Ciao Saltador1234

Ich bin wegen note/5277809 hier.
Du hast hier den Weg aus der OpenStreetMap-Datenbank entfernt, indem du den von `highway=path` zu `highway=no` gemacht hast.
Du schreibst, dass der Weg nur for forst- und landwirtschaftliche Nutzung zugelassen ist.
Da der Weg in der Realität existiert, ist es gut, diesen als `higway=path` zu erfassen und die entsprechenden `access`-Tags dazuzugeben, damit der private Charakter des Weges korrekt abgebildet ist.
Sie dazu auch osm.wiki/DE:Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
Ich habe das in changeset/182191521 erledigt.

Grüsse,
habi

Oops, sorry: node/13793474703 sollte nicht hier in diesem Changeset sein. Der war nur drin, um zu messen, wie weit die Distanz ist, die ich in note/5278088 geschrieben habe.

Also, kinda taking care of note/5271638

CIao Jens.
Auch hier besteht der Platz way/1191381697 schon seit mehreren Jahren.
Ich habe deinen Beitrag mit dem bestehenden zusammengeführt, in changeset/182018440

Der Stellplatz ist hier schon als way/1444374246 erfasst.
Ich habe dein Duplikat in changeset/182018370 mit dem bestehenden Platz zusammegefügt.

Ah, und grad noch ein bisschen "name abuse" korrigiert, weil die Wege ziemlich sicher nicht `name=Bonderlenbach Walking Path` tragen.

Ciao ProfStoneface
Du hast hier bei way/128384984 ein `foot=no` vergeben, was in note/5269087 "bemängelt" wurde.
Da der Pfad sowohl Teil der Via Alpina (relation/14249130) und der Wander-Relation zu den Lohnerfällen (relation/19647386) ist, nehme ich an, dass das ein Tippfehler ist.
Ich habe das `foot=no` in changeset/181925565 entfernt.
Gruss,
habi

No, because @imagoiq mentioned their source.
Omissions do happen, and it's good if sources can be mentioned/cited afterwards.

> I got the same impression from @imagoiq .. even more so in the forum. Maybe I should report their conduct there.

You are absolutely free to do so.
As a moderator of the Swiss category I will "stay out of" that particular case (in German "in den Ausstand treten", since you've also mentioned that about my communication), but I'm willing to tell you that there were several reports concerning your communication style in the forum from several different users and none about imagoiq. You're free to make of these "numbers" what you want.

> The question appears to be irrelevant to that thread.

Not the merging of the building, which is very relevant here.

> I note that you don't want to provide a clear answer about the basis for your edit.

As far as I can tell, @imagoiq is looking at data of cooperatives owning buildings, and updating these. They explained that several times already, and I think explained it well.

@9_tab:

> I don't see any editing of roofs in the changeset so the question seems off topic.

The question comes up when mapping the block as one or three buildings, so it's relevant here.

If the case here I think this cannot be solved withouth having *one* `building=appartements` outline encompassing all three EGID buildings that look like one building on the ground, so exactly like @imagoiq merged the outlines in this changeset.

And - as said here and before also in other channels - please try to be a bit less confrontative in your messages, we're all here in your free time and voluntarily.

> @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