Hello!

Thanks for your answer and quick response in fixing things. Eventhough I didn't quite understand what you are doing and based on what kind of source data. Yes, indeed. These removed names are official names of public roads & ways issued by the municipality and which can be seen on eg. National Land Survey (Maanmittauslaitos in Finnish) background map in most osm editors and are also mostly signed on the ground. I hope that this open data set is on your list of sources? These official road names can also be obtained from the Digitransit dataset. These official names should override any other names on their equivalent openstreetmap segments. In fact I don't think hiking route names should at all be present on the individual way-object's name tags that make up the route relation. The relations are the right place for these route names in my opinion.

I've now just noticed that all the UKK-reitti segments in the Kuhmo area have been removed from this relation/2505663 UKK-reitti route relation and I understand you have something to do with this. As I've understood the trails in Kuhmo are no longer officially part of the UKK-reitti, but I wouldn't yet have removed the relation there because there's still a lot of route markers on the ground suggesting that UKK-reitti still goes through Kuhmo. I would instead have used the same kind of historic reference as I did with the former Petranpolku ...
relation/12848574
I believe it's just a matter of time before someone starts adding UKK-reitti names or routes in Kuhmo as that's what you still can find on the ground.

Greetings Markku, who is often visiting Kuhmo

This also looks & sounds like an automated edit. Shouldn't those be discussed somewhere before they're done? See osm.wiki/Automated_edits & osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct for details.

"removed UKK Reitti name for ways" and some others - I would add to your changeset description.
With this edit you've also removed the official names for a large number of ways eg.
way/186299607
way/814275503
way/186530672
way/186497145
way/186526636
way/186508083
way/186543856
way/176227037
And these are just a small selection of the names you've removed. I must say it's very frustrating to add names I've already added so I really suggest you take a look at your update procedure.

I've now reverted these undiscussed edits.

For some reason JOSM didn't like my changeset comment that was supposed to be ... Reverted undiscussed mass edit made in this changeset changeset/160611912 that was discussed here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kaksikielisten-paikkakuntien-nimikaytannoista/129300 and unanimously found as contradictory to valid community principles.

I don't think this is OK at all. This seems like a classic "tagging for the renderer" case. There are many different maps, apps and processes using the OSM data and these kind of edits can affect these in different unwanted ways.

We have the agreed rules in the wiki for a reason. To create a homogeneous data set. If you would like to "bend or change these rules" it would be correct to start a discussion about it eg. on the national forum rather than performing these edits without asking anybody for opinions.

Besides who desides when the bilingual status is "close enogh" for this kind of tagging? And if this would be OK then why stop at just street names? You should use double names with suburbs, natural features, POI's and practically anything.

Kenttien alt_name & short_name eivät pysyneet tässä uudelleennumeroinnissa ihan synkassa name-arvon kanssa

Maanmittauslaitoksen datan mukaan olisi kyse vesistökohteesta (niemestä). Lähde : https://kartta.paikkatietoikkuna.fi/ ja siellä kohdehaku

OK! Kiitos vastauksesta. Avaatko vielä mikä erityinen peruste/hyöty nimenomaan noiden yksittäisten pihapiirien kuvaamiseen omina kokonaisuuksinaan taajama-alueella liittyy? Mietin vain kun wikissä on noinkin selvästi korostettu että vältettäisiin "tonttityylistä kartoitusta" ja kuten todettua pihapiiri asemakaava-alueella on käytännössä lähes sama asia kuin tontti, niin ainakin minä toivoisin selkeitä perusteita tällaiselle menettelylle, joka muutenkin tuntuu eroavan "yleisestä tavasta toimia". Jos haluaa asuinalueita ja puistojen/viherkäytävien rajoja hieman tarkemin kuvata niin miksei sen voisi tehdä vaikka tarkempia korttelikohtaisia asuinalueita tuottamalla? Pihapiirejä rajoittavia (pensas)aitoja ym. maastossa selkeästi erottuvia kohteita voi toki aina lisätä kartalle omina kohteinaan.

Ja oli miten oli niin edelleenkin tuossa on nuo kaksi päällekäistä asuinaluetta, mikä ei kuten totesin liene tarkoituksenmukaista?

Terve! Tähän muokkauskokoelmaan liittyen pisti silmään että tuolla on nyt päällekäisiä asuinalueita esim. way/1320130261 ja relation/11265560. Tämä ei liene tarkoituksenmukaista? Täytyy myös sanoa etten kyllä aiemmin nähnyt missään taajama-alueella että yksittäinen tontti merkitään asuinalueeksi. Mikähän tällaisen muokkauksen taustalla oli? Jos tontti halutaan OSM:iin merkitä niin sillä on käsittääkseni jo oma tagi olemassa ... place=plot mutta huomaa että tuolla wikisivulla on noita punaisia "varoituskylttejä teemalla "OSM does not aim to be a land registry. You can add plot data if you want but only where the plot boundaries are actually visible on the ground"

Hello! What are you refering to with "holes" in this case? I guess you mean either tees (disc_golf=tee) or baskets (disc_golf=basket), as these objects are nodes. Holes should be ways (lines) that connect these two types (tees & baskets) of nodes. Besides leisure=disc_golf_course should be used many times on one course. Now the tagging suggest there are multiple courses here with the same name when there in fact is only one. See osm.wiki/Disc_golf for further tagging details.

Lisäänpä vielä että minä jatkoin tällä "löydettävyyden teemalla" ja lisäsin vielä building=train_station, niin löytyy myös tuolla tagilla muiden asemarakennusten mukana esim. tällaisella overpass-kyselyllä ... https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Rc4

I didn't quite understand this combining of duplicates here. I remember I tried to contact the one who did the edits for comments but got no answer. I think the guidepost with ref numbers and names are separate objects from the natural saddles. The ref has nothing to do with the natural saddle object - it refers only to the guidepost. I would say that some of these were also situated a bit from each other. That's why at least I would have liked to keep these apart.

Hieno homma! Eipä kestä.

Terve! Hienoa että OpenStreetMap rikastuu ja tarkentuu, joten suuret kiitoksia lisäyksestäsi. Tiedoksi kuitenkin että laitoin nämä lisäämäsi nimet nyt mtb:name tagin taakse. Se lienee oikeampi paikka tällaisille tietyn piirin käyttämille nimille. Name-kenttä on tarkoitettu kulkuväylien ns. virallisille nimille.

I sent you an message

Yes, I guess the previous object tagging wasn't spot on. I'll put it on my todo list to combine the two objects. I also created a map note of this task ... note/4385596

Hello! OK! Thanks for the information. Interesting! Then maybe tourism=information with some fitting tag additions might be more correct? If possible I would also use finnish language behind the name tag. You don't happen to have a photo of this sign, do you?

Hi! Could you please tell me what's your source regarding this memorial? It's something I haven't heard of before and also the national land survey (Maanmittauslaitos) data shows no signs of any memorial. This is why as an active mapper in the area this raises some questions to me. If there indeed is one memorial I'll be glad to add to other places as well as eg. the wikipedia list of statues & memorials in Kuhmo ... https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luettelo_Kuhmon_julkisista_taideteoksista_ja_muistomerkeist%C3%A4

I guess this is a duplicate with this object node/5008151187 that was already there. "Korsu" in finnish means military bunker.