For single missing elements: open a single note for each missing item.
For missing features spread over a limited area (a street in a city, a specific area, a neighborhood or a village) with a certain area limit of m² (street, neighborhood, park, etc.): open one general note covering the entire affected area. (area notes could be added, now they are just points)
For errors or missing tags or incorrect shape on existing elements: use the fix me tag directly on the object.
Notes can also be used by mappers who for various reasons are unable to perform the edit (they are not local, they are already following large mapping projects or they no longer have time to map)
+1, and if possible, describe all relevant properties (e.g. address, name, …)
no, do not use notes for “general” messages.
fixme and notes are similar in scope, you can use either for the error kind of problem, but ideally you would just fix it yourself and not bother anyone else with it. Do not generally add either for missing tags though, especially for missing properties. There is not set of required tags.
Of course, the note should be as detailed as possible, but it depends on the object (a lamppost has less details than a shop), but this is a general discussion, here we talk about how to use and manage notes and fixme tags.
For you we should spam billions of notes for every single tree, meter of sidewalk, fire hydrant, etc. Come on, it makes no sense, you overload everything for nothing.
If you read the last line you would understand why a mapper would leave a note or a fixme tag. Also fixme tags cannot be put on things that do not exist in the map, so they can only be put on some existing point, line or area, so only missing/wrong tags or wrong shapes
In rare cases, when few objects are missing it may be OK to open a note, but even there it is dubious utility. Still, if single specific shop in mall is missing then note is better.
But you know what is better? Mapping it. Mapping single bench is more useful than 10 000 notes about missing benches.
Though notes about critical missing things (new bridge) may be still useful.
Notes about missing benches, shops, trees are just annoying in my opinion.
in such case it is in general better to make one edit, rather than open any number of notes
so you can save time by not opening 100 notes and make edit in that saved time
though “they want to map more but need to stop right now as there is more in life than OpenStreetMap” would be valid reason to open a note
I would like to hear opinions from others as well, not just the two of you, since this discussion concerns a general approach to note management, not individual preferences.
From what I read on the official wiki page about Notes (Notes - OpenStreetMap Wiki), it seems that the guidelines provided there are more flexible than the restrictions you are suggesting. For example, the concept of general notes on the wiki appears to differ significantly from what is being discussed here.
Additionally, in the last line of my initial post, I explicitly highlighted that notes can also be used by mappers who, for various reasons, cannot perform the edits themselves. This could be because they are not local, are already engaged in large mapping projects, or simply do not have time to map anymore. It seems that this point might not have been fully considered in the responses so far.
I am also unclear on what, in your view, is the ideal way to leave a note. Should they be numerous and extremely detailed? Or are there other criteria?
Finally, I would like to reiterate that I have already addressed the issue of limiting the area covered by a note. Notes regarding an area should be limited to a reasonable size, not spanning an overly large space such as 15 km².
Looking forward to hearing more perspectives to build a more balanced and effective approach.
Hopefully my opinion was pretty clear from the previous thread - only create notes as an absolute last resort and try and resolve things yourself if possible.
That’s not to say that notes should never be used (I’ve used plenty myself) but that they should be a last, not a first, resort.
Notes that point out “missing” things are generally not recommended. They may be used, sparingly, by people who for some reason are unable to add the feature to OSM but who still have valuable info. If the fact that something is missing can be easily spotted on aerial imagery and the note does not add more info than “something is missing”, don’t add a note.
Notes that point out problems with an individual object are ok if the creator of the note is unable to edit OSM directly. If the creator is able to edit OSM then they should resolve the problem through mapping. Only use fixme tags on objects if you are mapping the thing and want to convey an incompleteness or uncertainty - don’t edit an object just to add a fixme tag. Notes are better for that.
Have you considered running MapRoulette campaigns to highlight potential data issues instead? In my area, notes are rarely reviewed—I only discovered them a few years ago, and many date back over a decade ago. We have too few active local contributors to make such campaigns effective, but I’d still prefer that over a flood of new notes that add little value or just state things that can already be inferred from the data.
I was about to reply exactly the same thing. No need to add another comment repeating the same opinion as someone else in an earlier post. That is what we have the useful reaction button for, which I made use of several times in the earlier thread to express my opinion.
Anyhow, to make it clear for you: I am exactly of the same opionion presented in detail by @Mateusz_Konieczny, @dieterdreist and others.
If you want even more clarification, just make a poll (of which I can forecast the result) but please refrain from opening more redundant topics about this issue.
I’m not sure they are as flexible as you are saying. The only “do” in the lists of do’s and don’ts is:
Use this feature to report an error in the data or to give some additional information, for instance the name of a street or an address etc.
I think that is broadly consistent with what most people here are saying.
A note saying “this junction has changed recently and the sidewalks and crossings are different now” may be useful. It provides information that is not obvious from aerial imagery. It would be ideal to map the changes, but if a mapper is just passing and not likely to return, it lets local mappers know there is a location they might want to investigate.
“This whole area lacks mapped sidewalks” does not provide additional information as it can be seen from the map data that there are no sidewalk tags. I map plenty of sidewalks myself, I am well aware there are many parts of my city I have not got around to, and reminding me of that doesn’t help.
My first reaction to this thread was “does this need to be discussed?” I think anyone can add a note if he thinks it will contribute to a better map, and anyone else is free to act on them, ignore them, ask for further details, or close them if they don’t contain enough details to act upon. No need for further guidelines.
I think anyone can add a note if he thinks it will contribute to a better map, and anyone else is free to act on them, ignore them, ask for further details, or close them if they don’t contain enough details to act upon.
yes, and if people close such notes and the authors reopen, we get threads like here
