Hi nilloc29, thank you for your reply.

I’ve reviewed some of the ways you removed, and it seems that several (possibly many?) of them were tagged quite well, including the use of abandoned:* tags. In my opinion, these ways should not have been deleted.

I understand that removing unusable ways may simplify navigation for your application. However, I believe it would be better if the navigation software respected and interpreted the existing OSM tagging instead of removing mapped features that are still valid as abandoned objects.

Best regards,
Pascal

Hi DwightTee and thank you for your reply.

I think in your case, it seems the reported issues are false positives. The geometries were not changed in a way that would introduce new crossings, and the tagging adjustments did not create any new conflicts.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks again for your map edits.

Regards,
Pascal

Found also some spammy entries or descriptions within this changeset ...

You're welcome.

Ein paar der Änderungen (Wege) dieses Changesets wurden in einem Bereich auf Basis der Kommentare aufgeräumt.

changeset/177800556

In this case, it seems the reported issues are false positives. The geometries were not changed in a way that would introduce crossings, and the tagging adjustments did not create any new conflicts.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks again for your map edits.

Regards,
Pascal

Thanks for the detailed explanation and for taking the time to respond, much appreciated.

Cheers,
Pascal

👍

Please see changeset/177618912

Hi Phil,

thanks a lot for the detailed explanation.

I’m by no means a legal expert, but I was wondering whether the OGL is actually compatible with OSM’s ODbL license?

In addition, I’d be interested in your view on how useful it is to store external reference IDs directly in OSM. In Germany this has only worked to a limited extent in one case, and in other cases I remember more critical voices than supporters when similar references were discussed.

Best regards,
Pascal

Hi Phil,

just a quick question: I noticed UPRN references added here and was wondering about the data source and whether licensing was considered.

Please let me know if I’m missing something.

Many thanks!

Pascal

👍 TrickyFoxy

Yep

In this case, it seems the reported issues are false positives. The geometries were not changed in a way that would introduce crossings, and the tagging adjustments did not create any new conflicts.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks again for your map edits.

Regards,
Pascal

Hi, just a test?

Hi, just a test?

Hi, just a test?

Hi, just a test?

Reverted by changeset/177636310

Thanks, @eggie