Could you please use comments to describe your edits so that others can get an overview of what has changed?

Forgive me for writing in English. This changeset was flagged up as problematic to the Data Working Group. It would be really good to hear more about the reasons behind the changes.

Understood, I am assuming good faith here, only suggesting that you slow down while the issue is causing some contention between mappers...

Have the names been replaced or restored since?

Right, in the history of osm.wiki/WikiProject_Greece I see a lot of your own edits recently, but I don't have a sense that this wiki page reflects community agreement yet.

hi JayCBR,

There are a lot of changes listed in this changeset. It would be clearer for others if you could upload in smaller changesets.

In the edits here, there's been a particular query about the National Road 8 classification - osm.org/way/31640151/history#map=15/37.9397/22.8377 - you changed the ref: to EO104 in this changeset. What is the source of the change or the reason for the re-classification?

Thanks for your response JayCBR, the offer to revert in a few places is generous and may still be necessary. I hope that Amaroussi's effort at a consolidating wiki page proves useful to you. Good luck, both of you!

dear JayCBR,

In this changeset and others you have made some quite sweeping changes to the OSM database. It would be helpful to others if you'd leave a comment when you create a changeset; also consider uploading changes in smaller batches.

Please consult others in the OSM community before making sweeping changes. You're not slowing down to make your case to other mappers, and unfortunately your recent changesets have now been flagged up to the Data Working Group as potential vandalism. I want to assume good faith, but you need to spend time dealing with the community and explaining your edits, or risk being reverted. Again, clearly descriptive comments with large changesets would help *a lot*.

Reverted, along with the other changeset at 29193535, on behalf of the DWG.

Following the import guidelines - osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines - it is important to discuss and document a signficant import before adding to OSM. This should help to ensure a more coherent data model as well as a harmonious community.

As it stands, this and the other boat access bulk import at osm.org/changeset/29193535 haven't been through the process suggested by the guidelines and have been flagged up as problematic to the DWG, so we will have to go ahead and revert these changes. Wishing you luck in the discussion of the import.

hello Parcanman,

This looks like a mass import of data from a third party source that hasn't been discussed with the wider OSM community.

You may not be aware there are import guidelines osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines including an imports@ discussion list, where mass additions to OSM of this kind should be discussed; there you should be able to get help with most appropriate tagging for the data and linking it to objects already in OSM.

osm.wiki/Imports

Another mapper has been in touch with the Data Working Group to complain about this undiscussed import and request that we revert it, along with osm.org/changeset/29192498

It would be good to hear your opinion, as it stands the DWG is likely to go ahead and revert these undiscussed imports...

OpenStreetMap is an attempt to create an accurate map of the world. Please do not add personal / test data to OSM.

All right, it's been a week so I am now going ahead and reverting the following list of deleteing changesets on behalf of the DWG:

28796127
28796946
28796962
28808425
28808611
28819183
28819610
28819668
28819735
28819839
28819905
28819922
28819932
28820084
28820242
28820246
28820281
28820362
28820440

Hi KDDA, there's no timeframe for the DWG, case-by-case basis, as we've heard nothing back about the townlands deletions, but we'll likely go ahead and revert them very soon. Sorry to be vague here, it's all very much a volunteer effort.

hi KDDA,

Indeed i'm involved in this discussion on behalf of the DWG, another mapper brought the deletions to our attention saying he didn't want to make a big deal of it, but it looks like some data disruption is being caused. See also osm.org/changeset/28819735 for the deletion of a townland relation.

However, i would say that on balance the user's edits over time look constructive, so i've written to ask more about the motivation behind the deletions and how we can work out an equitable solution.

As usual, everyone would benefit from leaving more explicit changeset comments; it doesn't have to be an essay, just a good sentence...

This changeset appears to delete a townland relation created as part of the "Mapping Townlands" project:

osm.wiki/Ireland/Mapping_Townlands

The townland appears to be from the "mapping townlands" effort and is needed in some cases for addressing and local navigation.

osm.wiki/Ireland/Mapping_Townlands

I appreciate the response, Nev!

In my personal capacity, i think "tagging for the router / tagging for the renderer" is a trend with long legs...

dear Nev,

One of my DWG colleagues had the following suggestion about footpath mapping: "In reality I suspect it's not really a separate footpath at all but just
a roadside sidewalk, so I'd have thought that sidewalk=left/right/both
on the road itself would be the best representation of the situation
within the data. That has the downside that almost nothing renders it,
though."

It would help with negotiations with other more routing-centric mappers if you too could use longer changeset comments, explaining the motivation for changes in a bit better depth...

- Jo

macht bisher nichts, then

(Sorry, i don't speak German!)