Hello JriSv250. Can you please stop reusing nodes to mix the history of objects? See osm.wiki/Keep_the_history#Don.27t_mix_the_history for reference.

Mixing the history of objects makes it difficult for analysers and contributors of data to understand how and when certain data was made. Not only I, but also many other people (see the discussions on Discord) strongly advise against this practice.

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards,

Casper

My apologies for removing the information and thank you for restoring it. As you can read from my changeset comment, removing information wasn't part of the plan.

Hi. Thank you for the notice. The issues I fixed are barely worth mentioning, like fixing an opening hours syntax. I'll do my best to make smaller changesets in the future. Enjoy your weekend :)

Hello again Shaho Reza. I asked it before and I will ask again: could you please write comprehensive changeset comments according to the guidelines?

Since I got no response and the changeset is full of errors, I'm reverting this.

Hello. Could you write more specific changeset comments, please? See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for more info.

Hello. What did you do with these roads and routes in this changeset? Single roads shouldn't have a route on them, let alone two. Also, way/643674367 and the one next to it don't look like trunk links to me, because they don't link a trunk to a different classification.

Hoi Sregels.

Je hebt hier twee bruggetjes ingetekend die niet verbonden zijn met het wegennet. Om errors te voorkomen is het verstandig om deze of met het wegennetwerk te verbinden of als een vlak met man_made=bridge te mappen.

way/956403544 heb je ook getagd met tags als bicycle=no, foot=yes, horse=no etc etc. Het is veel makkelijker om deze simpelweg als highway=footway te taggen, Dan heb je alleen nog een access=* tag nodig, indien van toepassing. Waarom staat er access=no op?

Mvg,

Casper

Hi Guillaume,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

This was a very rare key, and as such I already regarded it as either a mistake or as obsolete.

Kind regards,

Casper

you're welcome :)

Ik ben het eens met A67-A67.

changeset comment klopt niet, is ander fort

Hallo vrondisjeuk. Bedankt dat je interesse toont. Ik zal vertellen hoe ik dit gedaan heb:

Ik heb met https://overpass-turbo.eu/ gezocht naar dorpen zonder wikidata tag. Dat heb ik in de JOSM editor gedownload. Vervolgens heb ik elke plaatsnaam bekeken en vergeleken met wikidata.org.

Als ik in Wikidata de plaatsnaam met omschrijving "village in Groningen" of iets dergelijks vond, dan was dat natuurlijk de juiste combinatie van dorp in OSM en Wikidata object, en zo heb ik die Wikidata-tags aan OSM-objecten gekoppeld.

Ik zie dat je een redelijk nieuwe mapper bent. Als dit ingewikkeld voor je klinkt, zeg het dan gerust, ik leg graag de stappen in meer detail aan je uit.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Casper

Ik begrijp wat je bedoelt. Ik heb het stuk ten oosten van de Wirdumerpoortbrug opnieuw water=moat gemaakt.

Ik heb laatst een heleboel grachten gemapt. Met Overpass Turbo krijg je nu interessante resultaten :)

Is dit goed? changeset/105689844 / https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=105689844

Is goed, ik zal het aanpassen. Stay tuned.

Dear Tomas Straupis,

1. Here follows a link to the documentation: osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details#Deprecation I am happy to inform you that 10 years after approval, broad renderer support for water details has been achieved, which means that legacy tagging schemes can be safely deprecated.

2. As woodpeck asked before, could you point out how the Lithuanian community made the decision to tag moats in a certain way? The tags you mentioned earlier are not in use, and I would be glad to know which tagging scheme for moats the Lithuanian community has agreed upon.

3. I should not have to tell you that water detail tagging has been a part of OSM for much longer than I have been. Furthermore, the fact that this water body is a moat is of interest to historians, which makes tagging it as a moat valuable information.

4. I know some military history and my country has a very high density of moats. That should qualify me to identify moats at forts. In our discussion here I also noticed that we seem to be in agreement that this body of water is in fact a moat, which makes me wonder why you removed the related tag.

I would like to remind you friendly that no communities within OSM are unimportant and that Brian Sperlongano's mass retagging is well-documented, has been conducted only after local community approval and so far does not concern any moats, which by the way are a rare sight in the USA.

I ask you to stop gatekeeping, acting hostile and vandalising the map.

Regards,

Intruder Ghost

I would like to mention that these tags aren't in use and that I intended to make a positive impact to map this feature as a moat with the existing and documented tagging scheme.

water=* is not a duplicate, it's a replacement. This was introduced in the approved 2011 proposal for water details. Tags for basins and rivers are not uniformly tagged as natural=water at this moment, but for moats this is the only documented tagging scheme and as I said before, it's clearly a water body and not a basin.

Calling it "the duplicate nerds water schema" is rude and unnecessarily dismissive, which is a poor attitude to have as an OSM mapper.

Retagging a moat as a basin means that you're removing the meaning, which is sabotage of data and is the sign of an edit war.

You should stop gatekeeping your tagging scheme yesterday, because you're opposing the international OSM community and vandalising data.

Basins are areas designated for water retention/detention/infiltration. Moats are water bodies for defence of a fort. The meanings are very different and each has its own tagging scheme.