piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ChHe (2022-04-25 07:57:45+00:00): (In Klammern: Ich sprach nicht davon, dass im Geoportal nur eine Hausnummer existiert, sondern davon, dass die "Trennlinie", die zwei unabhängige Doppelhaushälften suggeriert nicht vorhanden ist. So erscheint es ja aktuell auch in der OSM. DANKE! )
Ich habe gestern die Vermessungsverwaltung freundlich um eine Erklärung gebeten, warum dieser etwas verwirrende Unterschied besteht. Das ist verwirrend, wenn man die Adresse sucht und den Eingang von Nr.2 im Südwesten bei der Ecke vermutet, die nun in der OSM verschwunden ist. Dort steht man nämlich vor einer Hecke, die die Terrasse der EG-Wohnung vom Gehsteig abgrenzt.
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-20 17:20:10+00:00): fixing notes
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:22:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
便携式小朋友 (2022-04-20 17:21:08+00:00): 自动补全写错了 53路完善
joost schouppe (2023-03-03 14:25:05+00:00): Sorry, I had to remove most of these cycleways, as we don't map cycle lanes as separate lines. The results on a cycle map should look basically the same though, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119964626#map=17/50.98299/4.82728
joost schouppe (2023-03-09 16:18:00+00:00): I see the link was not what it was supposed to be: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119964626#map=17/50.98299/4.82594&layers=Y
I've had to do the same to another area as well, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133485461
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:19:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:28:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
tux67 (2022-04-21 06:22:07+00:00): Hi,

für eine Auffahrt wäre noch ein service=driveway gut.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:service%3Ddriveway

Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119965043
yasslay (2022-04-20 17:45:42+00:00): Hi! I was just looking back at this but I am confused as to why the A420 was mapped as a Tertiary Road and not a Primary Road, but one of it's tags referred to it as a Primary Road? I was just looking into this so if anyone could shed some light on this I'd be grateful. Thank you!
gmar5 (2022-04-21 15:07:35+00:00): Hi! The note is saying: this road is officially designated as primary, but it is de facto a tertiary road; therefore, we decided to map the reality on the ground (tertiary), and not that on paper (primary), consistently with OSM principles.
I personally agree with the note – mapping St Aldate's and the High Street as a primary road is misleading. From the note, it sounds like there was some deliberation on that, so I think it is best to revert your change, and you can re-open a discussion if you feel strongly about it.
yasslay (2022-04-21 16:37:34+00:00): I see, thank you! I was just a bit confused on it so thank you for the clear up!
gmar5 (2022-04-21 17:45:03+00:00): No worries. Thanks for asking clarification. Let me know if you need help with reverting the changeset.
yasslay (2022-04-21 17:48:59+00:00): Hi, I need help with reverting the change set! I am unsure of how to revert a changeset but I could do it manually, but it'd be greatly appreciate if you or someone else can help with reverting the changes as I am not really familiar with reverts as it seems to use scripts I'm not really aware of. Also, you're welcome, and I really should be the one thanking you!
gmar5 (2022-04-21 18:00:57+00:00): Sure. I reverted the changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120013272), which should be cleaner that a manual correction (there was also a minor error in a footpath).
Enjoy mapping. All the best.
Nathan_A_RF (2024-08-23 15:02:47+00:00): I am unhappy with this mapping. The road is a designated non-primary A-road and as such should be mapped as "highway=primary". The traffic carried along the road has nothing to do with the mapping of M, A and B-roads in Great Britain.
yasslay (2024-08-24 19:54:15+00:00): Hey Nathan,

Thanks for the feedback. While it's been a while since I've touched this area of Oxford, I have to agree with you. I'm not sure why there's consensus to map this section of the A420 differently than the rest of the UK and I would like someone familiar with this section of the A420 to explain why there's an exception for this road in particular.

Best regards
gmar5 (2024-08-26 08:06:44+00:00): Hi both,

The wiki for key:highway specifies:
> Note that highway=* distinguishes roads by function and importance rather by their physical characteristic and legal classification. Usually these things are highly correlated, but OSM is not obligated to copy official road classifications. 

And key:highway=primary:
> Use highway=primary to tag a major highway linking large towns
> Primary highways are usually open to all motorised trafic

This section of road is not a primary link on the ground, it is not signed as such and cannot be used as such by traffic. The current state of the map is before my time, but I think it is accurate. 
The legal classification is irrelevant. In my opinion, mapping Oxford St Aldate's and High Street as primaries would make a worse map for users.
Nathan_A_RF (2024-08-26 09:59:33+00:00): You have made this almost certainly the only exception to the long-standing highway mapping norms in the UK. Yes, the wiki page for 'key:highway' states the tag "distinguishes roads by function and importance rather by their physical characteristic and legal classification", however this is a general description for the entire world. The specific UK wiki page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom) states clearly the tags to use: “Description: A-roads with non-primary status (signed black on white) -> Tag: highway=primary, highway=primary_link”. Regardless of the signs on the ground, the road status is still a non-primary A-road and as such it needs 'highway=primary' tags. The legal classification is not irrelevant, and I fail to see in any way how mapping as 'highway=primary' would make a "worse map for users" – on the contrary, it will make a better map with consistent mapping.
yasslay (2024-09-01 22:16:25+00:00): Agreed with Nathan. I fail to see how tagging the A420 as highway=tertiary could improve the map.
gmar5 (2024-09-03 08:23:28+00:00): Mapping what is actually on the ground, over what is defined legally on paper, is a founding principle of OSM, and it applies to roads too. The wiki page for UK roads is helpful guidance, but every case should be always judged individually. 
If this is the only exception, it might mean that that's what is is, or that other roads might also need to be reviewed, or that the legal classification is out-of-date. Alone, it cannot mandate how it should be tagged.

In Oxford, for users, this does not look and does not behave like a primary road, in my opinion.
Legal classification and national consistency are not powerful enough arguments to change it.
The only argument I can see for highway=primary is that it is actually a primary road for bus routes. That's true (although not applicable to most users).

Anyway, the note asks to start a discussion on talk:GB before changing it. I assume that some discussion happened there some time ago, to reach a consensus decision on this.
If you would like to review, it is probably best to move the discussion there, compared to this changeset where only we are notified. (If you do, please let us know.)

Thanks. All the best!
yasslay (2024-09-03 08:35:27+00:00): > Mapping what is actually on the ground, over what is defined legally on paper, is a founding principle of OSM
> Legal classification and national consistency are not powerful enough arguments to change it.

Other towns and cities in the UK (including London) which feature roads of a similar standard to the A420 are tagged per the OSM Wiki page; for the A420 to be the sole exception to this guideline, in my view, is strange.

I will move the discussion to the OSM Community Forum and notify talk-GB to invite the wider community to participate in the discussion; thank you for raising this point!

Best regards
yasslay (2024-09-03 08:45:53+00:00): I have opened the OSM Community Forum discussion here:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/a420-oxford-dispute/118265
LudovicG (2022-07-07 10:53:30+00:00): Hello, it could be better to make smaller area of changeset :)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:26:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-04-20 17:53:02+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 119721614, 119788277, 119788302, 119788337, 119788355, 119788383, 119788411, 119788471, 119788490, 119930564, 119930570, 119930573, 119930578, 119930585, 119930591, 119930598, 119930612, 119930617, 119930663, 119930667, 119930673, 119930675, 119930687, 119930689, 119930703, 119930709, 119930713, 119930716, 119930729, 119930747.
Kovoschiz (2022-04-21 10:10:57+00:00): If the name is wrong, change it. Don't delete the thing. It still represent something in reality.
Kovoschiz (2022-04-21 10:11:57+00:00): Please don't copy other's changeset comment without understanding it. Most are already changed to `old_name=`, contrary to what you are doing here.
maraf24 (2022-04-24 19:22:12+00:00): No nie wiem czy tak jest lepiej, poprzednio nazwa była pośrodku osiedla i nie wchodziła na budynki :)
Mordechai23 (2022-04-24 21:11:19+00:00): z drugiej strony osiedle jest tam gdzie mieszkają ludzie, a nie w polu ;)
Mobinaute (2022-04-20 18:04:22+00:00): ajout de nouveaux bâtiments. Il reste à attendre les mises à jour du cadastre
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:29:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
user_5359 (2022-04-27 12:55:41+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/1046902722.What is the meaning of the tag Tutorat PACES = Escalier central ?
zhik (2022-04-20 19:55:17+00:00): There seems to be a bug in Osm Go! 1.5.0, adding duplicated points.
See : https://github.com/DoFabien/OsmGo/issues/102
InsertUser (2022-05-17 22:55:20+00:00): Are you sure these aren't there from a visit?
They shown on the MAXAR satellite view which is normally newer
kubahahaha (2022-04-24 00:23:42+00:00): Cześć, co to znaczy abandoned:highway? Można tam legalnie przekraczać przejazd?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1053412513
Dawid2849 (2022-04-24 07:49:24+00:00): abandoned:highway oznacza, że kiedyś tam była droga, ale teraz już jej nie ma. Zrobiłem tak, żeby nikt tam nie dostał nieistniejącego już przejazdu, "bo go na orto widać". 

Tak to miejsce wyglądało w wakacje 2021: https://postimg.cc/mPSrYfMx

Niestety nie mam pojęcia co się stało ze szlakami.
Dawid2849 (2022-04-24 08:23:32+00:00): *nie dodał
kubahahaha (2022-04-24 13:35:42+00:00): Dzięki za wyjaśnienie, usunąłem w takim razie jeszcze tracktype i surface z tego odcinka
Joseph R P (2023-05-08 22:07:44+00:00): Please do not add made-up names to objects on OSM.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:17:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
user_12500175 (2022-04-22 07:27:15+00:00): Hallo,
das Gelände ist schon mit diesem Namen getaggt, nach deinem Eintrag steht der Name jetzt zweimal drinnen. Man müßte sich jetzt für eine Möglichkeit entscheiden
legofahrrad (2022-08-24 15:56:09+00:00): Ein kleiner Tipp: Nach dem Ändern der Geometrie einfach noch die Taste Q drücken, dann werden die Ecken rechtwinklig.
gurglypipe (2022-04-24 12:56:08+00:00): Hiya. In future please consider updating the shop nodes which no longer exist, rather than deleting them. Deleting them loses the information that a shop exists there, and its address data (if set).

Disused shops can be tagged like this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:shop

Thanks for your edits :)
geo_thom (2022-04-21 18:20:26+00:00): Hallo, auch hier sind wieder die refs der Wegweiser mit Werten versehen, die so nicht passen. Bitte ändern.

Ich bin unschlüssig bei den Änderungen an diesem Weg (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/661590873). Gibt es an der Stelle eine neues Schild, das die Änderungen begründet? Du hast alle Werte auf private gesetzt. highway=private ist allerdings falsch. Hier ist track laut Luftbild schon am besten geeignet. Laut Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Track:access) sind Feldwege für die Nutzung bei bicycle und foot erlaubt (horse nur bei Kennzeichnung). 

Bei Feedback oder Fragen gern melden.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119968943
fjavier_gr (2023-04-30 17:18:47+00:00): Hola,

¿A qué se debe que la N-420 haya dejado de ser trunk?

Un saludo.
granada69 (2023-04-30 18:51:46+00:00): Hola,
Normalmente cuando repaso coloco la línea sobre el camino, lo que me dices no lo tengo por la mano y puede que estuviera de antes.
fjavier_gr (2023-05-01 20:51:58+00:00): Hola.
El cambio lo hiciste hace un año, antes la carretera N-420 estaba como trunk.
Los cambios están en este conjunto de cambios.
Saludos.
granada69 (2023-05-01 21:48:35+00:00): Debajo de esta conversación se ven las modificaciónes que realice y referente a la N-420 solo repase dos trozos:
N-420 (1053419403, v1)
N-420 (1053419404, v1)
Creo que los he puesto en trunk y he puesto que lo revise alguien, el resto de la N-420 lo dejo como estaba ya que no lo toque.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:29:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Marek-M (2025-05-22 08:13:41+00:00): Cześć, wiem, że od tych edycji minęło dużo czasu ale wolę się upewnić, że już nie robisz oddzielnych linii dla pasów ruchu na drogach bez rozdziału fizycznego np. barierką, trawnikiem i.t.p.

W Ostrołęce i okolicy znalazłem wiele przypadków takiego nieprawidłowego rozdzielenia, którego jesteś autorem. Podwójna linia oraz powierzchnie wyłączone z ruchu nie są podstawą do rysowania oddzielnej linii na drodze.

Tutaj jest moja poprawka tego Twojego działa sprzed 3 lat: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=166599778

Czy poprawiłeś swój sposób mapowania dróg przez te ostatnie 3 lata?
CurlingMan13 (2022-04-21 00:46:02+00:00): What source did you use to verify notes were correct and what do you mean you "fixed" them?

Just because there is a note saying what the note is, if it is from anonymous, it doesn't always mean it is correct.  It should be verified as with any other edit.
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-23 16:32:33+00:00): Verified from driving around Manitoba and going down these actual streets and looking at street signs, I fixed these notes and verified them through local knowledge. I am a professional mapper and surveying these roads are my passion.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:25:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:22:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:30:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2022-04-21 17:19:38+00:00): Estonian name should be the default one. Fixed.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:19:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
danieldegroot2 (2022-06-07 13:07:40+00:00): Hey OSMforHistoryBuffs,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I have sent you an extensive welcome message with useful information and links as a private message.

Unfortunately I can't give feedback on all your changes, but the ones I've seen look ok.

Thank you for contributing,

Daniel
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:32:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
LateNightTone (2026-05-28 16:17:21+00:00): Apologies for the message, this is an old edit of yours – but I see someone raised a note 576500 where they thought it was accessible. Can I ask where you discovered the closure?
_RM-mapper (2026-06-01 12:33:17+00:00): Hello, thanks for the message. Unfortunately the path is inaccessible as large metal gates have been installed at the bottom of it by St Aidan’s church which I have personally seen. Unfortunately there is no ’Right of Way’ and the landowner has revoked access to this path. I can’t find any info online about an attempt to challenge this...
It’s definitely still been like this in 2024, and I just checked Strava-heatmaps and nobody has recorded any activity along this path in the past 12 months. It’s a shame, I’ve walked it a few times before 2020, and the route is present on legacy articles on walking websites, but unless you know any evidence to the contrary, I believe this path remains inaccessible :(
LateNightTone (2026-06-01 19:05:49+00:00): Ah, that's fair (if unfortunate!) - I'm sure it's a lovely spot. I was only really checking as there's a note 576500 nearby that had been opened 10 years ago, to say the path was closed, but there'd been a few edits since then (yours being the last) so I wasn't certain what the story was. Thanks for confirming.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:33:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2022-04-21 17:28:47+00:00): Hi, I see you are using Bing Maps Aerial which do not have recent imagery. Please use Maa-amet's aerial photographs. You've actually destroyed my work around GIGANT shop. It would be nice if you rollbacked your changes to the roads.
geo_thom (2022-04-21 17:51:22+00:00): Hallo, jetzt melde ich mich hier auch noch einmal ;) Also bei den Wegweisern besteht wieder das gleiche Problem im Key:ref. Wenn es da nichts gibt, dann kannst du diesen Wert einfach leer lassen. Also nur ausfüllen, wenn vorhanden.

Zur eigentlichen Sache, die die Baustelle, vermutlich Am Wehr (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/911634247) betrifft. Du hast access=no bereits korrekt gesetzt. Was mir jedoch aufgefallen ist, ist die eingetragene Barriere (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/413475722). Diese gibt es auch auf dem anderen Ende des Wegs. Du hast opening_hours:covid19=Bauarbeiten gesetzt. Ohne die Situation vor Ort genau zu kennen, würde ich vorschlagen, eine Notiz dafür zu nutzen (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:note). Obwohl eigentlich das access=no ausreichend sein sollte und keine Barriere nötig ist (auch wenn vor Ort vlt ein Bauzau oä. steht).

Im Forum gibt es auch eine Diskussion zu Baustellen (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=63549). Gerade #3 fasst die wichtigsten Sachen zusammen. So wird das entfernen des access=no auch nicht nach Ende der Bauarbeiten vergessen.

Bei Rückfragen oder Feedback gerne melden.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:32:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
JochenB (2023-06-18 22:11:42+00:00): Hallo Andre,

für den Bäcker konnte ich eine andere Quelle im Netz finden aber für die 7 Ferienhäuser nicht. booking.com, airbnb.de oder fewo-direkt.de nennen keine Ferienhäuster in diesem Ort.

Das Haus hier: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9680981417
ist z. B. laut anderer Google eine Metallbauwerkstatt.

Bist du sicher, dass du Ferienhäuser mappen wolltest? Dann mache bitte deine Quelle öffentlich.

Oder wolltest du mit tourism=chalet etwas anderes ausdrücken? Laut Wiki sind das frei stehende Ferienhäuser, die man mieten kann.
	
Wenn ja, was war es? Bitte melde dich, damit wir die richtigen Tags finden.

Chalet im Wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Dchalet

Viele Grüße,
Jochen
Firefishy (2022-04-21 16:48:24+00:00): Nice first edit.
If the bridge hasn't yet been completed, please tag it as highway=construction construction=service
geo_thom (2022-04-21 16:47:11+00:00): Hallo, ich wollte dir kurz Feedback zu deiner Änderung mit Wegweisern und Routen/Relationen geben.

1) Wenn du Wegweiser zu einer Relation hinzufügst, dann bekommen sie die Rolle 'guidepost' zugewiesen. Dazu aus dem Wiki: "Gehört der Wegweiser zu einer Route, z.B. einer mittels Symboleinschübe ausgeschilderten Fahrradroute, so kann er in die Routenrelation mit der Rolle 'guidepost' aufgenommen werden" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:information%3Dguidepost).

2) Bei den nodes 9680978993 & 9680978995 hast du als Key:ref "fehlt" bzw "unvollständig" eingetragen. Diese Werte passen nicht zu diesem Feld. Was genau wolltest du damit darstellen? Wenn der Wegweiser on the ground nicht vorhanden ist, sollte er auch nicht eingetragen werden. 

Bei Rückfragen gern nochmal melden.
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-20 20:39:55+00:00): https://postimg.cc/9RP9Jnjk