Hey TheAdventurer64,

Noteably, I am the author of said issue and it's not relevant in discussing this user's edits.

In the case they continue to contribute without replying -in this changeset, not elsewhere-, please report them to the DWG. Thanks.

Hey Jaski Singh,

For discussions regarding sensitive data, please contact the following working groups:

OSM US Trails Working Group
Mainly regarding the trails around such areas.
https://www.openstreetmap.us/2021/12/osmus-trails-working-group

OSMF Data Working Group
Regarding removal -redaction- of data and any disputes.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group

Regards,

Daniel

way/1058442952/history

Are you sure this way's width is 25 meters?

Regards,

Daniel

Resolved in
changeset/120646414

@mueschel seems like a simple typo to me (user unknowing how to tag multiple values), it's multiple values of traffic_sign. Looking at Wikipedia, these are 'valid'(be it now renamed) values for traffic signs:
- 231 / B5: "Give way." = Yield sign
- 863 / H23 "Two-way cycle path."
And, used in the right place, namely a bicycle crossing (only difference being a traffic island between the two flows of bicycle traffic).

Of course, the yield sign may apply to the cycleway and the traffic signs could be seperated and direction, support tag added to indicate they're facing different ways.

This user had been inactive for more than a year since you asked. You could check if their other edits look ok, but otherwise it may be better to try fixing such an issue yourself where you can.

Regards,

Daniel

Oops, I meant ind_ref => int_ref

Hey moszkva ter,

You have gotten multiple comments regarding good changeset comments, but so far have ignored them.
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=495146

Continuing to use these bad changeset comments may be considered as spam.

Reply to this comment, please. This way other users will know you are reading it.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey APneunzehn74,

You have added a barrier tagged barrier=yes. From your edits, I assume you are surveying. Usually, it should be possible to distinguish the type of barrier when surveying.
barrier=*

Regards,

Daniel

Read this wiki page, please.
osm.wiki/What%27s_the_problem_with_mechanical_edits%3F#Large_changesets

See also
osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Contact mappers -at least publicly- if they make mistakes where possible (at least if they're still active), please..
I've left a comment here:
changeset/92667430

Also, I would not recommend starting editing in OSM by validating others edits.
Everyone makes mistakes.
Start by editing yourself, learn about OSM and mapping, connect with the community and have fun! :-)

Regards,

Daniel

node/8019211076/history
"Por lo general, va en bicicleta al trabajo."? Removed in
changeset/120475666

Do not add subjective/personal/private information, please.

osm.wiki/Verifiability

osm.wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

Regards,

Daniel

node/3196182587

Second hand books: Yes or Only?
POI is tagged with both
"second_hand"="yes"; and
"books"="secondhand"

Remove redundant tag "books"="secondhand" -and change the "second_hand" tag yourself if needed- if you know this for sure from your survey.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Joel,

Welkom terug bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Ik zou je eerdere wijzigingensets graag willen reviewen, maar jammergenoeg heb ik hier niet de tijd voor.

Groet,

Daniel

namens de OpenStreetMap-gemeenschap

*protect_class, but they did fix it correctly.

"
Hello Daniel,

I admit I made a mistake, for all protect_class taggs for most of the protected areas I edited.

About the source, I am still consulting a lawyer , so far she told me that if I use openstreetmap data to draw boundaries, OSM should be part of the source.

Best regards,

Paul-Emmanuel
"
The typo in the tag is not a big deal. Don't worry.

As for the source, I am still refering to the source in your changeset.. I mean, you should say what satelite layer you mapped on top of (Bing, Esri, Esri Clarity, Mapbox, Maxar Premium), but you don't need to say you drew on top of the existing OSM data in your OSM changeset. If you also used the "OpenStreetMap (Standard)" layer (what you see on the right hand side), you can choose to say so, but it's not that important.

For using OSM's data outside of OSM, see
osm.org/copyright

If you have questions or want more information on licensing either your data for OSM or the OSM data for elsewhere, it may be best to contact the Licensing Working Group (LWG);
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group
(see also for FAQ etc.)

In addition to your or their name, you can write "local knowledge" as your source.

I did find a typo in your tagging, namely "protection_class" should be "protect_class" - only "protection_title" is spelled out fully.
I assume you are refering to
protect_class=*
We could fix this on all of your edits if that's indeed the case.

Ok. How did you collect the data? Is this your (or others') local knowledge, or did you survey (go out and look around) every one of these?

Did the conservation project give you explicit permission to use the data in OpenStreetMap?

Hey TheNet1996,

Why did you add restriction relations to a barrier feature? This seems redundant, as providing access tags should already cause routers not to route through the barrier feature for relevant modes of transport.

Regards,

Daniel

"Hello, there is gate and access=no for bike and hikers. Is it right? Routing is impossible here. Thanks"

Ref note/3153248

Editors and PDOK have 7.5cm imagery available since last year. You can also use Esri's 'enhanced' imagery (essentially the same imagery with some filters applied) which should be available in most places, though on some zoom levels may show older imagery (so be careful).

cc: vladaboitsik; Mapbox
https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/366#issuecomment-1109635771