piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ForstEK (2017-10-16 14:22:37+00:00): Здравствуйте! Вы создали здания с непрямыми углами, чтобы исправить это в редакторе ID, достаточно нажать клавишу S (в редакторах JOSM и Potlatch - клавишу Q). Так будет красивее.
Porsche84 (2017-10-16 15:25:15+00:00): Добрый вечер, спасибо большое
dwausr (2015-01-08 13:56:49+00:00): Kann es sein, dass Du da jede Menge Wege in Bahnbrücken gelöscht hast? Könntest Du das bitte wieder in Ordnung bringen?
osmtraveller (2015-01-08 14:08:56+00:00): In diesem Bereich waren >1000 Fehler. Die Fehler wurden keepRight! gemeldet. Ich habe sie dann anschließend mit dem Checker in JSOM automatisch korrigieren lassen. JSOM hatte hier knallharte Fehler gemeldet.

Jeder ist für das, was er anlegt, selbst verantwortlich. Bitte prüfe daher zukünfitig, daß neue Eintragungen fehlerfrei sind. Das funktioniert sehr schnell und einfach mit dem in JSOM integrierten Checker.

Fehlerhaft angelegte Objekte werden früher oder später gelöscht, vor allem dann, wenn deren Anzahl in einem Gebiet so exorbitant hoch ist.
dwausr (2015-01-08 15:14:00+00:00): ähmm - 
1. ich hab die Objekte nicht angelegt
2. die Straßen in Bahnbrücken waren vorher ziemlich sicher korrekt und vollständig (in der Vergangenheit wurde da bei keepright und Co. nichts angezeigt - ergo muss der Fehler irgendwo anders gewesen sein und nicht bei den von Dir gelöschten Wegen -> bitte sorge dafür, dass diese wiederhergestellt werden, JOSM hat ein reverter-plugin
3. anstatt, dass Du danach schaust, was der user, der den Fehler produziert hat, falsch gemacht hat (und ihn ggf. anschreibst), löschst Du einfach willenlos Objekte, nur um die Fehler loszuwerden, ohne den Sinn und Hintergrund zu prüfen - das grenzt für mich fast schon an Vandalismus
michael2402 (2015-01-08 22:53:59+00:00): Ich habe mir die alten Objekte angeschaut. Sowohl JOSm damals als auch ich jetzt kann keine Fehler sehen. Auch die gelöschte Bergstraße sieht aus wie sie soll.

Kannst du bitte diese Änderung rückgängig machen und den alten Ortsumriss, die Straßen und Häuser wieder herstellen?
dwausr (2015-01-09 08:10:13+00:00): so, ich hab das Ganze mal in JOSM mit dem reverter-plugin rekonstruiert

@michael2402: entweder beim Upload der Daten ist was ziemlich schief gegangen oder aber Du hast viele Objekte an derselben Stelle doppelt angelegt (bspw. waren an manchen Stellen sowohl das Gebäude als auch das Gebäude mit allen Adressdaten - vermutlich hast Du da einfach die Adressdaten hinzugefügt und es wurde als komplett neues Objekt drüber gelegt - sowas ist natürlich eni Fehler, es stellt sich halt die Frage, ob das beim Upload verursacht wurde oder ob das schon in JOSM so war, JOSM spuckt allerdings solche Sachen als Fehler aus)
@osmtraveller: durch das automatische Reparieren in JOSM hast Du scheinbar alle Objekte gelöscht - sowohl die zu viel angelegten als auch die vorher schon existierenden. Ich weiß, dass es mehr Arbeit ist, wenn man jeden Fehler einzeln untersucht und dann bei jedem Objekt einzeln entscheiden muss, welches denn nun das "Bessere" oder "Richtigere" ist (mit gedrückter Strg-Taste kann man bei einem Klick auf zwei übereinanderliegende Objekten zwischen den Objekten hin- und herwechseln), aber ich glaube, Du willst auch nicht, dass man auf diesem Wege Deine Arbeit an anderen Stellen einfach so ins Nirvana schießt ;-)

Ich mach mich jetzt ans Reparieren, lade das Ganze anschließend hoch und dann dürft ihr beide nochmal prüfen :)
dwausr (2015-01-09 08:10:51+00:00): Kleine Korrektur - es ist die ALT-Taste, die man gedrückt halten muss
michael2402 (2015-01-09 08:18:09+00:00): Danke für die Arbeit. Der Fehler lag wohl bei JOSM. Die Sachen aus dem ersten Änderungssatz wurden im zweiten noch einmal hochgeladen statt aktualisiert (obwohl ich eigentlich an einem Stück durchgearbeitet habe).
michael2402 (2015-01-09 08:19:11+00:00): Wenn es dir zu viel Arbeit ist kann ich das auch machen (aber erst Montag)
osmtraveller (2015-01-09 08:26:40+00:00): OK, jetzt erinnere ich mich. Es gab eine riesige Anzahl Häuser, die zunächst ohne weitere Tags angelegt wurden. Da drüber wurden neue Häuse mit Adressdaten gelegt. Mein Ziel war genau das, was dwausr beschrieben hat, nämlich die Löschung der alten Häuserumrisse. Dazu habe ich alle Objekte des zugehörigen Änderungssatzes selektiert. Dieser Änderungssatz enthielt aber offenbar nicht nur eine riesige Anzahl Häuser, sondern vermutlich auch noch Wege.

Ich arbeite sehr viel in OSM und behebe dort immer wieder jede Menge Fehler. Dieses Mal ist mir dabei offenbar selber ein Fehler unterlaufen. Für die Zukunft würde ich empfehlen, nicht zu viele völlig unterschiedliche Änderungen in einen Änderungssatz zu packen. Das erleichtert im Nachhinein die Übersichtlichkeit beträchtlich.
dwausr (2015-01-09 08:31:59+00:00): so, revert mit Korrektur ist durch, zu finden unter http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28014034
mckale (2015-04-07 16:00:56+00:00): Stefan twierdzi ze to jednak "Plackula"...
WSPINKA (2015-04-07 16:34:30+00:00): No nie wiem...
Z dostępnych źródeł lokalsów wynika, że Plaskula tak jak wzniesienie.
Mateo
PS. A z kim mam przyjemność? Widzę, że trochę skał wprowadziłeś.
mckale (2015-04-07 17:01:03+00:00): sorry literowka z mojej stony... niemniej piszesz ze Plaskula a tag jest taki:
name:Plakula 
tu Marek Cincio, cos tam czasem dodam :)
mckale (2015-04-07 17:03:39+00:00): wyczytalem jescze cos takiego: "Obok Plaskuli znajdują się jeszcze skałki zwane przez miejscowych Cebula i Trzy Korony. "
WSPINKA (2015-04-07 17:23:15+00:00): Dzięki za info - poprawiłem
Też to znam jak również i skały...
mckale (2015-04-07 17:31:16+00:00): tak czy siak, dzieki za kupe dobrej i przydatnej roboty... pzdr
Durko_freemap (2015-01-04 12:17:53+00:00): Zdravim petike,
aky ste mal rozumny dovod na to, aby ste uz na zakreslenu cestu zakreslil dalsiu cestu? ked na tu prvu cestu zrejme stacilo doplnit tag name=Hlavná?
Tak isto je to s cestami Lipová a Lipový rad, dve cety na jednom mieste s rozdielnymi menami? a vlastne je tak prekreslena cela Marcelova, opravite celu obec?
Dakujem za odpoved.
aceman444 (2015-01-04 13:30:10+00:00): A este to vyzera, ze mnohym nazvom chyba diakritika. Aj tu pridana "Ulicka".
Nakaner (2015-04-06 07:42:01+00:00): Warum hast du die Hausnummer des Bahnhofsgebäudes geändert? Da du keinen Änderungssatz-Kommentar eingegeben hast, sehe ich mich genötigt dich zu fragen. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments
maxphizik (2015-01-04 09:57:07+00:00): Ты зачем лес переделываешь на natural=heath?
Warin61 (2019-04-15 23:53:48+00:00): Deleted some of these. They are not under construction, some have no tags to say what they are ... clutter for 4 years.
Hjart (2015-01-04 10:08:53+00:00): Du fik koblet Torderup og Skomagerbakken af landevejen ved Gunderup. Det sker også jævnligt for mig, men jeg ville lige gøre opmærksom på det alligevel
katpatuka (2019-02-07 09:12:20+00:00): Are you sure https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/320211855 is 阿拉善左旗巴彦浩特机场? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/317216080 looks much more like an airport
Test360 (2015-01-08 22:02:39+00:00): Setting "landuse=wood" ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dwood_%28Don%27t_use%29 ) instead of "landuse=forest" seems a mistake according to the OSM wiki.
woodpeck (2015-01-08 22:38:24+00:00): I agree. This does not, however, mean that you can simply chnage all landuse=wood to landuse=forst (or natural=wood) automatically. Your changesets have not been reverted because the content was wrong, but because the process was wrong.
Test360 (2015-01-09 01:53:48+00:00): I would like to know why the 27640972 changeset ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27640972 ) which is clearly not a mass edit as been reverted by this changeset.
Test360 (2015-01-09 02:04:49+00:00): Same request for the 27641137 changeset ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27641137 ), which was a local edit that fixed an obvious mistake.
Test360 (2015-01-09 05:53:57+00:00): Same request for the 27662643 changeset ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27662643 ) which can't be smaller because it change the way the river is tagged.
Test360 (2015-01-09 05:55:19+00:00): Same request for the 27662544 changeset ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27662544 ) which can't be smaller because it deals with a river.
Test360 (2015-01-09 05:56:04+00:00): Same request for the 27662224 changesert ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27662224 ) which can't be smaller because it change the way the river is tagged.
Test360 (2015-01-09 05:57:46+00:00): Same request for the 27661940 changesert ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27661940 ) which can't be smaller because it change the way the river is tagged.
Test360 (2015-01-09 06:15:43+00:00): I would like to know why the 27630561 changeset ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27661940 ) has been reverted. What is the problem? The changes in this changeset were not done automatically. And nobody complain in the discussion of the changeset.
Test360 (2015-01-09 06:16:37+00:00): I would like to know why the 27631195  changeset ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27631195 ) has been reverted. What is the problem? The changes in this changeset were not done automatically. And nobody complain in the discussion of the changeset.
Test360 (2015-01-09 06:17:39+00:00): Same request for the 27631546  changeset ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27631546 ).
Test360 (2015-01-09 06:31:03+00:00): Same request for the 27631744  changeset ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27631744 ). Again: not an automatic edit, no complaint.
Test360 (2015-01-09 06:54:47+00:00): Same request for the 27631975 changeset ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27631975 ). Not an automatic edit, no complaint.
Test360 (2015-01-09 07:00:49+00:00): Same request for the 27632063 changeset ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27632063 ). Not an automatic edit, no complaint.
RM87 (2015-01-09 11:40:19+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27631744 - highway=services is ment to describe areas and makes no sense on ways. It would be ok to assume that this tag implies area=yes automatically. You should have made this change in the wiki not in the data. In case of wiki change a drop of note to tagging list would be also.
RM87 (2015-01-09 11:51:16+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27631195 , http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27632063 , http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27632063 , http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27631975 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27632063  same as http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27631744
RM87 (2015-01-09 12:06:42+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27661940 , http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27662224 , http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27662544 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27662643 

You should not make mega relations. These are hard to edit and even harder to fix as they tend to broke extremly easily.
You should instead make a waterway relation of relations and ways to group the separate pieces of river parts together. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:waterway
RM87 (2015-01-09 12:25:34+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27641137  seems ok. You may redo it. This time with a little bit more descriptive comment. It is hard to notice that a space was removed from the word shared _lane . If a good changeset is in the middle of not so good changesets it might be not noticed.
RM87 (2015-01-09 13:07:10+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27640972  5 of 6 changes were wrong (should have been surface=asphalt) and the sixth might have been wrong (felt like compacted on some parts). 5 are fixed with changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28018519 
6.th one I did not touch. 
Centerlines are clearly seeable on bing and the road is fairly long so the surface must be asphalt on those 5 roads.
Test360 (2015-01-09 16:52:02+00:00): About "highway=services":  the OSM  wiki clearly  state: "Make sure you add the area=yes tag in case you tag a way, because it is not considered the default for closed ways."
Test360 (2015-01-09 17:06:42+00:00): The size of the relation is irrelevant. The changsets on river has been reverted because of « un-discussed mass edits », wich they are not. Where is the discussion about the size of the relation of these changesets before this revert?
Test360 (2015-01-09 17:40:01+00:00): About http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27641137 , you just state that it seems ok, but you don't explain why it has been reverted. I would like to know.

"good changeset is in the middle of not so good changesets it might be not noticed": are you implying that all these changesets have been reverted without understanding them?
Test360 (2015-01-09 17:57:58+00:00): About http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27640972 , you discuss the correctness of the changeset, but you miss the point: why a non-mass edit changeset have been reverted in this changeset?

The correctness should have been discussed **before** the revert.
SomeoneElse (2015-01-09 18:01:47+00:00): @Test360 - although it's perhaps easy to get lost in a conversation entirely conducted in changeset discussion comments, perhaps it would help to read from the top again, including the comment that says "Your changesets have not been reverted because the content was wrong, but because the process was wrong".
Test360 (2015-01-09 18:17:21+00:00): @SomeoneElse
Before my first comment, I didn't understand that this changeset reverts 80 of my changesets. I thougth that it was the revert of only one changeset. That's why I discuss the correctness. Then I understand.


"Your changesets have not been reverted because the content was wrong, but because the process was wrong": that exactly why I asked my questions. I don't understand what is wrong with the process of several reverted changesets. I would like to understand to avoid that in the future.
Test360 (2015-01-09 18:23:33+00:00): @RM87
"You should have made this change in the wiki not in the data": I don't understand at all this sentence. Can you explain in details? Thanks.
RM87 (2015-01-09 18:38:07+00:00): About "highway=services" do you really believe everything that is written or not written in the wiki?

I do agree that the changeset comment « un-discussed mass edits » does not fit for those river changeset reverts. Nevertheless there is a waterway relation model for the thing you did with a multipolygon relation. 

I do not know why http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27641137 was reverted, because I'm not the person who reverted it. Frederik probably can explain why he did add this changeset for reverting.
SomeoneElse (2015-01-09 18:59:52+00:00): @Test360, re the process:  There's a mechanical edit policy described in the wiki here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy

The very first requirement is "Discuss".  It's there for a number of reasons.  OpenStreetMap is a shared database, but it's actually more than that - it's the results of people actually getting out of the house walking around for a while and writing down what they see about the physical world.  That takes time and effort, and for the results of that time and effort to be lost in some tag homogenisation would be very sad indeed, so one of the reasons why it's important to discuss mechanical edits before performing them is simply just human politeness.  Another reason (already mentioned elsewhere) is that sometimes new mappers use the wrong tag for things, but they obviously don't know that they are doing so.  It's important to discuss with them how something may be tagged better in the future.  A third reason why it's important to discuss mechanical edits before performing them is that sometimes the basis on which the mechanical edit is to be performed is incorrect (the "all deciduous trees and broadleaved" assumption was an example of this sort of incorrect assumption).  You simply cannot believe everything you read in the wiki.  A fourth reason why it's important to discuss beforehand is that, even if the change is a good idea, it's important that people who use the data know that it is going to change.  Someone might be rendering "wood=deciduous" on a map; they need to be told to change the way that they render trees before the change is made to the database.

Please, sit down and read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy and follow what it says.
RM87 (2015-01-09 19:41:11+00:00): About the wiki changing: the wiki page of highway=services should have say'd that this tag automatically implies area=yes on ways instead of insisting of adding area=yes to every single way. This can be done because the other option of closed way tagged an highway=services in the meaning of a non area makes no sense. 
A change like this on a wiki requires going through the tagging list. That in turn requires a person with quite 'thick skin' and you seem to fit.
Test360 (2015-01-09 19:46:35+00:00): @SomeoneElse
Thank you for this detailed response, I get your point. I don't know if you had intended to answer my questions with this message, but they are left unanswered.

I have read the mechanical edit policy. Right now, I do *not* complain about the revert of my mechanical edits, I rather try to understand why some of my changeset *that are not mechanical edits* have been reverted as mechanical edit.
Test360 (2015-01-09 20:18:35+00:00): @RM87
Thank you for this clarification. I now understand.

I see several reasons to not change the current lack of implication between highway=services and area=yes. So I won't try to change that by discussing it on the tagging list.

So do you agree that right now, a service area which is tagged with highway=services and without area=yes is an obvious error?

Nevertheless, the important point is that the changesets I mentionned earlier that concerns this issue were not mechanical edits. I had checked each service area with Bing. And I'm pretty sure that grouping several edited ways into one changeset is not a reason to revert.
Test360 (2015-01-09 20:58:58+00:00): I would like to know why the http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27643030 has been reverted: not a mechanical edit, just a group of two very local changes.
Test360 (2015-01-09 21:10:48+00:00): I would like to know why the http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27643284 has been reverted: not a mechanical edit, just a group of modifications that have been review one by one thanks to Bing.
Test360 (2015-01-09 21:16:30+00:00): I would like to know why the http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27643485 has been reverted: not a mechanical edit, just a group of modifications that have been review one by one thanks to Bing and based of the nearby streets in OSM.
woodpeck (2015-01-09 21:28:16+00:00): You had made a large amount of mechanical edits interspersed by a few manual edits. The changeset comments were not suitable for determining whether something was a manual edit or a mechanical edit. I would normally have reverted *everything* done by you in that time span but instead I made an effort to look into the changesets and leave those in place that seemed to be manual edits. It is quite possible that even though I invested that time to understand your insufficiently described edits, *some* manual edits were still in the list and accidentally reverted as collateral damage.
Test360 (2015-01-09 22:46:44+00:00): Why haven't you asked me what changeset are mechanical? If you had notified me of the revert of my 80 changesets before, I would gladly have provided you the ones that were mechanical.

"I would normally have reverted *everything* done by you in that time span". That is a very wrong way to deal with the changes I have done. The correct way is to carefully analyse each changeset. You should take a look on this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism . "If the edits are dubious but it can't be proved to be incorrect then we should contact the person and ask for some additional information"

If you find an insufficiently described edit, the right way is to ask the author for explanations.

You seems to underestimate the scope of the "collateral damage". So far, I have found 14 changesets that appears to have been wrongly reverted. Several of them represents hours of work. Moreover, I will spend several hours to redo them.
gileri (2016-07-10 20:14:26+00:00): @woodpeck I'm interested (and I believe other mappers too) in seeing a resolution of this discussion and changesets.

Could you answer the points raised ?
woodpeck (2016-07-10 20:18:41+00:00): Could you point me to the forum or mailing list where this changeset is being discussed? Only a few days ago I received inquiries from user "tuxayo" about this and I can hardly believe it is accidental that several people stumble across a year-old changeset?
gileri (2016-07-10 21:38:38+00:00): I'm not sure how it's relevant to the discussion of this changeset, but for full disclosure :

You're right, I stumbled upon this changeset by accident, and pointed @tuxayo to it, as we've had private discussions about this kind of changesets and their reversal by DWG.

I think we can now return on the original topic at hand.
woodpeck (2016-07-11 00:45:59+00:00): See https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-July/076296.html
danielsmith (2015-01-03 15:49:18+00:00): Should have written "Added Forton Rec" as the comment - oops
OverQuantum (2015-02-04 19:01:29+00:00): Аккуратнее со статусами дорог. Статус primary был согласован на форуме. Исправлено в ch28616554
aceman444 (2015-01-03 23:52:42+00:00): Dobry den, dakujem za pridanie otvaracich hodin. Ked ale pouzivate JOSM (super) tak pouzite aj kontrolu formatu zapisu tych casov. Mate tam par chybiciek ako 9:00 (co ma byt 09:00, alebo ";Su..." (ma byt "; Su..."). Tieto vie JOSM automaticky najst. Je to v zavaznosti chyb na urovni "info", nie varovanie. Dakujem
aceman444 (2015-01-04 00:04:33+00:00): Taktiez mozete pouzit v JOSM plugin "Opening hours", ktory umoznuje graficke kreslenie, kontrolu a optimalizaciu otvaracich hodin. Len nepozna este vsetky formaty ako mesiace a ine speciality.
eggie (2019-01-31 16:42:24+00:00): Nooit een welkomstmail ontvangen zie ik... Bij deze alsnog... Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
Mirecnet (2015-01-06 11:16:13+00:00): Na mapu zakreslujeme len existujuce chodniky. Si si isty, ze je to chodnik na Sokol a nie len tvoja trasa ? Znac vzdy len existujuci chodnik. Nech si to navzajom neprepisujeme. Dik.
Miro
Andreeeee (2015-02-25 16:27:09+00:00): pokial viem, ten chodnik tam je, ale naposledy som nim siel pred 100 rokmi.. nasiel som ho aj na inom webe, takze myslim ze je lepsie tam mat aspon takto pribliznu trasu, nez vobec ziadnu... sorry za neskorsiu odpoved ;)
Mirecnet (2015-03-10 15:45:38+00:00): Ja ti verim. Takych chodnikov je v lesoch stovky km. Treba zakreslovat len tie zamerane za pomoci GPS. Keby som ja zakresloval chodniky asi ako priblizne idu, tak zakreslim celu mapu :) Vyber sa tam pls a zam,eraj GPX za pomoci GPS.
aceman444 (2020-06-24 10:29:31+00:00): Zdravim, dakujem za doplnenie mnozstva udajov v Poprade. Skoda, ze vsetky objekty su posunute o niekolko metrov a este aj mnohe budovy, co boli spravne (podla katastra) ste poposuvali. Je to dost pracne to vsetko teraz poopravovat. Dufam, ze odkedy ste to robili uz pouzivate lepsi zdroj ako bing (napr. ZBGIS) a spravne si zarovnavate snimky podla budov so source=kapor2, namiesto ich prisposobenia zle zarovnanym snimkam. Idealne ked robite takto cele mesta, keby ste mali v JOSM podlozenu vrstvu z katastra (plugin freemapkapor), aby ste videli spravne zarovnanie. Dakujem.
Nieco v Poprade opravim, ale cele mesto sa mi teda nechce (kedze zial nie je vsetko posunute rovnako, ze by sa to len vsetko chytilo a potiahlo o par metrov :().
gausserrorfunction (2015-01-03 19:43:28+00:00): added barrier
gausserrorfunction (2015-01-03 19:42:45+00:00): set access=no
gausserrorfunction (2015-01-03 19:42:06+00:00): changed building type to farm_auxiliary
gausserrorfunction (2015-01-03 19:41:21+00:00): changed landuse to farmland
gausserrorfunction (2015-01-03 19:40:31+00:00): added transmission tower
gausserrorfunction (2015-01-03 19:40:03+00:00): changed landuse to meadow