piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
user_5359 (2021-03-29 18:47:22+00:00): correction of change set comment: correct address notation!
highflyer74 (2021-05-15 16:12:18+00:00): Moin!

Kannst Du Dir diesen Way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/923505683) nochmal ansehen? Der berührt sich selbst (http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=9.05291&lat=52.06574&zoom=17). Vielleicht kannst Du da nochmal dran herumschrauben. Danke!
mstriewe (2021-05-15 18:19:26+00:00): Hallo, danke, hatte ich auch gesehen in OSMI und beim Eintragen schon mit gerechnet, dass die Meldung kommen wird. Ist in den Quellen halt so eingezeichnet, dass die Grenze so verläuft. Ich könnte aus dem Berühungspunkt zwar zwei Punkte mit minimalem Abstand machen, damit die Meldung weg ist, aber sauber finde ich das nicht.

MfG
Michael
highflyer74 (2021-05-17 05:51:43+00:00): Moin Michael und danke für Deine Rückmeldung!

Ja, irgendwie ist das komisch. Wahrscheinlich kommt das aus irgendeiner vergurkten Shapedatei. Vielleicht weiß die Quelle weiteres, falls Du da nachforschen möchtest.

Gruss aus dem Norden!
woodpeck_repair (2021-03-29 19:16:10+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 100217328, 100228272, 100236453, 100236472, 100300542, 100301136, 100301352, 100371831, 100372293, 100381245.
sorcrosc (2021-11-11 23:25:29+00:00): Ho notato che hai messo molti surface=sett forse un po' a caso a Urbino. Per esempio tutti i sentieri all'interno della fortezza ed anche i viottoli pavimentati a mattoni nel centro storico. Puoi controllare?

Ciao
Lorenzo
Galessandroni (2021-11-12 12:35:32+00:00): Ho sistemato (come congruità) due passaggi pedonali all'ITIS Urbino e al liceo scientifico (non sono passaggi agricoli, ma esclusivamente pedonali).
Alla fortezza te lo scordi di entrare con una carrozzina. Sì, ci arrivi, ma poi ti fermi all'ingresso.
Comunque sì: controllerò e farò controllare. Quest'anno voglio mappare tutto il centro storico di Urbino, soprattutto i servizi mancanti e l'aspetto relativo alle barriere architettoniche, per inserire Urbino in Percorsi Agili.
Naturalmente, ogni aiuto è benvenuto.
sorcrosc (2021-11-14 21:22:05+00:00): Non so se mi sono spiegato. Mi riferivo alle tracce etichettate surface=sett come questa:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/546123838

Questo tag è per percorsi pavimentati così:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:surface%3Dsett

Nei hai messi diversi anche nelle vie del centro storico che però spesso a Urbino sono a mattoni come questa:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/133360760

In questi casi su wiki si consiglia surface=paving_stones. Volendo essere più specifico metterei surface=brick, che non è documentato ma è utilizzato:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=brick#overview

Ciao
Galessandroni (2021-11-15 18:36:47+00:00): Finalmente ho capito!
Dunque: all'interno della Fortezza è un'idiozia mia. Lì c'è terra battuta e va rimosso. Nel centro storico però ci sono i sanpietrini (o come vogliamo chiamarli). Li ho inseriti anche nel centro storico di Pesaro e, ora, non vorrei aver creato pasticci con i tag.
Arriviamo a una facile soluzione (visto che hai molti più edit e - presumibilmente - esperienza di me): se ritieni che abbia fatto solo danni fai un rollback e via. Altrimenti dovrò rivedere le mie ultime modifiche.

PS Sei di Urbino? Vorrei far mappare ai miei studenti i vari servizi (defibrillatori, farmacie, fontanelle, negozi ecc.) e - se riesco - a inserire Urbino nel progetto percorsi agili.
Mi aiuti?
woodpeck_repair (2021-03-29 19:18:17+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 100300542, 100372293, 100381245, 101893443, 101893570, 101893721, 101893886, 101893926, 101893935, 101893989, 101894062, 101894077.
datendelphin (2021-04-05 13:46:15+00:00): Da hats eine Lücke gegeben. Ich korrigiere das mal wieder.
Ich glaube das source=survey nicht so ganz. Soweit ich mich erinnern kann ist nicht wirklich etwas angeschrieben.
marczoutendijk (2021-03-29 19:14:00+00:00): Highways = Landuse!
Gemeente Evergem (2022-02-08 13:28:41+00:00): Verwijderen. Is geen openbare weg.
eggie (2021-03-29 19:57:45+00:00): Dag John
Je vraagt feedback
landuse=forest even van de buitenste polygoon halen.
landuse forest hoort alleen op de 'outer' relatie. 
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-03-29 20:19:53+00:00): .. en dat type =multipolygon kan ook weg. Dat hoort ook op de relatie
Gewoon die regels weghalen. 
Dan is het goed
eggie (2021-03-29 20:25:31+00:00): Die slootjes liggen ook allemaal op de landuse . Eigenlijk horen die netjes uitgesneden te worden. 
gr eggie
eggie (2021-03-29 21:23:41+00:00): Even die mp en de landuse forest van de outer polygoon verwijderd.
Dan zie je geen zwemmende bomen meer. 
Nu nog het water vrijmaken van de landuse.
Kijk eens naar editor JOSM.
Daar gaat datr veel makkelijker mee.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710
gr eggie
eggie (2021-03-29 22:16:32+00:00): Wat sloten verder uitgesneden uit het land..
marczoutendijk (2021-03-29 19:14:31+00:00): (V1) not (V10)
abrensch (2021-04-10 11:58:38+00:00): Aber so ist doch jetzt garkein Verkehr mer möglich. Zumindest kein Anschluss an die B5?

Gruss, Arndt
ReinholdR (2021-04-13 12:38:57+00:00): Hallo, danke für den Hinweis. Ich hatte vergessen das Stück Einbahnstraße zwischen den B5-Fahrbahnen umzudrehen. Jetzt ist es richtig: Der Verkehr läuft nur vom Lohbrügger Markt zur B5. Die Gegenrichtung ist gesperrt.
Gruß Reinhold
abrensch (2021-04-24 08:54:31+00:00): Nein tut er nicht:

http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=17/53.49097/10.20345/standard&lonlats=10.20478,53.491905;10.203209,53.490325&profile=car-eco

Da ist noch motor_vehicle=no kurz vor der B5

Gruss, Arndt
ma-rt-in (2021-05-26 17:38:53+00:00): Moin,
war heute bzw. gestern vor Ort und der Verkehr wird von der "Alten Holstenstr." Ri. B5 geführt.
magst du das anpassen oder soll ich?
vg
ma-rt-in (2021-05-29 09:12:52+00:00): Ich passe das nun selbst an ;)
abrensch (2021-05-29 09:28:27+00:00): Danke. Mir fehlt dazu die Ortskenntnis. Diese Stelle ist nur durch den brouter-suspect-scan auf meine Liste geraten
SomeoneElse (2021-04-02 15:23:00+00:00): The same comment that I made at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101938929 also seems to apply here.
spiregrain (2022-05-03 12:53:22+00:00): Hiya.  In this changeset, you marked the Cox's Walk Footbridge as closed.   Do you know if it's reopened, or whether there is a conventional (or signed) alternative route for Green Chain Walk section 11?  https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/walking/crystal-palace-to-nunhead-cemetery
spiregrain (2022-05-03 12:54:26+00:00): Section 11, currently shown as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13983952#map=18/51.43839/-0.06617
eAi (2022-05-03 13:09:27+00:00): The bridge is still closed (see https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/highways-defects-and-improvement-maintenance/bridges-subways-and-walls?chapter=3)
I don't believe there's a signed alternative route, but it is possible to use other footpaths south of the bridge in the wood to bypass it. This doesn't have a significant impact on the Green Chain Walk - you can walk down the east-side of the ex-railway cutting rather than the west. If anything this is a nicer walk.
spiregrain (2022-05-03 13:35:54+00:00): I'll add an alternative route to the GC 11 relation (along the east side down to Crescent Wood Road) at some point this week.  Thanks for your help!
spiregrain (2022-05-04 13:50:55+00:00): Done!  I also added a note (https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3165005 ) it seems likely the paths connect and the gates are unlocked, but if you have local knowledge, please link 'em up!
SomeoneElse (2021-04-02 15:22:21+00:00): The same comment that I made at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101938929 also seems to apply here.
TomPar (2021-03-29 20:19:43+00:00): Please consider keeping your changesets to a much smaller geographic area.  Makes it much easier to comment on and/or revert if there are any issues.  Thanks.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101937578
SomeoneElse (2021-04-02 15:16:14+00:00): The same comment that I made at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101938929 also seems to apply here.
alessandrocarmeli (2021-03-29 23:26:03+00:00): Not make big areas changeset!!!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101937742
SomeoneElse (2021-04-02 15:15:32+00:00): The same comment that I made at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101938929 also seems to apply here.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-24 23:52:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 108549522 where the changeset comment is: Undoing some allegedly google-source changes. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105322114
DressyPear4 (2021-03-30 15:17:19+00:00): Olá, se o local não possui nome deixar esse campo em branco.
Para definir telhado de uma olhada aqui https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:roof:shape
Para material aqui https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:roof:material
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101937851
SomeoneElse (2021-04-02 15:14:47+00:00): The same comment that I made at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101938929 also seems to apply here.
SomeoneElse (2021-04-02 15:14:01+00:00): The same comment that I made at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101938929 also seems to apply here.
ZeLonewolf (2021-03-29 20:05:01+00:00): Missing comment is: "adding lake tagging" (JOSM bug: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/20690)
SomeoneElse (2021-04-02 15:13:17+00:00): The same comment that I made at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101938929 also seems to apply here.  Do you have a source (perhaps a local survey) that suggests any different?
aweech (2021-03-29 21:01:53+00:00): Hi,
I reverted this changeset because this node was not "unnecessary", and was in fact the label point for Coos County.
Necessarycoot72 (2021-04-01 20:58:25+00:00): whoops sorry about that i thought it was a deprecated tag counties
SomeoneElse (2021-04-02 15:10:51+00:00): The same comment that I made at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101938929 also seems to apply here.
muchichka_s (2021-03-29 20:41:11+00:00): Hello. I talked a little with the author who applied all those barriers. He took all the data from his own trips. I don't think deleting all that data is the best idea, there can really be barriers in these places. And the main reason is that this features tagged incorectly. And perhaps the best method would not be to map for the validator, but try to understand what is really there
muchichka_s (2021-03-29 20:52:22+00:00): and try to retag correctly these points
aDSAT (2021-03-30 20:02:31+00:00): Hello muchichka_s,
Thank you for contacting me. I reached out to the user here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96220532 and suggested the traffic_calming and hazard tags. Do you think either of those would be more appropriate? My interpretation is that opencarpatia was mapping locations of uneven pavement, not purposefully constructed kerbs. Do you know any more details about these situations?
Thanks, 
aDSAT
muchichka_s (2021-03-30 20:50:38+00:00): Hello, aDSAT

I can't say for all these cases, because I traveled less than opencarpatia. Maybe that similar to exit from the side street to the main street at this place. It is quite possible to pass, but it is better not to accelerate due to the kerb and a slight difference in road level
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=RE4qESz2ODNSMFryDIVzss&focus=photo&lat=50.44533792688364&lng=30.442193027163636&z=17&x=0.6801152564871988&y=0.7460504745168981&zoom=0.7540732624067341
aDSAT (2021-03-31 20:12:07+00:00): Hi muchichka_s, 
Thank you for providing that example! That situation differs from the barrier=kerb nodes I edited in this changeset, because it is a lowered section of kerb along a highway. There are no kerbs along the highway in this changeset, and none of the nodes I edited intersected with other highways, as can be seen in the 2018 Mapillary trace beginning here (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/U73V-OgayEYkyXZg-sB8Ig) traveling through Lypovets to here (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/i-iFaC7EGF3a9ZqStABg8g). I agree the highway is uneven, but the various smoothness=* and surface=* tags provide sufficient detail in this location.
Thanks,
aDSAT
muchichka_s (2021-04-01 17:24:01+00:00): Hello, aDSAT

Probably all these places will be really difficult to check without walking in the area. But on the other hand, we don't know how OSM data consumers will behave with these barriers on the road. The smoothness says nothing about these local features, by the way, such barriers can occur by themselves at the junctions of the road with the bridge due to various drawdowns. Opencarpatia did not map fakes, for example, you can see what a colossal number of city limit signs he drew. I have only one concern - the loss of history. Therefore I suggest to add fixme tag to each of such points. And then in the future it will be possible to recover faster when the data appears
muchichka_s (2021-04-01 17:47:01+00:00): For example, in this area there is a local calming. And even if we mark different smoothness on both sides, it will not say anything about this calming

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=6jnvBvW6HcIza-ooLqLn8Q&lat=48.775971516244724&lng=22.766359179746836&z=17&x=0.5169598228934972&y=0.6455573488078884&zoom=0
SomeoneElse (2021-04-02 15:09:20+00:00): Hello  aDSAT,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here.  I can understand that "barrier=kerb" on a road is unusual, but looking at the Mapillary images linked, it doesn't seem inappropriate - those really are pieces of concrete the size of kerbstones that need to be negotiated.
Can you please undo your changes here, and anywhere else you've made the same sort of change?  By all means do try and add more detail (and if you're not familiar with this road yourself, it would make sense to me to talk to people who are).  It seems to me that opencarpatia has done an excellent job here of both recording the current conditions and when they applied (note e.g. the "smoothness:date" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/883616218).
Best Regards,
Andy
aDSAT (2021-04-02 20:13:21+00:00): Hello Andy, 

Thank you for contacting me and I saw your other comments as well. I did reach out to opencarpatia about these barriers here in Ukrainian: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96220532 and waited over 3 weeks for a response. I agree that opencarpatia has mapped the situation in great detail, but I don’t think that `barrier=kerb` is the most appropriate tag in these locations. On https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier it says and “A barrier is a physical structure which blocks or impedes movement” and on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dkerb it says something similar while also suggesting barrier=kerb is meant for being along the road, and mentions that having it on the road itself is a possible tagging mistake. 

It seems that the quality of the road is the issue here and not purposefully built barriers intended to block all vehicle traffic — in the Mapillary examples it looks like cars can travel over it, albeit slowly. Tagging areas of rough highway as barriers has the unintended consequence of completely blocking vehicle routing, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4348897612, https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=48.98627%2C38.40851%3B48.98580%2C38.40874#map=19/48.98611/38.40952. 

I think discouraging routing on rough highways is appropriate and ideally routing engines should account for smoothness and surface tags like the user provided. Like I suggested in my initial outreach to opencarpatia, I believe `traffic_calming` or `hazard` tags could be appropriate here. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dkerb also suggests traffic_calming for when the kerb goes across the road. 

Another option could be to use ‘4wd_only=yes|recommended’ tagging on the ways. The road surface here has some especially rough locations, but I don’t believe any of them qualify as barriers that are intended to stop all traffic. Do you agree one of those tags would be an appropriate replacement?

I understand the concern over losing history of the features and if it helps I can return to the barriers I removed and add `fixme` tags like muchichka_s suggested in the comment above.

Cheers,
aDSAT
SomeoneElse (2021-04-02 22:01:14+00:00): > Do you agree one of those tags would be an appropriate replacement?
Actually, no.
Until I looked at the Mapillary pictures I had assumed that barrier=kerb would probably be wrong here, but the pictures do indeed show kerb-sized pieces of former road, so it actually does seem like an appropriate tag.
Also, I wouldn't worry too much about how one particular routing engine handles a situation it's not expecting, and the FOSSGIS-hosted OSRM instance is guilty of some terrible choices - https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=53.99220%2C-0.91072%3B53.99256%2C-0.91034#map=13/53.9992/-0.8805&layers=H .
Although nowadays even mappers from afar can benefit from on-the-ground imagery like Mapillary, 
where there's a disagreement between what tags remote mappers think is appropriate and what mappers who've been somewhere and tagged things based on what they saw, I'd be inclined to suggest the local approach is the better one.
Best Regards,
Andy
aDSAT (2021-04-05 23:12:32+00:00): Hello Andy,

Thanks again for discussing this situation. I will undo my edits and replace the barrier=kerb tags. Since the barrier=kerb is one of the few barrier tags in which access=yes is implied https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dkerb I am wondering if I should add that tag as well. I do not believe there would be any legal restriction preventing passage of these locations so tagging them with access=yes seems like a way to acknowledge that there is an impediment but also show that vehicles are legally allowed to pass. Do you think this would be an acceptable solution? I hope to hear back from the original mapper too, and I can contact the OSRM developers and let them know about this issue.

Cheers,
aDSAT
SomeoneElse (2021-04-09 00:20:32+00:00): Hello,
I wouldn't worry about added explicit access tags remotely, unless you can see e.g. a sign in Mapillary pictures that should what the access should be.  I certainly wouldn't add an acess=yes tag to a kerb node to try and "force" a router to route over a particular piece of poor-quality road.  If a particular configuration of a particular router is designed to avoid kerb-sized pieces of concrete in the middle of a "road", I as a road user with a normal car might actually be glad to be taken on a detour.  If I was driving a 4x4 or similar, and using a router geared to the capabilities of that, I probably won't expect to be diverted.  Either way, it;s a router decision.
To be clear, I don't believe that the problems I mentioned earlier with the FOSSGIS-hosted OSRM instance are "bugs" iin OSRM at all; they just show the the rules that it has been told to follow don't make a lot of sense globally.
Best Regards,
Andy
aDSAT (2021-04-12 20:02:05+00:00): Hello Andy,
Thanks again for discussing this situation. I have replaced the barrier=kerb tags created by opencarpatia that I removed. 
Cheers,
aDSAT
DDROMAGNY (2021-03-30 07:24:17+00:00): Bonjour, 
Ne s'agirait-il pas plutôt d'une description "piste empierrée" ? 
#CDT40
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101939158
Bobos-Seven (2021-03-30 07:48:00+00:00): Bonjour, 
Il s’agit d’un « Point de vue Touristique » retenu par le département des landes lors de la création du circuit 12.1 : MEILHAN - CIRCUIT DU RÉBILLON
L’intérêt « touristique » du point de vue reste toujours subjectif, mais il a été retenu en tant que tel.
#OdT_Tarusate
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101939158
DDROMAGNY (2021-03-30 13:41:13+00:00): Re-bonjour, 
Je comprend bien, cependant, pour taguer un nom, il est nécessaire que celui-ci corresponde à celui du terrain. J'ai l'impression que "Piste empierrée" correspond à une description et non au nom du point de vue.
Cordialement, 
#CDT40
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101939158
Bobos-Seven (2021-04-03 21:14:01+00:00): Bonjour,
OK : Supprimé du nom et mis en description
Merci bcp
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101939158
Martin Constantino–Bodin (2021-03-30 07:08:33+00:00): Hi ☺ Thanks for the contribution! Consider synchronising Maps.me before traveling long distances, as the resulting changeset spans over very large areas.
Note_Fixer (2021-03-29 20:33:02+00:00): Note 2595831 (Closed)
Note 2595829 (Closed)
Note 2595825 (Closed)
!bm (2021-03-29 21:45:49+00:00): Hallo 6wheels,

vielen Dank für deine Hinzufügungen anhand der Orthophotos. Es gibt hier sogar schon ALKIS-Gebäude als noch präzisere Daten, dank der ich es gleich weiter verbessern konnte.

Happy mapping!

--besteGrüße!bm
6wheels (2021-03-29 21:55:43+00:00): cool, danke.
Werd sicher über die Zeit noch eins zwei Sachen von vor Ort nachbessern :)
Privatemajory (2021-05-12 12:20:42+00:00): Hello. For your information, I had to revert your changeset no. 101939645 in which you deleted all the buildings at the village of Anketsahely, Andrahanjo, Madagascar. Surely it was accidental, right?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101939645
Truchin (2021-04-13 12:43:12+00:00): Bonjour Totoro,

Dans ta modif, tu as indiqué que plusieurs des chemins étaient d'accès privé, ce qui par défaut les interdit d'accès sauf pour les propriétaires. Par exemple : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/82463979
Est ce bien le cas ?
Bonne continuation

Thomas
Cascafico (2021-03-31 17:09:21+00:00): WAY 923534695: oltre alla superficie, serve anche il tipo di highway (probabilmente track)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101940108
APneunzehn74 (2024-07-30 16:26:55+00:00): Hey I'm not sure if arable land is actually suitable here. The area doesn't look any different from the rest. Shrubs, some grass, bushes, a few trees. The building at the lookout point is now used for fast food, drinks, cheese. A few years ago the building was actually used for agricultural purposes.
Greetings Andreas
debeli75 (2024-07-30 16:40:05+00:00): Yes, I agree that the area is no longer fully farmed, however the land is still enclosed, walled, privately owned, and sometimes used for cattle grazing. And still, in appearance alone, it is significantly different from the surrounding karst, even though, as I said before, it has not been completely farmed. So I am of the opinion that it is better to leave it as it is so that it can be distinguished on the map from the surrounding karst.
Thanks for the input
debeli75 (2024-07-30 18:06:02+00:00): As for the house, the two old folks, man and women, who lived in it and took care of livestock, unfortunately died, and now tourism has taken its toll, for better or for worse. As far as I can see, the house is already marked as fast food
APneunzehn74 (2024-07-31 17:21:40+00:00): Yes, that's true, the building has been renovated, by the looks of things. Drinks, ice cream and some cheese are currently being sold there (seems a bit improvised). I also saw the two older people and their goats there 5 years ago, and they were selling cheese there as a sideline. A few cows are currently grazing down by the bridge and by the Krupa.
Richard (2023-09-11 11:16:43+00:00): Hi - in this changeset you've set bicycle=no on I-90. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-motorized_access_on_freeways and various other references say that bicycles are permitted on interstates in Montana - is there some other information you have?
luiswoo (2021-03-31 02:45:29+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/923538894 — тут должно быть layer=-1?
-off- (2021-04-05 08:19:43+00:00): Нет, это я такой тэг ставил несколько лет назад когда первый раз вносил трассу. Видимо для того чтобы не было конфликтов при пересечении с существующей дорогой. Если он не нужен, то можно убрать.