Removed defibrillator manufacturer. adding it was a misunderstanding. Only the cabinet is visible. It comes from the retailer.

Hey mueschel,

Sorry, I will try to clean these up myself.

Regards,

Daniel

changeset/153792040

Hey Stefan,

Please try to describe your changes and reason for your changes in the changeset comment when saving your edits. This allows other mappers to verify your edits and make changes when needed.
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

The current comment(=description) on your changesets do not describe your changes, only the generic object your are changing. It helps to add if it is addition ('added'), modification ('modified', 'tweaked') or removal ('removed'), and if it is about certain tags or about the geometry, where appropriate to describe the change better.
Of course if you are changing multiple objects you do not have to describe every single change, just what your motivation is ('adding POIs', 'updated POIs', 'corrected road geometry')
You also do not have to describe every changeset, especially if you're travelling. If needed you can always leave a reply to describe further, even if it looks odd in history if there is only a single reply.

Also, try to add the sources you are using, such as aerial imagery, 'local knowledge', 'survey', etc. This is not always added/accurate in editors by default.

Furthermore, in this case it may be useful to know if the log seems artificial/deliberately placed here or is a fallen tree (not always tagged correctly), if it spans across the full path, etc. You can add this in the changeset comment and additionally to the object as a "description" or "note"(, and sometimes as physical properties such as 'width', 'height')

-Grammatical- jokes like below changeset ('well well well') are okay, but without context some changes may become hard to understand, and may be considered fun/troll/spam-only edits by other mappers, which do not belong in OpenStreetMap(, even if data quality is okay). It seems you moved the tags from the node to the area (to deduplicate the object). The change itself seems fine as far as I can see.
changeset/96829487
(for example 'moved tags from duplicate well node to area' / 'changed well from node to area' / 'removed duplicate well')

If you're travelling, consider using a mobile editor like Vespucci and complementary editors such as StreetComplete.
(different editors have different focus, may support different tags)
osm.wiki/Editors#Mobile
(it will add changeset comments but these are not always descriptive enough, nor are the tags added always correct. You will have to check this yourself sometimes, like for access tags.)

If possible, could you elaborate on the cause and appearance, please?

Regards,

Daniel

Added lifecycle prefix in
changeset/153107854

Added lifecycle prefix in
changeset/153107778

Looks like that area got mostly null edits (no change but registered as a change by the application), or you (by accident) tried to straighten or reverse direction of some ways.

Hey Vivek Dumre,

This changeset is very large. It is hard to see what was changed, even with QA applications (geometry changes preview may not load).
You should separate your edits into multiple changesets where possible.
See
osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
Understandably, this was likely done by accident.
This is also the case for
changeset/151795340

Remember to try adding a 'good changeset comment' to every changeset which describes your changes sufficiently. There are changes to multiple other objects while you have only written 'added road'. I.e.
way/231329662

See also comment at
changeset/151514175
In case you are not notified already.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Vivek Dumre,

Thank you for taking your time to review changesets for your open mapping hub's program.

I would recommend you focus on 'New mapper' changesets, especially those with 'Review requested' label.
You can also use the 'Filters' => 'Reasons for Flagging' to get only these changesets, or use the 'Location' filter to get only changesets in a certain area. i.e. it may be useful to look only at the area which is the focus of your open mapping hub, where you have the most experience. Local mapping guidelines elsewhere may differ from what you are used to.

You're welcome to review more experienced mappers' changesets, though try to avoid reviewing multiple by the same user in this case, unless reviewing as bad. Also, some users do not like such 'thank you for mapping' messages as they may appear copy-pasted and do not contain any feedback on how to improve mapping, which may be wasting your and/or the users' time.
Though, your comment otherwise looks fine of course.

In the future, try to link to the objects in question and try to explain how to resolve the issue, please. (at least one or two good examples.)
Here, I don't know what you were refering to. It could be
I.e. The building
way/156354822/history
is slightly too large, is not rotated correctly, has an extension...
Have since modified both buildings from this changeset. Noteably, it is not the first version of the building outlines and the geometry did not change even slightly -which may happen if I add a building part and square the full object-. See OSMCha preview or
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=151514175
There was only a roof building part added and some empty nodes -by accident- which were left over from aligning the POI nodes.
It is unlikely to be relevant to discuss the geometry of the existing building with a mapper who only added a building part or modified the POIs. (besides, building parts are usually only added by experienced users.)

For geometry issues, it is important to mention what imagery you are using. The recommended imagery may differ in other locations than you are used to and layers such as Esri and Esri Clarity are only available in editor applications. They are *not* available from OSMCha.

Sidenote: areas such as this where the sides of buildings are visible in aerial imagery (or where they are on a slope) may have an offset applied to some objects to match their footprint. Also, some street level imagery and GPS traces may have been aligned to existing (old) mapping by the application (or are simply too poor), therefore can not be used to determine the precise location of objects.
This may not be directly useful to you as reviewer but it helps to understand why some objects may be at a (seemingly) incorrect position.

Regards,

Daniel

@Aarogya Pandey in the future, try to link to the objects in question and try to explain how to resolve the issue, please. (at least one or two good examples.)

Hey ticki_52,

at least
way/1281809899/history
is overlapping
way/168180635/history
in southwest / bottomleft corner (two nodes are not connected to a nearby node on the other object)
When saving you would have encountered an overlap warning. Here you have chosen to add layer=1 to the building. If there is only a thin roof overlap (and assuming building from cadastre is relatively accurate), layer=1 should not be added. It is more likely the garages are slightly smaller and you are tracing over some blur or vegetation. In this case it looks like the left garage should have its left wall moved to the right, onto the building outline. The roof seems to fit on aerial imagery, but the garages don't quite. Don't forget to connect the nodes and remove the layer=1 tag from the main building.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Aarogya Pandey,

Thank you for taking your time to review changesets for your open mapping hub's program.

I would recommend you focus on 'New mapper' changesets, especially those with 'Review requested' label.
You can also use the 'Filters' => 'Reasons for Flagging' to get only these changesets, or use the 'Location' filter to get only changesets in a certain area. i.e. it may be useful to look only at the area which is the focus of your open mapping hub, where you have the most experience. Local mapping guidelines elsewhere may differ from what you are used to.

You're welcome to review more experienced mappers' changesets, though try to avoid reviewing multiple by the same user in this case, unless reviewing as bad. Also, some users do not like such 'thank you for mapping' messages as they may appear copy-pasted and do not contain any feedback on how to improve mapping, which may be wasting your and/or the users' time.
Though, your comment otherwise looks fine of course.

Sidenote: areas such as this which are on a slope may have an offset applied to some objects. Also, some street level imagery and GPS traces may have been aligned to existing (old) mapping by the application (or are simply too poor), therefore can not be used to determine the precise location of objects.
This may not be directly useful to you as reviewer but it helps to understand why some objects may be at a (seemingly) incorrect position.

Regards,

Daniel

That seems to be true as far as the wiki is concerned. Thanks for clarifying.

Hey Victor,

I would kindly suggest to not remove objects mapped as areas instead of nodes without proper reason(, or alternatively discussing with the original mapper).
osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_remove_objects_that_you_don't_need_or_like

Objects which can be mapped more detailed, i.e. individual trees instead of tree line -not trees instead of forest if more than five or so, of course- or playground equipment/area as area instead of node should be left as nodes or areas respectively.

On the wiki it is currently explicitly okay to map as either node or area. Though, it is a guideline, not a rule.
man_made=street_cabinet

If e.g. a street cabinet mapped as area does not render on your map of preference, please submit a request with the developers of the map style. Regardless, it can still easily be found using query applications. OSM is a database. not only a map.

For such cases, it is recommended to start a discussion with the community about mapping street cabinets as nodes and/or areas to reach a consensus. You can do so at
- osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet
- https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/general/38/none
(the forum is usually faster to reply.)

Regards,

Daniel

*See
note/3389584

Added route relation here
relation/17579858
It will not be shown on any application (unordered, no way -road- members).

It is similar to a (qr-code) fitness trail (or signed fitness meetup point)
route=fitness_trail

See also "Kabouterpad" ('gnome trail', or 'fairy trail');
https://www.staatsbosbeheer.nl/uit-in-de-natuur/kabouterpad

Bij MapComplete e.d. worden aparte wijzigingen in een wijzigingenset verzameld.
(maar dat weet je wellicht al.)

material is likely wire ( or wire_mesh )

Hey Lachgast,

Modified the service way in
- https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=149865604
- https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=149866031
Let me know if there are any issues, please.

Regards,

Daniel

"on-site in the last hour and shooting a photo"
Sure. I can't find it on the Mapillary website just yet, but it's fine.

Bing is too skewed and blurry in places. It is mostly used east of the river Barrow (noting also better resolution there), or anywhere outside Kilkenny and the surrounding area.
The difference in alignment is not too large, but still considerable.
(Bing is shifted to southeast compared to Esri Clarity and existing GPS in one or two places I checked)