What is your source for the name "Parc Amos Francu" for this playground in Andrei Mureseanu?

In these cases, you might add motor_vehicle=private instead, so that foot routing is unhindered.

Be careful adding access=private to driveways without doing a personal survey of the area. In Cluj I can see that you have added access=private to some ways that are actually access=customer, because there is a business inside the building served by the driveway.

Please provide a source for your edits. As you may remember, in the past the number of POIs all over Romania you were adding, led to concerns about possible copyvio. You seem to have returned to the same editing activity, and still it is not clear how you know all this information.

I didn’t edit the house number tags of this POI, I only removed the generic from the name. I might map on Strada Horea in the coming weeks, and I can check then what the right house number is.

With regard to Strada Lăcrămioarelor 4, Cluj, please do not create multiple nodes with the same addr:housenumber for each scară. These are considered bugs in Osmose, they add to all the things that need to be fixed in the Osmose layer.

Instead, please tag the entire building itself with a single addr:housenumber=4, and then create entrance=staircase nodes (placed on the building way) for each scară.

Please don’t add separate address tags "Sc. I" and "Sc. II" when the address tags share the same house number. Instead, there should be a single address tag on the building itself, and you can mark the Sc. I/II/etc. as entrance=staircase nodes on the building outline.

I didn’t mean to sound too negative. Everyone makes the occasional mistake when tagging, I know I myself have made loads of tagging mistakes in my time.

With regard to this bug, it is readily visible if you open Cluj in Vespucci and then turn on the Osmose bugs layer.

These changesets of yours in Cluj six years have caused big problems: ways (streets, footways) are not supposed to bear addr: tags. Adding addr: tags to them generates an OSM bug. If you look at Cluj with the Osmose view turned on, you can see that nearly every way in the city is tagged improperly. I have been undoing some of the damage, but it would be great if you could help as the original editor.

decisively

Today the trend on OpenStreetMap is moving decisely towards adding sidewalks as separate ways, as this allows for more fine-grained tagging of wheelchair accessibility, etc. I will do some mapping in Campia Turzii and will likely restore at least some of the sidewalks which you have deleted. Just letting you know.

Why have you tagged Strada Constructorilor in Turda as highway=tertiary? This road does not meet the definition for tertiary on the OSM wiki and is not distinguishable from other highway=residential in Turda.

"You seem to have a lot of spare time."

This seems like an odd statement from a man who edits OSM all day every single day and who belittles other editors for not showing the same obsessive activity.

The problem with your approach, as I see it, is that you are not leaving any room for visitors to Lithuania making personal surveys, to improve the map. Based purely on your QA tools you are reverting changes for POIs, while not leaving a heads-up on the original changeset so that the mapper knows what is going on. (It was a mere coincidence I looked back at this recent changeset.) Obviously traveler-mappers are not going to monitor changes for every single POI they have mapped across many countries. Surely you are aware of that, and so it would have been helpful for you to add the relevant tags instead of simply reverting. Otherwise, the result is going to be a lot of wasted effort from mappers passing through, and mere stasis for OSM in Lithuania instead of more detailed mapping.

If you believe the building is "simple abandoned/disused", then why did you revert to building=yes instead of adding the appropriate tags?

Why have you reverted building=ruins to building=yes for Baltosios Vokės dvaro sodybos rūmai ? A personal survey shows that this building is dilapidated, the windows are covered with boards and parts of the building are left open.

I just gave you a source: Brouter. The code is on Github. In this case, the Brouter devs' understanding of what the tracktypes mean is set out in vm-forum-liegerad-schnell.brf.

I have also just spoken with User:Richard, developer of the cycle.travel routing engine and longtime OSM developer. He concurs with my use of grade2 and grade3, respectively, on tertiary routes to represent this difference that is of importance for cyclists, and his own routing engine makes use of it.

"I see no reason to change the way we use tracktype then."

I really don’t care about the way you use tracktype= on roads that presently lack the tag. But if a cyclist comes along and tags a road based on his personal survey, in a way that is verifiable for any other cyclist who comes along, then it is inappropriate to revert it out of a purist fiat that “we have only grade2 in Lithuania", without ever actually traveling that road yourself on a bike.

Obviously road tagging is meant to benefit everyone, including travelers moving internationally and on different forms of transport. These non-Lithuanian users will not know (nor should they need to know) that some local editors in Lithuania refuse to permit a distinction in tracktype widely employed internationally and which routing engines actually draw on.

Sorry, that should have been: "It sees tracktype=grade3 as a road that is maintained, softer than grade2, but not unmaintained like grade4."

"do you really believe this would help persuade them to do the work for you"

I am not trying to persuade local mappers to do anything. My edits are purely made to document the state of a road for the sake of future road users. I then expect 1) my personal survey helps guide other cyclists in route planning, and 2) if another cyclist is routed down that particular road, he or she will agree with my tagging and feel that they were appropriately guided.

"primary use has NEVER been for bicycle usage"

I never claimed that the tracktype tag’s "primary usage" is for bicycles. Rather, what I said is that its primary usage (as mentioned on the wiki) is to denote a distinction between consistently solid and not consistently solid, and after that tagging definition arose, cyclists have appreciated using that distinction between type 2 and type 3 for their own routing.

With regard to real-world usage of this distinction, take Brouter as an example. It sees tracktype=grade3 as a road that is maintained, softer than grade3, but not unmaintained like grade4.

As I said above, even gravel can be soft sometimes. There is gravel that consists solely of stones, and there is gravel that is a mix of stones and loose soil, and there is a ton of the latter in Lithuania. (In June I cycled some roads in central Lithuania that were dozens of kilometers of this horrible loose-soil gravel.) The difference between these two road types has a big impact on the speed and feasibility of cycling, and it should be represented using the internationally recognized tracktype tag for the sake of data consumers.

You keep mentioning "tags in Lithuania" and "Lithuanian mappers", but I am really not interested in perpetuating any country-specific tagging traditions unless I see real community support for these. So far, you appear to be the only person monitoring, reviewing, and reverting, and therefore it is impossible for me to know what is a local mapping tradition with real community support behind it, and what is the insistence of merely one editor. I make the same edits in LT that I would make in any other country, based on what I have seen across countries. When there is guidance on the wiki about local tagging practices, I may heed that (though if it is really different from the surrounding countries, then I think it makes sense to ask in an international venue like the forum or the mailing list whether the Lithuanian tagging might be harmonizing with the international mainstream), but in this case I assert that my edits are indeed verifiable for anyone else traveling those roads.

The distinction I just described has been relevant to bicycle routing for years. I assume that it was taken up by based simply on the wiki entry for tracktype: "Grade2: Solid but unpaved. Grade3: Mostly solid. Even mixture of hard and soft materials."

Obviously grade1 is not usable here, because that applies only to segments of tracks with an e.g. asphalt or concrete covering. The sole way to denote the difference between unpaved and consistently solid, and unpaved but not consistently solid, is thus between type 2 and 3.