Remember, OSM is a geographic database that reflects the current, verifiable state of features on the Earth's surface. It is not a repository for geological history or past political borders – we don't map the Tethys Ocean, the Ural or Scandinavian mountains at their Himalayan-like height from millions of years ago, or the historical borders of Czechoslovakia or Austria-Hungary. We map what exists today, on the ground, as it is visible and measurable. ;)

Regarding your new node (node/12769693915): this mountain already exists in OSM as Node: Poľana (node/26864346#map=15/48.62578/19.47687&layers=P) and is located approximately 4 km to the southeast of your point. Its correct elevation is 1,458 m, which is confirmed by terrain/elevation data.

Regarding the tags for this peak. As we've already discussed, according to OSM guidelines, the tag natural=volcano is intended for marking a visible volcanic vent (crater, volcanic plug, etc.). On satellite imagery, no crater or caldera is visible at the summit of Poľana – it's simply forest. Therefore, for this object, I propose the following tagging scheme:

natural=peak – as the main tag for the physical mountain peak.

volcano:status=extinct – to indicate it is a remnant of an extinct volcano.

volcano:type=stratovolcano – to specify the type.

This approach preserves all the scientific information while complying with OSM's verifiability rules, as it is based on a real physical object (the peak), rather than a hypothetical vent that no longer exists.

Regarding your new node – since it is neither a peak nor a visible volcanic vent, it holds no cartographic value in OSM. Therefore, it should be deleted, and all relevant information should be migrated to the existing peak Node: Poľana (26864346) with the updated tags as described above.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Your comment did make me think more deeply about how we tag ancient volcanoes in OSM, and I'd like to raise a broader question for discussion, if you're open to it.

As you pointed out, there are extinct volcanoes in Slovakia. However, many mountains in the Carpathians are also remnants of ancient volcanic activity. If we were to tag all of them as natural=volcano, we'd quickly run into a problem of definition – where do we draw the line? By that logic, we'd practically have to tag half of the Carpathians, and perhaps even the ancient Tethys Ocean as a geological feature. That seems excessive and goes against the principle of verifiability in OSM.

In this specific case, from satellite imagery, I could not see any clearly identifiable crater, caldera, or volcanic vent. The feature appears to be a heavily eroded remnant of an ancient volcano rather than a recognisable volcanic landform. OSM tagging guidelines are quite clear on this point: the tag natural=volcano should be used for an opening exposed on the earth's surface where volcanic material is emitted — i.e., a volcanic vent. The mapping instructions say to "Place [the node] as close to the centre of the main crater/caldera/vent as you can". If there is no visible crater, caldera, or vent, the tag is not appropriate.

I also checked the elevation using Copernicus DEM data about 9 months ago, as part of a broader effort to verify mountain peaks and volcanic features globally. In this case, the elevation value on the node did not match the DEM data at that location. The actual elevation at the exact point you re-created is 790–800 metres, and according to the terrain/elevation data, it's simply a slope of Mount Mičová. So I was right to delete this fake object. There is no objective reason to tag an ordinary hillside as a volcano.

Thank you for the feedback.

Regarding the changeset description — since I'm consistently mapping a limited set of airport features (runways, taxiways, aprons, hangars, etc.) following a schema close to AMDB, the descriptions naturally end up looking very similar across changesets. I usually dedicate one changeset per airport, or occasionally split it into a few if I spot something I missed later.

That said, I do find this level of administrative detail a bit tedious, for a couple of reasons:

OSMCha visually highlights exactly what was changed, so lengthy commit messages don't really add much clarity for reviewers.

Adding explicit source tags like Mapbox or Bing feels redundant, since these are the default imagery layers in most editors and don't carry any meaningful additional information.

Inventing completely unique headlines for every single commit feels like unnecessary overhead when the actual content is consistently geometry corrections for airport diagrams.

However, I do understand the importance of good documentation. If you have a specific suggestion for a clearer, more descriptive format that works well for mapping airport layouts, I'm genuinely open to it. I'd be happy to adopt your recommended template going forward.

Thanks for your time and understanding.

I don't remember. It was 9 months ago. In any case, I apologize. The elevation was probably given very incorrectly, plus there's a volcano in the middle of Slovakia. If it's some sort of mud geyser, then the question arises of how to distinguish mountain/volcanic peaks from this type of object.

Ah, whatever, do what you want. You've messed up so many of them that it no longer makes any sense. Some idiotic merging of TWY/RWY. And what is a runway_safety_area with holes? I'm just curious - why is this even needed?

Please stop breaking airport diagrams/schemes. What's the problem with area:aeroway=*? The default renderer doesn't display these entities anyway, but they are important in the context of AMDB.

Typo. I wanted to add runway threshold. Fixed

Це просто наглість. Все довколо поламати-повидаляти-позсовувати, і ще нести якусь маячню про "жодних ознак". https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%96%D1%80%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%85%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%82

Що таке вулиці клони? Чому вулиця не може мати кілька сегментів? Надто багато "покращень" за один місяць. Зсунуті дороги, поламані мультиполігони тепер ще й поламана адресація.

Можна дізнатись що означає "виправив" лінію хребта? На основі яких даних?

Припини все псувати. ВЕС була намальована по даних кадастрової мапи. І що це за eos.com? Ліцензія дозволяє його в ОСМ використовувати?

І знову дорога зсунута з GPS треків! Кому такі покращення потрібні? Там нова дорога, запиши для початку свої треки, перед тим як чужу роботу псувати.

Давай ти припиниш дороги рандомно совати?

Ти в курсі, що ті стежки малювались по GPS-треках? Супутникові знімкі мають спотворення - до сраки таке вирівнювання, ти їх просто позсував з GPS треків

Хребти бути проведені по даних Сopernicus DEM. Наведи фактори, якими ти керуєшся при визначенні існування чи неіснування хребта?

Це ніяки не підстанції-конвертори всередені іншої підстанції, а трансформатори. Вони не так мапляться і не таку форму мають. І взагалі краще утриматись від маплення трансформаторів, якщо по ним шахеди прилітали

так я відповіді не було 2 тижні, я ревертнув

от чим воно тобі заважало? схожих видалень з твої сторони багато, хотілось би аргументи почути.

Why are you changing the 35kV lines to a minor line? kV >= 35 are high-voltage lines in the exUSSR. For example, in Ukraine. It is strange when the same lines are marked differently in neighboring countries.

http://development-bitmap-tileserver-2013958241.eu-west-1.elb.amazonaws.com/styles/vfr.day/#9.6/48.7793/23.5812 - от можеш глянути, де у нас мережа має пробіли (дані 2місячної давності)