piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
flohoff (2018-10-31 09:18:44+00:00): Moin,
ich habe hier den Parkplatz mal von der Straße abgelöst. Areas und Ways sollten nicht verbunden werden. Und die Parkbuchten gehen ja auch nicht bis auf die Straße.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/639487368

Flo
Myazyk (2019-11-19 17:59:44+00:00): Невже у нас прямо посеред дороги десь є наявні пожежні гідранти?
Ну прямо на дорозі на перехресті Трускавецького та Козловського точно такого немає - а Ви позначили таке на карті
lupakyura1989 (2019-11-21 13:20:32+00:00): Вітаю, саме так, в нашому місті близько 70% пожежних гідрантів знаходяться на проїджій частині, зумовлено це тим що більшість прокладеного водогону під проїджою частиною вулиці. Доречі якщо побачите люк пофарбований червоною фарбою, та дві полоски на бордюрі-це ПГ(пож. Гідрант). З повагою місцевий Рятувальник...
Myazyk (2019-11-29 11:30:49+00:00): Дякую за роз'яснення, але якщо Ви маєте доступ до інформації щодо пожежних гідрантів у місті, то нанесіть її на карту або дайте мені і я спробую то зробити.
А з другого боку, не знаю чи варто наносити ту величезну кількість гідрантів на карту, адже окрім служби порятунку, воно навряд чи комусь знадобиться.
P.S. Ви вчились у школі №16?
maraf24 (2018-11-04 11:11:04+00:00): Wandalizm.
jaap de vries (2019-11-28 10:17:54+00:00): Je hebt tuinen toegevoegd die dwars door gebouwen en steegjes lopen. Dit is fout, pas je het zelf aan?
JeroenHoek (2018-10-31 07:47:15+00:00): Waarom zet je de name op Xenos en de name:en/nl/fy op Casa?
PT-53 (2018-10-31 07:53:07+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/336504117 = parking surface ?
Warst Du drin ?
R0bst3r (2018-10-31 08:09:35+00:00): Hallo Mario Theodoridis,
willkommen bei OSM.
Ich habe deine Änderungen geprüft, sie sehen gut aus.
Folgende Tipps:
* Hat ein restaurant geschlossen, sollte man alle das Restaurant betreffende Tags (Eigenschaften) entfernen, z.B. amenity, Telefon, email, operator ...
* Möchte man einige Werte erhalten, kann man sogenannte Lifecycle prefixe verwenden, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix, habe ich so hier gemacht: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64037029
Für weitere infos zu OSM empfehle ich wiki.osm.org.
Viel Erfolg und weiterhin viel Spaß!
Grüße
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64025950
5m4u9 (2018-11-03 02:10:10+00:00): hola, lo que añadiste no tiene utilidad para denotar rutas de carreras. hay que utilizar  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Drunning añadiendo las calles en lugar de volver a dibujar.
//
voy a corregir mañana
flohoff (2018-10-31 09:12:52+00:00): Hi,
du hast hier ein neuen service eingetragen und da ein "access=private" drauf gemacht.

Woher leitest du den access=private ab? Steht da ein Schild?

Ein Service ist ja per definition nicht öffentlich daher müsste man das eigentlich nicht mit access tags überziehen wenn da nicht noch irgendwas spezielles steht.


Wenn man das tag richtig interpretiert dürfte jetzt nichtmal der Postbote da rein.


Flo
Peilscheibe (2018-11-01 10:46:01+00:00): Tatsächlich ist es so, dass ein highway=service immer öffentlich ist, solange keine einschränkenden access-tags drauf sind. Siehe auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice und https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
@flohoff, auf was für eine Definition beziehst Du Dich da?
Grüße, P.
flohoff (2018-11-01 11:03:46+00:00): 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice

"Generally for access to a building, service station, beach, campsite, industrial estate, business park, etc. This is also commonly used for access to parking, driveways, and alleys. "

Oder auch hier:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dservice



Benutzungsberechtigungen

Falls für das betreffende Land implizite Defaultwerte für Zugangsbeschränkungen/-berechtigungen angegeben sind, müssen diese nicht explizit gesetzt werden. Wenn der Weg ausschließlich für Anlieger erlaubt ist (Schild "Fahrzeuge verboten, Anlieger frei"), bitte mit vehicle=destination markieren, damit dieser Weg für Fahrzeuge nicht geroutet wird. 


Solange da kein explizites Schild steht bedarf es keinerlei access tags.

Flo
flohoff (2018-11-01 11:11:26+00:00): 
Ach ja - Und das eine service nicht öffentlich ist ergibt sich u.a. aus der definition für unclassified:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified

The tag highway=unclassified is used for minor public roads typically at the lowest level of the interconnecting grid network.

D.h. unclassified ist die kleinste öffentliche Straße im Straßennetz.

Flo
thaddaeus (2018-11-01 20:46:56+00:00): Es handelt sich hierbei um die Einfahrt (service=driveway) zu einem Privat-Grundstück. Es ist eben keine öffentliche Straße. Der Eigentümer könnte jederzeit den Zugang mit einem Tor verwehren.
Hierfür ist "access=permissive" durchaus richtig, denke ich. "access=private" war in der Tat nicht richtig, da es zur Zeit kein Tor gibt und Besucher/Postbote freien Zugang haben. Deshalb habe ich das bereits nach "permissive" korrigiert.
flohoff (2018-11-01 21:09:52+00:00): 
Ich halte auch das für falsch. Einer der OSM Grundsätze ist das wir das mappen was "On the ground" ist - d.h. nur und wirklich NUR das was da ist und was durch andere verifizierbar ist. 

Und genau das steht auch im artikel zu highway=service. Es bedarf keiner access tags bei einer normalen unbeschilderten zufahrt. 

Ich bin ein absoluter gegner von "Geratenen access" Beschränkungen. Und genau so ein fall ist das hier. Da steht kein Schild. Es ist eine Private Hauszufahrt - und als solche ist die getagged mit service/driveway. Es bedarf keiner weiterer regelungen die wir dazu raten.

Flo
thaddaeus (2018-11-02 19:00:21+00:00): Anstatt auf irgendwelchen fragwürdigen Prinzipien rumzureiten, frage ich mich bei sowas eher: Was ist für den Nutzer von OSM nützlich? Als Nutzer finde ich es durchaus sehr hilfreich zu wissen, ob eine Straße öffentlich oder privat ist, damit ich z.B. im Falle von Durchgangsstraßen diese meiden kann. Auch für Routing Software kann das sicher nützlich sein.
Im Übrigen ist es durchaus gängige Praxis das so zu taggen. Anderorts hab ich das so schon mehrfach gesehen.
Und bzgl. "taggen was da ist": Steht man vor der Straße ist auch ohne Schild offensichtlich, dass es sich um ein Privat-Grundstück handelt. Schaue ich in die Karte, ohne dass dies getagt ist, ist es das eben nicht!
Für mich ist die Diskussion damit beendet.
Wenn du meinst. dass davon die Welt untergeht, ändere es halt zurück. I really don't care...
flohoff (2018-11-02 19:53:36+00:00): Aaalso - Ich kaue das nochmal durch - Es ist eben kein "fragwürdige Prinzipien" sondern es sind die OSM Good Mapping Practices und das Wiki auf das ich mich berufe. Du musst dem ja nicht zustimmen aber ich dachte das sind die Regeln nach denen wir bei OSM zusammenspielen.

Ein access tag auf einem service/driveway ist aus folgenden Gründen falsch:

- "map whats on the ground" - Solange da kein Schild steht - kein mapping - Das kann niemand nachvollziehen (Good mapping practices)
- nach dem Wiki für Service mappen wir nichts wenn da nichts steht (Default)
- Es ist eben keine "gängige Praxis" bzw nicht die mehrheit weil:

Im OWL extract der Geofabrik von heute morgen gibt es 19610 service/driveway - Davon nur 3179 mit einem access tag. Und davon 2679 mit access=private was wir ja schon für falsch erachtet haben (Der Postbote darf ja).

D.h. mal gerade 16% - Dazu sind alleine die hälfte der access tag auf service/driveway von 5 von 160 Usern d.h. ~ 3% der User setzen access tags auf driveways. Das ist keine Mehrheit sondern eine Minderheit.

Und dann sehe ich halt den Sinn nicht darin 20m Schnipsel Hauszufahrten mit access tags zu beglücken. Da fährt eh nur jemand rein der via Navigation dazu aufgefordert worden ist und der sollte ja wohl dürfen in einer Hauszufahrt.

Flo
gscholz (2018-11-01 06:00:58+00:00): Hola Diego,
you changeset has created a large amount of errors in the OSM database:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-77.02124&lat=-12.03574&zoom=18&overlays=long_ways,self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points,single_node_in_way,duplicate_node_in_way

Can you please fix this?
Saludos
Guido
Cyclono (2018-10-31 16:18:50+00:00): Mooi gedaan Freek!
http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=51.9105341&lon=4.4810841&zoom=18&camera.theta=29.124
Freek_ (2018-10-31 16:26:39+00:00): Dank je. Voor het eerst een beetje pielen met 3d gebouwen.
Alleen die roofcolour moet nog anders. Mossedum ziet niet overal. Dat neemt OSM blijkbaar over van onderliggende building.
En de kranen staan niet op de juiste plek... ;-)
Freek_ (2018-10-31 16:28:30+00:00): Op deze render is het dak van de 70m torens niet groen. Bijzonder.
https://osmbuildings.org/?lat=51.91141&lon=4.48042&zoom=17.8&tilt=30
Cyclono (2018-11-01 11:31:47+00:00): Ja, 3D werkt nog niet alles :P

Ik heb de SS Rotterdam gedaan:
http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=51.8979195&lon=4.4741042&zoom=18&camera.theta=27.007

Deze 2 in katendrecht:
http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=51.9001534&lon=4.4752720&zoom=19&camera.theta=63.619&camera.phi=-171.2

Erasmus MC:
http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=51.9111104&lon=4.4675375&zoom=18&camera.theta=63.619&camera.phi=79.709

De Euromast is nu wel stuk, was vroeger wel mooi :'(
http://demo.f4map.com/#lat=51.9057015&lon=4.4639442&zoom=18&camera.theta=63.619&camera.phi=79.709
assenizator (2018-10-30 23:03:02+00:00): какого хрена вообще?
assenizator (2018-10-30 23:03:42+00:00): я откатываю этот вандализм
Burisma (2019-10-12 13:31:46+00:00): Do you know why https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6248866/history is so broken?
azakh-world (2018-11-21 10:15:12+00:00): Hello.
Is a station https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6026072734
a subway station? If so, please add subway=yes on such nodes.
Peter Elderson (2018-10-31 00:52:05+00:00): Ha, goed gespot! Bedankt voor de verbetering.
jumbanho (2019-02-25 14:20:43+00:00): Just came across this changeset while adding sidewalks.  THis is an excellent first changeset!  Hope you come back and help some more.
GerdP (2018-10-31 07:04:40+00:00): Hi!
You removed most tags from the way describing the pipeline:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253952219
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8987867
AlaskaDave (2018-10-31 08:45:39+00:00): Hi Gerd,
Yes, I removed the ones that duplicated the tags on the relation, except for the location=underground, which changes frequently. I'm under the impression that the only tags that should be found on ways are ones that cannot be placed inside the relation.
I've done a lot of work on the pipeline, relocating and determining where it's overground or underground but never thought to remove the redundant tags before. I do think that's the new procedure for tagging relations but maybe I'm wrong.
GerdP (2018-10-31 08:53:49+00:00): I think that is wrong.
The wiki says that the relation should be tagged with the same tags as the way but It doesn't say that the tags should be removed from the ways.
AlaskaDave (2018-10-31 11:51:29+00:00): Let me ask in the tagging list. I'm learning a  lot about relations there but this question hasn't come up yet.
AlaskaDave (2018-10-31 12:05:01+00:00): In taking another look, I see that I removed the man_made=pipeline tag from the way but did not add it to the relation. My bad. I just added it to the relation. 

Would this solve the issue for you?

I cannot find the part in the Wiki you're referring to. Could you point me to it?
GerdP (2018-10-31 12:19:33+00:00): I still think that you should have the tags on the way, I don't know if we need the relation at all. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aroute%3Dpipeline
AlaskaDave (2018-10-31 13:24:57+00:00): I think a relation is definitely needed. I doubt it could be feasibly mapped (and maintained) any other format. This thing is 1300 km long, has countless bridges and many sections that are underground or overground — something changes every few miles, and that requires breaking those ways so they can be tagged. Trying to obtain consistent tagging on every one of those myriad pieces would be impossible. But if you use a relation, the tags inside the relation apply to every piece of it.
In fact, this is my interpretation of the reasoning behind having relations for things like routes in the first place. Any tag that applies to every member way goes in the top level relation tag space. Particular characteristics of the individual segments (ways) are tagged only on the way itself. For example, variable characteristics like surface, lanes, or in this case, location or bridge, that might change every few miles get those specific tags on that segment.

Anyway, this is an excellent discussion about an important concept that I'm still trying to fully understand. I want to bring it to the tagging group and get a discussion going.
Best,
Dave
GerdP (2018-11-05 13:06:16+00:00): Hi Dave,
I think the discussion shows that you shold re-add the tags to the ways here.
AlaskaDave (2018-11-06 03:40:52+00:00): I don't agree. Yuu quoted the Wiki earlier when you stated that the ways should have the same tags as the relation but I found a different place in the Wiki where it agrees with my contention that ways should only have tags when the characteristic or attributes of the way differ from one another. I believe this is not only correct but immensely more efficient.
Feel free to add those tags back but I'm going to continue to map such objects the correct way. I added the entire Iditarod Trail as a route relation and as soon as I have time I'm going to  remove the redundant tags from it. Seriously, I'm convinced this method is better. A side note: OSM doesn't render the pipeline even with man_made=pipeline on the ways, however, mkgmap will if you have a matching style. Whether mkgmap would render it if the pipeline tag were only on the relation is a question that you would be able to answer
GerdP (2018-11-06 04:23:18+00:00): Please post a link to that other wiki entry. 
To make that clear: I personally don't prefer to have all the tags repeated on every way, I just think that this is the way how the community does it and therefore it should be done that way. 
I am sure that it is possible to add rules to mkgmap styles to handle this, but I found none which does it. I guess only very few data consumers have rules to handle this because you created an exception here.
GerdP (2018-11-06 09:02:09+00:00): Reg. Iditarod Trail: If you want to remove the name tags from the ways I say that is good. These ways probably have no name, they are just part of a route.
I did something like that, see this discussion:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/13576057
AlaskaDave (2018-11-06 11:34:03+00:00): Actually, if a way has a name in the Iditarod Trail route, it's a named road and as such the name would stay on that piece only. Also, those ways might be a track, path, or service road, and have surface=gravel, ground, or ice as  well. I repeat, those characteristics belong on the ways and definitly not on the relation. Obviously, the entire Trail is not on gravel service roads, nor is it all on frozen rivers but all those pieces are grouped together under the umbrella of the Iditarod route relation

My removal of the tags on the TAPS follows the same reasoning. Each of its many sections gets it's own tagging, just as do the various different pieces of the Iditarod, except that the only thing that varies is location (under- or overground, and bridges). There is always a pipeline and the tag for it belongs in the relation, along with the operator, the various alternative names, and etc.

I already mentioned the relevant piece of the Wiki in one of my many posts in that thread. Check out the first paragraph under Usage on this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
Also, see a similar statement under the heading Islands on the riverbank page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank
They both say not to tag the ways except when they have different attributes. Which is exactly what I'm saying.

I think the reason there is no code to handle relations tagged the way I've done it is because people have been doing it incorrectly for many years. Rather than saying what I'm doing is a "exception" let's try to get mkgmap to a state where tagging like this can be dealt with properly.
Best,
Dave
GerdP (2018-11-06 11:52:05+00:00): Hi Dave,
I think each type of relation has its own rules. You cannot simply transfer the rules for multipolygons. Example: In mp rels the order of the members doesn't matter, in hiking relations it is important. In mp rels also the roles do not really matter because consumere programs don't need them, they are only important for the mappers. In other relation types the roles are very important. In case of route=pipeline rels
there are not many documented rules because they are not important to many users. If you want to establish a new tagging system for pipelines you have a good chance, you just have to convince those who are interested. I am not one of them, I just try to convince you that you should not start to do your own thing just because it looks better to you. You simply risk that someone reverts your work
when you act against common rules.
AlaskaDave (2018-11-06 13:37:58+00:00): Gerd,
I am not establishing a NEW tagging system for pipelines, I'm merely trying tag it the way that's most meaningful and most correct. The Wiki is quite clear about it, IMO. The concepts apply to ALL relations, not just pipelines. How it looks has nothing to do with it. Nor does sorting. 
I've provided two sections of the Wiki that support my argument. Several commenters agreed with my arguments on the thread in the Tagging list. Can you show me any text that says what I did was wrong?
GerdP (2018-11-06 16:02:39+00:00): I've only read the comments in the thread after you mentioned the TAP. I think nobody agreed with you in those comments. 
See e.g. http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/How-to-tag-named-group-of-named-water-areas-tp5923692p5926559.html
I've just loaded all relations with route=pipeline. They have a total of 4119 way members, 3667 of them have the man_made=pipeline tag, most of those ways which are not tagged man_made=pipeline are in fact not pipelines but waterways, fences , highways, piers , you name it. In other words, quite a lot of garbage.
A consumer cannot simply assume that all members are pipelines.
Now, guess what happens when you remove the tags from the ways which describe what it is.
AlaskaDave (2018-11-07 00:07:58+00:00): Gerd,
I'm not saying remove way tags from ALL pipelines! We're talking about one pipeline, the TAPS. In the TAPS there is only one substance=oil, and it is carried in a single man_made=pipeline. In this case, those tags belong in the relation and not on the way. I doesn't hurt to have them on ways, it's just totally unnecessary. 

As for the thread, the two people who disagree with me are you and Mateusz. Did you read Kevin Kenny's comment at the top of the section you have in that link?

He said, "On a multipolygon, as I observed before, every attribute belongs to the multipolygon unless the way has some existence apart from its role in defining the multipolygon boundary." 

"Some existence apart from defining the boundary" means some attribute that makes that member different such as surface, maxspeed, location, etc. Those are the tags that belongs on the individual member and not on the top level relation or multipolygon.

If I haven't convinced you by now and you don't believe what's in the Wiki, presumably written by experts, than I'm ready to quit this discussion. You can continue to do things the way you've always done them and I'll do things the way I think the Wiki means us to do them.
Best,
Dave
AlaskaDave (2018-10-31 05:06:12+00:00): The boundary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge generally follows the west bank of the Canning River. I used the riverbank as the boundary in order to reduce redundancy because I believe the small discrepancies observed are not critically important in OSM.
GerdP (2018-10-31 06:13:35+00:00): Hi!
I've corrected the tags for some pedestrian crossings here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64034265
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64034307
I can't try it because I have no Iphone. Does Go Map! suggest to use highway=crossing on ways?
This would be an error in the app and you should report it.
stragu (2018-11-01 05:41:07+00:00): Hi GerdP
Thanks for that. Go Map does not suggest that, it was just my go at tagging a way as a crossing, happy to learn the proper way thanks to you! I appreciate it :)
GerdP (2018-11-01 05:59:39+00:00): OK, thanks for the feedback :-)
muralito (2025-09-08 23:29:57+00:00): Hola. Podes revisar estos caminos?
Por ejemplo, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174585361 la imagen aerera no muestra nada, a lo mucho track, pero te diria que si fuera por la imagen aerea lo borraria...
viloan (2018-10-31 02:30:49+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

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

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

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

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

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

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
GeoJess (2020-11-03 19:47:09+00:00): Hi Luen,

Hope all is well and thanks for all of your OSM contributions! I am leaving a changeset comment to inquire about a building feature that you have added: way 639562733. This looks like it may have been added by accident since I do not see signs of it on aerial imagery. Please let me know if I am mistaken or if I can go ahead and remove it.

Thanks,
Jesspher

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/639562733
Luen Warneke (2020-11-04 06:25:27+00:00): Hi Jesspher, Thank you for catching this error. It is indeed not a building. I've fixed up the area in this edit - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93518989
woodpeck_repair (2018-11-02 10:23:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 64107891 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits on request of user who made them
SomeoneElse (2018-10-31 23:46:42+00:00): Hello favas123,
All of your changesets have the same comment - "Added Road".  Can you please be a bit more descriptive.  Also, what does "source=Knowledge" mean?
Best Regards,
Andy
Rob Hansen (2018-10-31 05:25:29+00:00): Added buildings to project 4983
woodpeck_repair (2018-11-02 10:23:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 64107891 where the changeset comment is: Revert edits on request of user who made them
Frans S (2019-01-02 12:54:01+00:00): Hello, Thanks for mapping on this project
I am reviewing tasks and want you to share my findings.
In general your mappings are fine and precise. Just do not connect building together with their nodes. Most of the buildings are free standing and don't forget to square the relevant buildings with the S key 
Thanks for, and keep mapping
Frans S (2019-01-11 13:44:13+00:00): Hello. I am reviewing tasks to check if they are according to the instructions, free of errors and of a good quality.
a few remarks.
Buildings here are rectangular or L shaped with straight corners. Please map them accordingly, Nearly all buildings are freestanding, so do not connect them with their nodes.
Best regards and keep mapping