> @habi you are talking about local preferences. But I wonder if this shouldn't be discussed for the whole country in community.openstreetmap.org? Maybe it already has been? If I take the perspective of a newcomer, I think most of the people wouldn't know about EGID. It could be frustrating.

Absolutely frustrating, I agree. And also difficult to "get right", even for us in small Switzerland. That's why I hinted at local preference, which is also connected to "locally available" data. In Bern for example, we have access to the Katasterplan (land register map (?)) for editing OSM. There, single buildings are outlined matching the EGID and are very often mapped as such.
This leads to discussions like changeset/127114902, changeset/151822609, and changeset/138394803 where non-local editors merged building outlines.
I honestly think that this issue is not solvable country-wide.

> What was the basis for this edit?
> Why did you delete the buildings?

The three buildings were merged by @imagoiq, so it's evident that two outlines are deleted.

> Maybe imagoiq has a good explanation for their change, but I find this type of editing problematic.

They explained nicely what was going done, the only "problematic" thing I see here is the typo or copy-paste blunder with the address data, which was hinted at in note/5258755, which did *not* complain about the building outline itself, but about the wrong address data. This has now been corrected.

Rückgängig gemacht

changeset/181876382

Changeset ist wegen Zügeln von Korbflechter, der auch in der associatedStreet-Relation drin war so gross: changeset/181717884.
Sorry

https://qa.poole.ch/addresses/GWR/619_all.osm.zip

"Oh, how I <del>hate</del> detest MPs"

> About the merge of the building, I'm still thinking that it should be a unique building way.

The building (entrances) are listed with three different [EGID], here's a direct link to the entrance 43: https://map.geo.admin.ch/?ch.bfs.gebaeude_wohnungs_register=1016021_0
So according to the housing stats these are three buildings...
We also see that a lot in Bern, where buildings look as a single building from the outside, but have different EGIDs (and outlines in the cadastral survey) and are most often mapped as touching `building`-outlines.

This seems to boil down to local preference in mapping, which I'll preferentially leave to you both to figure out :)

[EGID]: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/fr/home/registres/registre-personnes/harmonisation-registres/egid-ewid.html

Tönt von der Webseite her eher wie eine Galerie oder ein Kunst-Laden, nicht?

changeset/181615389

@9_tab: No building was deleted, but the three buildings were merged to one.
@imagoiq: Since the addresses in https://qa.poole.ch/addresses/GWR/6621_all.osm.zip are `addr:street=Rue Liotard` here (and located on the west side of the building(s)), I split the building back and added the address data to the single buildings, keeping all your updated regarding the ownership.

CSG an die an der Webseite angegebene Adresse gezügelt.

"Nur" note/5253785, die andere Notiz war noch im Changesetkommentar erwähnt, hat aber hier nix zu suchen :)

Ciao owy
Du hast hier den Umrissen `golf=hole` entfernt, nachdem du die Löcher (korrekt) in way/1186072374 hinzugefügt hast.
Aus meiner (Nicht-Golfer-)-Sicht können die Umrisse grad ganz enfernt werden.

golf=hole erwähnt ja, dass `golf=hole` als "the path [...] the ball [is] in the air" gesehen werden sollte.

Gruss,
habi

PS: Ich bin hier wegen https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=tagging&lon=7.29374&lat=46.86598&zoom=15&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=no_feature_tag_nodes%2Cno_feature_tag_ways

Situation passt so genau :)

Ciao pocket74
`building:levels=U4` bei way/1347028644 kann so nicht ausgewertet werden, da ist eine Zahl erwartet.
Anhand der Luftfotos sieht das so aus, als wären das zwei Stockwerke mehr als bei way/259169709, also `building:levels=4`.
Kannst du das noch korrigieren?
Gruss,
habi

Ciao micrite
Here you've added `building:levels=rdc` which is not a correct value.
I also suppose that not the whole building is a office=coworking, no?
Happy mapping,
habi

Ciao Matthias
Du hast hier bei way/126356620 `building:levels=#eec` hinzugefügt, was so wenig Sinn macht.
Von den Luftfotos her ist es nicht klar, ob 2- oder 3-stöckig, kannst du das noch korrigieren?
Gruss,
habi

Hey
The bike trail is added as way/1237743611, adding three creatively named tourist informations is not a good way of marking the bike trail.
Do you have more information about the trail, then this could/should be added to OpenStreetMap.
Happy mapping,
habi

node/13728329901 is most probably named incorrectly, as the village name is mapped here: node/1599253225

Added with changeset/181261047