grazie di nuovo per la risposta. Gli oggetti cancellati non si vedono sul sito di OSM, perché non hanno più coordinate associate nella versione attuale, ma ci sono dei servizi esterni che visualizzano i changeset. Per esempio qui puoi vedere questo changeset di cui stiamo parlando:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=69672877

Conosco il problema delle aree approssimative (che questa valutazione dipende ovviamente dalla scala in quale uno le guarda, ma sono d'accordo che la scala dei dati grezzi di OSM ultimamente è la scala da vicino/dettagliata), e anche le difficoltà di lavorare in zone dove già ci sono dati preesistenti. Comunque, quest'ultimo è l'idea di OSM, di lavorare insieme ad un dataset comune. Perciò si dovrebbe sempre tentare di preservare il più possibile e di modificare piùttosto che di eliminare e rifare. Questo perché ci sono tantissimi fatti e dettagli già codificati negli dati, e rifacendo (come la storia ci ha dimostrato infinite volte) si tende a dimenticare o non vedere questi dettagli e informazioni.

Per le foreste, se ti posso dare un consiglio, il modo più sostenibile a lungo termine è quello di fare "pezzi piccoli", e di usare qualsiasi occasione (come per esempio una strada) per spezzare una foresta in due. Anche per i landuse (utilizzo del suolo), più piccoli che ci sono, meglio è (per future modifiche, e per evitare future modifiche errate, e per semplificare la struttura in generale= più comprensibile).

Per ricreare qualcosa cancellato, in JOSM c'è una funzione, dove bisogna inserire l'id dell'oggetto (in "File"-> "undelete Object"), il formato dell'ID è "n" per nodo, "w" per way e "r" per relazione, seguito dall'id, per esempio "w123" per il way 123.
Ciao,
Martin

It was by pure chance, I am only doing it occassionally and not in a systematic manner, you only caught my eyes because the "rectangle" (bounding box) of your edits spans over the area I am watching (because it is so big, you didn't edit anything near me).

I have undeleted them now, have a nice day.

No problem, do you need help to restore them?

yes, viewpoints generally do not need to have names. On the other hand there is a dense pack of viewpoints in this changeset, e.g. several along the beach in relatively short distance in Gaza. There are also other things like monuments and artwork without names, clearly substandard detail level, although not completely useless (if the positional accuracy would be good). Looking longer at this I agree it was probably best to have it deleted all the way, looks like an upload of personal notes rather than a structured contribution. Thank you for your patience.

for the avoidance of doubt: I would generally agree that we see a lot of substandard edits from the "mass editors" (maps.me), but I did not see it in this particular edit (if we agree that "incomplete" tagging, e.g. missing name for a business, is not an error).

I have been looking again into their changeset and it doesn't seem problematic. Yes, a lot of names are missing, but missing data is not a reason for deletion, especially as the objects have been put into classes (cafes, pubs, viewpoints). I also didn't observe the positional inaccuracy (no POIs in the middle of a road). Can you show some examples?

As I didn't see problems (besides one name of a viewpoint "Best view"), I did not write to the user, because he is new and I did not want to bother them as long as it looks ok what they do.

thank you for replying, I'll ask them. My guess would be this is the trip of someone coming to visit Europe.

Hi, I noticed you deleted these POIs in very different places. Can you explain how you assessed that the features do not exist?

Hi, I noticed you deleted 2 shops in Switzerland:
node/5440409492
node/5440409437
Was this on purpose?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70486199

Ciao e grazie della risposta. Va benissimo di lavorare al tempo tuo, non c'è fretta. La cancellazione del fiume Arno mi sembra comunque sbagliato. Ho ripristinato l'Arno e ti chiederei di stare molto attento con le cancellazioni. Invece il track cancellato qui: way/239862624 non l'ho ancora ripristinato, ma mi sembra strano anch questa di cancellazione. Ti ricordi perché l'hai rimosso?
Ciao,
Martin

Ciao Michele, ho solo ora visto che hai rimosso ref=GRA e messo A90, ma questo ref era già lì nella chiave official_ref, avevamo lasciato GRA perchè la segnaletica continua a indicare GRA.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/51835249

Hello bhousel, thank you for replying, and yes, I completely agree that squaring is also in Josm a feature that has the exact same problems (btw, not the building mode, where you can select a road or 2 nodes and the new elements will be aligned to it - overrule with shift).
A super day for you as well.

I also believe the "squaring" creates another kind of problems:
1. by using a threshold for squaring, those buildings that haven't been squared are now standing out and it may look as if they are actually like this (e.g. way/589667129 ),
2. By squaring each building individually, the angles between 2 adjacent buildings often get worse compared to before and the flight of buildings with respect to the street (typically parallel in many areas of the world) as well.

I didn't write T-shaped buildings were now squared, what I meant was that a rectangle with perfect 90° angles is generally not a better representation for a T, an L or any other polygonal shape than the approximate building outlines that have been there before, arguably some will be worst afterwards.
My comment stands, this is an undiscussed automated edit and violating the guidelines: osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

This looks like an undiscussed mechanical edit. All kind of buildings have been "squared", also T-shaped and L-shaped buildings which are currently represented by 4-corner-polygons. Or buildings with a lot of protruding geometries: way/589638244
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/69948294

Mi sembra qualcosa sia andato male con questo changeset, ci sono stato molte più cancellazioni che creazioni, per esempio sono stati cancellati questa foresta: way/386948865, il fiume arno: way/23584997 e questo track: way/239862624
Anche nel caso ci sia un oggetto con mancanti tag (landuse=orchard) come way/386948859 sarebbe stato meglio aggiungere il tag che cancellare la geometria.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/69672877

Has there been feedback from the mapper yet? In this case way/568519130 it looks as if a demolished house was added from outdated imagery (or my imagery was outdated and it was reconstructed in the meantime). In the Sammamish case, e.g. here way/568519130 there seem to be newly constructed buildings now, although they do not look exactly like the situation in OSM: https://www.google.it/maps/@47.6055462,-122.0376117,3a,75y,328.03h,99.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5qFVkqKIg_nF8wjdc2BSyA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/69958417

Fabio Portinaro, per favore, puoi rispondere ai commenti? Sembrebbe un import.
Grazie

Für offizielle Namen gibt es official_name
Der tag name ist für den üblichen Namen, loc_name macht nur als Alternative Sinn, nicht als einziger Namenstag