piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
impiaaa (2022-04-04 15:31:26+00:00): Deleting and re-drawing the buildings like this has removed information from the map, like the overhang in front of Back Bar, the extension to the side, the height and elevation of the building, and the history of the component nodes (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history ). A better way to do it might be to keep the building outline while you trace the parts, or to split it into segments and re-join them. JOSM (https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ ) also has plugins to make some of these operations easier (split area, replace geometry, revert tool).
JessAk71 (2022-04-04 15:50:57+00:00): Hi impiaaa, thank you so much for your catch there, I mistakenly forgot to keep that info there, I missed it in the relation. I have just put those tags back and updated that building wall section as you mentioned here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119307898. Sorry about that. I agree there are better tools out there for splitting existing areas, Ill keep that in mind next time.
impiaaa (2022-04-04 17:27:32+00:00): Thank you!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
mueschel (2022-04-26 13:17:06+00:00): Hi,
I found several parkings with strange tags:
 capacity:disabled:charging = 3
 capacity:disabled:disabled = 2

26 parking lots in total. Could you check that?
coloredstone (2022-04-26 14:07:34+00:00): Hi, thanks for the comment.

Tags changed to:
capacity:charging
capacity:disabled
Nakaner (2024-11-08 10:09:09+00:00): Hallo,

du hast in diesem Änderungssatz zahlreiche Gehwege in Gröditz als eigenständige Ways ergänzt (graphische Differenzdarstellung siehe https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=119277538). Das war zwar gut gemeint, aber leider nicht gut gemacht. In der vorliegenden Form fehlen unzählige Verbindungen an Straßenkreuzungen, um dort die Fahrbahn überqueren zu können. In Folge dessen werden zu Fuß Gehende auf unnötige Umwege geroutet.

Beispiel für ein umwegiges Routing: https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=51.412105%2C13.441025&point=51.411113%2C13.439327&profile=foot&layer=OpenStreetMap

Das Überqueren des östlichen Knotenpunktarms der Einmündung Marktstraße/Poststraße/Waldweg ist aber möglich, denn auf den Mapillary-Bildern sieht man dort eine Bordsteinabsenkung. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.4118325&lng=13.4406952&z=16.66598048087831&pKey=1369019217307793&focus=photo

Gute Erfassung von Gehwegen als separate Ways ist aufwendig. Alternativ gibt es in OSM die Möglichkeit, dies über sidewalk=* und verwandte Tags zu erfassen (StreetComplete hat dazu ein paar Quests).

Ich möchte dich daher bitten, die fehlenden Querungen zu ergänzen und footway=sidewalk an den straßenbegleitenden Wegen zu ergänzen.

Viele Grüße

Michael
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-04-05 20:30:52+00:00): Please don't delete roads
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119277698
Samwel Kyando (2022-04-06 06:42:03+00:00): She did that unintential when trying to fix some duplicated road.

Thanks..
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
Marek-M (2022-04-04 05:15:51+00:00): Cześć, wrzuciłeś w tej edycji duplikat parkingu. Naniesiony przez Ciebie parking https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1047720487 jest duplikatem dla większego obszaru: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/173578872 

Usuwam parking, który dodałeś. Pozdrawiam.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119278031
Mashin (2022-04-04 18:15:41+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM!

Just a small feedback to your edits that I could see:
1) The name=* tag is reserved only for the actual name of the object e.g. The Empire State Building. Descriptive names can typically be decomposed into other individual properties/tags.
2) Please don't delete existing objects no matter how insignificant or unimportant they might seem.
3) When you merged the two building parts into single barn you also merged their heights, which caused a loss of information. The correct way to do it is to keep the building:part objects untouched and create an combined outline polygon/area tagged as building=barn here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/867587367

I fixed the error to make it easier for you. Have a look. 
Also if you need help or just talk, feel free to reach out or join US Slack (https://slack.openstreetmap.us/) or Discord (https://discord.gg/openstreetmap). Happy editing!
MaximoGrande (2022-04-04 19:35:05+00:00): Thanks for the correction, and the info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
gscholz (2024-01-08 07:29:19+00:00): Hi Dimitar155,
there has been a broken wood relation in this region for some time, which is much older than this area here but overlapping partly with your here newly created area:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/253825/history#map=10/42.1144/23.5316&layers=C

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/253825/history#map=10/42.1144/23.5316&layers=C

As you are a regular contributor in this region, what do you think about fixing this mess?

Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2024-01-08 07:30:41+00:00): Sorry one link is wrong, here  as a nice OSMI link:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=23.53925&lat=42.08579&zoom=10&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=ring_not_closed%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways
Dimitar155 (2024-01-08 10:56:53+00:00): Hi Guido,

Thank you for the reminder. It was used for the mountain itself. Then someone added forest tag and later we got some landuse imports. After that it became a big mess. I've now manually reverted it to mountain polygon and removed the unneeded members. Hopefully I haven't left holes.

Best wishes,
Dimitar
gscholz (2024-01-08 12:02:06+00:00): Hi Dimitar,
thanks for your quick response.
Guido
351293 (2022-04-06 18:42:44+00:00): Guten Abend,
ich habe mal ein bisschen was berichtigt: Wenn Du eine Straße aufspaltest, dann solltest Du schon auch die Eigenschaften entsprechend duplizieren. Die von Dir neu eingezeichnete Straße hatte weder Namen, noch maxspeed noch sonst etwas, außer hw=teritary. Dazu kommt, dass hier auf beide Straßen hätte oneway=yes angewendet werden müssen. Das habe ich jetzt erledigt.
Was noch zu erledigen ist: Die neue Straße muss noch in die entsprechenden Relationen (Bus, B455 usw) eingepflegt werden. 
LG
JbbDE (2022-04-07 06:35:14+00:00): Habe ich nun gemacht, LG
DaveF (2022-04-04 15:00:06+00:00): Hi
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9634373179
Parallel to the public footpath along the section where your new path joins, there's a fence (Which I'm sure I mapped previously). Is it still there? is there a gate for your path to pass through it?
A_Snail (2022-04-05 19:26:37+00:00): The path from Brownes Folley East to the road does have a gate next to Brownes Folley and the Road, although I can't remember exactly where the Brownes folley gate is.  The path does go along an old track at one point and that goes out into a field through a gate.  I was kind of supprised that area hadn't been mapped.  Ideally I would have properly recorded the locations of the gate, track etc but I only had time to record the footpath.
On the Northen side, the path follows its way along the boundry wall for the Avon Wildlife Nature reserve.  The path eventually lead to a break in the wall where some trees had at some point knocked it down and is now used as a way through.  There are lots of other paths in that bit of wood, a lot I suspect are used by mountain bikers, so they will be none official.
CurlingMan13 (2022-04-05 17:03:11+00:00): What map from the developers and did you by chance get permission from the developers?
Sam_03 (2022-04-06 18:28:55+00:00): its a brochure by the real estate agency that sells there, and its to show property lines available for sale.

and i don't think this is a problem, since they didn't make this map to show the road, but its doing it as a bonus.
SekeRob (2022-04-03 21:21:09+00:00): OK. this resolved the rendering of trees in the grassland strips.
zluuzki (2022-04-14 12:18:56+00:00): foot=yes is the default value assumed on highway=path's and does not need to be added.
mapper175 (2022-04-30 19:40:04+00:00): Hi Imum,
Thanks for your contributions! I was recently doing some additional building mapping near here, and noticed that way 1047728077 doesn't exist on Bing imagery. I'm not certain about the Hope Village neighborhood, but I know for sure that Bing is more recent than Mapbox in other parts of Detroit where I've compared the two.
lmum (2022-04-30 19:47:16+00:00): Thanks for catching that. I use mapbox for building footprints bc it's higher spatial res and free of tree canopy. but I do sometimes miss recent demolitions. 

Thanks for all your StreetComplete contributions... Detroit CBD is looking great!
lmum (2022-04-30 19:49:22+00:00): FYI, the City does maintain a demolitiosn dataset, so it would be easy to validate and remove old buildings. I'd guess something like 3-5% of the mapped residential stock from ~2014 is now gone.
mapper175 (2022-04-30 19:57:19+00:00): Fair enough! That lack of tree canopy on Mapbox is definitely really nice--I've recently started taking advantage of it a bit more myself. And good to know on that City database too.
Ancymon (2022-12-07 10:17:06+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9634055074 - czy to aby nie duplikat tego obok? Do tego indoor=yes chyba błędny w tym przypadku. Pisałem do Ciebie na Discordzie ale chyba nie widziałeś :)
eggie (2022-04-03 21:55:21+00:00): Oke.. De naam kan erop, maar niet de omschrijving. Die kun je dan kwijt onder description=
Of je zou een wikipagina kunnen toevoegen met de uitleg over Casparus.
Martin Constantino–Bodin (2022-04-03 21:49:38+00:00): La zone de couverture du groupe de modifications est surprenamment plus grande qu’attendue. J’espère ne pas avoir touché à des objets par erreur.
Kiss_Karoly (2022-04-03 22:01:24+00:00): jav.: ...házszámozása :) Sorry. Tudok helyesen írni!
vasony (2022-04-20 20:12:30+00:00): Szia!

A Termál fürdő körút 83-ról direkt tűnt el a házszám?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/968508716

Tamás
Kiss_Karoly (2022-04-20 22:38:23+00:00): Szia!
A lányom a Termál fürdő körúton lakik. Kicsit kaotikus volt nekem az a rész. Igen levettem a házszámot, mert nem voltam benne biztos, hogy jó. Úgy rémlik, anno én tettem ki. Nem is biztos, hogy a Termál fürdő körúton van, mint inkább az Oázis utcában. De járok még arra és megnézem újra. Ha Te hamarabb, akkor javítsd!
eggie (2022-04-03 22:03:01+00:00): Dus alleen Villa Casparus..
en building:levels	99  lijkt me wat veel..
eggie (2022-04-03 22:04:43+00:00): historic=building (kan er wel bij)
description=.......  
name- Villa Casparus

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dbuilding
user_2066394 (2022-04-04 12:49:39+00:00): Getränke Hörl hat das Geschäft aufgegeben? Ist dort aktuell Leerstand?
Roland Do (2022-04-04 13:58:18+00:00): Ich komme da fast täglich vorbei. Den Getränkemarkt gibt es da schon mindestens 5 Jahre nicht mehr. Ob Leerstand oder anderweitige Nutzung weiß ich nicht. Schaut aber stark nach Leerstand aus.
user_2066394 (2022-04-04 14:46:03+00:00): Einwandfrei, 5 Jahre ist definitiv eine Hausnummer.
eggie (2022-04-03 22:19:29+00:00): Yepp.. beter
abakus_uploader (2022-04-03 22:31:38+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!
gpserror (2022-04-05 00:35:45+00:00): This tagging methodology where indoor=corridor is applied to a way and not an area does not follow the guide described by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:indoor .  Documentation needs and validators need to be changed to note that indoor=corridor can be applied to both ways and areas for this to be considered proper tagging methodology.
aceman444 (2022-04-05 19:53:00+00:00): No validators should suggest any changes based on a wiki page of a tag that was never voted on/approved.

But I have changed it to indoor=yes, which is allowed on a way even based on that dubious wiki page.
eggie (2022-04-04 05:29:19+00:00): Mooi..  een laadpaal.
Hier kun je nog zien welke tags er nog bijkunnen (doelgroep  bicycle=no? motorcar=yes?) en ...... vooral af.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station

Wat kan weg:  De voorgaande uitbater.
... Niet name=Laadpaal..

In OSM gebruik je alleen name=...... als iets echt een naam heeft zoals een straat of die villa.

Dus niet name=huis name=bankje
Good practice    

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Good_practice 

Mapse
eggie
eggie (2022-04-04 05:36:00+00:00): Even iets aangepast... name= verwijderd.. operator aangepast. 
Het barst inderdaad van de regels - en afspraken in OSM  :)
alex_lofi (2022-04-05 18:20:13+00:00): Ups, con esto empecé en OSM. Tegno que investigar osmose, a ver si saco tiempo.
Gracias por la paciencia :)
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-04-03 23:13:08+00:00): Marcos, se não for pedir demais se puder adicionar o surface as novas vias que vem criando ;)
Marcos_Itba_Kaart (2022-04-03 23:53:32+00:00): Estou tentando fazer em todas, pode ser que alguma escape. Principalmente as edições colaterais.
BCNorwich (2022-04-04 06:55:08+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I wonder, is the residential area still named Arla Foods? If not the name ought to be removed or tagged disused:name=Arla Foods.

Regards Bernard.
MxxCon (2022-04-03 23:28:25+00:00): viewpoint, not waypoint
skyper (2022-04-04 16:44:37+00:00): Hallo rigilk3nt
Bitte achte auf alle Tags der Objekte. Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass z.B. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1047739653 zwei Spuren hat (lanes=2). Auch sollten wohl der Name der Straße und auch ref=* auf beiden Einbahnstraßenabschnitten gleich sein.
Zusätzlich ist auf alle Route-Relationen zu achten. Die Buslinie Richtung Norden "fährt" jetzt auf der falschen Seite und beide Seiten sollten Mitglied der Landesstraße 200 sein, jeweils mir Rolle "forward".
Kannst Du Dir das bitte noch einmal anschauen und korrigieren? Danke.
Grüße skyper
rigilk3nt (2022-04-05 10:38:38+00:00): Die Tags habe ich jetzt gerichtet.

MIt den Route relations kenne ich mich nicht so gut aus. Könntest Du mir da helfen?
rigilk3nt (2022-04-05 10:40:18+00:00): Der Fehler ist ja nicht durch mich da rein gekommen, deswegen habe ich das übersehen. Als ich dort gefahren bin, hat mein OSMAND eine unnütze und verwirrende Durchsage generiert.
skyper (2022-04-05 16:26:06+00:00): Stimmt, sorry, deine Verbesserungen (oneway=yes) haben es nur deutlich gemacht. Ursprung war wohl https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96849201
Danke für die Ergänzungen der Merkmale.

Habe es jetzt korrigiert: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119351525

Viele Grüße
skyper
nevw (2022-04-04 04:13:59+00:00): Hi
looking at the Bing imagery, I can only see a culvert under McDonald St and Crown Ave, but you have tagged the part of the drain through the park area as a culvert too. 
If the culverts are only under McDonald St and Crown Ave, then the drain needs to be split using scissors icon in iD and only putting the culvert related tags on those two bits.
Also, does the name also apply to the drain until it exits into Mordialloc Creek?
clemstar (2022-04-04 04:30:10+00:00): Thanks for the feedback. You are right, it's not tunnelled through the park. I've therefore removed that tag and also updated the name all the way down to where it flows in to the creek.
Frans S (2022-04-07 10:43:36+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and mapped. Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119281291
allseasonhiker (2022-04-05 06:09:16+00:00): Hi there,

I am a mapper in the local area and I noticed you requested a review. Can you please explain what your source was for this change? This can be something such as local knowledge or a survey.

In the future, you should add the 'source' tag to your changeset. Please see this webpage for more info: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source

For example, if the road name was the result of a survey, you would have source=survey.

In addition, you may want to add some more details to your comment. For instance, you could write: "Construction has finished on 'Orchard Park Lane'. I added the missing name to this road".
johnnyboy01136 (2022-04-10 19:33:30+00:00): source=local. I live near this area and have seen it myself.
johnnyboy01136 (2022-04-10 19:36:18+00:00): my bad I meant source=survey
allseasonhiker (2022-04-10 20:16:06+00:00): Thanks for letting me know. The changeset looks good otherwise.
allseasonhiker (2022-04-05 06:25:51+00:00): Hi there,

I am a mapper in the local area and I noticed you requested a review.

It looks like you have removed these items because the latest imagery shows a new housing development where these items used to be. This is only a guess though.

"stuff doesn't exist anymore" is not a very descriptive changeset comment. You should describe why you removed these items so that it is easier for others to understand why you made these changes. For instance, maybe you could write "The latest aerial imagery indicates that these buildings and areas have been removed to make way for a new housing development."

You should also add a source tag to your changeset. If you did use aerial imagery, you would have 'source=aerial imagery'.

Here are some useful links you may find useful:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source
johnnyboy01136 (2022-04-10 19:34:09+00:00): my bad
allseasonhiker (2022-04-10 20:15:03+00:00): Like I said in my other comments on your recent changesets, it's not a big issue. If you forget to tag with a source in the future, you can always leave a comment to let others know your source. Thanks.
allseasonhiker (2022-04-05 05:58:07+00:00): Hi there,

I am a mapper in the local area and I noticed you requested a review. Can you please explain what your source was for this change? This can be something such as local knowledge or a survey.

In the future, you should add the 'source' tag to your changeset. Please see this webpage for more info: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source

For example, if the road name was the result of a survey, you would have source=survey.

In addition, you should add some more details to your comment. For instance, you could write: "Added the name 'Franklin Lane' to an unnamed road".
johnnyboy01136 (2022-04-10 19:35:38+00:00): source=survey
allseasonhiker (2022-04-10 20:15:36+00:00): Thanks for letting me know. The changeset looks good otherwise.
allseasonhiker (2022-04-05 05:56:54+00:00): Hi there,

I am a mapper in the local area and I noticed you requested a review. Can you please explain what your source was for this change? This can be something such as local knowledge or a survey.

In the future, you should add the 'source' tag to your changeset. Please see this webpage for more info: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source

For example, if the road name was the result of a survey, you would have source=survey.

In addition, you should add some more details to your comment. For instance, you could write: "Added the name 'Warren Road' to an unnamed road".
johnnyboy01136 (2022-04-10 19:36:44+00:00): source=survey
allseasonhiker (2022-04-10 20:09:05+00:00): Thanks for getting back to me. The changeset looks good otherwise. Hope to see you continue helping improve our local area.
allseasonhiker (2022-04-05 06:41:32+00:00): Hi there,

I am a mapper in the local area and I noticed you requested a review.

Which road was extended? You should describe which road was extended in your changeset comment.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

The latest imagery shows that the portion of Brackett Lane that you added is still a dirt road. Have you confirmed in person that this road has indeed been finished and paved? If not, you should tag the road as highway=construction.

It also looks like the point that should connect Doveton Lane and Brackett Lane is not connected. I am not sure if it is you who has caused this, but if it was, make sure that when you edit roads that all points that should be connected are connected. In the iD editor, when a point is given a dark gray color instead of white, that means it is connected. iD will also show warnings in the left panel before you upload your changes.

I will go ahead and fix the connection issue for you so you do not have to worry about that.

You have drawn the extension to Brackett Lane as a separate line. You should instead modify the existing line for Brackett Lane.
allseasonhiker (2022-04-08 02:12:16+00:00): Hi again. I am removing the extension to Brackett Lane you added since you haven't replied letting me know the source you used. Feel free to re-add the extension in the future, but only if you add a source to your changeset. Thanks.
allseasonhiker (2022-04-08 02:13:30+00:00): For future reference, the changeset removing the road extension is 119448765.
allseasonhiker (2022-04-08 02:15:55+00:00): Also, to clarify I should mention that the road is visible on the imagery but it looks like a planned road, not a paved one. Older and newer imagery shows that this part of the road has been an unmaintained dirt road for a long time, indicating that no construction has occurred. Otherwise, I would have tagged the road extension as under construction.
johnnyboy01136 (2022-04-10 19:31:21+00:00): The road is fully paved and constructed now, as I live in Hudson and have run through there before. It is a further extension of Brackett Lane. Sorry for not knowing how to edit it,   this is my first time on the site. I will make sure I'm more careful in the future.