piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse (2019-06-30 08:35:05+00:00): Hello alivelis,
Thanks for that.
Regards,
Andy
Mammi71 (2022-09-01 07:22:15+00:00): Hallo north, darf ich mal nachfragen, woher Du die Bezeichnung Schwedenschanze hast und warum genau dort lokalisiert, mitten im Wasser?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3776045046/history
Akkurator (2019-07-06 21:29:46+00:00): separaten POI für Firma angelegt
Jarek 🚲 (2019-10-28 01:23:19+00:00): This edit, and many others, have been partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76279772 by deleting the railway=proposed ways
SomeoneElse (2019-06-28 14:36:25+00:00): Hello,
What was the source of the access tag change here?
Best Regards,
Andy
rmmunnan (2019-06-30 05:43:16+00:00): Hi Andy,

Since the service roads with in the building had vehicles parked, added motor_vehicle tag to these roads. 
As per community feedback reverted my changes. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions.

Changeset: 
71748486

 Regards,
rmmunnan
SomeoneElse (2019-06-30 08:37:21+00:00): Hello rmmunnan,
Thanks for that.
Regards,
Andy
Leo Slager (2019-06-28 23:31:08+00:00): review:
Als de brug tijdelijk niet meer gebruikt kan worden zijn de juiste tags:
highway=construction
construction=footway.
Dan is het ook handig om op te nemen:
note=afgesloten voor verkeer tot
xx xx xxxx
nevw (2019-06-28 01:18:47+00:00): Hi
please use something like https://osmybiz.osm.ch/#/9/-27.49122/152.67700 to help adding your business in to the OSM with suitable tags.
abakus_uploader (2019-06-27 22:30:29+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
Nathan_A_RF (2019-08-14 11:37:09+00:00): The "Beesworth" name plate on the signs is a fictional place https://www.roads.org.uk/blog/theres-no-such-thing-beesworth
Welshie (2019-08-14 11:40:56+00:00): Ground truth rule applies. If the sign on the ground proclaims that the area is known as Beesworth, then it sort of is; If not, what's the residential development actually called, and where's the ground truth for that name?
kartonage (2019-06-30 00:10:18+00:00): Hej Patrick Laack und willkommen bei OSM,

du hast hier einen Freizeitpark eingetragen. Angesichts der Luftbilder habe ich daran so meine Zweifel, da man generell davon ausgehen sollte, dass hier Fahrgeschäfte und ein größeres Areal für so einen Freizeitpark vorhanden wären. Zumindest wäre das der Fall wenn man nach einem Freizeitpark suchen würde.

Vielleicht kann ich aber bei einem besseren Tagging des Unternehmens behilflich sein, leider habe ich nicht so richtig viele Informationen dazu gefunden. Vielleicht kannst du ja grob beschreiben was hier angeboten wird.

Schöne Grüße
Patrick Laack (2019-06-30 07:03:17+00:00): Hallo,

tatsächlich bin ich mit dem Tag selbst nicht zufrieden. Es gibt eine Attraktion für Kinder, einen Imbiss, Sitzgelegenheiten und Toiletten. Sozusagen ist Laackys Goldgrube ein Mini-Freizeitpark.

In der nächsten Woche geht die Website online, dann kannst du dir da einen besseren Eindruck verschaffen.

Schöne Grüße
Patrick Laack (2019-07-07 16:19:15+00:00): Hallo,

hier der Link http://laackys-goldgrube.de/

Schöne Grüße
BCNorwich (2019-06-27 17:20:22+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I see you've placed and joined the gift shop to the middle of Maxwell Road. I doubt it's supposed to be there, could you please correctly position it.

Need any help please just ask. Regards Bernard.
viloan (2019-06-27 12:29:22+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!
Kovoschiz (2019-06-27 15:53:30+00:00): Can you explain the point of deleting individual sidewalks, and merging separate crosswalks and their parts?
Kovoschiz (2019-06-27 15:54:34+00:00): Please notice the roads concerned have `sidewalk=separate` tagged.
Kovoschiz (2019-06-29 11:10:57+00:00): It's also incorrect to split turning roadways when there's no physical separation
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/71671496
Kovoschiz (2019-06-29 11:20:52+00:00): Bing imagery is said to be offset as well. Referring to other sources, your edit seems offseted
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/71671496
Kovoschiz (2019-06-29 11:22:56+00:00): (On a few roads)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/71671496
Kovoschiz (2019-06-29 11:55:15+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71734061
demon_box (2019-06-28 13:43:34+00:00): ciao, il civico non va mai messo sull'intero poligono dell'edificio perchè identifica soltanto l'entrata, quindi lo metti ad esempio su entrance=main oppure se non hai questa precisione d'informazione meglio un nodo a sè stante.
grazie
SomeoneElse (2019-06-28 14:21:15+00:00): Hello,
What was the source of your change to the access here?
Best Regards,
Andy
nmotupal (2019-07-02 10:17:03+00:00): Hi Andy,

The edits were made based on the possibility of our delivery partner traveling through this road. But with respect to the request from the community our team decided to revert all the access tags added by our team. Do let me know if you have any further questions on this edit.
Changeset #71777445
Regards,
nmotupal
SomeoneElse (2019-07-02 10:38:40+00:00): Hello,
Thanks for that.
Best Regards,
Andy
Akkurator (2019-07-06 21:26:08+00:00): Werbemüll entfernt, separaten POI angelegt.
PT-53 (2019-06-27 16:33:49+00:00): Hallo claudia10,
schau Dir doch bitte mal das Schloss Erbach in den Editoren ID oder JOSM mit Maps4BW (Wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maps4BW) als Hintergrund an. Das Schloß liegt in Wirklichkeit ca. 4,5 m weiter nordöstlich.
Grüße
PT-53 (2019-07-07 08:17:44+00:00): Hallo claudia10, 
korrigierst Du die Position von Schloss Erbach noch anhand MapsBW ?
Fragende Grüße
laznik (2019-06-27 14:17:45+00:00): Tag natural=wood vacsinou pouzivame pre polygon, nie pre nod. Pouzitie pre nod nie je sice zakazane, ale ak je tag na node, ten by mal byt vo vnutri polygony ktory je lesom. V tomto pripade tato podmienka zda sa nie je dodrzana, pretoze nod je umiestneny v polygone ktory ma tag pre luku. Mozte vysvetlit tento edit?
aceman444 (2019-07-02 05:38:32+00:00): Chlapik mozno hovori po anglicky (locale=en-GB) .
laznik (2019-07-02 06:12:53+00:00): Jeho nick naznacuje ze je to slovak, alebo bot. V kazdom pripade som to uz vymazal.
aceman444 (2019-07-02 15:24:33+00:00): Ano je to mozne.
santamariense (2019-06-28 12:10:57+00:00): Como este objeto [1] também é um prédio, eu complementaria com a tag building=yes
[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700132737
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/71672348
MarinhoV (2019-06-28 12:29:23+00:00): Boa!
user_5359 (2019-06-27 15:28:04+00:00): Is this a shop http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop or office http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:office or a craft http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:craft ?
A Hall (2022-02-03 19:39:43+00:00): I'm wondering if there was a reason to create this relationship when one already exists: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3340478/history
Richard (2022-02-03 20:20:09+00:00): Yes, this relation (not "relationship") is a bicycle route relation. The one you've pointed to is a railway relation.
SomeoneElse (2019-06-28 14:26:41+00:00): Hello,
What was the source for your changes to the access tags here?

Best Regards,
Andy
hkkollip (2019-07-01 10:19:54+00:00): Hi Andy,With reference to the motor vehicles parked in the satellite imagery added motor_vehicle access tags to this road. But as per community request reverting my changes. Do let me know if you have any further questions.
changeset-71778873
Regards,
hkkollip
SomeoneElse (2019-07-01 10:56:30+00:00): Hello,
Thanks for that.
Best Regards,
Andy.
xrooters (2019-06-27 14:00:41+00:00): Foxi
abakus_uploader (2019-06-27 22:30:28+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
trigpoint (2019-06-28 12:09:52+00:00): Please could you explain why you believe that this is public right of way for motor vehicles, despite existing tags saying that there isn't?
The existing ways are tagged as 
designation=public_footpath which is a legal definition indicating that this is most definitely not a right of way for motor vehicles.
There could well be private motor vehicle access here, for owners to access their properties or for those that they invite, such as someone delivering parcels.
Cheers Phil
mudunur (2019-07-02 02:16:53+00:00): Hi Phil,

Thanks for looking into this edit. As per your suggestion I reverted the motor_vehicle tags added to these roads. My team is working on coming up with adding proper access tags to these roads. Thanks for your suggestions.
changeset#71804490

Regards,
mudunur
Diógenes de Sinope (2019-10-03 18:13:30+00:00): Hi stevenLAD,

I simply wanted to let you know that I decided to reestablished a primary link road that wraps around 'Monumento do Soldado Desconhecido', I had previously established the road at that location but it was removed in this changeset

I felt reassured to do so because as I was reviewing street-level imagery that had been uploaded to Mapillary, I came across a sequence of images which clearly shows the primary link road in question, signs in the vecinity also reinforce the same aswell - [ https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-8.812694444444444&lng=13.230883333333333&z=17&pKey=iGI3emJ5WNjrune4RhTx-Q&focus=photo&signs=true&points=true&mapFeature%5B%5D=object--fire-hydrant&mapFeature%5B%5D=object--manhole&mapFeature%5B%5D=object--traffic-light--general-upright ]

regarding other concerns, you will have to excuse me for not having gotten back to some of your previous messages (I can sometimes be quite bad at that), the browser tabs where the messages are contained are lost among mirriad of other open tabs, I will get to them eventually
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-06-27 14:17:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 71674731 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a persistent sockpuppet in Rochester.  See block 2548 et al
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-29 06:58:50+00:00): Hello!

You used
barrier=y
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700147571/history

Have you maybe meant
barrier=yes
?

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?

If it is a mistake - can you fix it?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-06-27 14:17:26+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changeset 71674498.
ma-rt-in (2020-08-21 19:15:33+00:00): Hallo,
warum hast du aus Neustadt-Stadtmitte => Neustadt a.d. Weinstraße gemacht?
Dadurch haben wir nun Neustadt einmal über AL6 und über AL9 erfasst.
vg
user_10241830 (2020-08-21 20:20:10+00:00): Hallo,

es gibt in Neustadt keinen Stadtteil namens "Stadtmitte", die Beibehaltung einer Relation mit diesem Namen wäre also in jedem Fall falsch.

Die Diskussion hatten wir aber schon in Rockenhausen, wenn ich mich recht entsinne.
Nakaner (2020-08-22 09:58:51+00:00): Hallo,

ich zitiere https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3114:

"Dieser Account ist auf Wunsch des Inhabers gesperrt."

Die Antwort auf die Frage von ma-rt-in müssen wir ohne ihn finden.

Viele Grüße

Michael
SomeoneElse (2019-06-27 14:47:57+00:00): Hello,
What was the source of the access tag change here?
Best Regards,
Andy
jguthula (2019-06-27 17:54:45+00:00): Hi SomeoneElse,

Thanks for looking into this edit. This edit was made based on our delivery agent GPS traces. In general there are two types of track roads we come across everyday:
1. The track roads which cannot be used for motor vehicles transportation and 
2. The roads that are actually track roads but motor vehicles can travel through these roads.

So when ever our delivery agent can travel through this road we add motor_vehicle =yes. We do add private information when there is a valid source to prove it as a private road or else we will not touch the road. This is to make sure wrong information is not pushed from our team end.

Hope this answers your question. We are always looking forward to engage with local community and learn more from them. Please do let us know if there are any further concerns from our editing process.

Happy mapping!

Regards,
Jothirnadh
SomeoneElse (2019-06-27 17:58:25+00:00): What was the source of the access change in this particular case?
jguthula (2019-06-27 18:05:01+00:00): Hi SomeoneElse,

In Esri World Imagery Clarity Beta the parked vehicles were identified inside the building at the middle of the Farthing Drove and our delivery agent GPS traces also helped in deciding if motor_vehicles were allowed to this road or not.

Regards,
Jothirnadh
SomeoneElse (2019-06-27 19:11:35+00:00): That there are vehicles there identifies that it is physically accessible to motor vehicles, but "highway=track" implies that.  How do you know what the legal access rights are here?
jguthula (2019-06-28 11:03:20+00:00): Yes SomeoneElse, exactly because of this reason we decided not to convert the track road to a service road and instead we decided to add motor_vehicle=yes for these track roads. Since there is no street level imagery assigned for this road, we didn't add any of the legal access tags. If we have sources proving the legal access restrictions of this road, we will add that information to the roads as well. Do let us know if you think this is wrong. Would like to understand more and learn from your inputs. 

Regards,
Jothirnadh
SomeoneElse (2019-06-28 11:19:46+00:00): To be clear, "motor_vehicle=yes" IS a legal access tag.  If you've added that here without assessing the legal access situation, that's not correct and will need to be reverted.
pddondet (2019-07-02 13:07:10+00:00): Hi Andy,


Thanks for your suggestion. As per your request one of my team member  has reverting back my edits made on access tags. Do let me know if you have any further questions.

Changeset #71780369

Regards,
pddondet
Phyks (2019-06-27 15:50:48+00:00): Bonjour,

J'imagine que la piste cyclable "imaginaire" était ici pour permettre aux calculateurs d'itinéraire de faire passer le cycliste sur le trottoir pour rejoindre le Boulevard Eugène Deruelle.

Ceci dit, il y a l'allée de parking qui peut être utilisée à cette fin, elle partage un nœud commun avec la piste cyclable et le segment en question me semble donc bien inutile.

Je ne connais pas très bien le terrain, mais d'après les imageries aériennes, il pourrait être très utile de tracer le passage piéton au-dessus entre tous les axes en présence (en linéaire). Un peu comme https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/599406780 (sauf qu'il ne faut probablement pas mettre bicycle=designated, oneway:bicycle et segregated ici, s'il n'y a aucun marquage vélo).

N'hésitez pas si vous avez des questions sur mes remarques,
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-06-27 15:17:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 71676690 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a persistent sockpuppet in Rochester.  See block 2548 et al
Kovoschiz (2019-06-27 16:00:15+00:00): Please try to use JOSM's replace geometry instead of mass-deleting objects.
user_5359 (2019-06-29 12:40:38+00:00): Hello! Please could you explain the meaning of the keys adressepei, anomalie1, catpei, datadate, debit, dernierct, derniervi, diamcond, dispopei, insee, numcarto, numsdis, pression, typepei, volume ?
lmagreault (2019-06-29 18:50:28+00:00): Sorry. Wrong layer sent with Josm. Reverted. Thanks for your review.
mani100 (2019-12-08 19:08:16+00:00): Hallo slavey,
falls es sich bei Linie 155352960, v3
um eine Einfriedung des Gartenabfallplatzes handelt, ist "boundary=protected_area" nicht korrekt, das ist für Schutzgebiete gedacht.
Passend wäre dann da "barrier= ..."
Grüße
mani100
SomeoneElse (2019-06-28 13:52:45+00:00): Hello,
What was the source of the access change on here please?
Best Regards,
Andy
riteshaw (2019-06-30 08:22:12+00:00): Hi Andy,With reference to the motor vehicles parked in the satellite imagery,  added motor_vehicle access tags to these roads. But as per community request reverting my changes. Do let me know if you have any further questions.

Changeset #71750627

Regards,
riteshaw
SomeoneElse (2019-06-30 08:33:59+00:00): Hi Riteshaw,
Thanks for that.
Regards,
Andy
robert (2019-06-28 19:28:06+00:00): Sorry, I reverted this changeset with my changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71719440 as it was too destructive, leaving a large gap in Wood Lane and deleting roads like Danette Gardens entirely.
theArchDruid (2019-06-28 19:34:01+00:00): Interesting. My intention was merely to add lane information to some ways in this area. Massive overlook on my part that a segment of a primary road was deleted. I apologize and thank you for the help!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-06-27 15:17:27+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changeset 71675608.
SomeoneElse (2019-06-28 15:19:14+00:00): Hello,
What was the source of the access tag change here?
Best Regards,
Andy
rababdul (2019-06-30 10:27:42+00:00): Hi Andy,

I didn't add any motor vehicle tag in this case, but by mistake added a wrong changeset comment. I added a missing service road in this case and there is nothing related to motor vehicle tag. Will try not to repeat this mistake again.


Regards,
rababdul
SomeoneElse (2019-06-30 20:07:48+00:00): Hello,
Thanks for that,
Best Regards,
Andy
Korgi1 (2019-06-27 22:32:59+00:00): Ignore these please
SomeoneElse (2019-06-27 16:08:41+00:00): Before continuing to edit, could you answer the question on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71674971 first please?
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2019-06-27 16:10:31+00:00): I am particularly surprised that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114395509 is permissive access for foot traffic but "yes" for motor vehicle traffic.  This seems a very unlikely combination, and will need to be reverted if it turns out not to be accurate.
jguthula (2019-06-28 11:25:36+00:00): Hi SomeoneElse,

Thanks for looking into this edit. This edit was saved in iD just before blocking the user, so it got uploaded automatically once his account was unblocked. That is why the editors previous changeset was not answered before this edit. I personally had responded in the editors previous changeset as well.

Coming to this actual changeset, the edit was made on the main track road where multiple houses were associated and our delivery agents were allowed to travel through these roads using motor_vehicles. But during this edit by mistake the editor edited the adjacent small track road and by the time the mistake was realised and tried to fix the changes his account got blocked. 

We have considered this as a blunder and proper instructions were given to the editor for not repeating such errors in future. Please do let us know if there are any such mistakes from our end. We will consider them as serious issues and try to fix them as quick as possible and also work on improving our editing processes.

Regards,
Jothirnadh
jguthula (2019-06-28 11:27:09+00:00): Also corrected the wrong edit in this case: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71704269
SomeoneElse (2019-06-28 11:31:44+00:00): @jguthula Why are you answering questions that I am asking another mapper?  Your answers so far have been verbose, but unhelpful.  I would suggest that you let the conversation continue between the mappers creating the edits and the local community, so that we can help them understand how access rights work in England and Wales (it's complicated).
jguthula (2019-06-28 12:01:21+00:00): Hi SomeoneElse,

Thanks for your inputs. I will definitely love to implement your suggestion. Will have a larger discussion with the team and get back to you with inputs. 

This editor is working in my team so I am taking the responsibility for his edits and responding accordingly. The reason why we took this approach is to avoid information mis-match among our team members. All the changeset comments were shared with the entire team to go through and learn from the suggestions. Its nothing like I am trying to mislead the editors in this particular case.

Please do provide your inputs on how the access rights work in England and Wales. But since we are falling under organised editing, it would be great if the information is shared across the group rather than a single editor.

Regards,
Jothirnadh
SomeoneElse (2019-06-28 12:19:26+00:00): @Jothirnadh Following the organised editing guidelines doesn't absolve any mapper from the responsibility of responding to the rest of the community.
pddondet (2019-07-02 11:07:28+00:00): Hi Andy,


Thanks for looking into my edit and requesting for my response. During the whole conversation I was looped in by my team and the comments were posted only after communicating to me. Sorry for a bit of mis-communication earlier. Going forward I will directly communicate with the changeset comments. As explained earlier, I clearly understand the errors that were made by me. I reverted those changes. Do let me know if there are any other concerns with the edits that were made in this changeset.

Changeset #71732788
Changeset #71704269
Changeset #71816993

Regards,
pddondet
SomeoneElse (2019-07-02 12:03:22+00:00): Thanks.
I'm not familiar with the area so I can't say that (say) the permissive tags on all of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700166782/history are correct.  Maybe if you ask someone who added one of the original nodes they'll be able to help?
Best Regards,
Andy
pddondet (2019-07-02 12:53:48+00:00): Thanks for you inputs Andy, I will definitely do that. Will closely verify the area once again and then action upon accordingly.

Regards,
pddondet