Looks like StreetComplete has been misleading here. If you answer that the road has no name, then the follow-up question is whether it's a service road, which is easy to mistakenly answer yes to, because it's not apparent that the way is already (validly) tagged pedestrian.

Some earlier talk about this issue: https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/159

Anyway, I reverted the changes and added noname=yes to prevent StreetComplete asking the same again.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Tämä muutos vaikuttaa väärältä. Joitain poikkeuksia lukuunottamatta OSM:ssä ei pidä käyttää lyhenteitä, vaan nimet tulee ilmoittaa kokonaisena. Silloinkin, kun nimi on lyhennetty katukylttiin mahtumiseksi.

This change seems wrong. Apart from a few exceptions, names shouldn't be abbreviated in OSM, but specified in full. This includes when the name is abbreviated to fit the street sign.

osm.wiki/Abbreviations

No reply for a week. Changes reverted in changeset #135589055.

Hi,
these changes look like they are made for a temporary event taking place in the future. OSM should *not* be used for mapping features that exist only for a very short time.

The changes themselves also look wrong, because they create a new building on the basement level. Only features existing in the real world should be mapped.

Please revert these changes and take a moment to study the project rules before continuing.

osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_features
osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what's_on_the_ground

Hi,
thanks for pointing it out. Apparently the situation here is more complex than I thought. Reverted.

Larmax's example looks correct to me. Feel free to map away :)

Good point. Though, I would rather use the existing way as the coastline, because it represents the edges of the water. You could draw another way around it to represent the bay, if needed.

However, there's two problems with that:

1) You would end up with two ways describing the same feature. In this case, the bay is the whole body of water, so you would end up with two almost identical ways describing the same feature. I believe this should be avoided?

2) The way is currently not connected to the Baltic Sea, because it's separated by the railroad. In real world, there is some kind of waterway under the tracks. We would end up with an in isolated "lake" of coastline not connected to the sea. Is this acceptable?

No. 1 could perhaps be solved by not using an area for the bay, but a point instead. That's how eg. Eläintarhanlahti is mapped.

No. 2 I'm not sure. Map the waterway under the railroad to connect the coastline to the sea, so that it's correct usage of coastline?

Hi Petsamo, Tolstoi21,

I noticed the same problem and already reverted the tag change. Let me know if you have any concerns.