Hi there. Thanks for your contribution here.

What did you mean by the tag highway=Route 53 ? It is unconventional to use a highway=* tag for undocumented purposes.

Kind regards,
Casper

It's my own proposal and I've moved away from using defensive_structure=*. See osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Defensive_structures

I plan to put the proposal up for voting once I've had some time to expand the Examples paragraph. Comments on the proposal are welcome.

The matter is that many buildings are tagged with tags that are duplicates of what this Wiki page recommends and which are already marked as deprecated on the Wiki, such as building:height=* instead of height=*, building:roof:colour=* instead of roof:colour=*, building:roof:shape=* instead of roof:shape=* etc. In this changeset I changed some duplicate keys to the more common and better documented variants.

Hoi Jelle,

Sorry, dit was me compleet ontschoten. Ik moet je ook eerlijk vertellen dat ik persoonlijk het concept van highway=pedestrian + area=yes maar vreemd vind, dus als jij er iets moois van kunt maken zonder deze changeset volledig terug te draaien, dan heel graag.

Mvg,

Casper

Misschien staat er een naambord op het huis, dan zou het correct zijn. Anders zou ik de naam verwijderen om verwarring met het echte fort te voorkomen. Laat vooral weten als het je te binnen schiet!

Mvg :)

Hoi Frank,

Waarom heb je bij way/443761142 de naam van het fort op een gebouw gezet?

Mvg,
Casper

Hi RobinSJ,

Why did you duplicate the fort here? It has already been mapped in full, see way/954093813 .

I have removed the duplications in changeset/114221452 .

Kind regards,

Casper

Hoi dikkeknodel,

Dankjewel voor de aanvulling :)

Mvg,
Casper

@grin I recommend also fixing other issues while you're doing mass edits. The easiest way is to run JOSM's validator by pressing shift+v. Doing some QA adds extra value to your changeset and makes it so that you're not changing tags purely for the sake of changing tags, but also to improve OSM in a broader sense. The time investment is worth it.

@hfs They must have missed that. I just edited it for you: changeset/113522122

I would love to do more edits to look for these redundant osm.wiki/Key:... tags, because they're very easy to query and fix. Sadly, according to the DWG such an would require requesting approval from each regional community and contacting each mapper who has mapped these tags, which would make this process practically impossible.

Hi & thank you for asking.

I hope you won't mind that I continue in English. My German isn't super good.

Every object that had more than the basic tags for pitches (leisure/sport/surface/name/lit/access=*) was manually checked for relevance and correctness. If I was unsure about an object, I excluded it from this changeset.

"Bolzplatz" is as much a description as "Spielplatz", so tagging it with name=* is incorrect, but since it describes a football field with public access I thought it was still valuable information, so I kept the information as description=Bolzplatz.

See also: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Best regards,

Casper

Love you too, Lee <3

Anyway, grin, you can select a cluster of objects and upload only the selection. If you do that a couple of times you can make regional boundary boxes, which might save you some unfriendly comments from Lee Carré here.

Thank you for taking your time to fix these tags :)

Hoi West Erop,
Helemaal prima, zal ik doen.
Mvg,
Casper

Hi guys. I took my time to look at all playgrounds with unusual tags to not miss any corner cases or other things that would require a closer look.

Look for example at the history of way/770898831/history and the discussion of changeset/81341526

Only playgrounds that were tagged with just leisure=playground + name=Spielplatz and other simple tags like access and surface were changed automatically.

My dear fellow mapper, your project is based on a handful of comments made over ten years ago, which as I mentioned in my first message here is out of date.

You seem ignorant that natural=water + water=river is valid tagging as approved in the same 2011 proposal, in current documentation and in popular tag usage.

You may wish to learn more about the current opinions of other mappers. Feel free to ask around in different forums and other platforms as listed in the community index: osm.wiki/Community_index

I would very much like to know of which lies exactly I stand accused here and what damage may be done by using the tagging scheme which you oppose. This information would be helpful if we are to continue this topic.

Dear Денис39 and Tomas Straupis,

I am greatly disappointed in Tomas' ad hominem fallacy. That is not a way to have a constructive discussion.

Tomas' page makes some claims that are not backed up by anything but your own words. It reeks of edit war.

To Tomas I would like to say that if they're looking for professional cartography, I kindly suggest that they do that outside this community which traditionally has always had a large number of amateur cartographers.

My apologies to Денис39 that they are now part of a seemingly unfriendly debate.

Best regards,

Intruder Ghost (as I have been called by Tomas before)

Tomas is stubbornly using an outdated tagging scheme that conflicts with the global river modernization project. See osm.wiki/WikiProject_Waterways/River_modernization for more information about these efforts to unify river tagging.

Hoi borishag. Dit punt heb ik eerder bij jou aangekaart, dus Herrieman is in dit geval geen eenling. Op het forum is ondertussen een constructieve discussie gaande.

commentaar klopt niet. Moet zijn: "wikidata & rce tags Fort Blauwkapel"

Hoi Tilia_J. Ik woon hier vlakbij. Als je lokale kennis nodig hebt roep je maar ;)