Rock glaciers retagged as moraines

Thanks. I have been keeping DWG in the loop and the discussion here is the course of action they have recommended.

1 Like

As they ignored Changeset: 138316124 | OpenStreetMap comments and continue to edit, see Changeset: 138948364 | OpenStreetMap - you are free to revert their changes, especially as it is part of systematic retagging that apparently caused data damage

there is no need to start such thread in this case, though if they systematically ignore changeset comments you can contact DWG and complain about this (typically they remind them about communication in way that cannot be ignored)

If you are unfamiliar with how reverts can be done feel free to ask

If someone mass edits tags and ignores changeset comments and continues to edit then burden of discussing changes should not be on others, at least in my 100% private opinion.

Especially if they continue to do this on large scale (and I am writing it as a person who engages in large scale tag fiddling and recently went too far and needed to revert some edits of my bot due to miscommunication)

But if that is wanted, thenbased on Rock glacier - Wikipedia - tagging them as moraine is obviously wrong

personally natural=rock_glacier seems inferior to natural=glacier + glacier:type=rock but it is not wrong, unlike tagging it as a moraine

1 Like

I wrote PM to them about changeset comments - maybe they somehow missed email notifications.

DWG hasn’t offered me any more support with these issues, but that might change if other mappers were to contact them.

I have been doing reverts in JOSM, sometimes using the reverter plugin, sometimes by hand, depending on the particular case. If you have other tips, I’d certainly be interested! is a recent product and is really effective including semi-magical conflict handling

I send mail to DWG about changeset comments being ignored

1 Like

While we’re discussing this broadly, there are some additional cases that I haven’t been able to follow up on yet:

  • natural=boulders => natural=stone + field=yes (or other variations) — 4 changesets

  • geological=glacial_lake => lake=glacial_lake2 changesets

  • geological=plate_boundary => geological=fault1 changeset but in this case @MichaelCollinson was kind enough to confirm that the original tag was more precise.

  • wetland=saltern and similar features retagged — 12 changesets

  • natural=rock_shelter => natural=cave_entrance (or removed) — 3 changesets (added)

In some cases, the original tags may not have been ideal, but it doesn’t seem appropriate to completely retag all the features that use a certain tag without some discussion.

According to the ticket that I’ve seen**, the last advice was to keep trying to bring the mapper into the broader conversation (as per your post that can be seen at that I’ve just agreed with).

They haven’t replied to some comments for about a week, which seems reasonable to allow people in case they’re on holiday or something.

** I wasn’t dealing with it.

Thanks for the changeset comment. The mapper has only missed one day of mapping in the last six months, but we can certainly give them some more time to join the discussion.

if they would be inactive then waiting even month is fine

but they were actively editing and retagging more things while ignoring changeset comments about other remote retagged things and at least one PM

For example Changeset: 138356650 | OpenStreetMap remains unaswered, asked before other series of questionable remote edits happened (" natural=boulders => natural=stone + field=yes (or other variations) — 4 changesets " )

I think it’s worth publicly mentioning that behind Krako73 is the blocked user SHARCRASH, who is now also active as Digital-line. A very problematic user. Read his comments, there’s no doubt. He’s no bored teen or retiree btw (birthdate online).

I reverted these edits in Changeset: 138969879 | OpenStreetMap

revert highly dubious change, user who made them ignored changeset comments and my PM and proceeded to make more dubious changes - current volume of their dubious changes is so large that other users cannot keep up

see Rock glaciers retagged as moraines and Rock glaciers retagged as moraines - #10 by Kai_Johnson
(for avoidance of any doubt, I made this edit in 100% personal capacity)

See how they used time spend on discussion in Various landslide tags replaced with hazard=landslide and Lava Field versus Lava Flow? to make more dubious edits and have not bothered to comment on most changeset comments ( )

To me that looks like typical tactic (deliberate or unintentional) of just flooding things at low cost while cleanup is far more costly and slower.

And rock glaciers definitely are distinct from moraines.

1 Like

I also started Glacier:type=rock vs geological=rock_glacier

And created Tag:glacier:type=rock - OpenStreetMap Wiki and Tag:geological=rock_glacier - OpenStreetMap Wiki to make relevant tag documentation easy to find.

The only correct part of these edits is that geological=rock_glacier may make sense to be replaced.

1 Like

Thanks for reverting the rock glacier changesets, @Mateusz_Konieczny.

I would propose to revert the boulders, glacial lake, plate boundary, saltern, and rock shelter changesets I mentioned above, but DWG just sent a block message to the mapper and encouraged them to discuss proposed tag changes before making them.

Let’s give them some time join the discussions here if they’d like to do so.

1 Like

I see they deleted their account, see Way History: 673961116 | OpenStreetMap

That makes this claims about account reuse far more credible, for record:

Krako73 has userid 18305684, found block user_18305684 blocked by woodpeck | OpenStreetMap

Behavior suggests that user who made this edits will return shortly with a new account even if this specific ones are not used by them. And it is quite clear they did it already with Krako73 account.

That is why in my opinion someone who refuses to communicate and continues problematic edits should not be given days to respond, they should respond before making any further edits, especially of the same type.

I guess this becomes a different type of problem now.

The Krako73 account started making changes almost immediately after the account was opened and kept up the same pattern of changes until just now. That would suggest that this was not a new mapper but a new account being used by a mapper who has some experience with OSM.

I agree that this suggests the mapper will return shortly with a new account to continue the pattern of changes. So I suppose we’ll need to look for that.

The mapper clearly does not intend to discuss their changes, so unless there are objections, I propose to revert all the remaining changesets discussed above and in the Various landslide tags replaced with hazard=landslide thread.

1 Like

I would advise some caution against jumping to conclusions here.

It is true that “SHARCRASH” was a difficult mapper who not only had problematic mapping habits but also frequently resorted to ad-hominem attacks against other mappers for which they were ultimately blocked.

Usually, when DWG blocks a user because of bad behaviour, we will tolerate it if they come back as a new user - if they change their ways sufficiently that the community can accept the “new person” then that’s ok; everybody deserves a second chance. Once the second and third chances have been thrown away, we tend to become less tolerant and block new instances on sight.

Now SHARCRASH, in their time, have made some enemies who are not much better than SHARCRASH themselves and have indeed occasionally been blocked for being dicks. It appears that some of them are bitter enough to smell SHARCRASH behind everything and then go around and smear them, sending private messages to other mappers about how SHARCRASH is behind this account and that, and salting that with derogatory comments about that mapper’s personal circumstances, and so on.

I recommend that everyone ignore such rumours, especially where spread by private message, and judge an account by what they do instead of by what they have allegedly done in an “earlier OSM life”, or where and how they live, etc.


The changesets discussed above relating to boulders, glacial lakes, plate boundaries, salterns, and rock shelters have been reverted.

1 Like

Around here Blockgletscher are always tagged natural=scree, because that is what people like you and me see there, both on aerial and on the ground. I’d say, that is fine. There should not be a natural=glacier required, the appearance does not fit and the geologists seem to approve, from what I read from casual reading up subject matter.

1 Like

This is an interesting point that would be good to discuss in the Glacier:type=rock vs geological=rock_glacier thread.

Let’s pick up the topic there!

@Kai_Johnson sorry for what happened about your contributions. I need to clarify that I’m not Krako73 as stated by eyasonu here who certainly is a sock-puppet, according his recent account with 0 edits. Furthermore, sorry to be off-topic but when people talk behind my back I feel the need to intervene.

@eyasonu 0 edits in your account, another sock-puppet AKA tomolobla AKA Capslock_Cleaner AKA grawutayette AKA ltwo AKA Kugelbaum etc… How coward to conceal yourself behind several accounts and even behind other people in trying to convince them to report me, as woodpeck says. I know by fact that you tried to convince Nanard777, but too bad for you, he revealed me your scheme. I know him from our community meetings in Belgium. I met him personally again, we had a nice beer and we talked about your vandalism.

@woodpeck I’m open to listen about what do you mean by “problematic mapping habits”.
For the pseudo “ad-hominem” attacks, again, they were not ad-hominem attacks. You conveniently say they are so. Read the definition and apply!
For an unbiased point of view My comments in CS with evidneces or fixme=tomolobla user did this, explanation + you were complimenting his edits!