piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
zluuzki (2022-01-14 21:23:24+00:00): "You are comfortable with defending your estimated error of 100 bad poi based on nothing but wishful thinking."
100 out of 30000. Is this really that bad?
"comfortable with shouldering the OSM community with correcting your erroneous data"
You know what else I'm comfortable with? That I took the task of manually adding (and possibly surveying) 30000 (or 29900) fire stations off the shoulders of the community.
"I assume you are not planning on informing the community that they now have 30,000 pois to check."
Oh, they don't just have those 30k POIs to review. They have to check the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of POIs like stores etc. all the time.
"[...]Technically, that would bump up the number of erroneously imported pois to 100%." Please what?!? So you are seriously saying that every name is wrong? Then it shouldn't be problem to link me 20 or 200 or 2000 bad names.  
"imported erroneous data against the wishes" No, all mentioned imports were "wishes of the community" (except landuse in Atlanta, not sure on that one).

"presenting your import to the community" I thought this only had to be done if it was something controversial, such as large scale landuses or unclear licenses. That there are a few data errors can never be avoided, whether with or without discussion. I have now posted this on slack. But what I will definitely not do is to revert this out of principle (Not following guidelines = You're reverted.).

see https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1642195373111600
G1asshouse (2022-01-14 21:49:49+00:00): I'm glad we understand each other. 

Thank you for the slack link but slack is a side channel and not an official OSM communication channel. It is not one of the appropriate places to bring this issue up to the community. I do not have a slack account and I do not wish to create one nor is it appropriate for you to expect that I should.

Since it is clear that reverting these changesets myself is not an action that the community would condone and I have seen people whom bring very legitimate issues up to the DWG get threatened with a ban, I guess you get your way. I, like most of the OSM community, is powerless. Feel free to continue to dilute the database with pride. From what I can tell, you are in good company.

This very well may be my final days in the project. We will see.
ezekielf (2022-01-14 21:57:54+00:00): Don't worry @G1asshouse,  everyone on Slack agrees with you that this should get reverted.  It's been submitted to the DWG.
Carnildo (2021-12-26 05:35:32+00:00): The data source you're using is outdated: you added Spokane County Station 48 in its old location, but the station moved a mile and a half to the southwest five years ago.

(The old location is mapped as a "disused:amenity=fire_station".)
zluuzki (2021-12-26 06:57:23+00:00): Deleted it. This can happen, nothing is perfect.
ZeLonewolf (2022-01-14 21:58:37+00:00): DWG revert requested; ticket #Ticket#2022011410000126 due to quality & conflation issues with undiscussed fire station import.
ZeLonewolf (2022-01-14 21:58:11+00:00): DWG revert requested; ticket #Ticket#2022011410000126 due to quality & conflation issues with undiscussed fire station import.
Famlam (2021-12-25 20:55:18+00:00): missende bron: survey
mini-me (2021-12-25 23:40:37+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2556667452
Нельзя менять платформу на павильон. Можете нарисовать его отдельно и добавить в отношение  stop_area (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13420473)
archie (2021-12-25 15:51:48+00:00): Du har raderat route_master-relationen för spårvagn 1 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/52282/history). Skulle du vilja återställa, tack.
archie (2021-12-25 16:01:38+00:00): Även de två spårvagns-relationer som ingick i route_master-relationen har du raderat. Vad som finns kvar är två spårvagns-relationer (t o r) utan route_master-relation.
archie (2021-12-25 21:35:44+00:00): Det var de här dublett-relationerna - utan route_master - som du egentligen hade tänkt att radera (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5455642 samt https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5455643) istället för de korrekta som du - tillsammans med dess route_master-relation - raderade.
archie (2021-12-25 22:54:52+00:00): Efter din uteblivna reaktion har jag reverterat. Nu kan du radera rätt dublett-relationer.
E de Wit (2021-12-25 14:22:45+00:00): Dit gebied was één van de voormalige terpen rond Birdaard. Deze terp is tot onder het onder het niveau van de omliggende weilanden afgegraven.

Op de kaart van Eekhoff van 1853 is de (naamloze?) terp nog zichtbaar.
FraukeLeo (2022-02-24 21:55:27+00:00): Hi trailschneck, dieses outer-Segment https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/120081681 als highway=path zu taggen war ein Versehen, oder?
trailschneck (2022-02-25 08:01:15+00:00): Ja, natürlich. Habs geändert - danke für den Hinweis.
Gruß Siegfried
Tilia_J (2021-12-25 18:19:22+00:00): Goedenavond, ik heb deze changeset teruggedraaid.

Ik had de paden hier twee jaar geleden al rechtgelegd volgens Actueel Hoogtebestand Nederland.

Je wijziging was geen verbetering aangezien BGT hier een flinke afwijking heeft, tot wel 10 meter.
Tilia_J (2021-12-25 18:38:36+00:00): Ik zag dat je ook met de "scheve wegen" kaart bezig was gegaan:

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=72596

Nuttige tool maar geeft heel veel faslse positives.
emvee (2021-12-30 19:38:19+00:00): Als BGT inderdaad niet de werkelijkheid weer geeft dan is een revert correct.

Ik heb geen licensie voor AHN maar zie op http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~allroads/NLOSMOK/OSMOKNL.html#map=18.66/52.0172/5.9816/0 waar je het over hebt. Weer wat geleerd want tot nu toe vroeg ik me af waarvoor het AHN handig zou zijn.

Nooit geweten dat BGT z'n consequente afwijking kan hebben, in mijn ervaring met BGT heb ik dat nooit meegemaakt.

Wel eens overwogen een melding via verbeterdekaart te maken hiervan?
Tilia_J (2021-12-30 20:57:45+00:00): In tegenstelling tot urbaan gebied is het BGT voor landelijk gebied vaak verouderd en onnauwkeurig.

Verbeterdekaart heeft vele meldingen van mij mogen ontvangen.
Fra00 (2021-12-25 14:59:13+00:00): Scusa, ma adesso mi devi spiegare il motivo di questa modifica, proprio insensata. Quale cartello o fonte indica le date scritte in questa maniera?
ivanbranco (2021-12-25 15:01:11+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Nomi_delle_strade

Vedi: "Le aree di circolazione che riportano date composte solo da giorni e mese, si inseriscono esplicitando il giorno in lettere. Es: Via Venticinque Aprile. Eventualmente usate il tag alt_name=* per inserire il giorno con i numeri romani. Es: Via XXV Aprile."
Fra00 (2021-12-25 15:05:11+00:00): Mh, ti chiederei di non continuare a editare perché vorrei aprire una discussione più generale in merito.

Lo standard è assurdo e assolutamente non corrispondente all'uso che se ne fa in Italia (vedi anche nelle grandi città).
Fra00 (2021-12-25 15:08:41+00:00): Intanto ti segnalo che quello "standard" (che esiste solo su carta, perché non applicato giustamente da nessuna parte) è semplicemente stato inserito in maniera unilaterale da un utente a gennaio 2018 (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=IT%3AEditing_Standards_and_Conventions&type=revision&diff=1558219&oldid=1491864).
ivanbranco (2021-12-25 15:44:42+00:00): Giusto per senso di completezza nei confronti di chi potrebbe leggere questa discussione e non essere presente su Telegram avviso che la conversazione è continuata su Telegram appunto, e che la scelta non è stata unilaterale ma discussa ennesime volte sulla mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2020-April/069574.html
zluuzki (2021-12-25 19:21:33+00:00): I removed all other duplications ->https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115366806 
See also my comment at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115360162
voltairovicz (2021-12-29 18:59:18+00:00): Ulica Poranna juz została otwarta? Na stronie MZDiK widnieje, ze wciaz są roboty, ale jako ze nie mam jak zwerifikowac w terenie, wiec nie znam stanu faktycznego. A drugie pytanie jest takie, dlaczego polnocny fragment porannej jest zmieniony na service?
Mazovian_Guide (2021-12-31 01:20:12+00:00): ostatnio jechałem Poranną i żadnych robót już nie było, dodatkowo w północnej części tej ulicy ustawione są znaki "droga wewnętrzna"
skyper (2021-12-26 16:05:02+00:00): Hi Chris
Mal wieder ein schönes Beispiel wie es iD schafft quasi alle Route Relationen zu beschädigen.
Das Problem mit Schleifen schein auch noch nicht behoben wie bei dieser Variante der Linie 1 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/13340438/2) deutlich wird. Da braucht es meist einen zeitnahen  Teilrevert um das ordentlich reparieren zu können. Kümmerst Du Dich darum?

Bitte verwende, wenigstens zum Aufteilen von Linien mit Route-Relationen eine andere Software.

Grüße skyper
ChrisFromRV (2021-12-26 16:45:13+00:00): Hi. Danke für den Hinweis. Wie mache ich einen Teilrevert bzw. meine Änderungen rückgängig? LG Chris
skyper (2021-12-27 01:24:43+00:00): Hey Chris
Ich verwende dazu die JOSM Erweiterung "reverter". Teilreverts sinnd noch etwas spezieller und brauch mMn. etwas Übung. Wie es mit iD geht, weiß ich nicht, wenn es überhaupt die Möglichkeit gibt.
Kann es mir die Tage mal anschauen, aber es macht halt zusätzliche Arbeit und ich bekomme auch nur durch PTNA die Probleme bei ÖPV-Relationen mit, wenn ich dann aber z.B. die road-Relationen der Landestraßen anschaue, gibt es dort auch immer Lücken. Leider taucht fast immer iD als Editor auf, wenn ich mir die problematischen Änderungen anschaue.

Für ÖVP empfehle ich JOSM mit der Erweiterung "pt_assistent". Bei vollständig geladenen Relationen findet die Erweiterung diese Probleme und JOSM baut auch bei auch nur noch bei speziellen Bedingungen die neue Linien an der falschen Stelle ein. So ein Quatsch wie die ganze Relation im Hintergrund umzusortieren wird es nie geben.

VG skyper
ChrisFromRV (2021-12-27 14:44:45+00:00): Hi Sykper, sieht recht kompliziert aus. Werde erstmal versuchen, alles einzeln zu korrigieren.
ChrisFromRV (2021-12-27 14:46:17+00:00): Hi, ich nochmal, also hab grad nachgesehen, die Relationen sind doch noch alle da.
skyper (2021-12-27 15:04:28+00:00): Hey Chris
Bitte ändere nichts, ich bin bereits am korrigieren. Werde es später hochladen.

Ja, die Relationen sind noch dar, allerdings ist die Reihenfolge der Mitglieder vertauscht. Route-Relationen sollten keine Lücken haben.
skyper (2021-12-27 22:24:00+00:00): So habe es in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115445520 korrigiert. Ein paar Relationen hatten an anderen Stellen auch Lücken, daher ist der CS etwas größer.
ChrisFromRV (2021-12-27 22:58:41+00:00): Dankeschön.
PT-53 (2021-12-27 08:10:07+00:00): Hallo Christ,
Du hast diesen Weg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1015272099/history
neu eingezeichnet und mit den Merkmalen
highway=service     +
construction=highway
versehen.
Diese Merkmal-Kombination ist falsch!

Wenn die Straße fertiggestellt aber für den allgemeinen Verkehr noch gesperrt ist kann man das mit dem Merkmal
access=no
eintragen.

Grüße
ChrisFromRV (2021-12-27 14:42:34+00:00): Wurde korrigiert.
hatul (2022-02-16 19:51:27+00:00): לפי מה התוספת של הלינה במקום אסורה?
לפי הידוע לי הרבה ישנים שם וזו לא שמורת טבע.
zstadler (2022-02-16 20:39:39+00:00): זה לפי השילוט במקום
hatul (2022-02-16 21:16:11+00:00): ראיתי את השילוט וגם המון אוהלים.
אני גם לא בטוח בתוקף החוקי שלו.
(יש שילוט דומה ליד מצפה הכוכבים שבוודאי ללא תוקף חוקי)
mgpx (2021-12-25 21:21:49+00:00): A tower:type másodszintű tag, önmagában nem áll meg, kell mellé az elsőszintű man_made=tower
GBAB (2021-12-26 07:56:21+00:00): Igazad van, elnéztem. Sorry!
Gábor
vasony (2021-12-26 07:41:46+00:00): Szia!

Letörölted a 4-es számú házat és újrarajzoltad, új házat építettek ide a régi helyére?

Tamás
urbalazs (2021-12-26 09:36:49+00:00): Nem volt indokolt a főépület újrarajzolása, mert csak a melléképület néz ki máshogy. Pótoltam a hiányzó házszámot.
rafaelmartinsrm (2022-01-06 13:36:35+00:00): Oi @Raphyaelkaart, as suas edições nos endereços de Sobradinho - DF não fizeram muito sentindo, uma vez que não refletem a realidade.
raphaelmirc (2022-01-07 00:52:23+00:00): Olá Rafael.

Mapiei conforma a camada de Nomes de Rua do IBGE Atualizada, que pode ser usada nesse endereço:

https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/wille/cj8lp78dn62wl2rquim47qo0g/tiles/256/{zoom}/{x}/{y}?access_token=pk.eyJ1Ijoid2lsbGUiLCJhIjoiY2t1dm4xYmF2NmEzdDMycTY3MjJtNmRwMiJ9._3qoS2hLLiJEkIDsVO4DoA

para usar essa camada de nomes de rua precisa adcionar a mesma na opção costumizado do OSM.
  
e também estou enviando uma foto para você ver a camada de fundo com o nome da Rua que mapiei,
https://flic.kr/ps/3XkGkS mepiei nomes de Ruas que ainda não existia no DF conforma essa camada.
rafaelmartinsrm (2022-01-07 01:17:55+00:00): Perdão raphael, peço que as desfaça, não é assim que funcionam os reais endereços do Distrito Federal, e inclusive você acabou removendo tags interessantes anteriormente definidas.

Edf provavelmente deve significar Edificações, uma referência ao local das residências, mas não é assim que as ruas são nomeadas.

Acredito que a base disponível no site do governo do Distrito Federal seja mais adequada para referência. 

https://www.geoportal.seduh.df.gov.br/geoportal/
raphaelmirc (2022-01-07 03:22:00+00:00): As tag que você se refere e essa? addr:* se for essa tag e usada dessa forma; 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Key:addr

" Utilizado para indicar endereços/moradas de edifícios, lojas, serviços, etc." conforme mensiona a wiki. 

então o mapeamento dessa tag addr: em Ruas e considerada um mapeamento errado conforme a wiki que fala dessa tag que e para ser usado em areas e não em ruas conforme o link acima fala. 

esse mapeamento de tag addr: em ruas causa erro em aplicativos de rotamento no brasil e no Mundo!
rafaelmartinsrm (2022-01-07 03:44:33+00:00): Obrigado pela informação. Acredito que a key 'postal_code' mantenha-se relevante.
wille (2022-01-07 14:07:42+00:00): Acho que basta remover Edf do nome das ruas, raphaelmirc
raphaelmirc (2022-01-08 03:29:39+00:00): Olá Rafael.
Eu tenho deixado essa tag por postal_code mais infelizmente foi uma falha minha ter excluído essa tag, pois é importante as ruas terem seus CEP. E também quando tem a tag addr:street e o nome da Rua é diferente eu procuro alterar para alt_name, só estou excluído quando o nome é igual ao da rua que ja esta mapeada, na Próxima semana que vem vou incluir todos os CEP que por ventura eu tenha excluído.

Um forte abraço.

Raphaelmirc
raphaelmirc (2022-01-08 03:30:59+00:00): Wille, certo!
b-holdet (2022-01-16 14:08:20+00:00): Hvad er meningen med at lave området med de opstillede både til en bygning?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1015287727
osmviborg (2022-01-17 08:05:08+00:00): Et bedre tag: amenity=boat_storage
b-holdet (2022-01-19 14:43:16+00:00): Er rettet i https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116345564
mavl (2021-12-26 10:49:52+00:00): Здравствуйте. Вы в третий раз изменили статус внутридворового проезда со highway=service на highway=residential. Внутридворовые проезды обозначают как highway=service и они не являются улицами highway=residential. Пожалуйста, остановите войну правок.  
  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903714354/history  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:highway  
  
Напишите, пожалуйста, почему вы думаете, что этот внутридворовый проезд является улицей?
mavl (2021-12-26 10:43:52+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок добавляет для детского сада название "Детский сад". Это, конечно же, не название, а тип объекта. Пожалуйста, добавляйте реальные названия объектов.  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F
user_5359 (2021-12-26 08:30:32+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/1015291815 ! What is the meaning of the key aa?
MDe (2022-05-07 12:48:12+00:00): Bonjour 
Vous avez fait des modifications sur la montée à Dufour à partir semble-t-il d'une seule trace GPS (dont la qualité dans ce genre de relief n'est pas forcément bonne). Cette way avait été recalée sur la carte de chaleur de Strava (donc plusieurs dizaines de traces GPS, donnant une bonne précision en général) et vos modifications l'ont, à mon avis, dégradée. Cf. https://osmlab.github.io/changeset-map/#115368039
Pourriez-vous la reprendre ou faire un revert ?
Cordialement
hlfan (2021-12-25 18:52:10+00:00): Hätt ich die wikidata-Tags nicht zu den Buslinien hinzugefügt, würd man sehn, dass es um die Umfahrung Schüttdorf geht...
Andrea Musuruane (2021-12-27 17:15:08+00:00): Ciao Ivo, l'osmc:symbol inserito su questa relazione è errato. Ciao, Andrea
SomeoneElse (2022-03-31 22:24:22+00:00): Hello SHARCRASH,
What evidence do you have that 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/965429633/history actually exists as something that someone on the ground would think was an actual highway?
Best Regards,
Andy, from OSM's Data Working Group.
SHARCRASH (2022-04-04 11:26:29+00:00): Really??? You give me a block while asking me the evidences of this track, therefore before any real objectivity. It was already the same with my previous 3 blocks given by woodpeck, which you are bringing back on the table on your last block. They all concerned the same issue: proving and restoring deleted valid data by the vandal tomolobla (now referenced as user_3961358, uid="3961358") AKA Capslock_Cleaner (user_13908570, uid="13908570") whereas I've proven they still exist with photos, videos, Mapillary posts, GPS data, etc. On the DWG's side, after a year none of you haven't made yet a third part investigation as promised to shed light and therefore solve the issue. So in the end, how you the DWG use your blocks and moderate are totally arbitrary, gratuitous and unfair. That's so unserious! The only explanation I find for you not having given any final investigation is that you realized afterwards you were wrong and ashamed of the unfair moderation you gave me after I provided several proofs of existence on tens of ways deleted! You literally failed as a group via several persons even though woodpeck was possibly the only one in charge of the ticket but the moderators from Luxembourg should have been involved by the conflict for the sake of the data in our region! I had also contacted you because I was really desperate but you never gave a real opinion about the deleted data. On my side, I only got stress, wasted time and money for going back on terrain because I do have a sense of self-questioning. The only satisfaction I got is that I know now I am right and some of the data in OSM has been restored but lots has been lost because of the DWG inaction! Again is that serious and respectful work!? Not at all! 
Frederick Ramm AKA woodpeck acted like a totalitarian and incompetent moderator. Examples:
- another contributor loukote had found and confirmed a way which was removed by tomolobla but woodpeck kept ignoring the obvious and kept defending the vandal avidly (see note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2770137 ).  
- he is also an ignorant adviser in terms of tag definitions. See about smoothness=impassable here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89202209 , service=driveway here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/112003827 and compare with OSM's Wiki definitions. He fails on both!
SHARCRASH (2022-04-04 11:27:00+00:00): If I'm wrong because someone proved it, it's fair to block me. I can question myself. This what happened 6 years ago when I was trying to ease my contributions while I was on the iD editor for beginners thanks to MPs. I changed this! But on the 3 previous and your block, it is not justified! So spare me your argument about the blocks I've received! 

OSM's guidelines say that contributors should communicate before with each other in the rise of a disagreement. I've not been contacted previously by anyone about this way in question. That's poor cooperation! Who are these persons or is there rather only one person? On my side, you should know that I have proof of the existence of this way via photos and know other persons who think it is a usable way. I will explain here below.

About bullying, read the definition: "A person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable"! The vandal was not vulnerable at all and I was not trying to harm him but only proving that he was degrading the data! Before the issue had arisen, I even helped him on several occasions in order for him to provide better data, like I've done with many other contributors (recently danny__kay, MTCarrasco, m sartor, clawfire...). I wanted to bring attention on tomolobla to make other contributors aware of the problem because the DWG ignored it and you keep ignoring it! The bullies here are yourselves because you are taking advantage of you position over me and blocking arbitrarily over and over and forcing me to go back on terrain to prove myself I'm not crazy! This can't go on!
SHARCRASH (2022-04-04 11:27:16+00:00): About the armchair mapping, everybody does armchair mapping but if I ever find a highway thanks to online sources, first I correlate with other sources to see if it is worth, afterwards I go on terrain to check it. I record many of my out-door activities, take many photos and take many notes: https://www.strava.com/athletes/22654751 
Are you really impartial? The admins from Luxembourg Stereo and dmlu have also been tagging highways without any local survey:
Stereo in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84696199 with elements https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/800395063/history (building doesn't exist anymore, no ruins at all) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/800395067/history  
dmlu https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/102231788 with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/191319880/history which i was astonished he reactivated at v4, even though I had added a clear note at v2.
So, for the sake of fairness, would you also mind blocking them to apply some impartiality?
Please, let me know when you've done so, if not... How hypocrite, right!