piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Jan'ek (2021-01-18 10:52:50+00:00): Nie do końca rozumiem jaka zaszła tu relacja. Łatwiej byłoby gdybym wiedział co zrobiłem niewłaściwie lub czego nie zrobiłem. Dodanie wartości do tagu building dla bliżej nieokreślonego budynku gospodarczego? 
Często zauważam błąd w ID, że budynek ogólny przecina się lub nachodzi na budynek ogólny i to próbuję naprostować. Jeśli w obrysie są dwa budynki ogólne, to na budynku mieszkalnym zmieniam tag building = house. Rozumuję, że ID coś tu źle interpretuje?
gscscnd (2021-01-18 15:45:28+00:00): Rodzaj budynku (yes/house/…) tutaj nie jest problemem.

Zobacz tę wizualizację tego zestawu zmian: <https://osmlab.github.io/changeset-map/#97647542> (nie trzeba się logować). Obiekty usunięte są czerwone, zmodyfikowane żółte (gruba linia/kropka oznacza geometrię/pozycję przed zmianami, cienka — po zmianach), a nowe są niebieskie. Przyjrzyj się budynkom pod adresem Stwosza 14.

Budynek wysunięty na wschód został usunięty — OK. Geometria głównego budynku się zmieniła — OK. Natomiast ze „środkowego” budynku zostały usunięte tagi (building i source), została utworzona nowa relacja, do tej relacji zostały dodane tagi z budynku (oraz tag type=multipolygon), ponadto jedynym członkiem relacji został ten obiekt, który dotychczas był środkowym obiektem.

Być może to wszystko już rozumiałeś, a jeśli nie, to wizualizacja powinna Ci pomóc.

Trudno mi powiedzieć, w którym momencie iD stworzył tę relację (tzn. „co zrobiłeś niewłaściwie”). Moja poprawka polegała jedynie na przeniesieniu tagów z powrotem na budynek (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/209636327) i usunięciu tej nowej relacji; cała reszta geometrii budynków była w porządku. Spróbuj zwracać uwagę na to, czy przy tego typu zmianach iD nie stworzy Ci jakiejś zbędnej relacji, być może uda Ci się ustalić, jak tego unikać. W iD pod sekcją „Wszystkie znaczniki” jest sekcja „Wszystkie relacje” [do których dany obiekt należy]. W okolicy jest sporo nachodzących na siebie budynków, jest na czym ćwiczyć.

(A najlepiej by było użyć innego edytora…)
Jan'ek (2021-01-19 17:23:55+00:00): Coś już mi tam świta w głowie. Będę zwracał większą uwagę na to co było, co przybyło i co zniknęło w otagowaniu. Jeszcze jakbym widział tą powstałą, zbędną i usuniętą przez ciebie relację, miałbym jasny pogląd co tam się "narodziło". 
Co do zmiany edytora: ID w miarę już rozumiem, jest dość prosty, szybko wchodzę na konkretny obszar z brakami lub błędami zauważonymi w terenie. Zainstalowany mam już "josm", tu trzeba pobierać obszary - więc "zabawy" jest więcej. Dla pełniejszego mapowania konkretnego obszaru, na pewno jest lepszy (na razie nie przywykłem).
user_5359 (2021-01-18 17:11:23+00:00): see https://www.osm.org/changeset/97702578
DD1GJ (2021-01-17 19:31:38+00:00): Hallo Maritta,

willkommen bei OpenStreetMap. Bei Deinen Eintragungen ist leider einiges schiefgegangen. Im Bamberg hattest Du eine Straßenkreuzung um fast 300 Meter verschoben. Die Auswirkungen siehst Du unter https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=97647628

Da auch der höchste Punkt des Landkreises 300 Meter weiter westlich als Deine Eintragung ist, habe ich alles komplett rückgängig gemacht.

Weitere Informationen zu OSM findest Du z.B. unter https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf

Viele Grüße, Joachim
limes11 (2021-01-17 19:00:54+00:00): Hallo,

bitte an den ganzen Wegen, auf denen von Juni bis Sep. 30 gilt, noch 

maxspeed:conditional=30 @ (Jun 1 - Sep 30)

ergaenzen. Vielen Dank!
bigbug21 (2022-07-24 11:23:37+00:00): Mit diesem Änderungsdatensatz wurden zahlreiche Vorsignale als dunkelschaltbar getaggt. Ist das wirklich der Fall?
Kovoschiz (2021-02-02 14:58:41+00:00): 1. It's not necessary to add NT since there's already already a `boundary=administrative`. 
2. `addr:province=` and `addr:district=` would be a mismatch, since HK is a state/"province" level, and it's Tuen Mun District. `addr:suburb=` should be used for So Kwun Wat. 
3. I prefer `addr:town=` over `addr:city=` to keep it consistent, with the new towns being `place=town`
4. It's not neccessary to the same higher level address to individual buildings inside the area. Tagging on the premise is sufficient. 
5. I consider `operator=` to be the managing company. I don't believe Vanke is the management here? It would be a developer, or perhaps  `owner=`
osmviborg (2021-01-17 19:05:37+00:00): Randers?
parsd51 (2021-01-17 20:19:00+00:00): Er det ikke i Jylland ligesom Viborg? ;-)

Mon ikke det kommer fra Randersvej, som er øst for Viborg og syd for Vestre Landsret? :-)
mikkolukas (2021-01-18 05:04:44+00:00): Ved ikke hvad jeg lige tænkte på dér :D

Min hjerne tænkte Viborg men fingrene skrev Randers. Ville ønske der var funktionalitet til at kunne rette beskrivelser.
ivanbranco (2022-06-12 08:34:49+00:00): Hi A-U-X,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5404975647/history

what is this node? at the moment is tagged as a building, but is mapped inside a building area
A-U-X (2022-06-13 18:18:48+00:00): There are 2 areas in this building. Bank and "cesko" (Election Commission). There is a bank on the 1st floor and the "cesko" on the second floor, if you can better mark it,  correct it.
ivanbranco (2022-06-13 20:41:02+00:00): Based on your infos, since the bank doesn't occupy the whole building, I added both elements as independent nodes, I added level=1 to the Bank and level=2 to Cesko. I tagged Cesko with a generic office=yes since I don't really know what is it. Done here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/122342777

Thanks for the info, good mapping!
b-jazz (2021-01-21 00:05:24+00:00): Hi Nate,

Can you take another look at way 9443888. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish, so I hesitate trying to correct it. Maybe you have a better idea with a second look. Thanks.
PerplexingPenguins (2021-01-17 20:52:55+00:00): What is the source for this data?
Allison P (2021-01-18 03:07:49+00:00): Surveys, checking against existing data, and verification through the county assessor.
*Martin* (2021-01-18 09:34:38+00:00): To skalne okno sa vola "Skalné okno"?
Mirecnet (2021-01-18 21:02:00+00:00): Neviem. Nenachádza sa na žiadnej mape a ani štátnej databáze. Je to skrátka "Skalné okno v Mošnici" (neďaľeko je Jaskyna v Mošnici) Mošnica = dolina
*Martin* (2021-01-18 22:09:51+00:00): Ak niečo nemá meno, alebo o ňom mapper nevie, tak tag "name" tam nemá čo robiť. Neslúži na slovný popis objektu.
Mirecnet (2021-01-19 21:09:50+00:00): Pozeral som literaturu. Je to name=Skalné okno v Mošnici. OPRAVENE
user_5359 (2021-01-18 05:25:50+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please notice: We use the key building to mark a building.
TrekClimbing (2021-04-22 22:20:23+00:00): Hi Malcolm
Is part of this unpaved? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/896287178 
Also, I think it and the one on the other side of Coppice Wood Avenue would be better tagged as highway=footway; footway=sidewalk.

Thanks
malcolmgc (2021-04-23 00:02:37+00:00): "Unpaved" was just an error. I've corrected it. As for your other comment, I'm not sure. I have to confess that I don't know what the difference between "Path" and "Footpath" is.
TrekClimbing (2021-04-23 05:39:20+00:00): Thanks Malcolm. Yeah, it's something I've struggled with and unfortunately there isn't a straightforward answer overall. However, in this case there is. If it's a pavement beside a road it should be highway=footway; footway=sidewalk (they use the American term because it has a specific meaning). I think it doesn't help that iD uses path and footpath.
My basic understanding is always footway where it's illegal to cycle. Some people like footway almost everywhere, some people like path for informal paths or like through a park. I think as long as we're consistent around here it doesn't matter much. Cheers!
malcolmgc (2021-04-23 11:31:02+00:00): I started off using Footpath for for example public footpaths across open countryside or fields, and Path for something more formal, like Coppice Wood Avenue. I also tried to be consistent with what other people had done, although that proved to be impossible. Now I just use Footpath for everything. At least I'm being consistent with myself.
SK53 (2021-04-23 12:21:51+00:00): Hi Malcolm,

I think your conclusion is sensible.

There is no real difference between highway=footway and highway=path in the UK other than for the latter it is essential to include information about which transport modes can use it. In other countries (notably Germany) highway=cycleway means a cycle track only accessible to cyclists and therefore share-use facilities tend to be mapped as paths. I think some have used path in rural areas and footway in urban ones. A final one is using path when it is not known what access permissions might be.

Therefore, in general, it is better to use one of the more explicit highway tags and perhaps focus on adding surface to help differentiate town & country style paths.

The footway=sidewalk & footway=crossing are useful subtags.

Jerry aka SK53
TrekClimbing (2021-04-23 12:56:00+00:00): 👍 Footway is also what I use. You can also add informal=yes for desire lines and the like
malcolmgc (2021-04-23 13:41:06+00:00): Thanks for this Jerry. I always include access info, specifying "yes" for foot and "no" for the rest when that's the case. I normally also say what the surface is.
malcolmgc (2021-04-23 13:44:32+00:00): "informal=yes for desire lines" means nothing to me! Can you enlighten me?
SK53 (2021-04-23 17:54:53+00:00): @malcolmgc: you're ahead of many of us them.

I distinguish between desire lines & informal paths (although I think all desire lines are informal paths). 

A desire line is from A to B for a particular purpose: the following is a very obvious desire line from the gate to the scout hut (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/tsenzuJQ5lRNE5yLww9fM8). Typical desire lines are from one gate to another of a park, little cut-throughs out of retail car parks to avoid walking the long way round.

Informal paths in general are created by people doing things. A lot more have arisen in places around me during the Covid lockdowns: this one is close to the scout hut path, but is used to enable bigger loops https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.95125816993464&lng=-1.1819407599981135&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=T1mKW9AWIsElvnA9SW9Fx3 (I havent added it to OSM as a) the path line is indistinct; & b) I dont want everyone using it). 

Desire line paths which are heavily used may end up as proper dedicated paths. This example (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34330968) was a desire line for students to reach the library & the grass never recovered. After about 25 years the university gave in & put in a paved path. I believe a university in the US didnt have any paths when they opened a new campus, but just waited to see where people walked and paved the heaviest desire lines.

The tag(s) are probably most useful in urban areas where the distinctions tend to be clearer.
malcolmgc (2021-04-23 21:33:24+00:00): It's all very complicated! A lot of the footpaths that I've added have been of the informal variety. I suspect that sum of them have sprung up since Covid turned up, but others have clearly been around for much longer.
TrekClimbing (2021-01-30 21:55:40+00:00): Hi malcolmgc. Thanks for your recent contributions. I was wondering if these should be footway instead of path with highway=sidewalk? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks
Also, I found osmand couldn't route through it properly today as there weren't many road crossings - not sure how that would best be handled. e.g. no crossings from south side of Tennyson St to north side so it couldn't route up Bacon St
TrekClimbing (2021-02-04 23:48:48+00:00): Thanks 👍
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-01-17 19:46:10+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 97301954, 97311387, 97311521, 97313433, 97319786, 97322007, 97375563, 97376033, 97378460, 97400563, 97438540, 97451120, 97486377, 97487830, 97554724, 97554917, 97561752, 97585938.
GerdP (2023-05-16 15:51:51+00:00): Moin!
Du hast hier https://www.osm.org/way/116878692 den Straßennamen Oldorf angegeben. Ich frage mich, wo Du den gefunden hast. Ich denke eher, die Straße hat keinen Namen und die Adressen in Oldorf sollten mit addr:place=Oldorf gebildet werden.
GinaroZ (2021-01-17 22:57:35+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for the edits. I've added the rest of the buildings here - feel free to add housenumbers if you know them. If you need any help just ask :)
BayMapper (2021-01-18 12:37:54+00:00): Hi

Thanks for your message. I'm quite keen on mapping so think I'll quite enjoy doing some OSM. I stay quite close to this area, so was thinking I could learn how to use the system on an area I know. If I have any questions, I'll be sure to ask though!
MarcoR (2025-05-15 06:14:16+00:00): Questo poggio (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8331714859) si chiama realmente "Poggio Gratis" o si tratta di un refuso?
mauche (2025-05-16 18:26:37+00:00): Cosi' è noto nei gruppi che vanno in MTB.
MarcoR (2025-05-16 20:05:01+00:00): Grazie per la risposta. Se il nome è inventato dagli utenti in MTB e usato solo da loro teoricamente bisognerebbe usare "mtb:name" e non "name", comunque a me interessava che non fosse un errore di trascrizione, lo lascio stare così :)

Buon mapping,
Marco
Allison P (2021-01-17 20:07:05+00:00): Well, should've checked what exactly was changed. It removed access=private from the roads that will be private once constructed. Oops.
BeKri (2021-01-18 14:41:27+00:00): Servus,
is ja ok, aber warum hast Du
addr:city	Fürstenfeldbruck	
addr:country	DE	
addr:postcode	82256	
nicht auch mit übernommen ?
Gruss und Happy tagging derBeKri
user_2066394 (2021-01-18 15:52:21+00:00): Vorbearbeiter hatte einen ordnungsgemäß gesetzten Adressknoten gelöscht, evtl. setze ich ihm/ihr das nochmal zurück, sonst wirkt meine Reparatur in der Tat etwas willkürlich.
BeKri (2021-01-18 17:35:30+00:00): Oder Du stellst es im CS Kommentar klar ...
Sorry,
wenn ich die CS-Abfolge nicht richtig erfasst habe.
Gruss derBeKri
user_2066394 (2021-01-18 18:19:45+00:00): Kein Problem :-) Originalzustand ist wiederhergestellt
BCNorwich (2021-01-21 18:36:05+00:00): Hi, several sections of path you added to the Test Way were placed on top of existing highways, these are already tagged as foot=designated. So I've removed the duplicates.

Regards Bernard.
stevexyg (2021-01-21 19:28:36+00:00): Hi Bernard, thanks for that, I forgot to check back to see how things were displaying - as I know it can take a while to update sometimes. The problem I was trying to correct here is that it is not clear that this route is a public footpath with associated rights of access. It may be tagged as such (visible on browser only?) but when out walking and looking on a phone you can't see there is a public right of way along this stretch of path and track. Public rights of way are I believe either green or red dotted lines (path, bridleway) and the path is simply not shown visually. Is there a solution to this when there is also a track or road running along the route? Regards, Steve.
BCNorwich (2021-01-22 18:01:42+00:00): Hi Steve,

The bridleway is correctly drawn and tagged to describe a Public Right of Way. Therefore theres is nothing to correct, though there maybe other tags that could be added such as the PRoW reference number.

The red and green dotted lines are a depition that Ordnance Survey use to represent PRoW on their Explorer and Landranger maps. OS is nothing to do with OSM.

It is not directly identified on the OSM frontpage map because that map is not rendered in order to highlight the presence of PRoW's. Please understand that OSM is not a map, it is a database from which data is manipulated to give (via a stylesheet) a desired depiction. On the right side of the OSM frontpage click the Layers icon, there you can choose from 6 differently rendered map styles.

This link https://tinyurl.com/y42n8tke will go to a map style designed to show various trails and PRoW in a style to make them more prominent. Again this map can show different styles/layers, click control, the layer menu can be accessed by hovering over the hamburger icon at top right.

You are free to download OSM data and compile your own style of map. Some maps allow you to download the stylesheet with the data so the stylesheet can be manipulated. I have gone through this process once but for a novice, it's a bit daunting.

I hope that starts to explain things and I'll help further if I can, just ask.
Regards Bernard.
ovruni (2021-01-18 19:14:07+00:00): Hola, he notado que en este conjunto de cambios se ha desplazado el nodo de la fuente varias cuadras de la posición original. Por otra parte en el conjunto de cambios se indica " Actualizando Referencias ", pero esto no da detalles sobre el motivo por el cambio de posición de la fuente. Por favor revise la sección sobre buenos conjuntos de cambios [0]. Si tiene alguna duda sobre como mapear, puede hacerla por el canal de telegram https://t.me/osmpe o la lista de correos de la comunidad de OSM en Perú https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pe 
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Good_changeset_comments
MKnight (2021-01-18 10:18:35+00:00): Please exclude "corrections" if months etc. is in syntax.
for example: change of n7865991873 is maybe before and after correction wrong.
But after correction the node is invisble for QA-Tools.
Dfaurekde (2021-01-18 13:06:52+00:00): Are you sure that it's wrong?

It was
Jul-Sep: Sa, Su 10:00-12:30; Mo-Fr: 10:00-16:30

and I removed the ":" after Mo-Fr.

This is saying "open weekends in summer, and open week days all year". This seems pretty valid to me, doesn't it?

Can you explain to me what is still wrong even after correction here?
MKnight (2021-01-18 13:33:01+00:00): No, it _can be_ (maybe) wrong. 

It can be, that Jul-Sep:  is meant for all rules (including Mo-Fr), but the spec says: "no".

I will comment the CS of the mapper who added this and we will see.

P.s. I have done some years ago a very lot of corrections like this and found a very lot of errors/mistakes, what not safely can fixed without knowledge what is really right and/or what was the meaning of the mapper
Dfaurekde (2021-01-18 15:15:45+00:00): OK, thanks. I see your point.

But of course even entries with a valid syntax can be wrong when the person entering those misunderstands the spec (as would be the case here without the ":" after Mo-Fr, which is unrelated to the question of whether Jul-Sep was supposed to apply to everything or not).

I don't see why I should refrain from touching entries like this one, the removal of ":" after Mo-Fr is completely unrelated to the question of whether the person understood the month-range part of the spec when writing the entry.
limes11 (2021-01-18 19:07:37+00:00): I agree that ":" was superfluous. Not sure if it causes an issue, but better to remove it.

And indeed, the whole syntax was actually wrong. This place is open only in summer.
Dfaurekde (2021-01-18 19:20:40+00:00): Yes the ":" after weekday names isn't in the spec (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours - see "weekdays") so there's no guarantee that all implementations will understand that syntax.

Thanks for finding out about the correct value and fixing the attribute, much appreciated.
MKnight (2021-01-18 21:10:42+00:00):     "But of course even entries with a valid syntax can be wrong"

Thats my Point. 
After the correction of the node, the Syntax is valid. And no QA-Tool can find it now for manual recheck.
Dfaurekde (2021-01-18 21:56:25+00:00): Imagine the initial value didn't have the ":" after Mo-Fr. It would still have been wrong (because in fact it's only open in summer) and it would still not have been in any QA tool.

We can't just leave every minor syntax error out there, just in case there's an unrelated semantic problem in the value.

It's like saying, let's not fix typos in blogs, just in case there's also a major misunderstanding in that blog :)

In general I completely agree with the idea of not silently hiding actual issues, and I'm careful about that. But I don't believe this is what happened here, it was just coincidence that the entry had "Mo-Fr:" and, also, a ';' instead of ',' to bundle both parts into the Jul-Sep month range.
BCNorwich (2021-01-21 18:40:42+00:00): Hi, the name is already tagged in the route Relation: Test Way (9061) so no need to add the name again to the path. It's the route that's named not the path. So I've removed the path name.

Regards Bernard.
StefanHRT (2021-01-17 20:56:43+00:00): Why did you take out cycling? This is part of an official route
pet2001 (2021-01-18 00:13:27+00:00): The Waler-Nicklistz-Promenade is not a combined pedestrian/bicycle path. Gropiusstrasse is to be used as a bike path.
StefanHRT (2021-01-18 01:54:51+00:00): thanks for your answer. Is there a "no cycling" sign there by now? I'm only asking because the path after it is also tagged yes for cycling (Probably because the official hiking route can also be used by cyclists?)
StefanHRT (2021-01-18 02:01:07+00:00): Please have a look at the report, according to which the path is also a cycle route (Only that there seems to be a lack of signage ;) ) https://www.meinberlin-erleben.de/der-panke-radweg.html
DD1GJ (2021-01-18 08:42:09+00:00): The report is a private website, which has no legal meaning. The traffic signs visible on the spot are valid. This looks like a normal sidewalk on which bicycles are not allowed. Cyclists have to use the normal road at this point. The right turn into Gropiusstraße against the one-way direction is permitted by the signage. 

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/75neoCFYFku0x_95XhdFeA
DD1GJ (2021-01-18 08:54:24+00:00): Sorry, on further mapillary pictures on the second view the sign "Protected green area" is to be recognized.  which allows joint use by pedestrians and cyclists. Example sign: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Sch%C3%B6neberger_Schleife_20151229_41.jpg

So cycling is allowed.
DD1GJ (2021-01-18 09:32:41+00:00): The signage is really very confusing. In the further course of the path there is a (unfortunately shaky) picture where no blue sign for a joint foot and bike path can be seen. Bicycles are probably not allowed on this area after all.

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/9pzsSSkC1TwXWHtWcTZZMg
StefanHRT (2021-01-18 10:07:08+00:00): Protected green area means that cycling is permitted or tolerated on designated paths. https://www.berlin.de/ba-steglitz-zehlendorf/politik-und-verwaltung/aemter/strassen-und-gruenflaechenamt/gruenflaechen/gruenflaechenpflege/artikel.82239.php 
Since the path is hard-surfaced, just let cycling be allowed there. If you see paths that lead across green spaces, cycling is not allowed.
pet2001 (2021-01-18 14:19:11+00:00): I took another look at the path. From one direction it is not open for bicycle traffic, from the other direction it is. Other accesses also release the path for bicycle traffic. 
Open signs; 5
Closed sign; 1
It looks like only one traffic sign has been forgotten.
StefanHRT (2021-01-19 05:35:47+00:00): The Panke hiking trail (also named Der Nord-Süd-Weg) is also a cycle path, but unfortunately it is not signposted accordingly everywhere. If you ask Google, you will always get the same result, e.g. https://www.bikemap.net/de/r/3724843/#10.59/52.5913/13.4404
The bottom line here is that pet2001's sighting leads to the same result: cycling is allowed. here the site from the Berlin SENAT https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/natur-und-gruen/landschaftsplanung/20-gruene-hauptwege/die-wege-im-ueberblick/artikel.930343.php
blackboxlogic (2021-01-20 03:35:58+00:00): Just wanted to say thanks for all the cleanup and added detail.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97652484
5m4u9 (2021-01-18 17:22:52+00:00): hola, bien que añadiste la senda hasta arriba, la sección desde el camino le cambiaré de nombre para homogenizar :)
eggie (2021-01-17 21:35:15+00:00): Review.. 
Het eind van het pad was correct getagd met  noexit=yes
Je hoeft dan niet het pad terug te leggen.
MVG
eggie