piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
TagaSanPedroAko (2021-05-08 00:36:44+00:00): I would think the criteria for a former provincial highway to be primary is that it has been a provincial highway in the recent past and/or carries a high amount of traffic as it has been. Highway 2 used to serve downtown and Old Strathcona until it was realigned to the Whitemud, 170 Street, and the Yellowhead, and eventually its present routing, following the Henday between Whitemud and the Yellowhead (though there aren't any signs there telling that's part of Highway 2). Highway 16 also used to enter downtown, following Stony Plain Road, continuing from what's now Highway 16A, 124 Street, Jasper Ave, 95 Street, Rowland Road, 84 Street, 98 Street, 101 Ave, Baseline Road, and part of what's now the Henday, before being realigned to follow Mayfield Road, 111 Ave, 109 Street, Princess Elizabeth, and 118 Ave from the 1960s until the 1980s, 170 Street and the partially complete Yellowhead Trail in the 1980s till the 1990s, and eventually, the remaining section Yellowhead Trail to connect with the completed northern bypass of Spruce Grove and Stony Plain.

On the point they're no longer major routes to be classified primary, I completely agree. They don't carry high levels of crosstown traffic as they used to be as provincial highways, and GPS navigation won't either suggest routes following those roads (for example, when travelling from West Ed to somewhere in Northeast Edmonton as well as Strathcona County, the most likely routing will take you through the Yellowhead and the Whitemud. Same also goes with between South Edmonton and St. Albert, where the main routing is through Whitemud and Henday, or further south coming from the QE2, through the Henday.
TagaSanPedroAko (2021-05-08 00:55:30+00:00): The same also goes with travel from southeast Edmonton and the northwest, where the most favoured route is through the Whitemud. Highway 14 and St. Albert, the main route is through the Henday.
pitscheplatsch (2021-05-06 05:24:01+00:00): Hi Frank Knoll.

Could you use the comment field of your created changeset for describing your map edits? Thanks.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
Frank Knoll (2021-05-06 07:04:48+00:00): adding tags landuse=grass and highway=rest_area to maze.
BCNorwich (2021-05-05 18:35:16+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I added the tag boundary=postal_code to the polygon to suit OSM practice. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:postal_code

Regards Bernard.
mueschel (2021-05-08 18:40:40+00:00): Hallo,
was sind denn 'payment:calling_cards'? Das Tag gibt es bisher nicht.
user_3022894 (2021-05-09 11:45:28+00:00): Hi mueschel,
ja, das stimmt, der Key/das tag ist neu. Ich habe es, zugegeben ohne vorherige Diskussion, auf https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:payment#Payment_via_phone zumindest dokumentiert. CallingCards sind Karten, mit denen man über eine Einwahlnummer und eine PIN telefonieren kann, nachdem man sie vorher mit Guthaben aufgeladen hat. In den Augen vieler Leute sind das zugegeben halt einfach Telefonkarten, nur das Ding ist, dass es halt eben KEINE Telefonkarten sind. Es ist nicht dasselbe, weil die klassischem Telefonkarten haben einen Chip und das Guthaben ist da direkt auf der Karte, bei CC ist es beim Telekommunikationsanbieter gespeichert. Habe dies auf der payment-Seite erläutert. Unterschieden werden muss deshalb, weil es eben auch Telefone gibt, die CallingCards (Karten mit Nutzung via Einwahlnummer) akzeptieren, Telefonkarten (Karten mit Chip) aber nicht.

Ich hoffe, das ist so ok, payment:calling_cards habe ich im Plural analog zu payment:telephone_cards erstellt (da es auch mehrere Typen/Marken von CC gibt),
payment:calling_cards soll die (zugegeben selten genutzten) Tags payment:callingcard und payment:calling_card nach und nach ersetzen, die das Gleiche bedeuteten und bisher nicht dokumentiert waren.

Falls noch Fragen sind --> stehe ich gern zur Verfügung.

Viele Grüße,
Lukas
mueschel (2021-05-09 11:59:06+00:00): Die anderen Schreibweisen gibt es ja nur 7 Mal, das wäre schnell erledigt.

Aber ist das überhaupt eine notwendige Information? Gibt es Telefonanschlüsse von denen aus man calling cards nicht verwenden kann?
user_3022894 (2021-05-09 12:24:23+00:00): Hmm, na ja, gute Frage. Es ist halt eine Zahlungsmethode. Die Telekom hat dafür extra eine spezielle Karte entwickelt, z. B. für ihr sog. "Basistelefon". Ich denke schon, dass die Information dort wichtig ist, denn diese CallingCards sind dort eine der wenigen Zahlungsmethoden, die gehen (und für die dieser Typ Telefon extra konzipiert wurde). Am sog. Basistelefon gehen z. B. Münzen und klassische Telefonkarten halt nicht, CC aber schon, ich denke daher schon, dass es sinnvoll wäre, dies anzugeben. Ich möchte jetzt nicht angeben aber es ist halt so, dass sich damit zuvor einfach kaum jemand so genau befasst hat, da das Wissen über so etwas mit der Zeit natürlich auch verloren gegangen ist... 

Daher beschreibe ich an Telefonzellen die Zahlungsarten schon immer recht genau, um viel Info zu bieten, falsch isses ja nicht.
user_11418917 (2021-05-05 17:10:46+00:00): Please don't do this again. you don't have to put the city name in the cemetery name, thats not how it works.                  
Also you added your phone number and gmail to the area, why?                
The name tag for English and kurdsh do not match with the rest.        
I Reverted this changeset. if you do this again I will have to report.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104198488
aixbrick (2021-05-07 08:06:19+00:00): Hallo,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/931130860: bicycle=yes (Standardrecht bei einer Straße) und foot=designated (bei hw=primary passt das nicht) werden nicht benötigt.
Die Angaben bei sidewalk sind ausreichend.
Gruß
Lodda (2021-05-07 17:31:25+00:00): Danke!
Korrektur ist erfolgt.
Gruß
aixbrick (2021-05-07 19:43:28+00:00): Danke
TagaSanPedroAko (2021-05-07 20:56:51+00:00): You could’ve kept the Calgary Trail and Gateway Boulevard as primary as they're no longer part of the NHS since the Henday opened. In addition, you've upgraded parts of the Whitemud service roads into freeway ramps. These could have been kept in their existing classification, plus they also have bus stops and sidewalks.
TagaSanPedroAko (2021-05-07 21:28:41+00:00): I've fixed the service roads in question. The Whitemud eastbound ramp from 99 Street and the service roads has a bus stop (99 Street and Whitemud Drive) but that's fine.

It makes me wonder that the present Edmonton road classification guidelines documented on the wiki reserves primary for provincial highways that aren't part of NHS, when in practice, what the city designated as the inner ring road is also tagged as primary (except the Gretzky, and sections of the Yellowhead and Whitemud); the same also goes with Fort Road between the Yellowhead and Manning Drive/Highway 15.
MuzikMachine (2021-05-07 22:58:11+00:00): Fair enough - though if Trunk is reserved for NHS then a case could be made to downgrade Terwillegar Dr to Primary (?).
TagaSanPedroAko (2021-05-08 00:49:55+00:00): There’s no single definition of a trunk in the Canadian context, but I follow the most commonly followed definition of a trunk being NHS core routes. 

Beyond the fact they're no longer part of NHS, Highway 2 following Gateway Boulevard and Calgary Trail are no longer significantly travelled routes since the opening of the Henday. Terwillegar Drive can be a trunk as an expressway following the second, alternative definition, but that could be downgraded to secondary as most of its traffic is between the areas served. The road is designed for eventual conversion to freeway, but we can have it classified per its present usage instead of its physical attributes.
flohoff (2021-05-05 17:14:20+00:00): Moin,
wenn das hier fehlerhaft ist - Was ist denn daran fehlerhaft? Das da ein shop ist oder der name?

Wenn da gar kein Shop ist sollte der ganze node weg und nicht nur der Name.

Flo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104198777
habi (2021-05-10 13:51:57+00:00): In this changeset you've removed the administrative boundary from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/361796343/

You're keeping on destroying OpenStreetMap data, please refrain from doing so.

I reverted your changes, please take care in edting OpenStreetMap in the future.
habi (2021-05-10 13:54:41+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104456870
flohoff (2021-05-05 17:15:02+00:00): Ah gesehen - hetzt erst - alles klar - Hat sich erübrigt der letzte Kommentar.

Danke

Flo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104198833
eggie (2021-05-05 19:46:21+00:00): Hej KoentaKinte,

access=yes is default .. so remove that line. 
Also horse and foot.. all default.
Incline=yes is no proper tag.
Is your track all the way down or up?
Its incline up or down (Depends on the direction ) 
or...
incline= 10% 

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=104199332

A highway=track is suited for motorcars. Is that the case?
The track will make a route for motorcars now.
If it's narrow .. use highway=path  Up to you. 
eggie
iandees (2021-05-27 14:46:37+00:00): Please save more often so that your changesets are smaller. Also, be careful to not accidentally move a road when you're dragging the map around.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104199434
Cascafico (2021-05-06 08:22:37+00:00): I changed footway to path: seems more appropriate when unpaved and/or in the woods
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104199586
iandees (2021-05-05 21:39:12+00:00): Please use better changeset comments. "4 updates" doesn't describe what or how you updated. Adding a better description is important so that people reviewing changes can get a better idea of what the intention of the change was.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104199660
eggie (2021-05-05 19:10:34+00:00): Oke...  Zag pas later dat je iets had veranderd. Ik heb lanes=0 verwijderd.
Zo'n weg bestaat niet. Je hebt minimaal lanes=1
surface=paved is natuurlijk prima als de weg gereed is...., maar is dat zo? Dan zou de construction er ook afkunnen. 
Up to you
Gr eggie
eggie (2021-05-05 19:15:04+00:00): Dag JJ  Probeer te voorkomen dat je de paden aan de landuse vastplakt. Wanneer je de linker alttoets gebruikt bij intekenen plakt het niet. Ik zal wat losmaken
Nog een tip... Een brug niet vastmaken aan de oevers, maar loshouden. 
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-05-05 19:18:24+00:00): Een stuw tag je met waterway=weir
Die laatste heb ik even losgelegd tegen de brug.
eggie (2021-05-05 19:20:23+00:00): De brug nu apart met layer = 1  en de stuw hoort een verbinding te hebben met de waterway
user_5359 (2021-05-05 18:51:23+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Thank you for participating in a HOT project. Because the name is correct this time, allow me to ask if you drew the outline from Bing or had data from a JSON file as a template. The outline of the building does not correspond to what is visible on the aerial photograph. Please remember that if the aerial photograph is not exactly vertical, a sloping roof structure will distort the covered rectangle. Attention should also be paid to shadows.
mueschel (2021-05-08 13:45:31+00:00): Hi,
it looks like something went wrong here, several areas got a "SURF_PARC" tag.
Marcussacapuces91 (2021-05-09 18:47:50+00:00): I correct hoply most  of them
Lucia Argento (2021-05-05 18:33:40+00:00): Buonasera Giovanni, ti ricordo di ortogonalizzare sempre gli edifici :), grazie mille e buona mappatura!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104200690
user_5359 (2021-05-07 06:27:25+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4490977875: What is the correct street name (see add:street and addr:street)
jrpear (2021-05-08 16:06:58+00:00): Thanks, good catch. Looks like I fat fingered that edit and pasted some junk info.
Dawid2849 (2021-05-05 18:08:35+00:00): Thanks.
Bexhill-OSM (2021-05-05 19:01:37+00:00): Lovely walk through there this time of year, I must go up and visit the Bluebell's :)
hauke-stieler (2021-05-06 13:56:45+00:00): Hi,

ich verstehe deine Änderung nicht ganz. Du hast eine retaining_wall eingezeichnet, die nach innen zeigt. Das hieße, dass es innen tiefer ist als außen, was auf Mapillary schon mal anders ausschaut (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/oSLl7y5Xj3LKDIlZvJ448Q). Zudem gibt es im Innenhof ja Hauseingänge, die aber ja ebenerdig zum Innenhof sind, da man sich ja sonst beim Verlassen der Wohnung die Beine brechen würde.
Ich glaube korrekt wären eher drei retaining_wall Stücke an den drei Stellen, wo tatsächlich die Häuser unterbrochen sind, oder?

Grüße
Hauke
Jerry_W2k (2021-05-10 13:00:57+00:00): Łooo ile dróg tu się pojawiło od ostatniej rozmowy :)
skorasaurus (2021-05-05 21:22:26+00:00): hi, 

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Thanks for editing; Your edits look great so far. 
My only suggestions would be to check out the OSIP 6 inch imagery; it's newer than bing and much sharper resolution.
pitscheplatsch (2021-05-06 05:47:28+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104202627
pitscheplatsch (2021-05-06 05:48:55+00:00): Hi varundev, welcome to OSM.

Please don't add test data to the live OSM Server. If you want a test server, perhaps http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ would work for you?

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
pitscheplatsch (2021-05-06 05:47:56+00:00): #test #failed

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
pitscheplatsch (2021-05-06 05:47:36+00:00): revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104202493
Patr1k_P (2021-12-22 14:45:09+00:00): sa ti tu zatulal tag building...a prezri si okolie je to viacerych bodoch

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1427040331

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1427040297
DaveF (2021-05-06 23:57:29+00:00): Hi
Could you be a bit more descriptive for your changset comments than  Local knowledge please.  It helps other mappers
DaveF (2021-05-06 23:59:48+00:00): Hi
please use the tag roller_coaster=track instead of railways for roller-coasters.
0235 (2021-05-07 19:03:16+00:00): Thank you! I was unaware of this! I appreciate knowledge like this :)
jmapb (2021-05-05 21:21:14+00:00): Hello msemerni -- I've reverted this changeset because it has multiple problems:

You deleted 3 buildings which I believe still exist, and expanded a neighboring large building over their footprints. You also named the large building "Building at 40 E 14th St" which is not correct (this is more of a description than a name.)

Please let me know if you have any questions, happy to help, J
Palolo (2021-05-06 03:24:04+00:00): Congratulations on your first mapping contributions. Please read the instructions for this task. Only buildings are needed. Use the q key to make square corners.
literan (2021-05-05 20:32:42+00:00): пожалуйста, для личных целей и проектов используйте какой-нибудь другой сайт
jmapb (2021-05-05 21:37:15+00:00): Hi again msemrni -- this is (I hope!!) the last changeset of yours that I'm reverting. As mentioned in the comments at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104205497 you removed 3D mapping details that another user added, which are still correct. I've put those details back on the map.

NYC is quite dense and the buildings here are, in general, pretty well mapped already. I'd suggest you try to get some experience mapping in a simpler environment first. Again, please let me know if you have any questions, happy to help.

J
eginhard (2021-05-05 21:42:00+00:00): I'm not sure about this one, the general area seems to be called Praroman. If we trust http://henrysuter.ch/glossaires/topoP3.html#Pr1 this is after some person from Praroman village in Fribourg (Q1385179), but it doesn't seem either wikidata ID is justified.
user_2066394 (2021-05-06 11:38:27+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/354355395
Haben die (Flach)Dächer keine Farbe?

Sind die Gebäude in der Posener Straße tatsächlich nicht verbunden?
pe_ka_prof (2021-05-06 13:24:08+00:00): Dachfarbe: das Dach hat 2 Farben => Angabe nicht sinnvoll

Gebäude: Es handelt sich um Doppelhaushälften, die verbunden sind; Haus-Nr. 24+26, 28+30 sind verbunden; fast alle Grundrisse in der Posener Str. sind falsch, weil es sich um Doppelhäuser handelt! Ich werde die genannten Gebäude änder.
user_2066394 (2021-05-06 14:46:34+00:00): Dachfarbe: Die Gebäudeteile sind an sich bereits mit building:part=* erfasst, also müssten sich auch die verschiedenen Dachfarben abbilden lassen.

Gebäude Posener Straße: einwandfrei
jmapb (2021-05-05 21:33:13+00:00): Hello msemerni -- I've reverted this changeset as well. You've again named a building using a description, and between this changeset and your next one, you're destroying some intricate 3D building mapping that was done by another contributor.

Also, please try to use more descriptive changeset comments. Other map users and editors should be able to look at your changeset comments and understand what changes you're trying to make, and why. Using numbered codes doesn't help this.

Thanks, J
aTarom (2022-02-02 07:04:18+00:00): Buenos días, una consulta de hidrantes, los que etiquetas con el name=H-### son referencias internas de ADF?
Saludos.
Ludwig Stein (2022-02-02 12:46:21+00:00): Hola.
Sí. Son referencias internas de la ADF.
Desconocemos como lo numera Aigues de Barcelona.
Los hidrantes comienzan por 1 si son de diámetro 45, por 2 los de diámetro 70 y por 3 los de diámetro 100; seguidos de dos números que corresponden a un orden, que no corresponde al que pueden tener bomberos o la compañía de aguas.
Saludos.
aTarom (2022-02-02 13:12:02+00:00): Muchas gracias por contestar, a primeras he pensado en la normativa que indica "H ### "el número como diámetro en mm pedazo 'tubo' =D))) desde luego se obtiene más información de los de abajo que de los de arriba ;) en Barcelona ciudad intenté obtener la info tanto del operador (sap_id) como de cartografía de bomberos (speis_codi) y cuanto más subía de nivel más trabas para obtener información.
De tener más tiempo me gustaría unificar las ref de los hidrantes, por lo que he visto deben de haber hasta cuatro distintas contando la vuestra.
Gracias por la info y vuestro trabajo.
DaveF (2021-05-06 23:54:06+00:00): Hi
Is this a miniature railway? Dodgems?
jmapb (2021-05-05 21:21:18+00:00): Hello msemerni -- I've reverted this changeset because it has multiple problems:

You expanded the footprint of this building onto the sidewalk. Please understand that aerial imagery is not always precisely aligned, and not always taken from directly overhead. Sometimes it's necessary to deduce the true footprint. But in this case, the correct footprint was already mapped. (Most buildings in NYC are.)

You also added a descriptive name to the building. This is a mis-use of the "name" tag.

Please let me know if you have any questions, happy to help, J
bxl-forever (2021-05-06 15:26:06+00:00): Hello,
Thanks for spotting this.
Having a maxspeed:conditional instruction without a condition is buggy.  Perhaps filling the note tag on the ways will be more appropriate.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:conditional
billyonthemountain (2021-05-07 14:08:30+00:00): Indeed. I noticed that there is no way to highlight the issue. Short of asking the town or guestimating the schedule, what would be the best approach to determine what to fill here ?
billyonthemountain (2021-05-07 14:10:08+00:00): *"that there is no way to mark speed limit as conditional if the schedule is unknown. I created a note to ..." (missing content in previous comment)
gurglypipe (2021-05-06 11:30:57+00:00): Hi, thanks for making fixes to entrance tagging, but I don’t think this is correct in this case. This entrance is a hole in the wall, above ground level, for little gondolas of clay to enter the building on a ropeway. It’s not accessible to humans either physically or by permission. I’ve changed its tagging back to access=no, but kept entrance=service instead of entrance=goods. How does that sound?
opendcc (2021-05-06 11:53:26+00:00): Hello, agreed. Things are difficult: sometimes people mean: no public access and tag 'access=no'. 

best regards Wolfgang
Jakka (2021-05-07 08:05:19+00:00): Attention. ce n'est pas qu'un chemin a disparu (labourée) qu'il n'existe plus, officiel .... Contacter votre commune
eichkay (2021-05-09 01:07:30+00:00): Please stop changing local old school trail names
duva666 (2021-05-06 12:42:52+00:00): Tackar
jmapb (2021-05-05 21:27:34+00:00): Hello msemerni -- I've reverted this changeset as well. You've again named a building using a description, and between this changeset and your next one, you're desctroying some intricate 3D building mapping that was done by another contributor.

Also, please try to use more descriptive changeset comments. Other map users and editors should be able to look at your changeset comments and understand what changes you're trying to make, and why. Using numbered codes doesn't help this.

Thanks, J
jmapb (2021-05-05 21:32:33+00:00): (Oops, accidentally commented on my own changeset instead of 104205497. Copying this comment there.)
user_5359 (2021-05-06 04:12:37+00:00): Hello! Please reads and understand the changeset comments! The same problem like https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104146111.
Special case: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/939534339/history: I can't see any zylinder as building (i have correct this!)
user_5359 (2021-05-06 04:02:48+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Note that in OSM classification of the objects has the highest priority. Objects that have only one name, have little sense. As home page for the question "How do I describe you?" I recommend the web site http://wiki.osm.org.

Please notice: we know two different types, see
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:advertising%3Dwall_painting and https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dartwork
PT-53 (2021-05-06 05:36:59+00:00): Hallo EinEngener,
kann man in diesen Bildstock
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7941483907/history
wirklich hineingehen ?
Das bezweifle ich doch und halte building=* deshalb für nicht angemessen.
Grüße
PT-53 (2021-05-06 05:38:46+00:00): PS:
Ist das
http://www.bsbzbc.de/flurkreuze7.htm
eine legale Quelle für OSM? Hast Du das überprüft?
kersentaart (2021-05-06 11:20:46+00:00): Het lijkt me hier dat je een heel stuk bos hebt weggedaan, of er is iets anders foutgelopen denk ik...
Leo Slager (2021-05-06 21:01:00+00:00): http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=5.66210&lat=51.06348&zoom=15&opacity=0.75
Hier is zoveel schade aangericht dat ik je dringend adviseer deze changeset te reverten.
Leo Slager (2021-05-06 21:02:08+00:00): http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=5.64800&lat=51.05930&zoom=12&opacity=0.75
Leo Slager (2021-05-06 21:02:51+00:00): https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=104209968&zoom=16&lat=51.06303&lon=5.66593&layers=B0TTTFT
Eebie (2021-05-07 17:50:59+00:00): Terugdraaien was niet nodig. Ik heb een relatie voor een groot bosgebied opgesplitst in meerdere relaties om de verschillende bossen te kunnen benoemen. Er waren nog enkele losse eindjes gebleven en die heb ik terug verbonden en daarmee was alles weer bos. Het moet enkel nog gecontroleerd worden en verschoven of onjuiste begrenzingen te corrigeren.
eserte (2021-05-07 18:25:04+00:00): Hallo!
Zu den Änderungen in der Neukirchstraße: spätestens ab https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.57063347385504&lng=13.441452858982087&z=17&pKey=SYc9iHqGYq6SyJBAOGGPtg&focus=photo&x=0.4853276794132975&y=0.6470138030988617&zoom=0 kann von einer Straße nicht mehr die Rede sein...