reverted

reverted

"more information available"
What information? If you're really interested in adding the information then why don't you just use the JOSM conflation plugin?

"I have actually done the work required to document and get permission to perform that import."
Intresting. Where exactly?

"These problems such as the start_date issue you were running into could’ve been avoided if you contacted the mailing list as required and addressed feedback before uploading, but I have no reason to believe that is within your capabilities."
Absolute minor issues. It is not worth my (or anyone else's) time to start big discussions because of this.
Also remember, there are 2,1k of such values in the database. Fix those before calling me trash for such minor issues.

"We do have to waste our time constantly fighting you over these continuous dumps of data that you refuse to import correctly."
Now that's some bullshit. No one (and no quality issue) forces you to spend a single second with things I upload. You are choosing to waste your time, you are choosing to get angry. If you seriously call my imports "dumps", you have absolutely no clue. I also don't know what i should further say about this nonsense.

You're cleaning up N O T H I N G. Neither you, neither anyone else who deletes my edits.
Quickly mass-deleting perfectly valid data has absolutely nothing to do with "clean-up".
If this is your definition of cleanup, can I search a random lake where a node is 5 meters off, delete it entirely and call it "cleanup"? After your logic: Yes, of course. And also ban the user who added the lake.

Everything manually reviewed, not an undiscussed import.

- Waste of mine & your time.
No one else edits offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, what do you want to discuss?
- Added to osm.wiki/Import/Catalogue#One-Time_Imports

- ID for https://www.data.boem.gov/Platform/PlatformStructures/Default.aspx, not objectid

- Because I had the wrong account logged into JOSM

"That just wastes everyones time"
BIG misunderstanding. YOU could just let me do my editing in peace, you are the ones wasting my and your own time.

The 23x start_date=1970/1/1 are the only actual problem (out of 2100 overall in the database ... you know). I will fix those.

Important thing first: This is not a "major gas pipeline", it is a abandoned (permanently out of service, in-place abandonment) oil pipeline. (and the size (12") is actually quite small)

The source is data from the Texas Railroad Commision (responsible for Texas Oil & Gas regulation). Their data is quite reliable. There are some lines which are obviously wrong/very rough geometries.
But I review every way before I add it - including the way you linked.

I considered it to be reliable because:
- The northwestern parts of the way align perfectly with some cutlines through the scrubs (which are overgrowing, but also visible on old 1970s aerial imagery, so a random coincidence is very unlikely)
- The abandoned line is in the National pipeline mapping system (https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/) (which is extremely reliable) at the exact same route as the Texas RRC data/the mapped route here.
If abandoned pipelines are removed from the ground, they are also removed from their data - but they are still in there, so I assume they are also still buried.

Apparently, the pipeline never got removed (very common practice) -neither by the pipeline company nor the property developer- and the houses got built over the pipe.

Sorry, I didn't know that "blast_furnace_gas" is a thing. Was in a bit of a hurry there and didn't research. I reverted my edit.

Good to know!
If there are two pipes, then there should be two pipes in OSM. I duplicated the pipe and tagged one as hot_water, the other as water.

Because too few of them are mapped. What? Let me explain.
These ways that I deleted were correct, there is nothing wrong with that. However, they were always only small parts of the power distribution network. (I don't mean the distribution network of North Carolina, Watauga County or Boone, I mean the area in the nearest proximity)
This creates a false picture: it looks as if there are only a few above-ground distribution lines there, when in fact there are much more.
A somewhat more illustrative example: Someone draws in individual parking spaces. A large parking lot has 100 spaces, but only 10 of them are drawn in. This also gives a false picture of reality, and here I think it is better if nothing is mapped instead of extremely incomplete data.

The difference with other things like a mall, where only 5 out of 30 stores are mapped, is that every single one of those 5 mapped stores is still not directly obvious. Local knowledge, the store's/mall's websites/streetview imagery etc is needed to get/verify the data.
These minor_lines are all easily identifiable on aerial imagery, more specific attributes (which are very important BTW) like circuits/cables, voltage, operator etc are not present.
But if you insist that they're in, I can try restoring them.

Should be fixed now

pipeline? sure?

wrong account

Absolutely no trace? Not exactly.
I see traces at ...
osm.org/edit#map=16/41.0413/-75.8542
osm.org/edit#map=17/41.01393/-75.88661
osm.org/edit#map=17/40.99849/-75.89442
osm.org/edit#map=16/40.9632/-75.8646 ... seriously?
osm.org/edit#map=17/40.96823/-76.02600
osm.org/edit#map=17/40.82323/-76.07108
osm.org/edit#map=17/40.81863/-76.21605
osm.org/edit#map=18/40.80277/-76.40589

All these locations have quite obvious traces at the "latest available satellite imagery". Therefore, I'm reverting this.
BTW: You can use "https://elevation.nationalmap.gov/arcgis/services/3DEPElevation/ImageServer/WMSServer?FORMAT=image/png32&TRANSPARENT=TRUE&VERSION=1.3.0&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=3DEPElevation:Hillshade Gray& STYLES=&CRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}" as a custom background - this is the ground elevation (without trees/other obstructions, made between 2016 and 2022, not 1980). Every linked location has also here VERY obvious embarkments (which are observable from the ground)

Also, I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that those railways never existed - they obviously did.

Ok, but that's not my point.
If data consumers want the brand's website, they should use "brand:wikidata=Q38076" to get it. These wikidata tags were added for this purpose: That the data remains correct even if the website changes.

brand:wikipedia got removed from the NSI because it was
1) covered by the brand:wikidata link and
2) was unstable, as some wikipedia pages moved and then the link here had to be updated everywhere.
Now you're mass-adding brand:website and with it the same problems as those of brand:wikipedia.

I thought we had the brand:wikidata tag for things like brand:website?

You should only add power poles if you also map the connecting distribution lines (with proper voltage/circuit tagging). Otherwise they create tons of validator issues (rightly).

The buildings were manually reviewed and thus, the edit dosen't need discussion. The assumption that a lot of the data is bad, is not true. I may have made a mistake here and there, but all in all the quality is very good.

Maybe. Differentiation is not always easy, I considered the majority of the masts small and therefore used pole.
The first example image in the table at the power=pole wiki page is a pole, which is twice as high as the pole in question here. Although I would have tagged such a 'pole' as a tower anyway, I guess. But whatever.

If you think tower would fit better, I have no problem with changing it.

Uhmm ... high voltage "line supporters" are not automatically "towers"?

"So "All buildings are manually reviewed before uploading." from @zluuzki_Import was a lie, right?" No. Read my comments again.
"Please: never, ever import anything into OSM again. It is just waste of your and our time."
We'll see. One could also simply not make such a drama out of a minor thing. No one is obliged to do anything here, so you guys volunteered to "waste" your time here (if you think you wasted it).

"And if you really think that only 50 buildings in this dataset were of such low quality..." Then what? I not only believe, I am sure.

Now what about the deleted churches I mentioned above? They are now just gone? Should I now also revert the entire revert because of an small accidential oversight? Wouldn't that be justified too?