changeset/179663620

Fixed in changeset/179663620

Fixed/restored the tags and moved the relevant ones to a POI node in changeset/179663412: changeset/179663412

In addition to the SEO spam changset comment, the business name and unit were tagged on the entire building rather than as a separate node. Additionally, an apparent housenumber and street were included in both addr:street=* and addr:housenumber=* (which were entirely inconsistent with each other) and an otherwise redundant area=yes was tagged on the building while the building=* tag was inexplicably removed.

Hi Joris, thanks for your quick and courteous reply.

Happy to clarify how it could have been better--per the aforementioned OSM wiki page: "At the minimum, this includes a verb (how you changed things) and an object (what you changed), and can be further improved by listing the places edited and the sources used." In this case, as mentioned in my previous comment, you can describe how you "Changed what sort of access, on what sort of object", with the example I gave being "Changed deprecated car=* tag on charging station to motorcar=*".

This is way more helpful to other mappers in providing a useful yet still concise description of what you actually changed, how you changed it and why, whereas "changed access" could mean any number of different changes to different things for different reasons. The former communicates all the essential information in a few words with no extra effort (especially as you're making the same change many times), instead of requiring mappers to not only dig into the changeset details to see what actually changed and then look up both tags on the wiki to understand why the change was made.

As a helpful comparison, around this same time another mapper has been going around tagging posted private driveways as access=private, which would be equally described by "Changed access" but is a completely different sort of change, changing a different tag in a different way on a different sort of object for a totally different reason. While a brand new mapper and these have been their first edits that include a few unintentional mistakes, their great changeset comments (e.g. changeset/179547377 ) have clearly communicated what they changed (Hoogendam road), how they changed it (private access) and why (it is posted as private), making it easy for me to understand their intended changes, verify they are correct and confirm what they didn't intend to change so I could point it out and fix it.

Happy to provide any further clarification, and happy mapping!

Cheers, CAM

Hi Jorisbo, thanks for the fix.

Especially as a very experienced mapper, could you please take a few seconds to leave a good changeset comment osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments ? Changed what sort of access, on what sort object, i.e. "Changed deprecated car=* access on charging station to motorcar=*" As is, reading the changeset comment I'd naturally assume it was modifying the `access` tag value on a road, gate, etc., and was very surprised once I dug in to see it was fixing a deprecated charging station tag.

Given you seem to be modifying this tag on charging stations on a large scale using this same changeset comment (hopefully you're gotten the required consensus for that :), it wouldn't really take any more effect to copy/paste or reuse this more specific one that still equally applies to all those changes, while being much more helpful to the many other mappers who'd be viewing them given their high quantity and large scope.

Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179592152

Hi OSMJon, thanks for the detailed changeset comment! Based on that, it looks like the name "Hoogendam" was accidentally applied not just to the road as intended, but to this entire neighborhood, which I fixed in changeset/179596391 changeset/179596391 .

This was an easy mistake to make in this situation especially as a new mapper due to the existing residential area way partially (and inconsistently) sharing a bunch of nodes with the road, and both also sharing some but not all nodes with a boundary way of another neighborhood. In that case, it was easy to accidentally select the residential area way rather than the road. Checking carefully in the inspector panel to see what was selected can avoid this; however, to fix the real underlying issue I went ahead in that changeset with decoupling both boundary ways from the road centerline here and elsewhere around this neighborhood and also consistently gluing them with each other.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179547377

Hey again! Another mapper already found and fixed it so no worries (he's currently working on a tool to detect node drags, so this proved a good test of it), but just wanted to let you know that node/1433582661 node/1433582661 you moved was shared with the parking area, causing an accidental node drag distorting the parking area's shape. This can occasionally happen to even experienced mappers sometimes when using iD; always a good idea to check if a node is attached to anything you don't intend to move before moving it. In this case you would want to detach the node from the parking way first before moving it (I'm a JOSM user, but according to some googling shift-clicking the node and the way you want to detach it from then pressing D will apparently detach it in iD). Thanks, and happy mapping!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179547281

Was going to send you the original for your bot testing, but I see you already found and fixed it!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179547807

Thanks!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179547807

Fixed in changeset #179427935: changeset/179427935

Fixed in changeset #179427553: changeset/179427553

Thanks for removing the SEO spam. You do still need to fix the `name` field; "| Adults Only" is not part of the actual name of the hotel as stated on the website you link and thus cannot go there. However, you can provide a much clearer indication of this which is readable by both humans and machines by adding the tag `min_age=18` tag, and optionally a neutral `description` like `Adults-only hotel`. Thanks.

Hi Jon, thanks for clarifying this!

It seems that while it is marked private, the other tagging of the residential street you split it from is mistakenly retained, as it is still tagged as a residential street (`highway=residential`), with a 25 mph speed limit (`maxspeed=25 mph`), a `name` of `Lynn Drive`, and (less critically) the various `bbug:` import tags corresponding to the public street. Like the other instance, as a private driveway it should instead be tagged `highway=service + service=driveway` and those tags removed. Happy to take care of this for you if you like!

Also, I happened to notice an untagged node was created, node/13616074609 , that doesn't appear to modify its parent way way/132781771 . Was this created by accident (can be easy to do sometimes), or was there some intended purpose here? Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179328589

I did noticed you changed the driveway to a highway=living_street, which is a specific legal designation of type of _public_ residential street marked by specific signs found mostly in Europe where pedestrians and cyclists have a legal right of way over vehicles. By contrast, house driveways are tagged `highway=service + service=driveway`.

Also, it seems this driveway was previously incorrectly named by another mapper as as "Royal Lane", which is in fact the name of the next public residential street to the south, and the house it serves has the address of Farmview Drive, not Royal Lane (unlike the houses on the actual Royal Lane).

Would you like to address these issues yourself, or would you like me take care of it? Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179328521

Hi Jon, welcome to OpenStreetMap! We're glad to see you join our NRV mapping community. Feel free to join the OSM US Slack https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/ and other local channels to stay in touch.

Mapping access tags for private and semi-private roads is definitely something that has considerable room for improvement around the area, so thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179328521

As you can clearly see from the existing `contact:phone` tag you modified, your phone number is in an invalid format for OSM. *Especially* as you are paid to map to promote your client's business, it is _imperative_ that you ensure you do not introduce invalid tags or values (especially very basic ones like `phone`) and degrade the quality of the data on the map.

Also, source is Google Maps which is strictly prohibited per OSM policy. Reported to DWG.

Of course, man! SEO spammers are everywhere these days, unfortunately.

Just to note, changesets spanning massive bounding boxes aggregating changes from multiple very geographically separate areas changeset/179007344 are strongly discouraged on OSM, as they make browsing and reviewing them difficult or impossible with common tools, and also interfere with tools' ability to monitor changesets for a given area (e.g. OSMCha didn't show me it despite it making changes in Blacksburg due to the massive bbox). Its best to keep changesets as geographically-focused as practical, at most spanning a single town or small metropolitan area (e.g. your changeset here is about the largest I'd ever do, and only in very special circumstances like this where it is a handful of edits to a single object type unfortunately distributed around a single metropolitan area; normally I'd keep my changesets to a neighborhood or smaller).