("our automated process" should read "your automated process")

Hi Diah
Thanks for the replies. I only fixed it partially by recreating a couple of building parts before realising it was your changeset that removes them.
Could you please have another look and try to bring back the other missing building parts? There are about 7 building parts that were removed in your changeset. I assume it might be tricky because it was such a long time ago. Please let me know how you go: I'd be interested in hearing why they were removed in the first place. I think I created most of those, so would like to know if I didn't tag them properly – or if it was our automated process (or the maproulette challenge) that was not doing the right thing.
Much appreciated.

Looking at the changeset on OSMcha, it looks like about 7 building parts were lost in this single changeset:
https://osmcha.org/changesets/105394982

Hi there
I noticed that this changes deleted building parts that were more precisely mapped, for example the central tower of the Forgan Smith building and the roof at the Sir Llew Edward’s building. Was this an automated edit? I’m not sure how damaging this kind of change set has been and how many there has been, but it seems it’s a net loss of details for the database.
Was this part of a concerted effort by Facebook? If so, where can I see documentation on the project?

This should be "source=Bing imagery", I forgot to change the value when uploading the changeset...

Thanks! I separated the traffic lights to the actual stopping points so it wouldn't be double-counted by routing software when coming from Beaudesert road: changeset/116986624

I guess that would be better, but the issue with changing the precise location of the original address remains. And the consistency for this particular dataset, as it was a big council-wide import. Which is why I think it would be best to keep these separate (node for address, building footprint without an address).
What was the reason for you to merge? If you think about it, building footprints and actual block that has an address can be quite different, so it’s not surprising to have them separate. People also use address nodes to have them closer to an entrance / the street they correspond to, which also makes sense. Less relevant to the area we’re looking at here, but just a general note…

Hi Reubot!
I was wondering about the merging of the address data into the buildings here. I think you were hoping to reduce duplication of information, but as the address was imported from a BCC dataset, I think it would be best kept as a separate node so there is no confusion with what information (and coordinates) the source tag applies to.
What do you think?

Hi there
Could you please provide more descriptive changeset comments? It looks like you only use “updates”, which is as generic and non-descriptive as it gets. It makes it very difficult for other editors to understand what you are working on and review your changes.

Thanks CJ! 😊

Thank you Nick! :)

For reference:
- Changeset: changeset/73883556
- On OSMcha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/73883556/

Hi jstev

I just found out today that quite a few POIs were missing in this area, a found this changeset from two years ago.
What was the idea with this changeset? You deleted many retail POIs, as well as landuse areas, and building names, without a justification.

You can see your changes visualised on OSMcha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/73883556/

Cheers!

Hi NickRivers!
I saw that you've created quite a few changesets with the comment "been there".
Could you please provide more specific information about what changes you made, to help others understand better what you worked on? That's what the changeset comment is for.
If you want to let others know you were physically there, you can specify that you were on site thanks to the source=survey tag when you close the changeset.
Cheers!

As discussed on mailing list, and given that there was no response via changeset comments or private message, I reverted the changeset here: changeset/104711700

Hi Australets! I was wondering about the motivation between this changeset, as it changed quite a few things in the area where I contribute.
What is the idea behind merging addresses, buildings and points of interest? I know there are different opinions on the matter, but I can see definite drawbacks in the merging you did, at least in some cases. For example, some of the resulting buildings end up having a "source" tag that used to refer to only the address, but now seem to refer to the whole object.
See for example this one: way/401769723/history
In other cases, the main building is apartments but now has the name of one single shop included in it: way/444096785/history
In many cases, one single key could have a different values for a building and a point of interest, even though the general rule "One feature, on OSM element" applies. (e.g. address, name, contact, source...) Separate POIs are also helpful for shops to more precisely show in the building where it is located.
Let me know what you think!

Oh don't say sorry! Great to see that there's enough of us editing the map to even cause conflicts :D
See you around, thanks for checking :)

Hey Martini! Looks like we ended up editing the same new bikeway around the same time. I got a bunch of conflicts in my changeset ( changeset/102902086 ) and it's my first time fixing that many in one go, so if you can have quick look at the what you edited to make sure I didn't mess up everything that would be much appreciated! Cheers :)

Bravo Lamine ! Merci pour tes contributions :)

Hi Dantine
Is there a relevant discussion somewhere about this bulk edit?
I just noticed that some geometries might be affected by your edit. Did you expect your bulk edit to effect coordinates?
See for example this one: node/4974704278