piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ovruni (2021-11-05 00:15:41+00:00): Hola, esta cuenta ha estado eliminando la misma vía al igual que el usuario Moises Mollenido (usuario con id 13471672), la cual posteriormente eliminó su cuenta.
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=13471672
johnarupire (2021-11-05 01:14:27+00:00): Hola Ovniruna,
Eliminar elementos reiteradamente sin una justificación es considerado vandalismo. Cuál es la razón para eliminar estos elementos?
jeslop (2021-11-05 16:52:07+00:00): Saludos Ovniruna. ¿Podrías explicar la razón de estos cambios en las vías? No se pueden eliminar los elementos sin aportar algún tipo de explicación. Igualmente es necesario contestar a las peticiones de información de otros usuarios y realizar  adecuadamente los comentarios en los conjuntos de cambios: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Buenos_comentarios_en_conjuntos_de_cambios

Jesús López
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group
ovruni (2021-11-05 21:10:25+00:00): Este usuario ayer ya había contestado en https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113389897
user_14406244 (2021-11-11 13:40:51+00:00): Sr. Ovruni,
Dices eliminar vías sin motivo aparente y tú que motivos me diste cuando revertiste mis cambios?
ovruni (2021-11-11 21:09:26+00:00): Hola Ovniruna
Esta vía contiene la zona de Huasquillay y por si no lo ha notado mas de un usuario le ha escrito sobre esta eliminación sin motivo.
A continuación procedo a indicar sus acciones:
1. La eliminación de la vía que contiene a Huasquillay en el conjunto de cambios 113369966 mediante la cuenta de usuario "Moises Mollenido" (uid 9065185)
2. Cambiar de nombre de usuario a Dagarit para eliminar el pueblo de "Pata Huillcuyo" en el conjunto de cambios 113373257, usuario que eliminó posteriormente.
3. Eliminación reiterada de la zona que contiene a Huasquillay mediante la cuenta de usuario Ovniruna (uid 14406244).
4. Responder con el mensaje "Pobre jajaja!!!" en el conjunto de cambios 113389897
Saludos
user_14406244 (2021-11-21 01:19:46+00:00): Hola Ovruni, sabes por qué eliminé la vía que contiene la zona de Huasquillay o el pueblo de Pata Huillcuyo?, porque yo creé los elementos y tú me caíste gordo en ese momento con tus acciones, mi intención era eliminar todo lo que había aportado en esa zona y pasar a retirarme sin dejar rastro, porque creo que vigilas el lugar. También te digo hace 6 meses atrás revertiste todas mis contribuciones, cuando digo "todas" me refiero todo lo que había aportado hasta ese momento y no me diste razón alguna, desde esa fecha vigilas mis ediciones, tal vez era el principal motivo para eliminar mis cuentas, porque de alguna manera quería librarme de ti; pero ahora me di cuenta de que no solo vigilas mis ediciones sino que también rastreas mi usuario, sabes todo, de cuando creé, cambié de nombre o eliminé mis cuentas. Eliminar mis cuentas no está en contra de las reglas y además porque me tienes que mencionar en tus comentarios, porque no le pones el uid de la cuentas eliminadas.
ovruni (2021-11-21 05:17:58+00:00): Pese a que tal vez no sería necesario responder a su comentario, ya que usted mismo ha indicado el motivo de sus acciones, voy a comentar por respeto a los otros compañeros que se encuentran suscritos a este conjunto de cambios. Usted menciona que ha creado la vía 642277678 y en la base de datos sale que fue creada en el 2018 por el usuario "Dereck Tlv" (con uid 9065185), así que usted esta indicando que también ha utilizado ese nombre de usuario previamente, cuenta que también fue eliminada. Las reversiones que hice en esa zona hace seis meses se debían a, por ejemplo, que en el conjunto de cambios 64301705 se habían modificado limites administrativos, los cuales habían sido ingresadas en el 2011 tomando como base fuentes oficiales como el Ministerio del Ambiente y en el conjunto de cambios 64303795 se habían eliminado etiquetas de colegio que fueron agregadas como parte de la importación de instituciones educativas del Ministerio de Educación en el 2018. [0] Todas estas importaciones fueron coordinadas en su momento con otros miembros de la comunidad de OpenStreetMap en Perú.

Con lo que respecta al uid, lo común en OSM es indicar solamente el nombre de usuario, pero dado que eliminó su cuenta "Moises Mollenido" (con uid 13471672) y luego creó otra cuenta "Moises Mollenido" (con uid 14404926), también ha usado cuentas alternativas o cambiando de nombre de usuario, es que también he indicado el uid.

Saludos

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Importando_instituciones_educativas_en_Per%C3%BA
user_14406244 (2021-11-05 00:18:38+00:00): Pobre jajaja!!!
user_14406244 (2021-11-05 00:21:31+00:00): Te dejo, sigue haciendo contribuciones útiles.
sannkc (2021-11-05 00:44:20+00:00): Correction: note #102806
Alecs01 (2021-11-09 18:15:05+00:00): Le comunità montane sono enti territoriali che raggruppano più comuni, che significato hanno delle relazioni "site" che uniscono i centri abitati? Sono enti locali che hanno un territorio di riferimento ben preciso con dei confini (che tu hai fatto sparire dalla relazione) e in OSM admin_level=7 (intermedio tra 6-provincia e 8-comune), come erano mappate prima delle tue modifiche. Appena ho tempo faccio il revert di tutte queste modifiche. OSM non è un gioco dove inventarsi dei modi di descrivere la realtà tanto per fare qualcosa. Comportati da persona seria per favore.
user_10901495 (2021-11-09 21:11:27+00:00): Fare una cosa con cui non sei d'accordo:
Literally un gioco dove inventarsi dei modi di descrivere la realtà tanto per fare qualcosa.
Ma io sono quello che dovrebbe  comportarsi da persona seria.
user_10901495 (2021-11-09 21:15:34+00:00): Guarda che le cose io le faccio con cognizione di causa e con le mie ragioni comunque, non a caso.

Non è educato andare da un utente e dirgli che usa questo sito come un gioco. Ma lo userà lei come un gioco, sembra che io sia il villain cattivo da sconfiggere.
user_10901495 (2021-11-09 21:17:35+00:00): userai tu*
di default io uso il lei con gli sconosciuti e quindi mi confondo. non capisco neanche perché mi si debba dare del tu, ma non voglio assolutamente buttarla in caciara per questa cavolata.
user_10901495 (2021-11-09 21:18:22+00:00): Ovviamente ho sbagliato a scrivere villain cattivo, ma si può considerare come un rafforzativo.
user_10901495 (2021-11-09 21:20:04+00:00): Comunque si è impegnato per scrivere quella frase: --OSM non è un gioco dove inventarsi dei modi di descrivere la realtà tanto per fare qualcosa.--?
user_10901495 (2021-11-09 21:28:45+00:00): Escluse le cavolate, questa è la mia risposta nel merito.
Hai ragione, è meglio indicare le comunità montane come boundaries, semplicemente perché effettivamente come dici tu degli "enti locali a partecipazione obbligaria" (wikipedia). Precedentemente avevo fatto altre valutazioni.
I site che ho creato comunque non "uniscono i centri abitati" raggruppano solamente gli enti territoriali dei comuni, usi bene le parole.

Grazie per l'attenzione,
Martino
user_10901495 (2021-11-09 21:29:09+00:00): sono degli enti*
Alecs01 (2021-11-10 07:21:20+00:00): Martino, tu hai creato una relazione che unisce i nodi dei centri abitati, non i comuni (che sono relazioni). Con la tua risposta dimostri solo di non avere capito le modifiche che tu stesso hai fatto.
user_10901495 (2021-11-10 08:04:59+00:00): Stai scherzando vero? 
Nei site ci sono le relazioni dei confini comunali, è un dato di fatto.
user_10901495 (2021-11-10 08:08:01+00:00): Dimmi se sto parlando con un analfabeta che si permette pure di essere arrogante mentre è nel torto o con una persona seria.
L'unico centro abitato è l'admin_centre che indicato come nodo in TUTTE le relazioni di boundaries.
user_10901495 (2021-11-10 08:09:52+00:00): Poi ripeto, sono d'accordo con te, quindi non capisco il senso di continuare a ripetere una cosa che ti ho già spiegato essere falsa.
user_10901495 (2021-11-10 08:11:57+00:00): Alecs, con la tua risposta dimostri solo di non guardare neanche le modifiche che critichi.
FACTS
Alecs01 (2021-11-10 11:38:12+00:00): Su quello hai ragione scusa, avevo visto male. Si può riconoscere serenamente di sbagliare mica è un dramma. Su tutto il resto mi dispiace non ci siamo proprio. Incluse le risposte che hai dato altrove a me e ad altri, sono incommentabili. È inutile anche che ti ripeto le stesse osservazioni a questo punto (sugli indirizzi ad esempio).
ملاك ساقط (2022-05-07 17:42:39+00:00): Do you have permission from the "Institut géografique du Burundi" to use their map?
Lee Carré (2021-11-05 10:45:07+00:00): Smaller changeset areas, please: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
skyper (2021-11-05 18:43:55+00:00): Apologize
I changed my workflow.
Lee Carré (2021-11-06 21:47:54+00:00): 👍🙂
سالار ماشین ای بی (2021-11-05 13:07:23+00:00): کیفیت خوب
AgusQui (2021-11-16 03:42:16+00:00): No agregar etiquetas public_trasnport a estaciones que no tienen servicios de pasajeros. Te dejo una guia si tienes dudas: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/AgusQui/diary/396933
harahu (2021-11-12 16:26:57+00:00): What is the thinking behind this reversion? 

The reason I modified this junction in the first place was because JOSM complained about power line noes that weren't towers. I agree with JOSM: I don't see it as likely that these power lines are connected in mid air, as opposed to a connection through the nearby towers.

If you have a reason to believe the warning is wrong, I suggest adding a note to the untagged node connection explaining why it is as intended.
Gazer75 (2021-11-12 19:54:35+00:00): Lines can have a mid air tap where one crosses over the other. there is no connection like you did. Problem is it is impossible to know for the validator if there should be a tower at a node or not, so you can't remove it.
Gazer75 (2021-11-12 20:01:59+00:00): Hard to find visual examples of this, but here is one close to a streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/cXHLkhVzvFfwpy4V8
Gazer75 (2021-11-12 20:05:27+00:00): Mid air taps are quite common in those types of junctions actually. The tower on the through line is an anchor termination tower with no connection of the line, so it has to go via the two branch ones to the nearby substation.
Gazer75 (2021-11-12 20:38:25+00:00): Was thinking I would start counting, but if I include 22kV distribution lines then there are probably thousands of taps around the country.
Some examples on openinframap:
4 taps on this one for the 132kV lines: https://openinframap.org/#17.9/59.276012/9.543613
3 taps here: https://openinframap.org/#17.9/59.727655/9.819084
2 here: https://openinframap.org/#17.57/59.132268/9.474693

There are many many more :)
harahu (2021-11-15 07:25:02+00:00): I learnt something new today! Thank you for this thorough and high quality feedback.

To me, it seems like it would be natural to have a tag for this; something like `power=tap`. There is no similar tag, as far as I can see. Having one would at least help remove a false positive warning in this case, and probably quite a few more, since this is fairly common. What do you think about it? Have you heard of such a proposal being reviewed before?
Gazer75 (2021-11-15 12:09:50+00:00): I fully agree we should have a tag for these to help with validation. I'm not that good with formulating things and don't have enough wiki knowledge to add a proposal.
harahu (2021-11-15 23:16:18+00:00): I've been digging around and found this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Apower%3Dconnection

It only has status: proposed, but seems fairly uncontroversial, and seems like an exact match for what we're after.

I tagged the nodes as suggested in the wiki in this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113828378
harahu (2021-11-15 23:18:32+00:00): It doesn't resolve the JOSM warnings, but at least it is a statement that the mapping is as intended, and perhaps the warnings will be resolved this way in future updates.
Gazer75 (2021-11-15 23:24:17+00:00): Nice find!

Could probably make a ticket for JOSM asking to add this to validator. It is very much needed.
Taginfo shows 2378 uses so far as well, so its not that rare.
Gazer75 (2021-11-15 23:32:40+00:00): https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/21566
harahu (2021-11-15 23:44:36+00:00): Thanks! Might want to specify in the ticket that we specifically would like the "Missing power tower/pole within power line" warning to go away when two distinct lines are connected using `power=connection`. They might also want to reword the error message for connected lines without said tag, in order to also suggest this tag, instead of just tower or pole.
DressyPear4 (2021-11-05 12:56:55+00:00): Olá, evite adicionar nomes em caixa alta
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113392329
pitfire (2021-11-05 04:39:29+00:00): Hallo René73,
willkommen bei OSM.
Bitte mach Dich mit den Grundregel vertraut! 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Erfasse_keine_Vorschriften.2C_die_nicht_durch_Gegenst.C3.A4nde_vor_Ort_repr.C3.A4sentiert_werden
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-11-07 13:41:21+00:00): Ideally, names wuld be also removed from water areas
Mashin (2021-11-07 15:57:30+00:00): Oh I was not sure if there was some sort of local agreement on keeping those names on areas since so many rivers have it like that. 
Ok, I'll be removing those. Thanks
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:24:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
pitfire (2021-11-05 05:33:24+00:00): Jetzt hast Du aus der Haltestelle einen Supermarkt gemacht. Gibt es die Haltestelle noch, dann "public_transport 	platform"
oder die Haltestelle gib es nicht mehr und kann raus. 
Achtung, die aktuelle Buslinie 272 gibt wohl noch.
René73 (2021-11-05 08:07:15+00:00): Da gibt es keine Haltestelle.
ticki_52 (2021-11-08 21:03:20+00:00): Hallo Geopackix,

kennst Du Dich mit dem Kartieren von Buslinien, Bahnhöfen und Haltestellen aus? Wenn nicht, dann bitte zuerst kundig machen, bevor Du da irgendetwas "improvst". Deine "kleine" Änderung zieht nun einige Arbeit nach sich. Es müssen 7 Buslinien gecheckt und ggf. berichtigt werden. Deine Änderungen habe ich rückgängig gemacht. Also bitte: Vorsicht bei Elementen, die mit dem ÖPNV zu tun haben könnten. Danke.

Grüße ticki_52
geopackix (2021-11-09 10:09:13+00:00): Hallo ticki_52,

Zur Frage: "kennst Du Dich mit dem Kartieren von Buslinien, Bahnhöfen und Haltestellen aus?"
Antwort: ja

ÖPNV hatte ich in dem Moment nicht auf dem Radar.

Danke für den Hinweis und fürs fixen.

Gruß, geopackix
RicoElectrico (2023-12-01 10:56:01+00:00): I was searching for a de-facto boundary of Morocco as it is presented on other maps. And I found it, but I don't understand why it's marked with boundary=historic. Any particular reason?
gwahak (2023-12-20 06:54:48+00:00): relation=13407035 is de jure and internationally recognized border of Morocco, but we use boundary=historic to follow on the ground rule
kolasau (2021-11-05 06:00:34+00:00): #mbx_netherlands_roads
Erick tamba (2021-11-05 12:04:23+00:00): Added buildings
muralito (2021-11-06 20:09:58+00:00): Hola. ¿Hay sendero peatonal para que peatones puedan atravesar la plaza?
nubeLibre (2021-11-07 22:24:21+00:00): hola.
Si, esta placita está sobre una calle cortada, a mitad de  cuadra, con una reja y puerta. Desde ahí nace un  camino central, peatonal, que termina en la calle Dorrego,
Ya marco el camino peatonal,
muralito (2021-11-08 01:39:11+00:00): Muy bueno! si la puerta no se tranca y permite pasar libremente, es importante dibujar el camino peatonal. En Openstreetmap hay lugar para todos los intereses, autos, bicis, peatones, etc.... Gracias!
Erick tamba (2021-11-05 12:04:13+00:00): Added buildings
Erick tamba (2021-11-05 12:03:57+00:00): Added buildings
rivermont (2021-12-30 14:38:18+00:00): Hi, why did you add these beaches in the water? They don't appear on any imagery we have, and certainly not Esri.
rivermont (2021-12-30 14:55:50+00:00): Also a lot of your other edits in the area seem inconsistent; is there a different imagery source you're using?
JRH50 (2022-01-02 16:07:20+00:00): Beach in the water? Any beach is partly underwater and partly above the waterline.  Especially in areas affected by the tides.  Also an image of a beach is immediately out of date because of shifting sands.  In tidal areas, it is hard to know if the image was captured at high or low tide.
JRH50 (2022-01-02 16:14:07+00:00): I don't remember what the coastline looked like when I finished this change set.  All I can say is that I tried to follow OSM guidelines for natural=coastline: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline.  OSM Carto allows for beaches (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dbeach) to be mapped as a zone above and below the high water mark by using the key surface=sand or surface=gravel. Again this is per OSM guidelines.
rivermont (2022-01-02 16:43:33+00:00): Sure every beach is always partly submerged, but you added several hundred feet of beach beyond the coastline, which isn't there. And the coastline didn't match Cape Point on any of the imagery I can see so I was curious if you had used some other source.
JRH50 (2022-01-04 23:01:02+00:00): Still not sure what exactly you are talking about.  Are you talking about Diamond Shoals?  I used all of the imagery sources included.  The waves clearly visible on the imagery show where Diamond Shoals lie.  I used the imagery to map and the NOAA nautical chart as a guide.  The NOAA chart says that they don't even survey that area because of the "changeable nature of the area." That leads me to believe that a sandy beach is the correct feature type instead of reef.  A shoal feature might work, but since it is contiguous to the beach above the coastline, I chose beach. My Diamond Shoal feature extends three miles from the coastline, where NOAA's goes out to about 7.5.
rivermont (2022-01-04 23:18:00+00:00): natural=reef can be sand, not only coral. Diamond Shoals is fine; we can't really map further out anyway since the imagery is clipped.

I was referring to 999347893 and 999347892. The coastline and other changes you made also were not consistent.
JRH50 (2022-01-04 23:23:01+00:00): As for the proper location of the coastline, you say that the coastline I edited is not on the imagery.  I did my best to read the imagery to find mean high water springs by identifying the border of the wet and dry sand and flotsam line per OSM guidelines on: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline#Where_is_the_coastline.3F.  The vehicles at the water's edge on the 12 Sep 2021 Imagery which you used to remap the coastline would almost certainly be under water within 4-6 hours of this image with the next high tide.  This area has two high tides and two low tides every day.  If you tweak the display options of the 12 Sep 2021 imagery, you can better see the wet/dry line.
rivermont (2022-01-04 23:32:10+00:00): You can try to pull a high tide line out of the imagery but I'm telling you it is correct. Those cars are about ten feet above (vertical) the ocean. The high tide line is in front of them. A quick check of the tide chart also shows that it was near high tide when the image was taken
JRH50 (2022-01-07 23:49:46+00:00): I can't see those features since you deleted them.  I guess you are talking about the part of the beach below the coastline.  As noted above, I used all of the imagery available to gauge a best guess of the low end of the beach.  Interpreting both the outer surf line and the discolored water.
JRH50 (2022-01-07 23:55:42+00:00): Since your edit puts the coastline at high tide, your beach that goes no lower than the coastline, ignores the area of beach at low tide.
rivermont (2022-01-08 00:28:12+00:00): So since we agree on a coastline we can work on beach mapping. I have no problem with mapping the low-tide beach (I like the idea of it being separate with a tidal tag), but what I removed were not parts of any real beach. They extended several hundred feet into the ocean, which is just not realistic. This is similar to the beaches you added at north Pea Island (see n8544312354) which go 200-600ft into the water (from high tide).
Erick tamba (2021-11-05 12:03:46+00:00): Added buildings
Erick tamba (2021-11-05 12:03:32+00:00): Added buildings
Erick tamba (2021-11-05 12:03:21+00:00): Added buildings
Erick tamba (2021-11-05 12:03:12+00:00): Added buildings
hieuvan (2021-12-10 19:47:54+00:00): Chào bạn, bạn có thể dẫn nguồn việc thay đổi số hiệu đường cao tốc VĐ3 từ CT.20 thành CT.37 được ko?
Erick tamba (2021-11-05 12:03:03+00:00): Added buildings
Erick tamba (2021-11-05 12:02:49+00:00): Added buildings
Erick tamba (2021-11-05 12:02:37+00:00): Added buildings
Erick tamba (2021-11-05 12:02:26+00:00): Added buildings
Erick tamba (2021-11-05 12:02:14+00:00): Added buildings
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:21:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
mueschel (2021-11-09 14:46:11+00:00): Hi,
could you check this way, it got a strange tag?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/96539444
Stalker61 (2021-12-27 16:06:53+00:00): Checked it out. Fixed
joost schouppe (2021-11-06 08:35:59+00:00): Hoi Kobe,
Bedankt voor je bijdrage!
Het stukje Dendermondsestraat tussen August de Boekstraat en Sint-Jansdreef lijkt me logisch dat geen fietsstraat zou zijn. Maar dit stukje van de Dendermondestraat lijkt me vreemd? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/626021836
Je lijkt me de buurt wel te kennen - betekent dit dat het artikeltje hier https://www.merchtem.be/product/1222/fietsstraten onvolledig is?
kobevandeweerdt (2021-11-06 08:44:51+00:00): Hele Dendermondestraat is geen fietsstraat. Enkel stukje August De Boeckstraat tussen Dendermondestraat en August De Boeckstraat (gewestweg) is fietsstraat.

Het overzicht van de gemeente is correct, maar niet duidelijk :)
joost schouppe (2021-11-06 10:00:35+00:00): Bedankt voor de verduidelijking! Via MapComplete zou je dan bij deze nu wel een duidelijk kaartje moeten krijgen :)
We zijn trouwens bezig met een update die ook de verkeersborden van de fietsstraten mee laat zien - maar daarvoor moet de gemeente natuurlijk wel de verkeersbordendatabank up to date brengen...
DP24PH (2021-11-05 09:46:35+00:00): NOTICE

Due to health issues on the part of the mapper, this and the earlier changesets has to be wrapped-up. Follow-up edits will be made thru next week, so don't forget to check-out OSM at anytime. Be safe, be well, stay sane and dry, and you are loved.


DP24
eserte (2022-08-25 06:19:39+00:00): Ich finde auch nichts zum Kinderladen. Plädiere für löschen.
Strubbl (2021-11-05 13:50:18+00:00): Hallo Rene, danke für deinen Beitrag. Als Tipp für den Editor: Du kannst Gebäude rechtwinklig machen, in dem du sie erst mit der Maus auswählst und dann die Taste Q drückst.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-12 15:12:18+00:00): what you wanted to express by operator=n/a and website=n/a tags?
user_5239402 (2021-11-05 09:36:10+00:00): 안녕하세요.
기차역 건물을 삭제하시고 동해선(전철)같은 것을 생성하시는 이유가 무엇입니까? 동해선 광역전철과 관련된 편집은 모두 제가 다 했습니다. 태화강역(타는곳)같은 이름을 넣고 만드는 것이 아닙니다. 기차역 건물은 위키 표준에 맟춘것입니다. 태화강역 부근의 철도는 모두 공사가 끝난지 오래입니다. 위성사진좀 잘 보고 매핑하세요. 오래된 사진도 존재합니다. Ma으로 시작하는 위성사진이 최신 지도입니다. 그리고 함부로 철도를 편집하지 마세요. 철도 관련된 편집은 제가 다 합니다. 위키를 읽어보시고 편집하시기 바랍니다.
user_5239402 (2021-11-05 09:36:48+00:00): name 태그에 괄호 등으로 이름이 아닌 것에 대한 설명을 넣지 않는다. name 태그에는 해당 지물의 소유권자가 공식적으로 발표한 이름을 넣고, 만약 공식적인 이름을 찾을 수 없으면 해당 지물의 이름을 표기한 표지판에 적인 이름을 넣는다. 그것도 없으면 지역 사람들이 부르는 이름을 넣는다. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names)

railway=rail 태그의 name은 선로의 이름을 의미하므로, 선로를 이용하는 운행계통은 name 태그에 넣지 않고 별도의 태그 또는 관계에 추가한다. ex) 수인선 (수도권 전철 1호선) [X] 수인선 [O] 선로명에 운행계통을 전부 추가하면 청량리-망우 사이의 경원선은 KTX, ITX 새마을, 경의중앙선, 경춘선, 등등 여러개의 운행계통을 전부 넣어야 할 것입니다.

운행계통은 관계(relation)로 관리한다.

철도 역 이름 (railwat=station) 에 ‘역’을 붙이지 않는 것이 좋다. 철도거리표의 이름을 따른다.(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dstation#Things_to_avoid)
skquinn (2021-11-18 13:23:51+00:00): Thanks for fixing this, I noticed this unfortunate mistake in OsmAnd data (from prior to the fix) on last night's trip to Austin.