Ok, ich habe den Namen jetzt mal entfernt siehe osm.org/changeset/169952926 - Telefonbuch und Creditreform sind für uns keine gültigen Quellen, aber wenn er vor Ort ein Schild stehen haben sollte, dürften wir das natürlich eintragen...

Hallo wolly79bn, vor 7 Jahren hast Du diesen landwirtschaftlichen Betrieb mit Namen erfasst. Kannst Du Dich noch erinnern, wo Du den Namen herhattest - war da ein öffentlich lesbares Schild oder...?

Hallo N_SCHW, bitte lösche private Wege nicht aus OpenStreetMap; stattdessen füge Ihnen das Tag "access=private" hinzu.

I have fixed the building=house issue now. As for the tunnel=building_passage, I was uncomfortable with taking that guess from imagery. Would you prefer an out-of-country armchair mapper like me to (a) take a guess or (b) when in doubt, just don't trace the building at all? I don't mind much either way. I can also (c) find somewhere else to map if this is something you were planning to work on.

Thank you for pointing this out. I had mistakenly assumed that my JOSM building plugin was set to the generic building=yes and not building=house which is obviously way too specific. I'll change that, and also review the few other buildings I've traced this past week. Regarding the unsplit terraces, I didn't feel aerial imagery was giving me enough information to correctly determine how many sections there are, but of course, again, they should have been building=yes and not building=house.

The DWG is in contact with someone from the Squamish Nation who claims that this particular archaeological site is nondescript, i.e. if you visite the site you would not see that it even is a site, much less would you know its Borden number. Can you shed some more light on your data source?

Hello eerib, could you clarify what the "ref:borden=DkRs-16" tag is to mean here? Same question with osm.org/node/12953013898 on the Stawamus river. To these point to a public source of archaelogical sites?

I have reverted the recent edits of user "fishmonger" because they are all un-explained deletions. I am not saying these deletions are wrong - it may well be that they are correct - but signing up with a new account for a little hit-and-run deletions is not the way to go. Please discuss these deletions on the OSM community forum and obtain a consensus there before you act.

Data imports in OpenStreetMap require prior discussion. Please do not upload road marking data without discussion your data sources and tagging plans with the community beforehand. This import is being reverted. (DWG Ticket#2025073010000115)

@Ctl, don't put blind trust in aerial imagery in the US, it can be misaligned like everywhere else (eg you'll find an offset between Bing and Esri in this particular area). @Derek, while I, too, wonder what drives Ctl to map the way they do, they don't have to explain. Driveways are "a thing" in OSM, even though where I live we tend to use them only for "non-obvious" cases where to reach a building the method "park on the public road in the spot that is nearest to the building" does not yield good results. Ctl seems to add driveways even where they add little information, but MikeN is right - maybe someone comes along and wants to calculate what percentage of ground is asphalted or so and then they are happy to have this info.

It appears that Ctl is using Mapbox satellite imagery which in this area appears to have an almost identical alignment to Bing; therefore I am surprised to hear that adding buildings from Microsoft's data set causes overlaps. This is perhaps a matter that deserves a closer look; if either Mapbox or Microsoft are so misaligned then it would be good to apply some correction when using these sources.

The Data Working Group has become aware of this dispute and is tracking it in Ticket#2025072810000334. Derek, I see that you have removed some of Ctl's driveways for the second time, and Ctl has restored them as many times. If you find yourself in a situation like that - involve the DWG or others, don't just continue deleting and restoring data because if anything is a waste of resources it is that!

I agree with with Derek that adding driveways that do not connect to a building (because the building has not been mapped) looks absolutely silly (osm.org/#map=18/32.708652/-117.017092) - it is a sight well suited to make others chuckle about what goes on in the heads of OSM contributors.

However, it is not against our rules and hence please don't delete Ctl's work. If you want you can raise the matter on community.openstreetmap.org ("Should we tolerate driveways when the associated buildings have not been mapped"), and if the community should then come to the consensus that mapping driveways without mapping the buildings they lead to is unwanted, then (and only then) can you remove such contributions in the future.

Hallo Frau Mauthner, vermutlich gibt es hier ein Missverständnis. Wenn Sie schreiben "hier ist kein Weg", dann meinen Sie, "hier ist kein Wegerecht für die Öffentlchkeit" - denn dass dort eine asphaltierte Fläche zum Zwecke der Bewegung von Fahrzeugen ist, das sieht jeder auf dem Luftbild. Bei OpenStreetMap ist ein "Weg" aber genau das. Wer da laufen/fahren darf, das tragen wir als zusätzliche Information ein.

Der von Ihnen hier (erneut) gelöschte Weg war bereits mit der Zusatzinformation "Privatweg" versehen. Durch Ihre Löschung ist diese Information verloren gegangen, und sobald jemand den Weg vom Luftbild abmalt (auf dem ihn wie gesagt jeder erkennen kann), haben Sie das gleiche Problem wieder.

Die Sache ist im Detail hier erklärt: osm.wiki/DE:Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

Bitte sehen Sie von weiteren Löschungen ab; sie beschädigen damit unsere Daten und Sie verstoßen gegen unsere Benutzungsbedingungen.

I have reverted the deletion and added a private access marker.

DWG Ticket#2025072010000018

The land owner said that Parque Kaiken occupies parcels 531-22, 531-48 (the lake), 531-65, as well as one yet un-numbered parcel surrounding the lake, and has sent a map showing these boundaries. I corrected the OSM boundary accordingly. However, should this information be incorrect, feel free to modify quoting an appropriate source.

maraf24, please read the thread and then say if you still believe that "nothing has been decided yet".

maraf24, if you revert a changeset please always state a reason. It appears that the thread https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/stosowanie-tagu-highway-trunk-w-polsce/122106 came to the conclusion that roads marked as red in osm.wiki/Talk:Pl:Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#Zestawienie_dr%C3%B3g_2 are ok to be marked as trunk roads and that the edit you have reverted is in line with the community consensus, meaning your revert would violate community consensus, or am I misreading something?

Dear Chloé_Van_Steenkiste, "landover=trees" in an unusual tag, we would usually either map individual trees or call it "landuse=forest" (or "natural=wood" if unmanaged). Also, you did not set a changeset comment when uploading; it is considered good practice to write a few words about the change you are uploading. See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

It matters insofar as all these interactions and utterances are public, and new OSM contributors might shy away from joining a project that appears to have unhinged people run wild.

Dear SantanaVII, thank you for your contributions to OSM. Could you be a little more specific with your changeset comments, and in the future explain what you corrected, instead of just writing "correction"? See also: osm.wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications