Future reference: payment:others=no

What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments too.

Much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

“useless […] changeset comment. What boundaries were you fixing, and why?”

What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Re “a mistake to call the bunker "A bunker?"”

@anttit that key is only for the proper name of a feature. Other keys are better for comments, like (in this case) note:military or fixme:military .

Much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

👍

@skquinn

I wasn't aware of that. I've only looked at their map briefly. Thanks for the tip.

Looks like they're mostly done, and finishing up.

I'll keep checking in the coming weeks.

👍

“the longwave NDB remains, west of the airport near the 5 mile road”

I'll have to go looking for that 🙂

Separately, I'm reminded that while from surveying node/1796924298 ( changeset/116636299 — oh how I wish CS comments allowed basic markup), I ended up having a chat with a tech from JT's data-centre who was on a break. He mentioned that the cellular antennas are only about half way up, but that something to do with the airport is at the top. He didn't know what, though.

Interesting. This tickles my interest in infrastructure (hence my marking JEC substations and the like).

I'm better understanding the meaning of your chosen handle; aviation charts.

As for historical features which no longer exist; technically this is against OSM policies (but I've no intention to hastily remove them). You may, however, be interested in dedicated history mapping projects:
▪︎http://www.openhistoricalmap.org/
▪︎http://map.openhistorymap.org/1945/10/49.2/-2.13

They're separate datasets, indexed by year (to see changes over time). So far, Jersey is blank for all the years I've happened to check. They would certainly benefit from your keen interest in the subject.

For historical features which still exist (in OSM proper), http://histosm.org/#11/-2.12/49.22/0/ is a rendering which emphasises them, and allows filtering by type.

Or, just follow good practice and have consideration for other mappers, while typing fewer characters than your mini-rant.

> changed 1 beach to sand according to natural=beach

Right, but why?

> you may [revert] it if you know well this area.

LOL, why should I have to remedy your unexplained changes?

You could have left it be (and stuck to tidal=yes), since you don't know the area.

Much smaller changeset areas would be good, too: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments too.

> "http:" links refer to unencrypted HTTP resources

Incorrect. You clearly didn't read what I stated, or didn't comprehend it.

Only the L7 protocol is specified. Encryption is another matter. You're assuming that HTTP is non-encrypted, based on the HTTPS pseudo-protocol. There are actually several modes of encryption for HTTP.

Compare IMAP with STARTTLS.

> should not appear anywhere where TLS is available.

Based on anything other than your preference or opinion? Particularly since I gave examples earlier.

You just assume the client would know to use https instead

Not at all. You're projecting.

> this is not always the case.

Which is fine, and up to the client. Authoritarianism and know-better-than-the-reader-what's-best-for-him doesn't belong on the Web; by design.

> So let me put your question the other way round. Why should it stay "http"?

Already answered that. See my earlier response.

The burden of proof is yours; you're asserting that s/^http:/https:/g should be so. This is your changeset, too.

> "Besides, not all User-Agents need encryption (bots)."
> They do, because Wikimedia does not support unencrypted HTTP connections. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/HTTPS for more info.

LOL, you assume much.

Besides scope, Wikipedia insisting on HTTPS isn't a matter of the bot (assuming one which is concerned about fetching from WP) itself needing HTTP+TLS, but the site requiring it. The bot would be perfectly happy without.

Wikipedia does indeed respond to TCP/80, else how does it redirect to TCP/443 ?

Sounds like you don't understand relevant networking, either.

> "the bbox is nebulous."
> Which is the case every time you edit France or the United Kingdom.

Relevance for this changeset?

> Separating the edits would generate more edits in almost every watched bounding box.

Perhaps (but evidence?), but they would be scored, and more locally relevant, allowing independent discussion, like I already said.

Your failure to read documentation causes extra changesets, due to the needed reversion.

> I could understand the whish to remove the "flag" tags everywhere. But not the whish to keep "http" links.

That's not a technical or OSM matter / problem.

Much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Seconding skquinn.