Hi, I have noticed you changed the name of the park, what are your sources?

Hallo Kurt Waldhans,
Überlebenswichtig ist das natürlich nicht für mich, wenn es Dir Spaß macht beim Amt zu recherchieren dann würde mich das Ergebnis interessieren, aber wenn das eher eine Pflicht wäre dann lass es sein.

mit freundlichem Gruß,
Martin Koppenhöfer

welche "offiziellen Daten"? Davon gibt es oft viele, entscheidend ist, dass es die relevanten offiziellen Daten sind, d.h. aus dem Akt der Straßenbenennung (normalerweise Stadtratsbeschluss). Alles andere ist dann davon abgeschrieben und ggf. transportieren sich Fehler und Ungenauigkeiten so weiter.
Wo es schon um diese Straße geht, hier ist vermutlich ein track und kein footway oder path, oder?
way/24734950
Das ist doch vermutlich hier:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Viersen_-_Alte_S%C3%BCchtelner_Landstra%C3%9Fe_01_ies.jpg
ggf. fehlt da jetzt auch der Name.

Ich bin prinzipiell bei Waldhans, wenn man den offiziellen Namen verifiziert hat, dann sollte bzw. kann er auch dann in official_name eingetragen werden, wenn er gleich ist wie der "name". Letzteres würde ich als OSM Namen sehen und nicht als offiziellen Namen, d.h. da kann es Abweichungen geben, insbesondere schreiben wir bei OSM Abkürzungen aus.
Entscheidend für den official name ist im Zweifel die Primärquelle, also nicht das Kataster oder irgendwelche offiziellen Straßenlisten, sondern der offizielle Akt der Benennung bzw. Namensänderung.

sofern die Abkürzungen offiziell sind (d.h. im Benennungsakt der zuständigen Stellen, meist Gemeinderatsbeschluss, so aufgeführt sind), wäre official_name der richtige tag dafür. Im Zweifel lieber eine Variante mehr mappen, als sich einen Editwar über den Wert desselben keys zu liefern...

grazie, chiedo sinceramente scusa per la parola “approssimativo”. In effetti mi sembra un buon lavoro, a parte i nomi tolti alla rotatoria (metterei lo stesso nome della via che continua).
Ciao Martin

grazie per la risposta e scusami che ti rispondo tardi (sono stato fuori sede). Sarebbe veramente utilissimo spezzare gli edit secondo le fonti, così si potrebbe tenere traccia precisa delle modifiche e anche anni dopo qualcuno potrebbe verificare il tutto con facilità.
Per i nomi farei distinzione: se il cambio è successo soltanto su carta, cambierei (oppure aggiungerei) un official_name e lascierei il nome come da cartello in "name". Se invece fossero cambiati anche i cartelli è chiaro che si cambia il name.

Un esempio di un way strano nel tuo edit sarebbe questo: 473905460, 473905453 e gli altri intorno.
Sono stato tolti i nomi con la delibera senza aggiungere nuovi nomi? I cartelli, cosa dicono?

Trovo un po' approssimativo anche il cambio di questo nome, way/473905479, senza mantenere traccia del nome precedente, solitamente si usa "old_name", perché al momento che cambia il nome, tutti i database del mondo hanno ancora registrati gli indirizzi con il vecchio nome, e se togliassimo quel nome completamente sarebbe buttarli tutti nel "nulla".

Ciao Fayor, ho notato che hai messo il nome facendo riferimento a una delibera del 2014. Mi potresti cortesemente indicare la fonte di questa modifica (dove la posso trovare)?

Grazie

Hi, I noticed you have remove the tag from the park relation object which declares the kind of relation (type=multipolygon). Was this on purpose?

Best regards,
Martin

ja, so handhabe ich das auch. Evtl. ist mir das amenity=hospital am Geländer hier entgangen (weil OverpassAPI nicht funktioniert gerade)?

Hi DK,
habe gesehen dass Du amenity=hospital von der Nervenklinik entfernt hast, ich würde das dranlassen (auf dem Gesamtgelände der Klinik). Es gibt zwar auch Kliniken Tal, aber das bedeutet nicht dass die Nervenklinik nicht auch ein Krankenhaus (oder evtl eine Klinik) ist.

Hi Mannivu, thank you for replying so fast, I just wanted to make you aware there is currently some discussion about iD sometimes not reflecting community consensus, often deliberately, here is a page in the wiki recently set up osm.wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions

There are also many discussions in the iD github repo, but they get usually closed without impact.
I would stick to “zebra” for the moment, there is no general consensus that the tag is deprecated, at this time.

Sorry for picking this up, it wasn’t a systematic approach to find this issue, just by accident and I wondered why a mapper using JOSM would do this change ;-)

Cheers
Martin

Hello, I have noticed you have added an undocumented tag (crossing=marked). Is there a reason you were not using one of the established tags like crossing=uncontrolled, crossing=zebra etc.?

Hi, I have noticed you were using very unusual tagging on this gate. Please use access tags to tag the accessibility and do not abuse names for it. The name tag is only for names. You have also added a tourist information point on this gate. This is very unusual, and my guess is you did not intend to use this tag. If you are interested in the meaning of tags, the best available documentation is the OSM wiki at osm.wiki
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70690458

Hi,
welcome to OSM. Please do not spam the tags, we are collecting geographic information, the description you provided was way to marketing speechy. I noticed your edit because you deleted the building where you business is in. I have now restored it, please be careful.

Cheers,
Martin

Hi Wulfmorn, I have noticed your edit because it looked like an unannounced mass edit ;-)
From what I have seen, there weren't any real problems, but I wonder if we really want to replicate all tags with an additional seamark tag, e.g. historic=wreck as seamark:type=wreck, for example node/5315203957
It doesn't look as if we add information with this kind of duplication? Maybe the seamark community could decide to use the seamark tags only for seamarks (deutsch "Seezeichen") and use the same tags as the other mappers for the same things, rather than duplicating them?
I know there is a long history of doing it, but if we do not stop it at some point, we will have to maintain duplicate tags for eternity, without any apparent benefit?
Cheers,
Martin

Per esempio gli acquedotti non sono pratticamente mai historic=monument in OSM. Il tag significa una struttura commemorativa e accessibile all'interno. Invece il tag per gli acquedotti in OSM è historic=aqueduct e non va bene su un nodo (punto).

Hi Cristian and thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap via Maps.me. Unfortunately the maps.me editor is not very mature, hence you added the ruins of the aqueduct as a wrong category (a place where you can go into). If you are interested in OpenStreetMap I suggest you use a different editor software. Most map changes are added with JOSM, most users (but with smaller sizes) uses iD editor. Learn more at osm.org if you like.
Cheers,
Martin

Hi GRAB, I have noticed this changeset and wonder what you have been doing. Do you know all these places? Or what did you base your edits on?
In particular I would be interested in knowing what you have been doing here:
node/6269285985
Thank you,
Martin

Hi, I’ve noticed you added ruins of an aqueduct in Testaccio. Are you sure? Because I believe these are remnants of the storage of an antique river port, but I am not completely sure.
By the way, there is also historic=aqueduct for historic aqueducts and their fragments

Dalla mia analisi sembra che non hai trascinato un nodo, ma hai uniti 3 punti (1 di via Murri, 1 di Via Poggioli e un terzo più lontano). Non ti preoccupare dell'errore, è già sistemato, ma cerco di capire com'è successo.