iD and its quirks is not the authority on OSM tags. You can learn about standard tagging from the OSM Wiki and from mapping across different parts of the world. If a mapper selects “School building” in iD, and that produces only a building=school tag, it is still the mapper’s responsibility to add the amenity=school tag somewhere manually.

If there is an operating school here, then there should be an amenity=school tag somewhere. Either on the building, on a node placed within the building, or on an area traced around the building. So, please add it. Your deletion of the tag was a destructive edit.

Why did you remove the amenity=school tag from this school?

way/196047697

Is this a mistake? Otherwise, if the school is no longer operating, it is good to remove the tag, but add a node inside the building tagged disused:amenity=school so that other mappers won't mistakenly add a new amenity=school tag.

What is the source for the religion=jewish tag that you added on this way?

way/460213113

I fixed this in changeset/184008811, but obviously this is a fix that you could have made yourself (you can see from the name=sr-Latn tag that the name= tag is a misspelling).

Slučajno. Hvala.

Please do not add wild-camping places to OSM. Those are non-verifiable and they belong on another database, like iOverlander. The camping_site tag on OpenStreetMap is only for campsites that are official in some way.

Please do not create bus stops with foreign-language names. You added here "Van to Cluj Napoca", but name= tags in Romanian should be in the local language, and in any event, this not the official name of this stop. You could help the community by retagging this.

Please do not add wild-camping sites to OSM. They belong on some other database like iOverlander. OSM only maps campsites that are official or recognized in some way.

MenKauRa, this changeset was made from JOSM. That application normally warns, before you upload the changeset, about empty nodes in the Validation pane on the right side of the screen. Do you have that turned on?

When you are editing existing POIs that have the inappropriate backslash character, do not upload the changeset until you have deleted the backslash.

A formal complaint has now been filed with the Data Working Group.

My comments about lanes have nothing to do with routing systems (only the tracktype=grade1 comment involved routing). Rather it is based on experience mapping in various other countries that have much more detailed lane tagging than Romania, and so I immediately recognized lanes=1 as a more primitive stage of mapping. Once the lanes:forward and lanes:backward tags are implemented, your lanes=1 tag (if not changed there and then, as JOSM will warn about it) will generate a bug in the Osmose layer, i.e. making work for other mappers.

My commenting on your changeset is not meant as harsh criticism, but rather encouragement to join me and other mappers in remedying these problems. This is normal practice on OSM, which does draw on unpaid, volunteer efforts but is used by myriad data consumers, and so we need to take our work seriously.

As I mentioned, the marking of lanes derives from the directions of traffic flows,[0] not road width, and the aforementioned tertiary roads have traffic in two directions, they are not oneway. As countries (even ones with comparably narrow roads to Romania) increasingly tag highways with the appropriate lanes:forward=1, lanes:backward=1 tags, the use of lanes=1 is gradually disappearing because it does not validate.

I don’t advise using the narrow= tag unless the official European signage for a narrow road is present. Otherwise, it is arguably nonverifiable. Of course, width= would be a verifiable and appropriate tag.

I’ll mention here two other problems I noticed in this region that have occasionally resulted from your changesets. There are a lot of highway=living_street for ways leading to a single home or two. These should generally be retagged. In the last several years, consensus has evolved towards not using highway=living_street in the EU unless the official EU signage for a living street is present.

Secondly, there are instances of unpaved and rough highway=track that have tracktype=grade1. This is incorrect for tracks that do not have a sealed surface such as asphalt or concrete. This error has real-world effects, as a bicycle router will send cyclists down tracks mapped as grade1. I personally don’t mind being directed down a brutally rough and muddy route, because I travel precisely to improve OSM, but imagine how the average cyclist feels.

[0] osm.wiki/Lanes#Two_driving_directions

[1] tracktype=*#Values

Hello Ionut. In this changeset you erroneously changed lanes=2 to lanes=1 for a tertiary highway that is not oneway. This is always incorrect tagging in Romania: there are two directions in which traffic flows, so the implicit values should be lanes:forward=1 and lanes:backward=1, and the lanes= tag (which must be the total of these two lanes) must be 2.

If there are no lane markings, on a road, then use the lane_marking=no tag, but do not change the value of the lanes= tag. If the road is so narrow that only one direction of traffic can flow at a time, as is common on bridges, then leave lanes=2 but add the narrow=yes tag (usually in Romania the official European signage for a narrow bidirectional road is present).

These last two days cycling across northwestern Muntenia and northeastern Oltenia, I have encountered a large number of bidirectional roads that are incorrectly tagged lanes=1. I suspect that many of these are your doing, because you are among the most active mappers in the region. I would be grateful if you could avoid this tagging practice in future, and clean up whatever errors you notice on the map.

* myriad data consumers around the world

You have been told (already in 2024)[0] that use of the backslash is not appropriate tagging, and that a cleanup operation is now under way by another user to repair the thousands of errors you have introduced[1]. I am formally commenting here to ask you to cease using the backslash tag in this way.

If you continue to add name= tags with a backslash, I will refer this matter to the Data Working Group with a request that you be blocked from editing OSM for some time.

Editing OSM comes with great responsibility to understand the software ecosystem around the project, and the fact that myriad data consumers around the work use OSM data and expect a certain consistency in tagging. Your belief that your form of tagging is useful and necessary is uninformed, as explained to you in 2024, and you have consistently refused to learn about the community of which you are part.

[0] https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/concerns-about-azerbaijan/113039

[1] https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-proposal-for-bulk-name-changing-in-azerbaijan-prepared-with-ai-assistance/144111

I exported from Overpass API only those churches where the name tag equals "Biserica". I then deleted those name tags, and the corresponding name tags in German, Hungarian, Russian, etc. Ditto for cemeteries.

This kind of change is not controversial and is regularly done all over the world. See the " Name is the name only" page at OSM wiki, which is universally applicable and does not call for consulting with any local group (and if someone did object, I would escalate to the DWG ans point to the same guidelines and universal practices.) Someone should have already run this change for Romania long ago.

If someone is looking for a church in a region, then their map software should match the amenity=place_or_worship tag and its subtags, not a name= tag set to a generic value.

Next time I should walk around the entire site before deleting! I have restored the parking, but I have changed the outline to reflect that only part of the land is still parking, while the rest is now vacant land for sale.

I personally surveyed this place today and it is no longer a functioning parking site. The owner has put the property up for sale, and in the meantime the land is not being used at all, so landuse=brownfield is the appropriate tagging.