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.

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.