piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
aaronsta (2015-01-19 11:27:24+00:00): Hi SomeoneElse, I'm not familiar with the area (And by chance spotted this roundabout, used iD and the make circular option on a few different roundabouts in the area). What other relations do you mean?

There appears to be issues with:
(540564) http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2416702#map=19/53.12580/-1.26381
&
(Rainbow 3C) http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/540564#map=19/53.12590/-1.26319
aaronsta (2015-01-19 11:35:28+00:00): I tried having a look at the transport operators website but their maps are crude. The trouble is I don't know if the bus is one way or if it terminates or is a loop etc.
SomeoneElse (2015-01-20 00:13:52+00:00): The way that I add bus routes is by catching the bus and recording GPS traces.

The 3C runs from Sutton to Nottingham, so as http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2416702#map=18/53.12587/-1.26377 suggests it's just missing the other flare along Manor Street.  Buses from Nottingham collect passengers from the south side, and I think drop off at the north side of the bus station.

The 1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/540564#map=17/53.12590/-1.26319 actually runs as far as Woodhouse, so quite a lot of that needs adding.

The other one that I was thinking about was the 9.1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1793199#map=18/53.12611/-1.26423 .  That runs both east-west and west-east so uses both flares at both sides on the B road.
Urbanizált Medve (2015-01-18 13:44:57+00:00): Ferde a terület
nfrery (2015-01-18 16:46:14+00:00): way:241795552
Ce chemin est interdit à tout véhicule (d'après mes souvenirs du panneau), mais est emprunté pour des engins de travaux pour entretenir le site de montaigu (même si c'est très rare).
Ça reste que c'est légalement possible de l'emprunter en piétons ou cavalier.
Physiquement, avec un engin motorisé adapté (il y avait des ornières assez conséquente la dernière fois que je l'ai emprunté) ou un vélo c'est largement praticable.
Maintenant, en usager hebdomadaire, je n'y ai rencontré que des piétons, cyclistes et divers animaux.

On tague le légal, carrossable et interdit donc track ?
Ou l'usage, soit path ?
Maijin (2015-01-18 14:39:45+00:00): Not related to previous
Maijin (2015-01-18 14:40:10+00:00): Not related to hotosm
ZZ29 (2015-01-18 21:36:16+00:00): Bonjour,
Pourquoi remettre "Fresque - Porte de garage" comme nom?
C'est le nom de l’œuvre?
Le tag ne semble pas adapté.
philweb (2015-01-18 23:21:44+00:00): Non c'est l'endroit où il se trouve (description?)
ZZ29 (2015-01-19 10:33:14+00:00): Effectivement il faudrait plus utiliser le tag description, et ne rien mettre pour le nom s'il n'a pas de titre (même pas Fresque).
Vous pouvez mettre que c'est une fresque également dans la description.
Attention le tag description=* ne prend pas de majuscule !! ;-)
Bonne continuation
dudka (2015-01-19 09:03:45+00:00): kr-rada.gov.ua/news/na-mapi-kirovograda-161414.html

16 грудня, Кіровоградська міська рада, враховуючи рішення міської топонімічної комісії при виконкомі Кіровоградської міської ради від 07 листопада 2014 року, перейменувати ... вулицю Кірова на Михайлівську ...
robert (2015-01-19 21:53:45+00:00): Please don't abuse the name tag to add the fact that roads happen to also be part of some-walk-or-other. If you really want to do this you should use route relations (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route), though you may have to upgrade to using JOSM to do that properly.

In fact the Chesterfield Round Walk seems to already be done as a relation.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/68834

I've reverted a lot of the altered names in my changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28264322
Richard (2015-01-19 22:18:46+00:00): Despite the old grump above (we love him really), great to have you on board. :)
EdLoach (2015-01-20 10:04:53+00:00): You might also like to look at other maps that use OpenStreetMap data where the routes are more obvious, such as http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=13&lat=53.2359&lon=-1.45586&hill=0 or http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=14&lat=53.20775&lon=-1.5015&layers=000B0
cnedramblers (2015-01-20 10:32:09+00:00): Thanks for all the comments. I must admit that as a walker I was totally unaware of the waymarked trails site. But so are many others. I accept that applying mutiple tags to highways or footpaths is a problem, but footpaths and trails were in many cases there centuries before tarmac roads and it is a pity the openstreetmap site does not incorporate them all into a network. Footpaths are poorly served in mapping. Public Rights of Way only exist when they are on the physical map of the County Councils.  There are attempts at digitisation by the County Councils and sites such as rowmaps, but no fully authoritative version. Given the 2026 deadline for recording all rights of way (or losing them) this is unfortunate. I'll remove my additions to the Chesterfield Round Walk as this obviously isn't a site that takes rights of way seriously and I don't want to abuse its principles.
EdLoach (2015-01-20 10:44:06+00:00): I hope my comment didn't mislead you, as I was out in the rain 9 days ago collecting GPS traces and photos of local (to me) public footpaths that still needed adding to OpenStreetMap. I was just trying to help point out that the default view of the data when you come to this website isn't the best view for UK public footpaths and routes.
SK53 (2015-01-20 10:59:19+00:00): I must emphasise we take rights of way very seriously and would really welcome your contributions. 

You can read about some of the work involving OSM and footpath mapping on my blog http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/footpaths or watch Dudley Ibbett talking mapping paths in the Peak District http://lanyrd.com/2013/sotm/scphkh/.
Richard (2015-01-20 11:07:11+00:00): Please don't remove them! OSM takes rights of way very seriously, more than any other mapping organisation other than the Ordnance Survey.

At the same time we're a global project, so we can't show every single peculiarity of every single country in this map view. The main view on openstreetmap.org itself has to be a global "lowest common denominator". But that's why OSM encourages others to take our data and make their own specialised maps from it - for walking, cycling and a thousand other uses.

robert was being a grump about the manner in which you added the tracks. But that's the fault of the site making the "ideal way" non-obvious to a beginner, not any fault of yours, and he was out of order in not recognising that.
robert (2015-01-20 19:30:38+00:00): Hey, there's nothing in the Terms of Service about not being a grumpy bastard.
cnedramblers (2015-01-20 19:50:04+00:00): I can try and get colleagues to annotate NE Derbyshire footpaths that are Public Rights of Way with the County Council's terminology (e.g. NE 2 46/1) - as rowmaps does - but only if it adds value ?
SomeoneElse (2015-01-21 00:55:13+00:00): Yes - public rights of way numbers are usually added using the prow_ref key (see http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref), and would certainly be useful to have - although of course the source has to be licence-compatible (not derived from OS non-open mapping).  See http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/UK_local_councils#Government_use_of_OpenStreetMap_data and links for a bit more info on it.  If you're talking to the council about "that path that runs north of Bolehill Lane east of the stream" you're just reliant on a description, not on an OS-described map, so that should be OK.
SomeoneElse (2015-01-21 01:09:01+00:00): One more question about the route - back in 2008 when I walked it there used to be a Chesterfield Round Walk route marker around here http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/68834#map=18/53.18623/-1.45678 where the highlighted relation leaves Bolehill Lane.  You've added the name to this footpath http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42384438 and also this one http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42384441 suggesting that the route has been amended to run north from Bolehill Lane and then West.  Has it been rerouted?  There's a similar discrepancy near Linacre Middle Reservoir - does it run east of that or west of it?  There's also a slight difference in Far Tupton Wood but my recollection is that there's no explicit signage there of which of the two paths through the wood it could follow.
chillly (2015-01-19 22:01:19+00:00): You seem to have added a route name to a small section of the route. That particular footpath not the Chesterfield Round Walk, it is only part of it. 
You need to create a relation for the whole route, that can then have the name and any other properties for the route. Then add each of the sections to the route relation. That way a road or path that does have a name that is different from the route can be named and two or more routes that share a path or road can each be named separately (in their relations) and not conflict.
If you need help or more information please reply and I'll try to help.
*Martin* (2015-01-19 08:32:56+00:00): Hi Otzberger

Please fix tagging of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/322878702 from highway=pedestrian to highway=path or highway=footway. The highway=pedestrian is more suitable to town centre roads designated for pedestrians but in case of eg. delivery often acessible by regular or cars hgvs.

Thanks!
Endres Pelka (2015-08-25 18:13:16+00:00): Warum hast du die "Platforms" bei der Bushaltestelle Krickenbach Schule gelöscht? Das ist doch wertvolle Information, von mir persönlich vor Ort gesammelt. Ich setze diese Punkte erneut. Kontaktiere mich bevor du sie wieder editieren möchtest.
changchun_1 (2015-02-18 18:10:21+00:00): Hallo engster,
bitte die Hausnummern im Sachsenheimer Weg und Gemminger Weg kontrollieren. Haben bestimmt nicht alle die gleiche Hausnummer. 
Gruß Matthias
engster (2015-02-19 15:44:20+00:00): Ja, ich hab's im Blick; es sind baulich zwar Reihenhäuser, laut Bebauungsplan der Stadt auch einzelne Einheiten, pro baulichem Konglomerat hängt aber nur eine Hausnummer dran und das Nummerierungsschema stimmt auch (auf der gleichen Straßenseite folgt die 3 auf die 1). Evt. kann man das auch mit building/building:part abbilden, bin aber noch am zweifeln, was wirklich „sauber“ist.
engster (2015-03-30 09:45:02+00:00): Erledigt mit Changeset #29845543
literan (2015-01-18 18:27:24+00:00): там вообще-то лифт (см. панорамы). Он что, закрыт?
OverQuantum (2015-01-18 19:00:42+00:00): Нарисована была лестница, а не лифт.
На яндексе вроде тоже видно
http://maps.yandex.ru/-/CVCKzZ1s
literan (2015-01-18 21:47:14+00:00): ну все равно, надо было не удалять, а исправить...
literan (2015-01-19 09:22:08+00:00): откатываю правку, делаю лифт
andrewsh (2015-01-26 13:22:40+00:00): Далеко уплыл, однако!
ma-rt-in (2015-01-18 19:04:01+00:00): Bitte auch ein Kommentar hinterlassen, damit andere auch lesen können, was du machst.
Kummernummer (2015-01-19 09:51:13+00:00): Lege komplette Hausnummern an so wie sie vor Ort an zutreffen sind, ferner stelle ich die Strassen auf ihren tatsächlichen Rang ein. z Bsp 30er Zone Spielstrasse usw. Einzige was nicht geht sind Sperren wie z Bsp nur bis 7,5 Tonnen
ma-rt-in (2015-01-23 09:51:53+00:00): Naja 30er Zone heißt nicht direkt Spielstraße, nur wenn das entsprechende Verkehrszeichen vorhanden ist, sollte es eine SPielstraße sein. Straßen zu begrenzen(sperren), ist relativ einfach. 

Im Beispiel 7,5t:    maxweight=7.5

Für weitere Infos sind im WIki.
Dann noch was: Wenn möglich nicht ganze Häuserblöcke mit X bis Y bennen, das find ich zumindestens nicht richtig. Würde dies dann auch später korrigieren und anpassen, da auf den Luftbildern oft erkennbar ist, wo der EIngang ist.
Kummernummer (2015-01-23 16:57:30+00:00): Die Spielstrassen hier sind als solche mit dem Schild versehen. Genauso die strasse in Irsch Propstei. Die Häuser kann man bzw werde ich demnächst wenn ich Zeit habe noch abändern.
SomeoneElse (2015-01-18 21:14:53+00:00): Hi - I think something has gone a bit wrong here.  http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3296842182/history seems to be a duplicate of http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3297089561 but in the Arctic Circle?
Víctor L (2015-02-24 01:52:54+00:00): Sector cerrado al tránsito por obras del paso bajo nivel
luschi (2015-08-17 17:15:52+00:00): what are all this points without any tag?

cant check your source link, because the site not working.
dieterdreist (2017-04-21 21:01:58+00:00): This changeset set footways to  pedestrian which are true footways judging by width. This only makes the map less readable and useful, please revert
osm-sputnik (2017-04-22 14:49:34+00:00): Thanks for looking into things carefully. However, I disagree with you. I have followed what the Italian/Venetian community have decided. They use for essentially all ways in Venice the tag highway=pedestrian and my changes were not debated for more than 2 years. I'm rather surprised that you started to change this tagging scheme that has been stable in the past years. I suggest you revert your changes to pedestrian. If you disagree with me, it would be best to reach out to the Italian/Venetian community instead of starting to re-tag all of Venice.
dieterdreist (2017-04-22 17:49:29+00:00): thank you for your reply. I am indeed reaching out to the Italian mailing list because I believe it is a very bad decision to tag whatever way as pedestrian highway, a tag that is globally defined. Basically this questionable decision is completely removing any highway hierarchy in Venice and leading to bad results for all data consumers, particularly rendering. It is against any common sense to add a 50cm wide way as pedestrian road. I don't believe it is possible for a local community to distort and stretch the meaning of globally used highway tags so much as it is in this case.
dieterdreist (2017-04-22 17:50:14+00:00): I agree that this is not referring to you particularly.
osm-sputnik (2017-04-23 06:51:35+00:00): I see your point. However, Venice remains a very special case. There is essentially no car traffic. Also, it seems to me that local communities do stretch global definitions (e.g. Japanese road classifications).

Another aspect that I like about the pedestrian tagging is that all the little or larger squares can be tagged as area (which doesn't work for footways) and so the gray color of the pedestrian roads nicely blends into the squares. Admittedly, this is considering the renderer but I find this type of rendering very helpful when navigating through Venice. How would you tag squares in Venice so that the area becomes visible. Using pedestrian for them is likewise wrong following the wiki. I guess this is why everybody uses pedestrian. Anyway, a bad standard is better than no standard and the map of Venice really looks good..

Having said this, let's see what the Italian community decides. Probably this type of footways should be not be rendered with red dots so that areas and way merge nicely into each other.

But I don't think you're doing anybody a favor by now starting to re-tag some ways in Venice. I suggest to revert everything to pedestrian to keep the (maybe bad) standard and first reach a conclusion with the local community.
dieterdreist (2017-04-23 19:46:13+00:00): if I ever will go to Japan, I guess I will complain about their highway classification as well, Venice is simply much more important for me (I'm going there sometimes and am living in Italy).

I think pedestrian + area=yes is not comparable to pedestrian as a linear way. I do not complain for it being used for all the small squares (and believe it is in line with the wiki and common practice), quite the opposite: many of them aren't mapped yet, and those that are have often mapped their topology wrong (they do not share borders with the surrounding buildings but leave a "gap of undefinition"/suggest to have something between them and the buildings. This is another frequent problem with the mapping here (I'm in Venice at the moment).

The question of the red dots (or gray in case of private streets and alleys) is a decision of the ism-carto rendering style, which might or not change in the future.

Regarding your comments on the local community: I guess it is quite small (judging from the state of the map and contributions to talk-it, and also from the replies to my post regarding the pedestrian problem), maybe there's noone or max. a handful actually from Venice, the rest has been mapped by tourists and people from the region but not really local to the historic city
osm-sputnik (2017-04-23 20:08:32+00:00): Hi,

I'm also quite often in Venice. I agree that many squares were mapped very incompletely leaving the border around them. I have spent a lot of time fixing those and I will continue doing so (like with the canals: Castello and Cannaregio are finished and San Marco in good shape...).

I still see a serious problem in mapping ways as footways and squares as pedestrian. This in particular because no vehicle can reach the pedestrian square if only footways lead to it. This is not consistent.

I see your point though. However, I can spot areas that you have started to change and I find this very unfortunate. Let us rather reach out to the wider community and discuss this issue to reach a conclusion that takes into account the definitions and the rendering. Otherwise, the result will either be an inconsistent map or you have to change everything which I would consider a mechanical edit against an emerged standard.

So, why not reset everything to pedestrian first and start a larger discussion? I think, the map of Venice has bigger problems than this type of road classification.

Enjoy Venice!
dieterdreist (2017-04-23 20:26:58+00:00): there is no consistency in my eyes if 50cm wide passages where not even 2 pedestrians can pass each other are mapped the same as a some meter wide road. All my changes are the result of surveys I have been doing the past days and I do believe they improve the map so I will not revert them. I think I am improving consistency by applying these changes.

If there's no wide enough way leading to a square it will indeed be impossible for vehicles to reach them, also in reality (typically you won't see vehicles in most of venetian land based ways anyway), but footway in general doesn't automatically imply no vehicle can go there (bicycles and motorcycles might be (exceptionally)  permitted by access tags or might ignore legal restrictions, emergency vehicles could pass anywhere where space is sufficient, etc.)
osm-sputnik (2017-04-24 19:28:51+00:00): I find it slightly disturbing that you continue editing against an emerged standard without waiting for a discussion to take place. The fact that all ways so far have been tagged as pedestrian and I also agree with this approach signals that your opinion is standing against this and that there is a conflict. I'm not claiming that "we" are right but these conflicting ideas should be discussed before introducing inconsistencies in the map. Are you going to start an edit war if people revert your changes? 

You said "I think I am improving consistency by applying these changes." I wrote in my comments that I disagree with this notion as long it is not discussed. Again, why should it be acceptable to have squares tagged as pedestrian while all ways leading to it are footways? You introduced such a case yourself. This can hardly be considered "improving consistency". 

Bottom line: why do you object a bigger discussion before changing things that have emerged as standard?
dieterdreist (2017-04-25 20:54:06+00:00): I do not object to discussions, rather the opposite, I have started one with you and on the national italian mailing list, where I have also asked about local mappers. It just doesn't look as if there is anything like a community of Venetian mappers. People on the Italian mailing list said Venice was still recovering from the license change in 2012, 5 years ago.

Don't worry, I won't continue mapping in Venice now, I was there for some days and used the time to do on the ground surveys and mobile mapping, but have left the city now. I couldn't wait to do this because I knew I would be leaving soon, and I didn't want to waist the time there without having the map benefitting from on the ground verification and modification.

As to the "emerged standard", I will repeat what I have already written above: the emerged standard for highway =pedestrian is that it describes a road. Most of the ways in Venice with this tag aren't roads in any sense, they are very narrow footways with no vehicle traffic whatsoever. Area=yes with highway=pedestrian are highway areas of any kind and size of squares, there is absolutely no problem if these are accessible only by footways, and there is no consistency problem at all if this is the actual situation on the ground, if you believe it is then please explain why.
highway=footway with area=yes would not make any sense semantically, so it is right IMHO that carto osm doesn't support it.
osm-sputnik (2017-04-27 16:50:03+00:00): Hi again and thanks for the long answer. Yes, I was stating it wrongly: You did start a discussion and this is good. However, it seemed that you jumped to conclusions before the discussion really had time to evolve. But, yes, I support improving the map and it is great that you do this when traveling. Venice needs more mapping for sure.

Regarding the "emerged" standard: I guess I'm trying to say that whoever mapped in Venice has used pedestrian as value for any way in town. This is the "standard" and admittedly it does not match entirely with what the wiki says. I fully agree with you here. However, having said this, your arguments about why to use footway/pedestrian does not match with the wiki either. The wiki does not mention the width of a way as criterion but only the usage pattern. Therefore, I think I'm correct to say that the squares in Venice need to be footways too if we decide to follow this logic. This, of course, would demand a full retagging of Venice and the squares would not be rendered in a useful way anymore. I assume (no proof at all for this) that this is the reason why people decided to use pedestrian.

So, before your recent edits, the map was consistent at least, even if not fully in line with the wiki. Now it is inconsistent
because in some areas we have a lot of footways. And, again, we have a pedestrian square that can only be reached by footways, which is  inconsistent with the wiki (regarding the usage pattern) and with what I call the "emerged" standard in Venice. Also, the wiki states that pedestrian is used for roads while footway is used for paths. I think it is fair to say that even very narrow roads in Venice are roads. Venice is a very particular city as you know and some of the ways you tagged as footway are definitely not so narrow that anybody in Venice wouldn't consider them a normal Venetian road.

I hope you can see my point. I will definitely not start an edit war with you and revert your changes. I would prefer, you would return the tags to pedestrian, but if not, so be it. But in this case, how should we proceed? Should we extend the discussion to the English tagging list? Should we work on a better rendering style so that footways and pedestrian squares blend together?

I find the current situation not satisfactory. Let's do something to improve it.

Cheers