Unfortunately, a second problem occurred about six months later.
Please look at the following features (using a tool like OSMCha to check the differences will be more convenient).
(url deleted )
Despite another editor (myself) adding the demolished:building key and drawing attention to the fact that the building no longer existed, a recent editor added the building key to the building, making it appear on the map again.
It’s not uncommon for people to mistakenly add old features to an area that they perceive as unmapped, which is a minor error in itself.
However, re-adding a feature that has been explicitly stated not to exist (we have indicated the closure and demolition of the store in two ways: with the ‘demolished’ prefix and the ‘note’ tag) would be considered a moderately gross negligence.
However, one point to consider is that the editor software doesn’t seem to issue a warning about the presence of both “building=yes” and “demolished:building=yes” tags, which are logically incompatible (At least that’s the case with iD, and I suspect JOSM also doesn’t display a warning).
In this regard, it’s unfair to place all the blame on the editor’s lack of attention, and improvements to the editor software may be necessary.
Since this is a long message, to summarize the main points:
Please persuade the editor in question to verify whether the building actually exists.
Please strengthen the warnings in the editor software so that no one else makes the same mistake.
Any assistance with either or both of these points would be greatly appreciated.
To be more precise, the editor in question is using JOSM in principle and has probably not made any customizations such as map rendering styles.
To directly improve this situation, vanilla JOSM should issue a warning.
I believe this comment is what you’re referring to, so I’ll respond based on that assumption.
(url deleted )
The opening sentence points out that this is the “third time” the situation has been overwritten with outdated information, and expresses regret over this.
Next, it explains the situation in the area (the existence of a plan to construct a new mixed-use commercial complex and the fact that the Esri background photo shows it as a vacant lot).
Finally, it states that the verification is significantly less thorough than other mappers.
However, it does not include any direct “requests for corrections” or “requests for responses” as you asked me about here. This point seems to require some additional commentary.
While I believe this is a useful direct solution, I decided to first announce it on the community forums because it requires doing the same thing with various popular editor software.
In that case, you should add landuse=brownfield or construction to the area, along with the demolished prefix to the building outlines - this might make it more obvious to mappers who come along and edit only using Bing imagery.
(There might be nuance differences due to translation.)
While I certainly didn’t create areas with landuse=brownfield or construction,
I think other mappers editing them should be mindful, even if only the demolished prefix is attached to each building.
I added the demolished prefix to two adjacent restaurants along the road, and if even one of them is aware of it, I can expect them to communicate before changing the tags.
Furthermore, it seems this mapper didn’t change the tag with the understanding that the restaurant still exists.
If they intended it to still exist, they would have removed demolished:building=yes.
It can be inferred from the situation that the change was simply made in a state of inattention (therefore, if this is the first time, a very gentle comment pointing it out is appropriate. However, this mapper has made this mistake more than three times).
if you wrote about problem in changeset comments and they ignored it you can try sending them private message linking to these changeset comments - sadly, changeset comments are easier to miss than PMs (for technical reasons this is not fixed yet)
if they ignore also that I would ask DWG for help, they can ensure that they will surely see message (0-hour block)
You two are mapping the same local area. Cooperation between nearby mappers, especially the exchange of local information, is helpful for better mapping. This problem might have been avoided with a message sent beforehand.
After the facility opens, please visit the site, survey the shops and other details, and update the map around the area. That would be the best solution.
You repeatedly send comments to a specific mapper over minor mistakes, and you publicly expose these issues on the forum and other places. Such behavior is considered inappropriate.
Notice
I understand the criticism that “edit shaming” itself is inappropriate behavior, and in order to resolve the inappropriate situation,
I have removed the links to the changeset and the feature within the thread.