Hello Andrey,

you have accidentally added a "mapillary" tag to this node which contains unrelated text. Please clean this up, and try to avoid such mistakes in the future.

Thank you
Frederik Rammm
OSMF Data Working Group
Ticket#2022082310000052

+1 to Allison's comment - there is no blanket OK for adding MS builiding footprints, especially not without QA.

Can you explain the glaring tracing mistakes in http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/broken-import.png ?

Hängen die Schilder schon? Sonst bitte so lange den alten Namen lassen.

Bitte Diskussion in https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=869330 beachten!

Bitte Diskussion in https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=869330 beachten!

Dear Santanaloba53, please adhere to correct capitalisation when specifying place nams. I am pretty sure that initial capital letters are used in Spanish (i.e. Charco de Palomas, not carcho de palomas)! Please also specify your data source when adding place names. You have recorded this as a "village", however I can only see trees on the aerial image. Is this a mistake?

Hello Santanaloba53, it appears that you have difficulties in editing boundaries. You have created a relation osm.org/relation/7394873 which is not a proper polygon, and which contains the same ways four or five times. Please, before trying to make further edits to any boundaries in OSM, find someone who can explain to you how to do this properly. Currently you are damaging existing data and other mappers have to repair it again!

Hallo martinst, der Maximiliansweg, den Du hier erfasst hast, war gerade Gegenstand eines kleinen "Edit wars" wegen seiner Gefährlichkeit. Eventuell kannst Du zur Forumsdiskussion in https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=869200 etwas Erhellendes beitragen?

Hallo, ich habe das Thema jetzt mal im OSM-Forum zur sprache gebracht und bitte alle Beteiligten, von weiteren Bearbeitungen abzusehen, bis wir dort einen Konsens gefunden haben: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=869200

Please link to a prior discussion of this mechanical edit (which is required as per our mechanical editing guidelines).

The DWG has become aware of this discussion and we have advised the CAI that way reference numbers should not be added to name tags (or alt_name tags for that matter). Still we would like to ask everyone to remain polite and patient with them - the CAI can certainly make valuable contributions to OSM and we should encourage that. I have pointed them to the waymarkedtrails.org website where trails are marked with the ref number taken from the relation.

skyper hat recht - es geht nicht, dass ein Daten-Nutzer an OSM Veränderungen vornimmt, die OSM nicht nutzen - eher schaden, weil die Bearbeitung eines stark aufgesplitteten Wegenetzes schwieriger ist - nur damit seine Arbeitsweise dann besser funktioniert. Wenn das jeder machen würde, der OSM-Daten irgendwie weiterverarbeitet, könnten wir uns vor unsinnigen Änderungen kaum noch retten! Du (obk-theo07) musst einen Weg finden, die gewünschten Aufteilungen ausserhalb von OSM vorzunehmen.

If the dev API is not working, then this is not sufficient excuse to upload test edits to the main API.

I have reverted the name changes made by these users. In many cases the names have now reverted to names that you have added yourself, and you have often chosen all-caps naming ("WARRI CITY TRAINING GROUND" or so). Please don't use all-caps names. "Warri City Training Ground" is sufficient.

This is not about how I feel but about OSM's public standing: Are we the map that represents truth on the ground, or are we the map that represents wishful thinking of rabid mountainbikers. I prefer the former.

In this changeset you have changed the "Sweet Pea" trail, which is closed to the public as recorded by me in a previous changeset, from "access=no" to "foot=no" and "horse=no", thereby erroneously marking it as ok to use for cyclists. Combined with the misleading changeset description of "alignment" this has a distinctive smell of mountain bike vandalism. I am not local but I have been told by a local park ranger that the path is closed and signs are posted to that effect. If you want to record this path as open to cyclists, please provide supporting evidence. "I want to ride there" is not sufficient reason to mark something as allowed for cycling.

Mark, just to be very clear on this - copyright tops the potential of saving lives for first responders or any other laudable use case you can find. If it comes from Royal Mail, it does not go into OSM full stop, no matter how useful for a first responder or anyone else. We don't copy it, we don't "triangulate", we don't use it at all. We haven't invented these rules but we are going to play by them. Even if it is a data source that *could*, given a mobile phone signal, be used freely in some other app or on some web site - still not something we may add to OSM. And regarding "that form of words", we are not about words, we're about data. If there is any name you have added that does not come from a sign or an out-of-copyright map but instead from a copyrighted source, then you must remove that name again. When push comes to shove, we at OSM must be able to demonstrate that we haven't illegally copied the data, and "I've talked to the locals" may work for a handful of names but becomes strained when it is used as an explanation for hundreds. So please, again, have a think about any data you may have been added from copyrighted sources not only today, but over your course of contributing to OSM, and remove all of it. Please do take this seriously because if doubts remain, OSM must err on the side of caution rather than risk violating copyright.

oops, I meant to write "Royal Mail" not "Royal Maps".

Dear Mark, sadly all but one of the sources you mentioned are protected by copyright. You cannot use any Royal Maps product, OSG, the Orkney Islands Concil listings or the current OS maps to contribute anything to OpenStreetMap, and anything you have derived from these data sources must be removed again or else OpenStreetMap could be liable to copyright violation claims.

Historic NLS maps are ok to use, and of course personal knowledge and own observations are fine. But anything copied from these other sources must not remain in OSM.

Will you be able to unpick your past contributions and remove what is not allowed for us to have? If you cannot, then unfortunately we would be forced to remove all data that you have contributed. We would very much like to avoid that!

Cheers
Frederik Ramm (OSMF Data Working Group)

Just in case someone looks at this later, here's an example of how the map was looking with these circular land uses in place: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/landuse-circles3.jpg - it's like you let your 3-year-old play with GIMP...