piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2020-05-11 18:33:30+00:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liaOaek7nmM
Voor als je veel geduld hebt :)
MrJPGames (2020-05-11 18:47:37+00:00): Ga ik morgen beginnen met dat leren! Erg bedankt voor de uitleg!
lyctkel (2022-06-20 08:00:09+00:00): Hi cheungcm,
currently I'm investigating some rarely used building=* tags.
In the process I found https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802574447 which uses building=觀瀾雅軒 Baycrest.
This tag is only used here.
From my point of view this looks more like the name of the building and the tag should be like:

name=觀瀾雅軒 Baycrest
name:en=Baycrest
name:zh=觀瀾雅軒
building=yes

Regrads,
lyctkel
Anton Khorev (2020-05-25 23:50:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 85735725 where the changeset comment is:
wireguy (2020-05-11 15:18:45+00:00): Welcome to OSM Agipacz!  thanks for adding the sidewalks and building info.  Good to see additions in the area.
user_5359 (2020-05-11 15:39:08+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). 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.
user_5359 (2020-05-12 16:23:15+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please notice we use (Britisch) Englisch for the keys. Also in the country we use the postfix ...:covid19 .
BCNorwich (2020-05-15 06:57:47+00:00): Hi, your cycleways are duplicating existing highways thus with one highway on top of another routeing is difficult if not impossible.

I have removed the cycleway lines and the fictional bridge. Please take a while to learn how to properly add features to OSM, there is usually a way do almost everything.

Regards Bernard.
Ser9ei (2021-09-06 13:29:55+00:00): На набережной нет скал. Используйте правильный тег barrier=retaining_wall
XnL (2020-05-12 05:31:16+00:00): Здравствуйте! Можете пожалуйста объяснить почему вы удаляете слово "улица" с названия улицы?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/85033263
XnL (2021-01-16 11:20:33+00:00): Откатываю пакет правок т.к. не дали ответ в течении 8 месяцев
schwukas (2020-08-19 18:18:50+00:00): Hi,
hast du diesen Pfad auch vor Ort begutachtet? Mittlerweile ist der nämlich ziemlich zugewachsen und mit Absperrungen versehen. Ich hätte ihn direkt gelöscht, hättest du ihn nicht vor drei Monaten erst erstellt gehabt.

In diesem Hinweis findest du auch ein Bild:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2314109
postgelb (2020-08-21 19:28:15+00:00): Vor Ort sah es aus wie ein unbenutzter, zugewachsener privater Zufahrtsweg. Die eigentliche Änderung war, dass ich die Zufahrtsstraße aufgeteilt habe in einen asphaltierten Teil und Feldweg. Den Track kann man eigentlich löschen, da er sich auf einem umfriedeten Privatgrundstück befindet und vermutlich nicht mehr genutzt wird.
Gazer75 (2020-05-19 18:54:48+00:00): Kvifor har du endra vegnummer til gamle verdiar? Alle sekundære fylkesvegar har fått nye nummer. Vi brukar heller ikkje "FV" framfor i ref=*
Roy Samuelsen (2020-05-19 22:34:27+00:00): Ny veinummer har jeg ikke fått med meg, var overbevist om at det var feil. Har rettet det opp, takk for tilbakemelding :)
Gazer75 (2020-05-20 03:36:57+00:00): Etter samanslåing av fylke og kommunar var eit faktum vart det sett i gang eit arbeid med å ordne opp i vegnummer. No er alle nummer unike for heile landet. Dei gamle opphavlege fylkesvegane fekk fire siffer. Det som var "øvrige riksvegar" før 2010 og som har vore skilta med kvite nummer 1-999 fekk for det meste behalde nummer. Største nummer endring for desse kom i tidlegare Hordaland der mange av desse fylkesvegane delte nummer med ein del riksvegar. I dag er det kun vegar med grøne nummerskilt som er staten sitt ansvar (trunk i OSM)
Gazer75 (2020-05-20 03:39:14+00:00): Går du inn på vegkart.no så ser du data frå NVDB (Nasjonal Vegdatabank). På https://www.vegvesen.no/fag/teknologi/nasjonal+vegdatabank/vegreferansesystem/nye-vegnummer ser du info om endringar i vegnummer.
Anton Khorev (2020-05-25 23:37:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 85735586 where the changeset comment is:
praeteritum (2023-07-28 13:29:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 139135433.
praeteritum (2023-07-28 13:11:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 139135026.
praeteritum (2023-07-27 12:03:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 139083225.
tekim (2020-06-09 13:10:53+00:00): Thanks for the edits to OSM!
These recreational trails should all be tagged "highway=path", as they have been for many years. OSM uses a functional classification for the highway tag, not a physical classification (physical information can be placed in surface, smoothness, width, etc. tags).  The only four wheeled vehicles that are legally allowed to use these trails are law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance staff.  The function of the trails is for recreation by people on foot, bicycle or horse.  We recently had this discussion on the tagging mailing list.
cosmocatalano (2020-06-09 14:08:57+00:00): I can see this distinction being meaningful for paved roadways, but it's inappropriate to shoehorn it onto trails/tracks/off-road ways. The information arbitrarily dubbed "functional classification" is more accurately and easily rendered with access tags, and as someone who actually uses this data, it's far more important to know the physical condition than what the "function" (whatever that means) of the trail is. 

Also, "as they have been for many years" is not a compelling argument for anything, except perhaps the OSM community's insularity and unwillingness to change. Like the overwhelming majority of people, I am not on the mailing list, so please consider documenting these discussions in the OSM wiki instead.
tekim (2020-06-09 14:24:29+00:00): "functional classification" is not arbitrary.  It answers the question "what function does this way serve?",  These ways do not function to provide access to agricultural or forest lands, and hence, are not "tracks." 

I am a user of this data as well. The fact that aps/renderers do not render the data in a manner we like is not a reason to tag in a certain way.  We should submit change requests/pull request to the app/renderer maintainer.
 
If physical condition is important, add tags like width, surface, smoothness, mtb:scale. sac_scale, etc. and then ask that app maintainer to render based on those tags.
cosmocatalano (2020-06-09 15:38:11+00:00): 'These ways do not function to provide access to agricultural or forest lands, and hence, are not "tracks."'

Funny, that's exactly how I use them. Good thing I've got you around to tell me otherwise.
CragMapper (2020-06-09 17:05:10+00:00): cosmocatalano, I visit this area regularly. Even though it is a two track for emergency use and land managers, it is not accessed for forestry or agricultural use. I don't think anyone is using this path to drive to their crops or extract timber. Please review the wikis: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_examples. This discussions also points out the distinction: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy, and states that all agree that highway=path where motor vehicles are forbidden.
cosmocatalano (2020-06-09 17:15:35+00:00): I visit this area regularly as well, and I have also, in fact, also reviewed the wikis.

"Things that all agree on" at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy literally says "highway=track Implies that it's wide enough for a small motorcar to drive on, even if it's illegal."

It also makes the first definition of highway=path "1. Something not wide enough for four wheeled vehicles" before secondarily suggesting that something closed to motor vehicles might also qualify.
cosmocatalano (2020-06-09 17:21:25+00:00): Furthermore, the Tag:highway=track discussion page seems to lean away from using highway=path for "Recreational hiking trails which are wide enough to carry vehicles (though vehicle access is usually forbidden). They provide access to the land, and they are wider than paths, and may be well constructed, but they are not (currently) open for vehicles."

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dtrack
tekim (2020-06-09 17:21:50+00:00): ""highway=track Implies that it's wide enough for a small motorcar to drive on" but the converse is not necessarily true, "wide enough for small motorcar does not necessarily imply track. In other words, you can't have a track that is narrower than about 1 meter, but just because it is greater than 1 meter, doesn't mean it is a track.
cosmocatalano (2020-06-09 18:22:39+00:00): Yes, and I can think of many things that are much wider than a meter that I have happily tagged at as paths because they would not reasonably accommodate a two-track vehicle. But several sections of this trail system were converted years ago from pretty unarguably "path"-qualifying ways to the wide, level, substrate-reinforced surfaces that currently exist. They more readily meet any physical definition of "track" than many highways I think we'd both unambiguously agree should carry that tag.

Where we differ (and I want to highlight this is  purely semantic—I'm not engaging in an edit war) is on defining and assessing the relevance of a way's "functional" ur-state. For me, the currently constructed paths were absolutely built with maintenance vehicles in mind, and those vehicles do occasionally use them. For you, the fact that they're intended for public recreation "by people on foot, bicycle or horse" makes them paths (even though, as I stated above I think access-tagging relays this just as well).   

The fact that we are having this disagreement suggests to me that "functional classification" is not an objectively sound way to delineate between highway types.
tekim (2020-06-09 19:02:23+00:00): I don't want an edit war either.  I respect that you are a local, use these trails on a regular basis, use these data, and have made many (what appear to me as) quality edits to OSM.

I would actually be happy to tag things in the manner you suggest, if that is the community consensus. In fact I would go around and change everything in our local area in order to be consistent.  What bothers me is not your edits, but the fact that the community (though the mailing list), seemed to give me the exact opposite advice a couple of weeks ago regarding the trails at Prairie Ridge Open Space (there were a couple of dissenting opinions, but I think most that responded said highway=path).  Those ways are much wider, and in general smoother, than the ones in question here.  At the very least it would be good to get all of the local "power mappers" on board, although that still leaves the possibility of someone from 1,000 miles away coming in and undoing our work (it happens).

There is always going to be some grey areas in any classification system, but I think functional classification can work, if the community can agree.
CragMapper (2020-06-09 20:31:01+00:00): It does seem to be a grey area where one could choose either track or path based on whether they think functional use or width + possible vehicle use is more important. tekim, is there a way to share the tagging list conversation? I've recently added some ways in the red feather area that are old two-tracks and could be regarded as either tracks or paths, so I'd like to have a definitive decision to guide my future edits.
tekim (2020-06-09 21:13:22+00:00): CragMapper - If the community can agree on a rule like "anything traversable by a two track vehicle (need to specify if that includes ATVs as they are narrower and can handle rougher terrain), whether it is legal, common, or intended, is at least a track", (does it have to be unpaved?) I can start mapping that way.  Will have to change trails at Bobcat (the east part of the Valley Trail used used by the rangers in their ATV side by side, not to mention the power trail, and parts of the horse trail are wide enough), Rivers Edge in Loveland, Prairie Ridge, and the trail from Blue Sky TH to Soderberg TH and on to Towers, and probably a lot more... which is ok.
cosmocatalano (2020-06-10 17:07:29+00:00): Yeah, Prairie Ridge's side of Ridge-to-Ridge should *absolutely* be track. I think (I'm on the board of the local MTB group) I can actually get confirmation from Loveland that it was built that way specifically for truck access (and, in several sections, it utilizes an old road bed).

I'd also characterize the section of Ridge-to-Ridge on the Fort Collins/Coyote Ridge section as a path-at-track-width—an ATV could do it with caution on some bends, but a truck couldn't. I think I'd label Blue Sky TH to Soderberg TH (Inlet Bay Trail) in that category too—a lot of the features would be tough to negotiate sensibly/without serious resource damage in a jeep.
tekim (2020-06-10 17:47:21+00:00): The "Prairie Ridge Trail" that goes from the parking lot to "Ridge to Ridge Trail" and then heads south to the dead-end. is even wider and a bit smoother.  If we go with your definition (like I said before, I am just looking for consistency - internal, and over time), it should be "highway=track" as well. Does paving automatically disqualify it as a track? If not, the Poudre trail and Loveland Rec trail (now they have given each section a different name) would be track as well.  Even if not, there is part of the Loveland Rec trail that is currently unpaved, so it would certainly become "highway=track" I would think. 

I am holding off on any further edits one way or the other.  Perhaps we can get the larger community to come to a consensus... 

I tried contacting the mapper who changed the Power Trail at Bobcat to highway=path, I haven't heard back.
kreuzschnabel (2020-05-11 17:48:16+00:00): Ich hätte den eher nach unten angepasst – die ganze Straße ist eine reine Zufahrt nach Gleesen und endet dort an einem unclassified, also kann sie selbst eigentlich keine höhere Verkehrsbedeutung als unclassified haben.
hsc666 (2020-05-11 20:24:06+00:00): Hallo redschumi und herzlich willkommen bei OSM! Du hast Alte Wehme mit lanes=1 eingetragen. Das würde bedeuten, dass die Straße insgesamt nur eine Spur hat und so schmal ist, dass keine zwei Fahrzeuge aneinander vorbei fahren können. Ist das beabsichtigt?
VG
hsc666
redschumi (2020-05-12 04:23:24+00:00): Hallo und gumo,
das war nur so mit übernommen..aber richtig,das ist nur 1 Spur,die aber so breit ist,das sich trotzdem 2 Fahrzeuge begegnen können..da es eine alte Dorfstrasse ist..
hsc666 (2020-05-12 08:30:39+00:00): Dann sind es zwei Spuren, auch wenn sie nicht explizit markiert sind. Falls die Spuren nicht markiert sind, könntest Du noch ein lane_markings=no oder width=<x> um die Straßenbreite anzugeben, hinzufügen, lanes sollte aber 2 sein.
redschumi (2020-05-12 09:32:39+00:00): Hallo,vielen Dank..
Setz ich mich heut Abend ran,und ändere das so...
Fängt an,Spaß zu machen...
user_5359 (2020-05-12 16:15:24+00:00): Hallo! Kleiner Hinweis zu den contact Schlüsseln: Das Trennzeichen ist ein Doppelpunkt und kein Punkt.
hummelchen (2020-05-12 17:16:22+00:00): Oh sh**
Ich Idiot. Danke für den Hinweis! Noch weiß ich, wo ich was eingetragen habe. Werd mich nachher gleich mal dransetzen...
user_5359 (2020-05-12 17:21:15+00:00): Hallo, ich hoffe alle erwischt zu haben. Kennst Du die turbo-overpass.eu
whb (2020-05-29 11:42:05+00:00): Guten Tag,
ein Kopierladen mit dem Namen "Die Eismacherei That's Gelato" ist sehr seltsam.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5643659063/history
eggie (2020-05-11 17:03:56+00:00): Beste Moo925  Zou je willen aangeven waarom je veranderingen op de kaart aanbrengt die er in werkelijkheid (nog) niet zijn. Na de vorige reverts heb je op geen enkele manier gereageerd.
Wanneer wegen in de toekomst verlegd worden of wanneer er een Railterminal gebouw gaat worden dan kun je dit proposed en tijdens de bouw met costruction taggen.
Graag nu toch een reactie.
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2020-05-11 17:39:13+00:00): reverted by changeset #85038516

Wees even voorzichtig met het aanbrengen van nieuwe edits. 
Mocht je op deze manier doorgaan zal er overwogen worden een (tijdelijke) stop op je account te plaatsen. 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group

MVG,
eggie
stefanct (2020-12-17 15:39:06+00:00): Bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7507605292 ist mir nicht klar, wieso der Punkt abseits jedes Weges ein nennenswerter Aussichtspunkt sein soll.
FuadHikari (2020-05-11 16:58:58+00:00): park mesjid Alhikmah
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-01-12 10:06:11+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/856291410/history - this is not fixing a typo, that is changing a tagging scheme
aceman444 (2021-01-17 21:22:31+00:00): Hi, you are right. But it would be a problem if there were 2 popular but competing schemes. But I don't think there is any value preserving a tag that is deprecated and used 5 times in the world now.
As it also has healthcare=hospice too, there would be currently tagging 3 schemes. It is enough when the 2 (social_facility and healthcare) compete. I understand what you say in theory, but there also has to be a limit to the mess in OSM. Thanks.
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-01-18 08:55:11+00:00): I have no problem with edit itself - but it should be described as "changing tagging scheme" or similar - not as "Fix typo"
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-01-18 08:56:32+00:00): BTW, it seems to be  misplaced. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2494883
aceman444 (2021-01-24 00:38:22+00:00): You are right, sorry about the mismatching description.
Sanniu (2020-05-12 11:20:04+00:00): Hi, you added housenumber and not the street, the automatic search can't work on such addresses. Please add street name or add to street relation.
flatroy (2020-05-12 11:24:36+00:00): Hi, sure, added
Sanniu (2020-05-12 11:25:55+00:00): Thanks!
m9n (2020-05-11 17:52:02+00:00): Bij v2 en v3 heb ik een aanname gedaan. Ik ben er niet zeker van of bij die lokaties ook door klanten geparkeerd kan worden. Kan iemand deze wijziging ongedaan maken?
eggie (2020-05-11 19:16:31+00:00): Dag m9n.. Ik zal deze changeset proberen te reverten
Gr eggie
eggie (2020-05-11 19:18:06+00:00): Dat lukt dus even niet wegens aantal conflicten.. Wellicht is een andere  mapper al bezig. 
Ik kan ook niet goed zien wat je precies hebt gedaan.
eggie (2020-05-11 19:21:00+00:00): Conflict onstond omdat je na deze changeset bent gaan door editten in het zelfde gebied.
Je kun het beste even met een reguliere editor als iD kijken en de zaak aanpassen. 
Succes,
Eggie
m9n (2020-05-12 21:29:56+00:00): Bedankt voor de poging, ik ben inmiddels wat ervaring rijker en heb via iD een correctie gemaakt.
Grt. m9n
eggie (2020-05-13 06:14:45+00:00): Top!
Gr eggie
bxl-forever (2020-05-11 20:30:17+00:00): Hello,
Why did you revert layer=-1 back to layer=0?
AFAIK, Zenne river flows (or flowed) under houses and streets.
If you set layer=0, OSM will assume there must be intersections with every object at level 0 (i.e. every building, every street, every sidewalk) and we get tons of validation errors because there aren’t any.  This is why we have "layers" in OSM, this is to tell software that some objects fly above or below others without intersecting.
bxl-forever (2020-05-11 22:26:59+00:00): There might be conflicts with subway or railway tunnels at levels -1 and -2.  I can change the subway levels if necessary, for instance if the river is located above that infrastructure.
OsmAnd_Pieter (2020-05-15 19:20:54+00:00): Hi, there is also the Tunnel=True flag. 
I did a test with Molendal straat (Close to Ninoofsesteenweg. Layer 0 with tunnel=yes does not trigger events with other elements in layer 0, except if those are also in a tunnel=yes state.  Rivers can be diverted temporarily to a layer down if they cross one of the other existing tunnels=> Syphons allow even for rivers to cross each other. Example of crossing creeks are the Weesbeek X Molenbeek in Silsombos.  If you like hiking => definetly a nice place to visit.  I have no clue on what level to put the rivers especially if they are canalised. But even putting them on -1 or  -2 there might be a conflict. So I guess every crossing needs to be untangled locally. About tubes/metro's I know they go up and down all the time. About rivers I know they do not do that for 99% of the time. If you look at rivers all over the world I would personally put them on level 0. With the bridges on +1 (+2). and cartunnels on -1 or -2.   Water is lighter than earth => river float on top. I am no expert on that layer thing so correct where needed please.
bxl-forever (2020-05-19 17:49:33+00:00): Hello,
This is more complicated.  iD is unfortunately quite unable to check this properly and will ignore all conflicts when one sets layer=0.
Don’t worry.  I spent some time on this, and changed layer on road tunnels accordingly to make it work fine with layer=-1.
simon_geovelo (2020-05-14 13:48:20+00:00): Bonjour, Vous avez ajoutez des pistes cyclable non connectées au reste du réseau pour matérialiser des doubles sens cyclables. De plus les doubles sens cyclables était déjà renseignés. je viens de les suprimer. 
Si vous avez besoin de plus de conseil pi=our cartographier les aménagements cyclables n'hésitez pas à me contacter. Vous pouvez aussi consulter cette page du wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bicycle
Simon
Frans S (2020-06-10 10:23:08+00:00): Hello Jennifer
Thanks for mapping here
You are rather new here I see.
Please take a look to the picture here where You see some yellow crosses and circles
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19sutFLjv7Bs-7OHcXWFOd2kgobyUII8U/view?usp=sharing
The crosses means not to be mapped.
Circles yellow.  Much oversized. Look to the dimensions of the buildings,
Please map them as accurate as possible.
Do you see the round objects. That are also buildings to be mapped.
Pink circle. Here you connect a road to an electrical power line.( not that good for your health :-)
This is a building only project. Please stick to that. No highways, no other objects.
There has been made a mess of the primary highway. I don't know what happened here, but that piece has been mapped over 3 times. by another mapper.
Thanks and keep mapping
fiy
https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/#configuring-the-background-layer
TravGW (2020-05-11 18:07:44+00:00): Are you aware that you changed a town into one big park?

¿Eres consciente de que cambiaste una ciudad en un gran parque?
Frans S (2020-06-10 09:17:18+00:00): Hello Jennifer. Thanks for mapping here
The aim of this project to map buildings. Please stick to that.  Mapping Neighbourhood areas makes no sense 
Best regards and keep mapping
351293 (2021-08-01 13:33:26+00:00): Hallo, bei dem von Dir eingetragenen Fußweg handelt es sich um einen illegal angelegten Trampelpfad ("Wilder Bahnübergang") über die Aartalbahn. Dieser ist gewiss kein ausgewiesener Fußweg. Es sollte kritisch überlegt werden, solche Wege überhaupt in OSM anzulegen. Wird sich dazu entschieden, dann bitte als highway=path (Weil wegen nicht ausgewiesen als Fußweg) mit access=no - schließlich ist die Nutzung rechtswidrig.
LG
P.S. Ich habe die entsprechenden Änderungen vorgenommen.
highflyer74 (2021-08-01 13:50:58+00:00): Moin zusammen!

So genannte Trampelpfade kann man mit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal taggen, um den nicht offiziellen Charakter zu erfassen.

Viele Grüße!
351293 (2021-08-01 13:55:11+00:00): Danke für die Info, das habe ich jetzt noch zusätzlich ergänzt. Da der Weg aber nicht nur inoffiziell sondern auch illegal ist, sollte das access=no bestehen bleiben.
Aktuell läuft auf der Strecke ein Reaktivierungsverfahren, ggf. wird der Fußweg dann in einem Jahr durch Zäune gesperrt.
Max Tenerelli (2020-05-31 08:49:29+00:00): Ciao, una relazione di tipo route=foot può comprendere solo oggetti di tipo highway. Nel caso della relazione "Via Ellenica Ostuni" hai inserito dentro edifici, historic places, cancelli, ecc.
Inoltre all'interno di una relazione route, i membri dovrebbero essere inseriti in modo ordinato seguendo una sequenza di percorrenza dalla partenza all'arrivo.
Per far questo è necessario utilizzare l'edito JOSM in quanto l'editor iD via web non supporta l'ordinamento