piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
JoeGrim (2021-06-07 22:04:37+00:00): When I was up there yesterday, I saw a bunch of No Trespassing signs at the location where I marked the trail becomes private.  I checked with the county GIS website, and found where the property boundaries are, and updated the trail on here.  I also searched for the landowner online and found out about the land swap that happened in 2019.  (The inholding just to the southwest of Crosier is now USFS land, while the former USFS strip with most of the eastern portion of this trail is now private.)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105980384
tekim (2021-06-07 22:12:40+00:00): Great research and documentation! It would be interesting to know who built that trail, as I don't think it was the USFS.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105980384
JoeGrim (2021-06-07 22:30:52+00:00): Yeah, I wish I knew who makes trails like these that I find on Strava heatmaps.  I also wonder what the USFS thinks of them.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105980384
sander79 (2021-06-08 07:17:00+00:00): Hoi pcmill,

het toevoegen van een voetpad als deze direct naast de weg ligt is niet nodig. (en zelfs niet wenselijk qua routeerbaarheid)

Op de weg zelf kan je met sidewalk key aangeven waar het voetpad ligt
pcmill (2021-06-10 12:31:02+00:00): Ok, goed om te weten!
JeroenvanderGun (2021-06-21 16:37:24+00:00): Inderdaad nergens een bord G3 (C9+C16 de stad uit, G2 de stad in), maar één bord G4 is dapper blijven hangen (toegegeven, dat is wat weinig bewijsmateriaal voor highway=trunk).

https://www.wegenforum.nl/viewtopic.php?p=516306#p516306
PT-53 (2021-06-08 07:53:23+00:00): Hallo FloToHu,
Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz auf dieses Gebäude
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108526186/history
nochmal ein Gebäude oben drauf eingezeichnet:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/951995145/history
und beide mit
building=university
markiert. Da ist jetzt ein Gebäude innerhalb eines Gebäudes. Das ist falsch. Auch sollten Daten wie name=* nicht doppelt eingetragen werden.

Wenn Du ein 3-D-Modell machen möchtest, mußte Du für den Gebäudeteil auf dem Dach statt
building=university
das Merkmal
building:part=yes
verwenden

Wiki - DE:Simple 3D Buildings
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Simple_3D_Buildings

3-D-Modellierung ist teiweise sehr sehr aufwendig.
Für die Bussenkirche in 3-D
- https://osmbuildings.org/?lat=48.16175&lon=9.55493&zoom=18.8&tilt=45&rotation=-66
- https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=48.1617046&lon=9.5550024&zoom=19
werden diese Daten benötigt:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/48.16173/9.55514&layers=D

Auch dauert es teilwese sehr lange (mehre Tage bzw. Wochen), bis neue 3-D-Objekte auf den speziellen Karten gerendert werden:
- OSM Buildings:
https://osmbuildings.org/?lat=48.09368&lon=9.78730&zoom=18.6&tilt=45&rotation=-21
- F4map:
https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=48.0939319&lon=9.7873247&zoom=19&camera.phi=18.793

Grüße
FloToHu (2021-06-08 14:12:19+00:00): Stimmt, für den D5 Trakt und die Aufzüge paßt es. Passe es gleich an. Problematisch finde ich die Dächer. Das wird noch mal tricky. Da ist dann Gebäude A mit dem Flachdach noch einfach :-)
mueschel (2021-06-10 11:54:54+00:00): Hi,
you used many different keys for railway crossing here. Please use only those tags that are documented in the Wiki or are provided as presets in your editor.
I edited several of your nodes, please check the others.
deepikja (2021-06-08 17:36:17+00:00): Hi,
I see that you have changed small part of the residential road into cyclepath with emergency access. I would like to confirm https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5021927 if this segment still remains as one way because with the cylepath at one end there is no traffic flowing on these roads.Request you to please make the required edit or let me know I will be happy to make the changes.
Regards,
Deepikja.
ramthelinefeed (2021-06-08 18:14:09+00:00): Hi there - yes I think motor traffic can still only exit from Mount Nod Road onto Leigham Court Road, not enter.
The single point of access to Mount Nod Road for motor vehicles is now via Mountearl Gardens?
deepikja (2021-06-09 06:26:03+00:00): Hi,
We are unaware of the ground reality but the current edit is blocking vehicular traffic to the school and other entities. We are thinking the placement of the nodal filter is little offset.I will add a note in OSM to update local mappers on the same. Please try to correct (if any) from your end too. 
Regards,
Deepikja.
ramthelinefeed (2021-06-09 08:34:47+00:00): Sorry yes, looking at it again now, I had put the new 'modal filter' next to the wrong junction. I have corrected it now.  Thank you very much for spotting it!
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2022-08-24 21:00:28+00:00): لماذا تم إزالة اسم قرية العدوة وتحويل نوع المكان ؟
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7730447073/history
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2022-08-24 21:02:12+00:00): تم عكس هذا التغيير هنا:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/125333072
BCNorwich (2021-06-08 06:32:48+00:00): Hi, I've reverted this changeset as it only dragged existing ways out of line, as per the warnings given above. Please check and correct any warnings before uploading. 

Regards Bernard.
Glassman (2021-06-08 00:05:56+00:00): Can you help me understand what you did? It appears that the ferry route from shaw island/Orcas to Friday Harbor was removed.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105981025
Glassman (2021-06-11 00:30:23+00:00): frederkw1 if I don't hear back from you, I'll likely revert this changeset.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105981025
BCNorwich (2021-06-08 06:35:11+00:00): Hi, I've reverted this changeset as it only dragged existing ways out of line, as per the warnings given above. Please check and correct any warnings before uploading.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2021-06-08 06:32:35+00:00): Hi, I've reverted this changeset as it only dragged existing ways out of line, as per the warnings given above. Please check and correct any warnings before uploading. 

Regards Bernard.
G1asshouse (2021-06-19 08:49:04+00:00): FYI: access tags are for legal access not usability.

As far as I know, the University is O.K. with bicycles along this way/steps. Though, I think it is safe to say that the University isn't O.K. with riding a bike up or down the stairs. Therefore, maybe "access=dismount" might be the appropriate tag.
austinsnow (2021-07-22 14:59:41+00:00): I'm fine with an access=dismount tag, sure. Though I'm certainly not going to go through and label all steps with that tag.

I am aware that access tags are based on what is legal. But if that is taken to extreme, it creates havoc. Bicycle tags are incredibly important for knowing where bikes can ride around the city, and when stairs are labeled with a bike tag simply because it is legally permitted to ride down the stairs, it royally screws up a cyclist's route-finding, and is a safety concern (I would recall you back to Brian Fairweather's death).

Besides, if we rely only on what is technically legal, shall we put a horse=yes tag onto all city stairs too?
G1asshouse (2021-07-26 01:42:02+00:00): "shall we put a horse=yes tag onto all city stairs too?"
Yes. If it is legal then yes.

The concerns you are expressing appears to be a routing program issue and not an OSM database issues. It is reasonable to expect a trip routing program identifies stairs (independent of legal restrictions) as a way type that a bicycle rider would either want to avoid or would wish to be warned about, ahead of time. A routing program that only routes using access tags is not only a poorly designed program but also dangerous one. The same logic applies to surface types.

When the access tag is used to apply a subjective usability, it becomes impossible for the routing program or the rider to make their own choice on the most appropriate/desired route to take, even when that legal route is difficult, dangerous, or a dismount area. Different riders have different needs. Gravel riders, distance riders, daily riders, etc. all have different routing needs/wants. If a set of stairs, a short gravel path, or a steep grade are legally accessed by bicycles yet is either marked bike=no (or is default no due to way type) then we rob the routing program from accuracy/flexibility and we rob the rider from knowing their legal rights and we steal their personal autonomy.

On a personal note, I use OSMAND and it gives me the following cycle routing options; “no unpaved roads”/”no stairs”/”avoid footways”/”no cobblestone or sett”. Bad access tags directly affects OSMAND’s ability to route me in a way that I’m asking it too.

With all do respect of the deceased, what does Brian Fairweather's accident have to do with access tags in OSM? From my understand, Mr. Fairweather’s accident was the result of not being familiar with the route and low visibility of a set of stairs. I don't know the details, was Mr. Fairweather’s death a result of an erroneously instruction, by a routing program, to ride down the stairs?
austinsnow (2021-07-26 02:39:40+00:00): Wow. "All stairs should have a bicycle=yes tag" is the hill you're going to die on? I find this incredible.

But as pedantry must be met with pedantry, let me change my argument.

According to Section 11.44.120 of the Seattle Traffic Code, "Every person operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk or public path shall operate the same in a careful and prudent manner and a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of pedestrian traffic, grade and width of sidewalk or public path, and condition of surface...."

Stairways are public paths. Riding a bike down a stairway is easily argued to not be careful and prudent.

And if you argue that this is UW property, and their rules and not the city's rules apply, then please review the Bicycle Rules & Safety posted by UW Transportation Services. Under Rights & Responsibilities, it lists "Unsafe/negligent action" as an infraction you can be cited for.

I am not aware of any other city or UW code that specifically calls out bicycles on stairs, just like there aren't specific call-outs for bicycles on walls or cars or benches. They don't have to be that pedantic when they make the rules, because the general public knows not to ride bicycles on stairs. And the "reasonable & prudent" or "unsafe/negligent" rules cover people that do. Yes, there may be times where a skilled rider could be argued to ride stairs safely (with spotters or other pedestrian protections), but we do not have an OSM tag for "bicycle=spotters required".

In summary, please do not label any further stairs with a bicycle=yes tag unless there is bike-specific infrastructure on the stairs, though if it is a runnel, then "dismount" would be more appropriate. Riding bicycles on stairs, except in rare situations, is likely illegal both under UW and Seattle rules.
G1asshouse (2021-07-26 10:19:54+00:00): “...the hill you're going to die on?”
Do not get this twisted. You are the one refusing to tag in a way that conforms to the OSM community wishes.

“But as pedantry must be met with pedantry...” I don’t care for you to like me. I don’t care that you don’t agree with me. I don’t care that you argue passive-aggressively. Counter to your assertion, I care about following the spirit of the project and the agreed upon tag definitions. I do not care about being pedantic (unless you mean acting like a male schoolteacher.) I do care and insist that you grant other members of this project a minimum level of respect. I insist that when you are confronted with an edit that running foul of the communities wishes, that you have the humility to accept your mistake or the patience to take the conflict to the OSM mailing list and attempt to come to a new community consensus. So then we can move forward with a mutual understanding and even better a mutually agreed upon standard. This, I feel, is core to OSM being and continuing to be a successful project.

“you argue that this is UW property, and their rules and not the city's rules apply”
I don’t argue that. The University argues that.

This riding down stairs is a side point that I didn’t even argue. I mentioned that there does not seem to be a legal restriction to riding down stairs and the access tags are related to legal rights. Therefore, bike=yes should be left alone until you (or someone else) can demonstrate that it is illegal.

“we do not have an OSM tag for "bicycle=spotters required".”
Propose it. My first and only post to the mailing list will be in support of this tag.

“In summary, please do not label any further stairs with a bicycle=yes tag”
That tag was added 14 years ago by someone else. I do not recall tagging “bicycle=yes” on any stairs but I will do so if I feel it is the correct tag. I will not tag incorrectly just because you demand it of others.

“bicycle=yes tag unless there is bike-specific infrastructure on the stairs”
This, right here, is the entire reason this “conversation” has occurred. Access tags, such as “bicycle=yes” is for legal access and is independent of the features of the stairs. Bike infrastructure does not speak to legal access and legal access does not speak to bike infrastructure. You are tagging in a way that is not congruent with the way the OSM community requests editors to tag in.

“Riding bicycles on stairs, except in rare situations, is likely illegal...”
If you do not know the legal restrictions then do not change the access tag. We are not the arbiter of legal rights and this project isn’t the place to have that conversation. If you wish to see riding bikes on stairs ruled as illegal then petition the University, the City, the County, and/or the State.
austinsnow (2021-07-26 14:06:27+00:00): I was a bit frustrated yesterday when I responded, to be sure. I apologize for expressing that frustration in the manner I did.

Can you point me toward the OSM wiki or other documentation citation showing that tags are indeed solely based in legality? I did a lot of looking and couldn't find backing for your main point - that legality trumps all.

Rather, I find documentation that OSM purposefully has very few rules on local tagging, edits should be bold based on direct location survey, tags should be relevant ("you have to use tags that make clear to others how to re-use the data"), OSM "values community cohesion over data perfection," and local laws shouldn't necessarily be mapped if not reflected on the ground.

I don't disagree that legality is very important in what we tag. However, I'm not ready to concede that other factors can't contribute. And though you've been clear in your position, you've not provided citations. 

References:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_reality
G1asshouse (2021-07-26 20:06:16+00:00): "Can you point me toward the OSM wiki or other documentation citation showing that tags are indeed solely based in legality?"

Honestly, this request scared me a bit. I was sure, that after all this, my support was going to be a handful of mailing list posts from 2 or more years ago. I'd never find those.

OK, so here are two OSM wiki pages related to the access key, that explicitly state the intended usage.

1) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
"Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions and should follow ground truth e.g. signage or legal ruling and not introduce guesswork. It does not describe common or typical use, even if signage is generally ignored."

2) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions
"The access restrictions, or allowance if no restriction is implied, concern the legal access and not the practical access in terms of convenience. When legal access exists, but practical access is not, this can either be solved by adding surface, gradient and smoothness tags. This to advise e.g. wheelchairs, racing bikes etc. and routing algorithms not to use bad, unpaved, soft and steep paths."
austinsnow (2021-07-26 23:24:15+00:00): Okay, great. That is helpful. I concede that tags are based on what is legal.

In this particular case, we now come back to what the law says, to determine what the tag should be. Unfortunately, the law (as I cited above) is vague. It requires bicycle riding to be reasonable & prudent, or in the UW case, to not be unsafe or negligent. It is reasonable to estimate this by doing an in-person survey of the stairs in question, and include the appropriate tag based on that survey. We cannot default to "bicycle=yes" if it likelier-than-not (which seems an appropriate legal standard to use) disagrees with the law. Perhaps it's frustrating that we have to envision what a police officer, campus security officer, or judge would state, but if we're going to tag things based on what is legal, it is the best we have, barring direct security/police/legal consultation.

This may include subjectivity, but if the law is subjective, our tags will have some subjectivity baked in. We might not like it, but it is the law. This is also where my concerns about safety fall in - they are accounted for in the law, not the OSM guidelines.

Thankfully, as noted, the OSM guidelines encourage tags that make sense (making it clear how to re-use the data), and data imperfection is permitted. And I would hope editorial ethics are in here somewhere - we can't pretend that cavalier edits don't have safety implications (hence my Fairweather reference; bicycles + stairs can be deadly). I myself have ridden in unsafe & unlawful areas because of cavalier OSM edits, so I know this happens.

In regards to this edit, I did an in-person survey of these stairs on 4/11. Based on that, and my review of the law, I have determined that it is likelier-than-not that a campus security officer would feel stair-riding here to be unsafe & negligent, and not reasonable & prudent. As such, I do not feel I was wrong in removing the tag, as it was inconsistent with the law. "Bicycle=no" or "Bicycle=dismount" would be fine alternatives, though both would also have subjectivity baked in. Perhaps leaving the stairs untagged may, weirdly, be the most accurate option - allowing for those rare cases where campus security was fine with a skilled rider & spotter riding the stairs.

I was incorrect in asserting that stairs would need a runnel to be "bicycle=yes"; that would more accurately indicate "bicycle=dismount". Rather, a "bicycle=yes" tag here would require appropriate signage, a change in the law, or another in-person survey that disagrees with my assessment.

Does that seem reasonable? Or do you disagree?
G1asshouse (2021-08-22 12:14:00+00:00): >concede that tags are based on what is legal.
Great, we agree.
>This is also where my concerns about safety fall in - they are accounted for in the law, not the OSM guidelines.
I strongly disagree. The law could care less about safety. Some laws might be created out of a concern for safety or (more commonly) from a concern for liability but the law itself is indifferent to safety. The legal system is exclusively interested in rights.
I am also concerned with representing safety. I believe that consistency in tagging aids in that goal.
>I myself have ridden in unsafe & unlawful areas because of cavalier OSM edits, so I know this happens.
OK. I am sorry to hear that you have been a victim of incorrect tagging. I hope most users of OSM data understand that maps are tools for navigation but are not navigation itself.
>I have determined that it is likelier-than-not
>it was inconsistent with the law.
It is our responsibility to determine what is “consistent” with the law. We have both admitted to being ignorant of the law, regarding bicycles and stairs. The original mapper may have been familiar with the law. Until we know either the law/rule or the original mapper’s knowledge, it is inappropriate (not in the spirit of OSM) to change it.
>"Bicycle=no" or "Bicycle=dismount" would be fine alternatives, though both would also have subjectivity baked in.
Like my very first response said, I wouldn’t fight a change to “Bicycle=dismount”.
>Perhaps leaving the stairs untagged may, weirdly, be the most accurate option
If you, I, or the original mapper doesn’t know the actual legal status, then I agree that untagged is the most accurate option.
austinsnow (2021-08-22 15:52:42+00:00): With all due respect, you may not be familiar with the law, but I have made it clear that I'm very familiar with both Seattle law and UW law. I have cited the law in both cases.

I'm a little perplexed that you think the law doesn't care about safety, when I cited the city & UW rules that indicates safety is the entire point (bicycling must be "reasonable and prudent", and not "unsafe/negligent").

I feel like this is starting to go in circles, and I'm not sure how to respond when my points are dismissed, even when I cite actual law. As a relatively new mapper, I'm frankly disappointed in this entire interaction, as it's the least constructive I've had from veteran mappers. I may have been a blowhard at one point, but at least I've tried to acknowledge when my position has been in the wrong. I've not seen any overtures from your end likewise.

If you'd like to change it to bicycle=dismount, have at it. There is no on-the-ground signage to request that, and as the wiki notes, dismount is de facto equivalent to bicycle=no. That would certainly satisfy the general principle of avoiding the removal of information from the map, and if that would put this issue to a rest, by all means do it.
BCNorwich (2021-06-08 06:41:04+00:00): You placed the point on two buildings. Anyway the end building is already mapped and tagged as The Argus so it doesn't need a separate point.

Regards Bernard.
Pernas (2021-06-07 15:42:54+00:00): ¡Boas! 

Alégrome moito que a nivel do IES vos animedes a colaborar en mapear os sitios que coñecedes. Para dar utilidade a información e que esta sexa mais completa que tan só poñer un nome nel, sería necesario categorizala por elementos. Neste caso das mámoas, compre engadir:

historic:archaeological_site https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:historic=archaeological%20site?uselang=es

site_type:tumulus
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:site%20type=tumulus?uselang=es

¡Un saúdo!
Jakob48 (2021-06-09 20:27:44+00:00): Was soll der zweite Blitzer Node in der Straße wenn doch der Blitzer bereits über die enforcement Relation richtig getaggt ist?

Wir taggen ein Objekt in OSM nur einmal. Der zweite Node stellt ganz klar ein Verstoß gegen Richtlinien in OSM.

Erkläre mal wozu der zweite Node gebraucht wird.
highflyer74 (2021-06-15 18:42:14+00:00): Hello CreCrePL!

Just to make sure, as you are using an English language user client: could you please reply to the above request? You have been changing several speed cameras in the past, but there seems to be a misunderstanding about how to do it properly. Thank you!
CreCrePL (2021-06-21 18:30:20+00:00): Nach einen Gespräch mit Verkehrsrechtsanwalt, es ist verboten die Blitzer-Apps zu nutzen wahrend den fahrt, aber es ist NICHT VERBOTEN den Data, dass diesen Apps nutzen, ein zu geben.
CreCrePL (2021-06-21 18:30:55+00:00): So if you have a problem, then just don't use it.
highflyer74 (2021-06-21 19:27:40+00:00): @CreCrePL: if you re-read our comments above you will notice that we do NOT complain about mapping speed cameras but about HOW you did it. Speed cameras are preferably mapped as relations of the type enforcement and not as single nodes representing them. This makes it possible to have the direction included etc. Please do not add speed cameras that are already mapped properly as that will be of no use. That's all we try to let you know...

Further reading: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement

Please note that relations are best worked on using the editor JOSM in order to avoid braking data.
Vinber (2021-06-07 16:13:56+00:00): monsieur,
openstreetmap n'est pas un lieu de test.

Je le fais comme cela personne d'autre ne le ferra :)