piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
pio2_122 (2022-04-22 18:34:28+00:00): Dlaczego podjazd do jednej działki: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/867240162 (na zdjęciach lotniczych widać, że działka pomiędzy Kwiatową 10 a 14 ma dojazd bezpośrednio od ul. Kwiatowej) został zmieniony z highway=service + service=driveway na highway=residential?
Po tej zmianie, takie podjazdy mają identyczny rodzaj/kategorię jak drogi prowadzące do wielu budynków (np. w ramach małego osiedla)...

Wydaje mi się, że dedykowanym tagiem właśnie do takich krótkich dojazdów i dróg wewnętrznych jest jednak highway=service. Zresztą, sam tag highway=service nie jest jeszcze najniższą kategorią dróg na terenach zabudowanych w OSM. Dopiero w połączenie highway=service + service=driveway daje najniższą kategorię (bezpośredni podjazd na daną posesję). Można więc sensownie stopniować kategorię dróg na takiej zasadzie: highway=residential (droga na osiedle domków jednorodzinnych) -> highway=service (odnoga do kilku budynków [często ślepa, ale nie tylko]) -> highway=service + service=driveway (podjazd na konkretną posesję).
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:32:56+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 01:19:37+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_2066394 (2022-04-23 23:07:00+00:00): Hier hast du das ursprüngliche Gebäude auf die Straße verschoben.

Die POIs
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/500343403
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7678462650
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7678462649
liegen da auch noch rum, die sollte man erhalten.
barefootstache (2022-04-25 10:34:24+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis. Habe sie schon verbessert.
silversurfer83 (2022-04-24 15:23:29+00:00): Hi, Danke, dass du hilfst die Karte zu verbessern :)
Die Geometrie des Teichs sieht etwas untypisch aus, für einen Teich, aber die Tags sehen schon sehr passend aus. 
Grüße
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120062993
user_5359 (2022-04-27 13:04:51+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Don't add any private information from residential or owner to a residential building!
MacLondon (2022-05-01 17:51:07+00:00): Hi. I've removed what I'm sure would have been errant extra tagging with 'node=2133959589' from 4 areas of grass (in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120430257).
Karol_S (2022-04-23 12:18:25+00:00): Nie byłem pewny, czy dobrze widzę ogrodzenie/bramę na podkładzie i wolałem dodać jako uwagę. Dzięki za edycję.
hanchao (2022-04-28 09:58:08+00:00): 👎
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-05-02 21:48:36+00:00): Why were the roads deleted?
Violaine_Do (2022-12-16 22:49:49+00:00): merci de ne pas mettre d'info personnelle, retirée
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120063802
luin132 (2022-04-22 17:59:49+00:00): Source: Maxar Premium Imagery offset (4.92; -0.82);Strava;Mapbox Satellite;Esri World Imagery (Clarity);Esri World Imagery;Bing Imagery
seewäldler (2022-04-22 19:56:35+00:00): Hallo _pasi

Du hast hier einem Hydranten den Eigennamen "Faltmantel" verliehen. Was wolltest du damit denn ausdrücken? Ist das eine Bauform? Dass Hydranten Namen bekommen ist wohl nicht richtig, die Information sollte wohl in einen passenden Key.
_pasi (2022-04-23 11:49:47+00:00): Hallo seewälder,

danke für den hinweis. Das ist eine Spizielle bauform, die sehr selten vorkommt. Hast du einen vorschlag, wie man dies dokumentieren kann ?

PS: ich muss mich selber berichtigen, es heist Fallmantel, nicht Faltmantel :)

Grüße
seewäldler (2022-04-24 12:17:18+00:00): Hallo _pasi

Wenn das die Bauform ist, dann sollte diese Eigenschaft wohl in den key fire_hydrant:type=* Du kannst ja mal hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_hydrant nachschauen was es da alles gibt, vielleicht ist auch pillar:type=* oder irgendwas mit "bonnet" passend, hier taucht in der Beschreibung schon der Name Fallmantel auf.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:23:29+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 01:29:37+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.
santamariense (2022-04-22 19:58:55+00:00): Estive revisando tua edição. Muito boa. Bem-vindo ao OSM,
ovruni (2022-04-22 23:24:03+00:00): Hola DianaVe, gracias por contribuir en OSM. He notado que en este conjunto de cambios se ha agregado la etiqueta con clave "Zonificación", la cual no es una etiqueta que usamos en OSM, donde ya existe leisure, por lo que la he retirado. Puede encontrar una lista de etiquetas que utilizamos en la wiki de OSM [0]. Si tiene alguna duda sobre el mapeo de OSM en Perú puede hacerla en el canal de telegram https://t.me/osmpe de la comunidad peruana.
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Map_Features
ovruni (2022-04-24 07:46:47+00:00): Hola, he notado que se han realizado por diferentes zonas de Lima ediciones similares a la suya, lo que sugiere que existe en curso un conjunto de ediciones organizadas sin seguir las directrices de edición organizada. [0] Por favor comunique a la persona u organización encargada para que se ponga en contacto mediante el canal de telegram https://t.me/osmpe o la lista de correos de la comunidad https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pe
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Directrices_de_edici%C3%B3n_organizada
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:33:14+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 01:17:21+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.
luin132 (2022-04-22 18:26:19+00:00): Source: Maxar Premium Imagery offset (4.92; -0.82);Strava;Mapbox Satellite;Esri World Imagery (Clarity);Esri World Imagery;Bing Imagery
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:29:06+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.
Minh Nguyen (2022-04-22 18:29:01+00:00): See discussion at https://github.com/ZeLonewolf/openstreetmap-americana/issues/289
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:19:20+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.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:31:27+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 01:33:35+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.
acsd (2022-10-01 11:57:18+00:00): почему повысили класс дороги https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353406528?
там же вроде грунтовка
misha yakin (2022-10-16 21:09:15+00:00): Добрый день!
Повысил до tertiary, как соединяющую несколько сёл и одну из немногих дорог между 2-ух районов (по сути -- прямой проезд между Мамадышом и Тюлячами).
Конечно, можно уточнить её реальное покрытие (surface) и состояние (smoothness) -- поставил гравийку (compacted) на основе данных из перечня дорог (https://docs.cntd.ru/document/547616505). Да и на спутниковых снимках она выглядит, как чуть более обустроенной, чем обычная грунтовка. Но это конечно субъективная оценка. :)
acsd (2022-10-17 03:48:45+00:00): Вроде давно была заметка, чтобы понизить класс, да и на других картах эта дорога ниже классом, думаю не просто так.
Filip009 (2022-04-24 19:59:44+00:00): Dobrý deň, zabudli ste odstrániť bod, ktorý LIDL už reprezentoval https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7323419017
Tomas_J (2022-04-24 20:12:46+00:00): Dobry.  Pardon, vrátil som to naspat na garáže.  Nesprávne zmapované. Ospravedlnujem sá.
Filip009 (2022-04-24 21:06:35+00:00): Ako pokiaľ je to reálne LIDL, tak mohol v tej budove ostať, len bolo treba zmazať ten pôvodný. Ale keď si dobre spomínam, LIDL je až ďalej (tam kde je ten bod).
Tomas_J (2022-04-24 23:24:17+00:00): Ano lidl je až tam ako je bod, Bolo to jednoducho zle zmapované. Keď pôjdem nabudúce, skontrolujem či a kde sú tie zvyšné prevádzky a prípadne upravím.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:27:40+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.
felipeeugenio (2022-04-22 23:12:41+00:00): HOla. Buenisimos los aportes
Eso si por favor no borrar los nodos de place=. Cuidado con eso. CUalquier duda por favor no dude en preguntar.
saludos
mueschel (2022-04-23 09:57:13+00:00): Hallo Jochen,
für Wegmarkierungen musst du keine neuen Tags erfinden.

- die Symbole können mit osmc:symbol erfasst werden
- die Schilder mit 
tourism=information und 
information=trail_blaze oder information=route_marker


Grüße
Jan
JochenOSM (2022-04-23 17:58:37+00:00): Hallo Jan,
osmc:symbol nutze ich für gepflegte Wege, leider hat es Definitionslücken und ist unflexibel (siehe Diskussion Wikiseite). trailblazed= kannte ich (für ways), information=route_marker bisher nicht, danke. Dieser spezielle Wanderweg hat offenbar nie offiziell existiert, er wurde wohl vor langer Zeit privat ausgeschildert. Die Markierungen sind nicht einheitlich (es gibt sie zum Beispiel auf dunklem Grund und ohne Grund). Da die Markierungen seit langem von niemandem mehr gepflegt werden verschwinden sie mit der Zeit, einige Teilstücke findet man bereits nur noch durch try-and-error, und an einer Stelle gibt es die Straße gar nicht mehr. Die zum Teil vorhandenen Pfeile zeigen auch nicht mehr unbedingt in die richtige Richtung. Daher möchte ich auf jeden Fall auch "Befestigungsort", "Machart" und "vorhandene Pfeile" dokumentieren. Mir ist klar das dies von keinem Router ausgewertet werden wird. Muss es auch nicht, für das Routing relevante, gut sichtbare Marker habe ich zusätzlich mit z.B. information=guidepost erfasst. Das von mir gewählte Tagging sieht zugegeben ein bisschen kompliziert aus. Das liegt daran, das diese Wegmarkierungen zum Teil auch noch direkt mit anderen Symbolen kombiniert sind und ich noch nicht weiß wofür diese relevant sind. Gegen tourism=information spricht in diesem Fall auch, das die Daten mit StreetComplete o.ä. zu einfach entfernt werden weil die Markierungen teilweise eben nicht auf den ersten Blick sichtbar sind wie man das von gepflegten Wegmarkierungen erwarten würde. 

Gruß,
Jochen
mueschel (2022-04-23 18:43:37+00:00): Diese Argumentation verstehe ich nicht. Anstelle von Tags, die die einschlägigen Anwendungen verstehen, aber vielleicht irgendwann von jemandem gelöscht werden, benutzt du lieber deine eigenen Tags, die sonst niemandem nützen?

Wenn diese Schilder da sind, dann können sie auch normal getagged werden. Bei sichtbarem Verfall natürlich ergänzt durch die entsprechenden Tags, z.B. abandoned=yes
MxxCon (2022-04-23 04:01:29+00:00): Hello.
Could you please elaborate why did you delete building tag here?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120066797
7054710 (2022-04-26 14:40:12+00:00): This building is made up of 4 different schools. no amenities inside are public unless you are attending one of the 4 schools.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120066797
MxxCon (2022-04-26 16:09:29+00:00): Ok, but this is still a school building and it should be tagged as such.
As documented in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dschool#Multiple_school_on_one_site in situations such as this one, each school should be mapped as a separate node.
7054710 (2022-04-26 16:13:11+00:00): The schools are right on top of each other but on different floors how do you suggest I map that?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120066797
MxxCon (2022-04-26 16:45:11+00:00): Such schools sometimes use different entrances to decrease crowding. So if you know this is the case here, you could position each school's node closer to their relevant entrances. Otherwise, position them next to each other similarly how you'd do if 2 stores were in the same building. 👍
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:25:46+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.
WoodWoseWulf (2022-04-22 20:53:28+00:00): Welcome to OSM and thank you for your contributions so far!
You might find the following OSM wiki page about changeset comments useful: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:30:53+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.
Frans S (2022-04-23 15:10:18+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not accurate mapped and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention on these points:
A: buildings not always accurately drawn. Please pay more attention on following the outlines of a building (with extentions)
E: Rectangular Buildings not squared.They are mostly strickt rectangular.

Buildings needs to be tagged as building=yes 
Not as area=yes
Please collect multiple mappings and upload them in 1 go where possible
Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120067422
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:31:14+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.
Frans S (2022-04-26 14:09:20+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator as requested. 
I am sorry to say that your mappings are not accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention on these points:

A: buildings not always accurately drawn. Please pay more attention on following the outlines of a building (with extentions)

B: overlapping buildings drawn.

E: Rectangular Buildings not squared.They are mostly strickt rectangular.



Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120067609
Frans S (2022-04-26 14:13:51+00:00): Hello. Another issue I forgot to mention.
You used the Bing Imagery instead of the requisted Maxar P imagery.
Please check this before you start mapping.
Best regards
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:31:35+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.
Frans S (2022-05-01 12:02:08+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say that your mappings are not accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention on these points:
A: buildings not always accurately drawn. Please pay more attention on following the outlines of a building (with extentions)
E: Rectangular Buildings not squared.They are mostly strickt rectangular.
I: Tagging of buildings. For HOTOSM projects the standard tagging is 'building=yes' Please keep that in mind at further mappings.

Please use the Maxar Premium Imagery instead of the Bing. See the instructions.




Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120067877
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:23:06+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.
santamariense (2022-04-22 21:29:43+00:00): Olá ProjetoMapeia,
Notei que tu generalizou trecho de rodovia mudando todo para maxspeed=60. Isto não condiz com a realidade. A velocidade máxima permitida varia ao longo do trecho justamente como antes estava.
Edição revertida. Fonte: Mapillary (2021) e conhecimento local.
[]'s
santamariense
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120068128
ProjetoMapeia (2022-04-25 16:16:50+00:00): Olá santamariense, não foi intenção generalizar a via, trabalho com mobilidade logística e existe relatos de usuários que nesse trecho existem alguns pontos de velocidade de 40 km/h que na verdade a sinalização do local indica 60 km/h. A intenção seria a correção desses pontos.
ProjetoMapeia (2022-04-25 16:18:29+00:00): Os relatos são tanto para a faixa sentido bairro - centro quanto para centro - bairro.
santamariense (2022-04-26 16:59:41+00:00): Olá ProjetoMapeia, obrigado por responder. Parece haver algum ruído na informação que os usuários te prestam. Algumas vezes, apesar dos ruídos, o dado no OSM melhora, e em outras pioram (como este caso).

No rodapé desta mensagem, links com fotos de placas no Mapillary para conferência.

Se conseguisse com que os usuários gravassem imagem para o Mapillary, seria fantástico para conferência das informações prestadas.

[]'s
santamariense

Alguns links de exemplos:
- 40 - https://www.mapillary.com/app/?z=17&lat=-29.7056526&lng=-53.7876288&pKey=881109319277919&focus=photo&x=0.04937253361157601&y=0.5002172665770456&zoom=3
- 40 - https://www.mapillary.com/app/?z=17&lat=-29.708140499972&lng=-53.7772123&pKey=842198113350876&focus=photo&x=0.09478182940512492&y=0.4809459927845237&zoom=2.9869956110899722
- 60 - https://www.mapillary.com/app/?z=17&lat=-29.708300999972&lng=-53.771003&pKey=246530994020737&focus=photo&x=0.5357907121666299&y=0.5299798519697806&zoom=3
- 40 - https://www.mapillary.com/app/?z=17&lat=-29.707896099972&lng=-53.761006&pKey=1027555174697248&focus=photo&x=0.20028216346491187&y=0.5204025217086755&zoom=2.1165864049343224
martien-176 (2022-04-25 18:17:19+00:00): Hi, you requested a review here. Well mapped but please square your buildings after tagging them by pressing ‘q’ on your keyboard. Also, you used Bing here instead of Maxar. Do not forget to check when you are finished if your mappings are still in accordance with the prescribed Maxar. For a few buildings that is not the case. Keep up the mapping - many thanks! Kind regards, Martien (global validator)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120068175
mariotomo (2022-06-16 20:01:55+00:00): hola. thanks for adding valuable information. about bus stops: you have added some as this one (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9686577910), some like this other (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9686577911).
I think it's better to have all like the first one (bus=yes; highway=bus_stop; public_transport=platform), with the optional information regarding bench and shelter, all associated to the same Node object, as for example (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7546753582)
mariotomo (2022-06-16 20:11:42+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/122480049
this is my interpretation of how to do it better. please have a look, hope you agree, or let me know what you consider an improvement.
Joseph R P (2022-04-24 22:35:13+00:00): Hello, may I ask that you please leave more descriptive changeset comments and explain what exactly you did in the edit rather than where you made it? The location is highlighted in the list of changesets you have made on OSM.

In your changeset, you downgraded this primary road and broke its name somehow: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35009031

I'm not sure how something like this happens in a manual edit in the ID editor, even by accident. Could you please explain why this happened?
Joseph R P (2022-04-24 22:38:24+00:00): (Never mind the third inquiry, I looked at it and see how that happened. No worries.)
marczoutendijk (2022-05-06 08:06:34+00:00): Hi dufekin,
May I remind you of this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5445
You still are not very active when it comes to answering questions from others.
In addition, your changeset comments could be more specific than just an indication of where you are making your edits.
We would like to know "what" you are editing!
Please read this (and act accordingly):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Marc Zoutendijk
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group