I see I think in this case it's my mistake. Thanks for the correction.

However I think there are a number of
cycleway:lane=shared_lane

Such as near: node/2144984480

In the case of the way you mentioned I think it's my mistake. I can change it your suggested, or please feel free to change.

I am open to suggestions!

However I think in this case if you look at, osm.org/edit?way=1058297394#map=20/35.65262/139.86360

You can see that this is a shared lane, which often has a bus interacting with parts of it.

Another nearby example: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=35.656779496964&lng=139.86364231458&z=17&pKey=1057896508085679

I think that it is important to indicate that this is not a dedicated lane...

I would like to preserve that it's a shared lane, and that it is pictogram.

However I am very open to to discussion! Perhaps we could also ask Cycleosm to support these keys.

If you prefer to chat on Japan slack, or OSM discord please let me know.

Meant to be "staircase" changed to "stairs"

Was this really a "survey" ?

Thanks for updating the area! I'd be a little careful with KIBAN 2500 as it's not really up to date.

Thanks for doing bus routes!

Is it possible to get a comment on this changeset?

In the future I'll endeavor to make rivers (that I add) in Lithuania more blobby, and less squiggly. It's not a big deal to me in the end, and actually saves effort.

Thanks for being a valuable member of OSM grin. Good to see that some people can see the forest despite the trees :)

Do rivers in Lithuania fundamentally differ from rivers in the rest of the world?

Are you suggesting that any mapping done in Lithuania from aerial images is invalid if somebody has not been in Lithuania?

Have I see a river? Yes. In fact there is a famous problem called a "coastline paradox" which also applies to rivers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox

Where it turns out coastlines, and riverbanks are in fact very wibbly-wobbly when you start to actually look at them.

If usage of aerial imagery is banned without having seen the location personally. Then I think we should work together to revert a lot of the invalid data that has made its way into the dataset. There are many buildings that really look like a building from aerial imagery, but you're right it could actually car.

I cannot verify if the river runs under greenery, or if there is a surface that blocks river flow.

What would you suggest? Mapping to the start of greenery at the river edge, then adding wetlands?

Or mapping over the greenery, and assuming that the river flowed there?

Or something entirely different?

I tend to try to map to reality, not to nice rounded corners where possible.

Are you suggesting it was an automated edit that changed the tag?

Not satifsfactory, would you like to elaborate. Previously there was no river area marked. Now there is a river area marked that is true. Perhaps the river is actually larger, but the portion marked was verifiable.

I had to fix the river the centerline which was a mess and went over clear sections of land.

that's fair game.

I'm happy with man_made pipeline and intermittent. Thank you for taking the time to explain your stance.

Explaining why you reverted does not address "So first, please don't delete changesets without discussing them."

In this case the changeset didn't contain much other work, but it could have. Having a problem with part of a changeset doesn't really deserve nuking the whole changeset without waiting for a response.

Main editor of OSM is hardly a defined metric. Last time I checked the percentage breakdown varies depending on how you consider volume of changesets or volume of edits. Most automated edits are done in JOSM because iD doesn't support them.

Please take your gripes with iD up with them directly. Or that of the preset library they use.

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.