piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
dieterdreist (2017-04-28 07:58:43+00:00): Hello Sputnik,
following our discussion there was some discussion on the Italian mailing list, and not for the first time ;-)
I have update the discussion page of Venice to keep trace of this discussion and former discussions about this topic. I am not sure how well you can understand Italian, but just in case, here's the link:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Venezia#Pedestrian_street_or_footway.3F (maybe you can get some clue by employing an online translator if not).
I have also written a message to user:Arlas who apparently was local for some time to Venice (but now is likely not any more). Basically, from what emerged on talk-it, there aren't any active local mappers from the historic centre of Venice, although there are some from the wider region, most of Venice mapping was done by externals. There also doesn't seem to be documentation of this "emerged standard" but in previous discussions, as you can see from the links, there were more people advocating using more than one highway value than there were for using only pedestrian.
Regarding the very narrow streets and ways in Venice, the situation is not so singular as it might seem: there are similar situations in most historic town and village centres in Italy, where accessibility via steps and width de facto prevent vehicles from entering. It is common practice to use footway for this kind of "road". Clearly, calling something a "road" where the width is so narrow that not even two pedestrians can pass, is against common sense and the general understanding of the term "road". These are admittedly even in Venice the minority of ways, but lots are so small that a car would not pass if it could arrive there.
If you have a look at the documentation, highway=pedestrian with area=yes is the common way of mapping any kind of square: "A closed way tagged with highway=pedestrian and area=yes is the common way to map squares and plazas." and there is even specific mention of highway=footway for access: "Often other paths such as highway=footway will connect with the edge of the pedestrian area.", and: "For small paths which are too small for cars to pass (no real streets) use highway=footway instead." from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian
So I don't see any inconsistency with the intended mapping of Venice, I see an inconsistency if we map small paths as highway=pedestrian.
Mapping big roads for pedestrians as highway=pedestrian and small ways for pedestrians as highway=footway is documented and established practice. It makes the map more readable by showing a hierarchy of pedestrian ways (although for the case of Venice there would likely be an advantage of having a third class to get more distinction and to make more sensible renderings in lower zoom levels by hiding unimportant ways earlier).
dieterdreist (2017-04-28 08:00:09+00:00): btw.: you are the only one seriously engaging in a discussion about this, for which I am grateful, but it also illustrates my point that there isn't an active mapping community in Venice (unfortunately).
osm-sputnik (2017-05-01 10:18:55+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for the long comment and the good discussion evolving. I think that in general we are debating several issue that are intertwined: the usage of a road, its width, and the rendering. This combined with the usage of a square. In addition to this, this discussion is about Venice, which is very particular in the sense that cars are not allowed anywhere (we both know the exceptions but you're getting my point). So even the wider roads will not see any car traffic, not even for goods delivery in off-times. From the usage point of view everything should be a footway, even the squares. From the view point of rendering, it seems that people prefer the pedestrian tag (no judgment here). In terms of width, some of the larger roads have been mapped as areas, clearly indicating the width. However, most roads do not carry any width information. It is true that a too narrow road cannot accommodate car traffic and, by logic, must be a footway. However, this logic is incomplete when ignoring the fact that even the larger roads will not see car traffic ever and thus should also be considered footways, albeit wide ones. This includes the many squares.

Having said this, I think it would be best to think about a three types of roads: footways that can only be used by people because they are too narrow, footways that could potentially be used by vehicles (like Strada Nova), and pedestrian ways that allow car traffic under some conditions (e.g. delivery). An important aspect of this new tagging should be the respective rendering. As of now, the rendering for combining footways with pedestrian areas looks horrible and I understand people trying to avoid it. To ensure correct routing, pedestrian ways need to be added to squares connecting the access points, resulting in half-circles at any connection to footways. This is certainly unfortunate as is the strong color contrast between gray pedestrian squares and light red dotted footways. The dotted footways suggest some small connecting paths but a major (even if narrow) access road to a square. To make a long story short, I think we need to have a rendering of whatever emerges as tagging in Venice that pleases the eye and makes the map more readable than the combination of red dotted ways with gray squares. an aspect not discussed yet is also the importance of roads. In many cases, very narrow footways are parts of the main arteries through Venice and rendering them as red-dotted footways does not provide the correct image. Therefore, the importance of roads has been rendered in different colors ignoring the physical properties of the roads.

In summary: I agree that something should happen and that tagging in Venice can be improved. But let us first address all open issues. What about creating a wiki page to collect the ideas and requirements? This may be a better tool than this changeset discussion.
dieterdreist (2017-05-01 15:51:36+00:00): Please let's not mix tagging and a specific rendering style (like red dots for footways), but rather focus on the meaning of the tags. The "standard style" rendering is just one rendering of many, and not even the one most people are using (if you look at mobile apps based on OSM data with millions of users, like maps.me).
It is true that there aren't any landbased vehicles like cars in most of the city, but there are handdrawn/pushed pushcarts and barrows, and maybe there are some emergency vehicles besides waterbased ones? I would like to keep the tagging as consistent with the rest of the map as possible (as it is an Italian city I believe it should before all be consistent with other Italian places. Not admitting cars into the historic city is not so special as it might sound, there are other places which have similar limitations, due to spatial constraints). 
I suggest we leave this particular changeset discussion and move to the wiki or a mailing list, e.g. tagging or talk-it. In the wiki there is already the Venice page, which is practically dead currently: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Venezia
If things get too long there, we might later move it to a subpage.
SomeoneElse (2015-01-22 01:49:09+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I notice that you've added a name "Pennine Way" to this section of footpath just north of Woodhead http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/82507222/history .  I don't believe that this section of path is actually called this (or at least, it didn't when I was last there some time last year).  It forms part of the "Pennine Way" long distance route of course, via http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4080403 and ultimately http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4080347 .  If you want to see the relation overlaid on an OSM map the easiest way is probably http://waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=13&lat=53.48539&lon=-1.91108&hill=0# .
ElliottPlack (2015-02-18 02:38:28+00:00): What is this changeset about? Please leave a comment.
ThBirchler (2015-01-18 20:41:43+00:00): Birchlistrasse -> Hauptstrasse
abstuffung der Strasse
ViriatoLusitano (2015-01-19 10:57:59+00:00): Olá GPSP75, parece que alteraste o nome do limite oeste do Parque Natural da Peneda-Gerês para "Barragem | Damm". Isto está incorreto já que a linha toda foi atribuída esse nome em vez da secção que corresponde à barragem.

Podes corrigir esse erro?
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-03-03 14:07:23+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230274336/history has access:hgv that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
Would using hgv access tag (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hgv ) be fitting at least equally well?
mweper (2024-03-06 00:33:46+00:00): Fixed! Thanks for the reminder.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148272301
Nakaner (2015-01-18 22:44:07+00:00): "Union Pacific Railroad" is not the name of the railway line, it is the operator, isn't it? That's why I think that name=Union Pacific Railroad should be moved to operator=Union Pacific Railroad. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/213371633
Best regards, Michael (one of the OpenRailwayMap developers)
Nakaner (2015-01-19 23:03:33+00:00): siehe auch https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28241930
Nakaner (2015-01-19 23:01:38+00:00): Hallo bjoern262,
die S-Bahn Stuttgart ist zwar eine "S-Bahn", aber keine light_rail. Sie ist eine ganz normale Eisenbahn und erfüllt keinerlei Kriterien, die ein Umtaggen rechtfertigen. Siehe auch die nicht ganz alte Diskussion im Forum. http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=27185

Soll ich es wieder zurücktaggen auf train. 

Du hast übrigens, wenn du es schon ernst meinst, auch die Masterrouten vergessen.
Jojo4u (2015-01-19 23:23:42+00:00): Hallo Nakaner, deine Änderungen sind im Forum gut dokumentiert und entsprechen auch meinem Verständnis der Tags. Dieser Changeset sollte imho reverted werden.
bjoern262 (2015-01-20 20:06:50+00:00): Hallo Nakaner,
entschuldigung wenn ich das missachtet habe, ich habe gedacht mit diesen Tags werden die Linien auch auf www.öpnvkarte.de grün (wie es sich für ne S-Bahn gehört) dargestellt.
Nakaner (2015-01-20 20:15:36+00:00): Ja, die Linien werden dann grün, aber wir mappen nicht für den Renderer. Es zählen die Sachargumente. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
Jojo4u (2015-01-26 15:16:27+00:00): Kommt einer von euch beiden dazu wieder die neuen Routenarten einzutragen oder soll ich das übernehmen?
Nakaner (2015-01-26 15:30:13+00:00): Jojo4u, du kannst es gerne tun. Machst du auch gleich seine Änderungen (train -> light_rail) in Frankfurt, Rhein-Neckar und Karlsruhe rückgängig? Danke.
bjoern262 (2015-01-26 17:32:15+00:00): Stopp, Karlsruhe stimmt! Das ist eine Stadtbahn, also light_rail.
Nakaner (2015-01-26 17:47:47+00:00): Karlsruhe ist eine Stadtbahn, aber an der scheiden sich die OSM-Geister. Wenn die Route vorher nach Public Transport Version 2 gemappt war, dann durfte sie nicht light_rail sein, dann PTv2 kennt nur tram und train, aber keine light_rail. PTv1 (wird derzeit durch PTv2 ersetzt) kennt noch light_rail.

Es gibt auch Überlegungn in Deutschland railway=light_rail (die Infrastruktur) zu streichen und je nach Regelwerk durch railway=rail (EBO) oder railway=tram (BOStrab) zu ersetzen.
bjoern262 (2015-01-26 17:57:11+00:00): Okay, dann passt aber auf die S2 auf "tram" zu lassen, die hat nämlich kein Stückchen EBO, sondern ausschließlich BOStrab.
Nakaner (2015-01-26 17:58:41+00:00): Keine Sorge, ich kenne Karlsruhe, studiere schließlich dort.
Jojo4u (2015-01-27 22:26:28+00:00): Reverts sind durch. Die S2 in KA sieht noch tramig aus ;)
Rudolf Mayer (2015-08-14 09:58:57+00:00): Can you please provide details for the golf course you mapped here? is this a driving range, a private hole? If it is not a golf course, please remove the tagging.
maxerickson (2015-01-21 13:08:02+00:00): Hi-

If you make sure that paths that connect share a node, software that interprets the data will generally work better.

For example, I expect that this way:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306192374

Joins up with both Stickney Hill Road and the longer path to the east. Software generally won't make that assumption, it relies on a node being shared by the paths/roads.

I guess data consumers are not widely using it, but it looks like you might also want to make use of the seasonal tag:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seasonal


That's all,

Max
pnorman (2015-01-21 01:00:27+00:00): Hello,

Imports in OSM need to follow the import guidelines (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines) which include consulting with the imports@ mailing list before importing, as well as other requirements. Can you please make sure the requirements are met before importing, and contact the list about these imports?
Supaplex (2015-01-19 04:50:15+00:00): 學校要用amenity=school，在iD中搜尋「學校用地」，「學校建築」building=school指的是校中個別建築大樓
bottleny (2015-01-19 05:38:18+00:00): Thank you.
mavl (2015-01-19 17:06:16+00:00): Здравствуйте.

Спасибо за ваш вклад.

Названия улиц принято указывать в соответствии с соглашением http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:ВикиПроект_Россия/Соглашение_об_именовании_дорог

Также не нужно удалять тег surface. Например, с этой линии

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/43023672/history

был удалён тег surface=gravel. Если там сейчас асфальт, то так и нужно указать surface=asphalt.
GansAnderson (2015-01-19 07:42:22+00:00): как на петровском спуске сделать 2 сплошные прокладывает маршрут с салтыкова щедрина 72 до карла маркса 2 через 2 сплошные линии ???????
Pfadfinder2013 (2015-01-21 09:24:43+00:00): Weg anpassungen
SomeoneElse (2015-01-21 11:42:25+00:00): This is a very wide changeset for a comment  of "Fixed a highway intersecting a footpath".  Was something else changed as well?
shravan91 (2015-01-21 11:46:53+00:00): This is, I will make sure it doesn't happen again.
SomeoneElse (2015-01-21 11:56:32+00:00): Sorry - what else was changed and where?  What was the source?
shravan91 (2015-01-27 12:22:07+00:00): Thank you for your feedback, this comment could indeed have been better. It should have been "Adding noded connections to intersecting road ways http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/?error=highwayhighway ". The source is as specified in the source field: "Mapbox Satellite; Bing".
SomeoneElse (2015-01-27 17:10:49+00:00): Whereabouts, geographically, did you make changes?  It's a very wide bounding box, so difficult to say from that exactly what's changed, without trying to look at the changeset externally in something like osmhv or achavi.
shravan91 (2015-01-29 16:45:34+00:00): Hey there, this was an accidentally mixed changeset, here are the two actual changes: added a node to intersection between road and cycleway: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3298200391 . Which contained accidentally a couple of buildings I added earlier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/44.08339/-92.53151
mglw (2015-01-19 10:30:28+00:00): Beschreibung sollte sein:

Korrektur:
"Obere Lahntalbahn" => "Rothaarbahn"
SomeoneElse (2015-01-20 10:15:40+00:00): Hello,  if your're looking for a test database I'd suggest using http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ rather than the live one - that way no-one will think that there are things in the middle of te Atlantic!
DD1GJ (2015-01-19 16:25:35+00:00): Hallo geronimo_1,

zunächst herzlich willkommen bei OpenStretMap. Bei Deinem ersten Edit hast Du wohl aus Versehen ein großes Waldgebiet (Multipolygon) gelöscht. Ich habe die Löschungen rückgängig gemacht.
Nakaner (2015-01-19 22:47:09+00:00): Danke, dass du deine Löschungen begründet hast. Tipp fürs nächste Mal: Tags (außer Adressen) von den Objekten entfernen und stattdessen mit abandoned:building=yes taggen. Dann erkennen Bing-Sesselmapper, dass die Gebäude nicht mehr stehen und nichts in den OSM-Daten fehlt.
jotpe (2015-01-22 07:01:12+00:00): Habe ich mich nie getraut.
devmapper (2015-01-22 09:12:45+00:00): Hätte ich mich vielleicht auch nicht trauen sollen, aber ich habe ja auch keinen Ruf zu verlieren. ;-)

Leider hat das Ganze auch nicht das gewünschte Ergebnis gebracht. Trotz "aerodrome=international" taucht der Flughafen weiterhin nicht so prominent auf der ÖPNVKarte auf wie die andere große deutsche Verkehrsflughäfen (Frankfurt, Hamburg, Berlin, München).

Man bräuchte also wohl doch einen Punkt (Node) mit diesem Tag und keine Relation. Das ist natürlich schade und man muss wieder mal überlegen, ob man in OSM etwas so einträgt, dass der Renderer es wie gewünscht anzeigt oder ob man darauf wartet, dass der Renderer angepasst wird, so dass die OSM-Daten wie gewünscht dargestellt werden …
5m4u9 (2015-01-20 04:34:45+00:00): excelente, fue una ráfaga de ediciones y correcciones!! 

buen inicio!
martianfreeloader (2024-10-10 09:20:24+00:00): Hi,

There are concerns about the verifiability of https://www.osm.org/way/323041450

Do you know if this path still exists?
SomeoneElse (2015-01-21 16:35:19+00:00): This looks very much like a mechanical edit - was it discussed anywhere first?

Even if the data in here was created because of a bug in a JOSM preset, it still makes sense to let other mappers know of the change because they may be relying on the previous value of data in the database when extracting.
Klumbumbus (2015-01-21 16:49:09+00:00): No it was not discussed before. I thought it is no big deal, since the bug was only present for a short time. Also the number which I fixed was only 81. Compared to the number of the correct spelled key (13642) this is nearly nothing. I do not think that there is someone, who uses the misspelled key and not the correct spelled key.
naoliv (2015-01-19 21:16:35+00:00): Braz, esses trechos são todos trunk...
É uma rodovia com 2 faixas por sentido. Só não apresenta canteiro central de separação.
GerdP (2015-10-24 14:27:35+00:00): please review way 6788771:
what might highway=closed mean?
Is there a barrier? Or maybe access=no?
Or highway=abandoned?
abel801 (2015-10-24 15:47:38+00:00): Probably was my fault in tagging this way. I tagged with unclassified as it suggests. 
Thank you for noticing this.
GerdP (2015-10-24 17:37:30+00:00): thanks for the feedback
woodpeck (2015-01-19 15:19:13+00:00): What logic is behind these changes? What exactly is "fixed"? Why was, for example, way 282831734 changed from primary_link to residential when primary_link at least superficially seems to be the correct choice?
Rub21 (2015-01-20 21:30:10+00:00): Hi woodpeck ,thanks for your feedback and  sorry, that was error, I fixed that http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28294122.

Thanks again for your feedback..
pnorman (2015-01-20 22:44:36+00:00): way 244211443 looks similarly odd - you've tagged it as a residential road joining two trunk roads. 

Why did you add highway=residential to way 306099045?

Given the high level of errors, would it be easier to just revert this changeset?
pnorman (2015-01-27 21:24:09+00:00): Rub21, would it be better to revert this changeset?
Rub21 (2015-01-28 03:11:36+00:00): Hi  pnorman, I reverted my changes, http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28456858,  Thank you for the heads up
SomeoneElse (2015-02-27 19:38:10+00:00): Hi - just for info - there seems to be a discrepancy between the designation on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111513802/history ("public_footpath") and the changeset comment ("Public Bridleway")?
Weewasta (2015-02-28 00:10:57+00:00): I will look into it early next week
Weewasta (2015-03-13 10:11:23+00:00): Hi - this section is divided into two part.  The northern part is a track that could take a vehicle as half way down is a phone mast and support building, so presumably it is used for access to maintain the mast etc.  The southern part could take a quad bike but we doubt you would take a bigger vehicle down it.  But on the OS maps it is shown as a bridle path and it used by riders as such.  
If I have made a mistake in my designation please feel free to amend it.
ViriatoLusitano (2015-01-19 16:14:30+00:00): Hey hofoen, there is chaos becaus Spec80_CAOP is messing with the administrative limits. 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Spec80_CAOP
mavl (2015-01-19 17:44:33+00:00): Здравствуйте. Спасибо за ваш вклад.

Посмотрите, пожалуйста, два дома.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323060245
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323060247

Судя по спутниковому снимку, это один дом. Адреса 4/1 и 4/2 напоминают запись номеров квартир. Если это действительно один дом, то такая ситуация ошибочна, так как, например, если будут искать адрес дом 4 кв. 1, то его не найдут, потому что дома 4 нет (есть 4/1 и 4/2). В этом случае нужно обозначить один дом с номером 4, а на его входы поставить точки с тегами addr:flats=1 и addr:flats=2.

Если же это два дома, расположенных рядом, то всё правильно.
SomeoneElse (2015-01-20 13:20:58+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I notice that you've changed http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/147941496/history east of the Fosse from a track to a bridleway.  In OSM a "highway=bridleway" means something that's best adapted to use by horses, not any wider traffic.  On the imagery it looks like it is a track wide enough for farm traffic etc., so probably should be a "highway=track" rathan "highway=bridleway" (or perhaps this has changed and the imagery is out of date?).

If what you were trying to record was the legal status, then that's already covered by the existing tag "designation=public_bridleway".  You could add foot=yes and horse=yes as well for a "belt and braces" approach if you wanted to, but leave "highway" describing the physical status and "designation", "foot" and "horse" etc. the legal status.  That way, people who are using te data (for maps, routers, or anything else) can infer both the legal access rights and whether their vehicle can physically fit.

Anywhere, hope you don't mind me mentioning this - just trying to help.  Any questions, don't hesitate to drop me a message.
Weewasta (2015-01-20 18:45:02+00:00): Thank you for your advice & guidance.  We have now amended the status back to Track
SomeoneElse (2015-02-06 13:41:23+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/147941566/history was formerly a track but was changed to bridleway a couple of weeks ago; is that correct?  It's already a "designation=public_bridleway".
Weewasta (2015-02-06 16:44:59+00:00): My wife has ridden this track / bridleway many times (recently).  However, based on your comments I will speak to her in the near future and revise, if necessary.
SomeoneElse (2015-02-06 16:48:58+00:00): Thanks - that's exactly the sort of information we need!
Weewasta (2015-02-09 15:24:55+00:00): We have revised it back to a Track
Nakaner (2015-02-14 16:26:49+00:00): Könntest du bitte vor dem Hochladen entweder deine Änderungen manuell validieren oder gleich JOSM nutzen? Du hast nämlich eine invalide Admin-Grenze hochgeladen. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4500112/history
LorenzoStucchi (2019-01-03 13:07:56+00:00): Considerando che dopo 4 anni la strada non è ancora in costruzione si può considerare di sostituire con highway=proposed?
--
Considering that after 4 years the street isn't yet builded or the construction started, can we consider to move it as highway=proposed ?
MrWebber (2019-01-03 14:41:07+00:00): Yes if construction didn't even start, it should be changed to proposed, but please check, east of grignano on sattelite maps it looks like if some track was already cleared.
LorenzoStucchi (2019-01-03 15:56:24+00:00): Yes sure, I will modify only where the construction already starts
LorenzoStucchi (2019-01-03 15:58:28+00:00): *doesn't already start
SomeoneElse (2015-01-20 02:12:42+00:00): Hi, I notice that you've joined http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/310881891/history to both Gladstone Street and Gladstone Terrace.  Are you sure that it actually joins both of these now?  It didn't do so the last time that I was there.

I know that some places in the world (including most of the USA) struggle to find "real" on-the-ground mappers, but this part of the UK does not have this problem - if you think you've found an "error" just contact the previous mapper, mention it on IRC or add an OSM note, and someone will investigate it either answering based on local knowledge or by going and having a look.