piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mueschel (2016-08-04 11:06:55+00:00): Hi Manuel,
could you explain the source of this data? "Knowledge" doesn't seem appropriate here. Adding 10500 objects to the database looks like an automated import which needs discussion and documentation. Is the source of the data compatible with the OSM licensing?

Do we really need to have all those foreign tags in our database? Can they be removed?

Jan
Manuel Mazó (2016-08-04 19:33:43+00:00): Hi Jan,
The source of the data is from a compendium of data acquired through remote sensing techniques for Itaipu Binacional, where i am currently working, this data is also used internally in the company, it has been verified. Sorry for the tags, i will delete the unnecessary ones right away.
We are planning to improve this area adding multiple datas in the area between Ciudad del Este to Saltos del Guaira, all in the paraguayan side, since we are starting to use OSM and OSMAnd as the base map for websites developed here.
Sorry for not clarify these aspects before, i'm new at this, but i'll keep it in mind for later, and thanks for pointing it out.
Manuel
Durko_freemap (2016-08-05 06:03:24+00:00): Zdravim, z tejto budovy vymazte addr:housenumber kedze ste vyrobil aj samostatne vchody. Vdaka. Durko
Joein (2016-08-05 10:29:26+00:00): Vymazane. Joein.
Alecs01 (2016-08-05 16:05:31+00:00): Thank you, I deleted the previous entry
hsimpson (2017-02-07 11:57:15+00:00): Hi MrWebber,
du hast in diesem Änderungssatz die B50 zur L400 geändert, allerdings hast du noch ein paar Sachen vergessen:

-Die entsprechenden Straßen sind immer noch in der Relation der B50 eingetragen

-Diverse Straßen verweisen noch auf die B50, so ist etwa in der Abfahrt Landscheid der A 60 noch "destination:ref=B 50" eingetragen.

Mir ist das ganze aufgefallen, als ich eben die Relation der B50 aufräumen wollte.
Da du allerdings leider keine Quellenangaben zu diesem Änderungssatz angegeben hast, war es mir nicht möglich, diese Änderungen zu verifizieren und entsprechend die Relation zu korrigieren.

Daher würde ich dich um folgendes bitten:

-Trag bitte in alle Änderungssätze deine Quellen ein. Änderungssätze ohne Quellenangaben erwecken gerne mal den Verdacht, dass jemand die Infos aus einer nicht zulässigen Quelle hat und stellen somit meist total unnötig die Legalität der OSM-Daten infrage.

-Beschreib bitte in einem kurzen Kommentar, was du geändert hast. Das hilft anderen Mappern im Nachhinein sehr, wenn sie Änderungen nachvollziehen wollen, vor allem, wenn etwas nicht passt (Das soll keine Kritik sein, jeder macht mal Fehler!).

-Die genannten Fehler müssen noch behoben werden. Ich würde mich anbieten, das zu machen, dafür brauche ich aber plausible Datenquellen.

Viele Grüße,
hsimpson
MrWebber (2017-02-07 22:26:55+00:00): http://mobil.volksfreund.de/nachrichten/region/bitburg/aktuell/Heute-in-der-Bitburger-Zeitung-Wenn-aus-der-Bundes-eine-Landesstrasse-wird;art752,3485305
Carnildo (2016-08-03 00:23:53+00:00): Are the trails you've added here based on actual GPS traces or on-the-ground observations?  What you've drawn looks like the trails that *should* exist according to the county's maps, but when I visited earlier this year, I was unable to locate the trail leading from the parking area, and I didn't have time to go looking for any of the others.
GwenDragoness (2016-08-06 02:31:43+00:00): My edits are based on the county map. I have not actually been to this park in person yet, though I've been across the river many times. If you want to remove any of the trails I marked which you think are inaccurate, that's okay with me.
Carnildo (2016-08-06 05:33:02+00:00): I plan to head out there this weekend, and I'll be updating the map based on what I find.
user_5359 (2016-08-04 18:11:03+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Note that in OSM description 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 page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_to_map_a.
alo8 (2016-08-03 21:04:33+00:00): Hallo hunb, 
die A8/A81 ist jetzt gleichzeitig die B295? Temporär im Zuge der aktuellen Baustelle am Leo Dreieck? Gibt es die Info irgendwo zum nachlesen?
Peda (2016-08-02 21:11:37+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 41161219, 41172977, 41161788, 41195522, 41145665, 41138041, 41195214, 41195555, 41137779, 41161373, 41137842, 41161214, 41171924, 41145596, 41159851, 41161201, 41137785, 41040380, 41192600, 41161106, 41145475, 41193143, 41133197, 41159817, 41173044, 41160938, 41161116, 41193160, 41152131, 41172259, 41137977, 41161438, 41195454, 41138075, 41161172, 41160818, 41161389, 41151956, 41152126, 41160800, 41144865, 41161766, 41152101, 41159844, 41161093, 41161229, 41161046, 41161027, 41193200, 41152108, 41137812, 41159858, 41172699, 41159865, 41173334, 41161081, 41161361, 41151688, 41138148, 41137862, 41144641, 41138058, 41161574, 41193093, 41173147, 41172616.
Carnildo (2016-08-03 04:52:07+00:00): There are some major problems with this edit:

1) Indian Canyon Park does not exist except on paper.  On the ground, every entrance sign, boundary marker, and trailhead map calls it part of Palisades Park.

2) The boundaries you have for "Indian Canyon Park" don't match either the on-the-ground boundaries or the county's land-ownership records.

3) "Rimrock Conservation Area" has a slightly greater degree of existence, in the form of a sign in an adjacent parking lot, but the boundaries you have don't quite match either the county's records or the on-the-ground evidence (though admittedly, the northwestern boundary is rather fuzzy on the ground).

And, as a lesser issue, is there a reason why you re-classified the trail between Trail 120 and Rimrock Drive as a path?
GwenDragoness (2016-08-06 02:59:56+00:00): First the lesser matter: I reclassified the trail that connects from Rimrock Drive to Trail 120 (which I originally added to the map a few years ago), for two primary reasons. First, it is not one of the parks official trails, and is thus not marked, does not show up on the official maps, and is not on the community's radar when they do trail maintenance. Second, it is a rougher trail than most of the official trails in the park, with a few steep, narrow steps towards the top which some casual visitors to the park might want to avoid. However, it is still worth keeping on the map, because it does get a decent amount of use and is in a very convenient location. I live within a mile of the park, so this is all based on my personal observations.
GwenDragoness (2016-08-06 03:08:35+00:00): As for the rest of my edit, I am honestly unsure of what would be the best way to mark the park boundaries. From one perspective, the separate units have separate ownership and should be marked as separate entities, even if they are managed as a unit "Palisades Park" is not a true, singular park as far as the city or county are concerned. On the other hand, it *is* managed as a single unit by the community (by which I mean the Palisades NPO, a private organization).
GwenDragoness (2016-08-06 03:19:21+00:00): For the most part, I would be supportive of reverting my edit, except for two changes. First, the area approximately bounded by the railroad, Greenwood, and Trail 101 is private property, despite what the Palisades map says. I wasn't aware of this until recently when I ran into a man and his family building a shed there. The new boundaries are based both on my conversation with him and on the county maps for the component areas. The other change that I would like to keep is the change from the tag leisure:park to leisure:nature_reserve. An alternate tagging scheme with boundary=protected_area & protect_class=5 would also be (I think) correct. When I added Palisades Park a few years ago (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/16460492), I had not been aware of the correct usage of leisure:park.
GwenDragoness (2016-08-06 03:22:43+00:00): Thanks for bringing these things to my attention! It's good to know that I'm not alone in my efforts to map the area. I'm on a self-imposed break from mapping for a while, so you can make changes if you like, or I'll come back and fix everything up in a week.
Carnildo (2016-08-06 06:43:29+00:00): My personal choice would be to combine the Indian Canyon and Palisades sections under the name "Palisades Park" (since that's what's on all the signs), while leaving Rimrock Conservation Area.

Most of the Greenwood/101/Railroad area is legally part of Greenwood Cemetery, but is de-facto part of the park.  The current boundary doesn't represent either the on-the-ground usage or the legal ownership, and I'd like to see the boundaries adjusted to match one or the other.

And finally, mapping a rough, unofficial trail is exactly what the "smoothness=very_bad" and "informal=yes" tags are for.
Rovastar (2016-08-03 00:30:36+00:00): Alex I don't think the "is_in" tag is needed anymore as it can be derived from the county polygon

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in
alexkemp (2016-08-03 00:44:38+00:00): Hi [@Rovastar](http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Rovastar), thanks for your interest.

My experience suggests the exact opposite, and is the reason for all the deranged additions of those tags!

In brief: my locations made to Diary entries (and also searches) were total pants in Carlton, Nottingham, Notts.. Many, many things were tried until someone made a comment that 'areas' were the issue, not nodes (such as suburbs, etc.). Separately I came across the Unparished parishes & added *Arnold + Carlton (Unparished)*. That made a big difference. Shortly after I added the `is_in` tags. That finally fixed it, big-time, but it took *both* items (admin_level=10 + is_in*).

I sure that the search- + the location-algorithm try more than one thing, but my experience says use a parish area +  add a full complement of `is_in:*`.
alexkemp (2016-08-03 01:56:13+00:00): A follow-up having read the link you gave: the key words, I think, are: "it permits simpler searching" with the aspect that 'simpler'=='faster'.'I'm a 10+-year database programmer, and I would far rather have to do look-ups on a boundary-relation rather than have to create on-the-fly (and maintain) an independent in-memory database of northings&eastings-dependant names. No thank you.

In any case, I trust my personal experience better than someone else's intellectual considerations.
user_5359 (2016-08-04 17:46:31+00:00): Wird der Briefkasten tatsächlich von der Pfarrgemeinde betrieben? Das wieder spricht eigentlich dem Thema, dass wir nur öffentliche Briefkästen, die auch anschließend eine Briefbeförderung anbieten, mappen.

Bitte allgemein darauf achten, dass Namen keine Beschreibungen beinhalten
ma-rt-in (2016-09-09 08:31:25+00:00): Warum die B 50 als L 400?
kreuzschnabel (2018-08-29 19:22:09+00:00): Hallo, ich stolpere gerade über die Mauloffer Hydranten. Ich nehme an, mit den name=* ist jeweils die Wasserquelle gemeint. Bitte kurz mal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_hydrant überfliegen und das Tagging anpassen :) water_source ist das richtige Tag dafür. 
 
Und bitte grundsätzlich nicht name=* zum allgemeinen Beschriften verwenden. Da gehört nur der Name des Objekts rein, und wenn es keinen hat, wird das Tag nicht gesetzt.
maraf24 (2016-08-11 11:22:49+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/666272
literan (2016-08-03 13:12:25+00:00): highway=residential это ИМЕНОВАННАЯ улица местного значения. Кажется мне, что вы неправильно этот статус некоторым дорогам назначили.
forsik (2016-08-03 13:43:31+00:00): А как будет правильно в данном случае?
literan (2016-08-03 14:29:20+00:00): ну - я ж не знаю точно, что там на местности, и куда по этим дорогам ездят. Если расскажете - то подскажу :-)) А вообще - вот, читайте http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Highway_classification
user_5359 (2016-08-04 18:14:12+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please check the node with the name="Shell". Can this be a node with amenity=fuel, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfuel
muralito (2016-08-03 01:33:05+00:00): Hola Ismael.
¿Que es lo que quisiste mapear?
highflyer74 (2016-08-06 08:24:28+00:00): Hallo und willkommen bei OSM!

Ich habe gesehen, daß Du Informationen zu OSM hinzugefügt hast, was sehr gut ist. Bitte denke daran, daß die hinzugefügten Daten nach dem OSM-Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page) getaggt werden müssen, damit sie für andere Menschen nutzbar gemacht werden können. Ansonsten kann Software, die die Einträge nutzen möchte, diese nicht lesen.

Versuche in diesem Fall einmal, die Öffnungszeiten nach dem Wiki zu gestalten (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:opening_hours).

Wenn Du Fragen hast, immer her damit!

Viele Grüße,

highflyer74
dion (2016-08-06 09:35:01+00:00): Hallo highflyer74, 
vielen Dank für deinen Hinweis. Ich habe die Angaben in eine ordentliches Format gebracht und etwas dazu gelernt!
Herzliche Grüße
Dion
highflyer74 (2016-08-06 10:45:07+00:00): Gerne!
amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ (2019-10-15 09:24:24+00:00): Hello. I've tweaked Paddy Murphy's Pub to use the `theme=irish` tag (and changed `cuisine=Irish pub` to just `cuisine=pub`).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/75708559
scruss (2016-11-14 18:57:22+00:00): Thanks for the contributions, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-12-18 16:42:36+00:00): What about https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4333112135/history - do you think that intermittent=yes is safe to assign also here?
MappingJunkie (2022-12-18 19:15:55+00:00): Moolack spring is a year around spring.  Water is accessible at the road crossing from a pipe.  Thanks for your help in cleaning up the map in this area.  I have a long-term project to finish mapping out the Umatilla Wilderness area.  Let me know if you have anything that needs ground truthing.  I often drive in this area, and can check out questions on the ground.
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-12-19 07:15:41+00:00): Then what about stream starting from it ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435399017 ) ?

Is it case where spring always produces water but sometimes it just produces a small pool/trickle and not enough for longer stream?

Or is this stream permanent rather than intermittent?

(I appeared here as I was reviewing suspicious names like name=Spring on springs or name=Tree on trees)
literan (2016-08-03 12:58:33+00:00): не надо использовать shop=kiosk! в России таких магазинов почти нет. Ставьте building=kiosk+shop=newsagent/...
revjmyoung (2016-08-03 00:36:09+00:00): Oops! Description of change should have been "Updated Our Savior Lutheran Church"
Supaplex (2016-08-03 04:04:17+00:00): 要記得打上溫泉類別和名稱噢
muralito (2016-08-03 18:01:20+00:00): Jacquelina:

¿Cuando BROU abrio otra sucursal en Salto?
¿Que es lo que estas queriendo mapear?
ryebread (2016-08-09 15:47:47+00:00): Hi Nutnakon, based on the aerial imagery, that's a residential area. Could you please clarify what you meant by adding a shelter?
user_5359 (2016-08-04 18:31:36+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please add the information religion http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:religion and denomination http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:denomination
vasony (2016-08-04 13:16:30+00:00): Szia!
Légy szíves az importálódban állítsd át, hogy a településrész nem az addr:place-be hanem az addr:suburb mezőbe menjen

Köszi.
aharvey (2017-03-24 06:43:28+00:00): How did you check for duplicates?

eg. you added https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4333395907/ but it already existed as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6396344

I've been seeing a lot of duplicated features from your Base Map imports.
Warin61 (2017-03-24 08:24:39+00:00): I checked for duplicate nodes .. not certain that I did check ways (too long ago to recall) .. and probably not relations. This change set 3/8/16 so 'my' node would have been that date .. relationship dated 9/7/16 so ~ a month previous. 

Humm I did a recheck some time ago on duplicates .. but again I'm not certain which things I checked. 
So these duplicates you have noted ... were they only campsites? Or anything else? 
Thanks for letting me know.
Warin61 (2017-03-24 08:50:30+00:00): Humm scanning ... found 1 add the day before by you .. from Imagery .. deleted mine and add the name from the base map. 
Another is displaced by 200 metres .. I'll do some more looking tomorrow (and think about the displacement).
Warin61 (2017-03-25 00:15:36+00:00): Ok .. found 7 that I have deleted. About half of those are mine. 
Did not answer your question of how I checked for duplicates .. I think at that time I was using the OSM cycle map .. that appeared to have the best rendering of camp sites ... but it may have been slow to render new data .. thus I missed some? 
I will still have to scan manually for displaced ones.
Warin61 (2017-03-25 06:46:49+00:00): Over 187 camp sites manually scanned. 78 deletions .. not all camp sites but most of them. Not all 'mine'. 230 objects modified .. some 'camp_sites' to pitches as the camp site is already tagged .. again not all mine.
aharvey (2017-03-27 01:20:46+00:00): > So these duplicates you have noted ... were they only campsites? Or anything else? 

I keep finding issues across all your LPI Base Map imports.

eg. I just deleted http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4380404863 since it was already mapped as http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/691125312

> I will still have to scan manually for displaced ones.

Agreed, although it would have been better to do this before so you're not importing existing data and creating duplicates.
Warin61 (2017-03-27 02:03:09+00:00): I have looked back at my lookout files (I did not bother with check my old campsite files .. but I'd not think I was consistent from one feature type to another .. hopefully improving all the time) .. and cannot find a duplicate for tuckers lookout ... so the checking was done. Did something else go wrong.. my clumsy fingers for instance? 
I do take it that these were on top of one another ?
Warin61 (2017-03-27 02:12:50+00:00): Looking back at my old files for lookouts ... each node carries a tag "fixme=check for duplictes and web links" .. and each node was manually checked against the osm map background for the duplicate.. then  those were uploaded to OSM having deleted each fixme tag as they were done. However node of those files carry the Tuckers Lookout node .. so I am wondering if I downloaded the OSM lookouts .. and then some how uploaded them accidentally - not part of my checking/data.
aharvey (2017-03-27 03:25:12+00:00): The existing node has been there for the past 4 years http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/691125312/history

Next time it would be great if you could post on the mailing list your intention to do an import and we can check the process to make sure things like this aren't missed.

Another one I just fixed up http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47189402
Warin61 (2017-03-27 05:25:45+00:00): Arr .. I see now.
What you are deleting are displaced things. 

My experience with LPI data suggest in many instances it is better than the data in OSM despite the mappers attribution of 'source=survey' or 'source=gps'. How do I know that ? In the instances of roads i have used the Strava heat map .. and that confirms that the LPI data is better than the OSm data. 

I personally decided to add the duplicates so that users could see both .. and hopefully decide to edit the incorrect one out. 

In the instance of Tuckers Lookout the LPI one appears to conform closely with written descriptions and the imagery .. I feel a personal survey coming on with GPS, camera, tripod and a packed lunch.
aharvey (2017-03-27 07:50:21+00:00): Not all data is equal. Different types of features like roads vs lookouts could dramatically vary in accuracy, even within the same feature types, the accuracy in the LPI Base Map can and does vary.

Since we don't know the where each feature in the LPI Base Map came from, I don't think it should have precedence over a good consumer grade gps and or lpi imagery.

OSM is not a clone of the LPI Base Map, I feel a ground survey should prevail. It might be better to use the OSM notes feature to add a note where you think the LPI Base Map is correct, so a ground survey can be done rather than adding duplicates.

For Tuckers Lookout, I have been to http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/691125312 and know there is a lookout there, but I can't remember if it was signed with a name.
user_5359 (2016-08-04 18:34:02+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Don't add any private information from residential or owner to a residential building!

If you need help to add a corect address (described on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr): You are welcome!
Walter Schlögl (2017-01-17 21:44:37+00:00): Was ist das hier für eine Radio-Station?
amenity=HAM Radio Station
gibt es nicht.
christianbalu67 (2017-01-28 15:44:36+00:00): Amateurfunkstation. Afür gibts wahrlich keinen intelligenten Eintrag in der OSM Datenbank, obwohl es rund um die Welt mehrere Millionen von Amateurfunkern gibt. Irgendwer muss mal anfangen....
mavl (2016-08-03 16:34:37+00:00): Здравствуйте. OpenStreetMap - это не место для персональных заметок. Очень сомнительно, что эта стоянка имеет такое имя.  
Этот пакет правок отменён.
user_5359 (2016-10-09 16:22:58+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
anderfo (2016-08-07 20:45:00+00:00): tror ikke du trenger å bruke imba-tag på slike stier. de passer bedre i sykkelpark (Hafjell, Åre, Trysil osv.)
anderfo (2016-08-07 20:45:23+00:00): ...men ellers helt enig i at denne får svart gradering! :)
oesvends (2016-08-08 08:59:20+00:00): Fikset, takk for kommentar.
osmcoach (2016-08-08 18:29:06+00:00): Attention : la rue de la station commence seulement en-dessous de l'église.
Les maisons des 2 côtés de la rue avant l'église sont sur la "place de l'église".
Le panneau "rue de la station" se trouve bien après le numéro 8 de la "place de l'église".  Merci de toujours bien vérifier sur place pour tout changement.
fntamap (2016-08-09 07:35:43+00:00): Après vérification : c'est plutôt au milieu de l’Église… La plaque se trouve du côté impair, sur le coin, côté bas, de la salle ”Espace Notre-Dame“, qui est le numéro 7. Le bâtiment suivant porte bien le numéro 1. Du côté pair, en-dessous de l’Église, la première maison porte le numéro 8.
La carte lise en ligne par la commune comporte la même erreur, ce qui est étonnant. Google Maps aussi, mais bon.
Merci pour votre remarque.
fntamap (2016-08-12 11:18:27+00:00): Correction : du côté pair, en-dessous de l’Église, la première maison porte le numéro 2 (et non 8, faute de frappe).
Et après inspection détaillée : la place de l’Église n'a pas de côtés pair et impair. Les immeubles sont numérotés de manière consécutive, dans le sens inverse des aiguilles d’une montre. Le numéro 1 est le premier immeuble après le coin, à droite en s'éloignant du carrefour, donc du côté de l'Église. Il y a ensuite les numéros 2, 2A, 2B, 2C et 3 à 6, dans la ruelle privée. L’église n'a pas de numéro. En traversant la rue, on trouve le numéro 7, salle Notre-Dame, en face de l’élise. Et le numéro 8 est à sa GAUCHE, en remontant vers le carrefour, juste avant le coin.
Le panneau "rue de la station" ne peut donc pas se trouver bien après le numéro 8 de la "place de l'église", puisque ce numéro est le plus proche du carrefour.  Il faut en effet toujours bien vérifier sur place...
La commune elle-même n'a pas l’air de savoir sur quel pied danser, puisqu’elle donne, comme adresse de l´église, "1, rue de la Station".
osmcoach (2016-09-17 16:10:07+00:00): Merci pour la correction précise.  
Attention : les cartes avec une licence non explicitement "libre" ne sont pas autorisées comme sources de données (Google Maps, Cartobel, CadGIS, plan de la commune, ...).  Certaines contiennent des fausses rues qui servent à détecter la copie : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_Easter_Eggs
Cordialement.