Do not use Google data
Hello Dee, thanks for thinking about "how to get informations". I confirm: Google data is not free - and regrettably not usable for OSM :-(
The words you did delete are part of this quality improvement project. May be my English is not good enough and my words are mistakable? I do not recommend to use Google coordinates. For locations we use Bing :-)
But for improving our informations, we use all help we can need. If I have a photo, the background can help to distinguish and verify my guess. Especially for lighthouses, you can see in aerial photos a long shadow of the tower, which says: here about is the tower. The exact coordinate, you then can get from Bing :-)
May be you can write this in more understandable words? In the meantime I rewrite it as it was.
Thanks, --Markus 08:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Google surely would like to say that reading a street name from a Panoramio photo is already "using Google data". Others may come to other conclusions..
Reductions in number of lights!!!
I have noticed that the number of lights are reducing, and quite rapidly lately, even as I have added a few hundred lighted buoys and beacons. Can somebody investigate where this reduction occurs, and if this is deletion of duplicate nodes, or somebody removing "unwanted" tags? If our hard work slowly gets deleted, than we should find the reason why and try to educate those users responsible to let our work stay. --Skippern (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- See edits of malcolmh for some of the deletions. His justification for the deletion he cited wide criticism of the import and that it amounts to "bad data". He is/was deleting marks that hadn't been moved since import. I also noticed that he "tidied" away tags from some nodes that I had restored when the aerial imagery had improved enough to fix their positions. The tags deleted included descriptors of their physical positions and their references which seem like useful information to retain.
- Frankly I feel he is "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" here and is being overzealous in his deletions but I don't want to restore them myself if he has the support of the wider community. -- InsertUser (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
FIXMEs being removed on non-fixed positions
There are currently lots of seamark:fixme being removed without the positions and thus navigational meaning actually being updated. This is annoying, because unfixed seamarks are no longer visible as being insecure. This tends to increase bad reputation for the openseamap in the sense of being less reliable than commercially edited maps. The only gain is the reduction of fixme counts. As an example look at the baltic coastlines, where regions with high density of fixmes alternate with "cleaned" regions, which still have lots of unfixed or badly fixed seamarks. I would like you to comment on this. --Look4book (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Me too, recognized malcolmh as the main editor removing FIXMEs (and other possible helpful details) from seamarks WITHOUT having fixed them. Dear malcolmh: please do never try again to silence this discussion by deleting the whole Talk: page as done on Aug, 18. 2015. best regards --Look4book (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)