piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
AlexNcUa (2021-09-28 15:07:41+00:00): Так, там де усього дві полоси (по одній у кожному напрямку) зазвичай камера працює на обидва напрямки. Але зараз OSM AND ігнорує тег direction взагалі. Тобто на нерозділеній дорозі попередження буде при наближенні з обох боків навіть якщо є direction forward або backward. Але в будь якому випадку трохи змінив, задав direction both явно не сприймалось як помилково пропущене, та додав notes.
Falsernet (2021-10-24 15:21:28+00:00): I'm reporting this changeset yet again.
user_2066394 (2021-09-28 14:47:11+00:00): Mit der Taste Q kannst du Gebäude orthogonalisieren/die Ecken rechtwinklig machen.
MStA_OSM (2021-10-22 14:00:08+00:00): Hello fellow mapper.  

Turning left from Way 760770573 to Chemin Vanier is now impossible due to a permanent concrete divider in the middle of Vanier.  It's brand new.  This is what I attempted to map with my edits. Any way you can revert back your changes?

Thanks!
kolasau (2021-10-26 08:44:38+00:00): Hello, thank you so much. Reverted back changes.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:47:56+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.
rainerU (2021-10-01 07:10:18+00:00): Bonjour LySioS,

tu as ajouté des attributs pour qualifier le chemin https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/68283345 de voie verte. Effectivement, il y a un mini-panneau C115 aux extrémités. A mon avis,  plutôt que highway=footway, bicycle=yes, il faudrait tagguer

highway=path, 
bicycle=designated, 
foot=designated 

comme c'est préconisé dans le wiki : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bicycle#Voies_vertes

Rainer
LySioS (2021-10-01 11:23:40+00:00): Bien vu, c'est fait
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:48:46+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 00:50:33+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.
Frans S (2021-09-29 13:20:16+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Please pay attention on these points. 
Map more accurate and square the building

FYI Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0

Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111820127
parukhin (2022-11-07 05:55:39+00:00): Александр, приветствую.
А тут правда 2 км/ч?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35843706/history
Или это хак роутера, или просто полосы не туда попали?
ruboqif (2021-09-28 17:07:32+00:00): Bonjour, 
Pourquoi vous supprimez toutes les informations "network" des arrêts de bus que PA413 ajoute régulièrement ?
FrançoiseR (2021-09-29 09:17:36+00:00): Bonjour
Parce que ce sont les attributs de la ligne, donc de la relation "route", et non des arrêts (qui peuvent parfois être desservis par plusieurs réseaux).  C’est signalé comme une erreur par Osmose, et ça l’était aussi dans JOSM via à un greffon développé un temps par Junglebus.
Bien cordialement
FR
ruboqif (2021-09-29 09:50:32+00:00): Dans ce cas il faudrait prévenir Pa413 afin que vous vous mettiez d'accord et que tout le travail réalisé ne soit pas fait pour rien.
FrançoiseR (2021-09-30 13:38:46+00:00): Oui bien sûr, mais en principe il-elle le sait, on avait déjà échangé là dessus il y a quelques 2 ans... mais je comprend que ce soit tellement amusant de "sur-taguer" ... perso je préfère la méthode KISS...
Pa413 (2021-10-01 15:26:50+00:00): Alors moi j'ai 2 versions ! Effectivement Françoise R à raison mais la version que je fais n'est pas fausse non plus !
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:54:04+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.
literan (2021-10-08 16:29:04+00:00): более корректный тег для подъездов - entrance=staircase. Исправлю.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:49:41+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 (2022-04-23 22:04:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:59:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:51:50+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.
mueschel (2021-09-29 09:19:17+00:00): Hi,
please check your edits. You added many buildings twice, and a huge amount of them have a misspelled tag "saurce" instead of "source".
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:01:55+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 00:58:55+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 00:54:24+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 (2022-04-23 22:05:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:01:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:51:24+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 (2022-04-23 22:05:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:00:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:51:12+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.
Dimacn (2021-09-28 17:36:35+00:00): Пожалуйста не ставьте выдуманные ограничения  скорости. Ниже приведу небольшой список ваших косяков. Исправлять будете? Если нет, я откачу ваши правки в Барнауле за заведомо плохой маппинг.

Из того, что пока нашёл:
1.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33870161
Вы поставили maxspeed=40
Реально есть ограничения: 60 40 20 40 20 60

2. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33511245
Вы поставили maxspeed=40
Реально есть ограничения: 40 20 60 40 20 60

3.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138695540#map=18/53.34522/83.69704
Вы поставили RU:urban
Реально есть ограничение 40

4.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/137931642#map=18/53.34564/83.69741
Вы поставили RU:urban
Реально есть ограничение 40
alexander_mart (2021-10-01 22:57:57+00:00): На сколько я понимаю, этот пакет правок откатили:
https://osmcha.org/changesets/111836293/
Dimacn (2021-10-03 12:33:00+00:00): Да, автор откатил
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:06:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
emvee (2021-10-01 20:31:22+00:00): Hoi mrk1,

In deze changeset heb je o.a. het stationsplein voorzien van oneway:bicycle=no, prima!

Maar ook cycleway=opposite en dat is een beetje dubbelop en achterhaald, zie https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=65612

Groeten,

Martin.
fndoder (2021-09-28 18:38:37+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4155898347/history

А почему в этом пакете правок у этого перехода изменен тип с регулируемого на нерегулируемый? Там демонтировали световор?
Raul_Tejada (2021-09-29 09:13:07+00:00): Исправлено
fndoder (2021-09-29 09:15:42+00:00): Спасибо.
mini-me (2021-09-28 15:29:33+00:00): Ну и зачем вы опять сдвинули дорогу? На спутниковых снимках Bing, которые вы использовали, её вообще нет. Переключите на Maxar Premium и не забудьте задать правильное смещение
Vinber-Pro (2021-09-29 14:34:47+00:00): salut,
il n'y a pas de batiment entre la salle capranie et le foyer loiseau ? ou c'est un effacement par erreur ?
j'ai failli écrire bises mais bon c'est public quand même :)
bécots alors
OTSeignanx (2021-09-29 14:55:45+00:00): Yo Vinz,
J'espère que tout va bien "là haut"...
J'ai voulu corriger car les bâtiments ne communiquent pas entre eux. Et la salle Capranie n'englobe pas le foyer (comme cela était indiqué).
Mais effectivement, c'est un seul et même bâti et je crois que j'ai mal corrigé.
Je vais aller voir j'crois...
Merci e adishatz
Rom
PS ET À VITE J'ESPÈRE !!!!!!!!
Vinber-Pro (2021-10-04 07:09:26+00:00): salut,
j'ai ajouté le bati ici https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/989293751
est-ce un batiment ou "juste" un toit entre le foyer et capranie

à plus
FilippoLovato (2021-11-17 15:53:43+00:00): Buonasera, non capisco la ratio dell'aver disegnato un poligono che ricomprende una determinata porzione del centro di Mestre (Mestre shopping district) identificando quest'area come commerciale quando invece comprende molti usi diversi (residenziale, museale, religioso e molti altri) mi sembra quantomeno inappropriato
LemonDofide (2021-11-18 11:57:19+00:00): Non ho disegnato io il poligono. In ogni caso mi risulta che "Mestre Shopping District" sia stato definito per volontà del Comune di Venezia per aiutare i negozi del centro a competere coi grandi centri commerciali. Vedi sito del Comune https://live.comune.venezia.it/it/2020/11/il-programma-fai-centro-shopping-disctrict-si-allarga-alle-polarit-di-gazzera-marghera
cronoser (2022-05-04 21:44:23+00:00): Hola, no se deben eliminar picos y parajes, son datos oficiales del IGN, se han revertido conjunto de cambios por eliminar picos y parajes https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120542831
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-04-16 22:12:54+00:00): SEnão tem nome, não precisa colocar "caminho sem denominação", so use nomes proprios.
Mundilfari (2021-09-29 02:21:40+00:00): Hello,
what's the benefit of detaching the shops from their buildings by making them all separate one-node POIs? 
It would seem that there's multiple drawbacks to this approach, especially where there's a 1:1 relationship between bldg and store (duplicate/redundant addresses; loss of information how much of the building is actually being used by that particular store), so I'd be curious to understand what the motivation is for these changes...

Thanks!
jcarlson (2021-09-29 02:59:13+00:00): Hi there!
In my mind, it's simpler and more consistent to go with business as POI, building as separate way. A building is often only *part* of a business, not unlike a school building is only one part of a school.
Consider basically any food or drink establishment with outdoor seating; the diners outside are not considered to be somewhere other than the business they're patronizing.
With large strip malls, there's often just one actual building, so splitting that up at the interior walls into a series of connected buildings is inaccurate. It's *one* building, it should be *one* feature. POI mapping of businesses is the only way to accurately map multiple businesses/offices/amenities in a single building.
Additionally, businesses can move! If I decide to terminate my lease and move my shop across the street, it's literally the same entity, but in a different location. POI mapping allows for this kind of "entity continuity" in a way that building-based mapping does not.
I'll concede that this can lead to duplication of address information, particularly in cases of 1:1 business and building situations. Perhaps those 1:1 cases can be left as is, but I personally prefer to keep all businesses as POIs for consistency.
As a small-time end-user of OSM data, it's *much* easier to ingest and make use of data that is consistently in a single format (dedicated points vs areas w/ non-business tags). Yes, I can just take the building centroids and get roughly the same thing.
From an editing perspective, I can easily load and edit larger numbers of businesses as POIs than I can as ways, so it makes it easier for me to maintain the business data in my area, something I want to make a greater habit of doing.

I suppose I've gone on long enough. You're free to disagree with any and all of the above. I was just "cruising" up Rt 34 and kept going out of Kendall County and did some mapping there. But I will always defer to what local mappers prefer in their area, so I will not be offended if you choose to revert this changeset (or any of the similar ones in the area).
jcarlson (2021-09-29 03:19:21+00:00): Sorry, I just remembered an additional point: some single businesses encompass multiple buildings, too. Tagging only one of the buildings w/ the business information can't capture that either. Not that a POI would, but it at least wouldn't imply a single building as being "the" business.
Mundilfari (2021-09-29 04:12:07+00:00): Hi - thanks for the explanation. 

I guess you have a point about the outdoor areas - I suppose it would be *technically* correct to tag the outdoor area/patio/whatever separately from the bldg, and then create a relation and tag that rel as a store/restaurant/whatever.

Entity continuity is a matter of perspective, I guess... like you said, having the poi separate from the building makes it very easy to answer questions like "did this business move". In theory, that is. Practically, the decision whether "business xzy moved from A to B" or "business xyz closed store A and opened a new location B a couple months later " often requires inside knowledge of how that business is organized. It's probably fair to make an educated guess for the mom&pop shop moving across the street; but how do you know if the gas station/pharmacy/grocery store closing in one spot and reopening two intersections farther north is actually the same store reopening in a different location or not?
Also, what you gain in continuity on the poi is what you lose on the building (for questions such as "What store was in this bldg before?")

I 100% agree with the (strip) malls - where there's one building, we shouldn't be mapping multiple ones just to separate the stores.
What I've started doing in these cases is to map the building as one large poly, and then add multiple smaller polys within that (sharing nodes with the bldg itself around the outer perimeter) for the individual stores. (Each of the stores is, of course, not tagged as a bldg). 
To me, that appeared to be a fair compromise that doesn't split buildings when they really shouldn't be; while it preserves the information about each store's area/size.
I mapped the majority of Chicago Premium Outlets up in Aurora this way in case you're interested in an example - it seems to work quite nice.
It also comes with a neat side effect - it makes it quite easy to see whether businesses are missing in a shopping center/(strip) mall - that's much harder with node-only POIs.

Perhaps that would be an acceptable approach for you as well (1:1 buildings = combined store+bldg tagging on one polygon; multiple businesses in one bldg = separate polys for each store + one surrounding poly for the bldg)?

I've seen many cases where people would change it the exact opposite way (merge the POI into the bldg) - not just around here (I'm sure you noticed this area is pretty much dead), but in general. I'm not sure that achieving anything that's even close to being consistent is really realistic (not as long as there isn't clear consensus that one approach is preferred over the other anyway). Just sounds like everyone keeps everyone else busy.

Thanks,
Mundilfari (2021-09-29 04:29:43+00:00): Those multi-building scenarios kind of sound like a textbook example for a multipoly, no? 
Although that isn't how they're mapped in most places, I don't think. Gas stations are often like that...and many of them appear to be mapped as two separate objects, typically one with amenity=fuel+building=roof and the other with building=retail+shop=convenience. Not completely wrong IMHO, but not 100% clean either, since "the speedway at the intersection of x and y" feels more like one entity that happens to be both, a gas station + convenience store.
jcarlson (2021-09-29 13:38:50+00:00): Oh, I do like that sub-area style. I think combined with an appropriate `indoor` tag could lead that to being very high-quality data, while still being accurate with respect to the building itself.
Looking on Taginfo, there does appear to be a modest overlap in indoor=* and shop=* (often with level=*, too). Well, I'm sold. I may try to replicate the style you've achieved at the Outlets with added indoor tagging around me. Thanks for the inspiration!

For multi-building situations, it's kind of a toss-up for me. A building MP still implies the business == the buildings. I know that in the case of hotels, it's acceptable to tag the hotel's "campus" with the tourism tag. And really, there's no rule that a `shop` or `amenity` feature must correspond strictly to a building. I'd be curious to see how users would react to the idea of a business way that covers the business' area rather than simply the building. But that's not a discussion for a changeset comment. I'll ping you on Discord and see what other users think about that.

Based on the raw numbers in Taginfo, only about 20% of all shop and restaurant features are combined with a `building` tag. In other areas I've edited, I tended to see more businesses as POIs than closed ways, which led me to think (perhaps mistakenly) that there was a "more common" approach. When you filter those features for ways only, though, nearly all (>90%) are combined with a building tag. And that's just globally, so it doesn't catch any regional differences.

Personally, I will probably still default to POIs unless I have the local knowledge to know that a building has no other use, or for strip malls, know where the internal dividing walls are roughly located. But I'll stick to either local knowledge edits or adding what's missing from here on out, so that I'm not just keeping other users like yourself busy.

Thanks for the feedback!
eggie (2021-09-28 17:52:55+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
PT-53 (2021-09-29 06:14:50+00:00): Hallo EinEngener,
diese Fläche
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370689582/history
überschneidet sich nach Deiner Überarbeitung selbst.
Gefunden mit OSMI:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=8.97249&lat=47.77235&zoom=17&opacity=0.34&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points

Bitte berichtigen.

Verbesserungen in Karlsruhe ???
Bierphysik (2025-02-09 10:30:28+00:00): Hmmm. Ich finde das tagging etwas unpassend. Wenn da wirklich nur noch die Schneie ist, dann gerne das cutline, aber dann bitte an die highway spezifischen tags auch lifecycle tags dran.
eggie (2021-09-28 15:41:05+00:00): Beste gitaarik.. 
Tip... 
Het beste kun je bijtaggen op de adresnodes. Dus niet op de gebouwomtrek zelf.
Ook niet nogmaals het adres aanmaken. Dat is al aanwezig.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-09-28 15:47:22+00:00): De info heb ik verplaatst naar de adresnode.. De BAG data hersteld.

MVG
eggie
GinaroZ (2022-02-10 12:10:02+00:00): Not sure why you removed the car parks, retail area and details inside Asda - but I've added them back.
Mundilfari (2021-09-29 02:38:02+00:00): are you sure that the whole shopping ctr is unit 123 (including the petsmart, tjmaxx, great clips and liza nail spa)?
jcarlson (2021-09-29 03:17:00+00:00): D'oh! Bonehead mistake on my part! Sorry about that, that was just sloppy.
Mundilfari (2021-09-29 04:17:32+00:00): No worries; thanks for verifying. Just fixed it.
Olga | Yanosik (2021-10-03 21:26:18+00:00): Uprzejma prośba o usuwanie oznaczeń remontowych, np. construction:end_date i construction=tertiary, skoro utrudnienie zakończyło się. 
Dziękuję, pozdrawiam
Olga
StefanHRT (2021-09-28 16:32:37+00:00): Hello,
When you copy properties from ways, please look what you copy. In this case it is specifically about the sidewalks ;) (is_sidepath:of and is_sidepath:of:name ) It would be bad if wrong names are announced during routing ;)
VLD032 (2021-09-28 16:54:23+00:00): Hello!
I went back through those tags, and removed the incorrect tags so they better match what roads they are following. Thanks for the advice!