Hi Bobby,

in your edits, I saw several tags like "bobby444:schema" - could you explain what it means? It's very uncommon to put ones username in a tag.

And: the tags like "pattern_saturday:interval" are not used in any other place.
The usual key for this is "interval:saturday".
Could you change that?

Jan

Der ehemalige Weg an sich ist wohl keine erhaltenswerte Information, auch wenn er im Augenblick in der Datenbank bleiben sollte als Markierung, dass die Luftbilder nicht mehr stimmen.
Für so etwas nehme ich eher not: als removed:.
Ich habe den Weg aber auch nur umgetagged, weil ich die anderen Tags entfernt habe, die jetzt überhaupt keine Bedeutung mehr haben, z.B. dein ehemaliges survey:date.
Jan

Hi,
you added the key "yares" on this road. It's not used in any other place, what does it mean?

Jan

Hi,
could you check this way? The tag "basc" looks like a mistake.
way/231719753

Cheers, Jan

Hi,
it looks like this import of 405 nodes went wrong. All these nodes have many tags, but none of them uses a known key. Could you check that?

And: There is no information about the source. "esri World Imagery" is obviously wrong.

Hi,
you used the tag "buildings:name" on 53 ways. Could you fix the spelling? It's "building:name".

Thanks, Jan

Hi,
could you check the tagging of 62 ways? It's "construction", not "constuction".

Thanks, Jan

Hi,
it looks like there are several things wrong with this import.

1) Could you point me to the page detailing how this import is done? It has to exist according to the Import Guidelines

2) Sources have to be clearly stated in the changeset. A tag "notas" asking to respect licenses is not how OSM works. Did you actually make sure that the license of your data is compatible with ODbL?

3) There are many overlapping buildings

4) There are many tags which don't seem to belong into OSM:
NUMERO_MEZ=0
NUMERO_PIS=1
NUMERO_SEM=0
NUMERO_SOT=0
editor=opengislab
fid=77
notas=por favor respete las licencias de información y de los créditos correspondientes a las fuentes originales, y a osm en s

Wie du schon schreibst, solche speziellen Konstrukte sind von vielen Tools nicht komplett unterstützt. Deswegen immer so einfach wie möglich taggen. Das Wiki gibt dort ja auch gleich drei verschiedene Taggingmöglichkeiten.
Diese scheinen auch alle keine Verbreitung zu haben.
type=restriction:XY gibt es keine 100 Mal.
osm.wiki/Tag:restriction:hgv=... gibt es zumindest 400 Mal.

Da ist fehlende Unterstützung kein Wunder.
Aber was genau funktioniert an dieser Kreuzung nicht?

Hi,
could you explain the meaning of the tag "truks_residential yes"? This is not used in any other place.
Thanks, Jan

Hi,
you added the tag "recycling:Olio_usato" here. What kind of oil is it? We do have the tags "recycling:cooking_oil" or "recycling:motor_oil" to be more precise.

Jan

Typically toilets do use other tags.
For example:

hand_wash_point -> toilets:handwashing
how_many_chambers -> toilets:num_chambers
type_of_toilet -> toilets:disposal

Hi,
the tag "gender_type" is not common. OSM uses "gender=male/female/mixed".

the tag "type" is not used for schools. We do use "school=*" or "isced:level".

Hi,
the tags "cost_per_litre", "cost_per_liter" and "cost_in_ksh" do not fit to our usual tags.

OSM knows fee = yes/no as well as charge=*

The tag "village" is not common as well. To note the location we use "is_in=*:..."

Hi,
there are some nodes which seem to be imported error markers from your software.
For example:
node/5604444613

I saw these mistakes by many people working at Mapbox - could you try to get your companies workflow fixed?

Jan

Hi,
perfect that you take care. In total I found 50 different tags which are not used in any other place. Most of them can easily be changed to common and documented keys.
Just send me a message if I can assist in any way.
Jan

Hi,
I think there are several issues here. First, all buildings are mapped twice, for example:
way/586368852
way/586355996
These are two ways for the same building. One should be removed. In total there are 1339 of these errors in the village. In JOSM you can run the validator to point out such issues.

Additionally, there are a few relations like this one:
relation/8279645
It doesn't look like the tags on them serve any purpose. There are :
altezza_vo
cediuv
classid
porzione
tipo_porz
In my opinion these tags should be removed as well.

Hi,
could you explain the meaning of these Relations? They don't seem to have any known tag.

Jan

Hi,
could you check the tagging of all these objects? It's 'addr:state', not 'add:state'.

Jan

This specific tag was only added due to a bug in the GoMap app that has been fixed meanwhile.