I added a section to the wiki talk page now: osm.wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Destination_details#destination:street_multilingual

Ah, okay, I see. That aspect did not come up in the discussion. Since this seemed to be a pretty uncommon case (at the time I did not find more than a handful cases worldwide) I found it appropriate to discuss on the country list where we were editing (we being Telenav). As long as it is consistent either way is fine with me.

The fact that it was never discussed on the Talk page does not really resonate with me; destination:lang was not discussed there either. I do appreciate your argument for reducing ambiguity by inserting the lang: qualifier.

Hi mueschel -- in this changeset (and maybe others?) you modified some destination:street:fr/en to destination:street:lang:fr/en. I am curious about your reasoning? We discussed this in the talk-ca mailing list a little while ago (see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2017-October/008073.html and the
rest of that thread) and the consensus seemed to be that destination:street:fr/en was preferred. Do you mind if I changed it back to what the community seems to prefer? Thanks, Martijn (mvexel)

Hello apcroads,
You seem to have been copying roads from some other data source into OSM, and your changesets do not indicate the source or the process followed. This is in violation of the OpenStreetMap import guidelines. I assume you meant to contribute to OSM in a positive way, but undocumented imports from undisclosed sources can seriously harm the project. Please get in touch to see how we can resolve this. Best, Martijn

Following the discussion on talk-us (ongoing) I decided to downgrade this road to `highway=primary` (it was trunk).

The main argument is that this highway, while clearly major, has many abutters and related parking and driveways entrances. It also has a bike lane for some segments. Secondary argument is that it does not serves a major connecting function in the road network. Happy to discuss!

It's not chaos :) It's just that people expect a name when they query the name tag, just as they would expect to see elevation (in meters) when they query the ele tag. Anyone who wants to create a map with elevation in feet prominently displayed can query the ele tag and do the conversion. Having elevation in both meters and feet in the data is redundant.

Hi Raymo853 -- tekim is correct, you want to use the `ele` tag to note the elevation. The information in OpenStreetMap needs to be a little bit structured for everyone to be able to make sense of it. That is why we separate the names of things out in one tag, and have other useful information go into designated other tags (like `ele` for elevation, `opening_hours` for opening hours, etcetera. Anyone who would want to make a map with the elevations of peaks prominently displayed can still do this. They would just need to look for an available `ele` value. There are already over 5 million objects in OSM with `ele` attribute, so if we all adhere to this standard, we keep the data consistent. Thanks and happy mapping!

Hi Spanholz. I map what's there on the ground, not for any specific application / service. People looking at the map can see at a glance that there are sidewalks they can use, something I think is valuable. Where connections to the road network exist, I will map them as such.

Hi, no I didn't see that comment, and I think that is great. Perhaps you can put the same comment in the changeset where you revert the change, then it's easier to discover. Thanks again for helping clean up OSM in my area. What tool did you use to find this bad node? I tried an Overpass query and found some of these nodes..

Thanks for helping clean up OSM. It would be nice if you could add a more descriptive changeset comment in the future to help other mappers understand more easily why a change was reverted. Thank you!

Thanks for editing OSM and welcome!

Thanks for editing OSM and welcome!

Hi, thanks for editing OSM! If you want to add a business, please find the location (building) of the business and create a new point (node) there with the information, along with the appropriate business type. Address and business information should not be added to ways (streets). Thanks and happy mapping!

OSM is a map of verifiable geographic information. Please do not use it for advertising or promoting your business. If you want to contribute to OSM, please take some time to review the mapping guidelines, or use onosm.org to have an experienced mapper add your business for you in a way that conforms to OSM best practices. Thank you.

Thanks for editing OpenStreetMap and welcome!

There is a Utah OSM mapper group based in SLC, we would love to welcome you! https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Utah/

Thanks for editing OpenStreetMap and welcome!

There is a Utah OSM mapper group based in SLC, we would love to welcome you! https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Utah/

When an exit is unsigned / only accessible to maintenance or enforcement this is a common way to tag it. That seems to be the case here: http://openstreetcam.org/details/8846/116

Hi scruss -- you contacted me through email about this as well. We won't use the city data any longer untill we resolve this together.

chadbunn, do you have JOSM configured to use Utah AGRC imagery? I have tried and failed :( I would love to be able to use it in JOSM!

Hi wrk3,

I am curious why you delete a railway platform mapped as an area, which is valid tagging, and replace it with a way? To my mind this reduces the quality of the map.