piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
abrensch (2020-01-19 09:14:56+00:00): Hi vanagaudi,

here you added oneway=yes at the same time, which is easily falsified by openstreetcam.

could you have a look?

thanx, Arndt
vanagaudi (2020-01-19 11:09:13+00:00): Hello Arndt,
don't know how this happened, probably an unwanted click on the iD checkbox. I corrected to oneway=no.
Thank you for verifying.
Helmut
Dimacn (2020-01-15 09:00:11+00:00): Вы переделали улицы из residential в living_stree. Там действительно стоят знаки 5.21 "Жилая зона"? Подробнее - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:highway%3Dliving_street
Dimacn (2020-01-15 09:03:07+00:00): Вы переделали улицы из residential в living_street. Там действительно стоят знаки 5.21 "Жилая зона"? Подробнее - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:highway%3Dliving_street
user_5359 (2020-01-15 17:22:08+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
user_5359 (2020-01-15 17:21:04+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
Timur_Crimea (2020-01-15 09:56:48+00:00): Здания обрисовывал со спутниковых снимков OSM (Bing aerial imagery).
Снимки конечно старые, но судя по всему здания не менялись за это время.
Также немного выровнял дороги, которые местами пересекались со зданиями.
4004 (2020-01-19 23:06:02+00:00): уже отмечено
user_5359 (2020-01-15 17:19:24+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
gscscnd (2020-01-15 15:08:41+00:00): name ma inną wartość niż name:pl.
Константин Гам (2020-01-18 00:20:18+00:00): Пожалуйста прекратите маппинг под рендер! 
Следуйте правилу NAME IS name ONLY!

Также не используйтет КАПС!
user1572739 (2020-01-17 18:07:03+00:00): Ist die Beschilderung im Bereich Susanne-Schmida-Gasse geändert worden? Zuletzt war das, wie auch um den Hermine-Dasovsky-Platz herum, einfach nur ein generelles Fahrverbot mit Ausnahme für Radfahrer. Das war vorher schon richtig getaggt. Und warum hast Du den Abschnitt mit der Zufahrt zur Tiefgarage mit motor_vehicle=no getaggt? Das ist definitiv falsch! Auf diesem Abschnitt sowieso, und wenn, dann bedeuten die Schilder vehicle=no. Und horse=yes? Ist das Absicht oder macht das Dein Editor von allein?

Ich weiß, im Seeparkquartier passt es mit den kürzlich neu aufgestellten (temporären) Schildern auch nicht mehr, das werde ich bei Gelegenheit ändern. Dort ist es allerdings aufgrund der zusätzlichen Regeln etwas komplizierter.
YpsilonEule (2020-01-22 14:02:30+00:00): Das mit der Zufahrt zur Tiefgarage war tatsächlich ein Fehler^^

Im Projekt werden diese "Straßen" mit generellen Fahrverbot als "Quartierswege" bzw. "urbane Freiflächen" bezeichnet. De-Facto sind das Fußgängerzonen mit der Ausnahme für Radfahrer. Und der informellen Zufahrt für Anlieferungen für den motorisierten Verkehr. Insofern halte ich es für schwierig, den Status einer Ortsstraße beizubehalten. Dieser suggeriert in der Darstellung viel zu sehr eine Befahrbakeit für den MIV. Das entsprechende Attribut wird in der Darstellung nicht widergespiegelt. Vermutlich liegt darin auch die Schwäche der Kategorisierung bei OpenStreetMap. Ich hab nach deinem Kommentar auch kurz an den Karlsplatz gedacht. Dort ist es so gelöst wie auch bisher hier in der Seestadt. Ich halte es auch dort für eine Abwägungthematik. Laut StVO ist es eine Straße mit generellen Fahrverbot - defacto aber eine Fußgängerzone mit Ausnahme für Radfahrer. Ich würde bei beiden Fällen nicht auf Biegen und Brechen auf der StVO beharren. Auch andere Dienste (z.B. Basemap) stellen dies nicht als Straße dar. Sprich: Diese Straßen sind als Fußgängerstraßen mit Ausnahme für Radverkehr gedacht. Rechtlich werden sie aber anders kategorisiert, um das zu ermöglichen.

Die Änderung hier war sogesehen auch mal nur ein Test, ich hätte auch rund um Hermine-Dasovsky-Platz das noch geändert.
user1572739 (2020-01-22 18:37:48+00:00): Zunächst mal ist es allgemeiner OSM-Konsens, dass im Zweifelsfall immer genau das eingetragen wird, was vor Ort angeschrieben steht. Ein "defacto" oder "so gedacht" ist dabei irrelevant, und es ist genau das üblich, was Du so abwertend als "auf die StVO beharren" beschreibst. Es ist wichtig, dass die Daten möglichst korrekt und damit anwendungsneutral sind, egal ob ein Renderer, Router oder was auch immer damit arbeitet.

Ich habe mich selbst in Seestadt-Anfangstagen aus dem Fenster gelehnt und diese beiden Bereiche, weil sie ja "so gedacht" sind bzw. dem am nächsten kommen, als living_street zusammen mit den Access-Tags eingetragen. Das wurde - zu Recht - von Anderen bemängelt und ebenfalls betont, dass genau das eingetragen werden sollte, was vor Ort angeschrieben steht. Das habe ich dann später entsprechend geändert, bis Du es jetzt erneut in die andere Richtung geändert hast. Du kannst also davon ausgehen, dass sich das Ganze bald wiederholen wird. Insofern können wir das auch jetzt gleich wieder rückgängig machen.

Und was die Darstellung angeht: Hier ist es ebenfalls Konsens, was oft als "wir mappen nicht für den Renderer" zusammengefasst wird: keinerlei "Hacks", um eine bestimmte Renderer (von unzähligen, die sich auf die Korrektheit der Daten verlassen und diese womöglich auch differenzierter darstellen) oder eine andere Anwendung zu beeinflussen. Also u.a. auch keine (offiziell nicht vorhandene) Fußgängerzone eintragen, damit es "anders" dargestellt wird. Und bitte auch keine "Tests".

Das betrifft genau genommen auch die vielen fiktiven Wege, die oft kreuz und quer über Plätze gemappt sind, weil die Routing-Algorithmen noch immer nicht mit Flächen umgehen können. Aber lösch die mal mit dieser Begründung, dann ist der Teufel los. ;-)

Der richtige Ansatz wäre in diesem Fall, sich um eine Berücksichtigung der Access-Tags in der Darstellung zu bemühen. Dazu kannst Du hier ein Ticket einwerfen:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues

Am Maria-Trapp-Platz muss ich mir auch noch etwas einfallen lassen. Da ist das (ebenfalls falsche) pedestrian noch aus der Baustellenzeit übrig geblieben, als noch nicht klar war, als was das später beschildert wird. Insofern danke, dass Du das mal angestoßen hast! :-D
YpsilonEule (2020-01-22 19:10:16+00:00): Danke :)

Dann werde ich mal ein Ticket einwerfen.

Ich bräuchte es für eine Darstellung als Fußgängerstraße, werde dass dann einfach über Mapbox nur für mich anpassen. Somit auch diese Änderung zurücksetzen
michalfabik (2020-01-16 14:42:43+00:00): Hi, thanks for adding this! A couple of questions:  
1) Do you know the official name of the hiking trail in the local language, if there is one? It sounds unlikely that a Bosnian hiking trail is called "Hiking Trail No.1".  
2) How is the trail marked? Is it the usual white circle with red border?
-=|MisterY|=- (2020-01-16 14:50:12+00:00): Hi, @michalfabik! Thanks for the feedback. 

1) The local name is "Pjesacka staza br. 1" (without glyphs). However, there is also an English version next to it. See https://imgur.com/wrJ50Pu. I can adjust it, if that's the preferred option.

2) Yes, that's the common mark in BiH. Not sure if or how else I could better mark trails. This is my first time doing it and I've tried to do it the way they do it in Austria, which I find excellent. 
In BiH there are no trail number markings or names, just the circle.
Luuuddooo (2020-09-27 19:47:34+00:00): Bonjour, d'après les traces GPS c'est le cadastre qui semble très décalé, il aurait plutôt fallut recaler les bâtiments mais pas les routes qui elles étaient plus correctes avant ! 
Ludo.
omérindol (2020-09-28 08:45:34+00:00): Bonjour,
Oui, j'avais un peu hésité à l'époque..
Sur le coup j'ai voulu apporter de la cohérence à l'ensemble mais modifier les routes n'était pas forcément la meilleure solution.
Si personne ne passe avant, je corrigerais les zones concernées dans les jours qui viennent.
De manière générale, plutôt se fier aux ortho et/ou traces GPS que le cadastre lorsqu'il y a de gros décalages ? (le cadastre étant une donnée de référence officielle mais pas toujours correcte spatialement...).
Merci.
Olivier.
Luuuddooo (2020-09-28 12:22:15+00:00): Il faut essayer d'identifier la ou les sources les plus fiables, ce n'est pas toujours facile, j'ai tendance a faire confiances aux traces GPS si elles sont suffisamment nombreuses, sinon a regarder les traces Strava, et m'en servir pour évaluer le décalage potentiel du cadastre ou des ortho photos. D'habitude le cadastre est tres bien calé près des points de reference IGN, typiquement l'église, mais il faut s'en méfier quand on s'en éloigne avec du denivelé.  À Arras il semble totalement décalé, je ne sais pas pourquoi. En général les orthos photos de l'IGN semblent plutôt bien callées, c'est celles là que j'utiliserais ici, les autres comme Bing ou Maxar c'est souvent moins bon, ça dépend des millésimes, il faut vérifier.
Recaller l'import cadastre du bâti d'Arras dans OSM c'est un gros boulot car le décalage ne semble pas uniforme, je n'ai jamais eu le courage de m'y atteler. 
Ludo.
Rom1 (2020-01-16 15:25:34+00:00): Hello, j'ai amélioré le tracé des chemins à l'aide de l'orthophoto de 2008. La couverture des arbres y est moins présente ;)
cyel (2020-01-16 15:43:28+00:00): Ok, merci, 
Oui, en effet, avec une vision des chemins cela rend mieux :)
olo81 (2021-01-01 01:12:08+00:00): dublujesz nazwy, jest już dodany serwis a dajesz drugi raz nazwę na budynku 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/219340646
C2oc4 (2021-01-01 10:07:27+00:00): To dodawać do terenu? A jak w danym budynku jest jakaś firma ?
olo81 (2021-01-01 14:19:33+00:00): Jeśli firma zajmuje większy teren dajesz cały teren. Jeśli cały budynek możesz dać tagi w budynku albo osobny punkt. Jeśli jest kilka firm to osobno punkty dla każdej firmy. Ważne żeby nie dublować tych samych danych.
C2oc4 (2021-01-01 14:30:18+00:00): Oki to będę się pilnował
mike140 (2020-03-23 08:29:48+00:00): Если там яма это не значит что нет проезда. А пешеходы или велосипедисты тоже там не пройдут? Перестаньте заниматься вандализмом. OSM-карта не только для таксистов. Правку откатываю
Sowa1980 (2020-01-24 22:23:21+00:00): Тут кто все будет за вами править и восстанавливать? Аналогичный вопрос. замечания все те же!
Noro Hibu (2020-01-24 22:27:48+00:00): Вы мне указываете на вещи, которые я уже исправил. Будьте пожалуйста внимательны, либо конкретизируйте, если речь о другом.
eggie (2020-01-15 12:11:24+00:00): Dag Ruben...Bij een school kun je amenity=school toevoegen.
Bij de pitch kun je nog de sport toevoegen sport=  ??
MVG,
Eggie
Sowa1980 (2020-01-24 22:22:29+00:00): Тут кто все будет за вами править и восстанавливать?
Noro Hibu (2020-01-24 22:25:08+00:00): Вы мне указываете на вещи, которые я уже исправил. Будьте пожалуйста внимательны, либо конкретизируйте, если речь о другом.
aharvey (2020-01-16 02:16:54+00:00): Hi, thanks for mapping tree species. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:species + the genus and taxon tags. Also for tagging with wikidata you'll need to use species:wikidata unless the tree is notable and has it's own wikidata item.
aharvey (2020-01-16 02:18:29+00:00): Please could you let me know when you've fixed this or if you need a hand?
j0hnj0nes (2020-01-16 02:44:50+00:00): I followed that guide, it has the taxon correctly referenced directly in the changeset in multiple formats by using wikidata : 
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27657
j0hnj0nes (2020-01-16 02:58:19+00:00): So do you think I should also add the species=* tag specifically alongside the data ? sorry I didn't realise that and with so many competing ways of listing genus I figured wikidata + wikipedia would be the way to go and machine readable + translatable
aharvey (2020-01-16 05:14:08+00:00): Cool I see you added the species tag now, that's good. Even with the wikidata tag I think it's helpful to add the species tag, but with both wikidata and species it's even better.

The point I was making though is it should be `species:wikidata` not `wikidata`. For example this tree has its own wikipedia page and wikidata value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rbol_del_Tule and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q252182, but in your case there is no wikidata for this exact tree, only its species so it should be species:wikidata=Q...
aharvey (2020-01-19 05:33:29+00:00): Just to close this out, I've fixed this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79746903
j0hnj0nes (2020-01-19 11:53:28+00:00): ok I'll use this as a template thank you it is appreciated !
Would it be possible to also add the wikipedia link like other features have so that web tools have a direct link as well as the wikidata ?
(the tool I use obtains the wikidata link from wikipedia)
aharvey (2020-01-19 20:54:23+00:00): Only if the tree is notable and has its own Wikipedia or wikidata entry.
vorpalblade-kaart (2020-01-15 14:33:24+00:00): You had an extraneous `conn` tag on node 1276835037. I'm removing it. I *think* that it is probably due to a bug in the MapWithAI plugin, specifically with undo redo, and I'm trying to track it down.

Do you remember what you were doing with this changeset? Did you see any bug report popup from JOSM? What version of the MapWithAI plugin are you using?

Thanks,
Taylor
Dilancelik (2020-01-16 07:54:28+00:00): Hello Taylor,
I am glad to see your message, thanks for checking these issues. There were several bugs yesterday (12/15/2020) when i was editing on josm. As you say, i saw this bug when i push the undo/redo button. I am using 0.3.7 version of the Mapwithai plugin. On this changeset, i only added missing roads and classified them also checked the highway geometry. I was working on the Greece Missing Geometry (472) task. 

Thanks,
Dilan
Dilancelik (2020-01-16 07:56:50+00:00): Oops sorry for the wrong date, the date was the 01/15/2020 :)
vorpalblade-kaart (2020-01-16 14:16:39+00:00): Don't worry about it.

I've added a validator check to the current release of MapWithAI, so you can update plugins for that.

I'll continue to try to replicate, but it just isn't happening for me. Can you send me a JOSM status report? ( incoming+gokaart-josm-mapwithai-14305243-issue-@incoming.gitlab.com )

I'd prefer one right after it occurs again, if at all possible.

Don't go out of your way to replicate, but if you do see it occurring again, please let me know.
Warin61 (2020-02-04 03:50:22+00:00): hI,

There is no difference between the area identified as scrub -relation 10591122 and landuse=forest relation 763346427. See the LPI Imagery..
Hb- (2020-02-04 08:05:45+00:00): w763346427 is the northern border of the forest relation 10591123. You probably mean this relation in comparison to r10591122.

I did not use the imagery but the LPI topographic map. This map has four different kinds of "land with trees":
1. Closed forest: 80-100% crown cover. 
2. Open forest: 50-80% crown cover
3. Woodland: 20-50% crown cover. 
4. Pine forest
For an example of the different shades of green please see the legend at http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/etopo/geopdf/25k/8825-2N%20WANDELLA.pdf.

I mapped the Closed and Open forest as forest and the Woodland as scrub.

As I learned in the meantime, natural=wood is preferred in Australia for this kind of forests. I corrected this with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80518326

Do you see the need of further changes for the Woodland areas tagged as scrub?
Warin61 (2020-02-04 22:57:41+00:00): I don't know. I don't usually use the topo map, just the imagery. I'll have to think on it. Scrub to me are low growing plants <3m height , that is not necessarily 'woodland'. 

I am revising the area as the local National Park carries the natural=wood tag and that is wrong - the trees do not start and end at the National Park boundaries. 

In Australia the landuse=forest tends to be used for areas where trees are harvested for timber, rather than just the presence of trees.  

Mapping 'meadow', well I could not do that without more information ... an area of grass looks the same if it is used for pasture or not.
Hb- (2020-02-04 23:17:14+00:00): A doubtful wiki page exists on this issue. It has three edits since 2010: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_Landuse_in_Australia Please consider deleting it in favour for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines

Meadows are clearly visible by the presence of fences and the "shortness" of the gras. If in doubt, check the grass on other imagery made at a different time of the year.
Warin61 (2020-02-05 02:04:43+00:00): We do NOT have permission to use SIX maps. Cease using that source as it is a copyright violation. Anything you added from that source should be deleted. 

The topo map OSM has permission to use does not have that detail. 

--------------------
I did not make the wikipage https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_Landuse_in_Australia. I will raise it on the Australian mail list and see what they say.. the tagging guidelines has no info on mapping landuse. The pages are not linked.. I think there has been no Australian input into that landuse page... 

I have now added a large area of trees - this replaces the smaller area you added. I have left the 'burnt' relation ... but like lots of other things.. it is not something that OSM maps. Other things OSM does not map? Flood prone areas, areas of land mines, if a shop sells bread or not ... lots of things.
Hb- (2020-02-05 08:40:17+00:00): I wrote that I did use the LPI topographic map. This map displays different kinds of forest with different shades of green. 

And I recommended the six map legend to you to get an impression of those different greens.  Please feel free to read more carefully before accusing others of a violation of law.

> I did not make the wikipage 
Thanks for raising the page Mapping_Landuse_in_Australia on the list. That page is linked from the Tips for Aussies page, please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Mapping_Landuse_in_Australia

> I have now added a large area of trees - this replaces the smaller area you added. 
With deleting the scrub area between the forest and the meadow you created an area of  "white" landuse. I see natural=scrub as perfect tagging for those sparsely wooden areas. Is something bad with this?

>it is not something that OSM maps.
As far as I know the founders and the community of OSM had a "free to do" approach. For example flood prone areas are defined like administrative borders in Europe. Why shouldn't the OSM map them?
Warin61 (2020-02-05 10:06:09+00:00): In haste I took you reference to SIX maps to mean you used their maps ...In the area that you mapped with scrub and wood/forest the LPI Topo map only has one shade of green ... using JOSM 15690.  Arr using gama and colourfulness I can get some variation .. but it is not good in terms of resolution. 
Looking at the imagery ... the difference is not there for some of it and other patches show some variation - but not where it was mapped. In addition the imagery has more detail than the topo for the trees (and power lines). I think it should be left for a ground survey for more detail.
Warin61 (2020-02-05 10:18:24+00:00): The white areas are not scrub - not tall enough. They could be 'heath' or 'grass'. Take a look at the imagery. Note there will always be blank areas on the map. There is a lot to do and those areas are simply too small to bother with! There are hundreds if not thousands of square kilometers to map .. all with lots of white area.
Hb- (2020-02-05 13:43:35+00:00): The LPI topograhic map has a 25 x 25 m block size to distinguish between Closed and Open Forest and Woodland (combined with some contrast optimization and compression artifacts). That should be fine enough to map some forest.

> will always be blank areas on the map.
In our case here the blank areas were actively created by deleting the former tagging.

Scrubs seems to be a very fine tag for this areas, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub The third paragraph reads: "In addition to use on natural habitats, natural=scrub is often used to tag semi-natural and semi-developed areas, such as areas of uncultivated shrubs along highways, and scrub in abandoned pasture which is transitioning back to forest."

The area between your forest border and my eastern meadow has a size of 8,6 ha. Why shouldn't such an area be tagged as scrub?
Warin61 (2020-02-05 23:08:14+00:00): It should not be tagged as scrub if it is not scrub. Note that the page for shrub goes on to say "This tag should not be used for:
    areas dominated by low growing dwarf scrubs - use natural=heath instead."

I removed tagging of an area that is not what was tagged. I will not tag an area with something I have doubts about what is there. I don't think the imagery is good enough to determine what is there. I have traveled through this area yet I am not certain of what is there. Can you have more certainty about what is there?  You seem convinced it is 'scrub'. I doubt that very much.
Hb- (2020-02-07 16:59:47+00:00): So when you personally have "doubts" about the work or the vision of other people, what are you doing? 

Do you delete their work to create blank spots on OSM?

Or do you share some confidence that others may know what they do?

Scrub is the tag used when there are some trees, some grass and something else and when it is not forest and not grass. It is as simple as that.
Warin61 (2020-02-07 22:27:07+00:00): When does an area of trees, shrubs and grass become tagged in OSM as trees? When the majority of the area is tree covered? I put it to you that the same applied to scrub. If the area is mostly low growing plants than tagging it as scrub is not correct, heath or grassland could be better. 
However, what evidence do you have that the area is one thing rather than another??? I don't think the imagery is not good enough to determine if it is grassland or heath. But I certainly don't think that the area could be called scrub. 

If we cannot reach agreement then I would suggest a wider audience be consulted. That audience should be Australian as the area is in Australia and they should have better local knowledge.
Hb- (2020-02-08 11:51:47+00:00): >When does ...
A scheme for mapping official landuse to OSM types has been developed for Europe, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Corine_Land_Cover

>Wider audience ...
Please initiate this discussion on talk-au. 

Areas in question: 
1. The are with some trees between the forest and the meadow: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10591122

2. The area below the power line with trees regularly chopped off: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10591123
Hb- (2020-02-08 13:25:17+00:00): Additional area in question:
3. "Island" in the forest:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/769786394
Warin61 (2020-02-08 23:07:33+00:00): I would suggest it is you who wants to discuss these areas, so you should initiate the discussions. 

Note: When I cannot determine what something is .. I do not enter it in OSM, I leave it blank rather than 'colour it in' with something that may not be correct. 

There are many much larger areas on the map that are blank. Your local area may be fully mapped, congratulations! However other parts of the world do not have the local mappers to fully map these area, we do the best we can but cannot perform miracles. I would rather be spending my time mapping many 10's of square kilometers of trees than arguing with you about less than 1 square kilometer of area. But you would then use that to map other areas .. with what you think might be there base on imagery alone with no local knowledge.