piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Layft Greater (2022-07-03 10:26:17+00:00): Hello George!

Thank you for you feedback and for notifying me about a possible mistake. I appreciate that.

I suppose that you might have confused adding a "highway" tags to piers with "replacing" the pier tag (that is: removing the man_made tag and adding a highway tag instead) due to how OSM renders such combination. But this is not true. In my changes I did not removed piers. I just have added a new additional tag. 

Wiki's article on "man_made=pier". There is a sentense, saying that highways are allowed on piers: "Lastly, usually due to ferry terminals and ferry routes, create a highway depending on how the pier is modeled." So piers can have "highway" tags.

Could you please explain why do you think marking man_made=pier with an additional "highway" tag is incorrect? Or, if it was a confusion, could you please restore the "highway" tag that was deleted in this changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123119395?

Please let me know your decision.

For reference: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dpier
Layft Greater (2022-07-14 06:30:11+00:00): This is a kind reminder.
GeorgeKarios (2022-07-17 12:52:35+00:00): well I just think it's more fitting for the Ayia Napa Marina to bear a resemblance to the Limassol & Larnaka Marinas, that's it.
Steffons (2022-06-29 07:02:56+00:00): traffic_sign 357-51 ist der flasche Tag für das Zeichen, gerne nochmal Mapillary Bilder mit der Bildtafel der Verkehrszeichen vergleichen
Piskvor (2022-06-22 09:39:38+00:00): Thanks for the linting, but be careful with Bing, its imagery is not very up-to-date. Corrected from OTG observation in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/122702337
Vika_Nosovich (2022-06-22 10:08:16+00:00): Hi Piskvor!
Thank you for your comment. I will use the latest images for mapping.
Best regards!
Filip009 (2025-07-16 09:36:46+00:00): Zdravím, prečo tu je access=permit? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/371626319
jogemu (2022-10-16 11:48:34+00:00): Ich nehme an, du hast unabsichtlich die Fahrradparkplätze und die Stadtbahn-Haltestelle vereint (siehe gelöschtes Node). Selbst wenn die Fahrräder auf den Gleisen abgestellt werden, wäre es sinnvoll die Nodes getrennt zu halten.

Hauptbahnhof auszuschreiben ist laut Wiki nicht falsch. Da in der Durchsage nicht Hbf gesagt wird, sind Abkürzungen von Wörtern eigentlich ungewollt. Aushänge und Schilder kürzen nicht ab weil es ausgeschrieben falsch wäre, sondern um Platz zu sparen. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen#Hinweise
jogemu (2022-11-02 13:39:26+00:00): Da du in über zwei Wochen weder die Daten angepasst hast noch auf mein Kommentar eingegangen bist, möchte ich dich daran erinnern, dass die OSM-Community darauf Wert legt, dass man Nachrichten anderer Nutzer nicht einfach ignoriert.

Wir müssen uns nicht einig sein und Fehler machen ist OK. Ich möchte dein Changeset nicht einfach reverten. Schließlich würde ich das bei meinen eigenen Änderungen auch ungern sehen.
Graf-Karto (2022-11-02 13:52:56+00:00): Entschuldige, wenn ich nicht reagiert habe. Natürlich ist es Dir freigestellt, Fehler im Haltestellenbereich Breslauer Platz zu korrigieren. Ich bitte darum. Vielen Dank!
S. Malitzky
jogemu (2022-11-02 15:00:22+00:00): Mit Changeset 122699343 sind die Fahrradparkplätze nun wieder getrennt von der Stadtbahn-Haltestelle. Ich habe deine Namensänderung dabei übernommen, weil Einheitlichkeit durchaus wichtiger sein kann als Abkürzungen zu vermeiden.

Da ich nicht ausschließen kann, dass es kein Versehen war, ist deine Erlaubnis nicht wirklich mein Ziel gewesen. Du wirst den Namen nicht grundlos geändert haben und vielleicht hast du es mit anderen Mappern in Köln abgesprochen.

Ich wäre offen gewesen, 
mehr über deine Entscheidungsgrundlage zu hören, aber wenn du das nicht willst oder dir gar nicht so viel dabei gedacht hast ist das auch OK. Danke für die schnelle Antwort und ich hoffe wir haben beide was dazu gelernt.
jogemu (2022-11-02 15:03:29+00:00): * Changeset 128395835
muchichka_s (2022-09-11 01:31:12+00:00): Hello Moldovan_Merkator
You have removed the correct road refs several times without appropriate comment. Can you explain why you do this?
Moldovan_Merkator (2022-09-11 12:36:22+00:00): Hello. Why? Very simple! First of all because you continuously readded these refs to this road segment. Secondly because this road segment is on the sovereign territory of Moldova, that means that here ukrainian laws and refs are not available, only moldovan. Of course, this road segment is a private property of Ukraine on the territory of Moldova, but that don't mean that here can be added ukrainian refs, i propose you to leave it in a neutral state - using only European E87 ref.
muchichka_s (2022-09-11 18:24:10+00:00): I disagree with your arguments

1. You refer to laws, but international agreements prevail over national laws. And this road exists within the framework of the international agreement between Ukraine and Modova. 

2. If Ukraine is the owner of the road, why can't it give it a name/ref?

3. Your changes violates the conventional scheme of tagging E-roads, when their numbers are recorded in int_ref instead of ref

4. Your changes violates the principle of truth on the ground

5. You talk about "neutrality", but you did not provide any reference that Moldova is against the road being called M-15
muchichka_s (2022-09-11 19:06:43+00:00): Moreover, the text you added earlier to the road elements:

note="Attention! This road is in the private property of Ukraine on the sovereign territory of Republic of Moldova. That doesn't means that this road is in Ukraine, but, on this road sector 
works ukrainian jurisdiction."

contradicts your words  "that means that here ukrainian laws are not available, only moldovan"
user_15552334 (2022-07-17 18:43:27+00:00): .
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122700047
OldManCelli (2022-10-03 17:25:19+00:00): Thanks for adding building, but can you please tag these with 'Building=yes"
In iD you can click on the feature type and search for building. 

感謝您添加建築物，但您能否將這些標記為“Building=yes”
在 iD 中，您可以單擊特徵類型並蒐索建築物。
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2022-07-22 08:38:18+00:00): Hvad er kilden til de 30 km/h på Brahmsvej?

Hvordan er det skiltet?
pelleg (2022-07-22 20:30:55+00:00): Det er skilte med legegade skilte påmærket 30 km/t. Ved besigtigelse holdes hastigheden også nede i det leje.

https://www.google.dk/maps/@57.011981,9.8207282,3a,15y,333.65h,79.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6sxf-O51sZy7XHXap1-CQQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2022-07-22 22:01:33+00:00): Det er en uautoriseret færdselsafmærkning. 
Nogle kommuner tillader skiltene på private veje.

Man kunne bruge maxspeed:practical
user_5359 (2022-06-24 10:40:22+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.
BCNorwich (2022-06-23 07:11:14+00:00): Hi, Several instances of highway duplication here, you placed roads on top of existing roads. I've made corrections but wanted to just let you know.

Regards Bernard.
BubbaJuice (2022-06-22 20:49:53+00:00): Hello Emanueli,

These roads are not parking aisles but driveways. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dparking_aisle#Examples Please revert your tag change.

Thank you, 
BubbaJuice
emanueli_telenav (2022-06-23 07:23:40+00:00): Hello BubbaJuice,

Thank you for your message.
I had made the changes. Sorry for my mistake, I'll try to do my best from now. Do you know some external road data that could be used to improve OSM?

Thank you,
Emanuel Ilisiu
BubbaJuice (2022-06-23 15:00:42+00:00): Thank you, I really appreciate it. I don't know of any road data that could be used to improve OSM. There is TIGER but most of that data is already in the database.
wwunjo (2022-06-23 14:50:55+00:00): Hello savoye!
I have reviewed your latest data sets, unfortunately they are duplicate roads which actually are existing on the OSM, you can track it by the moving any point in the place of your edits.
Please revert your changes or let us revert them, to not create data issues in this region.

With best regards, Alina.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122701228
wwunjo (2022-06-23 14:51:18+00:00): Hello savoye!
I have reviewed your latest data sets, unfortunately they are duplicate roads which actually are existing on the OSM, you can track it by the moving any point in the place of your edits.
Please revert your changes or let us revert them, to not create data issues in this region.

With best regards, Alina.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122701228
rsavoye (2022-06-24 08:17:58+00:00): If you had bothered to check, these are not duplicates, but different segments of the same highway. All I did was fix the tags. Who is "us" ? As a long time mapper in Colorado, telling me not to work on my own state is impolite. Threatening to revert changes is counter-productive, the usual process is to suggest fixing any mistakes. We're supposed to grow the OSM mapper community, not to discourage contributions.
MikeN (2022-06-24 16:45:14+00:00): I would also like to have seen a less urgent note with more detail on first contact.   But somehow there are duplicate ways such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1072223214 .     I'm wondering if the upload happened at the exact instant of one of the network shutdowns or the DB re-index of a few days ago.  I have also seen something like this with an edit conflict but don't know how it happened.
rsavoye (2022-06-25 02:02:41+00:00): Good catch! There are a bunch of other issues in this area, more than just CO 131 (which is a mess). This area hasn't seen much mapping activity, there are many per-exisiting issues beyond the tags I was fixing. As we use OSM for wildland fire fighting here in Colorado, fixing the issues is important, but can't happen in just a few changesets. I'm about to be deep in the woods offline, but plan to continue with the cleanup beyond just fixing the tags when I get back online.
Claudio Tam (2022-06-22 09:43:46+00:00): hello! what do you mean with "it duplicates"? thanks!
user_177389 (2022-06-22 11:31:17+00:00): Hello Claudio,  

if you put both relations next to each other you see it:  

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5460386  
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10319358  
(Please read the note tags too, they cross-declare every other relation.)  

They cannot be an administrative boundary with the same admin_level at the same time.  

But you are already changing (back) some things to place multipolygon. I found a changeset discussion about the difficult things there:  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/77338193  

Maybe this helps.  

Best regards,  
Mario
Claudio Tam (2022-06-22 12:19:58+00:00): Wow! 
Ho fatto un po' di ricerca ed in effetti è stato sicuramente un mio errore aver messo admin level 11 su questo elemento. 
Sarebbe utile un forum per parlare di tagging locale.
Claudio Tam (2022-06-22 18:03:57+00:00): Ho inserito un commento su https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/77338193 .
user_8101879 (2022-06-23 15:20:47+00:00): It is not multipolygons but boundary= place :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dplace
user_15552334 (2022-07-17 18:43:23+00:00): .
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122701404
rhtb0 (2022-06-22 09:12:29+00:00): Please don't do such large changeset
rhtb0 (2022-06-22 09:13:13+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
rhtb0 (2022-06-22 09:13:21+00:00): General recommendation: changesets should be local.
rhtb0 (2022-06-22 09:13:34+00:00): To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:

combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
keep changes within the same country
upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area
user_6110846 (2022-06-22 15:17:28+00:00): I will do within 1 province

I use the database of the National Cartographic Agency of Ukraine. There are no coordinates in it, only translation is present. It is inconvenient and stupid to make a separate changeset for each object. The problem is that China is too big a country.
lefuturiste (2022-08-21 21:12:48+00:00): Vous avez fait pas mal de dommage collatéraux, notamment vous avez supprimé mon travail de cartographie de la nouvelle section cyclable Séparé au niveau de ce chemin https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263266126
Attention l'imagerie n'est pas encore à jour à cet endroit !
Avant de supprimer qqchose veuillez vous assurez de la réalité du terrain merci...
monsieur a (2022-08-29 06:38:04+00:00): Bonjour, 
c'est une erreur d'interprétation de ma part. Je pensait que c'était un doublon avec le highway= track + bicycle =designated.

La voie verte est donc parallèle à la piste agricole ?

Simon
lefuturiste (2022-08-29 07:29:23+00:00): Non effectivement ce n'est pas un doublon, il ont vraiment prit sur le terrain agricole pour faire la voie verte, car la piste à coté est beaucoup utilisé par les pécheur amateurs ou autres personnes de type vroomer 😊
C'est également une erreur de ma part, j'aurais du vérifier les tags sur l'autre route.
monsieur a (2022-08-29 07:41:59+00:00): Merci pour la précision. Je corrige dans la journée
tordans (2022-06-30 06:03:03+00:00): Hallo NicoSa, warum hast du die beiden Wege gelöscht? VG
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122702219
TrevorAlan (2022-06-22 12:51:56+00:00): Never use description=* to add advertising messages. Such spam can and should be removed as soon as spotted. The description should not include subjective evaluations, e.g. "the best restaurant in town", "modern, comfortable hotel, in the heart of the city".

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description

Changes have been reverted.
SomeoneElse (2022-06-24 23:54:28+00:00): Hello HammTreetops,
In this changeset you broke the Stour Valley Way and introduced a gap in a footpath.  Before it was like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1jCO and after your edit it was like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1jCP .  I've filled in the gap (which is clearly visible on the underlying imagery).
Can you help me understand why you introduced this gap here?
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2022-06-24 23:56:47+00:00): One more thing - please don't use "Golf course features" as the description for every changeset.  To and explain in a bit more details what you're doing - what you actually edited, what your goal is, what your sources are, etc.
Best Regards,
Andy
habi (2022-06-24 16:24:43+00:00): Ciao Yvo

Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap, schön machst du hier mit!


Die Agentur 01 könnte mit mehr als nur mit Name und Beschreibung hinzugefügt werden.
Ich habe das mal als `advertising_agency`-Büro getaggt: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:office%3Dadvertising_agency

Dazu noch die Webseite und - wenn ich das richtig im Kopf habe - dass die Agentur im zweiten Stockwerk ist.
Dazu noch macht es keinen Sinn, die Agentur 01 als sog. Knoten in der Hausmauer zu erfassen, sondern als Knoten innerhalb des Gebäudes.

Dies alles im Changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/122810358

E Gruess usem Liebifäud äne,
habi
yasslay (2022-06-22 10:17:53+00:00): Hello! May you explain why you changed this way to a secondary road? It appears that this edit is vandalism and there is no credible source as to how this is a secondary road (B road), and no number has been allocated to this way in the edit.

Kind regards,
AOOSMU
fentuz (2022-06-22 12:01:49+00:00): Because it is a secondary road on OS map.
I leave 1 mile away and ride my mountain bike on that track on weekly basis
yasslay (2022-06-22 16:29:05+00:00): Are you sure? Please provide a road number as B roads which are classed as secondary roads on OSM are always assigned a number.
SomeoneElse (2022-06-22 16:46:36+00:00): Hello,
I think that something has gone a bit wrong here.  https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/1013226608 wasn't originally a highwayof any sort - it was just part of the Cotswold AONB relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/166570 .  It's quite long https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1013226608 , so I expect that the part that is "Stonehill Lane" will need to be added sparately.
fentuz (2022-06-22 17:25:18+00:00): I reset it as a track. It is call stonehill lane and is recorded as other road on OSM (green or pink dots depending of the scale).

If you don t believe me and accuse me again of vandalism, check osm on bing map as it is for consultation…

What do I know, i lived here for 15 years!!!
SomeoneElse (2022-06-22 17:31:52+00:00): Calm down, calm down...

You've changed something to a track, but unfortunately what you've changed is all of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1013226608 .  I don't think that that is all track (especially the bit that runs along the Fosse Way!).
yasslay (2022-06-22 17:35:15+00:00): Apologies for that. Also, I just wanted to say there are similar ways which are tagged as track roughly follow the line of the Cotswold AONB boundary and the newly added Stonehill Lane in some areas, so I am not sure if someone has already mapped Stonehill Lane and the associated tracks in said areas but could not find a source for the name...

https://gyazo.com/8532a7cd0cf684f2fd32c8cb7e74caa4 (picture showing an example of this)

Kind regards,
AOOSMU
yasslay (2022-06-22 17:42:16+00:00): Also, I'm sorry for how I worded my previous changeset comment, it came off as really rude! Sorry for that!
fentuz (2022-06-22 17:53:23+00:00): Unfortunately, I cannot attach pictures but if i could I would do a screenshot of bing map in os mode and I could go and take pictures of the clay track that becomes grass track with motorbike marks and going  under the bridge of the abandoned rail line between kemble and tetbury

https://strava.app.link/n9TwCh1A4qb
EP_Repair (2022-06-22 19:07:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 122725315 where the changeset comment is: reverting change that added street name to entire relation outer way as per DWG messages
ElliottPlack (2022-06-22 19:15:09+00:00): Hi there, Elliott here from the OSM Data Working Group. I have reverted this changeset because it changed the tags on a part of the outer boundary of the The Cotswolds AONB relation.

Fentuz: please be wary of lines on the map that are not currently roads, that adding the road tag may have unintended consequences. In this case, it made a long roadway that spans an entire region. If those get in the way, you can hide all boundaries within the OSM ID editor by clicking the Map Data button and unselecting "Boundaries" under the "Map Features" area.

Thank you!
Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group
SomeoneElse (2022-06-22 19:15:21+00:00): @EP_Repair Thanks - now we just fentuz to identify which bit of that should also be the track Stonehill Lane.
fentuz (2022-06-22 19:49:11+00:00): Ok, I ll draw a new line betweeen the a433 and (51.6559555, -2.0784391)
dieterdreist (2024-04-11 09:35:12+00:00): Ciao Claudio,
ti vorrei segnalare che questo tipo di relazione non va bene per come funzional OSM ("relations are not categories"). (riferendomi a lista dei 35 "Quartieri" di Roma), anche se ammetto ha una sua commodità. Il modo "giusto" sarebbe concordare dei tags per risolvere il problema, senza relazione. Ecco il riferimento: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories

saluti
Martin
Claudio Tam (2024-04-11 10:45:06+00:00): Ciao Martin!
Concordo totalmente.
dieterdreist (2024-04-11 21:51:58+00:00): ottimo. In realtà penso si possa discutere in questo caso, perché forse assimilabile alle relazioni amministrative, vedo un vantaggio che la relazione evidenza il concetto (chi vede un membro nell’editore capisce meglio che sia stato fatto appositamente e che si tratta di un concetto ortogonale ad admin).
dieterdreist (2024-04-11 21:56:50+00:00): forse riusciamo a documentare un tipo di relazione specifico oppure una combinazione di tag generici che ci consentono dire che sia un quartiere, una rione oppure una zona. Una relazione ha senso per i singoli componenti per poter riutilizzare i ways.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:33:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
NieWnen (2022-09-27 14:27:22+00:00): Cześć,
twoje zmiany rowerowe są niestety niepoprawne. W tym miejscu była już otagowana ścieżka rowerowa jako DDRiP (Droga Dla Rowerów i Pieszych) – jedną linią.

W tej linii, której usunąłeś path i dodałeś footway:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/460245953

W ten sposób zostało to zepsute. 

Edytor ID nie wspiera niestety tagowania na CPRy (Ciągi pieszo-rowerowe) DDRiP i inne rowerowe warianty drogowe. Trzeba je ręcznie edytować w liście tagów (nie da się wyklikać)

Proszę zapoznaj się z wiki Rowery, w szczególności S5 (pierwsze i drugie zalecane zależnie od nawierzchni – DDRiP) i S7 (z naciskiem na highway=path – CPR)

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery

Jak byś mógł poprawić wg wiedzy lokalnej, którą na pewno posiadasz byłoby super. 

Jak by było coś niejasne, śmiało pytaj.

Z góry dzięki!
michalsochacki (2022-09-29 20:02:08+00:00): Cześć, ja wiem, że taka opcja jest i że było to tak otagowane.
Natomiast w tym miejscu jest osobno ścieżka dla rowerów i osobno dla pieszych oznaczone znakiem c 13/16 (pionowo).
Uważam że tak jest czytelniej patrząc na mapę.
Gdyby był tu ciąg pieszo-rowerowy czyli taki gdzie piesi i rowery poruszają się razem na całej szerokości to wtedy tak.
Ale tu nawet są dwie nawierzchnie - asfaltowa i kostka brukowa i dlatego też nie można dodać nawierzchni dla jednej linii bo żadna nie pasuje.

Chyba że coś źle myśle :)
NieWnen (2022-09-29 20:14:10+00:00): Mój komentarz ogólnie odnosi się do całej okolicy.

Co do przypadku, to łączenie w 1 linię jest rekomendowane w przypadku takiego własnie oznakowania DDRiP (bo CPR jak stwierdziłeś jest bardziej logiczne), a rozłączanie powinno nastąpić gdzie są oddzielone fizycznie np. pas zieleni/płotek itp. (na oddzielnie chodnik highway=footway footway=sidewalk i oddzielnie drogę rowerową highway=cycleway) po to, żeby nie prowadzić równolegle 2 linii, gdzie jest to zbędne.

Co do różnych nawierzchni to również na wiki jest napisane jak to rozwiązać (S5 – drugi przykład)

highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
cycleway:surface=*
footway:surface=*
surface=paved // jeśli są różne
segregated=yes

Podejście z 2 liniami (trzeci przykład) jest dopuszczalne (trochę jako zaszłość, choć są osoby, które po prostu się temu sprzeciwiają), ale na ten moment nie zmienia to faktu, że to co jest aktualnie w tym obszarze, to jest to błędnie otagowane.
user_5359 (2022-06-24 07:58:44+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/node/9838281471. What is the meaning of the tags
categorie = signalétique
photo = E:\360 V84\377PHOTO_360_2613_Stitch_XHC.JPG
Please notice we can‘t see local file on drive E:
corentinlemaitre (2022-06-24 11:34:39+00:00): I was using a geojson as source layer on JOSM but have done bad copy paste... sorry for that.
corentinlemaitre (2022-06-24 11:41:52+00:00): I have change the tag now. Thank you for your feedback.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:10:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert