https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |
I'm going to restore it after his reply https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/55679916
Restored building
thanks for your note
ciao Constable,
In your changeset discussion:
> Was that done by mistake?
as well as your revert comment:
> building deleted by mistake (I guess)
you have encountered again a particular marketer/SEO/spammer.
The changeset comment is, for all the many similar changes, ``added correct info'' or such.
The abuser opens a new OSM account for each hotel customer, adds a POI node and deletes the existing building. The POI includes a spammy self-promotion in the description field (here totally useless); the phone field is in an incorrect format.
Previous revert actions carried out by others have included deleting the added POI and transferring the non-spammy content to the building - which in other cases may have already had part of the info added by the marketer, in correct or better format.
You will see similar behaviour in https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1277045 to which I commented, perhaps causing it to fall from your radar.
There both the building and the associated parking were deleted, presumably because they were interfering with the visibility of the added node - see maps.me attempts in tourist-traps to add, repeatedly, a business to the map and then delete everything nearby.
In the second case I referred to by the commented note, the deleted building was already tagged as the hotel with better info than was added in the POI.
In order to discourage the OSM-abusive behaviour of Verschlimmbesserung - making the map worse in improving it, by removing useful info (a good building outline) in favour of a presumably more visible marketing platform, where a POI in an empty field may be rendered more prominently than detailed and correct mapping, hard to say if all OSM data consumers treat area data properly, I know maps.me appears miserable as an editor in this respect ... Anyway, what I mean to say is I would have carried out a full revert of the changeset, so as not to reward the anti-OSM actions, of which these two examples came to your attention, but I've seen more in the past.
That's just my opinion though.
A changeset search for this particular changeset description could be useful to show the extent of this activity, as well as if any have slipped under the radar undiscovered.
Added correct information
indeed.
Hi there, thanks for double checking my notes/edits. Yeah, I didn't actually notice that useless description tag (which I'm going to remove right now) and I also didn't see that some other hotels suffered the same building deletion.
I'll pay more attention the next time I do see a hotel related note, that's for sure.
Thanks!
ciao constable,
no problemo, OSM thrives on openness.
Just came across https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/55690821 where it seems two mappers are undoing the deletions in slightly different ways.
I think cowdog, the original building mapper, has preserved the useless description and the wrong-format phone number, but Glassman has tidied both up.
Then, I've not looked at the actual map data there yet.
Thought I'd mention this as another example to you, of the modus operandi of this particular map-abuser, as I'm sure it won't be the last you see. (I can dream...)
as always, grazie for all your actual map updates!
Me again, Constable...
Just found this related discussion, where a company has decided that the OSM policies are less important than the business concern of using nodes, never areas:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/55640175
This confirms my suspicions that there are apps out there that fail to find things unless they are nodes.
Whether the deletions in these changesets have anything to do with that or just a simple desire to clear out all the cluttery in the area to make the node/marker stand out, I can't guess.
.
It seems to me that businesses are getting the idea that OSM needs to conform to their interests, and it's no longer as much a project for mappers to accurately reflect the world around them, with businesses welcome to participate so long as they play by the OSM mapping rules.
But maybe I'm being pessimistic as usual...
Hi, thanks for sharing that discussion. Well, that's a little bit scary, hopefully they're the only ones to edit the map that way.
I do agree that sometimes the osm search engine has hard times finding some objects but hopefully they'll realize that vandalizing the map is not the best way of dealing with that.
Cheers