piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
aceman444 (2021-09-25 22:45:37+00:00): Zdravim, myslim, ze tie cesty v stavenisku Ganz House uz nie su, kedze tam nie je ani to parkovisko co je este stale viditelne na Ortofotomozaike.
aceman444 (2021-10-15 00:19:45+00:00): Opravil som, ale pozor v tej oblasti, tam je aj Ortofotomozaika z 2020 uz zastarala, prebieha tam nova vystavba.
Jose Riha (2021-10-15 20:12:22+00:00): zdravim, ktoru oblast mate na mysli? nedavno som tam bol osobne pozriet (vychodna cast pribinovej je zavreta - tam vobec nebolo vidiet, co sa deje).
aceman444 (2022-02-11 23:45:03+00:00): Ganz House je ten trojuholnik medzi Culenovou a Pribinovou.
Jose Riha (2022-02-17 21:42:07+00:00): aktualne maju pridany construction tag, takze navigovat sa po nich nebude dat. zatial by som to tam nechal a opravil az po dokonceni stav. prac
aceman444 (2022-02-17 22:41:40+00:00): Myslim tieto:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/980705680/history

Tie nie su vo vystavbe, kedze sa tam stavia dom, nie cesty. Tie ste pridali v dobe, ked uz tam neboli. Len hovorim, ze v tejto oblasti neverit ani Ortofotomozaike, lebo je stara.
maraf24 (2021-09-09 17:40:13+00:00): Wycofane.
NKA (2022-07-01 16:21:21+00:00): Pls. ikke lanes=* uten at det er merket opp kjørefelt.

Og ikke sidewalk=none/no osv.
SomeoneElse (2021-09-08 17:14:35+00:00): Oops - I think that this (or maybe an edit previous to yours?) might have left some gaps in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10601794 .  I've filled them in now.
JJJWegdam (2021-09-08 18:30:31+00:00): Cheers
PT-53 (2021-09-08 04:27:06+00:00): Hallo soilinvestigator83 ,
Du hast den Verlauf der ehemaligen Federseebahn anhand der Luftbilder verändert ohne zuvor den Luftbildversatz zu korrigieren.

Luftbilder haben immer einen kleineren oder größeren Versatz. Bevor man Straßen nach Luftbildern ausrichtet sollte man immer diesen Versatz vorher korrigieren.

In Baden-Württemberg steht uns in OSM die amtliche Karte Maps4BW zur Verfügung. In dieser sind die Gebäude lagegenau und mit dem EG-Grundriß eingezeichnet.
Maps4BW kann in den Editoren JOSM und ID jeweils als Hintergrund eingeblendet werden  und wir dürfen davon legal abzeichnen.
Mit lagegenau eingezeichneten Gebäuden kann man dann auch den Luftbildversatz berichtigen.
Wiki - Maps4BW:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maps4BW
Wiki - Luftbilder ausrichten:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Luftbilder_vor_dem_Abzeichnen_ausrichten

Überarbeitest Du Deine Änderungen nochmals?
Fragende Grüße
user_11115677 (2021-09-08 05:21:45+00:00): Schickst du mir mal Links der ways zu, die jetzt nicht mehr stimmen sollen? Der Versatz der aktuellen Bing-Luftbilder ist im Vergleich zu früher minimal. Gebäude-Grundrisse habe ich nicht angefasst. MfG
skyper (2021-09-08 11:37:11+00:00): Hallo soilinvestigator83
Leider hast Du die Reihenfolge der Mitglieder einer Interregio-Relation durcheinandergebracht (https://osm.org/relation/10991886). iD hat beim Aufteilen von Linien Probleme, daher achte bitte selber darauf oder verwende eine besser Software. Korrigierst Du das bitte. Danke.

Die Versatz von Bing schwankt immer noch sehr stark, daher ist ein Ausrichten anhand von gpx und Maps4BW sinnvoll bis nötig.

Grüße skyper
skyper (2021-09-08 11:39:16+00:00): Sorry, sind zwei Relationen beschädigt, https://osm.org/relation/10991514 ist auch betroffen.
user_11115677 (2021-09-08 12:53:20+00:00): Schaue ich heute Abend nochmal drauf, ich dachte bisher dass das Mitglied wenigstens beim Aufteilen an der richtigen Stelle verbleibt :-(
PT-53 (2021-09-08 16:44:42+00:00): Hallo soilinvestigator83,
habe ich behauptet, daß Du Gebäudegrundriße angefasst hättest?

Wie Du anhand Maps4BW leicht überprüfen kannst, sind die Gebäude dort (von mir) lagegenau eingezeichnet. Du kannst somit den Luftbildversatz anhand der Gebäudegrundriße korrigieren !
user_11115677 (2021-09-08 19:44:06+00:00): Guten Abend, bitte freundlich bleiben, ich bin sehr an einer fachlich richtigen Arbeit interessiert und so möchte ich auch meinen CS (abseits der Relationsgeschichte) weiterhin sehen. Ich komme in ID auf einen Bildmaterial-Versatz von 0,85 in Ost-West-Richtung bei den meisten Gebäuden, da das Luftbild leicht schräg aufgenommen worden ist. In Nord-Süd-Richtung hingegen gar nicht (Dachüberstand). Welche Versatzwerte würdest du für das Gebiet empfehlen?
PT-53 (2021-09-09 06:58:33+00:00): Hallo soilinvestigator83 , 
Du hast z.B. diesen Knoten
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/313288980/history
um rd. 2,4 m verschoben. Das ist eindeutig eine Verschelchterung der Position gegenüber der vorherigen Platzierung.
Mein Luftbild-Versatz dort ist  -2.24; -0.75, ausgerichtet an den lagegenau eingezeichneten Gebäuden.

Ach ja, Du wünscht Feundlichkeit, hälst aber Grüße für unnötig?
user_11115677 (2021-09-09 08:10:48+00:00): Dankeschön, ich werde es heute Abend mit diesen Werten nachbessern. MfG
PT-53 (2021-09-09 08:46:19+00:00): Hallo soilinvestigator83 , 
das ist aber nur der Versatz für diese Stelle. Der Versatz muß ständig überprüft und korrigiert werden.
Grüße
user_11115677 (2021-09-09 09:20:45+00:00): Welche Geschosszahl nimmst du als Referenz? Bei Zweigeschossbauten ist stärker zu versetzen als bei einer Garage. MfG
PT-53 (2021-09-09 09:31:11+00:00): Ich orientiere mich immer am Boden, wo die Mauern aufstehen.
user_11115677 (2021-09-09 09:43:47+00:00): Das mache ich auch, deswegen meine Frage. Bing ist eine leichte Schrägaufnahme, bei der die Mauer eines zweigeschossigen Hauses einen größeren Versatz erfordert als die einer Garage oder eines Schuppens.
PT-53 (2021-09-09 10:11:32+00:00): Nein. Der Versatz - am Boden - ist (innerhalb einer Luftbild-Kachel) gleich, egal wie hoch das Gebäude ist.
PT-53 (2021-09-09 10:23:33+00:00): Schau Dir mal dieses Gebäude in Bad Buchau und die Gebäude in der Umgebung an.
Die Gebäude sind alle anhand Maps4BW lagegenau eingezeichnet und der Luftbildversatz dort ist bei allen Gebäuden gleich.
user_11115677 (2021-09-09 10:34:40+00:00): Ist okay danke. Man darf natürlich nur Gebäude mit gleichem oder ohne Dachüberstand abgleichen ;-)
skyper (2021-09-09 11:30:13+00:00): Danke fürs Korrigieren der Relationen. Nein, iD baut leider sehr viel Mist und jedes Aufteilen einer Linie welche Teil einer Route-Relation ist kann Problemen bereiten (z.B. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/99292609). Von den Rollen `forward`/`backward` und von Schleifen mal ganz abgesehen (z.B. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/100123894).

Zum Thema Versatz kann ich noch ergänzen:
* Je nach Zoomlevel kann es unterschiedlichen Versatz geben, vor allem, wenn unterschiedliche Bilder verwendet werden.
* Bei größeren Höhenunterschieden (Gebirge) kann auch innerhalb einer Kachel der Versatz unterschiedlich groß sein. Scheint hier aber nicht der Fall zu sein.

Ciao skyper
ovruni (2021-09-07 21:20:47+00:00): Hola TuAmigoElEditor, en este conjunto se han agregado una vía como unclassified, esta debe de ser residencial ya que se encuentra dentro de la zona urbana. [0] Además se ha creado una vía que se cruza a si misma, estas tienen que ser vías diferentes.
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
TuAmigoElEditor (2021-09-09 20:23:14+00:00): Hola, tendré en cuenta ese detalle.
Saludos
kartler175 (2021-09-08 08:25:57+00:00): Did you intend to remove way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/540101342#map=12/49.6612/-125.2531 from relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7714382#map=12/49.6276/-125.3444?
TeLewis (2021-09-08 16:26:19+00:00): No, I removed it unintentionally.  I don't know how to restore it - can you take care of it??

My apologies!!!!
ovruni (2021-09-07 21:24:46+00:00): ¿Cual era el motivo para agregar una relación en tres edificios colindantes?
TuAmigoElEditor (2021-09-09 20:21:13+00:00): Hola. Pense que era un solo edificio. Asi que los junte con la opción merge.
Saludos
ovruni (2021-09-09 20:28:54+00:00): En este caso si son un edificio homogéneo varios pisos, se podría retirar los segmentos de de algunos de ellos de tal forma que quede solamente el contorno, pero si se desea de dar mas detalles de diferentes partes de un edificio se podría usar  "building:part", que podría servir cuando una de las partes tiene otras características diferentes del resto (niveles, tipo de uso, forma, etc).
Saludos
stlmapper74 (2021-09-08 03:11:28+00:00): Please make smaller changesets. Preferably less than 50 miles in any direction.
Emilius123 (2021-09-08 14:08:11+00:00): Sorry, my bad, wasn't paying attention when doing MapRoulette tasks
MaptainPhasma (2021-09-08 15:11:33+00:00): Edit: ESRI World Imagery (Clarity) was used
Mathias Haugsbø (2021-09-07 21:21:37+00:00): Data is coming from https://kartkatalog.geonorge.no/metadata/statistiske-enheter-grunnkretser-wfs/cc7ded0b-7d34-4db6-8fdb-c5a7682b6836

I have gone through a few of them and imported the ones who makes sense, neighbourhoods with unknown names or strange borders has not been included.

More neighbouhoods in Bergen area are subject to be imported in the coming days
Martin Borsje (2021-09-08 18:24:01+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
Martin Borsje (2021-09-08 18:24:30+00:00): Er staan nu twee kerken in het gebouw; is dat de bedoeling? Ik denk het niet.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-09-15 23:55:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 111264809 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a number of changes (at the request of the mapper) following PM reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111068364 , https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/111046069 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5333 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-09-15 23:55:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 111264809 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a number of changes (at the request of the mapper) following PM reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111068364 , https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/111046069 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5333 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-09-15 23:55:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 111264809 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a number of changes (at the request of the mapper) following PM reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111068364 , https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/111046069 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5333 .
maraf24 (2021-09-09 17:37:24+00:00): Nie było w nim nic nieprawidłowego.
Canal des Pangalanes (2021-09-15 10:51:32+00:00): This bot produces complete garbage, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2272810893/history

Please stop it!
zluuzki (2021-09-16 14:52:33+00:00): operator and all the other useless tags on every power pole and even tons of empty nodes? Sorry, but i suggest to revert this bullshit immediately...
zluuzki (2021-10-01 11:30:58+00:00): So has anyone got any objections against reverting?
bhousel (2021-10-01 12:14:27+00:00): I think reverting the changeset because you found some operator tags on the power poles is a pretty uncool thing to do.  

This change was discussed in the Slack #utilities channel here: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C010V5C214H/p1631048663004200

I perfromed the change by using JOSM and an overpass query to search for the misspelled operator, then adding the correct tags to all the objects.  It's a one-off edit, not a bot that runs continuously.

In fact, tagging operator information on all the power poles and supports is encouraged by the wiki, and there is an initiative in the OSM community to do more of this.  You can read about those here: 
https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/issues/5317
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/InfosReseaux/diary/396044

I did not reply previously because when you include words in your changeset discussions like "useless", "garbage", and "bullshit", it really doesn't sound like a serious discussion worth replying to.  Anyway, try to be kinder when you talk to people online about their work, thanks.
InfosReseaux (2021-10-04 04:44:22+00:00): Hi all

I second Bryan's answer. Operator's name on every power feature is useful and it's great effort to add such information.
It covers situations in which different operators runs the line and its supports.

No need to revert anything. Maybe there room for improvement to remove nodes like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8934468290 (intersection between line and road)

Regards
zluuzki (2021-10-05 04:36:19+00:00): Yeah, okay. I admit that I was too harsh. It's just that when it comes to the topic of bad imports/mass edits, I get angry very quickly. In the area where I'm editing right now, everything is full of such bad import stuff from 12 years ago. I spend half my time just to fix that. Probably 90% of all imported NHD data in Georgia is wrong and needs to be corrected. Many rivers and lakes need to be completely redrawn because they are so off from reality. Hwy/waterway intersections are everywhere. 95% of all imported landuses in Atlanta are wrong/outdated and need to be redrawn. Again, from scratch is usually much faster.

Tags being added to many otherwise empty nodes happened often, and I'm sure it could have been easily prevented - for me that's a case of "bad mass edit".

Okay, if it's absolutely wanted, operator tags can be added to any power pole. But what is completely unnecessary in my view are the operator:wikidata and operator:wikipedia tags. They are simply triplications of the normal operator tag, which do not contain any further information. These tags might be useful if the operator exists twice or there are 2 companies with very similar names. But there is only one Florida Power & Light. Just as there aren't several "Georgia Power" companies and wherever these tags are now suggested by the id editor. We should of course map in detail, but we should also be careful to tag in a data-saving way. I know, at least a quarter of all tags in the US are crap tags from imports, which drive up the amount of data unnecessarily. But that doesn't mean we need to add even more.
Long story short:
I was too harsh.
Fix the empty node thing.
Do not use operator:wikidata/pedia
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-09-15 23:55:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 111264809 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a number of changes (at the request of the mapper) following PM reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111068364 , https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/111046069 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5333 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-09-15 23:55:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 111264809 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a number of changes (at the request of the mapper) following PM reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111068364 , https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/111046069 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5333 .
Patr1k_P (2021-09-08 14:24:05+00:00): ak je to myslene ako nazov restauracie, tak treba doplnit aj dalsie znacky a nie len nazov
osmkoni (2021-09-08 21:09:01+00:00): Is a Facebook link to the restaurant enough?
https://m.facebook.com/madewithlaf/
Patr1k_P (2021-09-09 11:36:36+00:00): najdolezitejsia je znacka amenity restaurant...napr. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/330488920
osmkoni (2021-09-11 17:43:32+00:00): Is there a way to change the edit so I can add more information
Patr1k_P (2021-09-11 18:44:21+00:00): jednoducho len pridajte tagy 

amenity=restaurant
contact:facebook=https://m.facebook.com/madewithlaf/
Dodko (2021-09-12 10:58:45+00:00): Doplnil som tagy, pridával to cez mobil, asi by zmenu nezvládol.
Patr1k_P (2021-09-12 17:15:26+00:00): mozno to ide aj cez mobil, ked dokazal vytvorit meno, no najskor nevedel ako
Lee Carré (2021-09-18 23:23:19+00:00): http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Keep_the_history

In this instance, the PoI node could've been detagged and used as one of the nodes of the building outline.

Else, tag the building generically, and leave the PoI node, since often while level=0 (ground) may be commercial, level=1 (and above) may (likely) be residential.

However, if it's a flat for the operators, to which the public will never have access, then one night argue that it's irrelevant (even if not an accurate reflection of reality).

One could also use different ways; one for the building outline, another (which shares / uses the same nodes as the building outline if it occupies the entire floor) for the commercial operation on level=1, and other ways for different floors / features of the building.

When in doubt, do the minimum and seek review.
Jersey already has plenty of messy data, which needs attention.
lyx (2021-09-18 09:11:02+00:00): Hi, thank you for helping to improve OSM. There are a few issues with your edits, though. Your use of the community and community:type tags is not really in line with the description of that tags, besides that you misspelled "lehrerleut" (missing the "r"). I suggest to discuss your intentions on the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:community discussion page to find a tagging that fits your intention better, before continuing with the edits.
Greetings,
Wolfgang
tschettervictor (2021-09-18 12:55:29+00:00): Ok, although I did much study as to what would be best, I am open to more ideas.

What would you suggest?

Thanks for the typo error find…
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-09-15 23:55:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 111264809 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a number of changes (at the request of the mapper) following PM reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111068364 , https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/111046069 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5333 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-09-15 23:54:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 111264809 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a number of changes (at the request of the mapper) following PM reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111068364 , https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/111046069 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5333 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-09-15 23:55:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 111264809 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a number of changes (at the request of the mapper) following PM reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111068364 , https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/111046069 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5333 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-09-15 23:55:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 111264809 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a number of changes (at the request of the mapper) following PM reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111068364 , https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/111046069 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5333 .
confusedbuffalo (2021-09-13 17:55:41+00:00): Hi, what's your basis for these changes?
Everything that I can see that you've changed from trunk to primary should actually be trunk.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom
for how we tag roads and e.g. the A167, A691 and A693 are all trunk roads by that definition, having yellow on green on the signs.
This can be confirmed by Mapillary photos, but I am also familiar with all of those roads.
Barry86m (2021-09-13 20:05:04+00:00): This is caused by a difference in OSM terminology and UK terminology.

In UK terminology a trunk road is a non-motorway that is maintained by a highways authority (e.g. National Highways, formerly Highways England).
A primary road is one that forms part of the primary route network.

Following this logic the next level of OSM classification (secondary) should be for A roads that don't form part of the primary route network (unless all A-roads are 'primary' in which case 'secondary' would be for B roads).

It's very strange that the OSM 'primary' tag is meant to be used for non-primary roads. It also leads to a proliferation of OSM 'trunk' roads that isn't seen in most other countries. Also, there is at least one B road that is a primary route - so is that meant to be trunk or secondary?

The difference between primary and non-primary is quite artificial. It does not give an indication of the level of traffic a road is designed to handle (with the exception that a primary route must be suitable for 40 tonne vehicles).

It would make far more sense to have:
Motorway = Motorway
Trunk = Trunk
Primary = A road
Secondary = B road
JezCrow (2021-09-14 00:19:30+00:00): Following that logic, how would you know from surveying which A-roads are part of the strategic route network (trunk) and which are primary route network? As I understand it they are both signed yellow on green. If "there is at least one B road that is a primary route" as you say, is it signed differently to other B roads?
Barry86m (2021-09-14 12:41:14+00:00): You can't determine it from surveying but you can determine it from public data (all released under Open Government Licence like the NaPTAN data)
https://highwaysengland.co.uk/about-us/our-roads/
https://traffic.wales/welsh-government-strategic-road-network-map
https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/scottish-trunk-road-network-map/

I've checked the B primary routes I could find. B6261 at Shap linking A6 to M6 has black on white signs. B5093 Mosley Road, Fallowfield, Manchester has green signs - the route number doesn't appear on any signs I've found. One is recorded on OSM as trunk and the other as secondary. OS maps have both listed as primary.

It seems in Scotland and Wales their strategic network generally aligns with primary routes so there's no distinction:
Motorway = Motorway
Trunk = Strategic (Trunk)
Primary = All other A roads
Secondary = B roads
kreuzschnabel (2021-09-14 17:04:36+00:00): Unless there has been some discussion about a re-tagging of such impact, these changes should be reverted and the issue be discussed first. The wiki is very clear: hw=trunk is primary routes (yellow on green signage), hw=primary is A roads which are not primary routes. Yes, there is some confusion in terminology, caused by the fact that OSM classification has to be applicable to roads all over the world beyond the UK. So, UK’s "primary route" has not much to do with OSM’s "hw=primary".
Barry86m (2021-09-14 17:15:19+00:00): Discussion has already been started. Alignment with OSM terminology seems like the most sensible way forward.
confusedbuffalo (2021-09-14 18:43:10+00:00): I feel like you should almost ignore the words used in the highway tag, and consider it confusing that they are similar to, but not the same as, the classification of UK roads by the government.
For the same sort of issue in other countries, see for example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/East_Africa_Tagging_Guidelines
and note e.g. "In Kenya, despite the official designation International Trunk Roads, most of type A roads are not trunks as defined by OSM. The vast majority of Kenyan A roads must fall into the category highway=primary."
Barry86m (2021-09-14 19:25:48+00:00): That sort of proves my point. Kenya calls them "International Trunk Roads" but they don't meet OSM's international definition, so they tag their 'trunk roads' as primary.

OSM's trunk definition (i.e. important yet falling short of motorway standards) aligns more closely with the UK strategic road network than the primary route network.
Richard (2021-09-15 13:20:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 111245094 where the changeset comment is: Revert extensive vandalism to road classification that goes against long-agreed practice and breaks downstream uses
Richard (2021-09-15 13:21:02+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111245094 .
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-09-15 13:39:07+00:00): > This is caused by a difference in OSM terminology and UK terminology.

In such unfortunate case, please follow OSM terminology
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-09-15 13:40:16+00:00): > extensive vandalism 

I would reserve it to cases where someone was malicious or not caring at all about OSM data quality, not where someone tried to improve things but did an opposite thing