ASMapper, the question above still stands. Please reply. It may be better for you to roll back the changes, but let’s coordinate

ASMapper, you made some incorrect changes to the names, e.g. name:ru - and possibly other languages. What’s your source? Because it seems wrong

Этого, возможно, можно было бы избежать, если бы в OSM выполнялся давно заявленный принцип "один объект — один элемент OSM" (см. вики [[RU:Один объект — один элемент OSM]]), но, к сожалению, это принцип очень часто нарушается (в нашем случае прямо первым пунктом в разделе "Примеры неудачных ситуаций" - это происходит повсеместно с населенными пунктами)

Да, тег есть. Но при таком расположении одноименных, но разных объектов рядом, и учитывая, что часто имена одного и того же объекта на карте дублированы (например, при наличии именованной границы и именованного так же центра нас. пункта) - этот случай двух разных нас. пунктов неотличим от одного пункта. Поэтому в этом случае нужно добавить дизамбиг прямо в название объектов.

153 m peak (node/11342834975) - where did you take its height from? What source?

Fizzie41, why did your revert omit name:ru tags which were present in the latest revisions before vandalism?

Hi,

When you are fundamentally changing the names like you did with the maritime borders here, for example, then it’s not just “additinal information”. You probably shouldn’t be making such controversial changes.

Not much history to maintain there. And not every OSM editor is like JOSM either

Because “village” is a standalone object, and not a property of one of the corners of the building.

In this case it was bad

@cartofy I don't know what your "area of interest" is (and honestly, don't care). But if you paid a slight attention to only a few changes that have been included in this changeset, you would see these were country-level changes (indeed, to the name:* tags on them). This would give you a hint why the very simplistic "draw a simple box" area-of-changeset approach chosen by OSM developers (as opposed to any number of more informative and meaningful approaches to showing what's changed) produced what it produced. But indeed, if throwing off-the-cuff questions/comments at other editors demanding explanations in this form is your cup of tea, this will simply get you ignored next time. As you can see above, I've been nice to you and answered your question first before hinting at you to avoid disrespectful comments. You clearly didn't get the hint ;)

@cartofy Your conclusions were not based in fact, and so pretty much the only thing you demonstrated was your being opinionated

E.g. incorrect stress marks removed. You can diff the versions to know exactly what changed if you need to know.

@cartofy: if you don’t know what I fixed (as implied by your question) then why did you claim these changes were random?

@Jeff Underwood. Additionally, you mentioned a “public domain reference map” in your original edit when you added this boundary. Can you explicitly provide a reference to this source?

Again, this wasn’t for initiating a discussion, but rather for someone more knowledgeable about the situation there to fix the tags based on the issues hinted at by the questions. I agree the form (questions) as an imperative (“just fix me”) could be confusing, but it was the latter that was intended.

Yes, it should be side_stream

@SomeoneElse - This was not a mistake. Goes under rubric “new/existing objects elsewhere”. The editor I use doesn’t easily allow splitting edit into multiple change sets based on geographic proximity. So sometimes edits from multiple areas accumulate and have to be committed all at once

Редактор, которым я пользуюсь на ходу, не позволяет исправить эти маршруты сразу. Поэтому расставляю тэги для себя и для других

The fixme comment was not intended as a discussion, but as a point to be fixed. I’ll restore it now

Что вы имеете в виду под «выберем все»? Тут отмечены только конкретные недавно изменённые маршруты. А какие все вы хотите отметить?