich Schiller und nicht irgendeinen anderen Schiller geht?

Dear Andrea, you have made frequent edits to these paths: osm.org/way/1035968766 osm.org/way/577297923 - now the DWG has received a complaint from the land owner, accompanied by lots of photos of "private property" signs, saying that this path is and always has been a private path and access to the public was prohibited. Do you have any first-hand knowledge of the area, or are your edits only based on Strava information?

Dear MustafaQasim, when you edited all these objects did you actually verify that they exist and are properly placed, or did you just mass-remove a tag? For example, is osm.org/node/767973519 the actual location of a peak?

Hello ChrissW-R1, I see you have spent some effort creating a Baltic Sea outline but please don't create giant sea polygons like that. Everyone who edits any of the 10,000 coastline segments you have taken to build this relation will have to upload a full new version of the relation which makes editing difficult. Even LOOKING at this relation in your browser takes minutes. -- This is precisely the reason why we have a special treatment for coastlines in OSM, and we don't map a multipolygon called "Eurasia" or something like that. Our tools are not built for it.

Can you point to any source for the boundary between Ingniqhiurvik and Ingilraniq (osm.org/way/1037497356) or have you made that up? Also, since you have been editing the coastline, have you done any research into why the boundary of "Inuvialuit Lands" follows the coastline loosely but not precisely - is that intentional? Is it really the case that some parts of Ingniqhiurvik are inside, and some outside, the Inuvialuit Lands?

osm.org/way/1041425795#map=19/43.61799/6.50970 is not connected to anything on its western end. I assume that is not intentional? -- Most of the trails you have uploaded in recent days are very jagged and near invisible on aerial imagery due to tree cover. Please be 100% sure that you only upload actually existing and legal trails to OSM (if their use is not permitted, add access=no). Also, understand that with highway=path you are adding trails for use by pedestrians and cyclists alike.

Hey there, can you point to any online source mentioning this park with the name "Mountain View Greenbelt"?

Als Beispiel für negative Seiteneffekte dieser blinden Wikidate-Hinzufügerei: Das Hotel "Alexander am Zoo" in Frankfurt ist schon lang kein "Best Western" mehr. Trotzdem hat der User "kjon" vor drei Monaten "brand=Best Western", "brand:wikidata=Q830334" und "brand:wikipedia=en:Best Western" hinzugefügt, da muss ja jeder denken, ok, offenbar sind das aktuelle Informationen. Stattdessen ist es nur ein Aufguss eines vor 10 Jahren eingetragenen Namens ohne eigene Ortskenntnis - gaukelt einem also Aktualität und Datenqualität vor, wo in Wahrheit keine ist.

Bitte verzichte ebenso auf großflächige Anwendung des "alles reparieren"-Buttons im ID-Editor.

Hallo kjon, das ist leider nicht das erste Mal, das Du durch blindes Anwenden von Name-Suggestion-Index-Edits auffällst. Bitte unterlasse das in Zukunft, und korrigiere, bevor Du irgendwelche anderen Edits machst, die Fehler, die Du damit in diesem Changeset erzeugt hast (so haben z.B. auch DSL-Verteilerkästen den Namen "Deutsche Telekom" erhalten). Ich werde künftige Changesets von Dir, in denen unzulässige Anwendungen des NSI vorkommen, komplett revertieren - es kann nicht sein, dass die Community hinter dem aufräumt, was de facto ein automatischer Edit ist. (Das gleiche gilt auch für Wikidata-Tags - füge diese bitte nur dort hinzu, wo Du Dich selbst von der Korrektheit überzeugt hast, und verlasse Dich nicht auf irgendwelche automatischen Vorschläge des Editors.)

Mapping golf features that actually exist, with the tags that OSM has allocated for that, and without ruining other data, is fine. However, distorting reality to cater for programming bugs in the golf course exporter (e.g. downgrading everything to cart_path, removing bridges, not using multipolygons even where they would typically be used and so on) is not ok, and what is definitely not ok is any sort of fictional mapping. The golf course that HammTreetops has been mapping here has moved to osm.org/way/43189724 to make room for a housing development, but even after being made aware of that fact, HammTreetops continued adding these features from outdated aerial imagery.

See osm.org/changeset/118239176 for a DWG comment. The removal of these abandoned/razed railway lines was a good edit. We are not a historic railway atlas.

See osm.org/changeset/118239176 for a DWG comment.

(Forgot to mention - this issue tracked at DWG Ticket#2022030810000143)

Dear Hiausirg, the removal of abandoned and built-over railway lines (which you have reverted here) was a good edit. Our general rule is that we map what is visible on the ground and this applies to railway lines as well. Sometimes an abandoned/razed railway line in the countryside can still be "visible" to someone who knows how to read the signs even if the tracks are gone, and we tolerate a railway=abandoned/razed in these cases. But many of the ways you have restored here are purely of historical interest, long since buried under houses or other new development. Such railway lines have no place in OSM - you will need to find other ways to record railway history than OSM.

OSM has permission to use certain ESRI aerial imagery sources, but that permission never extended to "everything hosted on arcgis.com" - each map there can have different licensing. The lack of API key is never a sign for an open license! If no license terms are specified then the default is "you cannot use it". You would need to contact the rights owner and obtain explicit permission to use the data in OSM.

Can you explain more about the data source you are using to make these name improvements? You write "with WorldTopoMap" but a quick Internet search did not show a clear candidate for what that might be and what their data license is.

Danke. Ich habe die Info jetzt samt Namen und Webseite aus OSM entfernt - würden wir ja bei einer normalen Pension oder so auch machen, wenn sie geschlossen wird. Die Webseite gibt zwar es weiterhin, aber sie ist nicht direkt diesem Ort zuzuordnen.

Hi there captain_slow, what is the data source for naming this location "Konny Island" and for assuming it is a tourism=chalet? Asking because of owner complaint (DWG ticket #2022022410000203).

The DWG won't interfere if the community has a consensus here, but generally, when asked, what we say is (i) objects that you cannot deliver a letter to do not get addr:* tags; (ii) the name tag is what it says on the thing (you wouldn't tag a street lamp with name=Street Lamp); (iii) unless it actually calls itself "XYZ Linköping" then we will not make up a place component for the name tag. There is no requirement in OSM for names to be unique. (iv) "access=Tesla cars" is a bad idea. Next think you'll tag all amenity=fire_hydrant with access=Fire Brigades? The fact that a Tesla supercharger offers only certain services to certain people is obvious and well-known. If you must have an access tag, use access=customers.