piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Dinamik (2019-02-20 04:07:29+00:00): Какую-то информацию (например, о границах), можно почерпнуть только из полигона объекта, какую-то информацию (например, об осмысленном логическом центре) - только из точки объекта. Поэтому для "административных" place имеет смысл рисовать и полигон, и точку.

В общем случае размещение name на landuse, а не на place не является корректным, т. к. place и соответствующее name относятся ко всему садоводству/поселению, внутри которого могут быть landuse=residential, и landuse=allotments, и landuse=industrial. Это хорошо видно на примере крупных населённых пунктов, которые тегируются полигонами place, внутри которых указываются зоны residential, industrial и т. д. Название ведь относится ко всему поселению, а не только к спальным районам.

Ваша печаль по поводу того, что place=allotments не отображается на основном слое osm.org, понятна: мне это тоже не нравится. Но-таки более правильной является "агитация" за включение отображения place=allotments в Мапнике, чем некорректное навешивание name на что попало, лишь бы это отображалось в Мапнике. Предлагаю рассмотреть возможность добавления ещё одного комментария с просьбой включить отображение place=allotments в обсуждении https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/147 . В форуме https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=18931 можно попробовать ещё раз привлечь внимание к имеющейся проблеме и попросить кого-нибудь отправить новый запрос на изменение картостиля.
dx125 (2019-02-17 18:56:12+00:00): Danke für das Eintragen. Ich bin da heute auch noch mal lang. Ich kannte den Abzweig und auch das "Straßenschild" schon länger, habe das aber immer nur für eine Einfahrt auf diese abgelegenen Grundstücke der Bergstraße gehalten, denn eine Straße "Im Diebesgrund" gibt es, wie Du ja auch schon festgestellt hast, offiziell nicht. Vielmehr hat das Schild wohl ein Scherzbold aufgehangen evtl. sogar "umgehangen", dann würde es ja auch zum Namen perfekt passen, ich schlage vor, wir lassen es mal so, wie du es eingetragen hast ;-)
bielebog (2019-02-14 21:47:05+00:00): Worauf beziehen sich die bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/315059796 im Tag opening_hours=* im Freitext angegebenen Öffnungszeiten?
hofoen (2019-07-30 14:42:20+00:00): Im Bahnhof Oberrothenbach haben wir jetzt zwei Bahnsteige mit der Nr. "1". Ist das wirklich richtig?
JandaM (2019-12-16 07:26:53+00:00): Dobry den, 
 prosim nepouzivejte na spravne umisteni BING mapy. Nesedi a nedaji se zarovnat. Jedna se o pomstu od M$. Dekuji M
user_2676587 (2019-12-23 14:27:04+00:00): Good morning JandaM
Nice that you left a comment.
Why do I suspect that I use sources other than my experience? What did I see and record on my camera? Where does this unfair accusation come from? Does a colleague work for Map Bing that he wrongly accuses me? Do we know each other?

Besides, please correct the comment about what exactly the eco-man is talking about, at which point the company you work for "Bing" caught a thief stealing ?!
Please explain. Which element do you dislike?
If there was an unjustified revert, I am asking you to restore my changes (unless there have been changes in the field since my visit).
If this is a serious matter, please notify DWG.
I wish you a nice day
JandaM (2019-12-23 14:46:07+00:00): Good morning. I suppose that you don't fully understand what I mean. According to info you used following imagery: "Bing aerial imagery;DigitalGlobe Standard Imagery;Esri World Imagery".
  I know that BING imagery is useless because it is distorted and cannot be aligned. We used RUIAN as most precise source for buildings in Czech Republic. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RUIAN)
  BING imagery can have more than 20m error.
user_2676587 (2019-12-23 14:56:02+00:00): Thank you for your comment. I didn't know that. In fact, I misunderstood the comment. In the future, I will pay more attention to the quality of my editions.
Merry Christmas and all the best in the new year.
philippec (2020-04-12 09:03:38+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2156653
cart0 (2019-03-25 14:11:14+00:00): Brianh, this work appears to have set a boundary as a highway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/670302687
flohoff (2019-02-14 09:15:19+00:00): Moin,
du hast hir die "L 764" zur secondary gemacht - Von Primary. Das sehe ich als richtig an. Ich habe jetzt nicht kontrolliert ob das auf der ganzen länge so ist.

Hast du dir das angesehen?


Flo
Nikolaїch (2019-02-13 21:49:07+00:00): Звідки берете інформацію про назви вулиць?
eggie (2019-04-11 20:30:32+00:00): attractions.. please explain
eggie (2019-02-13 22:19:11+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
eggie (2019-02-13 22:22:44+00:00): Dag Loyroad. Wanneer je op deze manier met access=no de weg op slot zet voor alle verkeer kan niemand zien dat er wordt gewerkt aan de weg.
De gewoonte is dan om wanneer een weg echt voor langere tijd is afgesloten de weg op highway=construction te zetten.
Dan zie je het ook duidelijk op de kaart.
access=no wordt vaak weer vergeten open te stellen.
MVG,
Eggie
Patrick1977Bln (2019-03-29 07:48:30+00:00): Von der zweigleisigen Strecke wird lediglich ein Gleis befahren, daher der Status "siding". Hat sich daran etwas verändert, oder warum hast du nun beide Gleise als befahren dargestellt?
eggie (2019-02-13 22:31:42+00:00): De voorgaande mapper haad bicycle= dismount bij d3e trap gezet. Kennelijk heeft de trap een gootje?  Nu zet je hier bicycle=no
De rest van de weg geef je aan bicycle=dismount. Dat is niet gebruikelijk om over een grote afstand zoiets als dismount te taggen.
Dit hoort  bij een trap of een tunneltje waar fietsers afstappen staat. 
Routeren doet het niet meer voor fietsers.
Kun je hier nog eens naar kijken?
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2019-02-13 22:38:14+00:00): Wanneer het echt een wandelpad is zou ik bicycle=dismount ook weghalen. 
Wanneer er geen bord staat taggen we vaakzoiets als highway=path. Dat routeert voor fietsers. 
Even up to you als lokale mapper.
Gr eggie
Martin035Cycling (2019-02-13 22:56:00+00:00): De trap heeft geen gootje. Is niet geschikt voor de fiets.
eggie (2019-02-14 07:40:28+00:00): Oke.. duidelijk.... Dan zou je wel nog alle verwijzingen naar fietsen kunnen verwijderen. Bicycle=dismount kan beter weg van de rest van het wandelpad. Mvg. Eggie
eggie (2019-02-13 22:27:04+00:00): Dit is wel de correcte manier. Houd je het zelf in de gaten?
Nog wel toevoegen
construction=secondary

Dan weet de volgende mapper evt. wat de oorspronkelijke tagging was. 
 
MVG,
Eggie
Loyroad (2019-02-14 05:26:26+00:00): Hey Eggie, 
Dank voor je reactie en hulp, heel dankbaar voor. Zal zeker beter opletten en alles doornemen wat je stuurde. Zal secondary eraan toevoegen. 
Nogmaals bedankt!
Mvg
Loyroad
mariotomo (2020-02-25 02:22:51+00:00): interesante.  preguntaré en el área, cómo la gente del lugar conoce la calle.  en Colombia he escuchado gente llamar "chinito", "negro", "gordo", a sus amigos. a mi me dicen "el francesito", y nunca le he percibido algún sentido "derogatory", como cuando me decían "spaghetti" (en Holanda) eso sí me molestaba.  concordo que Panamá no es Colombia y quizás es correcto cambiarle nombre, pero me pregunto: cómo la gente del lugar identifica esta calle?  preguntaré.
gormur (2019-05-23 11:49:10+00:00): Then why didn't you do as you suggested yourself? Now there is no rendering of the outer perimeter of the aerodrome...
Jan Olieslagers (2019-05-23 13:31:18+00:00): :) because I do not care very much about the rendering. Especially as the rendering of aerodromes is very poor anyway, sadly.
I am already content if the database is more or less ok.
Kind regards!
Karel ADAMS
karlchen9@skynet.be
lakedistrict (2019-02-13 23:19:18+00:00): Hi ashdpfsh, thanks for all your edits in Reading. In this changeset you've added "Covered pearls" and "chillum" but you haven't said what they are. Shops? Cafes? Just ask if you need any help with editing them. :)
Kai Johnson (2023-01-27 16:26:28+00:00): Hi! I think the word "Mine" at this location on the USGS Topo map was a descriptive reference to the historical workings to the south and not the name of the peak. If the peak had an official name, it would be registered in GNIS but there's nothing there for this peak. Mind if I drop the name?
Igorzo (2023-01-27 18:28:50+00:00): Hi, thanks for your interest, the name was added because it is so described in the book "which talks about the mountains of San Diego", then there is also the summit, the reference point with this name, and it is also called that on other sites. removing it would be a pity since this peak is now referred to by this name.  Greetings from Igor
Kai Johnson (2023-01-27 18:44:05+00:00): Which book was that?
Igorzo (2023-01-27 19:50:44+00:00): Afoot & Afield San Diego County
Kai Johnson (2023-01-27 20:20:56+00:00): Thanks! I'll look it up!
Moldovan_Merkator (2019-08-03 22:24:06+00:00): This is a R- Republican road, it must be primary.
Kovoschiz (2019-03-01 17:25:29+00:00): Please leave a comment next time. May I know why this is a motorway_link? Penny's Bay Highway is a named road, and full expressway. It is not just a link road (not OSM links), even then it can be a motorway. It is supposed to be extended, and is only ending at Magic Road Interchange. For Hong Kong examples, Sha Lek Highway, the future Shatin T4 road, and Shun Long Road (Tuen Mun - Chap Lap Kok Link Southern Section) are all highway=motorway.
GeoidDude (2019-03-02 00:52:03+00:00): Hi Kovosch,

Per the highway link wiki page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link) it states, "Try not to split up the link into one part belonging to one road and one to the other with different classifications.” I noticed this was split up into two classifications so I changed it to one classification in order to meet this policy. 

Thanks
Kovoschiz (2019-03-02 07:52:43+00:00): I didn't agree with the ends being secondary_link either, but my point is the whole road should be highway=motorway, even though it is short and currently functions as a link road only.
GeoidDude (2019-03-05 22:36:15+00:00): I see your point. I'll post to the Hong Kong discord (https://discord.gg/PzEYCZ) to see if others have an opinion as well.
SomeoneElse (2019-02-14 00:01:12+00:00): One of the locals said that Reading had "probably 3 decent pubs, not including the Wetherspoons's" which thankfully is a bit of an underestimate...
ma-rt-in (2019-02-14 10:25:11+00:00): Hallo,
zur Info: Habe die POI noch weiter angepasst.
Kovoschiz (2019-07-17 11:32:44+00:00): Why would you do that?
GeoidDude (2019-07-17 21:58:52+00:00): Thank you for bringing it to my attention, and feel free to reach out if you discover any additional edits of this nature.
jc86035 (2019-02-14 08:20:56+00:00): I don't think this is correct. It's possible to drive from Tai Po Road to the service road inside Sha Tin Racecourse, so the slip road which allows said journey doesn't directly function as a motorway link. "If a road leads from a motorway to a non-motorway, only the portion that solely carries traffic to or from the motorway should be tagged as motorway_link." (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_link)
GeoidDude (2019-02-16 00:39:30+00:00): Hello jc86035,

I am aware of that policy and my interpretation is that road purpose plays a role in deciding whether roads should be a link or not. In this case, I believe the main purpose of the slip road is to provide access to the motorway, while the service road exclusively provides access to destination. Do you have a different interpretation of this policy or on how road purpose plays into link classifications?
jc86035 (2019-02-16 03:05:05+00:00): It might be appropriate to ask on the tagging mailing list, since I personally haven't actually tagged a lot of links recently.

However, my interpretation is that because those three ways don't have to be used to drive onto the motorway (they have to be used in driving from Tsun King Road or Tai Po Road – Ma Liu Shui to Sha Tin Racecourse), they shouldn't be tagged as motorway links. The service road also doesn't exclusively provide access to the destinations, because the interchange is incomplete and it is necessary to drive through Sha Tin Racecourse in driving from Tsun King Road to Tolo Highway. (To my knowledge, the "service" roads inside the racecourse are public roads for routing purposes. I don't know whether the interchange is on public or private land.)

An additional distinction is that in Hong Kong some (but not all) parts of motorway links are themselves legally classified as part of controlled-access highways, and road signs indicate such. What you have effectively been doing in a lot of your recent changesets, including this one, is removing this distinction where it exists. I don't know whether this is correct, since some other countries might not have those explicit delineations shown by road signs.
GeoidDude (2019-02-19 01:05:38+00:00): Thanks for pointing out how crucial posted signage is for determining the appropriate classification of motorway segments, in Hong Kong. Based on what you’re describing, what classification do you think these three segments (way 157658081, way 33277548, way 294630968) should be?
jc86035 (2019-02-19 18:11:30+00:00): I think primary_link would be appropriate. My Mapillary photos (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/I3XhvAsr3a_zzi3i0xi-Pw) indicate that on the southbound on-ramp the "start of expressway" sign is very close to the junction with Tolo Highway, and the three ways modified in this changeset are quite far away from the junction and do not have to lead onto the highway anyway. The bridge on the other side of the interchange is possibly incorrectly tagged as residential; should that road also be tagged as a primary_link?

(I don't think the location of the posted signage is completely relevant, since the tagging convention doesn't define the use of link road tags based on the legal classifications of the link roads themselves, but on the legal classifications or importance of the non-link roads. The UK also has such signs at motorway on-ramps, but the ramp isn't split at the exact location of the sign, which was what 🗺🗺🗺 was doing.)
GeoidDude (2019-02-19 20:40:58+00:00): Hello jc86035,

Great! I agree that these segments are best represented by primary links, rather than motorway links. Thanks for talking through the issue with me.

As for the bridge to the southwest, I agree primary links ought to be utilized in this situation as well, but I am reluctant to reclassify both residential segments as primary links. Do you agree that way 33277266 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33277266) could be an extension of the service classification, at which point the remaining ways (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/562205337, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/294630949, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33277245) would continue as primary links to the roundabout? Then the last way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33277242), could be changed to a motorway link?
Kovoschiz (2019-02-20 00:50:16+00:00): I would keep Way:562205337 as highway:residential. 
@jc86035 @GeoidDude Also sorry for hijacking this thread: Is there any HK OSM groups or forums or discussion places I can join?
jc86035 (2019-02-20 12:50:46+00:00): @Kovosch I don't think so, although it would be very nice to get one started. I've been here for almost six years and haven't been informed of one, and the wiki page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Hong_Kong) doesn't link to any external groups or forums.

Why would it be appropriate to keep 562205337 as a residential road?

@GeoidDude I agree with you for all five ways, although I'm somewhat unsure about the service classification. Some of the other slip roads (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135716499, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/255891627) also seem to have similar issues. It's worth noting that a lot of these link roads seem to originally have been classified as they currently are until changed by bgard (also from Apple) in 2017.
GeoidDude (2019-02-20 21:59:42+00:00): As far as I know there isn’t currently a discussion forum. If there isn’t one, maybe a Telegram group would be a good place? That way people can use their computers or mobile phones for it.

@jc86035, I agree that (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/562205337) should not be residential, as it does not access any residential areas. As for (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33277266), what would you suggest instead of service?
jc86035 (2019-02-21 13:04:15+00:00): I'm not sure. I think primary_link might be appropriate for it and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225114285, but it might depend on the classification of the other ways between Tai Po Road and the racecourse.

These ways should probably also be motorway_link, since they are one-way and only connect to another motorway_link at one end:
• https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135619198 – service (2018-11), was previously motorway_link (2017-10) and residential (2011-11)
• https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135716499 – as above
• https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/255891627 – service (2018-11), was previously motorway_link (2017-10) and service (2014-01)
• https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/44488054 – service (2018-11), was previously motorway_link (2015-03), trunk (2015-03), motorway_link (2011-01) and trunk_link (2009-11)
• https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/44488132 – as above
• https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/644703033 – service (2018-11); was split from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/209216309 – motorway_link (2013-03)

Some of these ways could be primary_link for similar reasons:
• https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225114285 – service (2013-06)
• https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/255891700 – service (2014-01)
• https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135716488 – service (2011-11)
• https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/294630970 – service (2017-10), was residential (2014-07)

I'm not sure about all of these. All of the 2017 edits were by bgard and all of the 2018 edits were by 🗺🗺🗺.

On discussion fora: I agree Telegram might be useful, or Discord. Wikimedia (English) and OSM (English) each have Discord channels. Wikimedia Hong Kong (Chinese/English) has a Telegram group.
jc86035 (2019-02-21 13:07:21+00:00): I'm not sure if my reservation about the primary_link classifications is just because they (i.e. 255891700 and 236039696) would look strange crossing through service roads, although it would probably be the logical way to label them if the overpass (33277266) is tagged as primary_link.
Kovoschiz (2019-02-21 21:07:59+00:00): Oh sorry I didn't mean that. I actually misread them as service in my mind while looking at them as residential. I was indeed thinking about keeping the section consistent and uniform. They should be single-designation-long link roads, being either primary_link (most of them) or trunk_link (for past-Expressway connection roads)
@jc86035 You are running into the Expressway Area issue with motorway_link again. Those should be trunk_link.
Kovoschiz (2019-02-21 21:15:45+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135619198 should be primary_link, continuing from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135619198.
GeoidDude (2019-02-26 20:10:31+00:00): I’ve made the appropriate edits according to our discussion on the changeset. Since the discussion has become more broadly related to highway_link classifications, perhaps this conversation is better suited to a more public forum (Telegram, Discord, etc). 

Thanks,

GeoidDude
flohoff (2019-02-14 08:51:51+00:00): Moin,
super das du Adressen mit einträgst. Bei der einen fehlt noch ein addr:city.

Nominatim (Also der geocoder auf der OSM Webseite) kann das ersetzen aus den Grenzen, schöner ist aber wenn die Adressen vollständig sind.

Flo
Carto'Cité (2019-02-22 10:08:56+00:00): Bonjour Irwin.
Merci pour ces contributions. Je me permets de te contacter pour savoir s'il n'est vraiment plus possible de rejoindre, à pied ou à vélo, ce chemin https://www.osm.org/way/224390762 à celui-ci https://www.osm.org/way/315289115 et celui-là https://www.osm.org/way/564372260. 
La zone de travaux est-elle en fait plus étendue vers le NE ?
Au passage j'ai un peu simplifié la zone en travaux (https://www.osm.org/way/670340438), que j'ai changé en un simple way (pas facile d'éditer un multipolygon sur iD ;)
Antoine de Carto’Cité, projet #CartoVeloIDF
Irwin Madet (2019-02-22 10:23:27+00:00): Bonjour,
Les deux derniers chemins évoqués, ils ne sont plus du tout accessibles en raisons des travaux. En ce qui concerne les deux premiers, je n'ai pas assez d'information à ce sujet, mais je pense qu'ils sont difficilement accessibles (chaussée détruite).
Cordialement.
aharvey (2019-07-25 14:05:01+00:00): It appears you've also added bicycle=yes to every single node of the highway, which isn't really correct, since unless there is a barrier or something similar on the node, then you just need the tag on the way. Did you do a select all or something in JOSM?

Would you mind cleaning this up?
nevw (2019-07-25 22:25:07+00:00): Hi
in JOSM there is a useful plugin, https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Plugin/UtilsPlugin2 , that has an 'unselect nodes' tool that is handy when you want only ways selected but you notice all nodes have been selected too.
dhoni007 (2019-03-08 13:30:47+00:00): Hi David,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Jakarta, I have come across the way 670341590 classified as 'track'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around, this seems to be 'Residential'. Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance.
viloan (2019-02-14 01:27:35+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!
GOwin (2019-02-15 03:55:50+00:00): Thank you for your edits!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/67179994
GOwin (2019-02-15 03:54:59+00:00): Hi @Will Barringer. Thank you for your edits.  Do you mind making sure to use a smaller changeset next time, to cover your edits ? That is, save your work before working on a different area, after working on a smaller neighbourhoood. That makes it easier to validate and review afterwards.

Do keep up the good work. Kudos!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/67180060
PT-53 (2019-02-15 07:48:19+00:00): Hallo OSMchecker,
Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz u.a. diesen Weg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/160670956/history gelöscht und schreibst als Kommentar "Ganz normale Gehwege sind keine generischen Pfade". Ist dort den an der Straße ein "ganz normaler Gehweg" oder was ist dort?
Fragende Grüße
PT-53 (2019-02-15 07:50:55+00:00): Diesen Weg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/88692052/history hast Du von path auf footway geändert. Dort dürfen doch aber Radfahrer und sogar Mofas fahren. Dann ist path doch genau richtig, oder?
PT-53 (2019-02-15 07:55:19+00:00): Gibt es entlang der Wangener Straße https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169412889#map=16/47.7693/9.6211 keinen Geh- und / oder Radweg?
Auf dem MapboxLuftbild meine ich dort einen zu erkennen.