<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/02/2020 15:45, Mario Frasca
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c740ebdf-96c8-05c6-5c96-34caa0c6ae4a@anche.no">... but
apparently when an activity is closed, it's too late to ask them
to review. <br>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think that that's a reasonable approach for any OSM
mapper to take (whether they're working for a company or not). I
also don't think that's a typical reaction from paid mappers
generally (apart from spammers of course), and with a DWG hat on
I've contacted many, many mappers both doing it for a job and as a
hobby.</p>
<p>An exception might be if someone has broken something that was
quite complicated (perhaps an imported multipolygon forest the
size of a small country) and they technically aren't able to fix
it again, or there have been other edits in the mean time that
might be difficult for a relatively new mapper to resolve, but "I
can't be bothered" is rarely given as an excuse.</p>
<p>On to the "whether it is a good idea to map things this way" part
of the question (which might be a better fit for the tagging
list):</p>
<p>You can see examples of both approaches at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/382577754#map=19/8.97397/-79.53502">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/382577754#map=19/8.97397/-79.53502</a>
. To the southwest there are multiple nodes within one building
and to the northeast there is "one building per shop". If there
are multiple shops within one physical building I'd certainly map
them as nodes within a building, but it can sometimes be difficult
to decide where one building ends and the next starts.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.09756/-1.38685">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.09756/-1.38685</a> in the UK
is an example (not originally mapped by me) that shows shops as
closed ways and buildings (that are connected, but are actually
separate buildings) as closed ways, and the two don't necessarily
map 1-1 with each other. This matches real life, but is a pain to
maintain when (for example) a large shop shuts and opens as two
smaller ones.<br>
</p>
<p>In the Panama example even if the "buildings" northeast of
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/382577754">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/382577754</a> could be considered
separate (and it sounds like you're saying that it would be wrong
to) presumably the walls at least should be parallel.</p>
<p>Have you had an explanation of why they're taking this approach?<br>
</p>
<p>> I've now moved to tagging as many of them them as 'fixme'.
maybe public shame will do the job. <br>
</p>
<p>I don't think that will help here - higgledy piggledy buildings
are easy to spot, and a glut of fixmes for "obvious to spot
problems" will drown out existing fixmes that might not be
otherwise obvious.</p>
<p>The usual advice I'd give is (and apologies if this sounds like a
broken record):</p>
<ul>
<li>Comment politely on the changeset that introduced the problem,
with a translation into a language that the mapper will
understand, explaining what the problem is.</li>
<li>Also, if appropriate, mention it to the rest of the local
community.<br>
</li>
<li>If they persist, repeat explaining again why it is a problem.
<br>
</li>
<li>If that doesn't work, raise it with the Data Working Group via
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:data@osmfoundation.org">data@osmfoundation.org</a></li>
</ul>
<p>In this case there have been a couple of questions asked of this
mapper in changeset discussion comments (though not about this
particular issue) - any more and with a DWG hat on I'd definitely
consider drawing their attention to the fact that other people are
trying to get in touch with them.</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy (from the DWG, but as usual here writing in a personal
capacity)</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>