piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mjszczesiak (2019-07-20 18:09:38+00:00): Hi Bernard,

Thank you very much for your review. Berkley Court is not in the school campus so I have redrawn the boundary accordingly in new changeset 72466702. I would appreciate further review if possible.

Regards,
Matt
BCNorwich (2019-07-20 18:27:17+00:00): That's good now, thanks. 

Regards Bernard.
chachafish (2019-08-10 13:22:51+00:00): Hello, with this import there are overlapping buildings. Can you go back and correct this? Thanks
mspyker_imports (2019-11-22 21:25:47+00:00): I found one overlapping building that I deleted, and copied the height to the osm building. I didn't see any others in the vicinity, but please let me know if I missed anything. Thanks!
eggie (2020-03-18 20:29:09+00:00): Ha Leo.. Kijk jij eens al je wil ? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82361512
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=82361512
Gr eggie
Leo Slager (2020-03-18 22:13:23+00:00): Done.
operator= verwijderd van de bushalte
user_469696 (2019-07-19 23:14:09+00:00): Ich weiss, das ist alles andere als optimal, bin mir aber noch unsicher, wie das gemappt werden soll.
mistergoodnight (2019-07-20 07:57:08+00:00): So müsste das gemacht werden.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:building:levels
mistergoodnight (2019-07-20 08:04:03+00:00): Plus ein highway=pedestrian mit tunnel=building_passage
Hjart (2019-07-19 23:55:47+00:00): Jeg har rullet dele af dette rettesæt tilbage, fordi jeg synes de gamle tags beskrev palisaderne noget bedre
Hjart (2019-07-19 23:56:31+00:00): Se f.eks. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/617340794
bocaj52 (2019-07-20 07:39:02+00:00): Hej Hjart, jeg er rimelig uenig og måske der er behov for second opinion :-)
Argumentation: 
1. Der er ingen sti på beton arealet, og slet ikke hvor den er placeret pga. af søjlerne. Det er for smalt til at passere selv for min 6 årige.
2. Stien går ved siden af. 
3. Fladen er ikke en sti, men en visuel illustration af hvor muren har været, ligesom det er vist andre steder i byen. Men kan dog bruge områderne som gangareal.
3. Arealet har samme materiale og funktionen/visualiseringen som "Skibets" og husenes markering på området.
4. Arealet/funktionen er magen til de områder hvor husene er markeret, som allerede er tegnet ind på kortet. Jeg har "kopieret" metoden.

Jeg foreslår at man beholder beton markeringer som jeg havde lavet den og evt. ligger stien oven på.
mvh. Jacob
Hjart (2019-07-20 07:47:52+00:00): 1. Bemærk at der var tale om en palisade og ikke en mur
2. Jeg gik langs den sidste år (se https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palisade_nord_2.jpg)
bocaj52 (2019-07-20 08:10:26+00:00): Om det er en palisade eller mur ændre ikke ved hvordan museet har valgt at visualisere det. Som det fremgår af dine billeder af det samme type flade/areal som områderne der markere husene. 

Jeg er ganske uenig i din ændring. Det kunne være fint hvis man kunne hører mening også?
Hjart (2019-07-20 08:17:04+00:00): Jeg stod for den hidtidige kortlægning af palisaden og jeg er helt enkelt stærkt uenig, når du erstatter en korrekt beskrivelse med en ukorrekt.
bocaj52 (2019-07-20 08:21:07+00:00): Palisade er den korrekte betegnelse ingen tvivl om det, men visualiseringen som gangsti er da forkert?

Den er ikke udstyret som en gangsti og den har ikke funktion som en gangsti.

Primær funktionen er en visualisering af palisaden, sekundært kan du gå på den eller ved siden af på den egentlige sti.
Hjart (2019-07-20 08:25:11+00:00): Almindelige mennesker med bentøjet i orden kan sagtens bruge den som gangsti (ligesom jeg gjorde)
Hjart (2019-07-20 08:34:14+00:00): Bemærk også at når du ændrer til area:footway er den ikke længere synlig på standardkort
osmviborg (2019-07-20 08:36:34+00:00): barrier=wall
wall=stakewall
bocaj52 (2019-07-20 08:38:59+00:00): Det anfægter jeg heller ikke. Man kan sagtens gå på den. 

Men kortmæssigt/visuelt er "gangsti" angivelsen forkert. På andre kort, krak, O-kort, topografisk mv. vil den ikke blive vist som en gangsti, da dette ikke er primærfunktionen.

Jeg vil stadig foreslå at vi tilbagefører til betonfladen og ligger stien ovenpå, da vi derved for visualiseringen samt rutefunktionen.
bocaj52 (2019-07-20 08:45:02+00:00): Jeg var ikke klar over at footway ikke var synligt. Det var et forsøg til at få rutevejledning via apps til at fungere.

Mit mål var at få visualiseret som på husmarkeringerne og stadig beholde rutefunktionen.
Hjart (2019-07-20 08:45:38+00:00): Hvis du genopretter betonfladen, vil jeg anbefale at du helt undlader at røre stierne.
Hjart (2019-07-20 08:47:55+00:00): Bemærk også at rutevejledning via arealer ikke fungerer
bocaj52 (2019-07-20 08:54:08+00:00): Hej Hjart, det var mit forslag at genoprette betonfladerne og beholde stierne :-)
Jeg tegner fladerne ind senere og rører ikke ved stierne. 

Ok det fik jeg indtrykket af, i de meldinger jeg fik til forbindelserne mellem sti og areal ved upload. Jeg tager til efterretning. 

Skal tag'et angivet af osmviborg på?
Hjart (2019-07-20 09:04:11+00:00): Der er tale om en angivelse af hvor der engang i 900 årene stod en palisade, så jeg synes det vil være osmviborgs forslag vil være lidt misvisende/ikke aktuelle.
bocaj52 (2019-07-20 09:09:59+00:00): Det er jeg enig i.
user_1760129 (2019-07-22 20:10:39+00:00): Wenn "Baustelle entfernt", warum dann immer noch "construction"?
Die Baustellenfläche dürfte wohl kaum exakt der Grundfläche des Appartementhauses entsprechen, oder hast du das vor Ort geprüft?
mtmail (2019-07-22 23:42:47+00:00): Einfach vergessen. Das Gebäude schliesst an der Strasse und den Nebengebäuden so an. Nach hinten muss ich nochmal schauen. Gebäude hat eine Haustiefgarage und keine Balkone also gehe ich davon aus jeder Meter wurde verbaut um maximal Mietwohnungen unterzubringen.
user_1760129 (2019-08-20 18:59:30+00:00): Ich habe mir das heute mal angeschaut. Der Grundrissverlauf an der Straßenseite ist unregelmäßig, keine gerade Linie. Auch der Anschluss an Nr. 45 (mit dem Eingang direkt an der Außenwand) passt so imho nicht.
Vielleicht sind wir mit neuen Luftbildern schlauer, auch wenn der Komplex gegenüber fertiggestellt sein wird.
Øukasz (2020-08-14 08:42:51+00:00): Hello

This is an interesting edit, I like the site_level=* schema for hierarchical organisation of camp admin subdivision. Is this written up anywhere? I can't find any documentation, and this is the only camp where I think this has been done, if I'm not mistaken?

Separately, I think there's a bit of tag duplication between the node with admin_centre role of the relation, and the M'bera relation itself. Do you mind if I clean it up?

Cheers
Violaine_Do (2020-08-15 01:05:03+00:00): Hi!
Thanks for reaching out! So reference is here : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=UNHCR_refugee_site_mapping_Import/Data_Transformation_Model&oldid=1881815
It is from an import made 1  year ago, as part of CartONG team. Some other people took the lead in between and changed the data model, so i suggest you to contact Missing Maps team at cartong : missingmaps@cartong.org
I am not sure about the tag duplication, I also suggest you to chat with CartONG team about that, because I am on maternity leave, so you will have a more efficient answer contacting them.
Best regards!
Violaine
rivermont (2019-07-20 01:02:41+00:00): Hi Ann,
Are you running the group using #JPMC-July20 ?
If so please check the quality of your mappers' work before having them submit.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Will
Leo Slager (2019-07-20 22:09:17+00:00): Daarbij zijn de routerelaties van 5 buslijnen beschadigd.
Waarom ?
rivermont (2019-07-20 01:12:17+00:00): Hi Mark, thanks for the edit.
Do you have a source for this being a park? On satellite imagery it looks like a section of wooded area, with no infrastructure or sense of being a park area.
Thanks,
Will
Renan Farias (2019-07-20 00:24:21+00:00): Tipo de terreno: Aterro
nona mostafa (2023-03-29 11:37:42+00:00): I noticed that you drew many roads under construction and those from 2016, but I did not find any evidence that Highways exist, so please could you mention what is your source?
Example
way 291407453
way 722619317
way 291407399
way 722619327
way 291407537
way 408471848
way 447531781
way 291407453
Regards nona mostafa
alain2003 (2023-03-29 21:36:05+00:00): hi,
regards Autoroute Tit Mellil - Berrechid
many source one of them is this:https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoroute_Tit_Mellil_-_Berrechid
regardings  deuxième autoroute Rabat - Casablanca, autoroute continentale
also many source :https://medias24.com/2022/04/14/autoroute-continentale-casa-rabat-adm-lance-les-etudes/
https://aujourdhui.ma/actualite/exclusif-une-deuxieme-autoroute-casa-rabat-en-projet
https://telquel.ma/instant-t/2022/04/15/continentale-casablanca-rabat-lancement-de-letude-dexecution-de-la-nouvelle-autoroute_1763401/
alain2003 (2023-03-29 21:48:48+00:00): there is also an other highway from Geurcif to Nador and Nador West Med
planned to be costructed for years now but they still not started yet.sommebody removed it.
nona mostafa (2023-03-30 09:29:06+00:00): Hello alain2003,
Thank you for sharing this resource, I would like to suggest using the tag "highway=proposed" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dproposed
I think this would be more suitable for these highways
if you agree, I can help you change it.
Regards, nona mostafa
Tynstar (2019-07-20 00:37:21+00:00): Achja, und die Hausnummern 37 und 39 waren vertauscht.
Carlos Brys (2019-07-20 23:07:10+00:00): Has cambiado la denominación de la Ruta Nacional 1, apenas unas horas luego de haber terminado el trabajo de editarla en toda su extensión.
El nombre que puso a la ruta, NO SE CORRESPONDE con el que se acordó en la COMUNIDAD OSM de Paraguay.
Por favor reconsidere participar en las discusiones de la comunidad ANTES  de realizar un cambio en lo acordado por la comunidad, y en lo posible volver a dejar los nombres tal como estaban.
Carlos Brys (2019-07-20 23:17:00+00:00): Si miras en la denominación oficial de referenciar las rutas, el MOCP indica "PY01", sin el guión medio
https://www.mopc.gov.py/mopcweb/application/files/5815/6327/5970/mapa_con_leyenda.jpg
Carlos Brys (2019-07-20 23:19:31+00:00): Lo invito sumarse al grupo de la comunidad de OSM de Paraguay, para estar al tanto de las decisiones de edición
https://t.me/osm_py
Carlos Brys (2019-07-20 23:37:40+00:00): También puede ver las reglas de edición en la Wiki de OSM Paraguay
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Paraguay#Rutas
CloCkWeRX (2019-07-22 05:36:40+00:00): Welcome to OSM :)

Great to see more housing detail being added - I've mainly focused on cafes, shops, etc in the area so far - if there's anything you'd like to see mapped, sing out.

You might also be interested in apps like StreetComplete for when you are out and about.
Kovoschiz (2019-07-20 10:48:45+00:00): This is wrong. `access=designated` does not mean what you think. Other access restrictions are redundant.
Kovoschiz (2019-07-20 10:49:19+00:00): 2. `motorway` is for Tunnel control area. Please don't extend them.
Kovoschiz (2019-07-20 10:51:14+00:00): ( `access=permissive`)
Kovoschiz (2019-07-20 10:55:09+00:00): Also you again used `motorway` wrongly when it is a _link
Kovoschiz (2019-07-20 10:59:58+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72457297
user_5359 (2019-07-20 19:42:35+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please do't add single object twice (once as way and node). Example the church.
DressyPear4 (2019-07-22 14:27:08+00:00): Não é correto adicionar landuse junto com building, pois essa tag abrange uma área maior envolvendo todas as partes construídas.
E nessas áreas verdes melhor ficaria se adicionasse um ponto com natural=tree
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/72450690
DressyPear4 (2019-07-22 14:27:09+00:00): Não é correto adicionar landuse junto com building, pois essa tag abrange uma área maior envolvendo todas as partes construídas.
E nessas áreas verdes melhor ficaria se adicionasse um ponto com natural=tree
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/72450690
user_5359 (2019-07-20 19:29:02+00:00): Hello,

please check the volue of opening_hours. Every day or every working day?

Regards     Georg V.
ralley (2019-07-20 08:12:13+00:00): Please undo your changes to the Te Whau pathway - the way it was tagged is correct for a planned/proposed cycleway.  What you have done effectively replaces it with an open footway - very misleading.  See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dproposed
ralley (2019-07-25 09:42:59+00:00): I have corrected the tagging
Manuel H (2021-01-03 12:13:57+00:00): Ist das wirklich ein mehrstöckiges Parkhaus?
fx99 (2021-01-03 14:59:21+00:00): Natürlich nicht, einfach nur ein paar Stellplätze. Danke für den Hinweis, habs korrigiert.
nevw (2019-07-20 05:58:04+00:00): Hi, 
I reverted your business addition to the OpenStreetMap for some of the reasons listed on our wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spam#SEO_Spam

Adding a name and all other info in a description tag is not suitable, please use something like https://osmybiz.osm.ch/#/9/-27.49122/152.67700 to initially help adding your business in to the OSM with suitable tags.
BCNorwich (2019-08-05 14:25:21+00:00): A Few Amendments in this area
mueschel (2019-07-21 06:58:58+00:00): Hi,
these 24 objects only contain foreign tags that shouldn't appear in the OSM database - I guess they were uploaded by mistake and can be removed?

Jan
FTA (2019-08-10 01:19:26+00:00): Hi there, I noticed that you tagged a few blocks of Jamboree Road as access=no (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/406228074). Is this road under construction? Or perhaps just a mistake? Cheers, Ethan aka FTA
Fluffy89502 (2019-08-10 01:28:28+00:00): Ah thats a mistake thank you for letting me know Ill get onto it :)
dgitto (2021-06-29 14:55:35+00:00): Il tag non è troppo lungo, tutte le scuole si chiamano così, ovunque in Italia
woodpeck (2019-07-20 09:48:45+00:00): Hallo Rescuemod, kannst Du das nochmal prüfen. Auf https://www.hannover.de/Service/Presse-Medien/Landeshauptstadt-Hannover/Aktuelle-Meldungen-und-Veranstaltungen/Ge%C3%A4nderte-Verkehrs%C2%ADf%C3%BChrung-am-Lister-Bad lese ich: "Die Abfahrt erfolgt über die Straße Am Jagdstall, von dort kann der Verkehr in den Sahlkamp in Fahrtrichtung Osten abfließen.", doch hier bei uns in OSM verhindern ein Poller (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/34708188) und ein Stück Fußweg (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5090117) diese Fahrmöglichkeit. So wie es jetz in OSM dargestellt ist, kommt man mit dem Auto nie mehr weg, wenn man erstmal im Schwimmbad war ;)
woodpeck (2019-07-24 11:42:21+00:00): Hallo Rescuemod, ich sehe, dass Du vor 3h einen neuen Edit gemacht hast, hast Du meine o.g. Anmerkung schon gelesen?
woodpeck (2019-07-25 12:29:46+00:00): Ich habe den Poller jetzt selber entfernt. Hab zwar kein gutes Gefühl dabei mangels Ortskenntnis, aber besser als nix...
DUGA (2021-04-06 02:46:26+00:00): Please check NAIP and Mapbox for the correct offset.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/705899168#map=18/40.27459/-76.73307
user_5359 (2019-07-21 09:46:53+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (only name and description, no useless information). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
Sosha1996 (2021-03-25 08:52:11+00:00): با درود،
لطفا خطوطی که اسپیلت شدن رو یکپارچه نکنید(مثل میدان‌ها). الان ریلیشن خط اتوبوس رو خراب کردید.

با تشکر.
user_5359 (2019-07-20 20:11:46+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (only name and description, no useless information). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data.
shasband (2019-07-20 07:50:27+00:00): Apologies for using internal terminologies in OSM. I am new to OSM and We have been advised by senior team members to follow OSM standards while commenting. Please find below the comment for the actual edit –added a driveway and a service road from Bower Road and added a driveway from it
freebeer (2019-07-22 08:40:56+00:00): it seems that you are using the wrong canned follow-up form-letter here, as i can see no internal terminology in use (and then even when true, i don't see a real need to spam the changeset comments pointing out their use so long as the description gives an accurate description of the change).

in this case it seems you simply did not update the description and re-used the description applicable to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72453145 , which happens often enough by mistake.

no worries.
gseethar (2019-07-26 11:56:53+00:00): Hi Freebeer,

Apologies for the mistake. It was an honest mistake from the editor. I have had a quick chat with him. The edit comments for this chageset should be "added service roads and driveways along Bower road ".

Please let us know if you have any other suggestions.

Regards,
Ganesh
BCNorwich (2019-07-20 15:25:37+00:00): You are still making lots of mistakes. Please look at the warnings the editor give you before uploading. Better still stop uploading edits till you know what you're doing.

There are several comments on your previous edits that you have ignored. Please correct those errors before making more edits.

If you need help just ask.
marczoutendijk (2019-07-20 21:02:55+00:00): Dear user 5432,
Will you please react to the various comments that Bernard gave in some of your changesets?
Best regards
Marc Zoutendijk
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group - data@osmfoundation.org
marczoutendijk (2019-07-21 08:12:02+00:00): Probably a change of username, so now I ask user BobTheEditor to reply to the comments of user BCnorwich.
Best regards
Marc Zoutendijk
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group - data@osmfoundation.org
ma-rt-in (2019-07-20 14:22:25+00:00): Hallo Axel,
bitte verwende doch bei der Zugangsbeschränkung die Devise "Weniger ist mehr". Ein einfaches access=private reicht vollkommen aus.
vg
Nakaner-repair (2019-07-20 08:20:02+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 68804417, 68804632, 68806253, 70154910, 72147605, 72147704, 72148029, 72148156, 72148221, 72399351, 72399406, 72399505, 72399548, 72399655, 72399707, 72399728, 72442401, 72442881, 72442914, 72442958, 72442987, 72443021, 72443079, 72443125, 72443154, 72443185, 72443291.
Anakil (2019-07-20 21:05:04+00:00): Hi, 
Just a quick question, do you have a good definition of what is a tourism=attraction in OSM ? 

Because, if it is just something that can be interesting for tourist (like the wiki suggest), these site are nearly all on the local municipality "tourism" webpage. Does it qualify as an attraction for that ? I though it was enough but i may be wrong. ^_^

Thanks in advance for your insight,
Anakil
mboeringa (2019-07-20 22:05:15+00:00): Hi Anakil,

I think it is just a matter of common sense. 

An average historic town / city may have dozens or even hundreds of "classified" heritage registered buildings. Would you consider each of them a "touristic attraction"? I doubt you would...

I fully agree the Wiki page lacks in defining this, but to me, some guidelines are:

- Is it accessible to anyone regardless of age, ability, gender, race or whatever. If your 75 year old "granny" can't visit it, then it probaly doesn't classify as a "touristic attraction" IMO! E.g. I have seen rock climbers tag every individual scalable peak in a climbing hotspot as a "tourism=attraction" ;-( I personally don't agree with that. If anything, a local climbing school catering for beginning climbers, might possibly classify as such, but not a 200m high "fall-to-your-death" vertical rock wall...
- Does the object of interest possibly offer guided tours by either volunteers or employees?
- Is there possibly a small exhibition center as part of the object, or at the very least a touristic board explaining what it is and it's history.
- Do they ask for a (small) fee to maintain and visit the object. Some objects may be free though.
- Do they have special opening hours for tourists?
- Is there possibly an artisanal shop offering local products and / or produce?
- Is the object displayed on official touristic maps?
- Is there possibly a small restaurant with an exhibit of local customs or historic (agriculatural) equipment, so a bit more than "just" an ordinary "amenity=restaurant"?

And last but not least:
- Would *you* personally recommend a visiting friend, or simply a passing tourist you meet on the road and asking for some guidance, going to that specific object?

Personally, I would be prudent taking every building or structure from a municipality's website without considering it against such points. As said, not every heritage building can be visited or is worth visiting.

E.g. if one the farms you entered can be freely visited during the weekend, has a small restaurant or terrace where cyclist can have a refreshment, has a small shop with artisanal products, and maybe even gives a guided tour now and then, then yes, sure!, enter it as a "tourism=attraction". If on the other hand, the only thing you will find is the farmer's dog chasing you away at the entrance gate, then, even if it is heritage listed, I wouldn't consider it a "tourism=attraction".

Classic examples of historic buildings in the countryside serving a double role as touristic attraction are watermills in many countries. Most of the time, they have lost their original function, and only operate on a volunteer basis, maybe still producting flour from locally produced wheat.

Marco
Anakil (2019-07-20 22:35:46+00:00): It is always good to have another point of view on these kind of things, so thank you for the detailed answer !

I tagged this for all the historic farm that are "good-looking" and worth to see when walking - these are very typic squared farms from this area - (even if we can't visit them). For sure, i may have used it too often ! But I didn't know of another tag to say "it's worth a look when you walk around there". ^_^

Only two of these are regularly visitable (but it is not always obvious) or on the regional tourism map, as far as i know. They are more known from local people and historian.. and i'm a fan of the historical and heritage things, so i'm not objective on that. ahah

Once again, thank for the advices.
juminet (2019-07-22 07:11:45+00:00): Hi StijnRR, 

I noticed that you supress the landuse=residential of Charleroi. Is there a good reason for that? BTW it is true that this zone should be split in several smaller polygons...

Happy mapping, 
juminet
StijnRR (2019-07-22 19:51:40+00:00): For several reasons. 1. It overlapped many existing residential and other landuses. 2. In the good old days such big polygons were acceptable but now it is much better work more detailed. It takes longer before the map gets some colour. But that the map looks better, doesn't mean that it (or the database) is better. 3. Such a big polygon is bound to become a cluttered multipolygon. I once spent many evenings cleaning, repairing and simplifying a forest which had become a multipolygon with many outers and inners, and had many polygons in it which were not part of the multipolygon. There are still plenty of such examples left.
So I don't believe it would work out well starting from such a big polygon. Not everyone works meticulously enough for that (and this polygon is a proof thereof).
juminet (2019-07-23 08:00:17+00:00): You're right. I'm also splitting large MP of forests (especially for specifying the leaf_type and leaf_cycle) into smaller polygons. Hopefully someone will take care of the landuse in Charleroi, but it is a lot of work...

Cheers.
BCNorwich (2019-07-25 06:41:15+00:00): Hi, 

You have mapped/added Cycle Way: 705357069 showing it to cross over two sections of primary highway and a primary link road. The ways are not joined at the crossing point. The ways should be joined or bridged. If joined it would be good to depict the type of crossing.

Bernard.
BCNorwich (2019-07-25 06:44:49+00:00): If you look above you'll see there were warnings when you uploaded these changes. "warnings:crossing_ways = 4
warnings:outdated_tags:incomplete_tags = 1" 
These are meant to alert you to make modifications before uploading.