#mapbox_editing Corrected tags of the parking area according images of NRW Orthophoto (RGB) and PSM Wiki(key:amenity=parking)

That’s a very fair point, and it touches on the classic OSM dilemma of 'tagging for the renderer'. It’s definitely frustrating when the technically correct tag isn't visible to the end-users who need it most. I completely understand why mappers take a more pragmatic approach in these specialized cases for hikers. We will definitely be more flexible about this approach going forward. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Greetings, McKulkin! Thank you for the detailed feedback.
Regarding the tags: according to the OSM Wiki, the name tag is strictly reserved for the official or widely accepted name of a feature. Using values like "possible way" or "may not exist" in the name tag creates confusion. I initially moved this information to the note tag, but based on your description of how hikers and end-users rely on this data in emergencies, I am convinced that the description tag is much better suited for this context, as it is visible to end-user applications. I will move these details to description=* .
Regarding satellite imagery: Bing was used only to check the physical trace of the path. As for Google Imagery, we strictly avoid using it in OSM due to copyright restrictions.
All edits were made with the best intentions to improve data quality and keep the tags compliant with OSM standards. Thank you for pointing out the local context.
Best regards,
squeaker_andrus

Thank you for the quick reply and  providing such a good and highly detailed link to the article. It helped us resolve all our questions about railway network mapping in Germany.
Best regards,
squeaker_andrus!

Vielen Dank für die schnelle Antwort und den hervorragenden, sehr detaillierten Link zu dem Artikel. Er hat uns geholfen, alle Fragen zur Kartierung des Eisenbahnnetzes in Deutschland zu klären.
Herzliche Grüße,
squeaker_andrus!

Hello, EHCG!
Thank you for your contributions to OSM data.
We have a question regarding this changeset. At many points where the railway intersects with roads or pedestrian paths, you have entered street names as values ​​for the `ref` tag. According to the OSM Wiki, both the `railway:ref` and `ref` tags are intended for alphanumeric codes. Can you tell us the principle by which such changes were made? Perhaps we can help each other sort this out, as this use of tags can be confusing for many at the moment.
Best regards,
squeaker_andrus!

Hallo EHCG!
Danke für deine Beiträge zu den OSM-Daten.
Wir haben eine Frage zu diesem Changeset. An vielen Stellen, an denen die Bahnstrecke Straßen oder Fußwege kreuzt, hast du Straßennamen als Werte für das `ref`-Tag eingetragen. Laut OSM-Wiki sind sowohl das `railway:ref`- als auch das `ref`-Tag für alphanumerische Codes vorgesehen. Kannst du uns sagen, nach welchem ​​Prinzip diese Änderungen vorgenommen wurden? Vielleicht können wir gemeinsam eine Lösung finden, da diese Verwendung der Tags derzeit für viele verwirrend sein kann.
Viele Grüße,
squeaker_andrus!

We have no objection at all if you or the local community choose to revert or adjust any of the separate sidewalks from our changesets that impact pedestrian routing.
Please check your inbox for the full email response!
Best regards,
squeaker_andrus

Thank you for your feedback regarding pedestrian mapping in London.
Our team coordinator has just sent a detailed reply to your email regarding these edits, including full statistics and context. We completely agree that local knowledge and local routing preferences come first.
To answer your question briefly here as well: these edits were part of our general #mapbox_missing_roads project, but we recognize that a dedicated prior discussion with the UK community should have taken place for London sidewalk mapping. We apologize for skipping that step.

Greetings, silversurfer83!

This change was made in compliance with the OSM mapping rules.
In this edit, an issue was discovered during a route correction that subsequently created an self-intersection of another road. Since the modified route was part of a hiking route and satellite images did not reveal a separate lane for this route along the other road, it was decided to make this correction. This was done solely to improve the cartographic data, improve map readability, and, in this case regarding hiking routes, avoid data loss.

Best regards
squeaker_andrus

Hi aixbrick!

You're absolutely right: NRW Orthophoto is much better for improving geometry. However, I only tweaked a couple of angles to ensure the modified part of the building was perfectly square, so I didn't need to rely on the imagery extensively.

As for the pedestrian areas, I fixed the stairway first. The highway=steps + area=yes combination causes a validation error and needs to be mapped as a line. To prevent conflicts, I also re-tagged the connected pedestrian area. Since routable linear paths already exist there, using area:highway=* is the safest way to fix the errors while keeping the visual rendering intact.

Have a nice day and happy mapping!
squeaker_andrus

Thank you for sharing the resources and tips! I will definitely use them in the future to verify these types of objects.

However, there is still an issue on the map: this path intersects with a building. I will leave a note on the map so that a local mapper can resolve this data conflict based on their on-the-ground knowledge.

Thanks again for your help and for making the correction!

Greetings, Kovoschiz!

I apologize if my changes were incorrect. I made this correction because it closely resembled other instances of accidentally dragged nodes.

Thank you for clarifying and fixing it!

Have a nice day and happy mapping!

squeaker_andrus

Hello DaveF,

I removed this path because I couldn't confirm it on satellite imagery, and it seemed to cross directly through existing building and a golf course.

If you have reliable local sources showing this route is active, would you mind updating the geometry and access tags so they match reality on the ground?

Have a great day and happy mapping!

squeaker_andrus

Hi, MappingMore!

Thank you for your comment and additional clarification on my changeset.

Have a nice day and happy mapping!

squeaker_andrus!

Hi, SD Mapman!

Using the ref tag for these values isn't really suitable, as this tag requires a specific reference code or number (according to the OSM Wiki: ref=*).

These names were removed because they aren't actual road names and literally indicate the absence of a sign. However, if this information is truly necessary for the local community, I can restore them in the description or note tag, depending on who this information is intended for (other OSM editors or map users).

Let me know what works best!

Have a nice day and happy mapping!
squeaker_andrus

Hi aleph_null,

Thank you for your comment and for your very good question.

The first question concerns routing. The area:highway=* tag was proposed to describe the non-routable, detailed shape of a (usually linear) highway. This tag requires that the linear, routable direction of the highway be additionally represented as lines using highway=*. This is what is present in this map section.

The area=yes tag on a highway=* feature describes a routable area of a highway, along which designated vehicles can travel in all directions; that is, from any point along the edge to any other. This is typical for pedestrian areas or service areas, where traffic flows without designated lanes. Since the highway=living_street tag also includes car traffic, and in these areas multidirectional traffic is not observed, this set of tags may be considered undesirable.

Therefore, I decided to retain only the area:highway=* tag so that the route follows the linear feature, and leave the polygonal feature for now only for visual reference.

Regarding the central square and the relationship between tags: if you use area=yes and highway=footway, this is currently an extremely rare and likely unused combination. The area:highway=footway tag is a more acceptable option if this path type is more correct. Or, if it's possible to change the type to highway=pedestrian, it is more often used in combination with the area=yes tag. In this case, the area:highway=footway tag would no longer be necessary.

Finally, I'd also like to note that, in my opinion, your display of the geometry of both line and polygon features is simply excellent. I'm a little sad that not everyone adheres to such a high standard of quality.

Have a nice day and happy mapping!

squeaker_andrus

Hello, SomeoneElse2! Thanks for your addition to the map.
Have a nice day and happy mapping, squeaker_andrus

Hello, DENelson83! Thank you for your comment.
In this changeset, the name of this building section has not changed compared to the previous version, only the geometry has been slightly modified.
I don’t have reliable sources for name changing. Please, feel free to fix this name.
Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention.
Have a nice day, squeaker_andrus!

Hi, fayor! Thank you for your comment and the correction you made. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by the use of the outdated satellite imagery. Have a good day and with best regards, squeaker_andrus

The logic behind this changeset is similar to the previous one, which you also commented on. However, the situation here is slightly different, as earlier data suggests that this area, based on imagery, has been rebuilt, and instead of several buildings, there is the large one now.
I don’t have information if the previous address is still relevant for this new building.
I am really sorry if I made something wrong. So, please, let me know if I need to add this address again.
Sincerely, squeaker_andrus.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177810830

Hello, Udar! Thanks a lot for your comment and paying attention to the addresses.
In this changeset, the removal of some addresses was based on the absence of objects in satellite imagery to which these addresses could be linked. Based on earlier edits, there were houses at this location that were marked as demolished in 2020.
I apologise if I removed the actual data. I will return the deleted points with addresses if needed.
Sincerely, squeaker_andrus.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177806941