Polish name is another matter. KSNG does list exonym Tylża but main name variant in their list is still endonym Sowieck. I suppose based that alt_name:pl instead of old_name:pl can be considered for Tylża.

Sorry, I don't know what "my" logic you refer to, nor how is this relevant to name:de.

An endonym being used is just the default situtation, solid reason is needed to use an exonym instead of an endonym, not the other way around. As already quoted to you in previous discussion, from KSNG guidelines: "consistent within UN recommendations /.../ original names [endonyms] should be used in all doubtful cases".

What evidence do you have to back this claim? Folks on German Wikipedia in any case haven't drawn such conclusion, and prefer Sowetsk in their article title.

Please don't restart discussion on exactly the same matter that was already discussed under changeset/179825956 (as well as in Discourse discussion referred over there). This is disrespectful to other users. Your question was already answered.

Of course Swietłogorsk is an endonym not Polish-language exonym. This however isn't a reason avoid it as name:pl value, or to prefer (any) exonym over endonym.

Any name:<lang> key is expected to store just the name variant that is most common in modern sources of given language. This is what was recently also established in this discussion (that you are already aware of): https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/whats-everyones-problem-with-name-de/142456

Also, again, please pay attention to KSNG guidelines that I quoted above.

Please don't move historical names from old_name:de to name:de

See recent discussion about such names: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/whats-everyones-problem-with-name-de/142456

Neither is the use of this exonym recommended in Polish language these days (see here: changeset/179825956)

I assume KNSG stands for Komisja Standaryzacji Nazw Geograficznych. This seemingly reputable body has prepared a list of exonyms that they recommend:
https://www.gov.pl/web/ksng-en/list-of-polish-geographical-names-of-the-world

This list includes only Svetlogorsk (Swietłahorsk ~Swietłagorsk ) in Belarus, Svetlogorsk (Swietłogorsk) is Kaliningrad is not included.

They say "consistent within UN recommendations, its is improper to uphold those exonyms which have gone out of use, are not widely known or were carelessly introduced and turned out to be artificial. Original names should be used in all doubtful cases." (https://www.gov.pl/web/ksng-en/list-of-polish-geographical-names-of-the-world).

Hence it must be concluded that regularly transcribed endonym Swietłogorsk is actually exactly what KSNG recommends for this place.

That's a disruptive editing campaign by Ótzï fón GlüϷgor/Otzie von Glühgor, and their new sockpupper account Иван2026. I now reported it to DWG.

Some historical names may be still used to some degree, especially in historical context, but nonetheless it needs to considered which names are actually current names and are common in modern language.

As far as I can see reasons why Wikipedia prefers names that are common in modern language are no less relevant in OSM. Also the data in OSM is expected to be verifiable[1], and so usage in the media or in other modern and published sources is important, whereas colloquial usage (or just personal preferences) is less so.

There may be more German exonyms common in modern language for places in Poland than
for places in Kaliningrad and Lithuania (judging by Wikipedia article titles). But likely not as many as suggested by current OSM data. I believe historical German names for Polish places also need revision in OSM.

It seems to be that people often just don't know how to handle historical names in OSM. Judging by editing history and old changeset comments these historical names have raised considerable amount of confusion in relation to Polish places too in the past, DWG has intervened at least once[2].

[1] osm.wiki/Verifiability
[2] changeset/36561697

These are historical names and were already given more properly using old_name:de key.

See also previous comment here: changeset/175082756

I'll revert this change.

I've reverted this change and related recent changes in this area.

It is true that distinction can be made between German-language words and words that are mere transcriptions but name:<lang> keys are not explicitly meant for exonyms, exceptional names or names of certain language origin. These language tags are used to store names that are just commonly used in given language, and are expected to appear on (modern) maps in given language, which includes transcribed names.

A few users have expressed a view that transcriptions shouldn't be stored in OSM at all because in theory transcription can be automatic but in reality there likely isn't any data consumer that can transcribe names reliably, so that relevant transcription system for each language is selected in the first place and many possible exceptions are handled properly. So if transcriptions were just ditched from OSM it'd mean that language specific renderers would be pretty much stuck with name variants that are definitely inappropriate in given language.

The way you change names is in first place problematic because you present historical names as if they were current names, which is grossly misleading. As I already pointed out earlier (changeset/176862757) old_name:de key exist for names that not current and in most cases names that you add already were present using that key.

Note that this kind of edits have been reported to DWG in the past already have been reverted as inappropriate (see changeset/36561697).

Please not that German-language Wikipedia article that you refer above is titled "Kaliningrad" not "Königsberg". The latter is a historical name and was therefore already provided here more properly using old_name:de:1255-1946 key. Due to your edit this historical name is displayed on German-language maps that are otherwise up to date, which is misleading.

way/978580063 – this way is for protected area boundary[1], as indicated by tags for the parent relation, and protected area boundary is not coincident with landuse/park boundary. So I'll restore it.

User who originally added the protected area boundary made its some other segments coincident with landuse boundary as these are more close to one another around these other segments, but that's also inaccurate, and I believe it'd be better to map these separately as well.

[1] https://register.keskkonnaportaal.ee/register/protected-nature-object/1416

You added several reedbeed areas as islands (inner areas) in lake relation, e.g. way/290242536 and way/290240794.

On maps by the Land Board these are not mapped as islands. They draw the shoreline based on recent lidar data, and if certain shallow areas are not mapped as islands based on this data then this indicates that these areas are below the mean water level. This official eleveation data is generally followed around Estonian coastline and lakeshores.

Note that the latter one of these two examples is even named as a shallow ("madal"), i.e. an underwater relief.

To my understanding it is fine to map redbeed on both sides of the shoreline.

I now kept only the smaller one of two Kulje bays, in its verifiable extent between Kulje and Podmotsa: way/1379845935

Parandasid siin ära lühendi "pkr". Ma olen seda lühendit ja ka lühendit "kr" (kraav) kasutanud Maa-ameti kaartide eeskujul. Sarnaselt on OSM-is kasutatud vist enamvähem läbivalt ka teenimedes lühendeid "mnt" ja "pst". See tundub mõistlik, kuna pikalt välja kirjutatud sõnadega on kaart kirjum kui tarvitseks.

Siin on millegipärast tee (way/53502922) tükeldamisega kõrvalmaantee (relation/2892332) poolikuks jäänud.

Sama veel näiteks way/23636866 puhul.

Kas see on samuse osm-relatify viga?

Või eks või siis esialgu ka teisendada neis piirides rahvuspark Ramsari alaks (ramsar=yes + protect_class=98).

See viimane on Ramsari ala, mis laenab nime rahvuspargilt ja mis kattub rahvuspargiga selle varasemates piirides. Natura ala (linnuala) on veel kattuv. Need on n-ö rahvusvahelised alad, mis on euroliidu liikmesriikides kaitstavate alade seast teatud kriteeriumite järgi välja valitud.

Aga reaalne kaitseala, millel on kaitsekord ja mis on looduskaitseseaduse mõistes rahvuspark ja mis on looduses tähistatud, on ikka see, millele eespool viitasin.

Rahvuspargi kaitse-eeskirja muutmisest ja muu hulgas laienemist on juttu siin: https://keskkonnaamet.ee/vilsandi-rahvuspargi-kaitse-eeskirja-muutmine#tutvu-kaitse-eeskirj. Pindala suurenes üle kahe korra.