we can do the same*

And now can should do the same with foot/bicycle=no, horse=no, hgv=designated....

Aaaaand we have 1 billion ways :)
way/1000000000

Looks good!

Ein Großteil der Änderungen sind Blödsinn, revertet das ganze und gut ist. Ich sehe keinen Grund, warum man das jetzt groß ausdiskutieren sollte.

Fixed, thanks for letting me know!

You accidentaly changed way/34834082/history , an empty way to highway=service - thus creating 28 intersections. I deleted the way now.

Yeah, okay. I admit that I was too harsh. It's just that when it comes to the topic of bad imports/mass edits, I get angry very quickly. In the area where I'm editing right now, everything is full of such bad import stuff from 12 years ago. I spend half my time just to fix that. Probably 90% of all imported NHD data in Georgia is wrong and needs to be corrected. Many rivers and lakes need to be completely redrawn because they are so off from reality. Hwy/waterway intersections are everywhere. 95% of all imported landuses in Atlanta are wrong/outdated and need to be redrawn. Again, from scratch is usually much faster.

Tags being added to many otherwise empty nodes happened often, and I'm sure it could have been easily prevented - for me that's a case of "bad mass edit".

Okay, if it's absolutely wanted, operator tags can be added to any power pole. But what is completely unnecessary in my view are the operator:wikidata and operator:wikipedia tags. They are simply triplications of the normal operator tag, which do not contain any further information. These tags might be useful if the operator exists twice or there are 2 companies with very similar names. But there is only one Florida Power & Light. Just as there aren't several "Georgia Power" companies and wherever these tags are now suggested by the id editor. We should of course map in detail, but we should also be careful to tag in a data-saving way. I know, at least a quarter of all tags in the US are crap tags from imports, which drive up the amount of data unnecessarily. But that doesn't mean we need to add even more.
Long story short:
I was too harsh.
Fix the empty node thing.
Do not use operator:wikidata/pedia

So has anyone got any objections against reverting?

Definitely not a demolished building with a spelling mistake.

?

operator and all the other useless tags on every power pole and even tons of empty nodes? Sorry, but i suggest to revert this bullshit immediately...

because it was duplicated by the landuse=industrial, but i forgot to add the man_made=work there. fixed way/842248188

Hello, please make sure that your changesets don't cover the whole world. Something like that makes using the "History" tab pretty pointless. Thanks!

Hello, please make sure that your changesets don't cover the whole world. Something like that makes using the "History" tab pretty pointless. Thanks!

But updading that page is definitly a good idea.

Late reply, i read it just now...
Instead, they match the official wiki definitions. It is nowhere written that the Georgia DOT definitions should be used instead.

Yes.

So then there has to be a proper consensus. It cannot be that this HFCS system is taken here as source of all classifications, but not even the "HFCS=*" tag is documented somewhere. There must be a decision: should we use the HFCS system as the source of our road types, or should we determine the road type ourselves using the definitions already available on the wiki? Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with using this system, and certainly not with HFCS tags. It's definitely useful for cases like the one in Texas and as a general orientation. But I also don't want e.g. highway=secondary in Europe to mean something different than highway=secondary in Utah, and something different again in Georgia, because states have their own definitions of importance. But that's exactly how it is when you apply osm.wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)#Highway_Classification . The standard definition for hw=secondary is "A road linking large towns." This certainly does not apply to the road I mentioned earlier, however it is classified as such by HFCS. This road is never in my mind a "major collector" because I see the road as pretty unimportant, it doesn't link any larger towns to the "arterial network" after all, and it doesn't collect much traffic either. I don't want all County Routes to be tertiary either, we have to consider the importance and the stage of development. Not all US Routes are trunk, not all State Routes are primary and not all Country Roads are tertiary. I have already tagged a country road as highway=track, because it was only a dead end grass road into a forest and not a single house stood at it.

osm.wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state) - this is where it conflicts.
For example: way/9053572 The "Major collector road" classification of the road does not match with the description at the Georgia-Wiki page. (not just the linked segment, it applies to the entire road from Bluffton to Arlington) This cannot be considered an secondary road, because it is not an State Route, it does not provide access to larger towns, there are no generators of highter traffic volume - there are a few houses along it, and the possibility that people use it as a through route is very small too, there are enough state routes that people would use instead. The Georgia-Wikipage definition of highway=tertiary fits mutch better "County Routes .... These collect traffic from local streets in residential neighborhoods and channels it into the arterial system. Provide service to remaining smaller rural communities." And the normal highway=tertiary wiki definition fits even more. "Outside urban areas, tertiary roads are those with low to moderate traffic which link smaller settlements such as villages or hamlets." This is exactly what the mentioned road is. I don't think we should blindly use these HFCS classifications for everything, as they does not always make sense.