piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ptarac (2022-02-17 12:53:00+00:00): Tak widziałem.
Natomiast przy protect_class=6 napisano: "For small areas and single-value-protection see also resources-protected-area: protect_class=11 to 19." 
Co moim zdaniem jest bardziej odpowiednie do mFOP, choćby ze względu na ustawową definicję użytku ekologicznego [Użytkami ekologicznymi są zasługujące na ochronę pozostałości ekosystemów mających znaczenie dla zachowania różnorodności biologicznej - naturalne zbiorniki wodne, śródpolne i śródleśne oczka wodne, kępy drzew i krzewów, bagna, torfowiska, wydmy, płaty nieużytkowanej roślinności, starorzecza, wychodnie skalne, skarpy, kamieńce, siedliska przyrodnicze oraz stanowiska rzadkich lub chronionych gatunków roślin, zwierząt i grzybów, ich ostoje oraz miejsca rozmnażania lub miejsca sezonowego przebywania.] 
Dla obiektów, które edytowałem najodpowiedniejsza była wartość 19.
ptarac (2022-02-17 12:54:48+00:00): W sumie możnaby spróbować przypisać odpowiednie wartości protect_class do każdej krajowej FOP i wrzucić to do kanonu OSM.
pio2_122 (2022-02-17 13:11:08+00:00): Rozumiem. 
Wychodzi na to, że OSM-wiki ma niejednoznaczne definicje, które wymagają poprawy.

Zgadzam się, że trzeba by ujednolicić powiązanie wartości  protect_class do poszczególnych, krajowych FOP i umieścić to w polskiej wersji artykułu o protect_class. Na razie jest on praktycznie pusty - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:protect_class

Myślę, że dobrze by było poruszyć tą sprawę także na forum, aby inni użytkownicy również mogli wyrazić swoje opinie i propozycje.
ptarac (2022-02-17 13:14:45+00:00): Myślę, ze się tym zajmę jak już trochę okrzepnę w OSM i skończę z wprowadzaniem AED.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:00:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:05:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:06:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:01:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:03:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:01:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:58:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:00:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:01:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:04:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:58:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:57:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
praeteritum (2023-05-02 05:16:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135599063.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:01:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
praeteritum (2023-05-02 05:12:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135599025.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:07:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:59:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:59:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:06:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:02:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:04:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:02:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:00:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
praeteritum (2023-05-01 03:44:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135558467.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:58:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:59:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:04:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:59:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
mueschel (2022-03-05 15:18:20+00:00): Hi,
could you check this node, it got two strange tags:
http://osm.org/node/9139769440
user_5359 (2022-03-29 05:44:29+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9139769440. What is the meaning of the booth tags
NPS = T410A53
Rotule = de
? (second try, @mueschel).

Bonjour ! Veuillez consulter le site http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9139769440. Quelle est la signification des balises de cabine
NPS = T410A53
Rotule = de
? (deuxième essai, @mueschel).
simlio (2022-03-30 15:36:07+00:00): Hello, sorry for the late response. I don't understand, I just added the tag operator=Enedis and when I consult the history, I have the impression that it's me. I will remove these tags.
Best regards
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:06:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
pio2_122 (2022-02-16 18:30:53+00:00): Zakładam, że przypadkowo zostały usunięte adresy przy ul. Jaśminowej i Różanej.

Przy okazji, nie powinno się już stosować relacji typu associatedStreet. Za OSM-wiki: „This method of mapping addresses is much less popular than addr:* and strictly unwanted in regions such as for example Germany and Poland.” - więcej informacji: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet

Obie rzeczy zaraz poprawię.
pio2_122 (2022-02-16 18:36:37+00:00): Sprostowanie odnośnie adresów przy ul. Jaśminowej i Różanej: zauważyłem, że zostały one usunięte ponieważ były zdublowane. Tutaj jest więc wszystko OK :)
ptarac (2022-02-16 19:17:29+00:00): Ad. adresy to były one zdublowane.
Ad. associatedStreet wynika a) z mojej niewiedzy, b) z autoamtycznego zastosowania jej przez wtyczkę Terracer https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Terracer

Teraz przy szeregowcach będę zmieniał na addr:* .

Dzięki za zwrócenie uwagi i poprawki.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:04:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:03:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
user_2066394 (2022-02-16 22:02:14+00:00): Was bedeutet kein Laden?
OSMbav (2022-02-17 05:07:48+00:00): An dieser Adresse gibt es eine Gewerbe Einheit welche von der Fahrschuhle genutzt wird. (Auch auf OSM eingetragen)
Der von mir gelöschte Punkt "Laden geschlossen" ist keine Gewerbeeinheit. 
Dieser Raum ist Teil des privaten Treppenhauses. Daher kein Laden...
user_2066394 (2022-02-17 10:29:38+00:00): Gibt es angrenzend noch Ladengeschäfte, die noch nicht vermietet sind?
OSMbav (2022-02-17 13:57:36+00:00): nein, gibt es nicht.
Daher von mir gelöscht
user_5359 (2022-02-17 08:57:53+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have revert your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data, not positive verifiable address data, destroying data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
praeteritum (2023-05-01 03:40:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135558454.
praeteritum (2023-05-01 03:39:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135558451.
Frans S (2022-02-28 15:40:44+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here,
A remark,
Tagging of buildings. For HOTOSM projects the standard tagging is 'building=yes' Please keep that in mind at further mappings.
Best regards
praeteritum (2023-04-30 00:50:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135521538.
Josef73 (2022-06-16 10:31:13+00:00): Hello, Chilaquiles Brody´s opens only for 3 hours? from 09:00 to 12:00 ?
praeteritum (2023-04-30 00:49:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135521515.
praeteritum (2023-04-30 00:47:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135521507.
muralito (2022-02-17 02:27:06+00:00): Hi. Are you sure? I drove it here last month and didnt notice it was changed to one way...
luin132 (2022-02-17 19:10:48+00:00): Thank you for pointing this out to me. I added the oneway based on a oneway sign in ground imagery found here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-34.903999798592&lng=-56.147657740845&z=17&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=189733516402367&x=0.49231275220048076&y=0.4398957122070021&zoom=0. It is difficult to see in satellite imagery any vehicles on this section of road, so I added the oneway based on the available ground footage. I welcome suggestions on how to better portray this area if needed.
muralito (2022-02-17 19:42:09+00:00): The mapillary imagery is confusing, and the oneway sign shown refers to Cipriano Payan, the street that begins in this Y intersection.

I couldnt find mapilliary pictures, but for example, in the south sidewalk of "San Lorenzo" there are several "No Parking" signs.

You can drive south by "2 de Mayo" and turn left in "San Lorenzo".

I couldnt find Mapillary imagery to show it.

BTW, the street is very very narrow, and should be oneway, or also put no parking signs in the north sidewalk, but this isnt the situation right now. Maybe sometime in the future.
luin132 (2022-02-17 20:33:53+00:00): Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate your insight. I removed the oneway and I agree with you that hopefully in the future it will be a oneway to benefit traffic flow. Thank you for reaching out about this spot.
vorpalblade-kaart (2022-03-15 14:30:56+00:00): Did you intend to delete https://osm.org/way/883243862 ? It was part of https://osm.org/relation/12000621 which you did not delete.
nickjohnston (2022-03-02 20:47:48+00:00): Hi. Welcome to OpenStreetMap--it's great to have more people to improve the map.

In this changeset, you've changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263281130 from a service road to a residential one. This is a service road: it provides access to facilities at a rugby club. Would you mind changing it back to a service road, please? ☺

In another changeset, you changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/540025132 from a footway to a path. In OpenStreetMap, "path" is more generic: it can be practically anything (an unofficial path, a cycleway, ...). "footway" clearly specifies that a way is for use on foot.

Thanks,
Nick
abakus_uploader (2022-02-16 23:31:57+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!
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-02-22 06:44:52+00:00): Please don't use the building tag on other features.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117488986
kmpoppe (2022-02-16 18:43:53+00:00): Original Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8997893214 is now part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1032084879
kmpoppe (@ Mapillary Update) (2022-08-26 06:51:12+00:00): #Closed as informational
opendcc (2022-02-16 19:09:49+00:00): Hallo,

da ist Dir jetzt ein Haken in die Münchner Straße reingekommen (beim Steer). Du wolltest nur den Abgang ins Tal verschieben, oder?
Frans S (2022-02-21 14:19:50+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this task.
Please read the instructons what to map. Woods are no part of this and is strongly discouraged because HOTOSM's task structure does not lend itself to mapping large areas (contiguous forests).
best regards
marczoutendijk (2022-02-17 08:48:15+00:00): Phone number not in correct format, see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone
Incorrect use of UPPER case!
Bruno Rafael Santos Rodrigues (2022-02-16 18:59:58+00:00): #flexvolunteering
egordobatovkin (2022-02-21 10:15:23+00:00): Hi, txemt! Can you please explain your actions? Most of these roads are clearly visible on imagery, there is no point in such mass deletion. Thanks!
txemt (2022-02-21 11:28:41+00:00): I'm removing roads that are on private land, which have been there since the TIGER import. These are non navigable roads where if you were caught on them, you may be met with the owner and his firearm.
egordobatovkin (2022-02-21 12:03:58+00:00): Why don't you use access=private then?
zluuzki (2022-02-21 19:41:39+00:00): When keeping such roads, make sure to tag them as highway=track.
txemt (2022-02-21 23:37:03+00:00): These roads have 0 value to anyone. You can't drive down them, you can't route to them, there's no cell service out there, they're on private land, they have 0 value to anyone, except the land owner. A large majority of these roads haven't been touched since the TIGER import in 2010.
user_5359 (2022-02-17 08:53:24+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Note that in OSM classification of the objects has the highest priority. Objects that have only one name, have little sense. As home page for the question "How do I describe you?" I recommend the web site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.

Did you see https://www.osm.org/relation/11578305?
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-02-16 21:09:52+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things
GBAB (2022-05-23 07:57:43+00:00): Esiste davvero questo bagno al santuario di Greccio?
Dario Colarieti (2022-05-23 11:33:03+00:00): Si è un bagno pubblico messo a disposizione dei visitatori
ivanbranco (2022-05-23 15:35:47+00:00): Attenzione però, questo tag amenity=public_bath indica un bagno pubblico nel senso di posto in cui si può fare il bagno (es. bagno termale), non i bagni intesi come servizi, quello è amenity=toilets
englu (2022-02-17 13:59:05+00:00): Poprzednia wersja fragmentu szlaku zielonego koło Miastka była poprawna. Polecam podpiąć heatmapę Stravy, na niej lepiej widać przebieg szlaku, szczególnie w lesie, gdzie przecinki widoczne na satelicie mogą być mylące. Pozdrawiam.
Domino123 (2022-02-17 15:51:30+00:00): Dzięki za uwagę i poprawienie.
kapazao (2022-02-17 13:25:08+00:00): Hola, en el Palacio de los Córdova el jardín estará en una o varias zonas de esta, pero la parcela no es un jardín. Agradecería si pudieras corregirlo.
Un saludo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117490634
gpesquero (2022-02-17 14:38:12+00:00): Hola. Efectivamente toda la parcela no es un jardín. Voy a modificarlo en base a imágenes aéreas de PNOA.
Un saludo, Gonzalo.
gpesquero (2022-02-17 14:47:16+00:00): Modificado!!
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117525085)
Un saludo!
Leo Slager (2022-02-24 22:23:43+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3064048#map=15/51.9266/4.4844
Leo Slager (2022-02-24 22:25:53+00:00): Hi Famlam, 
Kun je nog even naar die opmerking kijken ?
Famlam (2022-02-24 23:11:07+00:00): Hi Leo, dankjewel voor het attenderen! Ik was daar inderdaad de oneway vergeten toe te voegen.
Over de classificatie van die weg kan ik helaas geen zekere uitspraken doen, dat moet ik aan een lokale mapper overlaten die de situatie beter kent. (Maar het klinkt mij best aannemelijk dat residential de weg niet goed beschrijft)
Nogmaals dank!
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-02-22 06:44:07+00:00): An area surrounding a building should not have the building tag
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117490931
mapuit (2022-02-16 21:14:49+00:00): Hallo rms_TSCH,
du hast die Haltestelle in Felkendorf hinzugefügt. Befindet diese sich wirklich innerhalb eines Gebäudes?
rms_TSCH (2022-02-16 22:50:56+00:00): Hallo mapvid,
das bestehende building=yes ist ein Wartehäuschen. Die Sitzbank und ein Großteil des Wartebereiches befinden sich im Wartehäuschen.
rms_TSCH (2022-02-21 12:28:00+00:00): Hallo mapvid,
nach Rücksprache innerhalb des Projektes BEG - Barrierefreiheit4ÖPNV habe ich die Haltestelle zur besseren Unterscheidung von Wartehäuschen und Steig noch mal überarbeitet.
Lee Carré (2022-02-17 19:52:24+00:00): Much smaller changeset areas, please: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
Lee Carré (2022-02-17 19:52:44+00:00): What makes for http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments too.
StopConsuming_StartProducing (2022-02-18 14:04:51+00:00): True, but when making edits people are generally offline in the middle of nowhere. Also, when uploading changes, I will need some manual extra time to adjust the whole changeset. You can only ask people to invest so much time, since it is voluntarily. These rules do not fit great with the way people add changes. Sorry.