Thanks

Thanks.

Hi PowerMapper,

Thanks for the updates! power=* mapping is one of the areas I don't really touch, so it's helpful to have a dedicated expert take a look!

Just one request--for your future changesets, it would be great if you could add a little more detail/explanation to your changeset comments, about what you changed, how and why. For example, "Upgraded minor line to high-voltage per [SOURCE]" (or specifying a changeset source=*). See osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments for more info on that.

Thanks, and happy mapping!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184523472

Oh, I thought you were answering the first question (about your use of the normally prohibited Google Maps as a source), since they were presumptive derived from that source and my second question didn't mention anything related to those tags, but rather why it was missing a lifecycle prefix (and implicitly, why it rather had the idiosyncratic and nearly unused opening_hours=24/7%20closed ).

Hi Kaarlim, could you explain what you were trying to do with this changeset?

It looks like you took a road from the US, moved it to Senegal and turned it in to some sort of representation of a administrative boundary (but missing any appropriate tags that would define it as such). Needless to say, this doesn't seem to make any sense to me or the several other mappers who reviewed it, so we were hoping you could let us know what you actually intended here so we could advise you appropriately.

Thanks, and happy mapping.

Okay, so could you please link to where specifically the wiki says that? I.e. your source=* ;)

As mentioned, I was referring to the website=*, not the name, at least per what you stated in the changeset source tag. It should be easy to independently find that URL without (at least directly) relying on Google Maps as a source, which is proprietary and of course prohibited per OSM policy osm.wiki/Google

Sorry, but I'm not following how any of that is supposed to justify using an explicitly prohibited source. By contrast, Google being the _only_ source for the name makes all the risks and problems of copying it from them much more severe, both the legal risks (it becomes a de-facto "Copyright Easter Egg") and offers unclear value as its just whatever Google's AI thinks/assumes it should be; you could make that same judgement yourself (I would) in a blackbox without it.

NB, @Mjmcc521 responded on the aforementioned changeset objecting to the changes, in case anyone wants to give a second opinion.

NB, incorrectly deleted highway=* restored and tagged correctly as a private driveway in changeset/184370058

changeset/184370058

And hey @Jfact0ry , I certainly understand your frustration when your work gets reverted, especially without giving you a chance to discuss it first, when in this case these are both legitimate, recognized ways to map addresses)--I know how easy it can be to let negative feelings get the better of oneself in the immediate aftermath of a frustrating situation. What I think matters a lot more, though, and what you should be proud of, is how you were able to quickly move past the initial frustration and use it as an opportunity to reflect, learn and move forward, as well as prompt a productive and lively discussion. Certainly not every mapper in your shoes (myself included) could handle such a situation that maturely, thoughtfully and considerately, so nothing to be ashamed of. Cheers!

Hi @catgirlseraid , thanks for your feedback! Just FYI for you or anyone else following here, these changesets and their reversion were [discussed at length](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1781475481577489) with both @jfact0ry and @Flap%20Slimy%20Outward on the OSM-US Slack, where along with the community, both parties were able to come to an agreeable consensus and take some insights away on how to handle better this going forward.

I won't rehash the >150-post discussion there, but to summarize a few salient points, the general, but not universal, wiki-documented community consensus the US trends toward tagging the address on the "on the ground" feature (i.e. building way) it is assigned to, if there is a 1:1 correspondence, and after giving due consideration to the points for and against, @Jfact0ry decided on this approach going forward. However, as you mention, this should have been commented and discussed prior to a revert. And of course, mechanical edits mass-changing addresses from one to the other or vice versa (such as these edits or their revert) should generally be avoided per the OSM mechanical edit policy and to avoid excessive churn, at least without prior local community discussion and consensus.

Happy mapping!

Also@Mjmcc521, as a new mapper I'd be happy to help you with restoring the removed road and instead adding the appropriate tags, if you'd like. Just let me know!

Yes, without a doubt.

Also worryingly, it looks like the road previously named "Sparta Road" was entirely deleted, on the justification that it was a "private drive" (colloquial US term for a driveway or similar minor private service road). Assuming this is indeed the case, the name should be removed, the road reclassified (as e.g. highway=service + service=driveway) and access=private tagged.

@Mjmcc521 , could you explain why this "private drive" was completely removed from the map? If it is a private driveway, it should instead be retagged appropriately as discussed above. Otherwise, among other reasons other mappers can and will add it back without these tags making clear that it is private--see osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property for more details.

Thanks, and happy mapping!

Hey emnem, just FYI the format of phone=* is invalid here (it should be +1-NNN-NNN-NNNN for NANP, although +1 NNN-NNN-NNNN and +1 NNN NNN NNNN will also work on a fallback basis. The confusedbuffalo bot *should* come around and fix it within 24-48 hours, but just letting you know for the future. Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184278155

> 1) It re-uses the node for the address of the building, building with has multiple tenants. If the POI is to be created, it should be separate.

Thanks! This was what I was referring to with "Swiss local convention on POIs/addresses that I'm unaware of ". Where I map, the standard best practice is to put a building-level address on the building way, with POIs as nodes (also with an address, with addr:unit=* if known), but I'm assuming Swiss convention is different--as each European country seems to have a different convention on this, I left it to local mappers like yourself to comment on this aspect.

> 2) It's unclear if the business has a physical presence at the location. A survey didn't find it.

Hmm, I see. At least according to their website, https://hypnonaute.com/contact they claim to primarily offer in-person services inside this building (as opposed to a number of SEO POIs I remove). Perhaps the office space is shared or not formally signed (which would be a judgement call on whether it should be mapped)? Up to you of course as the local mapper how you'd like to handle it if you aren't able to verify it on the ground.

> 3) It's unclear if the business actually exists (it's not in online databases I checked).

Hmm, well it seems unlikely to me they'd be spending this much time and effort (substantially more than the average hit and run SEO spammer I deal with) advertising a business requiring in-person interaction that doesn't actually exist at all. But I suppose one never knows these days :)

> You aren't a third party.

Note I said _third party_ (which is objectively the case for discussion in question, I am neither you, @b-jazz nor any other participant, nor was I even aware of it until after it concluded). I very intentionally did not claim to be "independent", "unbiased" or "neutral," as that is not a verifiable claim and we all have own own perspectives.

> And guess what I encountered, a whole thread of people ridiculing everything I had done with one user trying to be sophisticated by using the word "audacity" to describe my actions. Defend that.

It could have been gentler, sorry, as @spatialia mentioned. However, my whole point was that it was critiquing those _actions_, as you say, not you as a person (e.g. your golf knowledge, passion for the game, overall intelligence, personal motivations, etc.). And to be clear, your work is not "deleted", just reverted--it could be brought back, by you or others, just as easily as it was removed if there had been any community support for the changes. And multiple community members who are passionate about golf and mapping it have repeatedly expressed willingness to work together with you to come up with a way to move forward on this together.

Hi,

Thanks for reaching out. First off, let me help explain what OSM is, and how it works--it's a map of the world, not a business directory, and your "listing" was not "suspended", but rather this particular contribution to the map was undone, due to the large volume of nonsensical and incorrect tags/values ("Toll Free Number" and "Languages" are not even close to valid tags, facebook=*, instagram=*, Linkedin=*, Pinterest=*, twitter=* and Youtube=* need to be lowercased and prefixed with `contact:*=*`, name=* should be the common name of the business with no "Inc", etc)

We welcome mappers who wish to add POIs (points of interest) for the business they work for (provided they have permanent, verifiable physical locations on the ground). However, If you're going to add your business or those of your clients, you have an obligation (to both the business and to us) to make every reasonable effort to use correct tags and values. Nearly half the tags added here are invalid or not used incorrectly, several being essentially nonsense, which both pollutes the map with junk data and means they will not be intelligible to any data consumers reading the map, defeating the purpose of your efforts here.

iD's beginner-friendly presets make it relatively easy to fill in this information correctly, and the OSM wiki is a great quick reference for what tags to use and how to use them. However, in this case it is even easier, as the other POI you added in changeset/183904578 changeset/183904578 had mostly correct tags with only a few that needed fixing, which I did for you in changeset/184012408 changeset/184012408 . Therefore, you can use that as a blueprint when seeing what you need to change here, and resubmit the POI accordingly. Do note there was one thing I didn't fix there--mobile=* should be phone:US=*, i.e. what you called "Toll Free Number" [sic] here. Assuming you make a good faith effort to get it as close to 100% correct as practical, I can fix any last small bits as needed.

Thanks, and happy mapping.

> I noticed you deleted all of that discussion.

Hi @Hogmite -- I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to, sorry? Both the previous conversation on changeset/182764596 and the OSM-US Slack thread haven't been touched, nor would they be.

> And the combative part was initiated by another user, not me. [...] I asked for explanation and was told I was committing vandalism. Tell me who is being combative in that situation? Just because I questioned the actions it is ME that is being combative?

Taking a look back at the original discussion as a third-party observer (in the interests of full disclosure, I can't recall directly interacting with @b-jazz prior to today, while I do know @GA%20Kevin quite well who has been the most sympathetic to your point of view). @b-jazz led with a cordial introduction ("Hey there Hogmite") and a concise explanation of the issue with the changeset, whereas the immediate response included aggressive demands ("Stop deleting my work") and unfounded personal accusations ("you just deleted my efforts because golf courses make you 'noxious'.")--and I'm not seeing anywhere there you "asked for explanation" as opposed to insisting on your own point of view. I also can't find where in that thread "vandal" or "vandalism" was ever mentioned, nor instances of @b-jazz attacking you personally as opposed to engaging the mapping issue at hand. By contrast, I noted a several examples in the other direction starting from the very first reply, including the above, "What is absurd is someone who knows nothing about golf and obviously holds an animus towards the game thinking they have a clue what they are talking about." "Get over yourself," and the like.

While I understand its frustrating to have your changeset reverted, there is a significant difference between someone (or in this case, many someones) pointing out an issue with how you mapped something, and attacking you as a person. As a matter of fact, mappers like Kevin have practically bent over backwards to be as kind and welcoming toward you as humanly possible, even though they all have a very different perspective as you on the mapping issue involved. As the old saying goes (perhaps even more true in the genteel game of golf than other competitive sports)... "Play the ball, not the man".

Yep, with the Better-OSM-org userscript (that OSM.org is almost useless without), "changeset/179808537" (but not the non-standard form @MappingMore used above) will auto-link to the changeset, although I also include a full URL to the changeset as well in case a reader isn't using it yet (or on mobile, etc). For example,

Removed blatant SEO spam and nonsensical tagging in changeset/179808537

changeset/179808537