1) Do you have a documented and publicly available set of these "pseudo-rules" you have created for all of Lithuania?

2) Is waterway=river and man_made=pipeline conflicting for you? If not I'm happy to settle for that. I want to indicate that this is a non-naturally directed water course and that it leads to a water turbine.

About splitting rivers is it possible to move the river part to a relation which encompasses the whole river? A river can narrow to a stream, and then grow back to a river in its natural course, how is that handled normally.

I don't understand your point about kayaking... you can't kayak through a damn and pipe_line. This all started because I wanted to make it clear about the dangers of dams. When I marked the bottom of the dam with the concrete pylons, as a waterway flow control devices, with seamark attributes.

In fact lookup the official documentation of this dam on page 27/78 : https://www.vdu.lt/cris/bitstream/20.500.12259/112738/1/vaiva_abukauskiene_md.pdf

The deepest point of this pond is even 15.5 meters. About the same depth and water
well to run into the shaft passage. The river Šušvė near Angiriai in 1980. after building 16 meters
the height of the dam and the installation of a 297 ha pond, the former natural flow regime has changed:
"the former natural flow regime has changed"
is no longer carried out in a natural channel, but through a 10 m high shaft floodplain installed in the pond.

That's an artificial redirected water course.

So first, please don't delete changesets without discussing them. You'll note that the focus of this changeset was to add the navigation obstruction (the concrete pylons at the bottom of the dam).

Second, I read your linked article, and the article at the bottom: osm.wiki/WikiProject_Waterways/River_modernization

Which seemed way more widely adopted. Given that the built in validators suggest to change these tags. I think you should take your issue up with iD, and other validators. Otherwise users like me are going to find a way to make the validator happy when we make valid changes.

This is not the water's natural course. This is a man made constructed course for the water. It's a spill way connected to the inlet of the dam. This is tagged as a canal, with intermitted water

waterway=canal

Why were these deleted?

What is this?

This is a lot of changes were they all verified?

Before anybody complains, note the "massive bounding box" is adding a note to a way that is like 100km long.

Thank you for taking time to standardize the way of tagging things. Keep up the awesome work.

Please use more descriptive changesets.

Do you have a comment to go with this? It would really help my understanding.

That seems like an arbitrary rule that you just made up.

That sounds like a silly idea. This changeset groups the change topically. +1 for topic grouped changesets.

I feel like this is a pretty focused changeset: Aldis. It's silly to break it up geographically, when it's grouped topically. -1 to smaller changest area suggestion.

Thanks!

Thanks!

Hey SekeRob,

Sorry that I came off confrontational. I have been dealing with a lot of mailing list people who are "no global edits" ever kind of people which really rubs me the wrong way. Not an excuse but a frame of reference.

I agree with you that global edits should be carefully considered. I think we shouldn't be so scared of them... but that doesn't mean we should forgo caution as you highlight. If they are annoying to rollback, then we should improve our rollback software.

Also as you say we need to attack these kind of edits from two places. One from the dataset side, and one from the generation side. "Why is ID still recommending these tags".

Additionally, you raise an excellent point that we should get consumers in on the loop. If we could focus our effort on items which are annoying for data consumers that could help. Although to be honest for a new data consumer, the less variation we have the less the initial hurdle.

In summary, I think we don't actually have such differing opinions, and I apologize again for coming off in an accusatory manner.

Blame the changeset viewing representation not the edit.

Global edits need to happen sometimes, and it a ridiculous request to split them up into arbitrary units to make people who hate big boxes happy.

File a issue with whatever software you use's github asking them to allow you to hide global edits if you don't want to see them.

Regarding the actual tag. Payments:debit_card, is more precise than nothing. It means that they at least accept some debit cards. Without that tag you could assume that no debit cards are supported. One could conjecture that local debit cards could be used if they saw a "yes" flag.

Does payment:coins need to say "No 10 cent coins allowed" to be useful, no. It would be great, but it's not the bar for adding information.

Is this correct? 日本 is not a "county" as far as I know, it is a Country.

Hello ymrunali,

Thanks for your prompt response! Yes I understand these kind of things can take time. I hope you're able to find the license, as this data would be great to have if we're allowed.

Kind regards,
Zaneo