Yeah, it was done in a bit of a hurry with the full intention of dealing with it later.

The rationale for deletion is - the building itself doesn't need residential landuse, because that's implied by the residential building. Including the closest greenery would be akin to stretching resi landuse over front yards of single houses, but then, there's nothing else there than footways and said greenery, both of which we map in detail anyway. Besides, both are public, so there's no real reason to have residential stretched over it. Residential landuse itself, as I understand it, is really only useful as a placeholder for areas where more detail cannot be determined or mapped for whatever reason.

Right you are, that's absolutely not supposed to be there, no idea how I missed it.

Also if you see residential landuse under panelak blocks and not much else, those add nothing of value either feel free to bin those too. They're leftovers from when I broke up the giant resi polygon that covered the entirety of KV and wasn't yet sure where to leave them or not. I'm removing them as I go, only leaving those under (clusters of) single family homes or gated communities, basically whenever the houses are fenced.

I might be looking at the wrong spaghetto, but shouldn't the link from D1 west to D4 north be toll=no?

It's a 1 level building for our purposes, the 2 levels were left over from previous versions, I just hadn't noticed when editing it. It's got a higher ceiling and the conference room has cascaded seating, but it doesn't have a proper second level to speak of. I'll set the height tag instead when I manage to measure it.

I'm sorry, I may have made my intent unclear. I wasn't saying the main entrance to the campus should be on the guardhouse, that was never the intention. We're not in disagreement here, the main entrance to the campus are indeed both gates on each side of the road.

Well, it's the main entrance to the building and I included it because it's there - if it exists, onto the map it goes. But I can see how the main value could be confusing on the guardhouse when it's so close to the main gate into the campus. I think it's valuable on the institute buildings though, because they tend to have many entrances from multiple sides.

I didn't think of setting the gates as main entrances into the fenced area, but I suppose there's no reason not to?

Yeah, I wasn't too sure about the buildings, which is why I requested review. The addresses seems like a bit of a mess all over SAV too and I'm not sure what the correct state should be, so I try to tiptoe around them now, but I wasn't so careful when I did the buildings. Thanks for sorting it out!

@Fizzie-DWG 炼化火坑 炼化火坑 炼化火坑 This is a premediated test of mentions within changeset comments 炼化火坑 炼化火坑 炼化火坑 炼化火坑 炼化火坑 炼化火坑

Elsewhere it was suggested to me to use area:railway=tram instead of landuse=railway, which does play nicer with surface=*. Doesn't solve the sedum problem though, since none of the established surface values fit that either.

First off, I'm open to any ideas on how to mark the sedum track beds better. I've searched in other cities that use sedum on tram tracks, but they all either tag it as grass (which it absolutely isn't), or not at all, so I just went with Spr3's idea. One of my other ideas was landcover=flowerbed + species=sedum, or something along those lines, but I'd like more opinions on this.

Adding landuse=railway is a separate thing, while not strictly necessary, it's technically correct on tracks which don't double as something else (road, ped way). I am, however, aware that this isn't done often (personally only found it in Krakow) and if more of you feel like it's for some reason bad, I'll undo this. If it's alright though, I'm ready to extend this on all exclusive tram tracks in Bratislava to keep the city consistent.

My previous work resulted in institutes with multiple close-by buildings as multipolygons, which I at first decided upon after reading the wiki page for relation:site, which lists alternatives to said relation. To me it seemed like a straightforward way to mark that two buildings both house an institute.

I asked other mappers and was advised to either tag both buildings with the same tags, which I wanted to avoid to make maintenance of the institute itself easier.

Further advice was to do what I did with this changeset, which is to set an area around what I know to belong to each institute and tag it with its information, leaving the buildings as they are. I went with this, because it also lets me leave the addresses on the buildings themselves. I'm open to any suggestions to improve the model.

Note: I decided against reverting, because when making the multipolygons, I also refined the building parts as well. Simply switching from MP to buildings and yanking the MP's tags that belong to the institute to the new areas was the simplest way without having to do all the work again.

France includes many overseas territories, so when you do a bounding box for France, it's pretty much half of the world.

The new facade is mostly guessed, but I have asked its makers whether it would be possible to release any kind of plan to the building, to make it more accurate. If that fails, I'll try to make do with a rangefinder to improve it.

Oh, got it, it's that overlap. Okay, that makes it a mistake on my part, should have noticed it's crossing a part of the building that's not there (as in not on that level) physically.

You're right, there's an entrance for the restaurant, which technically is an entrance into the building, but not the office part. StreetComplete doesn't make this clear, I'll take more care next time when dealing with entrances, thanks!

An honest mistake on my part, thanks for spotting it.

Interesting, I didn't edit these tags directly, but via StreetComplete, so I guess this should be reported as a bug in their repo, if it produced incorrect tags.

Right, thanks for the help, I'll remember to check register adries as well next time.

They're not proper buildings, but rather a shipping container and a container house with fast food joints inside them. In addition to no number displayed (which in itself doesn't mean anything), they don't show up on cadastral maps, therefore they don't exist as buildings before the law. So they can't have numbers. There is a small chance that the cadastre has erroneous data, but I went with the assumption that they don't.

is this line of thought wrong?