Changeset No. Date Contributor Comment
12017-03-20 06:39:38 UTCmalcolmh Steve,

US lateral seamarks conform to the IALA-B system: port-hand marks are green and starboard-hand marks are red. (See:

This beacon is a starboard-hand mark, not port. I note that you have made the same mistake on other lateral m...
12017-02-12 21:45:17 UTCchippy You just deleted Node 1
22017-02-12 21:45:44 UTCchippy again
32017-02-12 21:46:48 UTCchippy Sorry, I mean, it had been deleted and restored previously :)
42017-02-12 21:58:44 UTCmalcolmh You had created a duplicate of node 3815077900, which has been there since 2015.
52017-02-12 22:12:03 UTCSomeoneElse @chippy I don't think malcolmh created the duplicate - that was someone else trying to move an "important" node "somewhere important". "node 1" has been on a few continents so far - I'm sure it'll get resurrected somewhere else at some point. As for the NOAA buoy here - there has been no data from...
62017-02-13 13:59:47 UTCchippy The history of node 1 indicates that it is frequently deleted and restored.

SomeoneElse: I did not say that malcolmh created the duplicate node. But malcolmh did delete Node 1 (as the only change) in this changeset which is the subject of this changeset discussion.

I also don't think malcolmh...
72017-02-13 14:18:42 UTCmalcolmh I was replying to chippy! @chippy when you "restored" node 1, node 3815077900 was already in the database & had been since 2015. Therefore you had created a duplicate & that is why I deleted it.
82017-02-13 15:09:59 UTCSomeoneElse I'm just confused because it wasn't chippy that restored node 1!
92017-02-13 15:44:59 UTCmalcolmh Sequence of events:
24/5/15: node 1 restored as a tree in DE
3/11/15: node 3815077900 created at 0,0
1/12/16: node 1 deleted
30/1/17: node 1 restored, this time at 0,0 - on top of node 3815077900. Later that day, I deleted it.

The mapper that has created this confusion is "glglgl", and his co...
102017-02-13 16:06:44 UTCmalcolmh Also, apologies to chippy, who I now realise was not the mapper who created the duplicate, only the mapper who raised the issue.
112017-02-13 23:09:43 UTCEzekielT Node 1 used to be a tree in Passau..
12016-12-30 06:54:46 UTCpnorman This doesn't align with the bridge, is that correct?
22016-12-30 07:12:08 UTCmalcolmh You are right, the position is clearly incorrect. My contribution was only to correct the tagging, not the positioning. (See my comment on the previous changeset for this node). The original mapper imported this and many more objects using the source "
32016-12-30 07:40:19 UTCpnorman I've asked the original user what's going on at, because this looks like an undiscussed import with potential license issues
12016-08-26 08:53:15 UTCHjart Is it really necessary to duplicate tags like this?
22016-08-26 09:01:04 UTCarchie Yes, it is. It's not duplicate tags anywhay because it's in an own namespace (seamarkings). Purpose: Name of harbor to be rendered on
32016-08-26 09:03:02 UTCHjart Why can't you simply use the name tag?
42016-08-26 09:13:46 UTCarchie On only tags in namespace "seamarkings" are rendered concerning at least harbours. Why do you bother? It dos not interfere w anything. The information is orderly in its own namespace. Nothing to worry about. Just leave the seamark:-tags where they are if you are not involved in se...
52016-08-26 09:17:15 UTCHjart I worry because it's taking up unnecessary space in our database as well as complicating things equally unnecessarily.
Honestly I'm feeling very tempted to remove the crap
62016-08-26 09:33:48 UTCHjart The claim that you are not duplicating tags is complete nonsense. You have given the seamark:name=* tag the exact same value as the existing name=* tag. This to me is practically duplicating tags.
72016-08-26 10:10:48 UTCHjart I brought this up on IRC and I'm seeing prominent members of the community agree that the Openseamap namespacing everything needs to stop.
82016-08-26 10:17:49 UTCarchie I sent a message to Malcom Herring, who is a major representative of openseamap. I hope he will enter this discussion.
92016-08-30 07:42:25 UTCmalcolmh "name" and "seamark:name" do not necessarily have the same value. An object may be known to mariners by a different name than that used by the local area. For example, harbour may be named after the town by the local community, but may be listed under the name of the operating yacht club in nautical...
12016-07-12 21:34:51 UTCmuralito Hello malcomh.

seamark:information and seamark:information:pt could not be seamark tagging, but ¿removing seamark prefix is the right way to fix them?

Please see
22016-07-12 21:40:11 UTCmuralito The user try to add some warning to the waterway, so it seems to me that some kind of seamark:* tagging shoud be used, because is important for the navegation.
32016-07-13 10:30:01 UTCmalcolmh Sorry, I made a bad choice. Much better would be "waterway:information", since the mapped object is a waterway, not a seamark. If you agree with this, I will make those changes.
42016-07-14 14:00:16 UTCSkippern I tagged them as seamark:information (rough translation) and seamark:information:pt (as in the source) for lack of better tags. This is information given in nautical charts, and should be tagged in a way that can be captured when producing such from OSM data
12016-06-21 08:15:31 UTCwoodpeck In this and a couple nearby changesets you seem to be re-adding data that was removed by DWG because it was illegally copied from a copyrighted source. What is your source for adding this information?
22016-06-21 08:32:56 UTCmalcolmh My source was the tags that remained after redaction. Those tags belong to a long-since abandoned tagging proposal, so I converted them to the non-deprecated seamark tags using the values in the remaining tags, in addition to a couple of default values that my editing tool generates (buoy shape & to...
12016-06-03 18:46:36 UTCGschaftlhuaba Concerning the lighthouse in Monemvasia: Is there a special reason, why all the seamark metadata is added to a separate point in OSM instead of the building polygon itself plus a man_made=lighthouse tag? Secondly do you have any information whether the disused=yes is correct? Probably one should als...
22016-06-03 19:29:57 UTCmalcolmh If the light is located on the building, then it is a good idea to copy the node tags onto the building polygon & delete the node. If the beacon is a duplicate then delete it. I don't know whether the buildings are disused - try asking the original mapper.
32016-06-04 04:31:25 UTCGschaftlhuaba OK, thanks. I put a comment in the other changeset:
12016-05-10 08:00:09 UTCmalcolmh Please note that the tag "seamark:type" can only take one value. This should be the master object. Other objects sharing the same node/way are implied by their attribute tags, or where they have no attributes, can be detailed in a "seamark:information" tag.
22016-05-10 10:13:55 UTCAdVerburg I see, thank you.
12016-05-02 13:11:53 UTCRom1 Hi, what is your source for all these informations ?
And some text is missing in "liaison entre les ducs d"
22016-05-02 13:26:17 UTCmalcolmh The data was extracted from The "national_information" value should be a French translation of the English "information" tag value. It looks as if the text has been truncated.
32016-05-02 13:36:21 UTCRom1 Have you understood the conditions written at ? It is not compatible with the ODbL of OSM.
42016-05-02 14:15:12 UTCmalcolmh Oh dear! In that case I will remove all this data.
52016-05-02 19:25:27 UTCRom1 Unfortunately it's the only thing to do :( Perhaps, one day the licence status from VNF will change...
12016-04-26 21:55:57 UTCmalcolmh Please do not destroy recent on-the-ground surveys with out-of-date aerial photos.
22016-04-28 17:27:03 UTCEugene13 Sorry about that! In future I will be more carreful!
Thank you for understanding!
12016-04-19 19:23:17 UTCKDDA Updating seamarks? How is deleting 40 nodes updating?

This is not a sea, its an inland waterway called Lower Lough Erne.
22016-04-19 20:49:39 UTCmalcolmh Whoops! Fat finger trouble on my part. - now reverted
12016-03-07 08:28:45 UTCmalcolmh OSM have requested that depth data should not be put into their DB. Depths may be added to sunken objects, but not isolated spot depth soundings or depth contours. Therefore please delete these nodes.
22016-03-08 16:28:57 UTCkallekaden Hi malcolmh,
excuse, I am German and have not possibly understood properly. is there to your request closer information?
32016-03-08 22:42:48 UTCwoodpeck Meerestiefen als Punktdaten mappen wir eigentlich nicht - wir mappen es, wenn irgendwo ein Wrack auf 123 Meter Tiefe liegt, aber nicht, wie tief das Wasser an einer beliebigen Stelle ist.
42016-03-11 10:32:56 UTCkallekaden hi woodpeck,
eine beliebige Stelle ist das nicht. Die Punkte kennzeichnen ein natürliches Fahrwasser, welches alljährlich von ca. 100 Seglern benutzt wird. Viele davon landen dabei auf den umliegenden Sandbänken.
12016-02-15 15:44:33 UTCchillly Isn't this former drydock the one being converted into an outdoor theatre? If so, wouldn't be better to tag it as landuse = construction?
22016-02-15 16:00:51 UTCmalcolmh The amphitheatre is being constructed to sit over part of the dry dock, but all of the dock will remain intact. As soon as I can get close enough to do a survey, I will map the new construction. The question is, what would be suitable tagging for an open-air amphitheatre?
32016-02-15 18:22:32 UTCchillly amenity=theatre with, perhaps, theatre=amphitheatre to differentiate it. I might be tempted to add building=yes and layer=1 too. Just because it doesn't have a roof, it still would be a building to me. It is a separate structure from the dock as the dock is listed so the theatre is being added witho...
12016-02-09 11:05:04 UTCDaveF Hi Malcolm
tagging waterway=riverbank is now not the preferred way to tag:

Using natural=water, water=* allows data users to more easily determine whether it's a river, canal, lake etc.
22016-02-11 08:27:39 UTCmalcolmh The preferred way to tag is the way the mapping community actually tags. Since that proposal was made, only 8% of waterways are so tagged. In fact more waterway=riverbank tags have been added since then that the total of natural=water+water=river/canal tags.
32016-02-11 13:31:26 UTCDaveF Hi Malcolm
Being in the majority doesn't automatically make it correct nor a reason not to change. If a better way to tag is conceived, making it easier for the data to be used, then it should be adopted. As in previous occurrences this is a gradual process often brought about by messages like mine...
42016-02-11 13:52:19 UTCmalcolmh I do not buy the argument that this tag makes things easier for consumers. Those that I know of all use the waterway=river/canal tagged linear ways. Anyway, good luck trying to persuade the other 290,000 instances of your case!
52016-02-11 14:35:09 UTCDaveF You appear to be misunderstanding. It's not the linear ways (waterway=river) that's the problem, but the polygon denoting the riverbanks.(waterway=riverbank).

It's disappointing you can't see the clear benefit of not tagging canal banks as river banks.
12016-01-23 13:07:01 UTCmalcolmh "seamark:notice:depth_min" is not a valid seamark tag. What exactly are these objects? If you could describe them to me, I will be able to help you with the correct tags.
22016-01-24 07:57:10 UTCdanbag The purpose is to show to users the depth in that position.
Another proble is to show to user the presence of kelps, floating long seaweed which prevent the navigation. I have seen you make a modification, the purpose is to fill the area with some drawing to show the kelps presence, in three state...
32016-01-25 15:33:30 UTCmalcolmh OSM do not want depth data in the DB, so you should delete these. There are two water depth projects underwsy that are building separate depth DBs. they are: &
42016-01-26 08:00:09 UTCdanbag The projects are wonderful, but here in South America we are speaking about remote bays where in the near future and for a long long period nobody will works with these the meantime the users of these remote bays cannot share the knowledge of the skipper like me .... in Italy we say "for...
52016-01-26 08:11:10 UTCmalcolmh OK, so if you want to put this data in, then please do not use the "seamark:" namespace. This will then make it clear to DWG that these are not OpenSeaMap tags. Perhaps a tag like "min_depth=xxm"?
62016-01-26 12:08:59 UTCSkippern There should be a seamark:* for areas with kelp, but this will be an area tag to render a specific fill-symbol or shade for the area, not for point depths.
72016-01-27 04:30:27 UTCdanbag Yes I know the kelp tag and I use it. Thanks.
12016-01-08 19:29:35 UTCAdVerburg Malcolm, what is wrong with the object (a pole) colour and/or colour pattern?
22016-01-08 20:04:54 UTCmalcolmh The objects “light_minor” and “light_major” are simply lights without any details of the supporting structure. If you wish to specify the supporting structure, then you should use a seamark:type such as “beacon_special_purpose”, etc. Then you may specify its colour, shape, etc. ?Also, to...
12016-01-02 12:28:48 UTCmalcolmh This polygon is not closed - needs completing!
12015-12-02 14:39:21 UTCmalcolmh This should be a "seamark:type=fairway", not a separation boundary.
12015-11-17 13:00:27 UTCmapper999 Hi,
the groyne markers are not beacons and should also not be rendered like beacons. They are small stone plates showing the ref and the length of the groynes like this one ( I didn't find anywhere else where these are mapped, but I think usi...
22015-11-17 14:01:34 UTCmalcolmh Within the S57 object catalogue there is no such object as a "groyne_marker". The type "beacon_special_purpose" is a carch-all for any kind of marker. This tagging is the only way to make these objects visible in nautical charts. If this is not important to you, an alternative would be to replace al...
32015-11-17 15:58:59 UTCmapper999 I have no idea about whether these marks have any importance for nautical charts. I live near the river and just found out what these stone markers actually mean a few days ago. As I didn't find any tagging for these things, I thought it is best to adapt the seamark:distance_mark for this purpose. I...
12015-10-20 11:38:39 UTCSomeoneElse This is a changeset with a very large bounding box. What does "clear validation errors" mean? How am I, as a local mapper overlapped by this changeset supposed to know what you changed and on what basis and where?
22015-10-20 11:48:37 UTCmalcolmh Point taken. In future I will do these type of edits in small geographical areas
12015-08-17 12:27:50 UTCmalcolmh Please do not put depth data into the OSM DB. Instead see:
12015-08-01 07:19:09 UTCmalcolmh What is the object "Enkeliberget"? A topmark cannot exist in isolation as it has to be mounted on top of another object, usually a beacon.
22015-08-01 16:09:25 UTClars Fixed, thanks.
12015-06-11 12:10:40 UTCarchie They do not? How should I tag depth data?
22015-06-11 12:18:39 UTCmalcolmh No depth data, either spot soundings on on nodes, nor depth contours on ways should be put into the OSM database. If you want to contribute depth data, then see: for details of the OpenSeaMap crowd-sourcing depth project.
12015-05-09 15:27:07 UTCmalcolmh Yes it will appear on marine maps! This is an inappropriate use of the "landuse" tagging, which is explicitly for features on land. Also it is "tagging for the renderer" - mis-using tags in order to produce an effect on the streetmap.

Please revert these and instead make a proposal for a "waterus...
12015-04-13 07:10:52 UTCmalcolmh Fixed. There was already a seamark node there that I simply merged with this object.
12015-04-12 15:09:53 UTCmalcolmh Are you aware that you are deleting good data? If you did not intend to do this, please revert this.
12015-03-15 15:06:20 UTCmalcolmh The tag "seamark:type=rock" is inappropriate for islets. Ir should only be placed on nodes that are offshore. See:
22015-03-17 17:10:08 UTCCyrusDreams When I searched for the tag "islet", I was referred to the overview page at:
Most is in German, but in the English section the difference between rock and islet is made by size. Since the dimension of the objects was smaller than 20m at ...
32015-03-17 17:30:15 UTCmalcolmh That wiki page is discussing values for the "place" key. Therefore, you would use "place=rock", not "seamark:type=rock"
42015-03-17 18:31:33 UTCCyrusDreams It isn't discussing "place", it is discussing "place=island" and distinguishes this tag from others. In fact, taginfo shows only 6 hits for "place=rock" and zero for "place=rocks". That is a strong indication that the proper use of "rock" is in conjunction with "seamark". Also keep in mind that rock...
52015-03-18 13:11:41 UTCmalcolmh Sorry, I mis-read. The important thing is that an area which is tagged with "natural=coastline" cannot be tagged as "seamark:type=rock" as the definition of the latter is an object which is "awash or is below the water surface". An area within a coastline is by definition above the high tide level.
12015-03-13 09:39:04 UTCmalcolmh The object at node #2705530745 is not missing! I drove past it this morning.
22015-03-13 21:26:30 UTCBeverleyKiter Must have been a mistake. I don't recognise this as being something I edited!
12015-03-12 08:17:18 UTCmalcolmh Category=8? How did this happen? Is is related to the preset ticket?
22015-03-12 11:23:31 UTCSkippern Ouch, didn't see that, must be from the preset as well, just as the colouring I mentioned on github
12015-03-09 20:14:14 UTCmalcolmh How can buoys be survey points?
12014-12-21 13:10:36 UTCSomeoneElse seems to have a duplicate "seamark:name" and "name". Is there any reason for this? Are there any situations in which a "seamark:name" for something would actually be different to the "name" (as, for example, a bridge might have a different name to the r...
22014-12-21 15:19:08 UTCmalcolmh The value of the tag “seamark:name” is the name of the object as known to sailors (i.e. as it appears on other nautical charts) This is often different to the local vernacular name, which will be the value of the “name” tag. Having the two types of name tag guards against edit conflicts betw...
malcolmh has contributed to 31 changeset discussions(s) with a total of 92 comment(s)