piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
felipeeugenio (2021-11-03 23:49:04+00:00): Hola
Asphalt es asfalto. Paved es el genérico. Mientras más especifico es mejor. Pasar de Asphalt a paved es si acaso está seguro de que NO es asfalto, pero si está pavimentado.
En este caso tengo la impresión de que se trata de una confusión, porque el cambio no tiene mucho sentido.

Respecto de las velocidades máximas: tiene conocimiento del lugar y la velocidad máxima está señalizada?
Para el tramo que modificó entre Osorno y Pilmaique, hice el camino hace poco en dirección a Osorno y no vi ningún cartel que diga que es 100. y tengo todo fotografiado.
Ruego por favor aclarar.
Puede discutir los cambios y mucho más en nuestro chat en Telegram (app similar a whatsapp) en el link: https://t.me/OSMcl

Saludos y nos vemos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113352431
azakh-world (2021-11-06 07:23:28+00:00): Hi.
By putting railway=station and related tags onto the station building https://www.osm.org/way/115505288 you introduced feature duplication. Subway station is already denoted with the node 8250912487.
Ways 993364914 and 993364915 should be building:part, not building.
Could you please fix at least subway station since such errors break routing with public transport.

Best regards,
Alexey
ivanbranco (2021-11-04 16:43:13+00:00): Hi czebureks,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/998903400
DZIELNICY=Krakowiec-Górki Zachodnie is not a valid tag

also, a border for this suburb already exist since nine years: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2642946/

can you fix it?
this also: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/998903400
czebureks (2021-11-05 01:24:17+00:00): Sorry for the mistake. Fixed.
user_5359 (2021-12-29 18:36:55+00:00): Hello! Please have look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/74865750. Whar is the meaning of the tag yes=permissive?
MxxCon (2021-11-04 05:35:52+00:00): Hello.
I see you tagged a few streets with smoothness of very_bad, horrible and very_horrible. Looking at satellite imagery all those roads are paved city streets, while qualifiers of those smoothness ratings specify unpaved roads and what's considered "off-road" situations. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness#Smoothness
Did you mean to tag them in such a way?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113353004
MxxCon (2021-11-04 05:44:16+00:00): Also it seems like you created nodes 9222490711 and 9222463906 for the same address "35 Westchester Square". Also USPS database search shows that address is only 35 Westchester Sq, not East Tremont Avenue or Lane Avenue.
JayMontana36 (2021-11-09 12:09:36+00:00): Originally, I did mean to tag road smoothness with "very_bad", "horrible", "very horrible", based upon how these roads affected my vehicle and I, so that my routing would defer and avoid these roads more often than not; I will revisit and revise these to be more in line with your linked wiki page in a future changeset.

In regards to the double nodes at the same location, I noticed that, an expansion of something that you told me with one of my very first contributions/edits, it seems to be much better to leave buildings alone as they are and to instead just simply add POIs in or around the buildings for both addresses and businesses individually, as depending upon the application (OSMAnd in my case), the application might not show any results for buildings with address tags or business POIs with address tags while (offline) searching, requiring an online search instead on Nominatim, or from another provider to find the general location for the search. Doing this this way also makes it easier and simpler to move or delete a place if it closes or whatever happens to it.

For the multiple street name bit, I'm not quite sure since there is another address nearby that does go by multiple street names, one moment you will see it with one street name and the next moment you will see it with another but it's the same place, so I added the nearby roads just to be safe since really there are no other addresses that'd conflict, not to mention when searching another provider for these addresses they do a similar thing where that 1 building is marked with multiple addresses (the same exact number but a different street name) that you can search for and have it pin point to the same building, so it's a valid tag because people can't seem to make up their minds on what street name they want to go by, or decide to just have multiple street names for some reason. If the way that I did the street name tag causes any issues however (so far I have not noticed any issues with it), I will update it to be multiple address POIs instead of a single address POI.
nickvet419 (2021-11-06 15:17:46+00:00): This is a bridged area, not part of hubbers cave nearby.
EP_Repair (2022-02-26 01:25:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117858450, 117866896 where the changeset comment is: reverting highway classification edits where Fluffy downgraded trunk/motorway roads without either discussing with local communities or following 2021 Highways Classification wiki. Fluffy is now blocked from classifying highways.
DENelson83 (2021-12-07 09:09:06+00:00): You duplicated Mermaid Cove.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8332396
ivanbranco (2021-12-19 08:55:44+00:00): Also you added a new tag, canoeing=yes, does it have a different meaning than this tag? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:canoe
EP_Repair (2021-12-20 17:08:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 115174640 where the changeset comment is: reverting damages to highway classifications by Djam (ref Ticket#2021120110000024). Djam was contacted and asked to provide some reasoning for making changes to highways but no response was received by the DWG.
Warin61 (2021-11-09 11:18:48+00:00): Hi,
Welcome to OSM.

If these buildings are houses then building=house would be more correct.
lyjjimmy (2022-01-31 06:40:39+00:00): Hi Stephen, 
I notice a large section on the M5 Linear path has been turned to "highway=construction". While to my knowledge the bridge across Salt Pan Creek suffered arson recently, CB City Council continues to open much of the boardwalk to visitors. If you have time, could you please verify the extent of the closed section and revert the unaffected sections to their original status? I would suggest changing the access restrictions of the closed part to "access=no" instead of using "highway=construction". Feel free to have a discussion with me. 
Many thanks,
Jimmy L.
Stephen Males (2022-01-31 07:15:46+00:00): Hi Jimmy, thanks for the review :)
I have verified the extent of the section closed as I use it to commute from Bonnyrigg to Hurstville by bicycle.
As CBCity has not given any dates for re-construction, I wanted to ensure it was clearly symbolised to users of OpenStreetMap.
The construction tag seemed to make it clear it was not available.
What symbolisation does the "Access=No" tag appear as?
Cheers,
Stephen
lyjjimmy (2022-02-10 00:43:26+00:00): Hi Stephen, sorry for the delay reply as I was away from Sydney. I investigated a bit on rendering with “access=no” tag and was a bit inconclusive on whether the rendering would achieve your expectation. So as an alternative, I believe your way would likely to achieve the visual effects on consumer ends. 
Also I did a scout yesterday and could confirm that council only close the vandalised but with fences, while the unaffected parts remain open to the public. According to the sign placed, council says the unaffected parts will continue to open for public use.
In this case, I would personally recommend to confine the construction section to the damaged part with tags combo “highway=construction”+”construction=cycleway”+”access=no” to make sure the path is unroutable, while maintaining your intention. And reinstate the unaffected sections with their normal tags. So that the eastern connection across the creek will continue to provide valid routing.
Feel free to comment my idea. 
Cheers, Jimmy
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-08-11 16:16:12+00:00): castelo aqui? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5421894512
feliPIdantas (2022-08-12 12:02:15+00:00): Deve ter acontecido algum erro durante o mapeamento, pois neste changesets eu estava mapeamento Teresina,PI. Irei deletar a feição.
wireguy (2021-11-04 10:40:27+00:00): this relation is getting a validation error.  Inner and outer ways intersect.   Read: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-01-30 11:56:22+00:00): Hello!

You used
material=concreted
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9222828403/history

Have you maybe meant
material=concrete
?

I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).

Or have you used this value deliberately? In such case, what was the intended meaning?
DressyPear4 (2021-11-04 12:55:51+00:00): Olá, imagens de satélite possuem deslocamento de camadas e nem sempre estão precisas, evite alinhar grandes quantidades de vias e dê preferencias as imagens da Maxar que estão mais atualizadas.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113355306
kartonage (2021-11-06 15:04:45+00:00): Hi,

I have noticed this changeset because you have mapped leisure=fishing as single ways instead of nodes and areas. 

These objects seem to be individual stakes and not a place where one can actually go "fishing"/or is allowed to fish generally, is that right? 

Best regards
❤️‍🔥 (2021-11-06 21:56:53+00:00): Hi, yes you're right. The wiki page for leisure=fishing is a bit vague about when/where it should be used. I now see that the latest version of iD warns you that leisure=fishing doesn't belong on unclosed ways. Should I move leisure=fishing to an area surrounding all the stakes?
kartonage (2021-11-08 14:31:44+00:00): Yes, I suppose this would be a good idea. Thanks!
compdude (2021-12-16 06:30:38+00:00): Is Dorena Lake really an intermittent/seasonal lake?
Xanadu_Contractor (2021-12-22 03:10:31+00:00): I may have misunderstood the tag. I meant to express the dramatic seasonal difference in the water-level of the Dorena Reservoir.
compdude (2021-12-22 08:50:24+00:00): Yes, that tag is meant for lakes that are usually dry except for brief periods when there's lots of rain.
Diacritic (2021-11-04 11:33:09+00:00): Hi Mikideez,

Gruyere is already mapped as a suburb; what is the benefit of mapping it twice as a node?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113355648
griffonboi (2021-11-04 11:56:51+00:00): Hi Diacritic,

It was requested in note #2873218, as it was not being rendered on the map.
Diacritic (2021-11-05 01:44:17+00:00): Thanks for the info.

Your reasoning makes sense, but I'm not sure it's the right way to go about things.

Apart from the 'mapping for the render' and 'one tag, one element' principles, it seems a lot harder to maintain and keep consistent. What makes Gruyere a town, as opposed to a suburb, or a hamlet? If we add a node for Gruyere, the town; why doesn't places like Hurstbridge get one? 

I recently asked on the talk-au mailing list about the appropriate tagging, but it might be worth establishing whether suburbs should be 'double tagged' as boundaries and nodes?
griffonboi (2021-11-05 02:20:02+00:00): I get where you're coming from, however I've just looked at the surrounding towns (Seville, for example) which have nodes denoting the centre of population.
Diacritic (2021-11-05 03:08:08+00:00): Yes, I see that as well. Some of the other suburbs have names in other languages on just the node, or area; others have mismatching tags.

I’m happy if it’s an established standard, just would prefer it to be consistent with every suburb (in Melbourne at least).
GustavoE (2021-11-11 16:30:06+00:00): Hola, me gustaría corregir los vértices del área designada como humedal urbano Baños Morales tal como figuran en el Diario Oficial (http://bcn.cl/2svqw)
ovruni (2021-11-04 04:27:42+00:00): Hola nurdiana_ui, las vías que se indican son el ingreso y la salida al estacionamiento subterraneo, por favor evitar caer en una guerra de ediciones.
ovruni (2021-11-04 04:29:24+00:00): Como le había indicado anteriormente, este segmento no tiene ingreso desde el jirón cusco que viene desde el mercado  central, motivo por el cual no es de un solo sentido esta cuadra. Por favor evitar caer en una guerra de ediciones.
johnarupire (2021-11-04 05:55:21+00:00): Nurdiana_ui,
Te reitero la invitación a unirte al grupo en telegram de la comunidad openstreetmap en Perú. Y también te vuelvo a pedir, por favor, que tengas más cuidado con las ediciones y sigasas recomendaciones que te alcanzan.
Saludos
mariotomo (2022-05-09 23:15:48+00:00): hola nuevo mapero. estás editando sin alguien apoyandote? mira … cambiaste un place=city en amenity=marketplace, que es un cambio bastante raro. si vuelves a OSM, ojalá te pongas en contacto con las comunidades locales.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113355896
greyim (2022-01-03 20:54:12+00:00): Thanks!
pitscheplatsch (2021-11-04 06:48:37+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113356197
pitscheplatsch (2021-11-04 06:48:48+00:00): revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113356108
keithonearth (2021-11-04 05:10:07+00:00): Oops, the source tag should read `Survey`.
AgusQui (2021-11-16 03:40:05+00:00): Por favor no agregar etiquetas de transporte publico a estaciones que no tienen servicios de pasajeros.
pitscheplatsch (2021-11-04 06:50:09+00:00): Hi ranklin Delgado, welcome to OSM.

Could you use the comment field of your created changeset for describing your map edits? Thanks. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
MxxCon (2021-11-04 06:04:06+00:00): Hello.
Could you please elaborate what did you base this edit on?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113356676
Unggo99 (2021-11-04 15:03:39+00:00): Hi,
Used USGS topo maps of both old and new. Used it mainly as a reference. The landscape changed so much, there could be some mistakes.
pitscheplatsch (2021-11-04 06:50:37+00:00): Hi ranklin Delgado, welcome to OSM.

Same again, could you use the comment field of your created changeset for describing your map edits? Thanks. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
ScottWalkerAU (2021-11-04 07:21:39+00:00): Is using natural=wood for a single tree valid? I've always seen people against it. RE: Park at Barrack street
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113356955
Reemuson (2021-11-06 03:20:29+00:00): I would have to reconfirm the specifics of the area in regards to how many trees there are and I’ll update the map when I have the time to take a trip.
pitscheplatsch (2021-11-04 06:37:40+00:00): revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113348870

Thanks, @VulkanMaps !
VulkanMaps (2021-11-04 06:57:19+00:00): Thanks :-)
Jean-Pierre Rondeau (2021-11-04 06:29:01+00:00): chemin retiré
mariotomo (2022-05-31 01:58:21+00:00): hola HOT validator. there's something wrong going on here. your changeset comment states "adding buildings", and that you're in the "third pass validation" step.
yet, you're mostly editing natural cover information, contributed by local mappers.
have you checked with them? the community is small and at least Charlie Plett is easily found online, just look for him.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113358149
mariotomo (2022-05-31 13:16:48+00:00): moreover, you and your team have been mapping and validating using quite obsolete aerial photography: in the changeset you mention Maxar. As far as I see, the buildings you confirmed in the changeset match Bing, and don't agree with Maxar.
Becky Candy (2022-05-31 15:08:10+00:00): Hello Mariotomo, thanks for raising this. I have checked the changeset. Sandhya364 modified the natural cover to fix an overlap so all the history was maintained. I agree that this should have been mentioned it in the changeset comment. She used the maxar imagery because Project instructions for Belize told mappers to use Maxar. Though both bing and Maxar imagery are somewhat the same in that area. Many thanks!
Protoxenus (2021-11-11 09:55:54+00:00): Hier genau das Gleiche: Neben ein schon existierendes Feuer wird ein Leuchtturm kartiert. Ein Richtungsfeuer ist kein Leuchtturm! Bitte informiere dich über die gültigen Regeln zum kartieren von lichttechnischen EInrichtungen der Schifffahrt!
Danke Protoxenus
Protoxenus (2021-11-11 09:34:44+00:00): Was soll dieser Leuchttrm hier mitten in der Uecker? Was ist NGA/UKHO für eine Quelle? Bitte mal nachdenken, bevor man etwas kartiert, ob das überhaupt sinnvoll ist.
Danke Protoxenus
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:59:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
sorcrosc (2021-11-07 17:16:20+00:00): Vedo che da alcune settimane inserisci limiti di altezza sui sottopassaggi in tutta Italia dichiarando come fonte solo immagini aeree. Ti ho già chiesto una volta di essere più chiaro su questo. Visto che non trovo immagini stradali utilizzabili come Mapillary o Kartaview sospetto che stai usando fonti non consentite.
Vorrei una risposta su questo e spero che sia accettabile perché ho intenzione di segnalarti.
Ciao
sorcrosc (2021-11-28 18:13:54+00:00): Puoi rispondermi per favore?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:03:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:57:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:54:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:58:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:00:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:55:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:53:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:55:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:02:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
ivanbranco (2021-11-05 16:21:09+00:00): Hi FlawOfAverages,

what's the meaning of this tag Mozilla=Firefox ESR 91.3.0 (x64/x86 en-US) ?
FlawOfAverages (2021-11-05 21:31:22+00:00): Hi there,

Looks like a user agent string but I don't even use that browser so I don't know where that has come from. Where did it show up sorry?
ivanbranco (2021-11-05 21:43:04+00:00): In 50 building, for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/495767577

But I saw now it has already been cleaned up by someone else :)
FlawOfAverages (2021-11-05 21:47:50+00:00): Apologies for that, I've no idea where that has come from. Thank you for highlighting the error. I'll message the person who corrected it to say thanks too.
Patchi (2021-11-05 06:40:58+00:00): Hallo Einsjonas,

Danke für deine Änderungen. Dass die Buslinien der Gesellschaft INVG (operator=“INVG“) im „Netzwerk“ VGI stehen hat vermutlich sein Grund und ist konsistent zu den anderen Tag network:guid und network:short sowie konsistent zur Wiki über die INVG https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingolst%C3%A4dter_Verkehrsgesellschaft (Zitat: „[die INVG] ist Mitglied im Verkehrsgemeinschaft Region Ingolstadt (VGI), daher unterliegen sämtliche von der INVG betriebenen Linien dem VGI-Verbundtarif“). Es wäre also schön, wenn der Tag "network" manche Linien nicht ständig geändert wird und dann inkonsistent zu den anderen "network-Tags" steht. Ich habe alle Linien 45, N15 und S2 (inkl. Bus_master) wieder mit dem Netzwerk VGI versehen.
Wenn du mit dem Netzwerk VGI generell ein Problem hast, können wir gern drüber sprechen.

Schöne Grüße,

Patchi.
xrefz (2021-11-05 07:29:16+00:00): Richtig, die INVG ist Teil der VGI.


Wenn ich nun eine der Linien auswähle, kommt die gelbe Fehlermeldung:
__________________________
Buslinie Bus S2: Audi -> Hundszell sieht aus wie ein allgemeines Objekt mit nicht standardkonformen Eigenschaften

- network=Verkehrsgemeinschaft Region Ingolstadt
+ network=INVG
- network:wikidata=Q99937594
+ network:wikidata=Q1663262
+ network:wikipedia=de:Ingolstädter Verkehrsgesellschaft
__________________________

Was soll da getan werden, da nach aktualisierung durch den Editor steht dann im Netzwerk wieder "INVG".
Patchi (2021-11-05 12:26:19+00:00): Hallo EinsJonas,

Die Regel in ID (die zu Warnung führt) deaktivieren oder generell auf JOSM umsteigen was im Bezug mit ÖNPV vielleicht die bessere Wahl wäre (insbesondere mit dem pt_assistant Plugin). Seit kurzem kann sogar JOSM ohne Java-Installation verwendet werden (weil Java-Package mitgeliefert) und benötigt keine Admin-Rechte auf einem Windows-Rechter.

Schöne Grüße,

Patchi.
Patchi (2021-11-06 09:07:09+00:00): Hallo EinsJonas,

Ich werde die notwendige Änderungen in NSI über ein Ticket einstellen (damit das Netzwerk VGI berücksichtigt wird). Sobald diese Änderungen akzeptiert sind wird es dann (hoffentlich) keine falsche Vorschläge von ID mehr geben. Bis dahin bitte wie oben beschrieben die zutreffende Regel soweit es geht nicht nutzen.

Danke im Voraus und schöne Grüße,

Patchi.