piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
TheDude05 (2020-01-21 20:24:53+00:00): It not only has inroads in Germany it also has branches in the UK, Ukraine, Canada, and the Baltic States.  They have been responsible for at least 7 murders one of which was a openly gay Jew who was targeted, kidnapped, and stabbed over 20 times.  Atomwaffen has also made threats against the Royal Family in the UK, politicians in Germany, and most recently members planned mass shooting in Virginia.  While it might have once had a different meaning one should rethink such a name in an open and collaborative environment such as OSM as it could easily scare away or intimidate mappers that belong to groups that are vulnerable to the violence and hate that atomwaffen espouses.

Cheers.
user_6771650 (2020-09-28 02:40:43+00:00): I'm reverting this. It's low-quality, and it's copied from a map that might not even hap a compatible license.
TheDude05 (2020-09-28 03:01:50+00:00): It's not copied but through GIS processes it is derived from a public domain map which is 100% compatible because it has no license whatsoever.  Secondly this is a way of deriving land cover that is used in many maps by professionals.  Thirdly you should not be reverting something without having a thorough conversation with the person who made the edit and you should take into account whether or not you are local enough to make that call.  Cool your jets and mind your own area of the map
TheDude05 (2020-09-28 03:02:59+00:00): Near as I can tell Jersey is a long ways away from Coke County Texas
SomeoneElse (2020-10-24 18:45:16+00:00): Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here.
I'm writing this to address some of the issues that have been raised above.
Firstly, it;s clearly an import.  The source says "Texas Natural Resources Information System raster ran through QGIS for conversion and cleaning, Mapbox Satellite" and some of the data ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/699813945 is a random example) clearly doesn't match the underlying Mapbox Satellite imagery.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines has a number of steps in it.  "License approval" is one of those, but before that is "Community Buy-in".  It's important to discuss with the community whether any import like this is beneficial, and it doesn't look like that discussion has hapepend in this case.
Given that it does appear to be a low quality import I'd support the suggested revert here, after that's been done it me be possible to look at the available data and see how closely it resemebles the real world - it might be that some classes of features are a good fit and some are not, and an import could usefully be done (after community discussion and approval of course) after that.
@ppjj if you get any problems with the revert please let us (the DWG) know and we'll see if we can help.
@TheDude05 if you've got any further questions then by all means reply here or email OSM's Data Working Group at data@osmfoundation.org .
Best Regards,
Andy, from the DWG
TheDude05 (2020-10-24 19:01:30+00:00): Hi Andy,

I don't feel that this qualifies as an import due to how removed it is from the source material, generally speaking imports don't go through transitions except those necessary for it to be recognized by the map (tags, relations, sometimes simplification).  As for a license there isn't one because the work is a derivative of public domain data.  So there is no need for license issues.  As for your Mapbox satellite idea we do know that these types of area are generalizations of underlying vegetation right?  I mean not every single spot in a forest has a tree right?  It's a basic geographical principle though that areas adjacent to others have similar properties correct?  What this has come down to is some popular people, probably some friends of yours, have taken a subjective taste issue with this and none of them live near the area in question or have any connection to it.  Essentially you are enforcing someone's personal opinion on the changeset rather than any objective criteria.  If that's the case, as the above comments have readily admitted, then feel free to revert it but just admit the reason your are doing it is subjective rather than try to cloak it in some form of official rule that we know doesn't really exist.  It's this kind of attitude from fellow mappers that discourages people from making edits and contributing in the long run to the map.
TheDude05 (2020-10-24 19:04:27+00:00): I love this idea that proven processes of land classification made by professionals in the field are somehow suspect and erroneous to the self appointed gate keepers of the map or their niche interests.
SomeoneElse (2020-10-24 21:01:21+00:00): @TheDude05 Re "As for your Mapbox satellite idea we do know that these types of area are generalizations of underlying vegetation right?"  Yes, of course - one key question is whether those generalisations are any good or not.  That's why it's important to discuss with the rest of the community.  Areas where one sort of vegetation blends into another can be tricky to classify and there's often lots of discussion.  Right now there's a discussion in the Spanish OSM community about how to classify dehesas - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-es/2020-October/017449.html , which are a different sort of thing, but present similar problems.
Re "Essentially you are enforcing someone's personal opinion" - actually, quite the reverse - I'm asking you to discuss this import with the rest of the OSM community before proceeding.
TheDude05 (2020-10-24 21:27:35+00:00): Again by the definitions and rules of imports as I have read them and as have been spoken about in other groups I still don't feel this is an import based on those definitions.  You may disagree and since you sit on the DWG what you do is your decision.  I honestly am at the point where you and the other natural area editors who have complained about this method (again a method I have used and seen used in professional GIS work) have made me stop caring about mapping an area that is important to my family and my family's heritage.  All from people who live many hundreds of miles away.
SomeoneElse (2020-10-24 22:18:50+00:00): What makes you think that this is not an import?
TheDude05 (2020-10-24 22:39:30+00:00): I created the data using GIS processing tools, I hand edited in JOSM, there is no license to public domain maps.  It is no different than having a friend collect GPS points, processing them in other software, and then loading them into JOSM and fine tuning the data through hand edits.  You have made up your mind that you are going to let it be reverted on the subjective grounds laid forth by others so just do it and be done with it.  Just know these heavy handed approaches by people with no relation with the area will make it harder to recruit local mappers.
TheDude05 (2020-10-24 23:01:19+00:00): Let's do a hypothetical to see why you believe this is an import.  Let's say I go to a museum and while there I notice a map on display showing historical trails between the California Missions that was made during the time of St. Junipero Serra.  Now I take a high resolution photo of this map.  I bring that home and georeference it in QGIS, rasterize it, extract the trail cells, convert them to linestrings, smooth and simplify them, bring that file into JOSM, check them against the photo of the map that they are generally in the right place and have never been mapped before, tag them and then upload the changeset.  Would you consider that an import?  If so one could argue that almost any new data added to the map is an import.  How would that be different in the case of this changeset?
SomeoneElse (2020-10-25 07:52:50+00:00): > Would you consider that an import?
Yes, based on your description of the process and the definition on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import "Importing is the process of uploading external data to OSM".  In this case you're doing exactly that - copying everything from a map in a museum to OSM.  The problems associated with importing your hypothetical museum map are different to the TNRIS import here (the museum map data might be out of date, or not very accurate due to the tools available to the original mapmaker, or badly rectified by you) but it'd still need to be discussed with the community before importing.  Using the museum map as one source among many when adding trails to OSM would of course _not_ be an import.
>  If so one could argue that almost any new data added to the map is an import.
No, if you use the TNRIS data as one source among many to draw from it isn't.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability may be a help here.  Other sources might be "I've been here, and I know that this river has moved" or "there's other imagery available to OSM that suggests that vegetation patterns have changed since the TNRIS data was created".
Allison P (2021-04-22 23:59:08+00:00): There's been discussion about reverting this changeset, but no such thing has occurred.
TheDude05 (2021-04-23 01:03:49+00:00): Probably because the discussion hasn't lead to a confident conclusion.  If a member of the DWG dropped it then it should probably be left alone by others who are not in geographic proximity to the area as well but feel free to bump it up the chain and we will see what happens.
ZeLonewolf (2021-06-22 02:27:16+00:00): Hi, this is a courtesy note to let everyone know that I've reverted this land cover import.  We discussed this on Slack and concluded that there were considerable quality issues (which appear to be artifacts of your generalization approach) with this undiscussed import which warranted its removal.

We invite you to revise your process, and would welcome an import of land cover data, provided that the import guidelines are followed:
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines)

It is a requirement to discuss large-scale changes with the community; this can be done on the talk-us mailing list, the imports mailing list, or on the #imports channel of the OpenStreetMap US Slack.  The US community looks forward to working with you in a constructive way!
TheDude05 (2021-06-22 02:34:54+00:00): Just to satisfy my curiosity under what authority did you revert my dataset, how many people on slack agreed, and what percentage of total mappers would this consensus constitute if it was only a slack discussion used as your authority?  I would also point out that the import guidelines need some updating with firmer definitions as one could construe uploading data collected in Vespucci as an import based on the definitions provided.
compdude (2021-06-22 03:28:45+00:00): Here's the link to the Slack thread where this was discussed: https://app.slack.com/client/T029HV94T/CCJ2P6KCH/thread/CCJ2P6KCH-1624314522.088100

I didn't participate in this discussion but you can see that most of the people who participated in that discussion agreed that the data quality was poor (I would agree with that myself), and that seems to be the main reason why it was reverted. 

I'm sorry if you feel that the definition of what is an import isn't clear. I'd agree that this does meet the definition of an import since you took an already-existing data source and imported it into OSM. It doesn't matter that you may have modified the data a bit (this is often necessary anyway), but you are taking an external data source and bringing it into OSM.
TheDude05 (2021-06-22 03:38:12+00:00): Again by that definition of an outside data source being an import I could use a handheld gps and bring those points into JOSM and that would be considered an import.
It seems that there isn't a very defined nature to the process which is a shame.
I asked how many people, what authority, and what percentage of the whole. Were there any Texans?  Anybody from remotely close to the area? This sounds like some people on slack (not even the mailing list) decided and that was that.  Doesn't exactly seem like a very good process especially since there are other areas that match your concerns that aren't being reverted.
compdude (2021-06-22 04:03:47+00:00): The difference is that an import is bringing in data to OSM that was created by someone other than you, usually like a governmental source as is the case here, as opposed to GPS data which you would have most likely collected yourself. And using the aerial imagery to trace landcover isn't an import because you're creating the data yourself and interpreting what the aerial imagery shows.

Also, can you provide examples of "other areas that match [my]
 concerns that aren't being reverted"?
TheDude05 (2021-06-22 04:59:02+00:00): Ah but this data I have created myself using tools in the same way as your example so how is it an import?

Look at other vegetation areas and you will see discontinuity, holes, and areas that claim a vegetation but don't have it as well.  Georgia has been mentioned and I've seen it in others too.  I looked at different vegetation areas on the map prior to doing this changeset to see if it stood up to others.  I believe this still comes down to personal preference.  Hopefully the chap who did the revert went back and checked to make sure it didn't leave artifacts since I had made corrections and edits in subsequent changesets.  

From what I can see of this process is a few of you on slack decided you did not like the edit.  You failed to reach out to the broader community through the mailing list to reach a consensus. Then when challenged backup was called to make it seem like in the comments there was a consensus and one person did a revert under his own authority. DWG has been on this changeset before and they didn't do a revert so either they didn't deem it important or they found some logic in my defense.  DWG should have been the one to do a revert but that didn't work so here we are.  What's done is done and no manner of explanation or excuse will make this 'process' seem to be anything else than at best 5-10 people railroading over a local editor from hundreds of miles away.
compdude (2021-06-22 05:11:26+00:00): But the fact that you claim to have used an external data source, (TX National Resources Information System) as opposed to just tracing from aerial imagery, is what makes this an import. If it isn't an import, why did you indicate that an external government data source was used?
Minh Nguyen (2021-06-22 06:51:05+00:00): Documentation and consensus is the standard for bulk additions of data into OSM, not for backing out undiscussed bulk edits. Large-scale edits have been summarily reverted countless times in the past, not necessarily by anyone in a position of authority. What sets Coke County apart is only that it took a couple years for anyone to get around to it.

This does not need to be an adversarial situation. It could be an opportunity to make improvements to the data processing and redo the import while engaging with the broader mapper community according to the import guidelines. It’s quite rare to have the opportunity to cleanly refine and update an import years after the initial import.

Granted, it’s more work than you may have bargained for, but as someone who recently voluntarily followed the import guidelines for something that wasn’t even technically an import, I’d say it does lead to better results long-term.
ovruni (2019-06-26 03:47:59+00:00): Hola
En esta edición se esta eliminando un nodo y una via no relacionados con lo edificios agregados. Por lo cual procedo a reverirlo. Para cualquier consulta sobre como mapear https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Per%C3%BA#Comunidad
Saludos
ToniE (2019-06-26 09:09:35+00:00): Hi ManOfSteal,

you're right with tagging it as a path - in theory.

I live there and actually the street looks like a normal residential road with limited access for motor_vehicles - one must not cross Ganghoferstraße or J-S.Bach-Straße to reach a different segment of Eichendorffstraße, ...

This street has also actually been tagged from residential to path to residential to (even) living_street and ... residentiual and now to path ... (see v30 of the 3rd highway here).

Conclusion in the past was: keep it as residential even if there are those traffic signs  - also because of the various service/driveway connected to these.

I would tagged this as residential, similar to a bicycle_road=yes on highway=residential when the status of the road is similar to a normal residential road.

Br
Toni
ToniE (2019-07-11 18:52:57+00:00): Hi ManOfSteal,

as you did not reply to my last mail, I assume there are no objections to what I said. It is common sense for local mappers here to have it as 'residential'.

I will re-tag the Eichendorff-Straße back to residential in the next days, adding an appropriate comment to leave that as 'residential'.

Best regards,
Toni
ToniE (2019-07-22 20:15:20+00:00): Hi ManOfSteal,

ich werde die Straße nun wieder als residential mappen.

Ein Blick auf

http://osmtools.de/traffic_signs/?signs=240,1020-30

mit dem dort enthaltenen Hinweis

"Aufgrund von "Anlieger frei" eventuell als highway=residential oder service einzustufen."

hat mich darin bestärkt.

Viele Grüße
Toni
viloan (2019-06-26 03:43:22+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 você está mapeando por causa do jogo do Harry Potter, as dicas e explicações na página anterior também são úteis para você.

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!
rivermont (2019-09-03 12:19:55+00:00): Hi,
Please be careful doing large edits like this. Way 426818887 is a boundary, not a track road, which is quite obvious from any imagery layer.
Thanks
PlazaBaquedano (2019-09-04 02:41:28+00:00): Hi rivermont,
Thanks for reaching out. I will remove the track tags from the boundary features and will be sure to review imagery before making these changes in the future
Glassman (2019-06-26 13:34:06+00:00): Nice updates. Only one that doesn't make sense is the building changed into indoor=room? Not sure what that is? Can you help me understand what you are trying to describe?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/71620945
DenOrangeMannen (2019-07-13 03:38:28+00:00): It's basically a small building with a locked fence door that houses all the mailboxes for the complex.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/71620945
Glassman (2019-07-13 04:59:39+00:00): That sounds like building=yes. There might be a better subcategory, but building=yes sounds appropriate. Check out taginfo.openstreetmap.org for a full list of building values.
JJIglesias (2019-06-26 05:03:57+00:00): Por favor las construcciones hay que Ortogonalizarlas, la vista del satelite NO es Cenital (Vertical) sino Angular (Lateral Alto), las construcciones NO estan deformadas, usualmente son cuadrados y rectangulos simetricos, en el editor ID puedes usar el ""Shift+S"" para que el programa lo haga (Tocas click derecho en tu mouse y te sale un cuadrado, si lo tocas el sistema ""cuadricula"" la figura, mas proporcional a la realidad) 

Gracias
Frans S (2019-06-29 11:51:39+00:00): Hi, Thanks for mapping here. A request.
When mapping/adjusting a highway and that highway crosses a stream or river, please tag a crossing on that point
best regards
St_Kilda (2019-07-03 12:06:28+00:00): Thanks, Frans S. I have added the relevant tag here as highway crosses a stream.
GOwin (2019-06-29 03:38:22+00:00): Hi @GrabPHVicPuno. Kindly review your other edits where you've been adding barriers as ways which is breaking routability of the affected roads. 

These POIs are better mapped as nodes. 

If you have questions, feel free to get in touch with the local community: https://osm.org/wiki/PH/channels
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/71621700
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-01-29 00:06:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 80223378 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some mechanical edits that included the WV-based Ginos Pizza and Spaghetti.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72812470 for details
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-01-29 00:06:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 80223378 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some mechanical edits that included the WV-based Ginos Pizza and Spaghetti.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72812470 for details
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-01-29 00:06:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 80223378 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some mechanical edits that included the WV-based Ginos Pizza and Spaghetti.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72812470 for details
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-01-29 00:06:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 80223378 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some mechanical edits that included the WV-based Ginos Pizza and Spaghetti.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72812470 for details
maraf24 (2019-07-17 08:23:47+00:00): Nie ma 455 na tym odcinku.
maraf24 (2019-07-17 08:25:47+00:00): A formalnie to 455 w ogóle nie ma we Wrocławiu.
szalona_entropia (2019-07-17 15:16:30+00:00): Nie będzie od 1 stycznia 2020 jak wejdą odpowiednie uchwały.
Drogowskaz [455] Oława kieruje przez ulicę Wystawową, więc powinno tam secondary.
szalona_entropia (2019-07-17 15:24:54+00:00): Inaczej mamy niespójność sieci.
maraf24 (2019-07-17 18:31:16+00:00): Sieć jest spójna, nie ma przerw. 455 jest tylko na Mickewicza, więc na pewno refu nie można dać Wystawowej.
Część pojazdów musi, by nie korkować mostu skrętem w lewo, na chwilę zjechać z 455, ale i tak ten pomijany odcinek Mickiewicza jest dwukierunkowy, wszak autobusu i tramwaje normalnie tam skręcają.
Czy tam powinno być secondary -już się nad tym kiedyś zastanawiałem - i dałem wtedy tertiary, bo nie zauważyłem specjalnego obłożenia tej drogi.
maraf24 (2019-07-17 18:33:32+00:00): Dzięki za zwrócenie uwagi, że drogi woj. znikną dopiero od 2020.
szalona_entropia (2019-07-25 18:52:50+00:00): Ten odcinek nie jest normalnie dwukierunkowy, bo jest zakaz wjazdu z wyjątkiem komunikacji miejskiej.
Zwyczajni użytkownicy dróg muszą jechać przez Wystawową. W związku z tym, Wystawowa powinna mieć taki sam highway jak reszta DW455, bo inaczej to nie ma sensu.
maraf24 (2019-07-25 21:24:56+00:00): Odcinek jest dwukierunkowy, bo nie ma żadnych zakazów dla samochodód jadących w drugą stronę, tj. ul. Wajdy w stronę mostu. One mogą skręcać w prawo w Mickewicza. A przy skrzyżowaniu z Wystawową mają nawet pierwszeństwo.
Taka to DW z tej Wystawowej.
szalona_entropia (2019-07-26 09:45:01+00:00): To wytłumacz mi jeszcze w jaki sposób mam dojechać z placu Grunwaldzkiego do Wojnowa trzymając się drogi "secondary"
maraf24 (2019-07-26 10:38:12+00:00): Dlaczego chcesz się trzymać secondary? Nie istnieje taki wymóg, żadna nawigacja też tego nie potrzuje.
szalona_entropia (2019-07-26 11:35:49+00:00): Dlaczego skoro jadąc z punktu A do B jadę po secondary, to jadąc z punktu B do A mam jechać tertiary?
Jeśli nie widzisz problemu, to wyobraź sobie, że punkty A i B łączy droga dwujezdniowa. I teraz z Twoim podejściem jedną jezdnię oznaczamy secondary, a druga tertiary.
Gdzie u jest jakiś sens i logika? Ja nie widzę.