piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frans S (2022-09-23 10:21:54+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
I am a Sr Validator and review mapped tasks at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say, but your mappings are not that accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to next points:
* Most buildings are strict rectangular. Please square them after you drawn it, and still selected, with the Q key 
* Please be sure the object you want to map is a building. When there is no shadow next to it, or traces of human activity, it is mostly not a building.  Buildings have mostly a gray or brown roof. Green means trees or scrub.





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 !
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126522723
CurlingMan13 (2024-02-05 02:44:00+00:00): You made a couple mistakes:

1) Do not partially overlap landcovers.

2) Do not leave slivers of areas to create "holes".

You should review the following webpage:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

I have fixed this one time for you.  Please do not continue to submit changesets with these errors.
Frans S (2022-09-23 10:16:25+00:00): Your mappings here are a bit oversized.
You also mapped a few pieces of ground as a building. 
Check if there is a shadow next to it.  That proofs that the object is above ground level and mostly a building.
Be sure to square each building you map with the Q key.
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126522805
woodpeck_repair (2023-01-03 12:15:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 130822479, 130823603, 130822659, 130821821, 130822156, 130821684, 130823808, 130823423, 130823995, 130823041, 130821981, 130818753, 130822310, 130822822, 130823241 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by Designer1 because they often damaged existing non-golf infrastructure and individually reverting only the problematic edits would have been too much work
Frans S (2022-09-23 10:18:11+00:00): Difficult to see, but the building on the west side are 2 smaller buildings.
Do not include the shadow of a building into your mapping.
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126522885
woodpeck_repair (2023-01-03 12:16:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 130822479, 130823603, 130822659, 130821821, 130822156, 130821684, 130823808, 130823423, 130823995, 130823041, 130821981, 130818753, 130822310, 130822822, 130823241 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by Designer1 because they often damaged existing non-golf infrastructure and individually reverting only the problematic edits would have been too much work
Frans S (2022-09-23 10:13:28+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
I am a Sr Validator and review mapped tasks at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say, but your mappings are not that accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to next points:
* Buildings partially hidden under trees not drawn correctly.  Extrapolate the rooflines.




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 !
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126523268
Frans S (2022-09-23 10:10:58+00:00): In addition to my other reviews, these mappings are rather sloppy mapped and not squared at all. 
Please be more accurate in your mappings.
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126523389
Frans S (2022-09-23 10:09:31+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
I am a Sr Validator and review mapped tasks at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say, but your mappings are not that accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to next points:
* Most buildings are strict rectangular. Please square them after you drawn it, and still selected, with the Q key 

* Please be sure the object you want to map is a building. When there is no shadow next to it, or traces of human activity, it is mostly not a building.  Buildings have mostly a gray or brown roof. Green means trees or scrub.


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 !
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126523405
GinaroZ (2022-09-28 21:04:33+00:00): This was originally a footway - what was the reason for adding bicycle=yes, is there a blue sign making this shared use?
f8aj3k (2022-09-28 21:36:44+00:00): Hi there, no, I don't believe it has a blue bicycle sign - that would make it bicycle=designated. I added bicycle=yes because that tag is "roads and other objects accessible to cyclists, but not explicitly designated/signed for their use".

I added bicycle=yes because this route often gives the fastest route compared to alternatives, but my cycling app doesn't currently route via this way (which I was hoping to change by adding the tag). Now that you've raised the question, I'm in two minds about it. I'm aware it isn't legal to cycle on a standard footway, which I guess may be why you're questioning it? On the other hand, even official cycle routes like the NCRs sometimes include short sections where cycling is illegal and simply put a "cyclists dismount" sign for that section. This would be in situations, I assume, where the dismounted section is short enough that it's still preferable to taking a longer detour. From a routing perspective, this bridge would be an example of that - as a cyclist, I'd rather be routed this way and have to dismout for a few steps to cross the bridge (assuming this is the most direct route), rather than having to take the longer rounds right around the residential estate. Does that seem reasonable?
GinaroZ (2022-10-04 16:54:21+00:00): Sorry for the delay in replying. Think that quote in the editor help is shortened from here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle=yes - which says it is "applied where cycling is legal" - so not the case for this footway.
I understand why you would want to use it (I'd probably also use it as a shortcut) however we need to map what is on the ground, in terms of actual legal access restrictions.
Routers such as cycle.travel and Komoot can already direct you to dismount/push in some sections, so maybe suggest that to the developer of the app you are using? Or ask the council to make it shared use? :)
f8aj3k (2022-10-04 17:10:48+00:00): No problem! That makes sense. Since I posted my last message, I was realising that the problem I was trying to solve here was, as you say, actually a routing problem rather than a mapping problem. I see you've already updated this one. I'll have a look over my other recent changes to see whether I did the same elsewhere. I added some surface types where they were missing and may have added a bicycle=yes for the same reason elsewhere :)
ualios (2023-04-22 16:31:36+00:00): Ciao se questa
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1097131768
è una rotatoria va taggata con junction=roundabout (oneway=yes è inutile)
ualios (2023-04-22 16:33:59+00:00): e anche questa:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1097131778
Frans S (2022-09-23 10:07:48+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
I am a Sr Validator and review mapped tasks at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say, but your mappings are not that accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to next points:
 Most buildings are strict rectangular. Please square them after you drawn it, and still selected, with the Q key 
* The shadow of a building included in your mapping.



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 !
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126523869
Frans S (2022-10-07 14:00:37+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
I am a Sr Validator and review mapped tasks at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say, but your mappings are not that accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to next points:
* Buildings partially hidden under trees not drawn correctly. Extrapolate the rooflines.


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 !
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126523895
Frans S (2022-09-23 10:07:02+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
I am a Sr Validator and review mapped tasks at random or as requested. 
I should not map this object as a building. No idea what it is, but no building.



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 !
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126523902
oba510 (2022-09-22 23:01:00+00:00): Hi, can you explain what you're trying to do here?  McCone Hall has already been mapped here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24025437

If you were trying to add more detail to the building you might be looking for the building:part=* tag instead of building=*  See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings for more info

ps: The name "McCone Hall Base Area" doesn't really make any sense; that's not the name of the building.  The name tag is only for actual names.
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2022-09-24 14:05:01+00:00): يا أستاذ سويلم هذه الخريطة عامة نرجوا منكم عدم وضع أماكنك الخاصة فيها
Frans S (2022-10-07 13:59:29+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
I am a Sr Validator and review mapped tasks at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say, but your mappings are not that accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to next points:
* Pay more attention to accurate mapping over the rooflines. 
* Most buildings are strict rectangular. Please square them after you drawn it, and still selected, with the Q key. 




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 !
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126524193
LockOnGuy (2022-09-25 22:01:41+00:00): May I know why did you delete tens of "addr:country", "addr:place" and "addr:postcode" ?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126525163
ڕاستی (2022-09-26 19:46:22+00:00): پۆستکۆد و ناونیشەکان هەموویان گۆڕاون و حکومەت هەمووی سەر لە نوێ داڕشتۆتەوە و بەردەوامە لە جێگیرکردنی ناونیشانی نوێ بۆ هەموو باڵەخانە و خانوو و تەلارێک. بۆیە کۆنەکان پێویستە بسڕێتەوەو و نوێیەکان جێیان بگرنەوە و، لە هەندێک گەڕەک داڕێژراوە و بەشی زۆریشیان ماون.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126525163
ڕاستی (2022-09-26 19:47:29+00:00): هەڵسەنگاندن بۆ هیچ دەستکارییەک مەکە لە خۆتەوە هەتا دڵنیا نەبی ئەوەی کە کراوە درووستە یان نا. چونکە ئێرە تۆڕی کۆمەڵایەتی نییە.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126525163
LockOnGuy (2022-09-26 19:50:14+00:00): Ok thats for the postal code. But why the country?
Frans S (2022-09-23 10:02:45+00:00): Don't forget to square each building.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126525223
Frans S (2022-09-23 09:43:02+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
I am a Sr Validator and review mapped tasks at random or as requested. 
I review all your changesets and will comment on those where I find issues.
In general your mappings are quite accurate. My compliments.
You mapped here a big object as a building. When I take a close look, I miss the typical shape and look of a building. For me, it seems to be a pile of agricultural products
A few meters lower, there is a building. (not mapped yet)
Please pay attention to next points:



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 !
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126525357
40° (2022-09-24 22:39:22+00:00): Это кто нить читает?
tbicr (2022-09-25 07:56:58+00:00): хацеў бы працягнуць https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/122596761:

Ганцэвічы ўжываецца на шыльдзе, таму магчыма гэта лепшы варыянт

тут хутчэй больш залежыць ад націску Га́нцавічы vs Ганцэ́вічы, які варыянт больш ужывальны я асабіста нажаль ня ведаю

на map.nca.by і ў даведніку населеных пунктаў Лемцюговай ужываецца варыянт Га́нцавічы, зь іншага боку надпісы на шыльдах тэарэтычна могуць утрымліваць памылкі (як і іншыя крыніцы)
40° (2022-09-25 08:13:32+00:00): Я это понимаю. 
Но, так как мы готовимся к глобальному переходу на Беларускую мову, надо четко понимать, что автоматическое переименование на сто процентов не прокатит и надо четко понимать как поступать в таких случаях. А они наверняка будут ещё.
Не решив эту конкретную мелкую проблему с именно с этими Ганцевичами, рискуем нарваться на крупную проблему в масштабах страны.
Может конечно я перестраховщик... 
Но затевается серьезное мероприятие и к нему надо основательно подготовиться. 
"В этом деле, собственно, не должно быть мелочей" было как то сказано Штирлицу. 😂
40° (2022-09-25 08:17:08+00:00): Я бы копировал названия с табличек. 
Даже если при их изготовлении были допущены ошибки. 
Во первых население к ним уже привыкло. Во вторых это уже решение было принято каким то госорганом и это его ответственность.
tbicr (2022-09-25 09:22:16+00:00): Вось тут апісаная логіка аўтаматычнага пераносу: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Be:Belarus_language_issues/Migration_proposal#%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%85%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%9E%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D1%96%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC%D1%8D%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%9E, то бок для непасрэдна населенных пунктаў для пераводу name яно павінна адпавядаць name:be ці name:ru

у дадзеным выпадку, калі name = Ганцевичи, name:be = Ганцавічы, name:ru = Ганцевичи, то name можа быць аўтаматычна пераведзена на name:be, то бок name = Ганцавічы

калі name = Ганцевичи, name:be = Ганцэвічы, name:ru = Ганцевичи, то name можа быць аўтаматычна пераведзена на name:be, то бок name = Ганцэвічы

выпраўленьне правільнага напісаньня name ці name:* не залежыць ад таго калі праблема была выпраўленая да ці пасьля міграцыі наколькі я разумею апісаную праблему
tbicr (2022-09-25 09:25:43+00:00): што тычыцца пісаць як на шыльдзе Ганцэвічы ці Ганцавічы, асабіста мне таксама больш падабаецца падыход з шыльдам
40° (2022-09-25 13:35:29+00:00): В итоге как мы поступаем?
Ждем результата миграции и после этого принимаем решение?
tbicr (2022-09-25 14:15:52+00:00): Наколькі я разумею Вы ўжо памянялі name:be на Ганцэвічы, што яшчэ засталося? Калі ёсьць якая праблема, то трэба выпраўляць, не зусім разумею да чаго тут міграцыя.
40° (2022-09-25 14:53:20+00:00): Эммммм.... 
Ок.
Я понял.
4004 (2022-09-25 21:07:24+00:00): заполняйте alt_name. Я бы внес в него то название, которым меньше пользуются местные, но это нужен выезд на место
Unbeatable101 (2022-09-23 01:24:10+00:00): iD validator errors
Adam Franco (2023-06-02 13:39:55+00:00): I'm planning a canoe trip through Saint Regis next week and just wanted to thank you for mapping the camp sites. It will make finding them so much easier. :-D
cserpell (2022-09-23 12:05:29+00:00): Hola hola. Recuerda al borrar elementos que tienen dirección, no eliminar el punto on la dirección, solo las etiquetas antiguas, ya que sino se pierde el número (en este caso el Bellavista 237 donde estaba Zeke antiguamente.)

Gracias por los aportes!
gordo anorexico (2022-09-23 12:17:28+00:00): Oh, no me había fijado
Glassman (2022-09-25 23:26:38+00:00): I restored the driveway since we map visible and verifiable features in OSM. I agree that removing the paths was appropriate. If you think this is wrong please let me know. I'll send you more info on OSM in a message.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126526667
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:36:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:40:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:36:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:42:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:49:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:37:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:40:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:44:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:41:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:50:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
habi (2022-09-23 07:07:49+00:00): Ich hab' das Ding mal an den Ort bewegt, wo das im Luftbild von swisstopo zu sein scheint.
habi (2022-09-23 07:12:49+00:00): Siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126532365
habi (2022-09-23 07:06:19+00:00): Ich habe das Ding geklöscht.
In Maps.me kannst du ein neu hinzugefügtes Objekt löschen, indem du unten hingehts und 'delete' drückst.
habi (2022-09-23 07:06:49+00:00): Und: Ich empfehle dir https://organicmaps.app/, das ist die neue Version von maps.me, die weiterentwickelt wird.
hetzmichnicht (2022-10-01 05:35:05+00:00): danke!
tomservo (2022-09-23 03:30:50+00:00): *Market St
mavl (2023-04-25 09:00:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:40:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:48:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:41:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:47:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:51:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:38:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:41:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-11-01 14:00:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 174063813, 174063778, 174063039, 174063675, 174063839, 174063864, 174063733, 174063852, 174063722, 174063049, 174063081, 174063378, 174063746, 174063119, 174063802, 174063878 where the changeset comment is: Following a DWG complaint, reverting a dubious import.  See e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1311170850 https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18848