piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-29 08:31:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 125510775, 125510773, 125510573, 125510441, 125510380, 125510753, 125510555, 125510883, 125510852, 125510843, 125510536, 125510593, 125510830, 125510376, 125510595, 125510528, 125510817, 125510812, 125510558, 125510689, 125510801, 125510649, 125510682, 125510669, 125510750, 125510709, 125510509, 125510720, 125510502, 125510714, 125510419, 125510401, 125510863, 125510383, 125510551, 125510770, 125510397, 125510609, 125510674, 125510791, 125510620, 125510562, 125510637, 125510632, 125510881, 125510590, 125510835, 125510840, 125510746, 125510786, 125510586, 125510577, 125510731, 125510699, 125510512, 125510858, 125510692, 125510409, 125510878, 125510806, 125510545, 125510432, 125510471, 125510407, 125510522, 125510727, 125510761, 125510677, 125510367, 125510362, 125510797, 125510486, 125510634, 125510629, 125510645, 125510659, 125510873, 125510548, 125510652, 125510780, 125510768, 125510568, 125510489, 125510616, 125510735, 125510740, 125510705, 125510665, 125510425, 125510482, 125510449, 125510455, 125510533, 125510475, 125510498, 125510626, 125510466, 125510415, 125510389, 125510656, 125510854, 125510824, 125510516, 125510603, 125510696, 125510851, 125510871, 125510814, 125510493, 125510820, 125510641 where the changeset comment is: remove undiscussed and low-quality import of buildings in Mobile, AL (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124655329)
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-29 08:31:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 125510775, 125510773, 125510573, 125510441, 125510380, 125510753, 125510555, 125510883, 125510852, 125510843, 125510536, 125510593, 125510830, 125510376, 125510595, 125510528, 125510817, 125510812, 125510558, 125510689, 125510801, 125510649, 125510682, 125510669, 125510750, 125510709, 125510509, 125510720, 125510502, 125510714, 125510419, 125510401, 125510863, 125510383, 125510551, 125510770, 125510397, 125510609, 125510674, 125510791, 125510620, 125510562, 125510637, 125510632, 125510881, 125510590, 125510835, 125510840, 125510746, 125510786, 125510586, 125510577, 125510731, 125510699, 125510512, 125510858, 125510692, 125510409, 125510878, 125510806, 125510545, 125510432, 125510471, 125510407, 125510522, 125510727, 125510761, 125510677, 125510367, 125510362, 125510797, 125510486, 125510634, 125510629, 125510645, 125510659, 125510873, 125510548, 125510652, 125510780, 125510768, 125510568, 125510489, 125510616, 125510735, 125510740, 125510705, 125510665, 125510425, 125510482, 125510449, 125510455, 125510533, 125510475, 125510498, 125510626, 125510466, 125510415, 125510389, 125510656, 125510854, 125510824, 125510516, 125510603, 125510696, 125510851, 125510871, 125510814, 125510493, 125510820, 125510641 where the changeset comment is: remove undiscussed and low-quality import of buildings in Mobile, AL (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124655329)
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-29 08:31:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 125510775, 125510773, 125510573, 125510441, 125510380, 125510753, 125510555, 125510883, 125510852, 125510843, 125510536, 125510593, 125510830, 125510376, 125510595, 125510528, 125510817, 125510812, 125510558, 125510689, 125510801, 125510649, 125510682, 125510669, 125510750, 125510709, 125510509, 125510720, 125510502, 125510714, 125510419, 125510401, 125510863, 125510383, 125510551, 125510770, 125510397, 125510609, 125510674, 125510791, 125510620, 125510562, 125510637, 125510632, 125510881, 125510590, 125510835, 125510840, 125510746, 125510786, 125510586, 125510577, 125510731, 125510699, 125510512, 125510858, 125510692, 125510409, 125510878, 125510806, 125510545, 125510432, 125510471, 125510407, 125510522, 125510727, 125510761, 125510677, 125510367, 125510362, 125510797, 125510486, 125510634, 125510629, 125510645, 125510659, 125510873, 125510548, 125510652, 125510780, 125510768, 125510568, 125510489, 125510616, 125510735, 125510740, 125510705, 125510665, 125510425, 125510482, 125510449, 125510455, 125510533, 125510475, 125510498, 125510626, 125510466, 125510415, 125510389, 125510656, 125510854, 125510824, 125510516, 125510603, 125510696, 125510851, 125510871, 125510814, 125510493, 125510820, 125510641 where the changeset comment is: remove undiscussed and low-quality import of buildings in Mobile, AL (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124655329)
BS97n (2022-08-11 16:14:28+00:00): Hallo. Für den highway=*-Schlüssel spielt es natürlich keine Rolle, ob eine Straße eine Fahrradstraße ist. Der highway=*-Schlüssel sollte die Verkehrsbedeutung einer Straße darstellen.
Die Windhaus- und Stahlhauser Straße sind hier Teil des RS1, der (wenn er fertig ist) viele Städte von Duisburg bis Hamm miteinander verbindet. Deshalb ist er sogar offiziell als Landesstraße geführt und wird außerhalb großer Städte von Straßen.NRW verwaltet. 

Damit sind die Kriterien für highway=secondary erfüllt.
Aus dem Wiki:
„Mit highway=secondary wird eine überregionale Verbindungsstraße zwischen größeren Orten unterhalb der Klasse Bundesstraße erfasst. Dies sind in der Regel Landes- oder Staatsstraßen (Straßenbaulastträger Bundesland).“
Ropino (2022-08-15 08:08:43+00:00): Ich habe ein Thema im Forum dazu eröffnet:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=76185
silversurfer83 (2022-08-09 07:17:10+00:00): Moin Lucas,
du hast für diese Änderung um ein Review gebeten. Das möchte ich hiermit tun und dich erstmal bei OSM willkommen heißen :) Schön, dass du da bist und mithilfst. Spielplätze liegen mir besonders am Herzen.

Zu deiner Änderung: Der Spielplatz sieht gut aus. Wüsste vom PC aus jetzt nichts, was ich wesentlich ändern würde :)

Wenn du Fragen hast, hilft dir das Wiki auch fast immer weiter, auch wenn man manchmal länger suchen muss. Außerdem gibt es einige aktive Chatgruppen, die gerne helfen (siehe hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact_channels#Chats.2Fmessengers)

Weiter viel Spaß
-silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124655127
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-29 08:31:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 125510775, 125510773, 125510573, 125510441, 125510380, 125510753, 125510555, 125510883, 125510852, 125510843, 125510536, 125510593, 125510830, 125510376, 125510595, 125510528, 125510817, 125510812, 125510558, 125510689, 125510801, 125510649, 125510682, 125510669, 125510750, 125510709, 125510509, 125510720, 125510502, 125510714, 125510419, 125510401, 125510863, 125510383, 125510551, 125510770, 125510397, 125510609, 125510674, 125510791, 125510620, 125510562, 125510637, 125510632, 125510881, 125510590, 125510835, 125510840, 125510746, 125510786, 125510586, 125510577, 125510731, 125510699, 125510512, 125510858, 125510692, 125510409, 125510878, 125510806, 125510545, 125510432, 125510471, 125510407, 125510522, 125510727, 125510761, 125510677, 125510367, 125510362, 125510797, 125510486, 125510634, 125510629, 125510645, 125510659, 125510873, 125510548, 125510652, 125510780, 125510768, 125510568, 125510489, 125510616, 125510735, 125510740, 125510705, 125510665, 125510425, 125510482, 125510449, 125510455, 125510533, 125510475, 125510498, 125510626, 125510466, 125510415, 125510389, 125510656, 125510854, 125510824, 125510516, 125510603, 125510696, 125510851, 125510871, 125510814, 125510493, 125510820, 125510641 where the changeset comment is: remove undiscussed and low-quality import of buildings in Mobile, AL (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124655329)
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-29 08:31:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 125510775, 125510773, 125510573, 125510441, 125510380, 125510753, 125510555, 125510883, 125510852, 125510843, 125510536, 125510593, 125510830, 125510376, 125510595, 125510528, 125510817, 125510812, 125510558, 125510689, 125510801, 125510649, 125510682, 125510669, 125510750, 125510709, 125510509, 125510720, 125510502, 125510714, 125510419, 125510401, 125510863, 125510383, 125510551, 125510770, 125510397, 125510609, 125510674, 125510791, 125510620, 125510562, 125510637, 125510632, 125510881, 125510590, 125510835, 125510840, 125510746, 125510786, 125510586, 125510577, 125510731, 125510699, 125510512, 125510858, 125510692, 125510409, 125510878, 125510806, 125510545, 125510432, 125510471, 125510407, 125510522, 125510727, 125510761, 125510677, 125510367, 125510362, 125510797, 125510486, 125510634, 125510629, 125510645, 125510659, 125510873, 125510548, 125510652, 125510780, 125510768, 125510568, 125510489, 125510616, 125510735, 125510740, 125510705, 125510665, 125510425, 125510482, 125510449, 125510455, 125510533, 125510475, 125510498, 125510626, 125510466, 125510415, 125510389, 125510656, 125510854, 125510824, 125510516, 125510603, 125510696, 125510851, 125510871, 125510814, 125510493, 125510820, 125510641 where the changeset comment is: remove undiscussed and low-quality import of buildings in Mobile, AL (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124655329)
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-29 08:30:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 125510775, 125510773, 125510573, 125510441, 125510380, 125510753, 125510555, 125510883, 125510852, 125510843, 125510536, 125510593, 125510830, 125510376, 125510595, 125510528, 125510817, 125510812, 125510558, 125510689, 125510801, 125510649, 125510682, 125510669, 125510750, 125510709, 125510509, 125510720, 125510502, 125510714, 125510419, 125510401, 125510863, 125510383, 125510551, 125510770, 125510397, 125510609, 125510674, 125510791, 125510620, 125510562, 125510637, 125510632, 125510881, 125510590, 125510835, 125510840, 125510746, 125510786, 125510586, 125510577, 125510731, 125510699, 125510512, 125510858, 125510692, 125510409, 125510878, 125510806, 125510545, 125510432, 125510471, 125510407, 125510522, 125510727, 125510761, 125510677, 125510367, 125510362, 125510797, 125510486, 125510634, 125510629, 125510645, 125510659, 125510873, 125510548, 125510652, 125510780, 125510768, 125510568, 125510489, 125510616, 125510735, 125510740, 125510705, 125510665, 125510425, 125510482, 125510449, 125510455, 125510533, 125510475, 125510498, 125510626, 125510466, 125510415, 125510389, 125510656, 125510854, 125510824, 125510516, 125510603, 125510696, 125510851, 125510871, 125510814, 125510493, 125510820, 125510641 where the changeset comment is: remove undiscussed and low-quality import of buildings in Mobile, AL (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124655329)
Allison P (2022-08-22 20:04:22+00:00): Where is this import documented? In the future, it would help to link to documentation in the changeset comment or a tag.
woodpeck (2022-08-22 22:18:29+00:00): +1 to Allison's comment - there is no blanket OK for adding MS builiding footprints, especially not without QA.

Can you explain the glaring tracing mistakes in http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/broken-import.png ?
zluuzki (2022-08-23 04:24:26+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RapiD
Why does https://i.imgur.com/S1rKF9m.png apply to most of my edits (and humanity in general)?
I added ~130k buildings here. And no, not without any review. I went trough all the buildings, and have very often adjusted rotations, added minimal details, rounded etc. This took over two hours. And because I missed a few buildings/edges out of 130k, then of course that means I didn't review anything....
Allison P (2022-08-23 20:56:20+00:00): That is not an import documentation page. You did not use RapiD for this changeset, but furthermore the very top of the page states: "
Adding buildings or roads or any other objects through RapiD without properly reviewing every single one is considered an import and therefore must follow the import guidelines." The fact that that entire group of buildings is inaccurate suggests that they were not manually reviewed. No one accused you of not reviewing *anything*. That is a strawman.

And if you reviewed over 130,000 buildings in two hours, that's twenty per second. That is literally impossible. This must therefore be an import, and an undocumented one at that. It'll need to be reverted.
zluuzki (2022-08-24 05:27:10+00:00): Fixed those 4+another one in the area. Were the only broken buildings in the area.
I didn't use Rapid - but MS Footprints, which are a known & widely used data source. "An entire group" is an exaggeration. A group would be a block or something, no, we're talking about 4 buildings. I probably fixed something nearby, zoomed in, and when I zoomed out I missed that map part.
"that's twenty per second. That is literally impossible." - I said "over 2 hours", so it could be close to three. Am I expected to set up a timer?
And no, it is not impossible if you hover in a low zoom level over the data. Because the overwhelming majority doesn't need fixing.

Yes, it is an import, but an manually reviewed one. Also, what do you want? Do you just like deleting data, or do you seriously think reverting will improve the map quality? The buildings will be better if someone uses his/her time to trace those buildings by hand, when he could be adding driveways, pois, landuses and whatever instead?
Rather trace everything by hand, to avoid ... 0,01538% (assuming pessimistic 20 bad ones) bad buildings? Not in proportion.
Allison P (2022-08-24 14:44:25+00:00): I don't support adding Bing buildings without prior proper editing or a commitment to systematically reviewing the buildings to improve their accuracy, or intent to conflate them with another dataset. Unmodified Bing footprints in the dataset don't really benefit people that much. If someone really needed them, they could just download the Bing data and the OSM data and combine them in their own database. I am dubious that the footprints are so accurate that you can evaluate so many so quickly and make accurate judgments. I am familiar with Bing footprint quality and it is very much a shot in the dark. Still, my opinion doesn't matter until a discussion is had on the import, but this never occurred. And there's the issue.
zluuzki (2022-08-24 18:02:44+00:00): "Unmodified Bing footprints in the dataset don't really benefit people that much." - I don't agree with that. Obviously, the main map(s) on osm.org and many other OSM data products can be used much easier for orientation. And also, to modify/enrich them with additional infos ... they still have to be drawn by someone.

"Still, my opinion doesn't matter until a discussion is had on the import"
Well, it is an manually reviewed import (except those 0,015%, but ... come on) and for these the import procedure is not necessary. 
However, this does not mean that your opinion is meaningless and I don't care about it. But simply delete everything, I don't consider that to be a good idea at all.
SherbetS (2022-08-29 01:26:42+00:00): Please don't import MS buildings in Alabama. 

I've seen the quality from this dataset and I'd rather add the buildings by hand. thanks.
Allison P (2022-08-29 03:02:39+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1084830875 Here you added a building that does not exist and never has (at least with a shape anything like that). This was a randomly chosen building from your edit. The error rate is almost certainly higher than 0.015%.

Here is another one. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1084799272

And another: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1084896383

It is not hard to find these. I just click on a random way from this changeset, then look at nearby buildings.

Here is a single house represented by three buildings: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1084884000

Here is a building that no longer exists: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1084818808

Here is two buildings mapped where only one exists: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1084879822

Here is a total nonsense building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1084771389 (it has a neighbor that is similarly bad)

Here are two buildings mapped as one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1084853034

Here is an attached garage mapped as a separate building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1084799013

I could go on, but there are two possibilities here: your "manual review" is bad enough that your data quality is harmfully low, or you lied about manual review. You tell me which is the case.
woodpeck (2022-08-29 08:17:48+00:00): I think we have seen enough. This import will be reverted. A prior discussion as mandated by the import guidelines could have unearthed these issues (namely lack of data quality and lack of proper review) before we all spent lots of time and CPU cycles on it. Please keep that in mind for next time.
zluuzki (2022-08-29 21:12:25+00:00): Now, go through some "random" hand-traced buildings and look how bad they are. But since those edits are not so visible like this edit, you (& no one else, otherwise I wouldn't come across them so often) don't care. Nice.
Have you ever looked at some "random" HOT-buildings? They look poorer than the country they're in, but no one cares.
Don't tell me some stuff like "BeCAuSe TheRe ArE bAd tHingS, yoU can't aDd eVeN moRe!!1!1" I can, I even have to. This is still far better than most hand-drawn buildings and fulfils the quality expectations & uses of 99% of normal data users.
But since you "modified" only 6k buildings all-time, it is possible that you do not know this.
Congratulations to anyone who wastes their time tracing anything by hand here.
Allison P (2022-08-29 22:18:40+00:00): No one was talking about humanitarian mapping. You're changing the subject for the sake of some particularly lame whataboutism. I agree that a lot of humanitarian mapping goes unreviewed and is often low quality, but I don't do that. I focus on helping people who are mapping their own areas because they can do things armchair mappers can't.

It's quite hilarious to question the editing proficiency of someone who helped build the software you use to edit the map.

I don't know why you still believe that you will change people's minds on this. You have so far driven no one else to your cause. All you've done is insult and belittle others, and to a pretty significant extent.

Hand-traced buildings are never a waste of time. If done by a user with basic knowledge of the editor and OSM principles trying their best, they are always more accurate and precise than Bing. If you're so concerned about wasting time, this discussion seems like the best place to save some.
zluuzki (2022-08-30 07:50:04+00:00): Valid objects like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1084826654 were deleted too. Data quality is now definitely far worse than before... but who cares. The evil import is gone, some good things too, but some things are unavoidable, right?

"changing the subject" - I'm bringing attention to some way bigger problems no one really bothers/does anything about.

"All you've done is insult..."
All that was done to me: My work got deleted, my arguments largely ignored (not bothered to reply), I was depicted as vandal. My argumentations are called "only insults" and more. And that's all completely fine?

"trying their best, they are always more accurate" - But (almost) no one is trying their best. If everyone tried their absolute best everywhere, we wouldn't get anywhere.

"If you're so concerned about wasting time, this discussion seems like the best place to save some" - To let you or anyone else do whatever you/they want with my edits? No thanks.
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-08-30 08:03:07+00:00): > Have you ever looked at some "random" HOT-buildings? They look poorer than the country they're in, but no one cares. 

Yes, and I deleted hundreds of them and many other invalid data.

And even if not: then it is not relevant.

---

"Your "manual review" is bad enough that your data quality is harmfully low, or you lied about manual review."

Which one is the case here?
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-08-30 08:04:33+00:00): Also, how long you were reviewing this buildings?

How many buildings you imported here? About 200 000, right?
zluuzki (2022-08-30 08:45:17+00:00): "Which one is the case here?"
None. The data quality is overall good, most of those examples aren't significant quality issues.
I already answered the other questions.
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-08-30 11:44:23+00:00): So you claim that you seen buildings from "This was a randomly chosen building from your edit. The error rate is almost certainly higher than 0.015%." comment and decided that OSM data will benefit from adding such geometries?
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-08-30 11:47:46+00:00): You can see geometries and area via: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1ltV https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=18/30.53552/-88.11248
Allison P (2022-08-30 15:26:10+00:00): The data quality is not overall good. You may think it is, but multiple people believe otherwise.

Not all of your arguments are insults, but they are all useless. Continuing to argue when I have probably said more than five times to cut it out is more rude than insulting.

And we're not "doing whatever we want with [your] edits". Your edits violated the community's norms. If anyone else did this, they'd get a talking to. Perhaps the only difference is that they might actually listen.

I'm not going to respond to you anymore, since you are incapable of either listening or arguing in good faith. If your next response is anything but an apology and a promise to not import anything without getting community approval, I'm going to the DWG.
zluuzki (2022-08-30 17:49:31+00:00): "... you decided that OSM data will benefit from adding such geometries?". Not those buildings in particular - But in my opinion, those few bad buildings are justified, because the overwhelming majority of the buildings are good and those 130k good buildings outweigh the -let it be 50- bad buildings. (no, I didn't add them intentionally) 
You can look at it that way, but you don't have to. I do.

"but they are all useless". Because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're useless. Besides that, many arguments are just replies to your questions.
"Continuing to argue when I have probably said more than five times to cut it out is more rude" What?! Of course i'm arguing, it is my good right to voice my opinion. I don't care if you don't want to hear it, you started all of this. I'm not going to stop only because you don't agree with me.
"since you are incapable of either listening or arguing in good faith."
Who do you think I am? Your son whom you can tell what to do and what not to do? Who has to "listen" to you and do what you want? No. Also, where do I argue in bad faith?

I apologize for insulting & ignoring guidelines. I'm not apologizing for any edits, I fail to see any damage caused. I'm not going to do undiscussed and unreviewed imports.

"I'm going to the DWG." Why? Because you don't agree with me? Seriously, what do you hope to achieve? The stuff (+some other innocent things) is already reverted.
SherbetS (2022-08-30 18:30:53+00:00): Hiausirg,

I don't care that this you think the amount of error in this dataset is acceptable, I don't.

This is the state that I live in, I don't remember you ever asking for import permission here. its our call not yours what is acceptable here. Stop wasting everyone's time making these pointless arguments.

-SherbetS
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-08-31 00:19:39+00:00): ""... you decided that OSM data will benefit from adding such geometries?". Not those buildings in particular - But in my opinion, those few bad buildings are justified, because the overwhelming majority of the buildings are good and those 130k good buildings outweigh the -let it be 50- bad buildings. (no, I didn't add them intentionally) "

So "All buildings are manually reviewed before uploading." from https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/zluuzki_Import was a lie, right?

Please: never, ever import anything into OSM again. It is just waste of your and our time.

And if you really think that only 50 buildings in this dataset were of such low quality...