piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
skyper (2020-09-21 11:23:49+00:00): Hi Ganesh

Please, tell me, why did you not add this source to the changeset with the date of "survey".

How was that information provided? Do you have photos? Is access=private correct or is it only (motor_)vehicle=private and some transportation modes like foot are allowed?

If I look at the CS area, I see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/753604136 which is an routing island. How about fixing this problem while you are editing this area?

Cheers skyper
gseethar (2020-09-24 09:36:33+00:00): Hi Skyper,

Since I did not personally survey the area, I was slightly skeptical about adding source as survey. Our driver had personally communicated this to us. It is a privately owned road with "residents only" access. 
Coming to the routing island issue, since I was editing in near the vicinity, I observed missing road connection and added it and tweaked geometry, I did not see any proof to add the access tags attributed to driveways. 

I looked into the private tag causing the issue, since we previously used to add private to all driveways leading to residential houses, our editor added it in the past. Recently US community has asked us to discontinue the process and we are not doing it any more. Hence Reverted the access in this change set: 91422440.
Please let me know if you have additional suggestions.

Thanks,
Ganesh
user_2066394 (2020-08-25 21:12:03+00:00): Könnte man mit contact:facebook=* aber auch erhalten.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:contact
JIDB (2020-08-26 18:27:11+00:00): erledigt in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89986140
user_2066394 (2020-08-25 14:51:36+00:00): Hier hast du auf die bereits eingetragene Straße eine neue Straße gezeichnet, die liegen jetzt übereinander und sind damit redundant.
fprediger (2020-08-25 17:51:59+00:00): Grüß dich wurzelast, Danke für den Hinweis, ich wollte den Abschnitt trennen, dachte das geht über das Markieren der Punkte. Bin Neuling... muss ich vorher die Straße löschen und dann neu zeichnen?
user_2066394 (2020-08-25 18:13:20+00:00): Objekte, die bereits korrekt eingepflegt sind nicht löschen und neu zeichnen, sonst geht die Historie verloren. Es reicht in der Regel, die Attribute zu ändern.

Aufteilen geht im iD-Editor mit Markierung des Punkts und dann Taste X.

Ich hab die doppelt gezeichnete Straße mal rausgenommen.
user_3022894 (2020-09-04 20:21:55+00:00): Hi larcado,
es ist ja schön, dass du das ans Gebäude mappst, aber eine Information ist dabei verloren gegangen. Nämlich, dass der Action-markt vorher Rewe Ihr Kaufpark war. Auch das start_date wurde nicht übernommen.
user_3022894 (2020-09-04 20:30:30+00:00): Das ist halt auch ein Problem an der Sache. Wenn start_date an einem Gebäude mit shop=* ist, dann weiß man nicht mehr, wozu start_date jetzt gehört. Daher hatte ich den Eintrag als Punkt belassen.

Viele Grüße,
Lukas
JRMRBCBXL (2020-08-25 12:03:35+00:00): chemin en bordure d'un champ, emprunté quotidiennement, en partie bordé de clôtures à droite et à gauche.
IlBano (2020-08-28 20:52:54+00:00): Ciao,
per quale motivo in questo changeset hai rimosso i tag name:en e name:de dalla relazione del sentiero E1 ?
Grazie

IlBano
Giovanni Forgione (2020-08-28 23:33:00+00:00): Ciao, mi rendo conto che modificare qualcosa non creato da me, può risultare scortese e me ne scuso. Penso che ci metti un attimo a riparare e ristabilire i tag di prima.
Perché l'ho fatto. Spiego. Mi piace tenere fare un lavoro pulito e quotidianamente correggo tutto ciò che la mia pagina degli errori mi propone. Ho iniziato a mappare da un mese e non conosco ancora tutti i segreti. Mi sapresti spiegare perché OSM mi addebita errori non commessi da me? Lavoro solo in una zona della mia provincia di Benevento. Perché mai OSM mi da errore su un sentiero che non ho mai toccato?  L'errore che OSM mi invita a correggere sul sentiero E1 è questo: la lingua locale non è la stessa della lingua del sentiero. Cosa vuol dire? e perché lo dice a me nella mia pagina di errori?
IlBano (2020-08-29 13:05:22+00:00): Ciao Giovanni, grazie per il feedback. Cerco di rispondere ai tuoi dubbi via mail OSM appena possibile (non ho accesso al momento ad un PC) 
Ciao
Giovanni Forgione (2020-08-29 14:01:22+00:00): Ok grazie!
Swan7 (2020-08-25 13:16:39+00:00): На данном месте с давних пор находится стоянка альпклуба Штурм
tux67 (2020-08-25 16:05:04+00:00): Hi, ich bin nicht ganz sicher ob du zu den lift_gates noch ein access tag packen musst, damit du z.B. auf einen Kundenpartplatz navigieren kannst, falls der default access=no ist
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=69379
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/89914927
jimmyhendrix (2020-08-26 15:15:13+00:00): Nun warst du schneller :D Du hast ja direkt das Waschwerk verbessert - dort habe ich in die mittlere Serviceverbindung entfernt, denn dort ist keine Waschbox mehr.
tux67 (2020-08-26 15:20:05+00:00): ;-) Keine Waschbox heisst auch kein "Dach" mehr?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/89914927
jimmyhendrix (2020-08-26 15:39:08+00:00): Nein, so stimmt es nun. Das Dach ist korrekt eingetragen. Es gibt dort 6 überdachte Waschboxen. In der Mitte der 6 Waschboxen befindet sich ein "Gebäude" bzw. Container oder wie man es auch immer nennen will, wo ein Geldwechselautomat ist und wahrscheinlich technische Anlagen. Das ist auch als building getaggt.
Linkid (2020-08-26 11:42:36+00:00): Bonjour. Bien vu pour le passage piéton :) !
Pour le passage, j'aurais mis tunnel=building_passage plutôt que layer=-1 (voir doc). Si vous n'avez pas l'occasion de le faire d'ici-là, je pourrais le faire ;).
Merci encore.
AdVerburg (2020-08-27 17:01:17+00:00): Dag Harm,
Ik zag "highway=steps" staan op https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111438947/history.
Dat klopt niet, en heb ik die steps eraf gehaald.
Daarnaast was er ook een lege relatie https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11543692/history…
Ik vermoed dat je de breedte en de constructie van dat bruggetje erbij wilde zetten. In dat geval hoort dat op de brug zelf  gezet te worden https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/704283609

M.v.g. Ad
Andrea Musuruane (2020-08-26 08:12:01+00:00): Ciao. Per favore, non usare le immagini satellitari di Bing, perché non sono ben allineate. Meglio usare Ersi Clarity. Inoltre, se inserisci una chiesa come edificio, devi specificare building=church, rimuovere il nodo che la segnalava in precedenza, e inserire tutti i tag necessari: amenity=place_of_worship
+ denomination=roman_catholic
+ religion=christian. Inoltre, il nome deve essere inserito completo e non in forma abbreviata. Quindi "Chiesa di Sant'Anna". Ciao, Andrea
CupIvan (2020-10-08 17:45:11+00:00): при прорисовке карты соединяйте пожалуйста новые дороги с общей дорожной сетью, иначе по ним невозможно будет проложить маршрут :-(
limes11 (2020-09-12 20:12:34+00:00): Hi, 

Did you check this on-site? According to note 1673146, cars are permitted to turn right coming from the gas station. This seems impossible if the one-way part extends to Margueritenweg.

Best, Limes
mirelal_telenav (2020-09-14 05:58:43+00:00): Hi Limes, 
I didn't check this on-site, but according to Mapillary images, which are more recent than note 1673146, there is an oneway road. If you have local knowledge, please do not hesitate to make changes in this regard.

Best regards, Mirela
limes11 (2020-09-14 06:28:58+00:00): Hello Mirela, 

Thank you for your quick response. A couple of questions about this:

- Your sources state Mapbox and IOSM. What is IOSM? And why didn't you add Mapillary if this was your source? I would have checked it had I known there are tracks on Mapillary.

- From the Mapillary track it becomes clear that the one-way restriction does not apply to bicycles. When you add one-ways, it is important to take care of this issue. In the future, please add "oneway:bicycle=no" whenever this is the case. (I did it here.)

- I can't see on the (rather blurry) Mapillary images that the one-way part starts at "Margueritenweg" Can you add a link to the image that shows this?

Best, Limes
mirelal_telenav (2020-09-14 06:58:47+00:00): Hi Limes,
- IOSM - Improve OSM it's a tool which suggest where should be a one way road. Please check more info here http://blog.improveosm.org/en/
- in the future I will consider your suggestion
- here you can see the two 'no entry ' traffic sign https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.93543240447761&lng=6.853186091044776&z=17&pKey=ppD-3pm5pqDbuD5lQp1XsQ&focus=photo

Best regards, Mirela
limes11 (2020-09-14 07:10:09+00:00): Hi again,

- I see. So, IOSM points out potential problems, but it does not actually offer a way to fix them. 

- I did not mean the "no entry" sign. That one I found, there is also one a bit further east:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.9354698554&lng=6.8538548458&z=17&pKey=76PvD7LybHzXv_vgv6kwNQ&focus=photo

My question was: Why did you draw the one-way up to "Margueritenweg" and not further? I can't see any sign indicating that the one-way restriction ends there. In fact, it could also be that the "no entry" sign linked above only prohibits entry and does not imply any one-way restrictions.

Best, Limes
mirelal_telenav (2020-09-14 07:55:18+00:00): Hi, 

Usually we add oneway tag until the first intersection if there in no other traffic sign who tell otherwise. But again, if you have local knowledge, please do not hesitate to make changes in this regard.

Best regards, Mirela
limes11 (2020-09-14 08:00:17+00:00): If I had local knowledge, I would have done that already :)

I will set a new node so locals can check this.

Thanks for your feedback
Supaplex (2021-04-16 13:26:48+00:00): 您好：

歡迎加入開放街圖，群眾共同參與，繪製生活週遭大家關心事物的共編地圖。
台灣的標示依循準則可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taiwan
常見的圖徵標示方式可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features
給Pokemon Go玩家的建議：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers
組織性編輯指南：https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

下面是台灣社群相關的網站，可以加入彼此切磋切磋！

https://www.osm.org or https://osm.org
常用圖徵(Map Features)表 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features
給Pokemon Go玩家的建議：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers
組織性編輯指南：https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
國內網站與協作：
OSM.TW https://osm.tw/
臉書粉絲頁OpenStreetMap台灣 https://www.facebook.com/openstreetmaptaiwan/
OSMWiki Project Taiwan https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Taiwan
Hackpad https://osmtw.hackpad.tw/
Trello https://trello.com/osmtw
GitHub https://github.com/OsmHackTW
與社群交流：
台灣開放街圖 社群組織理事會 信箱 hiboard@openstreetmap.tw
Facebook 社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Slack https://osm-tw.signup.team/
Telegram OpenStreetMap Taiwan https://t.me/joinchat/Aqu2IgnTuIidMfREdNmomQ
Telegram OpenStreetMap Asia https://t.me/OpenStreetMapAsia
敬祝畫圖愉快！
jeslop (2020-08-25 14:11:28+00:00): Hola OverK62. Gracias por tu colaboración. Te recomendaría leer https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Gu%C3%ADa_de_principiantes para hacerte una idea general. Algunas etiquetas no parecen coincidir con lo que se ve en las imágenes aunque si vives en el pueblo lo conocerás mejor, pero quizás revisando la documentación encuentres una mejor descripción. Gracias a ti por sumarte al proyecto.
OverK62 (2020-08-25 14:22:03+00:00): Gracias jeslop por interesarte. El primer dia no conocía mucho el programa pero despues de estar probando creo que ya controlo bastante. Vivo en el pueblo por lo que se donde estan las cosas auque algunas no se perciban en el mapa si estan ahí (ej: los senderos colocados si estan, pero tapados por la arboleda. No se si me dejo algo por comentar, cualquier cosa no dudes en decirmelo.
Leo Slager (2020-08-25 14:46:23+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
Leo Slager (2020-08-25 15:04:28+00:00): Dag Arjan,
In NL voegen we de bedrijfsgegevens toe aan de adresnode. Verder zou het leuk zijn om wat meer bijzonderheden van het bedrijf op te nemen, bijv website, telefoonnummer, aard van het bedrijf...
In de wiki kun je opzoeken hoe dat moet.
ArjanO555 (2020-08-25 16:59:22+00:00): Bedankt voor uw review,

Ik zal uw advies in acht nemen.

Mvg,

Arjan
tastrax (2020-09-09 00:34:28+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added according to the following format +61 x xxxx xxxx, or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
Gustavo22Soares (2020-09-01 22:49:27+00:00): concertado e add clube dos magistrados
user_2066394 (2020-08-25 15:19:55+00:00): addr:place=* hat in dem Fall eine andere Funktion.

Für den Eintrag der Praxis kann healthcare=* verwendet werden:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:healthcare
ianlopez1115 (2020-08-25 14:03:58+00:00): *some data in this changeset has been extrapolated, forgot to add "extrapolation" in the source tag
ACarlotti (2020-08-25 21:36:17+00:00): I disagree. And even if they should be the same, I think 'unclassified' is the wrong tag for the northbound sign, since it's main role is as a slip road from a motorway onto a secondary road.
Mike Baggaley (2020-08-26 08:38:01+00:00): I would be OK with the northbound carriageway being a continuation of the trunk link, even though it is not strictly one. I do not think it can be considered part of the B1043 which is how it was previously tagged. The south bound cannot be considered to be any kind of link road. It is a slightly unusual situation...
ACarlotti (2020-08-26 08:53:25+00:00): I think 'secondary' is probably best (though without the ref). (I'm basing this partly upon the various wiki pages for highway links).
Mike Baggaley (2020-08-26 09:08:46+00:00): As it is not part of the B1043, it should not be secondary. If it is being considered a link between B1043 and A1(M) then trunk link is the correct tag. If not then unclassified seems to me to be best. The wiki says "Try not to split up the link into one part belonging to one road and one to the other with different classifications." which would preclude it from being secondary link.
ACarlotti (2020-08-26 09:30:39+00:00): I think that statement is relating to the case of a simple link with no intermediate junctions, with the instruction being to not choose an arbitrary division point.
I think this point is relevant (from the highway_link page):
"A preexisting street used to connect two major highways is not a link. Instead it should be tagged as the normal highway it previously was, probably equivalent to the lower classification of the ones it connects. This also applies where otherwise minor streets connect highways at an interchange."
And an analogy from the motorway_link page:
"Any other roads used to connect the motorway to a non-motorway, which can also be used by non-motorway traffic, should be tagged as something less than motorway_link, usually the *_link of the non-motorway."

If this is considered to be a pre-existing street, then the wiki would say that 'highway=secondary' is correct. On the other hand, if this isn't a pre-existing street, but the A1307 were a motorway, then the wiki would say 'highway=secondary_link' is correct. I think the reality falls into neither case, so there isn't explicit guidance for this situation, but I don't think the classification should decrease if the classification of the A1307 were raised to a motorway.

So, to conclude, I'd say that either 'highway=secondary' or 'highway=secondary_link' is correct; I think I now favour the latter slightly more.
Mike Baggaley (2020-08-26 13:51:47+00:00): I think that the statement "Instead it should be tagged as the normal highway it previously was, probably equivalent to the lower classification of the ones it connects" would not suggest secondary here. If we consider the case where there is no slip road from the A1(M) (i.e. we are looking at a preexisting road), the classification of the way would be unclassified. It is not part of a B road which bars it from being secondary and neither does it exclusively connect to a B road which bars it from being secondary_link.

However, looking at other online maps just for comparison purposes I see that OS has this as part of the B1090 (it does not show separate carriageways) and streetmap shows both carriageways as being B. As an aside, the Highways England network map shows the motorway spur as the A14(M) not the A1(M). The Cambridgeshire highway records indicate that they do not maintain this spur. I presume that the B1090 used to run here prior to the A14(M) being built and the question that needs to be answered is how the development changed its classification.
ACarlotti (2020-08-26 19:45:45+00:00): I think "normal" in that sentence means "not a _link". The example given in the footnote showed a highway link using a pre-existing unclassified road to join onto a secondary road. The portion of the unclassified road involved was then tagged as a secondary road. (Both roads were changed from secondary to tertiary a couple of months ago, but the same principle still holds).
ACarlotti (2020-08-27 12:49:12+00:00): I've returned this to highway=secondary in changeset 89919652, because I think that is much more appropriate. I wouldn't object to this being changed to secondary_link, and/or the reverse direction being changed to a matching classification.
BCNorwich (2020-08-27 07:41:56+00:00): Hi ref ways 840567188 culvert and 840567186 bridge. There's not both a bridge and a culvert, one or the other. The Bing imagery clearly shows a bridge. So I've removed the culvert.

Ref ways 840567184 and 840567182 two bridges one atop the other, duplication? The bridge seems to be a public footpath over a stream with no evidence of an old railway, so I've removed bridge way 840567182.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2020-08-27 08:15:53+00:00): Also removed duplicate sections of ways and made amendments at other bridge sites.
Freiheitsstute (2020-10-12 14:53:14+00:00): Hallo, ist der Name "Schützenplatz" irgendwo nachgewiesen oder dokumentiert? Ich finde nur die Straße "Am Schützenplatz", die ist aber deutlich entfernt von hier.
eggie (2020-08-28 08:01:23+00:00): Nu edits in Nederland.. daarom Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
DressyPear4 (2020-09-22 12:32:36+00:00): Olá, "building" corresponde apenas a área construída e não a todo um conjunto de casas.
Não aumente a geometria de praças até nas estradas, pios essas não são parques.
Não adicione parques em qualquer lugar e de forma aleatória por causa do pokemom, mapeie apenas coisas que existem.
Entre em contato com a comunidade para retirar suas dúvidas.
RigherGo (2020-09-22 15:20:46+00:00): Meu amigo, olha o tamanho da minha cidade, ninguém se importa com esse mapa mesmo, se alguém precisar de informações as pessoas só usam Google Maps ou Apple Maps, ninguém usa este mapa como informação, além de que a cidade precisa dessas mudanças para se tornar mais interessante no Pokémon Go e outros jogos da Niantic, essas mudanças que fiz já beneficiam e beneficiaram muitos jogadores a jogar nesta cidade muito pequena, espero que compreenda pois não faz diferença negativa na vida de ninguém estas alterações que fiz com o intuito de melhorar a jogabilidade na cidade.
DressyPear4 (2020-09-22 17:26:16+00:00): São inúmeras empresas que usam o osm como fonte de dados, como por exemplo Facebook, Apple, Strava... e a lista segue, e você mesmo se contrariando, a Niantic usa os dados.
Se contribuir de forma correta certamente o osm tem potencial de ser um excelente banco de dados, agora se continuar adicionando dados aleatórios e sem sentido, obviamente muita gente vai perder o interesse. 
É terrível ter que ficar refazendo um trabalho, faça as coisas corretamente e evite ser banido.
Emilio Gomez (2020-09-18 07:34:25+00:00): Hi bandek,
I see that you have repeated the route of the tunnels in the Pajares bypass and in addition the tracks are unlabeled. Is there a reason for this?
badenk (2020-09-18 16:02:00+00:00): Hi Emilio:

I originally built new correct (unlabelled) routes, and made sure they were all satisfactory.  After, I moved the existing incorrect routes over onto the correct alignments.  My original paths are now mostly redundant, and I was retaining them anticipating some sabotage on the actual railway lines, so that it would be easier to revert.

I wasn't expecting to ever return to Spain in OSM, as it is was the worst unwelcome OSM environment I have ever worked in.

thanks, Baden
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-08-26 07:30:46+00:00): Thank you very much for the fix! Good luck with your mapping!
eggie (2020-08-28 07:59:57+00:00): Bij het opsplitsen van de Joodse begraafplaats en het algemenen gedeelte is iets verkeerd gegaan. Je hebt met het schuiven met de lijnen op gebouw nr 2 meegenomen. Ik zal kijken of e.e.a. simpel te herstellen is.
Het grasveld om de kerk is geen leisure=park.
Kleinen stukjes groen laten we gewoon landuse = grass
Een leisure=park is een transparant die een functie aangeeft van een groot gebied. Daarbinnen ligt gras , bos en water, 
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2020-08-28 08:11:45+00:00): Hoflaan hersteld .Die was mee verschoven . begraafplaats losgemaakt van wegen..

Svp Niet geen vlakken vast gaan maken aan wegen De kaart wordt onwerkebaar voor anderen.  Gebouw hersteld.
religion =jewish verwijderd van grote vlak dan verdwijnen de Mogen Dovid ook. .
Dit waren je edits http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=89921372
MVG,
Eggie
jeslop (2020-08-25 15:07:10+00:00): Hola de nuevo OverK62. Has etiquetado como residencial una carretera que por sus características no lo es: residential - calle o carretera utilizada generalmente sólo para el tráfico local por personas que viven dentro del asentamiento.
unclassified - una carretera que no tiene una clasificación administrativa ref=*. Las carreteras sin clasificación normalmente constituyen el elemento más bajo de la red de interconexión por carretera (inferior a highway=tertiary). Se usan habitualmente para la interconexión de pequeños asentamientos. Usa residential en lugar de unclassified en la sección de carretera que corresponda cuando haya restricciones de tráfico (como límites de velocidad más bajos) o elementos de calmado de tráfico cerca de pequeños asentamientos (véase también highway=unclassified).(de https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:highway%3Dresidential). Gracias por entenderlo. Sería conveniente que le dejases la etiqueta anterior. Un saludo.
OverK62 (2020-08-25 15:18:07+00:00): Gracias por la corrección. Debió ser un despiste. Seguiré colgando mas modificaciones para tener el pueblo completo, lo que si que pido es que no se cambie el nombre a las cosas ya que hay lugares a los que se le ponen nombres que no corresponden.
jeslop (2020-08-25 15:40:26+00:00): Gracias a ti. Ten en cuenta no usar nombres genéricos, por ejemplo (y no es el caso): una fuente no se debe etiquetar con name=Fonte, y sí name=Fonte da Rá si ese es su nombre. Si el nombre es solo usado por los vecinos del pueblo, sería adecuado usar loc_name:Fonte da Rá. En ocasiones lo que entendemos que puede ser una etiqueta name encaja mejor en description:Fonte antiga do pobo. Saludos.