Why did you add a highway=crossing tag here when I had expressly deleted it?

node/7683944841

Recent aerial imagery shows no marked crossing there, and unmarked crossings are widely regarded as deprecated. You do not need to add highway=crossing tags to every intersection of a sidewalk and a service road.

Why did you delete the religion= and denomination= tags from this area?

way/1196334317/history

There are *many* sources on Chuvash place names after Ašmarin. Chuvash toponymy is an entire academic field of its own with many individual articles and book-length works. Some of those works are available on the internet shadow libraries or have been published as open-access.

Yes, after I left my comment above, I saw that you were referring to Ašmarin. I would suggest caution here: Ašmarin often referred to villages that no longer exist; they were incorporated into different, larger villages today. But OSM is not a historical map:

osm.wiki/History

so it would be inappropriate to add Ashmarin’s name as the name:cv tag for such a larger complex. It is usually better to refer to Soviet-era or post-Soviet-era works on Chuvash toponymy that were published after many of these processes of consolidation.

What is the source for name:cv tags that you have been adding on OSM recently? For example, when I added name:cv tags to places in Chuvashia in 2014, the source was the Chuvash Encyclopedia, but I do not see any source for your edits.

In this case we are not talking about foot= but about sidewalk. The use of sidewalk=separate tags along ways, and sidewalk=no at intersection, is now widely implemented internationally. I therefore ask you not to delete sidewalk tags, and I will revert your change here shortly.

Why did you remove the surface= tag from this way?

way/173981426

If the surface is no longer gravel, as it was in the preceding version, then you should have updated the tag instead of deleting it.

Why did you remove the sidewalk=no tag that I added here?

way/30287919

The sidewalk=no tag makes no statement on whether a road is accessible to pedestrians or not (that would be foot=yes/no). It only provides further guidance to routers.

Nope, as I said, even if I had surveyed the owners, I would have deemed their use of an English name in Greece, when there’s a perfectly suitable Greek expression for “Test Site”, inappropriate. But I’ll let your edit stand now that there is a source.

Though I still think that using English in a name= tag in Greece is undesirable for a number of reasons within and beyond OSM, surveying the owners counts as a Source for an edit, so you should have written this under changeset/181633625 and thereby we could have avoided this entire thread.

How do you know that this site does not have a Greek name? I personally surveyed this sight last year and was unable to find any signage. As I said above, it is likely that at least the “Test Site” portion of the name should be in Greek; whoever added the name resorted to English and did not respect the rule that OSM names in name= tags are the local-language name.

As I said, the primary name for this POI would be a Greek one. The name applied to the POI is a secondary name. The name:en tag is the appropriate place for it.

No, name= tags should be in the local-language name, which in Greece is Greek. Therefore this name (or at least the “Test Site” part of it) should be in Greek, and the English name should go into a name:en tag.

Doing this and leaving the name= tag blank will also generate a note in the Osmose layer prompting mappers to determine the correct local-language name of the site and supply it in the name= tag.

Therefore, I have reverted your change in changeset/181636643.

Your edit here was destructive. You changed my area:highway=pedestrian for the area trace to highway=pedestrian, area=yes. However, this is incorrect as it duplicates the highway=pedestrian that was already present. I have therefore reverted this in changeset/180913617.

Please consult the OSM wiki for tag usage before making such edits in future, thanks.

Why are you adding highway=crossing tags to random nodes that aren’t even any intersection between two ways?

node/7236282969

I left a note here saying that the new park should be traced when new aerial imagery became available. You closed my note, but your trace of the park is very low-quality. Esri imagery does not yet show the park, so what source were you using? I will revert this change if you cannot create an accurate trace.

With regard to this node where you added a highway=crossing tag:

node/8346414748

I cannot see any crossing on aerial imagery. If there is no formal crossing at places like this, then you do not need to add any highway=crossing tag. (In the past, people would tag a highway=crossing, crossing=unmarked, but this is now deprecated.)

What happened with seeking community support? Did you post on the forum? I’d be inclined to escalate this to the DWG for a mass-revert if this hasn’t been discussed and generally approved.

Thanks, but stopping isn’t enough. Could you please revert all the changes? Highway classification is very serious, it affects thousands and thousands of users.

I went ahead and changed the tagging back to trunk in an area I was working on (tracing missing link roads), changeset/178604688. However, please review all your other changes to this road’s classification and revert where appropriate, as Highway 10 is not a motorway-class road for almost all of its length.