piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
marc__marc (2024-09-23 17:23:31+00:00): Hello
did you remember (yes it's very old) if this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/340706002 was mapped after seeing a traffic sign ?
StijnRR (2024-09-27 15:20:50+00:00): Hi,
I can't help you with that one. But I noticed that Shagrat01 has removed some other paths which I walked rather recently without any sign of them being forbidden...
marc__marc (2024-09-29 11:03:51+00:00): Tanks for your feedback.
Yes, it's because of this user that I'm asking the question.
I restored the paths in question in 2 groups:
- those which are in the nature park and which could be prohibited by a sign at the entrance saying "forbidden to leave the marked paths".
The other group is outside the reserve and I have serious doubts about whether they are prohibited. I have prefixed these paths with not: just long enough for me to check. don't hesitate to check/modify the places you passed through without a sign
Borut@OSM (2015-04-26 20:57:10+00:00): Two other independent sources give the following name of this street:

Gewerbestraße

The sources are:

basemap.at
http://www.stieggmbh.at

I have therefore corrected the name.
erelea (2015-04-26 21:27:24+00:00): No son caminos en Palencia.
Son caminos en Buxán (Ourense)
Hjart (2015-08-05 10:44:35+00:00): At least some of these tags were just unusual, not necessarily wrong
gileri (2015-04-27 06:41:23+00:00): Bonjour,

Les numéros de téléphone sont de la forme "+33 4 72 76 26 26" (les trois derniers espaces ne sont pas obligatoires). J'ai corrigé.
CGort (2015-04-26 20:42:16+00:00): Used outside imagery to help delineate path through trees.
4rch (2015-04-28 10:53:54+00:00): by pressing "s" in the iD-editor you can make buildings rectangular.
maraf24 (2015-04-29 20:03:21+00:00): Nieuzasadniona zmiana nazwy ulicy.
Matija Nalis (2015-04-26 23:56:20+00:00): opening_hours format is broken (also, it should specify PHYSICAL location times where doors are open for customers). 

It seems to be adding in several routing relations (Tram 6,7,8) while not being a public_transport=stop_position or similar tag, which is just plain broken. I can remove broken stuff while leaving the rest (which seems ok)...
emirdriss (2015-04-27 10:16:48+00:00): We work 24/7!!!
Those three trams Num 6,7,8 comes to the nearest Tram station to come to our travel agency
Matija Nalis (2015-04-27 15:32:06+00:00): opening_hours was set to "24/24" which is invalid. I've changed it now to "24/7". If you're not open for customers at that physical location 24 hours 365 days a year (like on national holidays or other times of year), you should modify it according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours in order not to mislead your customers (and lose their bussiness).

Public transport route relations are to be used ONLY for physical bus/tram/train entrance/exit platforms, not as hints as how to reach some POI - see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Public_transport_routes for more detailed info. I've fixed that for you now, so no need to worry. If you want, you can add instructions how to best reach you in "description" tag, but it is not needed and you can rest assured routers will automatically find closest public transport stations to you.
eBin (2015-04-26 23:29:52+00:00): Dlatego były otagowane jako railway=abandoned czyli rozebrane. Torów nie ma ale wciąż jest widoczna trasa po nich, wiadukt, w niektórych miejscach może podkłady.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:railway%3Dabandoned
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-04-27 21:04:24+00:00): Przywróciłem.
alphensebezorger (2016-01-24 13:19:25+00:00): 340762715: tunnel = 1.5 ??? Dat lijkt me een vergissing.
Alkmaarder (2016-01-25 00:08:16+00:00): Denk ik ook . Al zie ik niet snel welk segment
Alkmaarder (2016-01-25 00:11:00+00:00): Ik heb wel in dat deel van de A4 hoogtes van wegen en geluidswallen en zo in te typen. Dit om een beter 3D beeld te krijgen voor viewers en eventueel navigatie.
alphensebezorger (2016-01-31 09:08:03+00:00): Deze sloot bedoelde ik http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/340762715
joyvious324 (2015-04-27 03:56:39+00:00): Hello, it's not maharlika highway.

See http://dpwh.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=aa0330b374c34466a0afafded5926280

And click that route 1.
joyvious324 (2015-04-27 04:04:40+00:00): changeset reverted with some retained tags.
Geo-Humanitarian (2015-04-27 02:43:49+00:00): Not complete yet. Some thoughts/questions that I have: (1) It's a little confusing about the residential areas vs the buildings vs the farming areas. Do I draw polygons around the entire farming areas and the buildings?
StefanB (2015-05-02 06:19:06+00:00): Pozdravljen/a!

Ta paket sprememb in vse tvoje prejšnje v tej okolici sem revertal, ker so ustvarjali nove kolesarske poti preko obstoječih poti. V takšnih primerih je bolje uporabiti:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes

Lp,
Štefan
Mohit Gupta (2015-04-27 04:38:35+00:00): Sorry wrong commit message
StefanB (2015-05-01 20:11:42+00:00): Tudi tega sem izbrisal
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30702997

Iz istih razlogov kot 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30557944

lp,
Štefan
GerdP (2015-10-20 08:24:46+00:00): please review:
I think highway=cycleway 
should be replaced by highway=path and
appropriate attributes mtb:scale=* ?
See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale
and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
user_599436 (2015-04-28 01:45:49+00:00): I have to be blunt, this is a very poor quality edit. You've got the general shape of the road, but the geometry is too severe and the segment you added isn't even named, much less part of the relation of the highway NY 5.
ruthmaben (2015-04-28 05:57:43+00:00): Thank you for highlighting this. It's an error from my side. Will be more carefull when I make these edits going forward. I have made the necessary changes.
user_599436 (2015-04-28 12:22:58+00:00): Thanks for fixing it.
moila (2019-11-19 14:25:44+00:00): "Hi kucai,
Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Kuala Terengganu, I have come across some ways 
"way 325315760
way 361832085"
classified as 'tertiary' However, going by the aerial imagery and other connectivity around,it can be classified as 'secondary' from node 5269813240 as we have trunk connectivity from other side.
Please look into this and share your thoughts on this as of now correcting the data.
Thanks in advance."
kucai (2019-11-22 04:31:24+00:00): 325315760 - I don't see how this can be classified as secondary. It is from village to village road.

361832085 - Even the secondary classification is debatable. It should be reserved for small town to small town connections as per osm guideline. But in this case, maybe that didn't matter. Although when you look at the imagery, what you'll see are just a scattering of villages along the road.
shravan91 (2015-04-27 06:20:15+00:00): The comment on the changeset is not - %23hotosm-Nepal-Earthquake-1001

It is - traced roads based on the customer feedback
calfarome (2015-04-27 22:14:21+00:00): Please can you add tag building = yes.
trial (2017-03-13 10:40:50+00:00): Bnojour, il semble que vous avez oublié d'ajouter des attributs sur deux des chemins ajoutés.
Voir http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/nsf
trial (2017-12-22 17:36:52+00:00): corrigé
woodpeck_repair (2015-05-04 09:10:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 30771750 where the changeset comment is: 1
trigpoint (2015-04-27 18:50:03+00:00): Hi
I have spotted that you have edited the River Severn in Shropshire.
The river forms parts of Montford/Ford parish boundaries and in moving the river flow you have moved the boundaries so that they no longer follow the official lines.
I am not sure what source you used to determine the main flow, although as you are no doubt aware the severn is a strange river and the widest path is not always the deepest or fastest.
bdiscoe (2015-05-01 16:48:35+00:00): Hi tngpoint, mostly this changeset was fixing the riverbanks and adding the islands. The centerline moved only very slightly; it had a few places where it did not appear to correspond to the river flow.  I did the best I could using the aerial, but if you have better local knowledge, please feel free to adjust it.
bdiscoe (2015-05-01 16:52:47+00:00): Also, I notice that it isn't quite consistent; in some places the parish boundaries share a way with the river, in other places they use two separate ways; perhaps someone determined that on that stretch the "official" boundary differed significantly enough from the river.  Some boundaries has the natural feature _as_ the official boundary, so in that case they should always share a way, but again, if you have local knowledge otherwise, you can make them consistent.
SomeoneElse (2015-05-01 19:30:41+00:00): I've always wondered (where boundaries follow rivers) exactly how those boundaries are defined, given that rivers move?  In this case is there a text description that says something like "follows the centreline of the river from blah to blah", or is it defined in terms of exact coordinates, and updated periodically when the river moves?
bdiscoe (2015-05-25 02:01:45+00:00): @SomeoneElse, it depends :)  In some places the legal boundary is defined as the river, in other places the river was surveyed and that description of the course defined as legal boundary.  It takes local knowledge to know the difference in different parts of the world.
trigpoint (2015-05-25 11:40:22+00:00): The boundaries are taken from the latest OS Boundaryline, so can be assumed to indicate the official boundaries.
I part way through a project to add the Shropshire parish boundaries, some sections of the Severn have yet to be joined to the parish boundaries.
I am not sure how "the main flow" can be determined without local knowledge, it certainly cannot be by looking at bing imagery, the main flow will be the deepest channel, not the widest.
kartler175 (2015-05-02 13:18:53+00:00): Ist hier tatsächlich ein Stück neue Straße über der anderen?
ratrun (2015-05-19 16:32:38+00:00): Nachdem das die erste Änderung eines neuen Benutzer war, gehe ich davon aus, dass maxi321 hier herumexperimentiert hat.

Wir wollen Dich maxi321 nicht gleich wieder vertreiben. Falls es die Absicht dieser Änderung war den Namen auf dem kleinen Stück auf Salzburger Strasse zu ändern, dann nenne uns bitte Deine Quelle dafür und wir werden Deine fehlerhaft Änderung entsprechend verbessern, sodass Du danach nachsehen kannst wie so etwas besser gemacht wird.
mueschel (2022-05-29 10:26:41+00:00): Hi,
you added 4 nodes with a strange tag here:
manh=d
Could you check & fix this?
will_p (2015-04-27 10:41:46+00:00): I'm wondering why you have deleted the bridleway stubs listed below? Have you checked on the ground that they no longer exist?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/55314110/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/55314099/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/55314101/history

Throughout Bestwood Country Park there is a network of bridleways. They are typically separate from the paths used by pedestrians and cyclists. They often run parallel to other paths but are physically separate. Most of them do still need mapping, but the ways you deleted appeared to be part of that network, showing where they crossed other paths.
axc97c (2015-04-27 11:52:04+00:00): Sorry about that, I had converted relevant parts route back to a bridleway, but I had a changeset that didnt save correctly. It must have been part of that. I have re-done the bridleway tags from by notes and saved them as a new changeset
robert (2015-04-27 19:01:11+00:00): Did you mean to delete David Wildman Lane in this edit? There's now a broken match against Ordnance Survey Locator: http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=961332
MScanlon (2015-04-28 07:36:56+00:00): Hi, This road no longer exists, I visited the new development and have recieved maps from Barnet Council regarding te new layout. There will also be an extension of Royal Engineers way in the future through the Council depot to adjoin Bittacy Hill
robert (2015-05-04 07:56:47+00:00): Cool. Good work. Oh, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Innertia (2024-06-30 09:09:08+00:00): 對照舊地圖時，發現目前的內木山放在舊時的大竿林庄的位置，而不是舊時的內木山庄的位置，不知是否是GNS的資料誤植？參照的是台灣堡圖(1904)和日治地形圖(1921)。但經建版地圖中內木山標示的位置又和目前的一致... (也就是說如果目前的是錯的那經建版也是錯的 XD)
maraf24 (2015-05-01 20:32:16+00:00): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dfitness_station
SomeoneElse (2015-05-07 18:16:49+00:00): What's the evidence for http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/340889490 being a service road?  It always used to be a gravel track.  It seems odd that it's been upgraded, when it's only used for field access when the track from Strensall Road to Earswick Grange hasn't been.  Also, what's your source for saying that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148527483/history no longer joins to the track that goes past Nova Scotia?
user_685064 (2015-05-07 18:32:43+00:00): I conducted a ground survey of these paths on 26th April, and spoke to residents at Wisker Farm. Way 148527483 no longer connects to the South side. The path is a private driveway which is not public land, with permanent fencing at either end.
zarl (2015-10-16 08:24:32+00:00): Hi Floppy919,

ich bin über die Darstellung mehrerer Flächen mit dem immer gleichen Namen "Gauting S" gestolpert. Meinst du nicht, dass das etwas zuviel des Guten ist und die Map nur überfrachtet? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:public_transport#Plattformen sagt:

name -> Spezifischer Name: Name, unter dem der Bereich bekannt ist. Angabe empfohlen wenn keine public_transport=stop_area Relation existiert, sonst optional 

Ich würde also sagen: weniger ist in dem Fall mehr.

Übrigens ist wohl highway=platform veraltet
Floppy919 (2015-10-19 14:51:32+00:00): Hallo zarl,
ich gebe Dir recht, die Benennung jeder einzelnen Plattform ist nicht wirklich förderlich gewesen. Der Haltestellenname einer Plattform wird daher von mir auch seit einiger Zeit nicht mehr eingepflegt, eben aus genannten Gründen der Übersichtlichkeit. Generell taggen wir vom MVV nach den Modellierungsvorschlägen unseres Partners Mentz Datenverarbeitung GmbH

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/%C3%96V_Firma_Mentz_Datenverarbeitung_GmbH/Modellierungsvorschl%C3%A4ge_%C3%96PNV 

Damals war die Benennung von Plattformen noch vorgeschlagen, aber wie gesagt das hat sich mittlerweile geändert. 

highway=platform ist tatsächlich veraltet, und wird von mir/uns i.d.R. nicht gepflegt. In Gauting ist das scheinbar auf einen Übertragungsfehler meinerseits zurück zu führen, sorry dafür.

Auf alle Fälle vielen Dank für Deine Hinweise!
streckenkundler (2015-04-27 12:27:32+00:00): Hallo,

nimm man bitte den in diesem Changeset erfassten Weg (Grenze) wieder raus... Lübben ist Grenzmäßig vollständig, und topologisch sauber erfasst, vergleiche: https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/boundaries/
Danke..Sven
Nakaner (2015-04-28 21:01:21+00:00): Sven, soll ich es revertieren?
streckenkundler (2015-04-29 14:39:07+00:00): Nö, ich glaube der User hat das selbst kurz nach meinem Kommentar rausgenommen... hat sich aber nicht gemeldet...

Sven
streckenkundler (2015-04-29 14:41:22+00:00): Nachtrag: Es war Changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30542603 mit dem er das bereinigt hat...

Sven
Jose Riha (2015-06-02 08:42:09+00:00): vies prosim opravit vsetky nody/cesty, ktore maju
addr:street = m.č.Pác
addr:streetnumber = 0
addr:housenumber = ../0

?
dik
Yorvik Prestigitator (2015-05-07 10:58:15+00:00): Is there any evidence on the ground for the footpaths from Murton? They appear to go through cultivated fields, hedgerow and becks as well as crossing very busy dual carriageway with no provision for pedestrians
user_685064 (2015-05-07 11:08:33+00:00): Hi Yorvik Prestigitator, I added these footpaths and bridleways as exactly shown on the Local Authority's (City of York) Definitive map. You can view the map here: http://localview.york.gov.uk/Sites/lv/, then select Map Information on the left side, and scroll down the large list to find Public Footpaths and Public Bridleways.

The footpaths are also shown on my local OS Explorer Map for York & Selby.

Hope this helps. NewBrownRice.
user_685064 (2015-05-07 11:24:10+00:00): I've updated the Southern-most crossing with the By-Pass, as the footpath actually terminates on the Definitive Map before and after the By-Pass. But I can confirm that the Northern-most crossing is still a public footpath. As you can see here: http://binged.it/1GQRrtw The path is clearly shown on the ground after the By Pass, but isn't clear on road crossing.
Yorvik Prestigitator (2015-05-07 11:33:00+00:00): There is no indication on the York council map of what date the right of way is valid for, it may have been superseded by the dualling of the A64, there is no obvious footpath on the Bing imagery on the west of the A64. Ordnance Survey maps come with the proviso that they do not guarantee the paths are right of way (as well as deliberate mistakes).
I think a ground survey would be necessary to avoid sending people the wrong way to either a dangerous non-crossing point or a dead end.
user_685064 (2015-05-07 11:49:10+00:00): It is true that the footpath to the West is unclear. It would probably be sensible to mark the path as impassable over the By-Pass as I don't believe there is a crossing point here. Even though the York Localview website uses Ordnance Survey maps, the overlays of footpaths and bridleways are not OS, and are definitive maps provided by the Local Authority. In all cases, these maps should be regarded as accurate and up-to-date as the Local Authority has a legal duty to maintain them. It could be useful to raise a query just to confirm about the crossing of the A64.
user_685064 (2015-05-07 11:57:50+00:00): Just to confirm, looking at this Birds-eye view on Bing: http://binged.it/1RfTDTM, it is possible to see the footpath does cross the A64. The clearest way of distinguishing this is the two-tiered central reservation barriers in the road, which I guess are particularly suited for pedestrians to cross through. There is also a small footpath up either side (about 40 metres apart) of the embankment onto and off of the A64 (just next to the Parking).
SomeoneElse (2015-05-07 12:28:56+00:00): @NewBrownRice - you mustn't use that map as a source.   There is a very clear copyright statement at the bottom of it.  If this is your only source these paths will have to be removed.

I would only add footpaths that you personally have surveyed (by walking all the way along).  I'd be genuinely surprised if the footpath really does cross the A64 (armco gap notwithstanding).  Where footpaths cross the A14 there are clear "beware of pedestrians" signs.  I'm not aware of any near Murton and drive the road regularly.  However, it's not long until the next Bank Holiday and I'm sure the Scarborough traffic will back up this far south then allowing you to check :)
user_685064 (2015-05-07 15:39:40+00:00): Regardless of the copyright statement on that page (I was only using it to illustrate my point during this discussion) the Local Authority's definite map is a public document and the data contained within it is public data (available from data.gov.uk and is shown elsewhere on the internet from a FOIA request). By studying the official definitive map from CYC and using Bing satellite imagery, I have mapped the footpaths accurately to replicate the definitive map. I hope you understand this and don't decide to remove these paths. 
I can confirm that there are no 'beware of pedestrians' signs, and there is no road markings along the A64 near Murton. But there is a clear break in the barrier, which can't be for any reason but due to a public right of way. I think it's clear to anyone who might use the footpath after finding it on OSM, that crossing the A64 (a major dual carriageway) is dangerous. But more to the point, if the footpath doesn't clearly continue along the other side, then maybe there's no point routing it beyond the A64. What do you think?
Thanks, NBR :)
SomeoneElse (2015-05-07 16:45:49+00:00): It doesn't matter if "the Local Authority's definite map is a public document and the data contained within it is public data" - if it's derived from non-licence-compatible data it can't be used in OSM.  However, it's likely that the definitive _statement_ may not be so encumbered.  If you can get hold of that you might have enough information to update OSM with, based on what's visible from Bing and on the ground.  Alternatively you could have a look at http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/UK_local_councils - the steps outlined there explain how to get the council to release data in a form that can be used.  There's no indication on that page that York have been contacted and the right questions asked.
Although people do add footpaths just from imagery, personally I'd actually walk a path before adding it to OSM.  That way you can add more details, like can you actually walk along it (regardless of legal status!), barriers / gates and fences / hedges, surface, "designation" tags (e.g. "public_footpath") etc.
user_685064 (2015-05-07 17:29:37+00:00): York's definitive map has already been publicly released and is confirmed to have an OS OpenData license (OGL 3). Therefore, I believe that the raw data can be straight imported into OSM without any Copyright issues? Even though I cross-referenced the pathways with Bing satellite imagery, this should make no difference to the status of using the raw data (or deriving new/improved maps based on the data) from City of York Council. I have outstanding requests with CYC for copies of the Definitive Statements for PRoW references: 30/9/20, 30/10/10, 28/12/10 and will update OSM with any additional clarification from these requests. Based on the information on the Definitive Map, Bing satellite (and birds-eye view) and previous ground-survey knowledge, I am happy at present to keep the footpaths as current and review with amendments (if any) in the near future from data provided to me by the council.
Best, NBR
SomeoneElse (2015-05-07 17:44:34+00:00): How do I get to this OGL 3 data without going through a website that claims to be "© 2012 Esri (UK) Ltd and its third party licensors. All rights reserved."* or displaying it on a map is apparently "© Crown copyright and database right 2015 Ordnance Survey 100020818"?

Also note re Bing that only the Bing imagery available within the OSM editors can be used - I suspect that what ypu're referring to as "birds-eye view" isn't, and can't.

*though how ESRI can claim copyright on all York's data I'm not sure.

Perhaps it's worth asking on talk-gb?  There are people there with far more knowledge of licensing than me.  There's a previous thread about it here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-June/thread.html#14915 .
user_685064 (2015-05-07 18:07:54+00:00): Apologies for not providing the link earlier: The OGL 3 data is available through a link on the UK local councils wiki article for York, here: http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/YK/
Thanks for the clarification on Bing imagery. I can confirm I used the Bing imagery available through the OSM Editor, and only referred to Birds-eye view in this discussion for clarification. Luckily, I have no idea how to import a birds-eye overlay into OSM.
I think the recent changes to OpenData licensing by OS make this a bit of a minefield for everyone at present, however the limited info available at the moment clearly states that the OS OpenData license has now become OGL 3: https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/licensing/using-creating-data-with-os-products/os-opendata.html
SomeoneElse (2015-05-07 18:32:37+00:00): I personally would never use data from a third-party site that claims that data has been released to them under a certain licence, without any evidence that that is the case.  How do we know what questions were asked?  It _might_ be perfectly OK, but without knowing what questions were asked (and how the data being distributed was obtained - e.g.did york use an OS basemap in such a way that they simply can't release the data as OGL?) we simply don't know.

Again, I strongly suggest that you ask on talk-gb before trying to use this data.  People there have been through these questions many, many times before.