piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
opendcc (2021-11-01 21:03:10+00:00): As courtesy to other mappers, please make smaller bounding boxes. You can spilt up your changes to one change in PH and one in Maastricht.
HikeAndMap (2021-11-01 21:41:10+00:00): Obviously I usually do that.. as you can see I got distracted while working in PH - did a few edits back home - and then switched back.

As any reasonable person can instantly recognize that's not my standard way of working but obviously a one time distraction .

Not sure if it were worth it to me to mention to someone if obvious to me someone did something he/she usually doesn't

imagine I had to criticize every single time every single human made once in their life a single error / or least effective way of working ROFLMAO

but yeah, i beg your pardon and bow and kneel and offer my sincerest apologies for a single one-time event where I got distracted and ended up editing 2 different locations at the same time.
opendcc (2021-11-02 06:50:31+00:00): Hello,

accepted and understood. Happened to me sometimes, too. 

best regards
Supaplex (2021-10-31 05:55:50+00:00): 這條應該還沒通車吧?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113178692
DaveF (2021-10-31 14:18:46+00:00): Hi
Why have you created this relation?
It was perfectly fine as part of 1318929
To find routes within Greater London is achievable as OSM is geospatially aware.
Unnecessarily splitting relation adds confusion leading to errors in the OSM database.
MacLondon (2021-11-03 01:43:06+00:00): Within London, Route 4 of the National Cycle Network is also Route 4 of the London Cycle Network. A separate subrelation was needed to represent the section that is part of the LCN, and this includes a segment in Putney that has been dropped from the NCN.
DaveF (2021-11-03 10:33:56+00:00): Could you provide details of this 'Route 4 for London Cycle Networks' or indeed details of 'London Cycle Networks' as the hyperlink on the OSM wiki page directs to spam. If there's an LCN it requires a separate relation, not the splitting of an existing *National* route.
MacLondon (2021-11-06 01:46:15+00:00): Here's a map of the London Cycle Network as it was in 2004: https://web.archive.org/web/20040529124642/http://www.londoncyclenetwork.org.uk/uploaded_files/library/documents/LCN_MAP_2004.pdf

The relation (13400058) for this LCN route can be viewed at https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=13400058 and is tagged with "cycle_network=GB:London Cycle Network".

Signage along the route is a mixture of council signage (which includes segment/links that are not part of the National Cycle Network) and Sustrans' NCN stickers. Along London's NCN4, it is a local network route, a national network route and an international (EV2) network route... but signage-wise all three are represented by the same 'ref=4'. As far as I'm aware, there is no actual signage for EV2 in the UK.
gscholz (2021-11-01 07:54:15+00:00): Hi Diana,
thsi changeset as created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-57.29092&lat=-25.56620&zoom=14&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points,single_node_in_way,duplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=113178749

Can you please fix this?
Kind Regards
Guido
DressyPear4 (2021-11-03 13:44:25+00:00): Tags ajustadas
BubbaJuice (2021-10-31 04:21:23+00:00): Please do not tag buildings as street lamps as you did so here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9213149506
SomeoneElse (2021-11-10 00:34:24+00:00): Hello,
Can you point to where this "longstanding consensus" was documented?
Best Regards,
Andy
user_9850906 (2021-11-10 01:03:29+00:00): I doubt it's 'documented' anywhere (beyond the OSM's explanation of what the "name" tag is meant to represent), but most editors in NZ have followed this convention.  Occasionally, someone new comes along and changes a town's "name" to the NZ government's official spelling (if it is different).  When this happens, an editor usually comes along and explains that "official_name" is more appropriate in this case.
SomeoneElse (2021-11-10 01:05:56+00:00): For completeness, there's now a discussion happening on the talk-nz mailing list at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-nz/2021/thread.html .
SomeoneElse (2021-11-15 00:14:19+00:00): Following up on the talk-nz discussion, it's pretty clear there that there's a majority in favour of using macrons vs not using macrons in the "name" field there.  Not 100% to be sure, and has as also been noted there not all contributions are from New Zealand - but enough are to make the discussion useful, I think.
Best Regards,
Andy
pkoby (2021-11-01 14:11:12+00:00): Hey Sparks,

I see you have a lot of experience, but I just want to mention that fixing iD warnings without local survey can cause some issues. Notably, adding information to businesses using the Name Suggestion Index is often faulty because it replaces the locally accurate name with a default generic. Often, a local POI will have a different or extended name on the shopfront. For instance, Long & Foster (=estate_agent) is locally Long & Foster Realtors.

Also, I just checked a few of the "shop=boutique" to "=clothes" changes, and that seems correct, but frequently shops are named "* Boutique" and aren't clothes stores.

Just some thoughts. Thanks!
--P
bhousel (2021-11-01 14:46:25+00:00): pkoby, can you provide some more info about how "Long & Foster" is "locally" named "Long & Foster Realtors".  I couldn't find any information about it.  Name Suggestion Index does allow communities to use locally unique names, but it's mostly used for things like making a brand French in Quebec.  I am doubtful that Baltimore uses a special naming convention for this real estate brand, and it really sounds more like you are nitpicking over a small name detail that doesn't matter much.  Calling my project "faulty" is a bit of a stretch - but if it really is wrong, please open an issue and we will fix it post-haste: 
 https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/issues
pkoby (2021-11-01 15:31:16+00:00): Don't get me wrong, I think the NSI is great, and I've contributed myself. "Faulty" is probably the wrong word. Perhaps I misunderstood something down the line, but as you are supposed to map what's on the ground, I figured that if e.g. "Long & Foster" is not identical to what's actually on the front of the building, it's not wrong to change (or keep) the name to what it says when you're standing in front of it. Another example is that branches of businesses might say on their sign the local branch name (say, "XYZ Business - Location Name Branch"). I think this is useful information to add.

That said, I guess it's not wrong per se to change the name to a consistent version, but I also think that can be maintained with the 'brand' tag. I can understand both arguments. I don't think anyone will fail to find a business because of a slight naming difference in either direction.
Sparks (2021-11-03 01:26:59+00:00): Yeah, I try to be careful when making changes.  I can't recall, off hand, which suggestion pops up somewhat regularly which is obviously wrong (the system is assuming a different business).  If there are changes that can be made to NSI lets open some bugs up.  It's so annoying to search for something and not find it only to discover it was there all along but wasn't spelled correctly or was named something slightly different.  :)
eggie (2021-10-31 06:35:42+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
TreeTracks (2024-01-30 01:07:17+00:00): Hi Andrew, thanks for all your great work on osm. I'm updating some State Forests boundaries in Vic from landuse=forest to leisure=nature_reserve as is no timber harvesting now (see discussion on osm forum page). See Wombat SF for example. You've done lots of great edits in Fryers Ridge area. The existing Fryers Ridge SF polygon incs lots beyond the formal State Forest. Any objections if I change this to natural=wood (as it shows tree cover reasonably well) and add the official State Forest boundary separately using leisure=nature_reserve? (This will show as an outline like on conservation reserves). Cheers Ian
eggie (2021-10-31 06:38:39+00:00): Dag Piet.. 
Tip>.
Probeer de juiste adresnode te vinden om daar de ieuwe supermarkt op bij te taggen.

Nu is je winkel verbonden met de Zeeduinweg.

Je edits.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=113180117

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-10-31 06:41:30+00:00): Alle begin is moeilijk. Hier zijn twee adresnodes (	758;726) gecombineerd.
Editor iD heeft de onhebbelijke gewoonte om alles aan elkaar te plakken. 

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=113180378

Gr eggie
eggie (2021-10-31 06:46:50+00:00): Adressen liggen weer los nu.
Gr eggie
Piet Eijgenraam (2021-10-31 08:33:07+00:00): Bedankt. Ik weet niet hoe je adresnodes combineert, en dus ook niet hoe je moet vermijden dit per ongeluk te doen. Ik heb ze misschien aangeklikt bij het zoeken naar nummer 706, bij het editen waren er wel markeringen per adres, maar kon je het huisnummer pas zien bij aanklikken.
eggie (2021-10-31 08:49:53+00:00): Dag Piet.. Dat gaat gewoon per ongeluk. Je selecteert met de linker muis en dan schuif je ook met links.. Het plakt dan automatisch.
Veel mappers gebruiken liever editor JOSM. Daar schuif je met rechts en heb je ook veel meer overzicht.

Een aanrader...
 
editor josm stap voor stap 

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710        

Veel plezier met mappen
Egie
Piet Eijgenraam (2021-10-31 09:43:08+00:00): Bedankt.
vulasala (2021-11-01 08:12:56+00:00): Hi Abysmallow,
Trust you are doing well. I have aligned the dragged node 9031587421 as per the ground reality.
Thank You.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113180685
gscholz (2021-11-01 07:51:31+00:00): Hi Clara,
thsi changeset as created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-57.29092&lat=-25.56620&zoom=14&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points,single_node_in_way,duplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=113180763

Your ways also do not have any attributes so a renderer can make any sense of your data.

Can you please fix this?
Kind Regards
Guido
village (2022-01-08 11:33:54+00:00): verkauft der Automat im SB-Bereich der "Post(bank)filiale" dort wirklich SIM-Karten? (du hast Ende Oktober 2021 ja nachgeschaut).
Tomas Straupis (2021-10-31 07:19:54+00:00): Hello, please do not destroy good waterway tagging (waterway=riverbank). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Cartography/Waterways Change reverted.
Zaneo (2021-10-31 10:40:37+00:00): So first, please don't delete changesets without discussing them. You'll note that the focus of this changeset was to add the navigation obstruction (the concrete pylons at the bottom of the dam).

Second, I read your linked article, and the article at the bottom: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Waterways/River_modernization

Which seemed way more widely adopted. Given that the built in validators suggest to change these tags. I think you should take your issue up with iD, and other validators. Otherwise users like me are going to find a way to make the validator happy when we make valid changes.
Tomas Straupis (2021-10-31 12:15:54+00:00): I have explained the reasons for reverting. Please use higher quality tools in the future in order not to destroy good data. iD is a bad editor. JOSM - main editor of OSM - does not offer to destroy waterway tags under disguise of "improvement".
Zaneo (2021-10-31 14:24:14+00:00): Explaining why you reverted does not address "So first, please don't delete changesets without discussing them."

In this case the changeset didn't contain much other work, but it could have. Having a problem with part of a changeset doesn't really deserve nuking the whole changeset without waiting for a response.

Main editor of OSM is hardly a defined metric. Last time I checked the percentage breakdown varies depending on how you consider volume of changesets or volume of edits. Most automated edits are done in JOSM because iD doesn't support them.

Please take your gripes with iD up with them directly. Or that of the preset library they use.
Tomas Straupis (2021-10-31 14:30:15+00:00): iD problems are problems of the users of iD - not ours ;-) For larger changesets we do warn and only revert specific parts (unless it is a repeated offence).
Tomas Straupis (2021-10-31 08:23:40+00:00): No, this is not a canal. This is a route of a river.
Zaneo (2021-10-31 10:30:33+00:00): This is not the water's natural course. This is a man made constructed course for the water. It's a spill way connected to the inlet of the dam. This is tagged as a canal, with intermitted water

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dcanal
Zaneo (2021-10-31 11:43:50+00:00): In fact lookup the official documentation of this dam on page 27/78 : https://www.vdu.lt/cris/bitstream/20.500.12259/112738/1/vaiva_abukauskiene_md.pdf

The deepest point of this pond is even 15.5 meters. About the same depth and water
well to run into the shaft passage. The river Šušvė near Angiriai in 1980. after building 16 meters
the height of the dam and the installation of a 297 ha pond, the former natural flow regime has changed:
 "the former natural flow regime has changed"
is no longer carried out in a natural channel, but through a 10 m high shaft floodplain installed in the pond.

That's an artificial redirected water course.
Tomas Straupis (2021-10-31 12:13:33+00:00): This is natural waterway - river. We do not split it's way into parts. Canal is a waterway entirely dug up by man (like Vilhelms canal). That is how we map waterways in Lithuania.
Tomas Straupis (2021-10-31 12:32:39+00:00): We've systematically captured/fixed the data of ALL dams in Lithuania. Agreed and mapped waterway data to have cayaking routing and watershed maps. Your changes are damaging the the working and maintained system. Please elaborate what goals you're after and maybe we will be able to find a mutually acceptable solution.
Zaneo (2021-10-31 13:39:23+00:00): 1) Do you have a documented and publicly available set of these "pseudo-rules" you have created for all of Lithuania?

2) Is waterway=river and man_made=pipeline conflicting for you? If not I'm happy to settle for that. I want to indicate that this is a non-naturally directed water course and that it leads to a water turbine.

About splitting rivers is it possible to move the river part to a relation which encompasses the whole river? A river can narrow to a stream, and then grow back to a river in its natural course, how is that handled normally.

I don't understand your point about kayaking... you can't kayak through a damn and pipe_line. This all started because I wanted to make it clear about the dangers of dams. When I marked the bottom of the dam with the concrete pylons, as a waterway flow control devices, with seamark attributes.
Tomas Straupis (2021-10-31 14:18:13+00:00): 1) no, only part relating to kayaking is in a lithuanian blog entry, other information is in archives of talk-lt maillist 2) yes, if you only add man_made=pipeline and/or intermittant - it will not break anything. Relations can and in some cases are used, but in general we do not change waterway type in other similar situations - when streams alter from natural (meandering) to man-made (direct) routes. If there is a name - it is a stream. The same goes for rivers. Canal is not  a small part of a river, but a whole thing. Yes, for kayaking we add a dam tag and then add 20minutes of routing time (for taking kayak down) - example: https://upes.openmap.lt/#16.45/54.257825/24.549654 (press right mouse button above and below the dam on the river route to get a route calculation).
Zaneo (2021-10-31 14:27:32+00:00): I'm happy with man_made pipeline and intermittent. Thank you for taking the time to explain your stance.
SomeoneElse (2021-11-01 11:23:03+00:00): > No, this is not a canal. This is a route of a river.

Like many other things in OSM the answer is "it depends".  I'm not familiar with this area, but can think of plenty of examples closer to home where a river and a canal share the same waterway - in some cases it's best described as a river, in some cases as a canal - it depends completely on the local situation.
Warin61 (2023-08-09 00:39:58+00:00): Hi
The Armidal State Forest is managed by the Forestry Corporation, it is a plantation to produce timber. While it serves a secondary purpose of recreation, as do many State Forests, it's primary function is to produce timber... The boundaries are available on the DCS Base Map ...
Warin61 (2023-08-09 00:55:15+00:00): I have reset this to a State Forest - landuse=forest and corrected the boundaries.
user_5239402 (2021-10-31 08:02:51+00:00): 2021년 10월 30일 개통.
Dimacn (2021-10-31 10:32:05+00:00): 1. Зачем вы газоны переделали в парки отдыха? При этом они оказались на территории другого парка отдыха? 2. В тег name пишем только названия (официальные имена собственные) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:name Не должно быть таких описательных названий как "Детская площадка" "Спортивная площадка" "Газон". Всё это задаётся специальными тегами. Пожалуйста исправьте.
user_5239402 (2021-10-31 08:30:42+00:00): "On the ground principle"
user_5239402 (2021-10-31 08:30:56+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground
vulasala (2021-11-01 07:11:38+00:00): Hi Abysmallow,
Trust you are doing well. I have modified the classification of way 997857185 and way 997864391 to service, as these roads are giving access to limited rooftops.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113183081
limes11 (2021-12-05 07:50:26+00:00): Hi, 

wieso hast du 338160771 auf footway mit bicycle=yes gesetzt, wenn hier ein VZ 240 steht? Das war mit path und designated korrekt. Oder das VZ hat sich geändert.

VG, Limes
pd8JUHyoPJ (2021-12-05 15:07:48+00:00): Hi "Limes",
forward war da ein 239 mit 1022-10 (Fußweg - Fahrrad frei) und backward nur ein 1022-10 (Fahrrad frei). Wenn ich das nächste Mal vorbeikomme, check ich das nochmal. DE:240 ist wohl noch ne Altlast - ich selbst nehme kaum mal ein Verkehrszeichen in die Karte auf.
VG Rolf
limes11 (2021-12-05 16:16:57+00:00): Alles klar, danke! Im Moment passt es halt nicht zusammen. 

VG, Limes
Pikse (2022-01-12 13:31:49+00:00): Juhin veelkord tähelepanu, et vooluveekogu ja tee, mis ristuvad eri tasanditel (sild, truup) ei tohiks olla punktiga ühendatud, vt https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer

Näiteks see oja ja truup: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/954710500 ja https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/997864162

Sama veel mitmes teises kohas, mida oled hiljuti muutnud, näiteks:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/957625315 ja https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1004612059

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/329279939 ja https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/988094586

Teen parandused.
SekeRob (2021-10-31 17:48:35+00:00): "Correction de sorties d’autoroute en France"

Sortie a Madagascar? That's a really really long route. ;O)

Kindly write what you do and do what you write, not more, not less in a single change set please. This should have been split in 2.
OSM_RogerWilco (2021-11-01 08:43:09+00:00): Moin tof99,

der Weg war vorher schon für zu Fuß Gehende und Radfahrende freigegeben (foot=yes + bicycle=yes). Diese expliziten Angaben überschreiben ein allgemeines access=no. Deine Änderung hat letztendlich nur dazu geführt, dass nicht motorisierte Fahrzeuge (Kutschen) den Weg auch benutzen dürfen. Motorisierte Fahrzeuge sind mit motor_vehicle=no ausgeschlossen.

Das access-Tagging sollte aber grundsätzlich hier überarbeitet werden. Im Waldgebiet reicht normalerweise ein highway=path (schmal) oder highway=track (breit genug für Auto/Trecker) ohne weitere Angaben zu access vollkommen aus. I.d.R. sollten access-Tags nur verwendet werden, wenn Schilder vorhanden sind. Eine Hilfe, wie die gängigsten Schilder eingetragen werden sollten findet Du hier: http://osmtools.de/traffic_signs/

Auch Naturschutzgebiete können die Benutzung der Wege einschränken (z.B. Pferde oder Radfahren verbieten).

Viele Grüße
Roger Wilco
bison166 (2021-11-01 12:16:08+00:00): es wäre hilfreich gewesen evtl. vorhandene Schilder mit Street-Complete zu fotografieren.
An der Ecke "Uhlemühlen" / "Dünenweg" ist , meine ich, eine Beschilderung.
bison166 (2021-11-01 13:19:11+00:00): ein paar Fotos von dieser Ecke.
https://ibb.co/7XcXyx5
https://ibb.co/QpLf6dF
https://ibb.co/xqVkXTj
https://ibb.co/rf4Y4XY
bison166 (2021-11-01 13:54:39+00:00): hab das angepasst.
OSM_RogerWilco (2021-11-01 14:46:25+00:00): Super, danke!
Eine kleine Korrektur habe ich aber auch noch vorgenommen. ;-)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113240284

(Das foot=yes kann man sich auch  noch sparen, aber es schadet auch nicht...)
OSM_RogerWilco (2021-11-01 14:48:29+00:00): Der Poller fehlt auch noch...
bison166 (2021-11-01 15:33:41+00:00): Poller ergänzt sowie Hinweistafel.
Reitweg ist separat angelegt, wie auf der linken Seite der Fotos.
CoyKoi (2021-10-31 22:09:05+00:00): Hi Maximillian, welcome to OSM and thank you for your contribution. It's great to get these local walking connections on the map!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113184144
NunoCapeloCaldeira (2021-11-01 21:04:59+00:00): hello, this edit has been reverted. the building contains more than the university.
gscholz (2021-11-02 05:57:24+00:00): Hi  NunoCaldeira,
your changeset 113255161 excludes the building from the university because they are "inner" areas. But in reality they are part of the university and stand on its ground. Please read:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Duniversity

Please also have a close look at the examples mentioned there.

amenity=university area is a background area like residential or forest.
Guido
NunoCapeloCaldeira (2021-11-02 08:33:41+00:00): Hi, as written on the wiki, it implies to use the tag land use. This is the building lower levels and not the area of the university, which is already mapped as a point (which you deleted also).
nevw (2021-10-31 10:53:48+00:00): Hi
You appear to be marking the boundaries of building lots instead of accurately defining the building shapes on the lot.
You don’t appear to be using the usual method of tagging the addresses of the houses and instead just adding a name to the land plots you have outlines.
It is probably best to stop and have a look at other mappers work in mapping and correctly tagging houses before proceeding further. Many of the boundaries you have entered are overlapping or otherwise inaccurate because you have not zoomed in to map enough.
nevw (2021-10-31 11:10:39+00:00): Here is an example of how to map the outline of a residential house and add the correct address tags
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/978583124#map=19/-37.77407/144.91472
Across the road is a another method of addressing using a seperate node within the building outline.
In the area you are mapping there don’t appear to be any good examples of  addressing as a lot of the buildings have been added using the deficient microsoft building set.

I encourage you to continue mapping houses with addresses in osm because there is a great need for it
nevw (2021-11-11 04:57:58+00:00): Hi
I have re-mapped these now
kuhni74 (2025-02-06 16:38:30+00:00): Weißt Du noch, woher Du die housenames in Zederhaus hast? Betrifft z.B. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3343207
Bathyscapher (2025-02-07 12:19:05+00:00): Hallo kuhni74, nein, tut mir leid, das weiß ich nicht mehr... hab ich das in Großbuchstaben eingetragen? Das ist ja grauenhaft... :O
Bathyscapher (2025-02-07 12:27:04+00:00): Die Namen hab ich wohl nach einem Survey eingetragen (wir sind dort immer wieder mal auf einer der Hütten). An konkrete Namen kann ich mich allerdings nicht mehr eirnnern