Hello!

No, the area:amenity tag hasn't been discussed anywhere. I've used it to map the areas of big benches, in the style of how other area:* tags are used (like area:highway).

I've used it here to map some benches that are much bigger and longer than normal. Benches in which a simple node placed in the middle I feel is insufficient due to how long they are.
Hence why I mapped them as areas. In all of these cases, because I know that area:amenity=bench is a new tag and unknown to all data consumers, I placed a normal amenity=bench node in the middle, which is what will contain most of the information about the bench.

This is in a similar fashion as how a highway=steps way holds all the info of how many steps are there, if there's a ramp and how, and such; while the area:highway is just for the 2D surface of the steps.

I've avoided the use of an amenity=bench + area=yes because the wiki discourages mapping amenity=bench as areas, and an area bench may have tagging problems with tags like direction= or osm.wiki/Tag:length=.

Although now that I think about this, maybe it would be best to tag these areas as barrier=wall + area=yes closed ways and put the amenity=bench as a way in the sides of the area that you can sit on. Because these benches are just knee-high-or-so brick walls, and this may be a way to better map them so more map styles and data consumers can understand them.

Bones! Ja he fet el changeset d'esborrar les etiquetes area=yes dels objectes que ja tenen alguna etiqueta area:*

changeset/183328306

Gràcies per l'avís!

Changeset per treure les etiquetes "area=yes" de diversos objectes que ja tenen alguna etiqueta osm.wiki/Tag:area:highway=, osm.wiki/Tag:area:amenity=, osm.wiki/Tag:area:man_made=, osm.wiki/Tag:area:power=, osm.wiki/Tag:area:railway=, area:aeroway= and osm.wiki/Tag:area:public_transport=.

Amb excepcions per a objectes amb etiquetes osm.wiki/Tag:highway=, osm.wiki/Tag:indoor=, osm.wiki/Tag:amenity=, osm.wiki/Tag:man_made=, osm.wiki/Tag:power=, osm.wiki/Tag:railway=, aeroway= o public_transport= (per evitar trencar indoor mappings o zones peatonals, per exemple).

Selecció feta sols a Valls, La Riba, Vallmoll, Constantí, Tarragona i a l'aeroport de Reus perquè aquestes són les zones a on més he mapejat.

Consulta d'Overpass:
[out:xml][timeout:25];

(
{{geocodeArea:Valls}};
{{geocodeArea:La Riba}};
{{geocodeArea:Vallmoll}};
{{geocodeArea:Aeroport de Reus}};
{{geocodeArea:Constantí}};
{{geocodeArea:Tarragona}};
) -> .searchArea;

(
nwr["area:highway"]["area"="yes"][!"highway"][!"indoor"](area.searchArea);
nwr["area:amenity"]["area"="yes"][!"amenity"](area.searchArea);
nwr["area:man_made"]["area"="yes"][!"man_made"](area.searchArea);
nwr["area:power"]["area"="yes"][!"power"](area.searchArea);
nwr["area:railway"]["area"="yes"][!"railway"](area.searchArea);
nwr["area:aeroway"]["area"="yes"][!"aeroway"](area.searchArea);
nwr["area:public_transport"]["area"="yes"][!"public_transport"](area.searchArea);
);

(._;>;);
out meta;

Cerca del JOSM:
"area"="yes" type:way OR type:relation

Bones!

Cert que posar area=yes no té molta llògica amb etiquetes area:*.

Això és una mania meva que ve de quan volia mapejar les àrees dols escales i vareig llegir online a no-sé-on que per mapejar les àrees dols escales era millor ficar l'"area:highway=steps" amb l'"area=yes", i aquesta és una mania que m'he endut quan etiqueto altres etiquetes "area:*".

Estic d'acord que l'etiqueta area=yes s'hauria d'eliminar dels elements que ja tinguin alguna etiqueta area:* ja que és redundant.
Ara quan acabi un changeset que estic a punt d'acabar, faré una consulta d'Overpass per pillar tots aquests objectes i els hi trauré l'etiqueta d'àrea.

Cert el que dius. Perdó.
Ara pensant-m'ho millor, crec que lo millor seria deixar sols l'area:amenity=bench a l'àrea i fer un node amb amenity=bench al seu mig.
Així quedaria de forma similar a com es mapejen els objectes area:power i area:highway.

Ara quan pugui faré aquest canvi amb aquests bancs del Pati i uns altres per Valls.

Sí, està triplicat a propòsit, perquè no sé com etiquetar-los.
Aquests bancs són ben llargs i m'agradaria mapejar-los com a àrees, ja que posar-hi un sol node al seu mig semblaria indicar com si no fossin tan grans. Les àrees d'aquests bancs surten representades en el mapa tipogràfic de l'ICGC (són els rectangles vermells).

Com els etiquetaries tu?

Bones! Gràcies per l'avís! Cert, l'etiqueta ele no té sentit que hi sigui a la relació. Se'm deu haver colat quan he fet Ctrl+C Ctrl+V des del node admin_centre cap a la relació per les etiquetes dels noms i els refs.

He tret l'etiqueta amb aquest changetset:
changeset/174641079

Perdó per l'enorme bounding box del changeset. Crec que he modificat vies que eren membres d'una ruta de bus internacional

¡Buenas!
Gracias por el aviso. He rectificado las etiquetas en este changeset:
changeset/172579097#map=13/41.29251/1.24043

Creo que no me he dejado ninguna, así que no deberían de saltar más avisos del Osmose en referencia a esto.
De nuevo, ¡gracias por avisar!

There's nothing wrong with mapping trees as individual nodes if there are a lot of trees in an area.

Groups of trees (either natural=tree_row or natural=tree_group) are OK when you've got not-very-precise imagery or information regarding the exact placement of those trees. But when information is precise enough, then it's better to map individual trees to add the most accurate data to the map.

Hello! Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap!

Sorry to come talk to you about this changeset of 4 months ago, but I've reverted it and re-done it in my changesets 169914060 (changeset/169914060) and 169914062 (changeset/169914062)*

The reason is that the buildings you've added in this changeset are very poorly drawn.

You seemed to have used exclusively satellite imagery (more specifically, Esri World Imagery) for drawing these buildings, which it isn't a bad thing on itself, but has caused many buildings to be incorrect.

Drawing buildings from satellite imagery is not easy, as shadows, colours and perspectives of the imagery and nearby trees or vegetation can make determining the presence and/or outlines of buildings very difficult.

In your commit, the vast majority of the buildings you've drawn are either incomplete (your shape does not match the real building, or it matches only a part of the building), oversimplified (you've drawn a complex building as a simple square or rectangle, when the real shape is more complicated than that) or outright incorrect (you've added several buildings very close together when in reality it's a singular building with a complex shape).

Over Catalonia, there are several satellite imageries available, like Mapbox Satellite, Bing, PNOA Spain, ICGC Ortophoto and Esri. Don't limit yourself to just using one, change to others if you have doubts on what you are seeing. What in one satellite imagery is hard to see, it may look clearer in another one.

Also, in Catalonia there's the ICGC Topographical Map layer which you can trace over and get the shapes of the buildings and other details. And in Spain, there's also the Spanish Cadastral layer that offers accurate building outlines. These layers are not perfect though (especially the ICGC Topo over rural areas), so you'll need to verify them with satellite imagery.

All of these layers are available to use as imagery in JOSM and other editors. Depending on your configuration, in JOSM you may need to go to the imagery settings.

Consider using these tips next time you add buildings from satellite imagery, by using several satellite layers you'll get better results than with just one.

Happy mapping!

* This is in two changesets because I've added many other things that didn't fit into a single changeset

I don't have plans to delete these tags (at least not for now), as they don't seem to break anything and they don't annoy me that much as to go out of my way and go delete them right now (aside from being logically contradictory if we look it from a tag meaning perspective). But I will delete them when I finish the ways.

The only propose of your noexit tags is explicitly tagging for the router (osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_router) because you are only using them to appease the OSMI validator. And actually, this seems like a validator that's acting weird because it only flagged the four gates that you've modified, and not the many other unfinished ways that are scattered in this neighbourhood. This behaviour should be reported as a bug instead of adding tags to mitigate it.

The wiki page of the noexit=yes tag (noexit=yes) also provides guidelines that conflict with your tagging:
> It must be ignored by routing (GPS).
> ## When not to map (...) It's also not a substitute for the tag barrier=* when the road is stopped by a barrier or wall.
> ## Alternatives (...) If you wish to indicate that a way does continue but that you have been unable to map it for some reason use fixme=continue (or any other text) to show that a way goes further but is not mapped yet. This may often be a very short stub from a road indicating the start of a path or side road.

Also, it's confusing that you say adding barriers and accessways is "nonbeneficial micromapping" since you're adding these noexit tags to help a routing software on barriers and accessways.

This looks a lot to me like "tagging for the router".

The reason why some gates have ways behind them and others don't in this neighbourhood, is because some paths can be seen from aerial and/or street-level imagery.
I've added only the paths that can be seen from the imagery. I haven't added paths that I haven't been able to see from imagery (even if, in almost all the cases, these paths are simple B-lines from the street gate to the building).
Should I (or someone else) in the future have more imagery, then I'll complete these paths (in fact, now that I think about it, a fixme=continue tag might be a good idea to add to these gates, will do that when I can).

There are many other houses nearby with partially or completely missing entry ways that you haven't yet tagged with noexit=yes, like for example house numbers 147, 149, 157, 159, 163, 173, 179, 183, 185, 191, 193, 195, 197, 199, 209, 211, 213, 215 or 217, among others.

Adding noexit=yes tags to barrier=gate nodes doesn't make sense because:
A) A gate is not the end of a way, is an entrance to an area or property or a split between areas/properties (in this case, is the entrance to a private home). If this node would impede the way from continue onward, then it will be a fence or a wall with no gate nor entrance, and it would be tagged as such.
B) The vast majority of the nearby houses (including the two where you've added the noexit tags) have two (or sometimes more) entrances: one for vehicles and the other being the main walking entrance. So, technically speaking, there is no noexit situation because there is an exit through the other entrance (or manoeuvrer and turn around at the front garden or directly inside the house, but that's not directly applicable to OSM routing).

And if you argue that these gates are technically noexit situations because the way on the other side isn't (yet) mapped to OSM, then I assure you that I would have mapped the gates differently if the way didn't continue on the other side (because otherwise it would be a disused: or an abandoned: gate).

Hello! Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap!

In this commit, you've added noexit=yes tags to four gates of houses.
This tag doesn't make sense here. Why did you add it?

Hello! Thank you for your contributions!

In this edit, you added a footpath way that goes through the backyard of the house near C/Sagrada Família, but then crosses a hedge barrier and goes to the backyard of another house.

way/1392655165

This seems incorrect. I do not live there, but for what it can be seen from the near Camí del Fornás and from aerial and topographical imagery, there is no way to cross that hedge barrier. The two backyards are two different and separate backyards with no apparent connection.

Also, you've mapped this way (and others within the backyards) with footway=sidewalk (which is incorrect because this way is not besides a road) and motor_vehicle=no (which is unnecessary; otherwise it would be another type of highway).

Do you have any sources that point to the hedge crossing being there?

Bon dia!
Sip, les dues etiquetes són el mateix, gràcies per l'avís, una dols dues sobra. M'he equivocat en escriure-les, perdona per les molèsties.

Els noms dols etiquetes venen de tal i com es mencionen a geovalls i a altres documents i recursos de l'Ajuntament, que surten com "bens" i "masies" (fixa't que els dos noms són en plural, inclús quan es refereixen a un sol element).
L'etiqueta "masia" és una equivocació meva i hauria de ser "masies".

He corregit les etiquetes errònies en aquest changeset:
changeset/166602337#map=19/41.284978/1.263849

Bones! Benvingut a OpenStreetMap! Moltes gràcies per tunes contribucions!

No sabia que el Carrer del Call també se l'hi diu Corraló dels gats. Sempre està bé aprendre coses noves!

En tun changeset has comentat que falta d'etiquetar-hi uns escalons al començant del carrer que connecta amb el Carrer dels Jueus; però aquests escalons ja estan mapejats a OSM. Estan posats com tres trams separats d'escales, amb vies peatonals del mig. És possible que no els hagis vist perquè són força curts. Si no recordo malament, els vaig mapejar en base al mapa topogràfic de l'ICGC.

El Carrer del Call està dividit en 9 vies; enumerant-les d'esquerra a dreta, aquestes vies són les següents:
- La primera és el petit tram que connecta amb el C/Esglesia fins al començament de la casa-pont.
- La segona via és la que passa per sota de la casa-pont.
- La tercera via és el tram més llarg del carrer, al descobert i sense ser escales, que és la via que has editat en aquest commit.
- La quarta via és el tram superior d'escales
- La cinquena és un tram enmig de les escales
- La sisena és el tram intermedi d'escales
- La sèptima és un altre tram entre les escales.
- L'octava via és el tram inferior d'escales.
- I la novena via és el tram final que connecta amb el C/Jueus.

Els escalons a què et refereixes són les vies 4, 6 i 8 ja existents o són unes altres que no hi són al mapa?

També has afegit les etiquetes tunnel=yes i layer=-1 al tram que està al descobert en lloc del tram que passa per sota la casa-pont.

Ha estat això un error o han fet modificacions recents que han tapat el carrer? (Fa uns quants mesos que no hi tombo per aquest carrer, així que corregeix-me si m'equivoco).

Thanks to you for creating the proposal and the tagging scheme!

I find it very useful to add information about sensory accommodations to OSM
(mainly because I'm autistic, and I find some of these accommodations pretty useful for myself).

And you can tell that because the check_date dates in my first commit were from 2 months ago lol
(I had the tags ready from the 1st round of voting, but I waited until now that the proposal has been approved to upload the tags)

I don't think that the generic fuel name is written anywhere near the pumps in Repsol gas stations, everything is filled with the branded fuel logos and colours and such. Although, to be honest, I don't look them much when I go there xD

For now, I've been able to find more info online. On Repsol's website, they talk about Repsol Blue+ as their version of Adblue fuel, which means that Blue+ is equivalent to fuel:adblue.
Also on their website, they seem to say that Repsol's "Diesel e+" is their basic diesel, and the "Diesel e+10" their super enhanced diesel, which seems to align with the tags fuel:diesel and fuel:GTL_diesel respectively (reading from the wiki Key:fuel:* tag page)

Besides, the fuel:diesel and fuel:GTL_diesel tags do also appear in other Repsol gas station throughout the city that originally came from a 2010 import (that I should have looked before tagging my way... ups). I'll add these values and replace the old ones in my upcoming commit

Heyas!
Yep, you are right that these tags are unique and not great.

For adding fuel tags, I used a combination of the ones that are in the JOSM built-in preset and some taginfo search as guidance. For "fuel:blue+", "fuel:diesel_e+" and "fuel:diesel_e+10" I assumed that these are Repsol-exclusive fuel types whose name/type is this, or industry-wide ways of referring about them, so I added them as such.

I'm doing edits on other gas stations in Valls, so I'll revise the fuel tags of this station and the others, and I'll try to fit them more common values.
If I don't find a taginfo equivalence, I'll note it in a fixme= or make a nearby note.

Thanks for the heads-up!