piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ivanbranco (2022-12-15 22:15:50+00:00): Se proprio ci tieni ad avere un tag separato ti segnalo che esiste già contact:pec con 65 usi: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/contact%3Apec

Esiste anche un messaggio sulla mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2021-March/072033.html

Ti segnalo anche il forum italiano: https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/it/60

ed il gruppo Telegram: https://telegram.me/OpenStreetMapItalia

buon mapping
eggie (2022-12-14 21:49:57+00:00): Lex  Je vraagt feedback
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=130090487

Van sommige gebouwen heb ik nog de specificatie verwijderd van een woning in aanbouw.
construction=... 
Nu denk ik nog een oplossing zoeken voor zo'n complex. 
Gr eggie
eggie (2022-12-14 21:56:31+00:00): .. of place=locality   en daar de naam op  . Dat rendert ook. ipv building=...
Buffty (2023-03-04 16:09:27+00:00): Hallo,
sind die ref:IFOPT-Werte bei den nodes 339377783 und 339377785 wirklich richtig oder vielleicht vertauscht? Ich hatte nämlich bisher den Eindruck, dass die IDs für die Haltestellen z.B. in Liniennetzplänen des VGNs identisch sind mit der letzten Ziffer des ref:IFOPT-Tags. In diesem Fall hat aber die südlichste Haltestelle die ID 1 (siehe z.B. https://www.vgn.de/efa10/efa103/vgn_www/ROP/00000393.pdf#page=11), die nördlichste dagegen die ID 3 (siehe z.B. https://www.vgn.de/efa10/efa103/vgn_www/ROP/00002109.pdf#page=3) - nachdem es sich hierbei auch um die "jüngste" Haltestelle mit dem Namen "Hindenburgstraße" handelt, hätte das auch eine gewisse Logik.
vg, Buffty
mgerken (2022-12-18 20:32:21+00:00): Hallo, gerade zufällig drauf gestoßen: Mit diesem Changeset ist die Turn restriction https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14246499 kaputt gegangen, da jetzt der from Weg fehlt. Mir fehlt da allerdings die Ortskenntnis wie das on the ground aussieht um das zu fixen.
Besten Gruß
Langlaeufer (2022-12-18 20:46:26+00:00): hab ich mal zu nur rechts "repariert". Die restriction "nicht links" war auf jeden fall die falsche Wahl, wenn es insgesamt nur 2 Möglichkeiten gibt ist dann ist "nur" zu verwenden.
Die aktuelle Beschilderung kenne ich aber leider auch nicht
Enadeag (2022-12-14 22:08:30+00:00): Aanvullend: voetpaden zijn nog niet aanwezig op de begraafplaats: De werkzaamheden zijn momenteel nog gaande.
eggie (2022-12-14 22:15:21+00:00): Lijkt me oke..  Heb alleen access=no van die paaltjes verwijderd.
Voor auto's zal het dan nog niet niet routeren.
eggie (2022-12-14 22:17:31+00:00): Wellicht heb je wat aan deze achtergrond van nov 2022
https://www.satellietdataportaal.nl/?base=openstreetmap&res=0.5&datemin=14-12-2021&loc=50.84186%2C5.660802%2C18z&overlay=mos-0&marker=loc&acqdate=2022-11-01&acqid=20221101_105050_SV1-04&sensor=SuperView-1
Enadeag (2022-12-14 22:52:35+00:00): Bedankt voor die link. Met die site was ik nog niet bekend. Ik zal binnenkort netjes paden toevoegen en als het nodig is het gebied beter laten aansluiten in osm.
SekeRob (2022-12-16 08:23:06+00:00): Ciao, benvenuto a OSM

l tuo percorso è stato completamente rifatto quando lo hai mappato sopra i percorsi esistenti, ignorando gli avvisi per includere i passaggi dei corsi d'acqua.

Vedere https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15006737
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130144021

Se vedi errori nel percorso fammelo sapere.

Hi, and welcome to OSM

Your route was completely redone as you mapped it on top of existing ways, ignored alerts to include waterway passages.

See 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15006737
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130144021

If you see mistakes in the routing let me know.

ciao
eggie (2022-12-14 22:23:23+00:00): Hoi.. Je hebt alleen een voetpad vastgeplakt aan een grens.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=130090997

Ik maak 'm wel los.
gr eggie
eggie (2022-12-14 22:25:43+00:00): Pad losgemaakt van grens Daalhof/ Hazendans en doorverbonden met het de track Drenkelingsweg.
eggie (2022-12-14 22:30:01+00:00): Waar het pad een gebouw kruist heb ik tunnel=building_passage toegevoegd. Even ctrl f5 toetsen voor het effect.
johantiden (2022-12-15 10:55:19+00:00): Nice work on Finn Malmgrens Plan!

I think, however, you have misunderstood the real value of multipolygons. You have "added" a bunch of polygons together but you can also subtract from the area by marking a member as an "inner" polygon.

You could draw a simpler outline around the whole square and then add the grass areas as inner, thus excluding them from the square.

The wiki page describes it well with images:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
moaxed (2022-12-16 12:08:27+00:00): That is very helpful! Thank you! I figured there was some other way of doing it cleaner. It quickly became a mess of nodes... I will look over this again.

Another question:
what is the consensus on shared nodes between ways and landuses?  I see that the most common practice in Stockholm is to separate them, but isnt that making routing for pedestrians way much harder. You also get these voids everywhere that represent nothing in reality?
johantiden (2022-12-16 14:09:28+00:00): I'd say there is a consensus globally to try to avoid merging landuse with "highways". I don't really understand why though. The main argument seems to be that it is harder to edit them separately, making it an argument about time spent. We do spend a lot of time being careful not to merge them though, so that argument is shaky...

Landuses are not used for routing, pretty much only for rendering, searching (if they are named), etc.

I agree about the voids. Adjacent landuse can be merged together even if the highway nodes are not, so the "seam" between two landuses moves along a way but is not connected per se. 

I think you are talking about highway _areas_ like the pedestrian area you are working on. They should _definitely_ be merged with adjacent highways fir routing purposes! Notice there is a highway tag there, and probably an "area=yes", which is default for multipolygon relations. You could, however create a highway=pedestrian that is not an area, just a pedestrian street.
moaxed (2022-12-16 17:32:44+00:00): I see. Yes, the argument about convenience/time I'm not buying. And I can see a lot of landuses that could be useful for routing. Eg. an open large field of grass with a lot of ways to cross it? Yes, of course the most common is to route along paths, but I cant see why we shouldn't be able to perform a "maximize shortcut" and then taking into account traversable areas? If the database is getting smarter about what nodes connects to each other we are uping the computation capabilities?

And anyway I find that it just looks weird with these gaps between road and landuse. But I'll stick to you're way of doing it in urban areas. But in rural areas I think there will come benefits of actually connecting things.
johantiden (2022-12-16 17:51:13+00:00): I think it woul dbe pretty much impossible to implement general routing like that given the state of the current data. Many landuses are drawn straight through impassable objects.

It's a good argument for _allowing_ merging of tags though.

Osm is hard to change. People talk of consensus but in my opinion it seems more like "we keep doing it like some people in the past chose to do".

As a pragmatist, I support stronger standardization because it takes the responsibility away from mappers, and frees us (i. e. gives us mandate to change things). OSM doesn't do this. Instead you are urged to create some kind of community that can agree on guidelines. What defines a community is unclear though. Is it enough that you and me spoke about it? Let's merge all landuse and highway nodes! Yay! 

It's a bit harder than that. Work on real change should be done on a higher level. It kind of is too late to just choose your own style, as mappers of the past could. We might not agree with their style but trying to change it will take some hard politics work. 

Good luck! :)
Msiipola (2023-01-23 14:25:29+00:00): Those who never done maintenance of roads, probably don't understand why you NEVER should glue landuses and highways. If you don't understand, don't do it!
NorthCrab (2022-12-15 08:04:39+00:00): Witaj, poprosiliście o weryfikacje.
Oznaczenie całego budynku jako entrance nie ma sensu. Tutaj masz przykład jak mapujemy wejścia do klatek: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2875983317. 

W skrócie:
entrance=staircase (wejście do klatki)
addr:flats= (numery mieszkań)
ref= (numer klatki)

I jako punkt, a nie obszar.

Więcej informacji na:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:entrance=staircase

Pozdrawiam!
Adam_Piszczek (2023-02-23 11:04:19+00:00): Co to ma być?
Adam_Piszczek (2023-02-23 22:45:16+00:00): Pewny jesteś że w tym miejscu jest kebab?już raz mi zniszczyłeś szlak
pan_borsuk (2023-02-24 11:48:15+00:00): ciężko mi się donieść do komentarza bo "Dyskusja" dołączona do ogromnego obszaru. proszę o wskazanie konkretnego punktu. dziękuję
pan_borsuk (2023-02-24 11:49:21+00:00): obszaru Zestawu zmian
eggie (2022-12-14 22:38:02+00:00): Feedback  warnings:crossing_ways:highway-waterway 	1

Waar je pad het water oversteek kun je het pad splitsen op twee plaatsen en op dat tussendeel tag je bridge=yes layer=1

Dan heb je een brug.
Gr eggie
Henkje20 (2022-12-14 23:09:38+00:00): Oké bedankt voor de tip
eggie (2022-12-14 22:41:38+00:00): https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=130091518

Het klompenpad eindigt op het bos ipv op het pad. Dus nog even kijken.

Het verschil tussen een highway=path en een highway=footway is dat je op een footway niet mag fietsen.
Daar staat ook een G7 bord.
Je hebt het nu aangepast naar wandelpad, maar staat er wel een bord G7?  Anders beter path laten. 

En beter niet schuiven met de kaart overs zo'n groot gebied. Doe zoiets in meer uploads. 
Gr eggie
eggie (2022-12-14 22:46:25+00:00): Het pad vanaf de Nunspeterweg bij de brug heb ik teruggezet naar path. 
Ooit zelf getagd. 
Er staat geen G7 bord en je zou er dus kunnen fietsen al is het wel heel smal.
eggie (2022-12-14 22:53:11+00:00): Dag Wolb  Lijkt me oke zo
'k Heb nog een fietsverbinding gemaakt.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-12-14 23:00:51+00:00): Maar Zandgolf had je ook kunnen laten staan.
Merkwaardige situatie daar met zo'n G11 fietspad naast die Zandgolf.
wolb555 (2022-12-15 12:26:14+00:00): Maar het is eigenlijk niet de zandgolf mee, weet ok niet direct welke naam dan te gebruiken, zandschuit of slifertsestraat. 

Andere vraag zie dat veel fietspaden de naam van de straat ernaast hebben maar vaak klopt het niet. Zijn daar in OSM specifieke guidelines voor?
eggie (2022-12-15 13:13:43+00:00): Wat ik meestal zet is de transparant van de BGT als achtergrond . Dan zie je de straatnamen.
Wanneer fietspaden dan afwijken dan hebben ze in de BGT een andere naam.
Staat er niets dan hebben ze de naam van de hoofdrijbaan.
Het is wel belangrijk om ook die toe te voegen zodat een fietskaart met een zoekslag de routering naar een adres kan vinden.

Met deze tool vind je fietspaden die nog geen naam hebben
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~ligfietser/fiets/index.html?map=bugs&zoom=18&lat=51.44946&lon=5.41062&layers=B000000TTTTTTTFFT

Even geduld voordat de kleurtjes verschijnen. 

In Verbeterde kaart (Kadaster) staan ook de parallelfietspaden met naam.
Mocht het niet kloppen dan kun je een terugmelding doen.
https://www.verbeterdekaart.nl/#?geometry.x=106665.31&geometry.y=422877.64&zoomlevel=13.22

Groet
eggie
eggie (2022-12-15 13:15:35+00:00): Sommige mappers halen de namen weg van de fietspaden omdat het overkill lijkt... maar dat is dus niet de bedoeling. Het is een probleem van de kaartenmaker om dat op te lossen.
Dat is de consensus binnen osm... Dus gewoon de namen toevoegen.
eggie (2022-12-14 23:03:25+00:00): Wel een aardige oplossing Lex
Gr eggie
BCNorwich (2022-12-15 07:33:10+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Canvey Island is the correct name for this place/feature. Thus I've removed the county name Essex, as Essex is mapped elsewhere.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2022-12-15 07:37:02+00:00): Hi, Village Drive is the correct name of this highway, so the addition to the name (Canvey Island, Essex) is not needed and is not to OSM best practice. I've removed the extra names.

Regards Bernard.
Pikse (2023-02-03 16:07:50+00:00): Siin muudetud suurem metsaala[1] tervikuna pole Järta terviserada ega kettagolfi park. Viimane on väiksem ala selle metsaala keskel. See tuleks eraldi kaardistada.

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/355979
Hugoren Martinako (2022-12-15 20:08:54+00:00): Buenas,
Si no existe wikipedia para el idioma español, no aporta nada añadirla en cebuano (o sueco). Deja actualizado el wikidata únicamente.
tastrax (2022-12-15 02:15:10+00:00): Nice mapping but make sure to use the Q key to 'square' the corners of buildings before uploading
Frans S (2022-12-21 09:45:15+00:00): Hello.  I am a global validator and review mapping in general. 
You map regularly very narrow traces as farmland=unclassified.
This is a not existing tagging.
Farmland should be tagged as an area,
Here, traces of a path, as highway=paths
See also this wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa
When you map traces of highways, take also the width into account. Many traces are just a path, <1.5 mtr wide). Don't tag them as unclassified.
Best regards
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130093142
Frans S (2022-12-22 14:00:38+00:00): Hello Again.
A request.
You have mapped quite a lot of highways as unclassified. (capable for 4-wheel cars) When you take a close look at those traces, you will see that many of them are too narrow to be tagged as unclassified. Path is a correct tag in those situations.
Will you spend some time to review and correct these mappings? You can open tasks ready for validation or still to be mapped, When ready, you can just stop with validation of that task. Validators will take further action on that.
It would be a great help, because many roads needs to reviewed and re-tagged.
Best regards
Zandu (2022-12-18 04:40:37+00:00): Hey, I didnt realize you so recently added this relation and I should have messaged you first.  But I deleted it a few minutes ago because it was causing strange duplicate rendering of the military area.  The boundary seemed to be an intact area and did not need the relation.  If you split it up and created the relation I apologize and feel free to revert my changes.
gscholz (2022-12-16 10:48:22+00:00): Hi JuanoIO,
this changest has added a lot of errors to the OSM database regarding buildings where no buildings exist in reality:

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=130093238

Can you please fix this and educate yourself about the meaning of the "building" tag:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buildings

Kind regards
Guido
Zhubert (2022-12-16 21:34:27+00:00): Catastro predial del canton azogues no ha sido autorizado para su uso ni para publicacion
pitscheplatsch (2022-12-18 10:09:46+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130171443
olehz (2022-12-16 19:09:13+00:00): якщо abandoned:power=line і купа опор демонтована, тобі це нічого не говорить? припини відновлювати закинуті лінії, бо це вже не в перший раз. тим більше час знайшов.

загалом, поверни як було
DavMax (2022-12-18 02:23:10+00:00): Вітаю olezh, дякую за зауваження, скасував свої зміни, ніколи чомусь не звертав уваги на цей тег. Хоча може ті опори ще досі в реальності стоять. А взагалі не практичніше видалити лінію повністю?
NorthCrab (2022-12-16 11:17:15+00:00): Witaj, proszę opisuj lepiej swoje zmiany! Pozdrawiam!
Zandu (2023-11-16 18:32:35+00:00): Not an import. Drawing from Bing imagery and local knowledge.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130093707
Zandu (2023-11-16 18:14:25+00:00): Updating road alignment from updated imagery and GPS tracks.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130093714
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-02-08 02:29:18+00:00): Make sure to specify freedom units
Zandu (2024-02-08 02:34:27+00:00): What doesn’t that mean? And why the thumbs down?
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-02-10 03:47:09+00:00): Sorry I should've been clear. Maxspeed tags that aren't for km/h need to have the unit included. ie. 'maxspeed=70 mph'
Zandu (2024-02-10 17:26:16+00:00): Ah! Quite right. Thank you. Now your comment makes sense.
j numminen (2022-12-19 20:33:41+00:00): I removed that turn restriction, it is no longer in effect.
Land-o Calrissian (2022-12-21 04:51:08+00:00): The most recent street level imagery I could find for this area is from November 19, 2021.  It's true that this area was under construction at that time and so it makes sense that the turn restrictions would change.  Thank you for removing the relation.
olehz (2022-12-21 16:06:52+00:00): ну це маячня. навіщо? неможливо додати name на лінії:
1. є відпайки
2. кілька ліній можуть йти на одних опорах
3. інформація явно не офіційна, а висосана з пальця (не буває ліній з 3-ма елементами)
4. навіщо клеяти лінії, які спеціально були розділені на вузлових точках?
5. я можу name додати автоматично, але для цього треба мати валідний граф. він заповнений частково, але його всеодно продовжують ламати постійно.

якщо вже так хочеться додати name, краще використовувати відношення:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal
olehz (2022-12-21 16:09:53+00:00): і найголовніше. який резон вбивати це сміття, якщо обленерго поміняв купу ліній через удари по ПС? і навіть якщо ти точно знаєш, що десь пересобачили лінію, навіщо це зараз в публічний доступ виставляти?
Enock4seth (2023-09-05 10:17:15+00:00): Don't just randomly and over trace building. This is not useful to yourself and other OpenStreetMap users and contributors.
Aleksey Gorelikov (2022-12-15 03:20:47+00:00): https://data-usdot.opendata.arcgis.com/maps/usdot::highway-performance-monitoring-system-fsys-3/explore?location=37.016866%2C-84.701344%2C16.42
Zandu (2023-11-16 18:13:48+00:00): Not an import. Drawn from current imagery and confirmed by survey.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130095350
Zandu (2023-11-16 18:15:27+00:00): not an import. Just a dedicated person hand drawing them in from current imagery and confirmed by survey.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130095350
nevw (2022-12-15 05:32:57+00:00): Hi, are you able to try fixing this?
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=130096138
..or would you rather I revert it?
nilogog (2022-12-16 04:50:23+00:00): It was accidental, I didn't realise -- sorry! Please revert if you don't mind... I have tried to revert but couldn't... I will learn about openStree before attempting anything. Thank you in advance!
nevw (2022-12-16 10:45:03+00:00): Ok, thanks. Accidentally shifting nodes is easily done in the iD editor.   
I’ll revert it tomorrow.
nevw (2022-12-17 03:57:01+00:00): Reverted now, feel free to edit in the area again.
mrpulley (2024-06-14 11:33:30+00:00): Oxley Highway: I surveyed this as maxspeed 100 (in 2022). 110 is implausible on this winding road.
mrpulley (2025-01-25 21:28:42+00:00): From survey Dec 2024:
29311904 is maxspeed 100, apart from the last section near Thunderbolts Way which is maxspeed 80. Updated at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161744124
206503937 maxspeed correct
794414148 confirmed maxspeed is 100 (not 110). Previously fixed by me at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152679782
334304805 and 452415072 not checked yet
EllieNyaa (2022-12-16 15:24:00+00:00): Hi, can I ask that you please slow down with these edits? Some of the changes you've been doing have overclassified various roads, and also introduced numerous classification "spurs" which should be avoided.
liebezeit (2022-12-16 23:36:55+00:00): Hi @EllieNyaa. I apologize, I was trying my best to improve the map given my knowledge as a 15-year local resident. Can you give me an example of an overclassification, and also explain what a "spur" is? I'd be happy to go back and fix whatever issues I've created.
liebezeit (2022-12-16 23:40:14+00:00): By "spur" do you mean a secondary road that doesn't terminate on a secondary or primary road?
EllieNyaa (2022-12-17 00:15:10+00:00): No worries, I appreciate your interest in editing this area! Yes, you have the correct understanding of a spur. For example, you've upgraded Ellsworth Road to secondary, but that classification terminates at South Maple which is primary.

Same with Clark Road terminating at Hogback Road.

In general I would only upgrade a suburban road (outside of a dense urban core area) to secondary if it has multiple travel lanes in each direction (though not every road meeting those classifications is secondary). Roads that are still arterials but don't carry that level of traffic are better classified as tertiary.

The general classification guidelines on the wiki aren't super clear so I can totally get how this would be a bit confusing. Please let me know if you have any more questions!
EllieNyaa (2022-12-17 00:19:44+00:00): Also, to give a bit of explanation for downtown road classifications:
* William Street was classified as secondary because someone going from the southern part of Ann Arbor to Northside would likely take Main -> William -> Division.
* Streets like Ann Street or Washington Street are not classified as even tertiary because they really don't carry much through traffic. Almost everyone driving on Ann Street is going from or to somewhere along Ann Street.
liebezeit (2022-12-17 00:23:56+00:00): OK. My impression was that the classification was based on the utility of the road in navigating various distances, not necessarily the actual number of lanes. So tertiary is for navigating neighborhoods, secondary is for navigating cities, and primary is for navigating regions.

I see that I may have been a little aggressive in upgrading some of these streets, though. I'll fix that.
liebezeit (2022-12-17 00:40:07+00:00): I would suggest that in an historic urban street grid, there isn't usually just one usual way to navigate. Folks driving north on S Main are just as likely to stay on Main than to move over to the "proper" route of Division.
EllieNyaa (2022-12-17 11:37:05+00:00): You have the right idea about the purposes of the classifications, it generally is meant to be close to how you've written. The info I gave on lanes is just a general guideline for how this has been applied.

As for the downtown streets, we tend to map what the ideal route is. Just because people can drive multiple routes, doesn't mean all those routes should be upgraded; only the ideal one. That way, routing engines will prefer it.
EllieNyaa (2022-12-17 11:39:09+00:00): This is also why I would not upgrade the part of Maple Road that is South of Ann Arbor to secondary. Ann Arbor-Saline Road is secondary because it connects Ann Arbor and Saline, and Maple Road makes that same connection, so only one of them should be secondary. Ann Arbor-Saline Road is the better route to take in most cases, so it gets classified as secondary.
liebezeit (2022-12-17 12:52:39+00:00): Actually routing from A2 to Saline typically takes you down Maple as the "most preferred" route. Probably because Ann Arbor road in Saline is residential and 25mph, whereas Maple is the big road with the schools, etc. To me it just seems more straightforward to make them both secondary. 

What's the best forum to argue about this/learn more? I like geeking out about this 😂

Also, how the heck aren't there specific guidelines for suburban and urban classification? All the wiki stuff sounds like it's concerned only with the English countryside.