How about using the church as a landmark to navigate to the back street while cycling through the park — a totally valid use case. (Admittedly I usually exit the park here either on the right through the gate or on the left by the pavilion.)

Jeroen, buildings, even burnt down, are important features for navigation. Being able to see them is more important than knowing where a piece of land owned by an educational institution has its border.

TrickyFoxy: it did briefly show up *because* I changed the tags.

https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=W&osmid=57861238

I disagree. Tags are not untouchable. If changing them to more widely supported ones ensures better accessibility, that should be done.

Jeroen, that’s not what the page says. It explicitly mentions that both are correct but only one is rendered. Which is exactly the case here.

I think that tag would be appropriate *if* the church is not rebuild within the next hundred years or so :)

Is it better that the majority of our users can’t find Vondelkerk anymore? I don’t think so.

This page explicitly calls out what I’ve done as acceptable:

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer#Counter-examples

Changing tags into a more popular and correct form is also OK. For example changing a lake from landcover=water into natural=water is OK and helpful, even if primarily motivated by "this lake is not rendered on the map".

It’s not just a renderer. It’s a lot of software.
Also, I don’t agree with that mantra as it’s widely understood. It’s not absolute — we need to be practical. Don’t tag for the renderer means primary "don’t tag something as grass if you want it to be gree on the map", not "don’t tag an object with widely supported tags so that it can be seen and found it most software".

Nothing renders ruins:building, Nominatim doesn’t index it (and AFAIK nothing else does), so using ruins:* on its own does not seem like a great idea right now. I literally don’t see any benefit over building=ruins + ruins=*

Neviem či je to správne. Je to podľa mňa skôr tam, kde som to dal. Pôjdem vo štvrtok to preveriť.

Ďakujem, na mobile ten prázdny bod, žiaľ, nebolo vidieť.

Well, this wasn't an automated edit. I did check every object I deleted. I may have misjudged with the aquarium — or maybe not. I every other case I checked the actual object was nearby and tagged properly.

There’s no need to put words into my mouth and make absurd statements like this. That object might have been a collateral (although I doubt it), but most of these objects were just personal notes on how to walk around the gates.
(Post office in a middle of a roundabout with name:en=Free entrance? Seriously?)

This belongs in personal notes, tourist guides, elsewhere, but not in OpenStreetMap, no. After all, none of those are real objects existing on the ground.

a už viem prečo som to pridal:

Cash Machine S6AV022A looks like a common feature with incomplete tags

Suggested updates:
+ brand=Všeobecná úverová banka
+ brand:wikidata=Q12778981

Ale teda súhlasím, že v tomto prípade je to zbytočné.

Ako ja čítam to na wiki, brand sa vzťahuje na značku, ktorú vidí konečný používateľ, čiže v tomto prípade VÚB. Ak napríklad je McD, operator bude firma, ktorá ho prevádzkuje (franšízant), ale brand je McD. Tu vidím podobne, až na to, že operator a brand sú rovnaké.

dank u :)

Most likely! Thanks.