ЮрийИ is one of few who have made numerous edits, but he is not the only one with problem edits. From those in the first page of change stream with clearly rubbish: Totmorgan, Tetukas007. (I’m not counting notes, those are ok anyway, because somebody will review them anyway). In previous two months I have deleted/reverted more than 100 changesets from mapsme users so it is clearly more than those 4% stated in this blog post.

Very small number of changesets for good analysis. Maybe that is the reason why results are so different than noted by experienced mappers. It could also be that you simply did not have experience to understand where the problems actually are. You did not present a list of “ok” changesets.

My results from >200 changesets in Lithuania:

• 50% total rubbish - non existing points, adding russian names, adding addresses to names, adding artworks or castles for “my home” or “a place to meet”
• 40% more or less clear idea of what was being mapped but it was mapped incorrectly: position hundreds of meters away, duplicate objects etc.
• 10% more or less ok edits (tags have to be fixed, missing information added, but otherwise ok)

With only 10% of more or less good edits and 0% of edits which could go through without wasting any time of experienced mappers there is a big question if it is better to waste time fixing or it is more practical to simply revert mediocre maps.me changes.

I have nothing against new mappers and new ideas. But people should understand, that we do not start mapping each day from zero. So at least most widespread tags should not be rearanged without a very good reason and wide discussion. There are a lot of data consumers who depend on consistency of tagging. And in the case of water tagging change gives no benefit whatsoever so it should not had come through in the first place.

Zverik (at least his username) is registered in 2010-05, and in 2011-03 (after 10 MONTHS of participation) he makes a proposal to change one of the most widespread tags… I remember that proposal, but at that time I skipped it because it looked pointless and ungrounded (looks terrible now).

landuse=reservoir is included in JOSM presets. And most (if not all) power mappers use JOSM.

taginfo says that 367 133 objects are tagged with landuse=reservoir, 145 633 as landuse=basin That is half a MILLION of objects :-)

And it is a known problem when anybody (even people who do more talking than mapping) can have their own “voting” and change tag status…

This idea of reinventing the wheel in water tagging is totally pointless and onthologically useless. If 10 people voted “in favour” of abandoning landuse, it does not mean that we should all now change our tagging habbits. In some countries we have an agreement to mark specific objects with landuse tags and that agreement predates Zveriks proposal. This new water tagging gives absolutely no benefit I do not see why should we change our conventions and retag all objects. So we continue to tag with landuse and change newbies natural=water to landuse as well.