Dear @CanterburyPlain,

I noticed that several junctions have been "corrected" by your team recently. Please stop applying these changes. All previous edits of this nature will be reverted.

Junction flares in the middle of a junction should not be mapped as traversable (these should not cross each other) unless there is a physical barrier. I am specifically referring to flares in the center. Please update your guidelines for Serbia and all other countries to ensure such junctions are mapped as 90 degree junctions as they were previously.

Crossing lines/roads is only allowed if there is a physical divider. In those cases, the mapping must reflect that specific physical reality.

I can spend extra time if you want to learn why this approach isn't best practice anywhere and what problems it could cause if you miss (and you are missing it) to add appropriate turn restrictions.

Please confirm that you have read this message and provide an update once your guidelines have been corrected.

Thanks,
Nemanja

Dear @LakeNumto,

It is me again. I want to send you another message that I have noticed that several junctions have been "corrected" by your team recently. Please stop applying these changes. All previous edits of this nature will be reverted.

Junction flares in the middle of a junction should not be mapped as traversable (these should not cross each other) unless there is a physical barrier. I am specifically referring to flares in the center. Please update your guidelines for Serbia and all other countries to ensure such junctions are mapped as 90 degree junctions as they were previously.

Crossing lines/roads is only allowed if there is a physical divider. In those cases, the mapping must reflect that specific physical reality.

I can spend extra time if you want to learn why this approach isn't best practice anywhere and what problems it could cause if you miss (and you are missing it) to add appropriate turn restrictions.

Please confirm that you have read this message and provide an update once your guidelines have been corrected.

Thanks,
Nemanja

Dear @VolgaRiver,

I noticed that several junctions have been "corrected" by your team recently. Please stop applying these changes. All previous edits of this nature will be reverted.

Junction flares in the middle of a junction should not be mapped as traversable (these should not cross each other) unless there is a physical barrier. I am specifically referring to flares in the center. Please update your guidelines for Serbia and all other countries to ensure such junctions are mapped as 90 degree junctions as they were previously.

Crossing lines/roads is only allowed if there is a physical divider. In those cases, the mapping must reflect that specific physical reality.

I can spend extra time if you want to learn why this approach isn't best practice anywhere and what problems it could cause if you miss (and you are missing it) to add appropriate turn restrictions.

Please confirm that you have read this message and provide an update once your guidelines have been corrected.

Thanks,
Nemanja

Dear @LakeNumto,

I noticed that several junctions have been "corrected" by your team recently. Please stop applying these changes. All previous edits of this nature will be reverted.

Junction flares in the middle of a junction should not be mapped as traversable (these should not cross each other) unless there is a physical barrier. I am specifically referring to flares in the center. Please update your guidelines for Serbia and all other countries to ensure such junctions are mapped as 90 degree junctions as they were previously.

Crossing lines/roads is only allowed if there is a physical divider. In those cases, the mapping must reflect that specific physical reality.

I can spend extra time if you want to learn why this approach isn't best practice anywhere and what problems it could cause if you miss (and you are missing it) to add appropriate turn restrictions.

Please confirm that you have read this message and provide an update once your guidelines have been corrected.

Thanks,
Nemanja

Dear @MountAgou,

I noticed that several junctions have been "corrected" by your team recently. Please stop applying these changes. All previous edits of this nature will be reverted.

Junction flares in the middle of a junction should not be mapped as traversable (these should not cross each other) unless there is a physical barrier. I am specifically referring to flares in the center. Please update your guidelines for Serbia and all other countries to ensure such junctions are mapped as 90 degree junctions as they were previously.

Crossing lines/roads is only allowed if there is a physical divider. In those cases, the mapping must reflect that specific physical reality.

I can spend extra time if you want to learn why this approach isn't best practice anywhere and what problems it could cause if you miss (and you are missing it) to add appropriate turn restrictions.

Please confirm that you have read this message and provide an update once your guidelines have been corrected.

Thanks,
Nemanja

Hvala!

Hello! Please could you explain what malicious edit has been done here?

Hello! Please could you explain what malicious edit has been done here?

Hello! Please could you explain what malicious edit has been done here?

Slobodno promeni.
Na južnoj strani je Benu i još jedna.

@MaliMrav - Benu je pored Krešenkovića

Proveriću. Benu je radio tu gomilu akvizicija, ali proveravam.

Hvala. :)

Do mene je. Zapravo sam i napisao WIP (work in progress), ali sam skroz zaboravio da se vratim i dovršim. Biće ovih dana sve završeno.

I am aware of the whole situation, and it’s clear why you did that, however, let’s keep this environment as clean as possible!

Cheers, all the best!

Takođe, svako dobro ti želim!

It's weird to ask but how would you map if at all this situation

I wouldn't map this at all since it is a very temporary thing. It is like you ask me how would I map some of the events (like old-timer showcase event few days ago) in Kalemegdan. It is important to have Kalemegdan, all paths, maybe green fields, etc, but event as itself is different layer, not the valuble data.

I agree that road blockage should be added accordingly, but there are third-party services that set appropriate tags for blockages/constructions/etc. such as Here, TomTom, INRIX, etc.

Please be mindful that OpenStreetMap is database, not service on top of the base layer. To make it easier to understand - OSM doesn't have routing algorithm, but it uses 3 other algorithms, it doesn't even have search engine, but uses Nominatim. So to make it crystal clear - it is database which should have good basic information (for example whole road network and house numbers), and on top of that third parties are building services.

Hi Ouioui2,

Thank you for providing more context on the situation. I understand that the presence of these tents and the associated restrictions are significant local issues and represent "facts on the ground" from your perspective.

However, OpenStreetMap has specific guidelines about what we map. Our primary goal is to create a neutral, objective map of verifiable, physical features that have a degree of permanence.

1. Neutrality and Purpose: OSM is not a platform for political statements, advocacy, or to "glory" (or condemn) any political party or event. The map should reflect the physical reality in a neutral way.
2. Temporariness: Features that are explicitly temporary, like protest camps (even if present for several months), are generally not mapped as primary features. OSM aims to map the more permanent landscape. While the definition of "temporary" can sometimes be debated, a protest setup, by its nature, is not usually intended as a permanent installation.
3. Appropriate Tagging: As you acknowledged, labeling this as a military area is incorrect and misleading. If a feature is to be mapped, it must be tagged accurately according to its actual function and characteristics.
4. Data Quality: We strive to keep OSM data clean, consistent, and reliable. This is why major companies trust and use our data. Adding temporary, politically charged, or inaccurately tagged features can compromise this quality – what some might term "trash data" or digital graffiti.

The most appropriate way to represent information about such dynamic situations, especially those with a strong political dimension, is often outside of the main OSM database – perhaps on a dedicated website, a specialized map layer using OSM as a base, or by forking the OSM data for your own purposes, as you rightly suggested could be done with a planet file from Geofabrik.

Our aim is to map the world as it is, focusing on enduring features, not transient events or political disputes. I hope this clarifies the OSM community's general position on such matters.

Nemanja

This is vandalism of the map. This is not military area, and some people indeed put temporary tents, but this has no value for the map. If it happens to be added once again - it will be reported to DWG, since this is X time that is getting removed.

If that happen it was honest mistake not something that is repeated over and over. Also forest sharing same path (not way but path) so mistake could happen. If you see such single issue, go and fix it.

At this way it is very discouraging sending messages for single issue after adding tons of same features.

Thanks,
Nemanja