Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

@CrowdAtlas yes, that's the one - thanks.

@CrowdAtlas presumably you represent Facebook? As you suggested in http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=601445#p601445 I'd definitely suggest discussing an import of this sort with the wider OSM community, and the talk mailing list is probably the best way to reach them.
As well as in Egypt there were significant problems in Thailand http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=54648 ; I'd definitely try and get this process right before you try importing 10k ways in each changeset (as has happened here).
Even if a revert isn't immediately needed a list of the relevant changesets would be useful for QA purposes.
Best Regards,
Andy

OK, done: See changeset/41192016 .

In each case here I've tried to keep any other changes made in the last 10 months. If I've missed any, my apologies (there were > 300 to review!).
There may well be examples where the discussion on changeset/34479372 doesn't apply, i.e. a tree really _should_ be tagged leaf_type=broadleaved. If anyone fancies changing those - great - but please do discuss with the participants on changeset/34479372 first to get buy-in from the people who objected to the previous change.

Just for info - you might like to know that https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/51205/how-to-add-the-name-of-an-island has been asked on the help site about the rendering of Skye.

Ah - OK, thanks.

The other swimming pools such as node/3440843209 and node/3440843208 . I'm guessing that many of them will be private too - might be worth messaging the original mapper (and might be best to do that in Spanish).

Thanks. What about the others in changeset/30014224 ?

@fkv thanks; I wasn't aware of the use of "type" as meaning "not a palm tree".
@LeTopographeFou thanks; I've got the message requesting a revert. Before doing it I'll ask around to see if there's any better way to indicate "not a palm tree".
As I understand it (from reading wikipedia just now) Palm Trees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecaceae are Angiosperms , as are other broadleaved trees such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak . However Palm trees are in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocotyledon and typical temperate broadleaved trees in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudicots . For comparison conifers are in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnosperm . Strictly speaking therefore "leaf_type=broadleaved" would be correct for both palms and non-palms, but were all of the examples in this changeset definitely NOT palms? That's what I'll need to investigate and the tagging that I'll ask about, and I'd like to ask before the revert so that if there are other changes to be made they can be done at the same time.

@fkv When I looked at the changes in here back in October last year I didn't see any evidence of data loss (though I only looked at a sample of the 5341 nodes).
Whilst a change like type=broad_leafed => leaf_type=broadleaved should have been discussed beforehand, in case someone was aware of an edge case where the change could be wrong, in retrospect I can't think of one.
Can you give me an example of where something was removed that should not have been?

Thanks. In cases like this I'd make it clear that you deleted way/148427804/history because it _exactly duplicated_ the nodes and tags of way/148188908/history . People have said things like "fix Duplicated geometry and tags" when only some of the tags were duplicated, which resulted in information being lost; which may be why people are worried.
Perhaps if you explained what you were doing in the German Forum http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=14 people would understand?
Best Regards,
Andy

@MKnight Thanks - I've separately been in discussion with botdidier2020 about lack of explanation in changeset comments, and have sent them a must-read message osm.org/user_blocks/995 (which they have just read). Hopefully they'll use more meaningful comments in the future.
Re the specific changes in these large changesets I've commented on changeset/41111643 asking about the removal of way/148427804/history . I suspect that they thought that it was a duplicate of way/148188907 , but tags don't match and not all of the nodes do.
If you see specific changes that look wrong; please do ask "why was X deleted". In the case of changeset/41115387 , some of the deletions look valid - node/4008263371/history looks like a duplicate of node/4008253070 to me. Usually with changesets of this type it's easy to find something where a "fix" that removes an error on a QA site actually makes things worse rather than better.
Regards,
Andy

Hello,
In this changeset you removed way/148427804/history . Can you explain why?
(see for reference osm.org/user_blocks/995 and the changesets linked from there)