Hi Alexey_ND,

Please don't perform edits just to satisfy some validator without understanding what the warning is for. Warnings are just tools that *can* be used to reveal data issues. Just because there is a warning, doesn't mean there are any issues. Long ways on their own are not an issue that needs to be systematically fixed.

Furthermore, any such edits should first meet the Automated Edits Guidelines requirement osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

Best regards,
Taya Snijder,
On behalf of the OSMF Data Working Group

Hi,

Thanks for getting back to me.

No, I'm not asking you to stop editing. I'm just asking you to take a few steps to improve the way you're currently mapping coastlines here.

You're right that this coastline is still very rough. It mostly consists of very old imported coastline data. This coastline getting improved would be nice to see. But right now, you're just changing one badly drawn coastline for another. Luckily, with just a few simple steps it should be possible to greatly improve the way you're drawing coastlines compared to now.

Like I said, in OSM we map the coastline at the high water mark. This area you are editing in has relatively difficult coastlines due to its large intertidal zones. The coastline will almost always be at at least the point where mangroves or other vegetation starts to grow. This is a good guideline to keep in mind.

There are also various tools out there we can use to help with coastline mapping. Like I said previously, using different sets of imagery can be very useful. So not relying on just Bing for example, but also using Esri and Mapbox. Esri also has a tool to view old imagery https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=15212&mapCenter=123.85423%2C-16.31829%2C14&mode=explore

Another very powerful dataset we have permission to use is DEA Intertidal. This map uses Landsat and Sentinel data to show the extend of the intertidal zone. https://maps.dea.ga.gov.au/#share=s-cxL0zKsRfCuFvNy1Q8ykgaiYsaX (WMS Links: wms:https://ows.dea.ga.gov.au/wms?FORMAT=image/png&TRANSPARENT=TRUE&VERSION=1.3.0&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=ga_s2ls_intertidal_cyear_3&STYLES=intertidal_exposure&CRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}
(Note there is also DEA coastlines, but that dataset doesn't function all that well in areas with large intertidal zones)

I've used these tools extensively in areas such as osm.org/#map=14/-20.74760/117.41595 and osm.org/#map=13/-16.96706/123.84761

If you've got any questions, please let me know.

Best regards,
Taya Snijder

Hello 5r22,

you are still mapping the coastline at wherever it happens to be at the time the imagery was taken instead of where the high water line is. Please respond to comments you receive.

Best regards,
Taya Snijder

Reverted change to US-Canada border

changeset/178803484

Reverted fictional town

changeset/178803463

Deleted fictional island

changeset/178803446

Ik heb het hier even aangepast.
changeset/178783505

Nee, wikipedia gebruiken wij niet als bron. Ik heb het over het herstellen. Deze tag verbind een object in OSM met de corresponderende wikidata/wikipedia pagina's.

Je hebt gelijk. Wij hanteren de naam die dagelijks gebruikt wordt.

Naar aanvang van jouw changeset beschijving kreeg ik het idee dat dit mischien alleen op moderne spellingsregels gebaseerd zou kunnen zijn. Vandaar mijn vraag.

Wel lijkt het me handig om de wikidata tag te herstellen, en er voor te zorgen dat er tenminste een geldige wikipedia pagina of redirect voor Rozendaalse Veld is voordat de link hier aangepast word.

Is dit puur gebaseerd op nederlandse schrijfregels?

Hallo bnb2022, heb jij hier toevallig ook een bron voor?

Ik zie namelijk dat het op topografische kaarten gewoon nog Rozendaalsche veld is. https://www.topotijdreis.nl/kaart/2022/@195757,449702,10.12

En dat jij vandaag ook de wikipedia pagina hebt aangepast. Zie daar ook de discussie pagina, waar deze naam vraag in 2012 ook al besproken is
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rozendaalsche_veld

Groeten,
Taya Snijder

Hi,

please you're essentially duplicating the wikidata tag 3 times here. Onces correctly, species:wikidata, and twice incorrectly for the regular wikidata and wikipedia tags. These should not link to the generic species wikidata page.

Hi, what does access=yes and fee=no mean in this case? Does this mean that anyone can enter this zoo building regardless of having bought a ticket before?

Hi,

I've noticed several issues with your edits, and I would like for you to respond.

are you sure these names and species are correct? The regular name matches the english name. The same goes for the species. Should all three be identical?

Also in the case of node/13580387980, you use "Water Palm" as name, but then use "Umbrella papyrus" as english name. This seems incorrect to me.

You're using the wikipedia tag wrong. The wikipedia tag should link to 1 specific wikipedia article that is about the object in question. What you're doing is adding a link to a wikidata page, which by itself is already incorrect, but you're just linking it to the species in general. Would you mind correcting this?

Best regards,
Taya Snijder,
On behalf of the OSMF Data Working Group

All changesets by this account have been reverted.
Please see: changeset/178767145
and: osm.org/user_blocks/19825

All changesets by this account have been reverted.
Please see: changeset/178767145
and: osm.org/user_blocks/19825

All changesets by this account have been reverted. Please see: changeset/178767145
and: osm.org/user_blocks/19825

Reverted test edits by user "surajTEST"

changeset/178763098

Reverted test edits by user "surajTEST"

changeset/178763098

Reverted test edits by user "surajTEST"

changeset/178763098