Monster sehe ich hier keine, und auch nicht die Gefahr dass sie zu welchen werden. Ich stimme Ian727 zu, da scheiden sich wohl die Geister. Wenn es nur ganz einfache Polygone mit wenigen Punkten sind (wie hier die neuen MP) könnte man schon überlegen ob gestapelte Polygone nicht einfacher sind, aber wir sollten nicht grundsätzlich Multipolygone ablehnen wo sie dem Mapper die Arbeit erleichtern (auch den zukünftigen) aber aufgrund fehlender inner member oder mehreren areas nicht strikt notwendig wären

Hallo Lonvia, wieso hast du die lokalisierten Namen entfernt? Und ist eine Gebietsreform wirklich das einzig relevante für einen place=town node, betrifft die nicht vor allem die Verwaltung und weniger die Identität, zumindest mittelfristig?

siehe auch https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=74585

Thank you for replying. I don’t have the time currently to trace this area, so I have put some fixme tags, thing is that people will be less likely mapping the buildings if there is something there, and it leads to problems like this (which I probably should have fixed) way/163030521 where someone added a housenumber to the block, what is absurd, there are dozens of house numbers for every single block in this area. It is a misrepresentation to have a large rectangle with building=yes tag where there are dozens of houses I believe, but I can see that the question whether a misrepresentation like this is worse than a hole can be answered differently by different people.

Mappy new year to you
Martin

Ciao Francesco,
mi rendo conto, sono passati 13 anni ;-)
Ti vorrei comunque segnalare che access=no per le strade riservato agli autobus non è giusto in questo caso (come quasi mai lo è), esempio way/22716413, perché la strada è accessibile ai pedoni (sul marciapiede). In generale è quasi sempre meglio vehicle=no invece di access=no, per non dimenticarsi i pedoni.
(Immagino da esperto che sei, non ti racconto niente di nuovo)
Buon anno nuovo!
Martin

even weirder: crossing=zebra;traffic_signals.
This variant is definitely against the documented usage of the crossing tag.

Hi, I saw that you added the value crossing=uncontrolled;zebra to some pedestrian crossings. Can you explain what this is intended to mean?

hi, you added building=residential to these landuse polygons, but they really aren't a building, there are tens of buildings inside these polygons...

Hi, you have changed the name of Frigidarium to Frigidarium-gelateria, this is a description but not the name.
I have fixed it now.

Cheers,
Martin

Hi, you're right, there was a typo in the VATIN, but why didn't you fix it, rather than deleting it wholesale?

Ciao Michele, ho visto che qui hai cambiato il ref=GRA in ref=A90 (c’è già un official_ref=A90) ma nella realtà si trova GRA sui segni e tutti dicono GRA. Con la tua modifica GRA non si trova più, ma per me sarebbe da avere da qualche parte, perché utile e reale.

Colgo l’occasione per augurarti buon feste,
Martin

it should work despite not the whole route relation being downloaded, it doesn’t matter, when a way is split that is part of a route, all parts must still be part of the relations, maybe you told Josm not to keep the part?

guardando ancora sulle ortofoto si vede bene che queste aree sono tutte o maggiormente (tranne delle zone piccole tra le aree) mantenute, forse landuse=meadow potrebbe essere appropriato (farei singole aree, ci sono anche recinzioni, la suddivisione sulle ortofoto è evidente). Una parte è un casale/fattoria, landuse=farmyard. Se ci sei quotidianamente potresti verificare di cosa si tratta e se hanno un nome (probabile di sì).

Ciao,
Martin

sì, potrebbero essere in disuso, ma sono comunque campi o prati (meadow), soprattutto se viene raccolto. C’erano molte più geometrie che descrivenano piccole aree, ad esempio natural=scrub dove è più denso. Ora sono al cellulare ma ti scrivo a breve più in dettaglio.
Un saluto,
Martin

Ciao, ho per caso notato che hai messo il way/130182466 come "natural=grassland", cosa mi sembra molto sospetto (al meno), perché ci sono stato e si tratta di campi di agricoltura, eventualmente o parzialmente abbandonati, eventualmente usati per produzione di fieno, ma in nessun modo "natural", probabilmente da migliaia di anni coltivato. Forse una traduzione scritta bene ti ha portato a questa scelta?

Un saluto,
Martin

Non avendo più avuto riscontro procedo come spiegato e la metto a light rail.

Ciao,
Martin

it’s not about crashing computers, it’s about additional processing for redundant data.

indeed, those network relations like relation/7884303 or those “collecting” public transport routes are also questionable.
osm.wiki/Relations_are_not_categories

Hi Jeroen, thank you for your reply. The “weight” of the relation is not its immediate complexity (I agree, 19 members are easy to overlook, and it won’t produce many versions because they are all relations). But if you look at a typical operation with OpenStreetMap data like geographic filtering to get a regional extract, if you are aiming at geometric completeness you will have to traverse all the relations, then all their ways to finally get all the nodes. Everybody who creates an extract with some country border in it and who wants to avoid corrupted relation geometries will have to do this parsing (will do it automatically), these are thousands of “2nd level members” (members of the relations that are members of this relation). In principle I can understand the desire for “hardcoded named queries”, but it doesn’t scale if we do it with relations in the main database, because all the mappers will have to deal with these relations as separate geometric objects (there are also NATO and similar relations) when in reality a list of countries is probably sufficient
in this case.
Cheers Martin

Hi, I just noticed you have created a relation for the "Eurozone". Maybe I am misgiuded, but from my understanding, this could be automatically computed by evaluating the low profile "currency" tags and combining them with the official boundaries of the European Union? The result would be all countries of the EU which have the Euro as their official currency. Isn't this good enough?
Geneally, we are striving for the KISS principle, the simpler a representation, the better. Relations are heavy weight. Their use should be reduced to the minimum (cases where there are unavoidable to express what is wanted).
I propose to remove this relation.
Cheers,
Martin