Or rather - I haven't missed the balconies, but missed to check if the alignment is correct.

In the past few days I've replaced hundreds of old Bing traces, some were over a decade old and fairly inaccurate. The Tampere city part does have much better tracings though, unsurprisingly.

I wasn't aware imports have to be discussed before hand, I've not come across that in the wiki anywhere.

These are from Tampere City open database, which are - at least from what I found - Creative Commons Attribution 4.0, which should be alright. The database links to a page, which says this:

"You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.

Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits."

I've read previously SOMEWHERE that a source tag on the imported item and/or in the changeset should be enough to be legally considered a apropriate credit for the data for OSM use.

So far I've tried to check the 2025 aerial imagery when importing buildings and other data, and I've done some edits to them to add things missing (mostly balconies etc.). I may have missed some, as there are... quite a few buildings and things here and there.

I go over previous edits regularly through the process to add things and fixes as I notice them. It's not really feasible to import all the data at one time and then check every single item at the same time. Like mentioned above, I go over the imported items continuously as well as do "traditional" edits on the side to keep my sanity.

All in all, as an open source project, you are free to fix any issues you notice and help us get a properly accurate map :)

PS. Aerial imagery is fine, but there are also issues in using it at times. The city vector data for outlines is the ground level outline, it doesn't take the roof extensions into account for the most parts. The 2025 imagery is aligned pretty well and corrected for distortion as well, but there are some spots where I've noticed it's not exact either.

I've personally chosen to use the ground level outline, as that seems to be what was used in the case of data imports for Japan - but if there's a discussion somewhere in the Wiki mentioning that the roof edge is to be considered the "correct" for building outlines, it's not a big thing to add those to the imported buildings as I go along.

It's fine, and was frankly warranted. I was way too tired yesterday and had too much of a "get it done-itis" and I wasn't paying enough attention to what I was doing.

A worthy lesson and a reminder in this case.

Thank you very much for the diligence and effort :)

And my apologies for the trouble.

Hopefully you won't have to walk behind me cleaning too much in the future :)

I have noticed as well that people don't mark sources that often. From now on I will check the changeset sources more carefully to see that I don't end up deleting sourced information.

And please do; I don't own the edits and as I do them in masses, more accurate data is always better than my mass uploads. I apreciate fixes and repairs, especially when I've ended up making a mess of things :)

I have revised my work method a bit to take more existing information into account. Previous imports I've done were more rural, so there were some loopholes in the process that caused a bit of a mess. Hopefully it won't happen again in the future, or at least happens less.

I've fixed some of the relations in that area, but if you're going to be bringing back data to that area, it's probably better if you handle that area. I'll keep me updates more towards Kangasala for now.

I am currently working the M4212L-tile from NRL.fi, so that gives you the rough maximum extend of the imports I am bringing in.

Good to know, I suspect I might have not noticed to check those properly in the nature reserve - considering I didn't notice I added them to a wrong relation as well.

I have mainly removed unsourced and "source=bing" bare rocks that are misaligned etc. from other areas, but I will take your point into account in the next import and check more diligently in the future before removing already placed features in highly traced areas.

Which ones were higher quality? Like I replied to you in the messages, I mainly replace unsourced or less accurate versions, where MML data > something random.

Openstreetmap is a open, group effort. You don't own what you've marked. I add thousands of things at a time, I don't "replace" handmade features. Plenty of new stuff there.

Nature reserve is an error, some of them got grouped to the nature reserve instead of the forest in error. I haven't had time to fix it yet. Because like I said, there's thousands of imports at a time.

Looks like an office, but I don't know further than that. It also seems they might have moved.

Excellent question! This was done when I wasn't quite sure about the tagging (still am not, but more than back then!). It's a business that does landscaping.

Thank you very much!

You are correct, should be mml:class=39110 and then a separate tag for the source.

Seems there was an error writing the tags for import that I missed. Will be a few days bwfore I am able to fix this.

Thank you! I had issues with this as JOSM refused to fix the problem and I couldn't figure out where the problem was to begin with!

Thank you! I had not found this article before! The Wiki is pretty confusing when it comes to details like this.

I think a great number of the parking lots in the city that I've added need to be revised and checked... I'll have to add that to my to-do list.

Ah, it was actually just in one of them.

Is the regular tagging scheme to tag the operator only, if it's a business parking lot?

Why have you marked the parking as building=yes, when they are surface parkings and not buildings?

Removed and taken care of.

Oh, sorry, I was thinking/testing of alternative ways to mark this random shop and trying to figure out what it is - forgot to remove this, as it doesn't mean anything sensible in this comment. Thank you for noticing!

Roger! Must have misread it at some point and have just used it accidentally instead.

Hey, thank you! Must have been an error in the script, that is odd tagging indeed. Will change!

Accidental tag; probably was supposed to be "name:en=ALLIQ"