Trees are placed roughly based on a general survey. Didn't have enough time for further, accurate placement. They will need future improvements. Rest done based on aerial imagery and Virastokartta.

Hopefully will serve as a future basis for more accurate drawing of the park.

I masy have broken busroutes on Satamakatu - Papinkatu area. Don't know how they work, debugging was a struggle.

Yeah, looking at my notes, I wrote them down when figuring out how to tag them but seems I've done something in between (probably the kids disturbed) and completely forgot to finish tagging that.

I am not sure taxi:conditional and service_bus:conditional are correct at all, I need to look at the conditional time tagging more.

Oh, it seems I did, it must be a placeholder from when I was figuring out the tag for "Palvelubussi" and simply forgot to change it to a correct one.

I don't think I did? Or did I? I have no memory of such tag, let me take a look :D

Well, don't know about perfect, but I feel it's at least better than before. Quite a few of these buildings have multiple addresses, so I tried to figure out a method to do them neatly. In the future it might require a more detaield aproach if someone is interested...

I'll add those in the next changeset, or the one after that.

Probably indeed. Easy enough to create a new parking lot area around those and change them.

Forgot to note; the kerbs tagging is indeed laborous. I wanted to test how much work it takes, as I noted them down when surveying. But it's a lot of work for not much benefit (currently).

I'd probably settle (for now at least) to just tagging the crossing-ways with a kerb tag where it connects the area:highway. This way that data is usable for any software that considers them.

Thank you; I feel it adds clarity when comparing various aerial shots etc. as not everyone uses Tampere City aerials and maps. Easier to position survey data and other aerial data.

When it comes to difficulty... that's a good point. But at the same time, is there a limit to data accuracy? And frankly, I'd hope newbies don't go straight to editing city centers and road/landuse data - there's inherently plenty of things that can go wrong.

But we'll see if this gets further criticism in the future. I'm happy with any decision that comes as a result of a discussion. I'll probably edit these in for a few more blocks in the downtown, so we can have a broader view on the effects and will then bring it to the discussion forum.

Good point. :D

On the Hallituskatu side, in this edit, the landuse=commercial follows the pavement/roadside edge, rather than the current mixed use of following building outlines and occasionally slightly outside them.

Berlin - which I've used as an example of great mapping per recommends by others - mostly does it this way. My next update slightly adds to this, making it perhaps easier to see what's going on.

Yay or nay? Feels like a clean and useful method of doing this, even though not really common in Finland as far as I can see.

Joo, tässä on nyt joku muistikuva taustalla, en kuollaksenikaan keksi mistä on tarttunut mieleen, että nuo molemmat merkattaisiin. Keskusteluissa kyllä selvästi on hyvin eri mielipide asiaan.

Täytyy vähän itsekin vilkuilla, että olisiko nuo sitten vain järkevämpää jättää "sillattomiksi"... ja koittaa muistella, mistä tämä mielikuva oli syntynyt.

No harm done, yhteistä päämäärää kohti ja sitä rataa. Tällaisena sekatyöläisenä ei aina muista(kaan) ulkoa hyviä tägäilytapoja.

Aivan, aivan! Nyt ymmärsin mistä oli kyse!

On näköjään jäänyt huomaamatta tuolta wikistä, että ei merkata molempia samaan, kun on tuollainen sivulause. En tiedä mistä on jäänyt muistikuva, että nämä käsitellään "erillisinä" toisistaan, mutta selvästi se liittynee johonkin toiseen tägiin.

Keskustelu ei nyt oikein ottanut valmista kantaa asiaan.

Minun puolestani noista voi muokata ihan sellaiset, kuin on omasta mielestä paras, katselen sitten myöhemmin mallia :)

En ymmärrä kysymystäsi. Nämä käsittääkseni kuuluu merkata silloiksi nämä alikulut? Tai en sitten tiedä, onko Suomen osalta päätetty jotain muuta. Täytyisi varmaan etsiä jokin keskustelu tältä osalta.

Ah, that's an oversight on my part, I must have forgotten to move them after merging with the existing relation.

Made a quick fix for them.

I wonder if the relations work now...? JOSM UI is such a mess that I am not sure if the relations for the two buildings with courtyards are done correctly.

Yes, I am much more up-to-date with the importing now and information regarding it. I don't know how I've gone for years without noticing any info on that. Probably because I never looked before.

I'll bring all this up on the community discussion board as soon as I have time. Now that I've found that there's an actual community forum (I've only read Wikipedia and reddit discussions until now, never realised there's a much better one out there) I'm starting to realise all this isn't just random people doing random stuff like I was doing :)

Hopefully I'll (or we as a community) get the licensing sorted and I figure something out with the vector data and how to sensibly use it for OSM.

In the meantime I'll settle back to the good old elbow grease and start clicking nodes on the map :)

I suppose that because I was so familiar with QGIS and open vector data because of my work, that I just somehow assumed it's not something people know to do and that's why it wasn't imported. Instead, there's actual reasons behind it and I understand all this much better now.

In any case, there will be a few days of me reading and digesting all this new information and I'll figure out some things.

I'll send a private message to you, so we don't clutter this changeset too much.

For anyone else reading: just further questions about the wiki and forum and their use.

I've just found out there's a community forum as well besides the Wikipedia discussions; I'll take a look there - unless you have a direct link to discussion relating to Finland.