piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 17:36:04+00:00): Hello there! Did you happen to see my other comments on some of these changesets? We waited 10 days before starting the rollback process. If this is really installed, and it sounds like it is, that is great, but there is no imagery or other data that can be used to verify this. What side of the roadway is the lane one? is it two way? are pedestrians allowed? There is a method to add these sort of things to OSM, I'd be happy to help with.
WRW88 (2021-08-30 17:49:22+00:00): The Cycle track is there. It is a conventional cycle track, one lane on each side moving in same direction as the adjacent carriageway in the Dutch style, separated by parking and planted concrete medians. The official GIS data from Salisbury shows it as existing which is why its a solid line, rather than dashed on the website. For whatever reason the name of the cycletrack in the Salisbury data contains "-proposed" but it is existing. Note that where Salisbury's data shows the cycle track moving from cycle track to bike lane to sharrows is correct as well. Pedestrians have a separate sidewalk along both sides of the streets.

Saw your comments but have not been able to address the issues due to time.
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 17:56:40+00:00): Thank you. I have added the sections where it is a regular lane, near Small Street, and a Sharrow over the bridge. I will restore the protected lane per your description here! Have any photos of the facility? I want to get down there and check it out.
WRW88 (2021-08-30 18:05:40+00:00): I have pictures of it under construction, but not since. I can get some - medians aren't scheduled to be planted until October to increase survivability of the plantings so the City has not pushed out a press release or anything until that happens - but it is open and under use.
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 18:05:58+00:00): Added this back

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/977933839

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/977933838
nonimpedimenta (2024-07-16 15:14:21+00:00): Would it make more sense to map this as a tagged cycle track on Fitzwater St rather than mapped separately?

At the very least it should be tagged on Fitzwater St that the bicycle lane is mapped separately.
JochenOSM (2021-08-31 19:11:39+00:00): Hallo surveyor54,
du hast motor_vehicle=no entfernt. Wurde das Schild wirklich abgebaut? Dann vielleicht noch traffic_sign=DE:314,1010-67,260
anpassen. Ansonsten wäre das motor_vehicle=no doch korrekt gewesen? (auch wenn mir nicht klar ist warum das Schild da hängt)
Gruß,
Jochen
surveyor54 (2021-08-31 22:00:58+00:00): Hi,
ich bin der Meinung, dass das motor_vehicle=no, sich auf den Weg, an dem sich die Schilder befinden, bezieht.
Mit dem Stellplatz an sich, hat das Schild mMn nichts zu tun.

Freundliche Grüße  :)
JochenOSM (2021-09-02 16:37:18+00:00): Stimmt, hast du ja sogar am Weg eingetragen, das hatte ich nicht gesehen. Gute Lösung, und gute Erklärung, Danke!
Futur3r (2021-08-30 17:54:14+00:00): Salut,

pour les trottoirs utilise la clé sidewalk=* sur la voie.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:sidewalk
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110471946
Trent96 (2021-08-30 17:48:35+00:00): 22f3wpskv3
97792307791v1
Penguin of Fate (2022-03-13 16:14:57+00:00): I get that people run here, but I'm not sure this is a path as such. It could be a farming track on private land. It doesn't appear in OS maps.
GeneralDuke (2022-03-19 17:23:08+00:00): Hiya, thanks for contacting me. Verified today there is indeed a yellow arrow pointing towards / along the path, and no indication of private land.
Penguin of Fate (2022-03-27 07:41:51+00:00): Are you quite sure about this? I went for a walk there yesterday & I saw signs at either end of the path stating that it was private land.

The first sign is at roughly 51.7665,-1.1714. It reads:

"""
THE TRACK TO
STANTON ST.
JOHN IS
NOT A PUBLIC
RIGHT OF WAY
PLEASE STICK
TO THE
BRIDLEWAYS
AND
FOOTPATHS
"""

There is then an arrow pointing to the footpath that leads towards Forest Hill.

The second sign appears on a metal gate that spans the width of the path, blocking access to it. This is located at roughly 51.7743,-1.613. The sign reads:

"""
PRIVATE TRACK
NO PUBLIC ACCESS
CCTV IN OPERATION
"""

There is also a sign to the side of this gate that says:

"""
PRIVATE
LAND
No public access
or right of way
"""

Although, someone has tried to cross this one out with a marker pen.

Interestingly, the first sign has a faded map next to it. The map can't really be very well read, but the title is "Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way for Oxfordshire". An internet search for this phrase should bring up a link to the Oxfordshire County Council website. The website has an interactive map viewer (https://publicrightsofway.oxfordshire.gov.uk/standardmap.aspx), so I thought I'd take a look at the region in question. On this map, there is no trail or path depicted here.
Penguin of Fate (2022-03-27 07:45:08+00:00): There is also no trail marked on OS maps. If anything, this appears to be a farming track.
felipeeugenio (2021-08-30 17:58:43+00:00): Hola. Borraste el edificio completo. Ya no existe?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110472503
mr_catman (2021-08-31 23:51:05+00:00): From my visual survey this is not the case, Are you getting confused with the unmapped road north of this one that leads to a block entrance behind a gate?
mr_catman (2021-08-31 13:10:31+00:00): LTA considers the road public as seen by the street sign and the SLA considers it public in their database. Yes although it may appear private it is public as access to 15 Newton is needed due to it being own by another owner.
felipeeugenio (2021-08-30 17:58:16+00:00): Hola. Buenisimas las ediciones. Muchas gracias
Se ve que conoces la zona.

Voy a tener que modificar y arreglar algunos detalles menores con errores que cometiste, pero no es grave y no es un problema

saludos y gracias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110473477
felipeeugenio (2021-08-30 17:59:13+00:00): Hola. el tag building es para estructuras, no para el recinto completo.
rthik007 (2021-08-31 08:44:46+00:00): "HI Mary@OneAmerica,
Fixed the alignment, as building polygons overlapping with residential roads
way 699805437
Kindly check with,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110499659.
Thank you"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110474149
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 18:08:25+00:00): Looks good!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110474165
rthik007 (2021-08-31 08:26:20+00:00): "HI Mary@OneAmerica,
Fixed the alignment, as building polygons overlapping with residential roads
way 699805453
Kindly check with,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110498627.
Thank yyou"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110474723
richard23 (2023-09-10 09:27:44+00:00): Moin,
was soll das für eine Fahrradroute sein? Klingt komisch & google kennt die auch nicht. Quelle?

Gruß, Dirk
UncleOwen (2023-09-29 18:35:40+00:00): Na der Weg vom Wegweiser Pau19 zum Wegweiser Tor14. :)

Gruß

Sören
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 19:27:20+00:00): Is this a regular road that has bike lanes on either side? The way to do that is to add the cycleway=lane tag as an *additional* attribute to the roadway tags. So in this case, you wouldn't want to change the residential tag of the road, just add that there are bicycle lanes. In ID editor, you hit the "add field" area and choose Bike Lanes. Then choose if there is a left, right, or both-sides lane.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110474952
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 19:27:49+00:00): Here is an example of how the data looks when complete: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/914122739
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110474952
AlexS77 (2021-09-02 10:41:38+00:00): Deleted the wrong house.
rthik007 (2021-08-31 08:18:35+00:00): "HI Mary@OneAmerica,
Fixed the alignment, as building polygons overlapping with residential roads
way 174019264
Kindly check with
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110497947
Thank you"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110476090
user_5359 (2021-08-31 07:27:45+00:00): Hello! You have a typo of building! Please notice also we draw the building not the information that a building is an a farmland.
DressyPear4 (2021-08-30 20:04:21+00:00): Isso é uma linha para definir a relação de uma rota de estrada, não adicione tags aleatórias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110476504
Myazyk (2022-09-02 16:04:36+00:00): 1. У географічних назвах всі слова пишуться з великої літери
2. І нащо пересувати точку з назвою із центру забудови на край у городи?
jeslop (2021-09-01 07:27:42+00:00): Hola ALF_OO. ¿Hay alguna razón para los cambios en la clasificación de las calles? ¿A qué criterio obedecen?. Gracias por contestar. 

Jesús López
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group
c0nsumer (2024-07-03 18:31:56+00:00): I know this changeset is from a while ago, bu looking at many of the railway=abandoned that you added, I'm having a difficult time believing these were all railroads. They instead look to  me like logging roads. Do you happen to have some other information that shows they were railways and not just logging roads?
Skunkman56 (2024-07-08 20:05:27+00:00): Hi c0nsumer, right- this was from when I first started out in OpenStreetMap. I have since stopped adding abandoned railways to OSM except when its main-line that might make for a good rail-trail sometime. I have transitioned such mapping to OHM, so if you consider this non-relevant to OSM, please feel  free to delete with no hard feelings on my part. Logging railroads pre-dated roads for log trucks (1920's on) and have characteristic engineered curves with a set radii- logging roads are more helter-skelter. I use USGS 3DEP to identify them. Often when overlaid by modern roads I now think the tagging and mapping of abandoned railroads just isn't relevant to OSM especially with the advent of OHM.
c0nsumer (2024-07-08 20:12:19+00:00): Thanks for that info, and pointing me to OHM. I hadn't seen that before.

I'll give it a look. That's interesting and makes sense about the railroads. I can see how those would have been transitioned into old paths or two tracks, but some might just be small terrain features under trees now.
Skunkman56 (2024-07-08 20:26:08+00:00): Exactly, that's what has drawn me to mapping abandoned logging railroads is the alure and novelty of finding the hidden past. Fun to armchair map then see if you can follow on the ground. LiDAR-derived  terrain models are so highly precise that many features hidden from the casual observer otherwise can be evident. Railroads in particular- the compaction from 100,000's of lbs of rolling steel and the necessary dirtwork to make that feasible can leave quite a mark on the landscape and later road-builders capitalized on the existing routes to varying extents, which also is fun to see, potential take-offs from existing roads that could make for good exploratory adventures.
c0nsumer (2024-07-08 20:30:33+00:00): I've used the same, just by looking at the 3DEP stuff in areas that I'm going to be in, then seeing what I can find. A personal favorite is to look around Ishpeming and Negaunee, MI, and find the old surface iron mining remnants that are back in the woods. Many of these are surprisingly accessible because of the ORV and mountain bike trails adjacent to them.

All sorts of neat old railroad stuff pops out, just as you describe.
muralito (2021-09-25 03:45:57+00:00): Hola. No se puede copiar informacion de otros mapas.
Vinber-Pro (2022-01-07 14:35:01+00:00): Bonjour,
merci pour votre contribution mais je pense que ceci n'est pas une aire de jeu, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:leisure=playground?uselang=fr

Peut-être que le access pourrait être aussi plutôt fee=yes, pour signifier que c'est payant ?

c'est ce que je me suis permis de modifier.

on discute évidemment !
Vincent
PlayGuide (2022-03-08 22:36:16+00:00): En effet c'est bien mieux annoté en tant que parc d'attraction, merci !
Etienne
Leo Slager (2021-08-31 10:53:23+00:00): review:
This is not the name of the marina.
It is the name of the water to the marina.
Leo Slager (2021-08-31 10:58:27+00:00): Sorry, my mistake.
Your changeset was correct.
Leo Slager (2021-08-31 11:04:28+00:00): Added natural=water
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 19:48:09+00:00): looks good. I've added bollard to further delineate this. Have a look as an example. These are useful things to add for bike/ped routability
modena (2021-08-31 06:03:30+00:00): I'm sorry I didn't see your message in time.
I am not very familiar with the system so I am glad you made the changes that needed to be made.
Thank you.
AntiCompositeNumber (2023-09-23 16:38:08+00:00): Current Bing and Esri World Imagery appear to show the lake at the normal level. I can't find any news stories about it actually being fixed though, and https://www.nhstateparks.org/find-parks-trails/northwood-meadows-state-park still has a notice about the dam. Do you know anything more about it?
aweech (2023-09-24 12:24:19+00:00): Some of my family members visited the park recently and they said the lake is still drained. I haven't heard of any news on getting it repaired.
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 20:10:46+00:00): Looks good here. Be sure to give a reason (just like you did here) when changing roadway classification, as these sort of things can be sensitive due to their subjective nature. Keep up the good work!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110478132
Discostu36 (2024-05-11 15:43:06+00:00): du hast ganz viele Fahnenmasten als Lampen eingetragen
danieldegroot2 (2021-08-30 20:02:27+00:00): Hey abq_1,

Note, imagery can change through the years. Some imagery layers may be more up-to-date or accurate than others. For the current 2021 HOT Activation, data is being aligned to Mapbox. You can use other layers (here Maxar) to check your mapping -but not alignment-.
You can find imagery layers in the right sidebar/tab ("layer menu").

Consult the local community if you are ever unsure of which layers to use.

If you want to learn how to use alignments, which you don't need to do immediately as you are a relatively new user, see this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_Imagery#Binding_objects

Regards,

Daniel
abq_1 (2021-08-31 15:46:03+00:00): I am of course more than aware that imagery changes. And thanks for the caution, though it directly contradicts the HOT project's own description.

The HOT project's changeset default comment *specifies* the use of Bing, with NO mention of Mapbox *anywhere* in the project instructions, or even a link to any different web page mentioning Mapbox. So how could anyone know about Mapbox's being the current fashion, as you're now telling me after the fact?

I dearly wish HOT would get train the people writing project descriptions. All I do is follow the instructions AS GIVEN, and all I get from HOT are messages pretending I don't know what I'm doing. (By the way, I am very far from a "new contributor." It's just a new account). 

But fine, I'll just stay away from modifying roads in this HOT project, since HOT and its project managers can't coordinate. If that is not good enough, just let me know and I can drop HOT altogether.

No wonder more people don't want to contribute. HOT is a mess.
danieldegroot2 (2021-08-31 19:59:41+00:00): I should mention you don't need to apologize or correct this up front. Sorry for any inconvenience.

"So how could anyone know about Mapbox's being the current fashion, as you're now telling me after the fact?"
It's not a big deal that things are slightly misaligned. They'll firstly be used for statistics (proximity to needs, density etc.). Don't worry.

"all I get from HOT are messages pretending I don't know what I'm doing. (By the way, I am very far from a "new contributor." It's just a new account)."
Join your local community's socials through the Community Index
https://openstreetmap.community/
They should be able to help you out. You're welcome to i.e. OSM World Discord as well for any help mapping.

Have fun mapping!

Regards,

Daniel

PS: You can help out on the latest edge matching task, which can be difficult for new mappers, but it should be just fine for you!
https://tasks.hotosm.org/projects/11331
abq_1 (2021-09-02 15:45:18+00:00): Thank you, Daniel. Yours was the sort of response I can really use. Recently I was treated roughly by a validator on a different project, and that may have caused me to read your own comment less than carefully. My apologies.

I now realize this project's (HOT 4042) description, which is not good enough to support the accurate mapping that the project itself needs. Worse, this project HOT 4042 appears to be dead. I have suspended my work on it.

In the future I will work *only* on projects with *explicit* imagery-alignment instructions, or where all the imagery sets happen to align within 1-2 meters already (as in my home city). 

Thank you again.
jleedev (2021-08-31 21:20:04+00:00): Again, it would be better to use amenity=atm for these, not amenity=bank.
bevalim (2021-09-04 20:10:28+00:00): Ok, got it, I will use amenity=atm instead
Hezza Fezza (2022-05-08 19:46:06+00:00): Your overlapping ways are a hassle and will all get deleted.
miche101 (2021-09-11 13:35:54+00:00): Hi, 

an dieser Kreuzung kann was nicht stimmen:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/246278347

Da sind 3 Abbiege Beschränkungen die für mich keinen Sinn ergeben. 

Auch das tagging von 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222326401

macht für wenig Sinn.. hab da schon mal dran gefixt wurde aber schon wieder geändert.. Anfänglich durfte da gar keiner rein.. aber ich rechne ja schon mal mindestens Anlieger..

Gruß Miche
miche101 (2021-09-11 13:48:14+00:00): Die Beschränkungen besagen unter dem Strich.. das man auf der Hauptstraße weder gerade aus noch links oder rechts darf...
pbnoxious (2021-09-16 09:46:41+00:00): Ich habe mich mal anhand der Unterlagen der Stadt daran versucht: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111282040

Also vor allem das unsinnige "motor_vehicle=no" aus den Straßen genommen, und auf der Dambacher Straße den Radverkehr in beide Richtungen erlaubt.

Die Relationen sollten jetzt auch besser passen, glaube es war nur die eine "only_straight_on" falsch. Habe hier aber auch mal Ausnahmen für Radverkehr hinzugefügt, bin mir da aber nicht komplett sicher ob das so gemeint ist.

Unsicher bin ich mir auch bezüglich der Einbahnstraßenregelungen auf der Herrn- und Johannisstraße: In den Plänen sind dort keine Einbahnstraßen mehr zu erkennen, das kann ich aber aus der Ferne schlecht beurteilen und habe das mal so gelassen wie es war.
miche101 (2021-09-16 15:46:44+00:00): Aus den Unterlagen werd ich nicht wirklich schlau... nicht das dass nur die Verkehrslenkung für die Fahrradfahrer sein soll und der "normale" Verkehr davon nicht betroffen ist.

Vor allem wenn da Links abbiegen verboten ist für Autofahrer ist dann das der richtige Weg? z.B.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=49.47130%2C10.98763%3B49.46986%2C10.98780#map=16/49.4692/10.9984
miche101 (2021-09-16 15:49:05+00:00): oder noch schöner..
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=49.47080%2C10.98732%3B49.46904%2C10.98703#map=16/49.4683/10.9879
pbnoxious (2021-09-16 17:04:06+00:00): Würde das aus den Unterlagen so interpretieren, wie ich es eingetragen habe, dass man eben nicht links abbiegen darf. Fahrradfahrer dürfen "indirekt" abbiegen indem sie rechts fahren, wenden und dann geradeaus…
Generell können das an geeigneten Stellen natürlich auch die Autofahrer, das berücksichtigt der Router aber nicht. (Also z.B. rechts in die Karolinenstraße, am Ende wenden und dann geradeaus)

Können aber gerne auch noch eine "Note" aufmachen, damit das mal noch jemand vor Ort anschaut.
miche101 (2021-09-16 19:27:13+00:00): Ich denk das dass vor Ort am besten aufgenommen wird.. 

So wie es jetzt ist wäre es da Wahnsinn.. eine Strecke von 200m wird so zu 2,6km..

Gruß Miche
miche101 (2021-09-18 07:13:48+00:00): Mit deiner Änderung ist es jetzt schon besser worden ;) Die zwei "Routing-Links" die ich gepostet hab fallen jetzt besser aus.. der zweite hat jetzt nicht mehr 2,6km sondern nur noch 700m für 200m
pbnoxious (2021-09-20 08:15:12+00:00): Würde sagen, dass das Routing für Autofahrer jetzt das richtige tut: Klar machen, dass eben nicht einfach links abgebogen werden kann und eine Alternativroute anbieten in der nicht gewendet werden muss.
Ist natürlich mit den Änderungen weniger autofreundlich geworden, aber das ist ja auch logisch.
miche101 (2021-09-21 16:45:53+00:00): Hi,

ein Mapper vor Ort hat sich das angeschaut und ich hab es jetzt eingetragen. Das meiste war soweit richtig :) 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111504966

Gruß miche
seattlefyi (2021-08-30 23:30:06+00:00): Welcome to OSM, and thanks for the edit (and for using the disused: tag). Hope to see more edits!
syntex (2021-08-30 22:57:32+00:00): Taka wieś nie istnieje
maraf24 (2021-08-30 21:38:02+00:00): Nie wiadomo, co tu się zmieniło i z uwagi na obszar jak i wielkość trudno to sprawdzić. Wygląda na kolejną masową edycję.
maro21 (2021-09-01 18:04:56+00:00): Proszę:
- edytuj tylko jedno miasto w jednym czasie, potem zapisz zmiany,
- w opisie zmian napisz co zmieniłeś. Opis "Zmiany na terenie Kielc" nic nie mówi - każdy zestaw zmian to zmiany, a na jakim terenie te zmiany się odbyły to widać. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
- nie wypełniaj masowo "podpowiedzi" z walidatora edytora iD, bo nie zawsze są poprawne i trzeba wiedzieć co się robi.
- W edytorze możesz zmienić podkład tła [klawisz B lub menu po prawej], bo "Nazwy ulic" nie jest przydatny do mapowania.
Jeśli masz jakieś pytania odnośnie do OSM, możesz mi wysłać wiadomość.
bartgron (2021-09-02 20:07:04+00:00): Generalnie wszystko zrozumiałem, ale mam pytania:
1. Nie za bardzo ogólnie ogarniam jak trzeba uważać na te podpowiedzi, jak to sprawdzić.
2. Niby mam te nazwy ulic ale nie mogę tego wyłączyć
bartgron (2021-09-02 20:19:03+00:00): Tak teraz patrzę to najlepiej te zmiany robić w ogóle po jednej i od razu zapisywać?
maro21 (2021-09-13 16:19:41+00:00): Nie po jednej zmianie, tylko chodzi o to, żeby na jednym obszarze zrobić zmiany, a potem zapisać i dopiero potem przejść do następnej miejscowości.

Z podopowiedziami trzeba rozumieć co się robi, jeśli nie rozumiesz zmiany, którą sugeruje walidator, to nie klikaj.

Ulice można wyłączyć w menu po prawej tam gdzie "Warstwy" i wybrać jakiś inny podkład, np. te na górze z gwiazdką. Podkłady są różne w zależności od miejscowości.
archpdx (2021-08-30 20:56:07+00:00): Meant to be 'add wikidata tags'
Woazboat (2026-07-21 21:09:01+00:00): Hi,

Etwas später Kommentar, aber `highway=trunk` war hier vermutlich schon absichtlich gesetzt. Das ZAB ist ein Forschungs-/Übungstunnelsystem der einen großen Straßentunnel nachbildet, so wie man es z.B. bei einem `highway=trunk`/`highway=motorway` finden würde.

https://www.zab.at/ueber-uns/die-anlage

Da die `highway=*` Kategorie nach der Bedeutung für den Verkehr zugewiesen wird und nicht nach der Ausbaustufe der Straße ist/war `highway=trunk` aber trotzdem nicht richtig. `highway=track` passt aber auch nicht, deshalb habe ich es jetzt auf `highway=service` geändert.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186140565

lg, Woazboat
hlfan (2026-07-22 10:58:36+00:00): Hi Woazboat,
nix is zu spät!
Nach etwas Recherche glaub ich auch, dass highway=service da wohl am meisten passt.
Naja, ist wenigstens nicht der größte Unsinn, den ich in den letzten fünf Jahren gebaut hab. *schaut nervös auf die auseinanderfallenden Auto-Wikilinks*

lg, hlfan