Please don't create old-style multipolygons for buildings with an inner courtyard. The tags for those mulitpolygons need to be moved from the outer way to the relation.

See: http://area.jochentopf.com/ & osm.wiki/Multipolygon

I don't use a script, I use the 'Update multipolygon' feature in JOSM. This is a mostly manual process.

Automated edits in OSM are frowned upon, so your edits won't automatically get fixed. Your edits are just easily spotted due to the ongoing area project.

My experience with pointing out flaws in others edits hasn't been good, often resulting in long and unpleasant conversations because too many people don't deal well with criticism. So I opt to do instead of talk.

The tags are moved from the outer way to the relation. I process the newly introduced old-style multipoloygons on an almost daily basis.

This is part of the area fixing project by Jochen Topf. See: http://area.jochentopf.com/

If a riverbank consists only of a single closed way, having the tags on the way is appropriate.

As soon as the riverbank has islands it needs to be a multipolygon relation with the tags on the relation instead of the outer way. The inner ways can have tags describing island (place=islet/place=island, landuse=*, etc).

If you can update your script to not create old-style multipolygons that would be great. Starting with osm2pgsql 4.0.0 old-style multipolyons will not be rendered any more. It is not in production on the OSM infrastructure yet, but that's only a matter of time.

You're welcome.

If you don't want people to touch your relations, they shouldn't be in the OSM database that anyone with an account can edit. They should live in your own system to which only you have access.

Have a look at this project currently underway:

http://area.jochentopf.com/

On the comparison map, and in the old-style.osm.pbf file, you'll find your relations. If you improve your relations so that they won't be considered old-style multipolygons, neither I nor anyone else working on this project will be tempted to remove those relations.

Likewise for reverting edits.

If you want to keep those relations in OpenStreetMap you should improve their tagging so they are not considered old-style multipolygons.

Neither the "note" nor "note:de" tag is sufficient to not have those relations be considered old-style multipolygons.

If you want to keep those relations in OpenStreetMap you should improve their tagging so they are not considered old-style multipolygons.

I'm not german BTW.

Likewise for reverting edits.

If you want to keep those relations in OpenStreetMap you should improve their tagging so they are not considered old-style multipolygons.

No, the "note" tag is not sufficient to not have those relations be considered old-style multipolygons.

If you want to keep those relations in OpenStreetMap you should improve their tagging so they are not considered old-style multipolygons.

Please give these relations proper tags so that they don't qualify as old-style multipolygons.

Please give these relations proper tags so that they don't qualify as old-style multipolygons.

Please give these relations proper tags so that they don't qualify as old-style multipolygons.

Please give these relations proper tags so that they don't qualify as old-style multipolygons.

I iterate over the relations one by one using the JOSM todo plugin.

The relation was invalid and broken beyond repair. Having it recreated by someone else was exactly my intent.

I only moved the tags from the outer ways to the relation.

Yeah, I'm working my way up the old-style.osm.pbf issues per country. Belgium had the smallest file size now. I think I can thank you for making that happen. :-)

The tags we simply moved from the outer ways to the relation.

Can you be more specific (e.g. map link) where between John Day Dam & McNary Dam the riverbanks are missing?

I only moved the tags from the outer ways to the relations. The wikipedia tag was already present on the outer way.