Hello there, the DWG has been made aware of this issue and we're tracking it as
Ticket#2025110310000364.

The general rule is that if we map something in OSM, it has to be visible on the ground. Just because someone who writes a hiking guide decides that a certain trail is a nice one-hour walk, we don't add that to OSM. The CAI is not exempt from that rule; they might be bigger than a single guy writing a guide but if they sit down at their drawing board and decide that a certain walk is nice and gets number ABC-123 that doesn't give them the automatic right to record that in OSM.

However, this is not a rule that is set in stone. For example, if the CAI are planning to (and have the authority to) eventually erect route markers but haven't got around to it yet, a case could be made for allowing these relations. Same if maybe the route markers largely exist but there are some small stretches where they are missing. Or if a route is not marked, but it is so well known that you could practically ask anyone "what's this route I am walking on" and they say "ah, it's the ABC-123 route".

I think this is a matter that deserves a proper discussion on the Italian community forum. I have therefore created a thread here:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/deletion-of-cai-hiking-relations/137727
I have reverted the deletion of the route relations for now but I am not saying the deletion was unwarranted; it was only premature and the outcome of the discussion might still be to delete them.

It appears that the deletions are legit; but please cartecarte do provide better changeset comments than just the word "Actualisations" - especially if you delete things, write a few words about why! See osm.wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications for a good write-up on why changeset comments are important.

Dear Linh, the "changeset coment" field is there so that other (human) users of OpenStreetMap can get an idea of what your edit was about.

Your frequently used changeset comment "#hotosm-project-27430 #CanCross #CRC #MissingMaps #NLWildfires" does not say anything about your edit. I can see (after some clicking and reasoning) that you have refined a building that someone else had mapped a day ago; but none of your changeset hashtags tells me that.

Please put any hashtags in the "hashtags" field, and use the changeset comment to describe the edit (for example in this case: "refine buildings" or something like that).

Thank you!

Hello tomassvo, you have managed to open over 60 changesets here in two minutes. I don't know a lot about Street Complete EE but it must be possible to configure it to group related edits. It would be great if you could do that in the future.

Dear jp1212, when you delete paths from OpenStreetMap, please provide an explanation for that in the changeset comment. "Modification" is not enough - we can see that you have modified something but we want to know why you think the path does not exist!

In this changeset and the previous changeset you have modified almost 13,000 nodes, adding a "source" tag. I don't know how you managed to do that as the changeset comment clearly indicates that you wanted to do something else instead! Whatever you did, please don't do it again. I have reverted these edits. (DWG Ticket#2025102710000142)

osm.org/user_blocks/18867

Hi, thank you for the quick reply. We have a complaint from Farys who suspect that we have copied data from their copyrighted maps. You have made a large number of edits to Farys pipelines in the past months, e.g. way/1392283607, way/1416793845. Are those all from survey and local knowledge as well?

Could you send us a few photos of these markers that you speak of, so that we can tell Farys that these markers clearly indicate where the pipelines are and that the data does not come from their maps?

Also, when you do pipeline mapping in the future, please be sure to always specify a source directly in the changeset to eliminate any doubts.

Dear user Waaslander, could you tell us about your data source for this pipeline edit? We want to make sure that you have not used any copyrighted material to add these pipelines (or if you have accidentally used copyrighted material, we need to remove the data again).

The termn "town" was introduced by an anonymous source into the Wikipedia page without any supporting evidence. I changed it back to "place", and now you have introduced the term "border town" in Wikipedia. You can falsify Wikipedia all you want; I have no authority there. But you cannot do that here on OpenStreetMap, hence osm.org/user_blocks/18769

Siehe auch https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gelnhausen-label-auf-osm-carto/135961

Hi, this is not what I meant. Anyone, even ten years from now, should be able to know what was going on, without having to subscribe to a platform (that may not even exist then, or may have scrubbed the community decision). Please write a page on the OSM wiki that summarizes the community decision and in the future when you make large-scale edits include a link to that page in your changeset comment. This is not information that other mappers should "ask" for, it is information that you should provide without asking.

Dear Moldovan_Merkator, in the future it would be good if you could link to the community decisions that form the basis of such edits. If the community decision has taken place in a place that requires signup (eg Telegram, Facebook, Slack) then put a summary on the OSM wiki.

Video available on https://www.deyeshigh.co.uk/#single/0 seems to corroborate new building layout (at about 0:28) though demolition status of old buildings unclear.

The substations do not form a whole that is worth mapping. Instead, if for any reason you want to have access to all substations with (say) a certain voltage or operator in a certain region, you would formulate an Overpass query that gives you these. In OSM we don't make relations like "all buildings designed by architect X" or "all schools operated by provider Y" - we simply add the architect or operator to the individual things and then rely on database queries to generate the lists. Everything else would be too much maintenance effort.

Das hier sind 21 Nodes und 36 Ways, die kann ich notfalls noch einzeln im JOSM aufmachen, wenn ich will. Also lassen wir bitte mal die Kirche im Dorf und geben Protonexus die Gelegenheit, die paar Fehler hier zu reparieren. Da muss niemand gleich mit irgendeinem Reverter-Tool dran. Da können wir jetzt alle mal tief Luft holen und uns in ein wenig Geduld üben.

Hallo Protonexus und andere, mit DWG-Hut auf hier mein Kommentar: Es gibt "blabla=no"-Tags, die tatsächlich Information transportieren, und solche, die es nicht tun.

Das Löschen von inflationären nicht-Tags, auch wenn sie der Realität entsprechen, ist völlig in Ordnung. Wenn jetzt jemand an alle deutschen Autobahnen ein horse=no oder an sonstige Straßen ein snowmobile=no dranhängt, dann ist das "korrekt", aber unsinning, und eine Löschung dieser Tags is sinnvoll und willkommen. Auch ein wheelchair=no an einer Achterbahn oder ein outdoor_seating=no an einer Bankfiliale gehören in die Kategorie "korrekt, aber Quatsch". silversurver83 hat also nicht recht, wenn er kategorisch fordert, dass korrekte Daten nicht entfernt werden sollen.

Allerdings kann es schon sinnvoll sein, auf die Abwesenheit von etwas hinzuweisen, wenn diese Abwesenheit sonst implizit angenommen werden könnte. Banken haben oft einen Geldautomaten, der nicht eigens in OSM erfasst ist. Auf "wenn diese Bank einen ATM hätte, wäre der auch erfasst, es ist aber keiner erfasst, also hat sie keinen" kann man sich in OSM nicht verlassen. Ein "atm=no" an einer Bank, die keinen Geldautomaten hat, ist eine nützliche Information.

Wenn ein Fußweg eine Straße kreuzt, gehe ich nicht unbedingt davon aus, dass da vor Ort irgendeine Installation ist. Wenn aber jemand den Kreuzungspunkt mit highway=crossing bezeichnet (was ich vermutlich nicht machen würde, denn es bedeutet keine Zusatzinformation über die Geometrie hinweg), DANN könnten Datennutzer annehmen, hier wäre irgendeine Art von Überweg, und "crossing:markings=no" usw. ist in dem Fall sinnvoll.

Auch bei Straßenmarkierungen ist der Default auf größeren Straßen, dass sie Fahrbahnmarkierungen haben. Falls das mal nicht so ist, warnt oft ein Schild die Autofahrer vor "fehlenden Fahrbahnmarkierungen". Auch in OSM ist die Information, dass eine highway=secondary ausnahmsweise keine Fahrbahnmarkierungen hat, nützlich!

Umgekehrt hast Du auch einige "yes" gelöscht, die sinnvoll waren; ein highway=track + access=agricultural ist für Fahrräder und Fußgänger gesperrt. Der way/60954156 zum Beispiel wird seit Deiner Änderung jetzt von den gängingen Routern nicht mehr benutzt (kannst Du direkt hier oben ausprobieren: osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_bicycle&route=50.773026%2C7.099181%3B50.771913%2C7.100109#map=17/50.771725/7.098970). Du hättest aus dem "access=agricultural" ein "motor_vehicle=agricultural" machen müssen, als Du das bicycle=yes und foot=yes gelöscht hast - oder eben einfach auf die Löschung verzichten.

Schließlich noch zu "note" vs "description", hier ist es tatsächlich so, dass "note" sich an andere Mapper richtet, "description" aber an die Öffentlichkeit. Eine "note" wie "bitte das Healthcare 2.0 stehen lassen" - was immer damit bezweckt wurde - gehört nicht zu "description" gewandelt, und ich kann mir eigentlich nicht vorstellen, das Du das mit Absicht gemacht hast - vermutlich hattest Du irgendwelche "notes" die tatsächlich eher "descriptions" hätten sein sollen und da sind ein paar unter die Räder gekommen.

Dieses Changeset enthält viele gute und richtige Edits, aber als erfahrener Mapper bricht Dir kein Zacken aus der Krone, wenn Du auch mal zugibst, über das Ziel hinausgeschossen zu sein, und Deine Edits, wo sie übertrieben waren, zurücknimmst.

I think UtterClutter has misunderstood what the "site" relation is for - certainly not to collect "all substations of a certain kind in this general area" since they lack the "single identity as a whole".

I am also unsure about name tags like "523176 : NORWICH DRIVE". Is that really a name?

Dear user Jacksonville, Kartarpur is not a town. Please stop changing it. I have attempted to modify Wikidata and Wikipedia, where this place was falsely listed as "town", to account for this fact.

Dear Grazielly C Santos, in this changeset you have added a "grassland" area inside a building. This does not make sense. Please check.

Also, when uploading data the editor lets you add a changeset comment (like "added building" or something like that, of course you can write in Portuguese). Don't just fill the comment with "." as you have done here, because that makes it more difficult for others to understand what you are doing!