see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

see comments here: changeset/61766931

Наверное, было бы лучше позволять редакторам высказываться, чем молчать: проект же совместный. Необходимости восстанавливать нет, если существующее много лет не удаляется при наличии возражений на такое удаление (кстати, если Ваш коллега считает отвечать на своей странице обсуждения ниже своего достоинства, можно Вас попросить сделать это). У Вас, получается, озеро прудом называться может, а пруд прудом - нет. Не нонсенс ли?

This is an official list of objects - it follows some specific rules due to sorting necessity. Are you really want to say, that, for example, "Белое 4" is normal name?). Perhaps, the issue is in used terminology? When you say "generic word" it looks like some separate word, but if you say "status part", it will look more "closer". Russian toponyms consist of main part, status part, numerical order and explaining word. Construction of full name depends on unique tradition of each toponym - so it can be done only in manual mode and full name consist of all parts, which are included to name. Many people found agreements with me during work in joint projects: local and global, temporarily and permanent - why do you think, that you are the single, who can't do it? You shouldn't think so badly about you. In any case, I have a fab fabulous idea: you can ask any of your many friends in social networks, whom you are several times made reference to, to conduct the discussion. You emphasized that giving name "Судаковское озеро" to Судаковское озеро is misleading, but it is inclear, why. Could you, please, explain tasks of your third-based service and principles of work? I suppose, that the solutions can be found (for example, supressing of "unwanted" word in post-processing, using tags sorting_name, gvr:code and others). Answers for your questions about lake correlate with the questions. For example, if you ask people "What is this prospekt called?" (asking about Nevskiy prospekt - big street in St. Petersburg), they will answer you "Nevskiy" to shorten the answer, because you previously showed you knowledge about prospekt. If you ask "What is this passage called?", they will answer you "Nevskiy prospekt". So we should appreciate answers for question "What is it?" or "What is this waterbody called?" P. S. Артём Крюковский, let me repeat: tradition/agreement about names of waterbodies was reached and marked not yesterday, not month ago and even not year ago. Many years peoples used it - discussion is necessary for changing tradition. If you have so many supporters, it shouldn't be a problem. But you continue to claim agreement as unlawful and continue bellicose actions for changing names and deletion information about agreement reached.

В описании оригинального тега osm.wiki/RU:Tag:natural%3Dwater про тегирование озёр тоже написано. Речь не о том, как обозначаются объекты, являющиеся с точки зрения физической географии водохранилищами, а о том, что озеро может называться прудом, озером, водохранилищем, морем и т. д., пруды и водохранилища тоже могут абы как называться и т. д. Тип объекта не связан напрямую с тем, как его называют. Если не было голосования, по крайней мере,не следует говорить, что "обрезание" названий является единственно возможным вариантом, нужно допускать наличие иных точек зрения.

Артём Крюковский (if it is better to use your another name, please, tell me), you showed, that note was added 6 years ago in reference to forum message due to hidrography tradition. Why do you insist on deletion information, if discussions about these deletions ended with nothing? "Your" pages about names don't contradict with "my" pages: imagine 2 people, who look at some waterbody. One of them asks: "How is this waterbody called?". Second gives an answer: "This is Судаковское озеро". Answer "This is Судаковское" will be not full, because it leads to further question "Судаковское озеро? Судаковское море? Судаковское водохранилище?". Other opinions about "Вуокса" can exist, because it has noun-form, but word "Судаковское", evidently, has adjective-form and claimes using with main word. Please, explain your phrase about misleading about how the water object is actually called when using generic word. Are you sure, that Судаковское озеро can't have name Судаковское озеро?). I said "stable version" in context of rules of community editing: if new edit leads to opposition, it is recommended to return data to version, which have existed for some time (this version is called stable version), and data changing person should institute a discussion. Names are often divided in databases for sorting purposes - I can suppose, that you met such "old-type" databases. I think, tag sorting_name can help you: we can put "main part" of name to this tag. I understand your idea about construction names from parts, but such actions shouldn't go to ridiculous lengths: there is no unified algorithm of creation "full" names from "main" parts and "status" parts in Russian language because of its irregularity. We can add additional information about structure of name by tags sorting_name and some another (which are the best?), but the only method to write name correctly, oddly to say, is to write name to name tag). You recommended me to go to Wikimapia, but this is not the solution: tomorrow you can go to Wikimapia and say, that I have to go to some another project, because I don't like some my actions. Do not chase me all over the internet - let's better create discussion substiantially. The solution in projects with joint editing is normal discussion. The problem is not in different opinions, the problem is in persevering edits with algorithm "I will change half of an thousand objects during a few days, immediately write an abuse, when someone will try to cancel my edits, claim such reverts as wrecking behaviour, say, that no-consensus-status automatically means my righteousness". I think, we should expect, that world is not only black or white, the consensus decision may be more complicated (for example, with different rules for noun-form names and adjective-form names). But discussion is possible only when other people expect, that world can be black and white.

A questions about local and alternative names can be solved individually, I even don't remember recent cases, when I put local or alternative name to name tag. Perhaps, I though, that it was name and you though, that it is only loc_name - I repeate, that such cases should be solved individually. It is another local question from global question about naming recommendations.

Здравствуйте! Многие добавленные Вами дороги накладываются на ранее существовавшие грунтовки. Скажите, пожалуйста, Вы добавили новые дороги, т. к. по грунтовкам был положен асфальт или Вы просто не заметили существовавшие на карте highway=track? Не могли бы Вы проверить Ваши новые дороги на предмет наложения на старые линии highway, вычистить лишние линии, добавить пересечения?

Здравствуйте! Полагаю для зелёных насаждений не следует использовать описательные названия вида "мини-лес". Более-менее актуальный список зелёных зон Санкт-Петербурга, имеющих названия, можно посмотреть, например здесь: https://www.gov.spb.ru/law?d&nd=8424731&nh=0&header=010000000501#I0 .

Здравствуйте! Полагаю для зелёных насаждений не следует использовать описательные названия вида "мини-лес". Более-менее актуальный список зелёных зон Санкт-Петербурга, имеющих названия, можно посмотреть, например здесь: https://www.gov.spb.ru/law?d&nd=8424731&nh=0&header=010000000501#I0 .