piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ravipalev (2022-01-13 15:16:39+00:00): Here classification was incorrect way 1019227478, i corrected
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115892415
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-03-25 16:59:44+00:00): Why was cartpath changed to walking path?
keebguy (2022-01-07 21:25:52+00:00): Correction: Source used was Maxar Premium Imagery and Strava
dgitto (2022-03-11 06:48:53+00:00): Ciao, I cognomi vanno con iniziale maiuscola, no?
ottwiz (2022-01-07 22:54:25+00:00): Alright, i saw your comment on the note, i really hope you didn't use Google Street View for streetlevel imagery, because i can't find any Bing Streetside images there nor mapillary nor OpenStreetCam, so that's why i mostly wanted someone who checks locally that area by surveying
ottwiz (2022-01-07 22:55:14+00:00): Google Street View is banned from OSM afaik because of the rules of reusing of GSV (you can't reuse data from it technically)
Compusomnia (2022-01-08 02:55:59+00:00): Is there a guideline or discussion about this somewhere? Being vaguely familiar with copyright, I would imagine using copyrighted imagery as a reference would be legally akin to Wikipedia describing the plot to a movie.
ottwiz (2022-01-08 09:10:14+00:00): https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google
ottwiz (2022-01-08 09:11:07+00:00): see the second link, it explains it, the first is basically the community guidelines but the Google section is more important
Compusomnia (2022-01-08 18:48:34+00:00): Thank you for the feedback! I'll be more careful of my sourcing in the future. I might even gather my own street-level images once it gets warmer here.
ottwiz (2022-01-08 20:37:02+00:00): Alright, cool! that'd help everybody in the future
ottwiz (2022-01-08 20:39:02+00:00): Also, welcome to OSM! Feel free to join communities, I'd suggest either the OSM US Slack instance (https://slack.openstreetmap.us/) or if you're more like a gamer, then join OSM World discord (https://discord.gg/openstreetmap), since on both instances there's big activity.
blackboxlogic (2022-01-29 18:53:22+00:00): Same thing (access=private should be ownership=private) regarding https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/11520874. I'm pointing it out to you because you're doing a lot of it. Maybe you're seeing "no trespassing" signs? If that's thecase, please ignore me and have a nice day.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115892881
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-20 10:59:27+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9400821482/history has p=tower key that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What you intended to express by using this unusual key? Is this tag needed? Or maybe can it be expressed in a more typical way that would be easier to understand?
Russ (2024-02-20 11:16:18+00:00): Ah, that's just an accident which happens when JOSM doesn't autocomplete the tag... I've removed them.

It should be caught by the JOSM "uncommon short key" validator rule, but these sometimes get buried under lots of other minor warnings when doing larger-scale power mapping and it's not immediately obvious.
ma-rt-in (2022-01-08 10:53:12+00:00): Hallo,
wo in dem Artikel steht, das die Strecke aktiv genutzt wird?
vg
Metrophil (2022-01-08 14:07:56+00:00): Hallo, ab nächste Woche wird die Eifelquerbahn für Überführungsfahrten von gestrandeten Fahrzeugen in Gerolstein genutzt, zunächst historischen Fahrzeugen, später dann die DB Regio-Triebwagen. Nutzung für Materialientransport für die Eifelbahn wird wohl auch erwogen. Ist zwar bald nicht unbedingt täglich wieder ein Zug ein unterwegs, aber auf jeden Fall ist die Strecke nicht mehr "disused" https://www.eifelquerbahn.com/historische-rheingold-fahrzeuge-erstmals-auf-der-eifelquerbahn-unterwegs
ma-rt-in (2022-01-09 19:14:49+00:00): Danke für die Erläuterung.
Filip009 (2022-05-17 19:10:15+00:00): Dobrý deň, ževraj je už otvorené, tak pokiaľ máte bližšie info môžete aktualizovať :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzEw3g2T0hE
mapko (2022-05-17 20:05:36+00:00): Dobry den. Upravil som co som vedel.
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-08 08:49:03+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115897018
Gopnik McBlyat (2022-01-07 21:51:58+00:00): Dear Mauls,
how many of your 18387 changeset are using the same text ("Railway") as their summary? Please improve out of courtesy to the other mappers.
GinaroZ (2022-01-08 12:26:35+00:00): Indeed, a comment like "added historic railway station" would be better here :)
user_2066394 (2022-01-07 21:57:45+00:00): Und zu Fuß kommt man da nicht vorbei?
Jacorp (2022-01-11 19:33:22+00:00): If you have to make edits to places that are hundreds of miles away like this, please do it in separate changesets so the changeset area isn't so large.
user_5359 (2022-01-09 17:28:34+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/287526190. Did you mean level=1 instead lever=1?
Landerspage (2022-01-10 00:06:14+00:00): Hi! my bad, thanks for your observation, Fixed.
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-08 08:49:52+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115897053
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-08 08:50:20+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115897053
trial (2022-01-12 21:45:34+00:00): Bonjour, je n'ai pas compris le oneway=no alors que des flèches (et le sens des places en épi) indiquent le contraire.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1019249826/history
Diacritic (2022-03-27 19:41:51+00:00): Hey Via Velo.

When I changed the name of this road to "Beach Road", I confirmed with local street signs that the name of the road had changed, and that it is "Formerly" The Crescent.
Via-velo (2022-03-28 11:28:24+00:00): Hi Diacritic,
Thanks for you message. I was in two minds on this one. The street sign on the south side only has The Crescent named. https://maps.land.vic.gov.au/lassi/ only shows The Crescent. I agree with you about the sign on the north side and the house numbers. Can this be further checkout out with Bayside Council? Kind regards, Paul
Diacritic (2022-03-29 07:05:36+00:00): Hey Paul,

Interesting that LASSI shows The Crescent; would probably be worth reaching out to the council to clarify it :)

Dian
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-08 08:37:18+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115896818
highflyer74 (2022-01-11 15:12:37+00:00): Moin und willkommen bei OSM!

Sei so nett, aussagekräftige Änderungssatzkommentare zu nutzen. Mehr dazu hier:

- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice

Wenn Du Fragen an einen Mapper hast, dann stelle diese am besten im entsprechenden Änderungssatz (sofern es mit der Änderung zu tun hat), oder wenn nicht, schreibe sie/ihn direkt an.

Ein Anfügen von note=* an ein Objekt, um eine Frage bezüglich eines fixme=* zu stellen, wird zu nichts führen.

Wenn Du Fragen hast, melde Dich gern, oder schau mal auf dem monatlichen Bremer Mappertreffen vorbei (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bremen/Community).

Weiterer wichtiger Lesestoff:

- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice

Danke!
lololailo (2022-01-08 14:57:22+00:00): Hola, estoy editando por esta zona y he visto que has cambiado la etiqueta a esta carretera. No entiendo muy bien aún como se etiquetan  las carreteras pero despues de revisar en la wiki he pensado que un highway=trunk es lo que aquí llamamos via rápida, pero quizás esté equivocado. Esta carretera no parece una via rápida. Igual tu me lo puedes aclarar. Gracias.
Un saludo
dsaneus (2022-01-09 09:14:49+00:00): Hola.
En la wiki de OSM en español hay un artículo con directrices para el etiquetado de diferentes elementos. Para las carreteras, está establecido que highway=trunk es una carretera convencional de primer nivel (generalmente las nacionales), mientras que una vía rápida es highway=trunk junto con motorroad=yes.
En la Región de Murcia las highway=trunk se usan para las nacionales y las autonómicas de primer nivel (como es el caso de la RM-711), highway=primary para las autonómicas de segundo nivel y highway=secondary para las autonómicas de tercer nivel. No es la clasificación que más sentido tenga, y a mí personalmente no me gusta, puesto que equipara las nacionales con las autonómicas de primer nivel, pero esa es la clasificación establecida.
En este enlace tienes la el artículo de la wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Directrices_de_etiquetado_espa%C3%B1olas#Regi.C3.B3n_de_Murcia.
Espero haberte aclarado el tema.
Un saludo!
~dsaneus
lololailo (2022-01-09 13:22:17+00:00): Muchas gracias por tus aclaraciones, no había leido esa página de la wiki y la verdad es que al menos aclara un poco como deben etiquetarse las carreteras. Me atreví a cambiar alguna pero igual no lo hice bien,  revisaré las carreteras de mi zona a ver como se encuentran etiquetadas.
Lo dicho, gracias por la aclaración.
Un saludo
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-08 08:37:48+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115897076
luisforte (2022-01-07 23:07:50+00:00): Damaging and irresponsible "test". Reverted.
marczoutendijk (2022-01-09 15:54:34+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5592
user_5359 (2022-01-09 17:38:10+00:00): Hello! Please have look on
http://www.osm.org/node/3737374266, http://www.osm.org/node/3737374271: What ist the meaning of the tag EX4 = 1SY or did you mean addr:postcode=EX4 1SY?
sec147 (2022-01-09 23:08:51+00:00): Yep, just a mistake, now corrected.
sorcrosc (2022-01-07 23:14:21+00:00): Did you understand that the test you are making have actually been added to the map?
marczoutendijk (2022-01-09 15:54:12+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5592
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-01-08 13:30:29+00:00): vou reverter essa edição, usuário deletou viasde um condominio
Gabriel Duro (2022-01-08 13:55:04+00:00): Erick, essas vias estão marcadas como ruas, não como vias de um condomínio e isso causa problemas em outros aplicativos que utilizam o OSM, como Moovit e Uber, que geram caminhos de uma rua à outra usando a ligação inexistente. Também foi removida correção na San Marino. Irei refazer as mudanças, mas alterando as vielas internas dos condomínios para o tipo correto.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-01-08 13:58:19+00:00): se elas estão com a classe incorreta, mude a classe, não delete.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-01-08 13:58:47+00:00): voce tambem pode editar o tipo de acesso para a via.
Gabriel Duro (2022-01-08 14:01:09+00:00): Erick, algumas delas estão erradas, não existem. Existe uma ligação entre os três condomínios que não existe. Estou refazendo as edições e irei colocar um comentário mais completo para ficar claro.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-01-08 15:10:24+00:00): muito bom.
Lokai (2022-05-14 05:35:11+00:00): Servus Radbui,

du zeichnest gerne Baumreihen. Im Raum Landau - Herxheim meine ich, dass der tag nicht so häufig zutriftt.

Bspw. in Landau "Zum Queichanger" auf jeden Fall eine Baumreihe, Allee. Die Straße kenne ich übrigens gut.
Jedoch beim Michelinwerk oder bei Herxheim, "Ortsrandstraße Süd-West" und weitere andere, ist das doch nicht scrub, Buschwerk, das eienen Graben oder Bachlauf begeleitet oder als Windschutz dient?

Gruß

L.
Lokai (2022-05-14 05:36:04+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:natural%3Dtree_row
Lokai (2022-05-14 05:39:21+00:00): Zum zügigen umschalten zwischen den Ansichten benutze ich:

http://www.brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=17/49.20012/8.15778/Esri.WorldImagery
Radbubi (2022-05-14 13:37:30+00:00): Hallo Lokai,

leider ist alles, was ich geschrieben hatte, gerade im Nirwana verschwunden. :(

Was Baumreihen sind und was nicht, darüber kann man wohl streiten.
Baumreihen sind für mich wie an einer Perlenschnur aneinandergereihte Bäume in einer einzigen Reihe. Das sehe ich bei den südlich des Michelinwerkes eingetragegen als gegeben an. Zwischen dem Asphaltwerk  und der Queich ist es schon wesentlich breiter, daher passen die Eingetragenen denke ich ganz gut.

Die Reihen westlich der "Ortsrandstraße Süd-West" sehe ich ebenfalls als solche an. Tw. könnte man ggf. eine extrem dünne Scrubfläche (Linien sind als Scrub nicht vorgesehen) mit einzelnen Bäumen nehmen. Bei einer habe ich das nun gemacht. Direkt östlich an die Straße angrenzend wurde nicht von mir als Scrub eintragen, wobei ich das so auch nicht unpassend finde.

Esri nutze ich in JOSM. Der Stand ist derselbe wie in deinem Link.

Gruß
Lokai (2022-05-15 04:28:31+00:00): Ok.

Gruß

L
Trevor_1 (2022-01-08 00:24:43+00:00): I did not mean to click on "review_requested"
hu9o (2022-01-08 18:11:39+00:00): Bonjour Charlie !, je remarque que tu as supprimé des nodes de commerces pour les mettre sur les ways (Le Vieux Murier et L'Épée Royale par exemple). Je pense qu'il s'agit d'une mauvaise pratique, au moins dans cette environnement là d'un centre ville dense. En effet la plupart du temps les ways des bâtiments ne correspondent pas à une unique activité ; il peux y avoir des logements ; ou des bureaux d'une entreprise qui pourrait être cartographiés eux aussi. 
Ici par exexmple les commerce ne semble occuper que le rez-de-chaussé, que connaissons nous des étages ?
Le cas où on pourrait accepter de mettre les infos sur le ways c'est dans le cas où on est sûr que le bâtiments entier est lié à une activité ! Comme ici par exemple : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/68775005.
Nous en avions parlés avec d'autres membres de la communauté OSM de Tours à l'époque où on se réunissait de temps en temps (snif) et on s'était mis d'accord pour mapper les activités avec des nodes.
Qu'en pense-tu ? Serait tu près à rectifier ton intervention ? 

Hugo
PS: En tout cas je suis très heureux de te voir rejoindre les mappeurs de Tours ! désolé par avance de ce message qui peux paraître abrupte
Kurondie (2022-01-08 19:02:27+00:00): Bonjour, 

Effectivement en environnement dense les nœuds sont certainement plus adaptés. Si je préfère utiliser les chemins, c'est que le moteur de rendu s'en sort généralement mieux (il y a, je trouve, moins de pictogrammes sans nom). C'est le cas pour le Léonard  de Vinci, (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6987779472)  où le nom pourrait peut-être être affiché.
 
Dans l'idéal, il faudrait utiliser l'indoor mapping : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indoor_Mapping . Cependant, dans une zone comme le Vieux Tours ça risque de complexifier la maintenabilité. 

J'ai donc remis les nœuds : https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115920479
hu9o (2022-01-08 22:14:31+00:00): Quelle réactivité, merci!
Sur OSM il faut éviter te taguer pour le rendu, notamment car il y'a de nombreux rendus. Un petit article sur le sujet : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bonnes_pratiques#Ne_cartographiez_pas_pour_le_rendu
Bonne soirée à toi!
Oregonian3 (2022-01-08 02:42:26+00:00): I modified this to use UT 20 instead of US 89, as it's by far the better route from Flagstaff to SLC. To be hones though, I have reservations about tagging this route as trunk in the first place. It's nowhere near as important as the other UT roads tagged as trunk, like US 40, US 6, and US 191/491. See my proposed classification for all UT highways at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Utah/highway_classification
aweech (2022-01-08 15:16:03+00:00): I agree that SR 20 is a better fit for trunk than US 89 north of Panguitch. I also agree that I'm not a fan of any of US 89 in Utah besides Sardine Canyon being trunk, but folks I've talked to from Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona want this route to be trunk. Thanks for drafting an initial page and posting the link. I'm going to look it over this morning and make some contributions.
Oregonian3 (2022-01-08 16:21:10+00:00): Awesome, thanks. I do support the section of US 89 between US 89A and the AZ border being trunk (as was recently changed in another changeset) as it's part of the continuous UT 59/AZ 389/US 89/AZ 98 E-W corridor between St. George and the Colorado Plateau area, but not the section of US 89 north of there.
fkv (2022-01-15 05:47:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 116171590 where the changeset comment is: 115896623 revertiert, analog Changeset 116164627.
rthik007 (2022-01-10 08:24:57+00:00): "Hi bondanhootowl,
I have changed the classification of road from unclassified to track as it is not leading to any destinations and also it is passing through the farmlands
Kindly check with
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/rthik007.
Thank you"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115896780
zyphlar (2022-01-08 05:42:54+00:00): FYI somehow this changeset added a new overlapping Dutton Avenue to the existing one, which causes an overlapping highway validation error in JOSM

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/7722206

Thanks for all your hard work today! Overall it looks amazing.
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-08 08:49:28+00:00): revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115893125
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-08 08:50:34+00:00): revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115893793
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-08 08:38:00+00:00): revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115894250
Trevor_1 (2022-01-09 03:03:50+00:00): Hi, I hope you're doing well. Unfortunately, I had to revert this changeset. Many of the roads you changed are really just residential streets, and shouldn't be classified as "secondary". I did upgrade some of them to tertiary.
txemt (2022-01-09 12:00:58+00:00): You didn't have to change any of those to residential. You may THINK they're residential, however, I changed them based on TxDot's functional classification system. I noticed you also deleted the functional classification tags i had placed on several roads.
Trevor_1 (2022-01-09 14:54:25+00:00): I see the TxDot map, and I don't think it's correct. TxDot doesn't maintain all city streets, only major highways, so their city street data isn't 100% accurate. I noticed that there's an isolated section of road labeled "major collector" that's not connected to any other major roads, and that has to be an error.
Trevor_1 (2022-01-09 15:12:40+00:00): But you've done some great work on your other changesets. It's really helpful!
txemt (2022-01-09 16:17:42+00:00): If you wanna have a conversation about this during the da,y you will have to contact me via Slack or Discord. During the day except for Wednesdays, I am almost 100% mobile, and is very hard for me to check changesets as well as maps and edits.
Trevor_1 (2022-01-09 16:41:58+00:00): Ok cool
txemt (2022-01-10 00:10:36+00:00): You're wrong in your assumption. TxDot may not maintain city streets, but they do maintain the functional classification of those streets. FC starts from the bottom and works its way to the state level. The various counties/cities are charged with telling Austin what street is what classification based on the standards set forth by FHWA. Austin then pulls all of that information together and that's how the map is produced. 

Austin will also help counties in figuring out classification of roads within the various jurisdictions (new roads, upgraded roads, etc). This usually happens at the planning level of the road (long before dirt is dug for the road). 

With that said, there are some human errors. On their old map, I saw many errors. I've seen some on Georgia's map as well. When looking at any functional classification map, you'll find errors all over the place. Some of them are obvious, while others are not as obvious. I used to think US-377 between Del Rio and Junction was a mistake, but TxDot said "no, that's correct."

Any reason why you deleted the HFCS tags on all of the roads?
Trevor_1 (2022-01-10 00:24:50+00:00): That happened when I reverted the changeset. I didn't intentionally delete them. It un-did everything that had been done in that changeset.
txemt (2022-01-10 00:26:36+00:00): Can you unrevert everything?
Trevor_1 (2022-01-10 00:55:51+00:00): The website I use can only revert the last changeset of an object, and since some of those objects were edited again after I reverted it, it won't work and it shows up as an error
txemt (2022-01-10 00:59:36+00:00): So what I'm hearing, is I have to go back through a 50 sq mi section of West Texas and redo everything?
txemt (2022-01-10 01:27:28+00:00): Do you normally shoot first, ask questions later? In between the time I got the email about your first comment, and I was able to look at it, you went and reverted a large chunk of the state. I haven't been able to answer your question about the secondary road, as I don't know what road you're referring to, as it's gone now.
TomPar (2022-01-10 03:30:36+00:00): It's customary, and polite, to reach out and wait a day or two before reverting a changeset that isn't obviously vandalism.  txemt seems to be engaged and very responsive.  Why risk making a motivated mapper feel disenfranchised?

"Broken data can be fixed easily, but a broken community is not so easy to restore."

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Reverter
ZeLonewolf (2022-01-10 03:55:40+00:00): Hi folks.  It would be great if we could spend some time doing a real analysis of Texas roads and coming up with a scheme that everyone can agree with.  It's really not useful to keep having these pointless edit wars.

Please see:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

This topic is pretty actively discussed on Slack (slack.openstreetmap.us) channel #highway-classification

As far as I'm aware, the draft by Clorox is really the only work on classifications so far, and it doesn't go below trunk.  So running around reclassifying roads without first deciding as a community how things should be tagged isn't really helpful.  As far as I'm aware, there's no mapping between TxDOT functional class and OSM highway classification that anyone has discussed and agreed on.
txemt (2022-01-10 11:54:13+00:00): It's not really an edit war per se. It's more of a "hey, I'm reverting everything including the micro edits (such as speed limits & turns) without asking about the edits, but just going to inform you about me reverting everything."
Trevor_1 (2022-01-10 23:41:10+00:00): Ok fair enough, I shouldn't have reverted it without discussing first. 

But my question was about a section of E 14th St between N Urias St and Atkins St (in Fort Stockton). It was an isolated section of Secondary Road, but no longer is. 

And there's still a gap between N Urias Street, and N Boundary St, and that's why I don't think it's a good idea to use TxDot Functional Classification as a basis for this map.

I also don't think the jagged road segments below E 1st St should be classfied as secondary; regardless of how TxDot classfies them.
txemt (2022-01-11 00:16:37+00:00): Do you normally revert stuff en mass? I ask, because you took a huge chunk of land and reverted a lot of stuff in it, including restricted turns.
Trevor_1 (2022-01-11 00:29:15+00:00): I have before, but I wouldn't say I do it 'normally'. I didn't realize you had made those other edits, and I won't do it again. I'm sorry for doing that.
txemt (2022-01-11 00:39:37+00:00): I would advise against reverting changes en masse. I'd also advise you inquire about edits with the editor and give them time to respond. I advised you I was mobile and you could reach me Slack or Discord (both of which are on my profile), but I didn't hear a peep from you, except you had just went ahead and reverted all of my changes. 

As TomPar pointed out, I'm very active in discussions and editing and am always down for a conversation. But doing what you did makes me not want to have a conversation, nor listen to anything you may have to contribute, because in my mind, you'll just revert em masse again.
txemt (2022-01-14 03:08:28+00:00): 1T-money, have you been involved in any of the conversations with regards to roads and edits within the US?
Trevor_1 (2022-01-15 00:07:40+00:00): I actually haven't. I just created a Slack account "1T-money", and joined the slack.openstreetmap.us channel #highway-classification.
My Discord account is TS-13 #9057, and I just joined the OSM World Group (it says the US group isn't very active) Let me know if there are any other channels where they discuss this.
◪ Jarv (2022-01-08 01:33:12+00:00): Forgot to change CS description, this one is adding detail to M23 VMS & other things nearby the road