Repariert

Hi, danke für den Hinweis. Ich glaub Löschen war ein versehen, ich kann mich jedenfalls grad nicht erinnern, das absichtlich entfernt zu haben.

Hi, ich glaub Vandalismus war das nicht direkt, aber manche Änderungen waren schon ziemlich schräg... Gut, dass es dir auch aufgefallen ist.

Moin, hab mal ein paar Änderungen aus diesem changeset (und evtl. ein, zwei anderen) wieder rückgängig gemacht, die ich mit Lokalwissen so nicht nachvollziehen konnte. Nur dass du dich nicht wunderst. :)
Gruß

Hallo!
Also ich glaube ja irgendwie nicht, dass der Ort wirklich "Dobbin-Linstow;Dobbin" heisst. Ich tippe eher auf "Dobbin", was ja ein Ortsteil der Gemeinde Dobbin-Linstow ist. Die GeoDB-Daten (Bevölkerung, usw.) da an der Node beziehen sich meiner Meinung nach auch auf die ganze Gemeinde, nicht den Ort(steil) Dobbin.
Wenn Du keine Einwände hast, werde ich das demnächst mal ändern.

Gruss,
f

Moin,
ich finde ja irgendwie, dass die seamark-Eigenschaften da fehl am Platz sind. :)
Vielleicht eher historic=memorial oder so? Ich weiss leider nicht, wofür die Boje dort steht.
Grüsse,
f

Hi! You're right, the change was a bit too early.
Sonnentracht are still refurbishing the offices there, but the surrounding warehouses are being occupied by them already.
I just noticed that wego was still listed there despite having moved out more than half a year ago, and so I put in the new owner...
cheers, A

Hi,
I noticed that you are creating camp_sites all over Lebanon and Syria. I am, however, pretty sure that most (or all?) of the places you tagged are not real campsites, for tourists. What is it exactly you are trying to add there?
Cheers,
f

Hi,
I noticed that you added an inner (exclusion) to the kandalakshskii zapovednik here: way/476958047
Is this intentional?
Cheers,
f

Hi, I noticed that you have marked the eastern approach to the ferry as one-way road. Is this correct? Also, is it correct that bicycles are not allowed there?
Thanks,
f

Hm, I think something went wrong in this edit at the Dover end. Is that pedestrian bridge supposed to be a route=ferry, instead of the node at its southern end?

Sorry, it was not my intention to step on anyone's toes.
My impression was that the tagging of the canal network (as a whole) was patchy and inconsistent, which I tried to fix.
My sources are indeed mostly Wikipedia and the bing imagery (which of course is only an indicator for 'yes', not for 'no').
I'll fix the overzealous tagging if you let me know which canals are not navigable.

I haven't surveyed all the canals on the ground, but I've checked whether they actually are navigable (they're all on wikipedia, for example) - there's no guesswork here.
We're mapping access=* for routing purposes on roads, why not for waterways? Unlike roads, the mere existence of waterway=canal doesn't imply that a body of water is navigable (either legally or practically). I think these tags add usability to OSM.

I'm adding these tags depending on navigability, to allow for proper routing across navigable waterways (e.g. using http://routino.grade.de).

My understanding is that boat=* is a superset, including but not limited to non-motorized boats.

One could even argue, based on the icons/signs used on the wiki pages (the crossed-out rowboat/propeller), that boat=* in fact applies only to non-motorized boats, whereas motorboat=* applies to motorboats only.

Moinsen, gibt es einen Grund warum du dieses Stück der L53 zu highway=unclassified gemacht hast?
Gruss,
f