Thank you for your effort and sorry for my rude remark earlier. This looks like an improvement, but does it have to be one giant multipolygon?

Een dak met ondersteuning is amper een gebouw te noemen. In andere gevallen zoals bij bushokjes of overdekte fietsenstallingen taggen we de daken doorgaans ook niet als gebouwen. building=roof vind ik maar een vreemde tag.

I simplified most objects in this area with a 0.1 meter error margin:

changeset/127414795
changeset/127414809
changeset/127414818
changeset/127414822
changeset/127414876

changeset/127417184
changeset/127417253

In total I removed about 60,000 objects, most of which were nodes.

There are still a bunch of unwanted intersections of barriers, waterways and other objects in this area.

Teruggedraaid in changeset/127409725

De naam was ook maar een omschrijving, dus die heb ik ook verwijderd.

Omdat de muziektent geen deuren of muren heeft, valt nog over na te denken om de building tag te verwijderen en alleen amenity=shelter + shelter_type=weather_shelter te gebruiken, of om anders dit allemaal weg te laten en in plaats daarvan covered=yes te taggen.

Dit klinkt voor mij als iets om een bredere discussie over te voeren.

Hi Wilmer,

I removed your enormous landuse in changeset/127272826 because it included so many areas that were definitely not residential landuse. This was just lazy work on your part, really.

"onwenselijk" is een persoonlijke, subjectieve mening. Objectiever gezien zijn deze paden vrij begaanbaar, dus dat is hoe ze op de kaart horen te staan; zonder access tags (of met access=yes).

You're welcome! Have fun making your map of the rivers :)

"what you actually do is removing tags and adding the values with a different key."

This is true.

"you may be responsible for breaking them, by performing huge edits which might force the devs of other software to add code in order to maintain the status quo"

It's called the evolution of OSM's tagging schemes, and look at it from the other side: there is no point in retagging all 85,000+ wikimedia_commons=* tags back to image=*.

"hm, not quite desirable IMHO to have a key for every service that can be used to share pictures. I can understand we could make a case for wikimedia, as they are so huge and terms are open, but it is not an approach that scales well for _every_ image hoster"

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

"while you should try to respect the guidelines,"

If the guidelines say that I should spend a good week discussing a few hundred image tags that I actually verify in my edits with every relevant national, sub-national community and local mapper who might not even be in any community, I think I'll pass.

"I think this particular edit has its merit, the "file:"-URLs in the image tag, where everybody expects an http-link, had their problems. Thank you for performing it and discussing about it."

You're very welcome. I'm glad we could have a constructive discussion about this.

"you are removing tags"

No, I retag it to the key that we have for Wikimedia Commons images. I thought I mentioned this already.

"break other people’s apps"

I'm not responsible for other people's apps, only for the map data in my edits. I haven't removed any data, and if you find any app that doesn't support the wikimedia_commons=* tagging scheme, your attention is better spent on convincing them to use it, because there are over 85,000 of them on OSM.

"I added a check for the wikimedia_commons tag as well, and it could be seen as “better” to make an exception for commons"

Yeah, that sounds like my reasoning behind this edit. I simply updated the map data here to match this.

"next comes imgur, flickr, panoramio whatever as keys?"

Well, we already have Mapillary, but I doubt the others will follow anytime soon because of licensing reasons.

"Not sure where the url escaping came from, maybe GoMap!! does it automatically?"

No clue, maybe people just copy things directly from the URLs, but fixing it isn't too difficult in most cases.

I tried and failed to make a MapRoulette challenge for it, maybe I'll try that again so we have a more efficient QA pipeline to verify image tags.

I hope that answers your concerns and questions well enough :)

"you are removing tags"

Not at all, I'm just retagging them under the key that's specifically intended for Wikimedia Commons images. No information is lost.

"now I do not find them anymore"

Not in the image=* key, no, but you will find them under wikimedia_commons=* together with the other Wikimedia Commons images.

"you not only added the wikimedia_commons tag, you also removed the "image" tag"

Indeed I did. I see no merit in tagging the same thing twice, because that is inefficient and may lead to redundant duplications.

Other than that, software that only looks for full weblinks in image=* and "File:..." in wikimedia_commons=* key will now miss much less relevant data.
The osm.org website is a good example of this: "image=File:..." will not be hyperlinked on this website, but "wikimedia_commons=File:..." will.

"did you have a look at the pictures? Have you seen a fountain picture or two?"

Surely I did. They look good. I always include quality assurance. That is also how in other changesets I discovered and fixed poorly formatted tags like "File:Fontana%20Piazza%20Brin.jpeg" instead of "File:Fontana Piazza Brin.jpeg" (fictional example).
I also discovered and fixed a few cases like this: changeset/126957131

This isn't very automated. I checked all the tags to verify if they indeed refer to Wikimedia Commons.

Done in changeset/126957131 . Thank you for being so understanding, and have a good day :)

wrong country. I had copy-pasted the changeset description. Oops.

Hi Chris,

You added image=https://up.picr.de/35088206nx.jpg to a whole bunch of street lamps. An image is supposed to refer to a single object, not to every object of the same type. If you want to specify the type of street lamp, it's better if you do that under the model=* key.

How would you prefer that we change these tags?

Best regards,

Casper

"Geen enkele renderer of app toont shrubbery."

Nog niet, nee. Ik zou ook geen tag renderen die niet eens gebruikt wordt. Daar zijn we nu eerst mee bezig. Het verzoek is daarom ook om de tag te laten staan.

Zie ter informatie ook https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4530

Hi titigv,

You tagged some highway=bicycle here, which is invalid. What are way/30620932 and way/30798029 supposed to be?

Forgot to mention that I removed the redundant name=* tags from the coastline sections.

Hello,

The Ukrainian OSM community urges everyone to refrain from editing the map of Ukraine during the war, so could you please wait until the war is over?

Please visit osm.wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_war for details.

Hello! Thank you for reviewing.
Judging from BDOrtho IGN imagery, it looks like a half-hipped roof. That may explain why Porphyrion couldn't make a good choice between hipped and gabled. I took the liberty to update the tag: changeset/125238414

See roof:shape=half-hipped for documentation.