piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
pitscheplatsch (2018-12-30 20:59:36+00:00): Hi shuui_upload, welcome to OSM. 

Could you please don't remove and redraw/import more or less the same objects? This deletes the history. Thanks.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history

More information about your changeset: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=65895003
aixbrick (2018-12-30 20:58:56+00:00): Hallo,
die Hausnummer ist in OSM bereits bekannt (gewesen): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/84547934/history
Du hättest nur das landuse durch building ersetzen müssen ;-).
Gruß
Peer van Daalen (2018-12-30 21:04:37+00:00): Oh! Stimmt, wäre einfacher gewesen :-). 
Details wie Stockwerke werd ich die Tage nachtragen.

Gruß und Guten Rutsch Morgen | Peer
aixbrick (2018-12-30 21:15:31+00:00): Danke, dir auch.
eggie (2018-12-30 20:58:09+00:00): Dag Erwin.. probeer steeds je commentaar aan te passen svp aan je werkelijke edit. Bv weg beter gesitueerd of reshape road.
MVG,
Eggie
Erwin van Rijsewijk (2018-12-30 21:03:52+00:00): Ik denk dat er iets mis is gegaan, mijn echte edit had ik al opgeslagen, en hier per ongeluk nog een keer. Dat was niet de bedoeling
eggie (2018-12-30 21:11:10+00:00): Dag Erwin.. Het wordt je overigens niet kwalijk genomen. De voorgaande mapper was ikzelf zag ik. Ik zie dat je account al van meer dan 10 jaar terug is.. De ervaren mappers mappen tegenwoordig met editor JOSM. 
Een overstap is het overwegen waard.
editor josm stap voor stap
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710       
Editor iD is een beetje een rampeneditor. 
Verder zal ik je de welkomstmail sturen zoals starters en herstarters onvangen per PB met wat nuttige tips en links. Wellicht kun je er je voordeel mee doen.
MVG,
Eggie
timdine (2019-01-25 13:51:25+00:00): Have you reviewed these?
I would not class Shearwater as 8, it isn't an Unincorporated place like Dartmouth or Brookfield, it's a military base with a small neighbourhood where the married quarters are.  This should be reverted.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/65897205
Dartmouthmapmaker (2019-01-25 14:59:09+00:00): There are no cities in NS anymore since 1996 Shearwater  is  admin 8 community according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada_admin_level 
HRM is an upper tier municipalityAL 6  Shearwater  is a division of HRM AL 8
literan (2019-01-02 14:05:19+00:00): не надо вандалить. Покемоны не придут, а вас будет ждать блокировка
msevilla00 (2019-01-10 14:56:05+00:00): Hola de nuevo.
¿Qué fuente es exactamente la que estas usado?
Así mismo en las etiquetas es conveniente no usar abreviaturas pues son de consulta global y un no hispano hablante no tiene por qué saberlas.
maraf24 (2019-01-03 18:26:49+00:00): I don't see any reason for these changes:
1. There is no need to add bicycle=yes to general-access roads. bicycle access is by default.
2. The proper way to tag combined pedestrian and bicycle roads is with highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated, not highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated + foot=designated.
3. bicycle=designated is unnecessary for highway=cycleway
Christouf0676 (2019-01-02 15:26:24+00:00): Merci !
aixbrick (2018-12-30 21:14:51+00:00): Hallo,
siehe Wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:shop%3Dvacant
- shop=vacant oder
- disused:shop=kiosk oder
- Node löschen
Gruß
aixbrick (2018-12-30 21:16:27+00:00): Hallo,
passt so :-). Damit kann man die Historie gut nachvollziehen.
Gruß
pitscheplatsch (2018-12-31 07:07:32+00:00): Hi PabloMap2003, welcome to OSM.

Please only map what's on the ground, thanks.

More information about your changeset: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=65898505
b-jazz (2019-01-01 19:10:32+00:00): Hi 25or6to4. I've seen a similar pattern happen recently with "city boundary" changes that you're making and thought I'd mention it in an attempt to prevent it from happening in the future. Somehow, you are moving the point of an existing way (road/path/etc) when you are modifying city boundaries and this tends to make the way inaccurate. Check out this node for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/380230803
kreuzschnabel (2019-02-18 06:28:22+00:00): Hallo uwenr5, hast du hier versucht, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/363585 zu teilen? Das ist lobenswert, aber dabei scheint was schiefgegangen zu sein, jetzt fehlt die Hälfte. Ähnlich ist es mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1924108. Dürfte ich dich generell bitten, zu überlegen, ob du zur Bearbeitung von Multipolygonen einen anderen Editor als iD (den einfachen Editor im Browser) einsetzen möchtest? iD hat da einfach noch zu viele Macken und löscht immer wieder mal Teile, die hätten stehenbleiben sollen. Und sicher willst du nicht, dass andere hinter deiner Arbeit aufräumen müssen.
kreuzschnabel (2019-02-18 06:29:49+00:00): (Der jetzt fehlende Teil des Waldes liegt/lag um den Hochsimmer zwischen Sankt Johann und Ettringen.)
Danysan95 (2018-12-30 22:20:36+00:00): Ciao, sei sicuro dello spostamento del monte Faggiola? Dando un'occhiata alle linee isoipse (sia su OpenCycleMap che WayMarkedTrails/OpenTopoMap) il punto in cui hai spostato il picco sembra più basso del punto in cui era prima.
In base a cosa l'hai spostato? Hai controllato sul posto se c'è qualche punto di riferimento che segnala la posizione del picco?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/65899073
Tozzo (2018-12-31 09:44:23+00:00): No assolutamente, il picco andava bene dove era.. non mi ero reso conto di averlo spostato... l'ho rimesso al suo posto, grazie mille!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/65899073
Joško Horvat (2018-12-30 23:42:48+00:00): Hi, I made several changes here. If I am right your suggestion refers to the L865, in a very specific spot. I believe it is on 53.1440211, 8.1916896 koordinates. It bothered me wrong routing while driving from highway to OBI, that is   53.1444288, 8.1920981 -> 53.143357, 8.1911807. I was forced to drove of not proper way to it. L685 highway is very wide, an should be presented as two separated lanes. It is impossible to make a left turn on  53.1440211, 8.1916896 if you come from east side to it and continuing to OBI gate. Another possible way below Autowäscherei was not used by OSM AND+ at that time. I seems the chosen one is shorter, but not correct one, at least for me. See your self, if you are lucky, you will be guided - wrong with the same destination of course. There is another entrance as well at 53.144195, 8.1908824 gate, but then again it is very unpleasant to cross the L865 highway, because it is wide and there is a lot of traffic if you are coming from ost - right side. 
Regards, & happy 2019 soon ...
marc__marc (2021-02-22 11:25:57+00:00): Bonjour,
est-ce que le terrain de pétanque Square des Maraichins occupe tout le square ? sinon pourriez-vous ajouter le terrain ?
Cordialement,
Marc
L'imaginaire (2019-01-01 19:59:15+00:00): A remark about this changeset: you can see both on the AGIV (AIV) most recent aerial imagery and on the AGIV (AIV) GRB background that this bridge structure is a lot longer and broader than what you've mapped. I've corrected this in changeset 65941323
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask.
Jakka (2018-12-31 09:40:25+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/450766062 premier parti du chemin changer de nom? Rue de Stoqueux en Chemin des Fontaines. carte wolonmap picc montre toujours Rue de Stoqueux ?
L'imaginaire (2019-01-01 19:53:08+00:00): Hi there! A remark about this changeset: you can see both on the AGIV (AIV) most recent aerial imagery and on the AGIV (AIV) GRB background that this bridge structure is a lot longer and broader than what you've mapped. I've corrected this in changeset 65941190
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask.
Peter Elderson (2019-01-02 07:06:55+00:00): Bedankt, ik zag mijn fout toevallig net in JOSM maar je hebt hem al verbeterd!
A67-A67 (2019-01-02 09:48:51+00:00): Graag gedaan!
eggie (2018-12-30 22:37:48+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
eggie (2018-12-30 22:40:54+00:00): Wellicht kun je de surfacetag er nog bijzetten...
surface= paved, unpaved, asphalt,  fine_gravel ??
MVG,
Eggie
canfe (2019-04-05 15:15:23+00:00): Corretto orari di apertura.
Consiglio di usare per editarli
http://projets.pavie.info/yohours/
viloan (2018-12-30 22:35:58+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
eggie (2018-12-31 07:01:55+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
eggie (2018-12-31 07:11:18+00:00): Dag Jurriaan.. Is de weg echt verboden voor motorvoertuigen of is er alleen maar een barrier ..bv in de vorm van een paaltje?
barrier=bollard  Dan is dat voldoende.
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2018-12-31 07:46:32+00:00): motor_vehicle=no heb ik weer verwijderd. het is een doodlopende weg met uitzondering voor (brom)fietsers die eindigt op een paar paaltjes. Deze is als bollard ingetekend en zal motor_vehicle tegenhouden. 
motor_vehicle=no is dus onjuist. 
Wanneer je nog vragen hebt stel ze gerust. 
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2018-12-31 07:55:57+00:00): Hi.. I removed motor_vehicle at this road. It's not the case. There is already a bollard that will stop the cars.
It's properly tagged now.
Greetz,
Eggie
jurriaanb (2018-12-31 12:30:16+00:00): ok, de paaltjes staan ongeveer op hoogte van de laatste rij bomen van het park "Groene Heuvels", dus even voorbij bungalow 223 e.d. richting Wijksestraat. De weg is inderdaad aangegeven als doodlopend voor auto's.
eggie (2018-12-31 12:59:30+00:00): Dag Jurriaan.. Dan is het nu correct. Ik heb een barrier=cycle_barrier omgetagd naar bollard. Het zal niet voor auto's routeren. Bedankt voor je reactie... Eggie
eggie (2018-12-31 07:19:43+00:00): Dag jurriaan
Hier is iets niet helemaal goed gegaan. Je hebt een weg op een weg geplakt. met welk doel?  Er loopt hier ook een knooppuntenroute. Die mag niet onderbroken worden. Ik draai deze bijdrage terug.
Dit was je edit...
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=65900320
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2018-12-31 07:22:05+00:00): reverted by changeset #65905276
Wanneer je nog vragen hebt stel ze gerust.
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2018-12-31 07:53:48+00:00): Hi Jurriaan
Fixed duplicated way.. road on top of road. Please take care. This is a bicycleroute.
It's properly tagged now. 
Greetz,
eggie
Jakka (2018-12-31 09:24:48+00:00): vous mettez "Muséum de Zoologie et d’anthropologie de l’ULB adres Avenue Franklin Roosevelt" access par ou? Vous pouvez ajoute "entrance =yes" sur node sur mur/endroit...ou c'est par un corridor intérieur...
_Madfly (2019-01-05 18:32:32+00:00): Cycle lanes should be added with the cycleway=lane tag (or cycleway:left=lane etc) on the road, as they are considered to be a part of it. Can you please change how you mapped this.
ramthelinefeed (2019-01-05 19:15:24+00:00): well, I think it renders much much accurately on clients such as 'open cycle map' and 'cycling.waymarkedtrails.org' if the lanes are shown the way I've done it,
but feel free to change it if you wish!
ramthelinefeed (2019-01-06 16:25:14+00:00): There's a discussion of the pros and cons of various ways of tagging here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Cycle_lanes

Note the last line of the article 'For high level of complexity ...,consider drawing the track as its own way, parallel to the road'. 
I do favour this approach because, where good satellite data is available (as in this case), it allows you to draw in the way closely matching the actual spatial layout of the road.  Whereas if you just add a 'lane' tag to the road, renderers tend to use a standard width and so it's much less clear where the cycle lanes are. 
There's additional complexity on the Ravenhill Road with sections where the cycleway is on the pavement, not the carriageway - again this is why I've attempted to explicitly draw the pavements as a set of ways too. 

The whole 'cycleway:right=lane' and 'cycleway:left=lane' tagging thing is a bit broken too, because Britain and Ireland drive on the left, and mainland Europe drives on the right, and so some renderers get very confused. 

Your mileage may vary :)
ramthelinefeed (2019-01-06 16:30:18+00:00): (Not to go on and on about it, but...) 
The other aspect is when doing logical tagging with relations. Where cycle lanes are drawn in as their own separate ways, these ways can then be tagged with logical 'route: cycle' relations, which then can be used to great effect by cycle mapping clients like OpenCycleMap and WaymarkedTrails. 
If the cycle lane is only present as a 'lane' tag against the actual road, then you can only tag the road itself with a relation, and you then lose all the two-way directional subtlety. 
But this is only my view :)
ramthelinefeed (2019-01-06 16:34:15+00:00): See for example how the intersection of the Connswater Greenway with Grand Parade renders on https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=18!54.5883!-5.8848
Because both the pavement, the toucan crossing, the road and the cycle lanes are all drawn as seperate ways, it's possible for the client to clearly show how the Connswater Greenway comes out of the parks on either side of the road, and proceeds along the pavement, crossing at a toucan crossing, whilst the cycle lanes on the road itself just run parallel. 
If both the cycle lanes and the pavement were just done with sub-tags of the Grand Parade road itself, the renderer wouldn't be able to illustrate which bit belongs to which route.
_Madfly (2019-01-06 21:04:13+00:00): Thank you for replying.
Firstly, you quoted the key:cycleway wiki page ('For high level of complexity ...,consider drawing the track as its own way, parallel to the road'. ) Note that this refers to a "track", not a lane. The same wiki page says: "A cycle track is separated from the road by curbs, parking lots, grass verges, trees or another physical barrier". The Ravenhill cycle lanes have no such segregation, so it is inappropriate to map them as tracks.
There is a convention in OpenStreetMap that we should not change the way something is mapped in order for it to look better in a particular renderer. You can read more about it here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer (although I acknowledge that the examples in that page are more extreme than this). The main principle is that mappers should add correct data, and that it is up to the renderer to interpret it.
I think that adding incorrect data can cause confusion. For example, tracks and lanes are rendered differently on OpenCycleMap (as solid and dashed blue lines respectively). An unconfident cyclist, who may wish to stick to segregated tracks for their journey could be misled by inaccurate mapping.
I think that it could be argued that with your method, more positional detail can be shown, but I also think that it is more important to use correct tags, which follow the established conventions.
I do not understand your point on the left and right lane tags. These refer to the direction of the way, and should not be affected by the side of the road that you drive on.
Regarding cycle route relations, adding the main road, in my view, still clearly represents the route. If it is needed the "forward" and "backward" tags can be added to the way in the relation to give one-way functionality.
I do not dispute that the Connswater Greenway example shows a lot of detail, but it also implies that Grand Parade has segregated cycle tracks, which is incorrect.  I think that the same detail could be shown by just having the pavement as a separate way. In fact, I am a fan of pavements being mapped as separate ways, so please continue doing this! However, please join up the ends of pavement ways to the road, so that they can be used for routing (for example a user will never be routed onto this way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/659343290 because it does not connect to anything else. Routing software needs a direct connection between ways in order to calculate a route.
ramthelinefeed (2019-01-06 21:52:34+00:00): Well... 
Do bear in mind that tags are arrived collectively because that's what editors thought would be useful and would work well, and they do tend to get revised as time and experience go by. 
I have tried doing it the way you suggest in some other places, e.g A24 Saintfield Road heading up from Forestside https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=17!54.5577!-5.9088  In one direction, the cycle route is on a shared footway (so I was able to put that in as a separate way), but northbound I had to use a shared buslane tag... the route renders rather awkwardly - southbound is positionally accurate on the footway, but northbound is just shown as 'in the middle of the road' which makes no sense. 
I do take the point about 'not tagging for the renderer', but OpenCycleMap and WaymarkedTrails are de facto what the large majority of cycle-focussed users see.

I'm sorry I didn't have time to keep following pavements on round the block in my initial pass but it takes a lot of time to do it thoroughly! I've been trying to do it more around Carryduff (where it can highlight the point that some country roads have no footway, and others only have a footway on one side) but it's a vast task! I'd rather do some incomplete and inspire others to add more, than shy away from doing any at all :) 

The 'cyclelane left /right' tag thing seems a bit broken for me for 2-way streets. For the Ravenhill Road stretch, you'd have a 'cyclelane left' in each direction? But how do you differentiate them? 'Forward' and 'Backward' don't have any absolute definition on a two way street.  Maybe I'm just not understanding it properly!
But the way I've seen it done usually gives 'cycle lane left' and 'right' together instead of two lefts, which doesn't make sense to me.
ramthelinefeed (2019-01-06 21:55:47+00:00): (i.e. I get the impression that people are looking, say, north, and so tagging the northbound cycle lane as being the 'left' one and the southbound cycle lane as being the 'right' one... with is silly :)
_Madfly (2019-01-08 20:33:06+00:00): Again, thank you for replying
I agree with you that the meaning of tags can change over time, but I do not believe that there is any consensus to change this at the moment- maybe I am wrong on this? I think that it follows the same logic that is used for the mapping of main roads. If there is physical separation between the two sides of the road then it is mapped as two separate ways, but if there is no separation then it is always mapped as one. I believe the cycle lane tagging follows the same logic- there needs to be physical segregation to merit a separate way.
I do acknowledge that the cycle route on the Saintfield road renders awkwardly, but I think that it is much more important to have a map which uses accurate tags, than one which sacrifices this in order to look a bit better. I think that a user would just want to know which road the road follows- which precise bit of the road they cycle on would become clear when they get there.
I think that you misunderstood my point about the pavements. I have changed a few here https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/54.57414/-5.91382 as a demonstration as to what I meant. This allows a routing program, such as a handheld satnav, to form a route along the pavement.
For an explanation of the forward and backward tags (for cycle routes) and left and right tags (for cycle lanes) please read this wiki article: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_right. It explains it better than I could. Here is an example of how the forward and backward tags render in OpenCycleMap: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.50045/-0.12665&layers=C. It appears not to render in WaymarkedTrails: (https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=18!51.5007!-0.1272).
ramthelinefeed (2019-01-08 21:23:47+00:00): Ah I see what you meet about tying up pavements! But to play devil's advocate, the way you are joining to carriageways could be said to be rather artificial, and you're only doing it that way so that it works well in a particular renderer :)  As the pavement doesn't really go in the shape you've drawn there.  (Neither, of course, does it give up and peter out disconnected to anything as in my edit ...  :) 

I think I finally understand the backward/forward/left/right now thanks to your link - the key point is that it's "in the direction the way is drawn" ... but that in itself seems wholly arbitrary on a two-way street, but I guess it still gets the job done.   
But if these tags don't work in my favourite  renderer (waymarkedtrails), it's hard for me to get too enthusiastic about them. I wonder why waymarked trails doesn't use them? 

Out of interest, what would happen if the positionally accurate 'cycle tracks' I had drawn were retagged as roads, but with zero lanes, but also have cyclelanes?
_Madfly (2019-01-10 19:07:03+00:00): I'm glad that you now understand what I was badly trying to explain before :) I tried to join the pavements to the road where to curb is lowered, but maybe I got this wrong. I also did it to improve navigation, not to look good on the map.
I think that mappers always have to strike a balance between mapping what's on the ground and mapping to aid navigation. For example, if this junction https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/54.59579/-5.91000 was mapped according to precisely what's on the ground, then the centre of it would just be a square area of asphalt. Instead, to aid navigation and usability, the road ways continue across the junction, and ways for right turning vehicles are added.
I have no idea why waymarkedtrails doesn't render the forward and backward tags, it seems a pretty obvious feature to have. If you want, could get in touch with the people that run the site and ask them to add it. Anyway, I encourage you to still use the tags, as even though you won't see them in waymarkedtrails, other people using other renderers will.
Using taginfo.openstreetmap.org I found some roads tagged with lanes=0. As far as I can see, these roads are rendered as normal, as it is assumed that it is a mistake. I recommend that you don't do this, as again it implies that there is physical separation.
ramthelinefeed (2019-01-11 00:24:57+00:00): the thing is though, that Albert Bridge junction shows how roads are very often mapped/rendered on OSM in a way which shows traffic flows/lanes as physically separated, which (as you say) in reality they're just one big continuous block of tarmac.  
I can see considerable merit in doing cycle lanes in the same manner, for the same reasons.
_Madfly (2019-01-12 20:54:48+00:00): I'd argue that at the junction it’s necessary to map it as separate ways for navigation, but for the cycle lanes, it's not. It is also a universal convention to map junctions like that, but it's not for the cycle lanes, as there is already an agreed upon way to map them. If there was a way to map the cycle lanes as separate ways, but somehow tag them as lanes, then that would be fine, but as far as I know, there isn't. Even the highway=cycleway wiki page says: "When not to use: Cycling infrastructure that is an inherent part of a road - particularly "cycle lanes" which are a part of the road"