Hello again,

You removed a point with a name of the refugee settlement and set the polygon as refugee settlement instead. However, during this process, it seems the name of the settlement was omitted. Why delete the name of the settlement from the database? Secondly, why remove the valid landuse=residential tag?
THank you
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88250360

Hello again,

As a result of this changeset we have a node with no tags. Is there no refugee camp/site in this location? if so, a source of this information would be helpful. Thank you
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88251905

Hello zakaria2324,

In this changeset you have removed a point with one name, and replaced it with a polygon with another name. I'm wondering what is the source of this name change? Can you please document how you know the previous name was incorrect?
Thank you
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88252501

Hi,

Sorry, the two questions were linked to the same issue. I recognise there are discussions on what tag combinations make sense on a single element, however my high level take on this issue is that this piece of land is used by some people as residential area, and your changeset has removed this information.

Regardless of it the tags are on the same or distinct elements, I don't think it's a good idea to delete correct data.

Hope it makes more sense now?
Best,

Hello again,

I was wondering if there was any conclusion to your discussions with the specialised cycle mappers?

Thank you

Hi Laura,

I think Panian features are duplicated or even triplicated here now. Perhaps worth checking?

Is it perhaps worth keeping the landuse=residential tag on this? If not - what's the reason for removing it please?

Hi Kelly,

Could you please use the approved tag: RefugeeSiteMappingDataGlobalStandardization

Thank you

Hello user_5359,

Maria L has also created another changeset recently that raises similar questions to your above: changeset/87988547

Since you already addressed this one, perhaps you could see if the second one should be reverted as well?

Thank you

Hi Maria L,

I also have concerns about this import.

It's rather disappointing that work done for UNHCR and CartONG project and described as 'standardisation' is of so questionable quality.

Looking at the size of this import I'm assuming you will not be able to fix all the mistakes, so I would request reverting the changset, cleaning the input data, applying proper tags (including amenity=refugee_site) and attempting adding the data again, while respecting proper process and ideally in smaller changesets that can be audited.

Thank you.

Hi Jules,

Thanks for your contribution. This edit could improved somewhat - for example the buildings and residential areas could be traced more precisely. Do you think you could fix this? Thanks!

Hi Zayed,

What's this "attraction"?

Hello,

I think we now have duplicate features for Dadaab town:

way/400331498
node/6346973297

Do you think it would be worth to clean it up, so that the osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element rule is respected?

Thank you

Hello Luis,

This changeset creates a lot of isolated_dwellings. I think that it is not the correct tag here, as these dwelling are part of the larger settled place (the town of Dadaab).

Further, I am not sure if these are part of the refugee camp as they, again, fall in the town itself.

Do you think these are perhaps worth removing?

Thank you

Noted on all points - and thank you for alerting me to geovelo and cyclosm tools, I will check them out!

On your point "cycleway tags should reflect the actual value of usage for cyclists and I strongly believe that the new bike lanes are as valuables as cycle tracks... Don't you think so?" I actually think the wiki description is quite unambiguous as it refers to physical aspects rather than infrastructure's purpose or usage, but I accept there may be finer considerations I am not aware of.

I only raised the comment on this changeset in the first place because you were half an hour faster than me in mapping these new lanes (or, as you prefer, tracks) :)

I will refrain from making any edits and wait to see what your revision on the wiki results in. I would appreciate if you could make a note of this here, so I know when there is some conclusion.

Thanks a lot!

Thanks for the fast response :)

I think on Boulevard Georges-Favon, going north, starting between Rue Hornung and Rue Bovy-Lysberg (where there is the small road block) all the way until the end of Pont de la Coulouvrenière the situation is as you describe - a new dedicated bike lane. That's as far as I know from my commute, so can't speak of other areas.

My point is that based on the wiki:

"A cycle track is separated from the road by curbs, parking lots, grass verges, trees or another physical barrier, but is running parallel to and next to the road."

"A cycle lane is bicycle infrastructure that is an inherent part of the road, but set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles, whilst being separated only by paint or other markings"

My limited French makes me think this wiki entry also supports this: osm.wiki/FR:Key:cycleway

I think the description of the "lane" here more closely matches what we see in reality.

Shouldn't be cycleway=lane?

cycleway=*

Hello Solaiman, do you think the classification of this road way/526960202 fits within the context? Currently these are residential roads not connected to the larger network.

Hello Nayeem, do you think the classification of this road fits within the context? Currently these are residential roads not connected to the larger network.

Just wondering, aren't these relations a touch too complex?