piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
viloan (2019-03-07 18:19:46+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
Vratislav Filler (2019-08-11 13:25:43+00:00): Jsem jistý, že tento chodník není pro jízdní kola dopravní značkou legalizován. Zruším to (až po ul. Roztylskou). Kdyby pro to byly důkazy, tak mě opravte.
mariotomo (2021-10-11 12:54:59+00:00): es Caimito, o Loma San Pedro?
mariotomo (2021-10-11 12:55:18+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112350032
manog_nya (2019-03-25 04:10:48+00:00): Hi VLD081,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Aceh, I have come across way 666751821
way 655712398 classified as 'Service'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around, this seems to be 'Residential'. Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance.
VLD081 (2019-03-25 19:17:31+00:00): Hi Manog_nya, 

first let me thank you for reaching out to me regarding changeset: 67896334, feedback from the community is important to our process at Facebook and we value what you have to say. 

To that note, we work with a local mapping team in Indonesia to gain a better understanding of what the aerial imagery is showing. In regard to ways 666751821 and 655712398 classified as service, we have been instructed by our local map editing team in Indonesia to classify these elongated buildings and surrounding areas as service. 

This is done because the buildings are used not for residential housing, but for livestock like chickens, cows and pigs. Again, I appreciate your feedback and I hope this answers your question.
GinaroZ (2019-03-14 13:15:07+00:00): Hi, I think a single cycleway would be best to connect these roads instead of four pedestrian ways.
WalthamCity (2019-03-14 13:54:18+00:00): I don’t disagree with you, but here’s why I did it like this: 

Many of the cycling modal filters around London have been marked as pedestrian ways so I am following that precedent. This isn’t incorrect as these are pedestrian paths too. 

Regarding 4 paths in a cross vs 1 diagonal, I did this to avoid breaking any of the current through routes. A single diagonal path would be a more accurate representation.
SK53 (2019-03-18 13:57:31+00:00): Yup a single diagonal cycleway is pretty much the best way of showing this. It loses a tiny amount of information that these were once through routes, but the current mapping also obscures this & is not accurate. At least it is routable. You can use area:highway to sow the area traversable by pedestrians
GinaroZ (2019-03-20 15:34:19+00:00): I've changed it to a single cycleway, and kept the relation on it. If you think it should be highway=pedestrian + bicycle=yes then feel free to change it.

Though I did see this filtered street (amongst others) tagged as a cycleway: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/662932737

I would say that if there's no possibility of vehicles getting through, and so that it stands out on the map more, a cycleway is better - but both work. :)
eggie (2019-03-07 20:23:03+00:00): Dag Nathan,

Info samengevoegd met officiële adresnode
Gr Eggie
eggie (2019-03-07 20:27:59+00:00): Maak svp gebruik van de bestaande adresnodes om vervuiling van de database te voorkomen.
Eggie
Jean-Marc Liotier (2019-03-07 23:19:06+00:00): Quelle source d'imagerie utilisez-vous ?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/67898249
Frans S (2019-05-11 13:10:51+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here. I review tasks and correct objects etc before validating. I noticed that you are a new mapper. It might be interesting to read these articles to become a more understanding of mapping
Best regards and keep mapping.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Bgirardot/West_African_HOT_Mapping_Tips#Small_Village_and_Road_Mapping
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa
Frans S (2019-05-11 13:18:12+00:00): Hi, back again.  you tend to map round buildings bigger than they are.  Please tag these buildings as building=yes. This is standard tagging for buildings.
Thanks again
Jarek 🚲 (2019-03-08 02:24:10+00:00): Cześć,

nie możemy dać amenity=place_of_worship, ponieważ jest to dawny kościół. Tu już nie ma place_of_worship (świątyni, miejsca kultu, Andachtstätte). W https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6324083209 zmieniłem na disused:amenity=place_of_worship. Dodałem naprawdę dużo danych do https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/269446404
Jarek 🚲 (2019-03-08 02:24:30+00:00): Sorry, w https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67906992
southglos (2019-03-07 22:29:46+00:00): Duplicates some existing buildings?
ndm (2019-03-07 22:31:20+00:00): Bother will fix
literan (2019-03-22 09:39:23+00:00): здесь то же самое, некорректное завышение статусов, противоречащее всему.
Mazda05 (2019-03-22 09:43:03+00:00): что именно завышено?
Mazda05 (2019-03-22 09:44:25+00:00): A154 - дорога федерального значения и согласно соглашения-классификации должна быть trunk, но она не образует связную сеть и заканчивается в горах, что противоречит связности и не описано в соглашении, поэтому решил понизить статус с trunk до primary
b-jazz (2019-03-20 19:43:05+00:00): Shouldn't https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675236748 be a rectangle? Right now, it is just a three sided way that doubles back on itself.
nickvet419 (2019-03-20 20:45:25+00:00): maybe that is where the openlevelup map is having issues..
b-jazz (2019-03-20 20:50:05+00:00): I’m not familiar with openlevelup. There are a couple more issues that I’ve noticed with the indoor mapping. I could let you know when I return to my desktop if that helps.
nickvet419 (2019-03-20 21:10:44+00:00): the error looks like it happens when you zoom in between gates b1 and b9.  here is a link to the viewer. https://openlevelup.net/?l=-2#14/41.9810/-87.9093
b-jazz (2019-03-30 19:59:58+00:00): I found four other "rooms" with the same shape:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675236765
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675236761
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675236753
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675236751

Did you want to correct or delete those?
nickvet419 (2019-03-30 21:49:51+00:00): I meant to deleted those also.
nickvet419 (2019-03-30 21:57:06+00:00): Looks like that fixed the issue with OpenLevelUp     thanks for the help.
PAscal_L (2019-03-07 21:29:51+00:00): c'est un essais pour tenter d'ajouter un parcours de santé ...
à vérifier !
Syl (2019-03-07 22:01:46+00:00): D'après le wiki il faut créer une relation : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:route=fitness%20trail
user_7581226 (2019-08-24 18:47:10+00:00): Mir ist hier  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675301110  aufgefallen, dass sich eine von mir anhand hochwertiger Luftbilder fein gemappte Straße, ohne dass dies in der Way Historie dokumentiert ist, in Auflösung drastisch reduziert hat.
Generell daher meine Frage, wo ist ein solches Reduktions- oder Linien Vereinfachungs- Programm abgehandelt worden.

Grüße Johann Haag
user_7581226 (2019-08-24 18:48:44+00:00): I noticed here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675301110, that one of me on the basis of high-quality aerial photos fine-mapped street, without this in the Way history is documented, in dissolution drastically reduced.
In general, therefore, my question, where has such a reduction or simplification program been dealt with?

Greetings Johann Haag
user_7581226 (2019-08-25 09:07:31+00:00): Mir wurde mitgeteilt, dass es kein Programm zur automatischen Linien Vereinfachung gibt, ich habe mich wohl geirrt. Grüße Johann
freebeer (2019-08-27 05:16:23+00:00): hoi johann,

the way you point out is at the first edit, v1, and is how you have uploaded it.  it is possible that someone may have moved nodes making up this way, which will leave a history trail, so those points will be at v2 or greater.

i'm a bit lazy to write a script to check every node in this way, but if you suspect an area has been vandalised or manipulated, my editor offers a built-in history function callable for each selected node, as moving a node will increment its version.
abakus_uploader (2019-03-07 23:30:30+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!
user_8759590 (2019-03-07 21:38:22+00:00): Source should have been Kaart Ground Survey 2019
5m4u9 (2019-03-09 00:03:29+00:00): Hola, se está usando mal las etiquetas para mapear las paradas iniciales/finales de los buses de cbba... deben ser:
//
amenity=bus_station + public_transport=station +  covered=no
//
ya cambié todas las que estaban mal y ahora se muestran como estaciones.
//
en el mundo, las paradas iniciales y finales en un sistema de transporte no son tomadas como paradas sino estaciones de salida o llegada, por ello el cambio.
5m4u9 (2019-03-09 00:05:41+00:00): el nodo debe estar en el lugar donde los pasageros abordan o salen del bus... es decir, a un lado de la calle.
// 
ya no pude corregir laposición de las estaciones
alphensebezorger (2019-03-07 23:25:06+00:00): Hallo Éric, this changeset seems to have broken the three routes you edited. This hiking route for example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3967164 would be rather difficult to follow.
When you merge ways, please make sure the relation memberships are identical, as well as the tags.
Happy mapping, alphensebezorger.
dvdhoven (2019-03-08 07:31:27+00:00): Ja, onmiddelijk totaal stoppen met doorverbinden van wegen. Je hebt zo'n 20 routes vernield inmiddels door het doorverbinden.
pieleric (2019-03-08 08:07:57+00:00): Sorry about this. I was convinced that iD would warn me if a relationship was changed when merging ways. (I'm pretty sure it used to do that...). Anyway, I'll fix the relationships this weekend.
dvdhoven (2019-03-08 08:15:10+00:00): Relaties hoef je niet meer te herstellen. Dat kan ook niet met ID. Die kan geen routes bewerken, alleen kapot maken. Alleen met JOSM kun je routes herstellen. Ik heb de routes inmiddels hersteld
pieleric (2019-03-08 08:19:21+00:00): Je kan wel relaties met iD wijzingen... maar het een beetje moeilijke is. Eigenlijk, ga ik JOSM gebruiken voor de relaties corrigeren. Bedank voor al kijken aan de routes herstelen.
dvdhoven (2019-03-08 09:03:01+00:00): Nogmaals, nee het kan niet.
Ja, ID laat zien dat het kan, maar dat klopt niet. ID voegt namelijk standaard de wegen, die je lid maakt van de route achteraan toe aan de route en dat is meestal fout. 
Routes moeten in een bepaalde volgorde liggen en dat kan bij ID alleen als je een nieuwe route maakt en die route exact op de juiste volgorde invoert en geen fouten maakt. Maak je een fout en voeg je de weg alsnog toe, dan komt hij buiten volgorde te liggen.
Ook als je met ID bijvoorbeeld routerelaties met forward/backward erin bewerkt, wordt de volgorde omgekeerd. 
En ik kan je uit langjarige ervaring zeggen, dat het soms nog een hele puzzel kan zijn om de warboel die ID van een route heeft gemaakt, weer een route te krijgen zoals die moet zijn.
Sorry, maar ik heb inmiddels een hartgrondige hekel ontwikkeld aan ID.
Per dag kan ik puinhopen, die ID heeft aangericht opruimen.

Vriendelijke groeten,
Dick van den Hoven
Routespecialist OSM en Fietsersbond
pieleric (2019-03-09 16:00:00+00:00): Thanks Dick, I didn't realise that iD still had issue with relations. Anyway, when I edit relations (on purpose) I normally use JOSM. It's much easier to do.
I've had a look at the relations in this area (http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GO0 ). It seems you've already fixed everything... but let me know if there is still something broken that I can take care of.
user_1470980 (2019-03-07 22:48:46+00:00): https://addresshistory.wordpress.com/2019/03/07/log2/
hoserab (2019-03-08 00:55:37+00:00): Can you elaborate on why the sidewalks you deleted are "useless"? Were they *inaccurate*? That you noted them as "useless and disconnected" makes me think you believe the former because of the latter, which begs the question why you didn't connect them instead of delete them.
Rodrigo Hausen (2019-03-08 15:08:34+00:00): Hi, hoserab! Thanks for your concern. Those ways didn't add any relevant information because they mostly replicated the information that's already in the tags of the nearby ways (all of them already allow access to pedestrians, bikes and horses).

Although, for humans, there's no clearly preferred solution as to whether a "sidewalk=..." tag should be added on a road or should it be mapped as a separate way, it is important to notice that, for routers, it is better to have it as a tag then as a separate way since it is not always possible to clearly associate a different way as a sidewalk adjacent to a road. And, in this case, since the sidewalks weren't properly connected, they were effectively wreaking havoc with routing around this area.
Rodrigo Hausen (2019-03-08 15:09:15+00:00): For more information: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way
hoserab (2019-03-08 18:09:37+00:00): My concern is you deleted these separate sidewalk ways without replacing them with the correct "sidewalk=" tagging on the road ways. You took something that was perhaps half-finished and deleted it for being "useless", and have now introduced a significant error because you made an incorrect assumption: you assumed the default access tagging on these roads is correct. In reality pedestrians are NOT allowed to walk on the road; this is typical of roads in North America. Horses are not allowed by law on either roads or sidewalks.

This is of particular concern in suburban neighbourhoods like the one you edited because they often only have sidewalks on one side of the road, or may not have them at all in which case it's still illegal for pedestrians to walk on the road.

If you can I would suggest reverting this change and fixing the access tagging on the roads instead.
Rodrigo Hausen (2019-03-10 18:43:41+00:00): Greetings from La Belle Province.

Before I forget, let me thank you for collaborating with OSM. I understand how frustrating it is to have one's own edits deleted by another user; it happens to everyone of us 😉. But fret not, I'm coming up with a solution that will surely satisfy both sides.
Rodrigo Hausen (2019-03-10 22:36:34+00:00): I brought the sidewalks back from the dead. I was able to fix a few issues with them, but in most cases the aerial imagery is not clear where the crossings are (or if there are any). That's one of the problems with armchair mapping (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Armchair_mapping). So, someone will have to get out in the street and check the ground truth. I have added "fixme" tags to the sidewalks so people are reminded about the issues.

Sorry for removing the ways but, as I said, they were really interfering with routing. In the future, I'll be more careful about removing features added by other users.

I suggest you read a little bit more on how to map things in OSM. You mentioned that I "assumed the default access tagging on these roads is correct. In reality pedestrians are NOT allowed to walk on the road," which I assume is a reply to my assertion that said roads were tagged with "foot=yes." This is NOT what tagging a road with "food=yes" implies, and everywhere in the world -- including our own country -- roads are maked with that tag to imply that pedestrians can walk ALONG them, but not necessarily on the tarmac, sharing the same space as the cars. See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

Please avoid making "half-finished" -- as you said -- edits. It surely is gratifying to cover a lot of ground while doing mapping from the comfort of one's own home, but any information added to OSM must be accurate and match the ground truth (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability). So, instead of mapping a whole neighbourhood in one go, how about mapping just one or two streets and making sure all of the intersections and pedestrian crossings are correctly identified?

If you do need to leave ways unfinished, tag them with "fixme=continue" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fixme) so other people and routers know that information is incomplete. But, please, avoid leaving sidewalks partially connected as it severly impairs the ability of routers to provide accurate information to people. As an alternative, you could tag roads with "sidewalk=left", "sidewalk=right" or "sidewalk=both" instead of adding extra ways, since it's faster to do so and the consequences of misusing those tags are less disastrous. 

We all know OSM documentation is lacking and disorganized. Don't let this discourage you from contributing to the project. I advise you select "I would like someone to review my edits" before clicking upload in your next few edits.

Have a nice day and happy mapping!
hoserab (2019-03-10 23:41:28+00:00): You were probably trying to be well-meaning here, but instead you're being a condescending prick. How about YOU select "I would like someone to review my edits" before clicking upload in YOUR next few edits? After all, you're the one who &^%$ed this area up by making an incorrect assumption. 

Again, the sidewalks are important because without them there is no (legal) pedestrian access here. I don't really care if you want to map them separately or tag the road ways with "sidewalk=*", but don't delete one or the other and think you've solved a problem here. You didn't fix any routing issues: you made it worse. Again, your assumption that a pedestrian can (legally) walk along any of the roads in this area is WRONG; asinine as it may seem, where there are no sidewalks in this neighbourhood there is no (legal) pedestrian access!
gcamp (2019-03-11 02:23:52+00:00): @hoserab Can you back your claims with documentation? All the documentation Rodrigo provided points to him being right and you've added nothing more than "you're wrong". 

Adding ways that are partially linked to the entire street networks but is missing intersection nodes is way worst than not having them. 

Default values are also access with foot is true on roads except for motor way (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Default). It's true that legislation changes from countries to countries, but it's still a good default.
hoserab (2019-03-11 04:13:14+00:00): Besides being a local who has lived here for decades and was taught at a young age that walking on the road isn't legal? Calgary Traffic Bylaw 26M96, section 6. Pedestrians are only allowed at crosswalks (marked or unmarked); setting foot on the street is otherwise illegal. For example here's a news story from a few years ago about the Calgary Police Service ticketing dozens of people for walking on a road: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/08/13/calgary-jaywalking_n_5675155.html

I'm not going to argue the merits of whether that's a good thing or not, but the facts are just about every single road in Calgary is NOT legally "accessible" to pedestrians (the only notable exception being Stephen/8th Avenue between Macleod Trail SE and 3rd Street SW). I realize that that is likely not the case elsewhere, but it is a legal reality here. So deleting sidewalks—disconnected as they may be—on the assumption that pedestrians can walk along any road they want is in fact directing them to do something illegal.
Hjart (2019-03-07 23:15:52+00:00): Jeg  undrer mig over at du tagger 8 veje "++=" (f.eks. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34310472). Var der en hensigt med det?
Aleks-Berlin (2019-03-11 08:54:05+00:00): I removed this problem-tag (7x), as we get no answer. Alex
Comune Aq - Ufficio Toponomastica - alji (2019-03-08 08:21:56+00:00): Liebe/r Mueschel,

wir möchten dich höflichst ersuchen in Zukunft die offiziellen Daten des Vermessungsamtes von L'Aquila/ITA nicht mehr zu modifizieren oder gar zu löschen. Durch deinen gestrigen Eingriff hast du unser Infosystem für die Büros der Stadt L'Aquila zerstört. Das was du als Spam wahrgenommen hast war die Info für den Parteienverkehr am Amt. Wir hatten dank deiner unüberlegten Intervention gestern so einige Probleme am Amt, denn die Leute fanden die benötigten Büros nicht. Des weiteren: Der von dir gelöschte Link führt zur Indoosmappingdarstellung unseres Büros. Es ist das erste Modell seiner Art in L'Aquila und es werde bald weitere folgen. Darum har u.a. der Bürgermeister hier ersucht. Falls du L'Aquila nicht kennst, das ist der Ort der vor 10 Jahren vom Erdbeben zerstört wurde. Wir sind gerade dabei nicht nur die Stadt, sondern auch deren kartographische Grundlage aufzubauen. Wir haben OSM gewählt weil uns dessen Grundgedanke der freien Verfügbarkeit für alle sehr gut gefällt. Dein gestriger Eingriff war dabei nicht gerade hilfreich. Bitte sieh dir in Zukunft die Daten die du löscht vorher an oder frag diejenigen die sie eingetragen haben nach, bevor du die Arbeit einer ganzen Woche zerstörst.

Cari Saluti d'Italia

D.I. Alexander Jilin
mueschel (2019-03-08 08:33:36+00:00): Hi,
you can't just add any arbitrary tags to the database and assume that this data is by any means usable by any OSM application.  These are not even supported by LevelUp as you claim in your tags.
If you want to introduce a new tagging scheme, please follow the well established proposal process including a discussion in the community and a written documentation of all keys introduced.

Jan



INFO-STANZE usate per visualisazzione su OpenLevelUp! "Advanced" 	https://openlevelup.net/?l=2#20/42.35616/13.38875
Stanza 01 	Dirigente
Stanza 02 	Assessore
Stanza 03 	Avvocatura
Stanza 04 	Gest. Personale
Stanza 06 	Gest. Personale
Stanza 07 	Uff.Elett.e Stat.
Stanza 08 	Uff.Eletorale
Stanza 09 	Gest. Personale
Stanza 11 	Protocollo
Stanza 12 	Uff.Stranieri
Stanza 13 	Uff.Toponomastica
Stanza 14 	Digitalizzazione
Stanza 15 	Uff.Com.di Rilev.
Stanza 17 	Uff.Immigrazione_Ufficio Cambio __Abitazioni
Stanza 18 	Uff.Anagrafe
Stanza 21 	Uff.MessiDep.attiCasa Comunale
Stanza 23 	Uff.Stato Civile __Matrimoni
Stanza 24 	Sala Matrimoni
Stanza 25 	Uff.Stato Civile __Denunce di MorteDenunce di Nascite

name 	INDOORMAPPING Uffico Comunale Settore Politiche per il Cittadino e Personale INFO ROOMS CLICK HERE