Hi, is there public access through here: way/43096122 ? Just wanted to check because walkingaccess.govt.nz doesn't suggest that it's public (see https://maps.walkingaccess.govt.nz/Viewer/?map=b1d1e76a6c754d11b3f3fd9dfce1eb12&extent=1758880.6292%2C5919683.4034%2C1759492.1254%2C5919953.6203%2C2193 )

oops, not sure how that happened, thanks for noticing. must have been a copy-paste error. I'm pretty sure this is http://selwyn.school.nz/Web/3339 , will confirm and then fix the tags

Hi, yes you're right. The wiki page for leisure=fishing is a bit vague about when/where it should be used. I now see that the latest version of iD warns you that leisure=fishing doesn't belong on unclosed ways. Should I move leisure=fishing to an area surrounding all the stakes?

Hi, thanks for noticing this. I've changed the tags to monitoring:PM10 and :PM2.5

Hi, there wasn't a specific email sent to the imports mailing list recently, most of the discussion has been on talk-nz. Not sure what was discussed when the import began many years ago, it's difficult to search the mailing lists.

> crevasses are not even mentioned there

They are mentioned in row 6 of this table: osm.wiki/LINZ#Antarctica

> temporary things like [link]

I have updated those 2 ways to use lifecycle prefixes instead of highway=track

> an undiscussed, undocumented and low quality import

Hi, I don't think any of these 3 points are correct. This import was discussed and documented extensively, and I'm still not sure why you think it is 'low quality'. I have replied to the email on the mailing list, perhaps that will clarify things?

Documentation is here: osm.wiki/LINZ, and there are many messages on the talk-nz, imports, and nzopengis mailing lists. I don't know how to search these mailing lists for specific emails.

I will also change the name of the editor from "LINZ Address Import" to "LINZ Data Import" to avoid confusion. All changesets made after 6/10/21 also have a changeset tag source=https://wiki.osm.org/LINZ

Hello, there's some background info on osm.wiki/LINZ - tagging for LINZ data layers was discussed on various wiki pages and mailing lists including imports, nzopengis, etc. before the layers were added to the former linz2osm tool. I don't know when crevasse-cl was discussed and natural=crevasse was decided, since the linz2osm tool no longer works. Most recently, there was discussion on talk-nz about continuing these layers, but no one gave feedback specifically on crevasses. Hope that answers your question

thanks!

Hi, why did you remove the name 'Auckland Areo Club'? It's the genuine name of the club, see https://aac.org.nz

As far as I can tell, all validator issues have been fixed since this changeset was made, and river relations have been created using the new ways. Following our discussion I've also updated the editor to add a link to osm.wiki/LINZ in all changesets. let me know if there are other issues with the import process

Hi, I’ve re-read the import guidelines and I believe it has been followed properly. To address your 3 points:

* This import is not 'disguised', it never claimed to be just for NZ. Data from LINZ has been imported for the Ross Dependency, and parts of the Pacific since 2012, when it was initially discussed with the community (I was not involved at the time). You can see all the regions on the wiki page (osm.wiki/LINZ)

* documentation is available at osm.wiki/LINZ, and every changeset has the attribution= tag which links to the Contributors page, which links to the LINZ wiki page. However, adding source=xxx to every single imported feature is frowned upon nowadays, so we shouldn’t do this. As you suggested, I will add another changeset tag to directly link to osm.wiki/LINZ.

* data is not being 'dumped in complete disregard'. The import is done using a modified version of RapiD, which requires you to manually check and add every feature. For melt streams, this involved merging the starts/ends of streams with lakes and the coastline, and skipping streams that duplicated existing data. The validator warnings from iD in this specific changeset were noted and cleaned up shortly afterwards. Please let me know if you see any examples of badly conflated data.

relation/13266223 will be the relation to replace the one deleted in changeset/89947873

If there are two official names, both of which are commonly used, then the name= tag in OSM should contain the name in the local language(s). In New Zealand, places with two names are most commonly written with a / between them, or with one of the names in parentheses.

If you consume OSM data and only want English names, then you can use name:en=* and fallback to name=* if there is no name:en=* tag.

also reverted, see changeset/111217494
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111217442

This is incorrect and has been reverted. Both islands have dual names (see https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/54454 and https://gazetteer.linz.govt.nz/place/54452)
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111217494

I've reverted this too
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81656615

reverted along with changeset/110883921
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110883978

It is perfectly acceptable to map driveways. I've reverted this. If you don't like the look of it, use a map style that doesn't render driveways
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110883921

Hi, if you've read access=designated you may have noticed the perfect examples at the bottom of this page. The wiki recommend bicycle=designated and foot=designated for "A combined footway and cycleway". In New Zealand we call this a 'Shared Path', see https://www.nzta.govt.nz/walking-cycling-and-public-transport/cycling/cycling-standards-and-guidance/cycling-network-guidance/designing-a-cycle-facility/between-intersections/shared-paths/. A 'Shared Path' is a combined footway and cycleway explicitly designed for walking, cycling. Both parties have equal right of way.

You asked why =designated is useful over =yes. This is because =designated explicitly states whether the path is designed for that mode of transport. Consider the Kāpiti Expressway: You can cycle on it so it could have bicycle=yes. But it is definitely not designed for cycling; it's a 100km/h expressway. This is very different to the nearby Shared Path which has bicycle=designated because it is explicitly designed for bikes. Routing algorithms will therefore prefer =designated over =yes.

If a large number of data consumers find a tag useful, we should not remove it without discussing with those consumers (e.g. the tagging mailing list).

I have a question for you – why are you removing this tag in the first place?

once again, why are you removing the tags bicycle=designated and foot=designated? These tags provide valuable infomation, as discussed in changeset/107465048