piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Arianit (2022-04-12 09:49:38+00:00): Hi, it was co-named on the 9th of April, some sources here

https://twitter.com/LegislatorGashi/status/1512969272812843010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK6fdlMpd90
https://www.change.org/p/join-the-albanian-american-community-and-commemorate-the-street-co-naming-fan-noli-way-on-april-9th-2022-at-12-pm
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119589740
literan (2022-04-11 20:04:14+00:00): это не имя собственное
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:24:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
abakus_uploader (2022-04-11 22:33:04+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-04-15 09:29:30+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1051103451 has an unclosed portion
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:11:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
abakus_uploader (2022-04-11 22:33:09+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
porfiriopaiz (2022-04-12 04:09:33+00:00): Hello BigKev97,

From where did you get the name of these highways?

Also, we require your attention to:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/98929418

Regards,

Porfirio
BigKev97 (2024-02-08 15:11:41+00:00): There not from sources, these names are created to identify from city to city and from town to town on the same OSM. Not from Google Maps.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
porfiriopaiz (2022-04-12 04:12:04+00:00): Hello BigKev97,

What is the source that you are consulting to add the names of these highways?

Regards,

Porfirio
mariotomo (2022-12-07 10:46:07+00:00): según dice (source=local knowledte", ha estado en el área, y lo ha observado directamente. si también lo dudas, puedes seguir la sugerencia:

If you have any questions please email the Data Working Group with the subject Ticket#2022031410000202.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
stevea (2022-04-16 19:24:36+00:00): Thanks for these improvements!  Between the two of us (and other OSM Contributors if THEY know yet more/different up-to-the-minute data), we'll get both this infrastructure and the route members as included in the route relation 100% correctly!

USBR 20 in Minnesota — even knowing that parts of Midtown Trail are correctly denoted as under construction — is expected to be approved by AASHTO in May.

So, yes, this is all pretty "plastic" until construction is done, then we can "feather the final edges" and call it done.
abakus_uploader (2022-04-11 22:33:03+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
trial (2022-04-18 11:56:51+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/70544449 should be detached. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abuilding%3Ddetached
You can also add the house=* key. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Ahouse
XioNoX (2022-04-18 14:24:20+00:00): Indeed, thanks! fixed.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
eggie (2022-04-12 17:51:48+00:00): Lijkt me oke... Het is alleen nog 'wachten' op de rendering.
Die aanvraag loopt.
Gr eggie
wambag (2022-04-11 19:06:05+00:00): A situation commonly found in New England, residential roads turned into highway ramps or vice versa. Could be mapped with a classification like tertiary, as trunk_link, as residential, etc. I chose "unclassified" because its classification is vague. I named it because the house addresses are Revere Beach Parkway, and a driver turning right from Wilson St would turn onto what street? Revere Beach Parkway. Put another way, this is more a frontage road than a ramp. Surely this will raise eyebrows due to its appearance, but I feel this treatment is technically more appropriate and not mapping for the renderer.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
Enock4seth (2022-04-24 23:10:16+00:00): Thanks for mapping, this point and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9659287432 are too near to be real, kindly help clarify / fix
Enock4seth (2022-04-24 23:10:37+00:00): Thanks for mapping, this point and  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9659272559 are too near to be real, kindly help clarify / fix
SomeoneElse (2022-04-20 21:01:10+00:00): Thanks
SomeoneElse (2022-04-14 15:26:23+00:00): Hello,
I'd you're going to correct things like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/848939252/history (and as no information is lost here I don't see why not) it might be useful to mention to the mapper that you've done so, and why, otherwise they might make the same mistake again...
Best Regards,
Andy
user_5359 (2022-04-14 15:57:33+00:00): I am just wondering about the fact that I am supposed to have used the reverter. But regardless of that, you are of course right.
SomeoneElse (2022-04-15 13:04:51+00:00): If you didn't do a revert here and JOSM thinks you did, that sounds like a JOSM bug...
We (the DWG) have had other complaints recently along the lines of "this mapper has reverted my edits" when they claimed not to have done.
user_5359 (2022-04-15 13:09:17+00:00): I'll keep an eye out when I need to use the reverter in the near future to see if any more change sets note the reverter as the culprit. Thank you for the hint.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
eggie (2022-04-12 17:50:25+00:00): Dag Dannox.. 

Je vraagt feedback.. 
Best lastig soms.. Wanneer er een G7 bord staat en/of het alleen duidelijk bedoeld is voor voetgangers dan highway=footway  Staat er geen bord dan highway=path, maar dat routeert dus inderdaad voor fietsers. Mogen die er niet dan kun je vehicle=no taggen op een path.
Blijft soms koffiedik kijken. Zo te zien is het meer een footway.. 
Groet
eggie
Dannox (2022-04-13 07:36:31+00:00): Dag eggie,
Dus in conclusie: Zoals ik het nu heb gedaan is de juiste manier? Ik vraag het omdat ik alle andere paths die er omheen liggen ook moet veranderen vanwege de fietsnavigatiefout...
Mvg,
Dannox
eggie (2022-04-13 08:31:10+00:00): Het is niet zwart wit...
Vaak mag je in die woonwijken gewoon over die 'paden' en doorsteekjes fietsen. Het is niet correct om het te veranderen om de routering te beinvloeden.
Dis steeds de afweging maken.. Is het wel of niet uitsluitend bedoeld voor voetgangers.
Dat maakt het lastig. 
Hoogdregel.. footway bij G7 bord en/of duidelijk bedoeld voor voetgangers.
Zelf denk ik dus allemaal footway hier.
Gr eggie
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
eggie (2022-04-11 20:44:08+00:00): Dag Peter.. Je vraag feedback.. Je hebt de trap boven op de highway=track geplakt.

De truuk is om de weg op twee plaatsen te spitsen en op dat gedeelte er tussen highway=track te veranderen in highway=steps.
De heb je een zogenaamde duplicated way en dat werkt niet.

Probeer je het zelf?
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=119594128

MVG
eggie
Peter Hamers (2022-04-11 22:18:34+00:00): Heb geen idee hoe dat te doen?
Erg gebruikers vriendelijk is het niet allemaal.
eggie (2022-04-11 22:23:02+00:00): No problem.. Ik doe het wel even. 
OSM is in het begin allemaal rijstebrij.. Wanneer je veel mapt dan leer je steeds bij. In het begin is het nu eenmaal vallen en opstaan. .. en vooral dat opstaan niet vergeten. :)
Ik zal de track splitsen op twee plaatsen en waar je de trap heb gemaakt de highway=track verwijderen. Dan ligt er niets meer op elkaar.
Gewoon volhouden en om een review vragen als je niet zeker bent van je zaak. 

Groet,
eggie
eggie (2022-04-11 22:25:19+00:00): Mijn edit (De track verwijderd onder de trap ) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119597584

Dit duurt even voordat  je wat ziet
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=119597584

MVG
eggie
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:24:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
LySioS (2022-04-13 12:02:44+00:00): Bonjour Gogocarto,
En ce qui concerne les chemins en forêt, j'ai l'impression que ces deux là sont plus des pistes (track) que des sentiers (path) :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1051139085#map=18/43.93006/4.51882
et ce bout là https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=43.92646&mlon=4.51808#map=18/43.92646/4.51808
On y voit des traces parallèles de roues.

Qu'est-ce que tu en penses ?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119595172
gogo25171 (2022-04-13 15:22:40+00:00): Je sais pas du tout désoler
LySioS (2022-04-13 16:28:20+00:00): Pas de souci, je pensais que tu connaissais de visu les chemins.

Vu la photo aérienne, je les passe en track
user_5359 (2022-04-12 17:24:29+00:00): Hello! You add the tag nyc:type = small_loop. Please have a look on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking
zhik (2022-04-12 18:33:33+00:00): Hey, I accidentally tagged it as nyc:type=small_loop what I meant is bicycle_parking=stand + bicycle_parking:nyc=small_loop . Will make changes soon.
user_5359 (2022-04-12 18:52:39+00:00): Small hint bicycle_parking=stands is defined. 
But why do you need the information bicycle_paring:nyc (also a new key with an undefined location(?)code). The wiki shows different pictures without any details about size.
zhik (2022-04-12 19:35:03+00:00): There is specific information that the city wants to have has a key. Are there any suggestions to make a better sub-key?
user_5359 (2022-04-12 19:49:26+00:00): It is possible to use the standard key height (value in meter). In the case of two values (small and large) it could be better to define the key bicycle_stand:size=small/large.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:24:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
Snusmumriken (2022-04-12 08:48:20+00:00): Hej

Jag tänkte kommentera en aspekt av dina förändringar. Du hade lagt till bus=yes och public_transport=platform på en del busshållplatser. Inom SL:s område så använder vi oss av en förenklad modell för public transport
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sweden/Public_transport#F.C3.B6renklad_PT-taggning_f.C3.B6r_bussar

som inte innehåller dessa taggar. Jag vet att redigeraren du använde, iD kommer med dessa förändringsförslag, men vänligen ignorera dessa förslag när det kommer till public transport inom SL:s område.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.