piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ndm (2015-02-04 21:03:38+00:00): The scultpure's called Ursa -- I didn't mark it correctly when I added it -- will update.
brtkwr (2015-02-04 21:20:02+00:00): The reason why i added the footpath is because if you try and look for directions on OsmAnd app, it doesnt route you properly, adding footpath seems to solve the issue.
ndm (2015-02-04 23:40:11+00:00): You should probably raise a bug with OsmAnd.
brtkwr (2015-02-05 08:51:14+00:00): It is not a bug, it is an incredibly difficult problem to navigate through a polygon. For consistency's sake, isn't it better if we have paths available to guide pedestrians rather than switching between polygons and lines to indicate paths?
saintam1 (2015-02-04 21:16:58+00:00): Is this really a bookstore? Why store=books? Wouldn't office=company be more appropriate?

Also, this looks like a duplicate of http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3328569058 in which case one of the two should be deleted.
dieterdreist (2015-02-27 12:17:26+00:00): I have reverted this changeset because it didn't contain any contribution but created pointless nodes (untagged, in linear and straight roads) and untagged overlapping ways. Please do NOT upload tests.
Littlebtc (2015-02-04 20:49:18+00:00): 這個編輯不小心刪到台灣森林的大關係了 囧
由於這個大關係目前由上萬個點組成，被砍到的部份約一千八百個節點，所以我花了很長的時間才跑完 Undelete Orz

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28618909

雖然森林大關係可能還要很久的時間才能慢慢切割光，但希望大家編輯時多小心不要砍到東西 QQ
Weide (2015-02-05 09:33:54+00:00): Beide S9 und die stop_area sind jetzt beschädigt
MENTZ_TU (2015-02-05 11:25:13+00:00): wurde gefixt
Prot D (2015-02-27 20:18:09+00:00): Nazdar, díky za přispívání do OSM, jen mám dvě poznámky. Jednak není potřeba pojmenovávat cesty jmény typu "cesta lesem" - z mapy je jasné, že je to cesta i že vede skrz les. A jednak prosím pozor při editaci: uzly se ti občas přichytly na existující objekty, na které by se vázat neměly - cesta tak vedla po hranici hranici administrativní oblasti nebo pár metrů v potoce. Díky.
naoliv (2015-02-04 17:03:10+00:00): Zé, você tá quebrando os limites administrativos!
zool (2015-02-05 07:31:14+00:00): I chatted with Karine and got her business card recently, didn't know the shop was so new. Cheers for the edit
Chris Fleming (2015-02-05 10:54:14+00:00): lol - actual thing that made me go and check was this tweet: https://twitter.com/neilinglis/status/562915655507542016
Nakaner (2015-03-27 20:31:23+00:00): I doubt if there are the same speed limit signals as in Germany (Lf 7). You should think about a NL signal tagging scheme. (At the moment there are tagging schemes for DB, ÖBB and – under construction – SBB). https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3330189722
JJJWegdam (2015-03-28 14:39:12+00:00): This was a test in order to get familiar with ORM tagging. It will be removed as soon as I replace it with a specific Dutch tag.
jamacho (2015-05-26 20:37:56+00:00): Hi Megha:
I'm looking at the edits you've made regarding indoor mapping of the City Center. I noticed rampant improper use of 'Lines' to mark steps (indoor/outdoor). Please make sure you read on proper usage of these items before making changes.
Durko_freemap (2015-02-18 14:05:42+00:00): (DE) Hallo öreg, müssen Wege angeschlossen werden! 
(SK) cesty musia byt spojene (nadviazane).
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-03-22 12:41:47+00:00): Hello!

I know that it is an ancient edit, but maybe you are still mapping in this area...

What you mapped as shop=internet in this edit ?

Is it an internet cafe (amenity=internet_cafe)?

Office where you can sign up for internet service?

Something related to online shopping (pickup point that nowadays is marked as shop=outpost? company office marked as office=company?)

It is about https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2683943217/history
ligfietser (2023-03-22 16:53:07+00:00): Hi Mateusz,
Thanks for noticing. I think it is not longer there anymore.
According to google there is a spa nowadays (dreams-spa.nl, how do you tag a wellness spa?)
 I'll check it out.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-03-23 08:41:17+00:00): It seems that shop=beauty is for them, but unfamiliar with this kind of POI

see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-you-tag-spa-wellness-spa/97239 (login with OSM account)
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-03-23 08:42:41+00:00): > I'll check it out.

As in visit the place, as mapping from Google is bad - right?
ligfietser (2023-03-23 09:17:54+00:00): Yes I think shop=beauty or maybe leisure=sauna seems ok. I'll only use google and online websites to notice something has changed, but I will check it in the field if it really exists.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-03-23 09:21:25+00:00): That as far as I know is perfectly fine!
ligfietser (2023-03-23 16:02:14+00:00): Thanks, I've checked a few shops here, many were not up to date anymore!
ligfietser (2023-03-24 14:01:56+00:00): See also https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2065137357025796 :)
s3b4s5 (2015-02-04 18:58:18+00:00): *discusión test*
SomeoneElse (2015-02-15 21:38:55+00:00): Hi - not sure how it happened, but in this edit http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264242508 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264242512 seem to be duplicates of each other.  Mind if I delete one of them?
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-02-04 20:15:34+00:00): Wygląda na to, że kolega granicę popsuł: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3330401410
dni777 (2015-02-04 19:32:22+00:00): http://www.bowdoin.edu/art-history/visual-arts-center/
Nakaner (2015-04-12 14:48:12+00:00): Du musst die Signale "vollständig" taggen, wenn du sie auf der OpenRailwayMap sehen möchtest. Wenn du kein railway:signal:(main|combined|distant):form=light taggst, werden sie nicht gerendert. Diese Angabe ist sinnvoll, da wir nicht jedem Datennutzer zumuten wollen, die Signalbücher von zig Bahnverwaltungen durchzulesen, wenn er sich nicht für das genaue Signalbild interessiert. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/346813949/history Wenn vorhanden, wäre es auch schön, wenn du angeben würdest, ob es ein Signal in Mastbauweise oder ein Zwergsignal ist.
Kakaner (2015-05-10 21:26:02+00:00): Ja, wie gesagt, ich will erstmal die Signale überhaupt erfassen, Feintuning kann man immer noch (später) machen.
5m4u9 (2015-02-06 07:22:34+00:00): Con este cambio borraste por completo el campus de la UAGRM. 

Las "calles" para autos son de servicio y no de libre circulación. Las calles "peatonales" no son calles para autos. (caso campus derecha)... 

Las facultades no son "universidades" ni "museos" sino oficinas administrativas...
user_672592 (2015-02-06 13:40:23+00:00): Estimado, solo borré lo que estaba demás, Primero, corregí los tipos de vías que estaban colocados, antes todas las vías digitalizadas era como carretera secundaria, cuando el tipo correcto es vía de servicio, cualquier "calle" interna, sea en un condomino, se de entrada a un parqueo, o de cualquiera de ese tipo se denomina vía de servicio.
Lo segundo eran las líneas que definen senderos para peatones, esos, también estaban colocados como si fueran carreteras secundarias, el tipo correcto para las aceras y senderos es el que se puso, para indicar que no es para vehículos. Lo único que borré porque me parece que estaba demás son las líneas dentro de las rotondas, porque me parece que no hacen sentido.

Respecto a los módulos y edificaciones, no toque nada.
user_672592 (2015-02-06 13:44:11+00:00): Todavía no he terminado de cambiar los tipos de vía para los senderos internos
5m4u9 (2015-02-06 14:22:53+00:00): Si, quien añadió la otra parte de la U hizo esos cambios, gracias por corregirlos. Si no hay objeciones podría restituir este fin de semana a como estaba en un principio . Se movió algunos elementos porque creen que la imagen esta movida.

Acá la forma para ver quien hizo qué (rojo borrado)... https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=28614858 https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=28618864 https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=28621412
5m4u9 (2015-02-06 14:25:36+00:00): si hay alguna foto de algún plano, o alguien puede sacar fotos de los lugares se podría añadir más detalles... también está la opción de hacer una charla allí para que otros puedan añadir en el mapa de santa cruz.
Túllio (2020-09-29 14:55:38+00:00): 326434908 - barrier=wall??
There are no walls in this region. There was a misunderstanding in the mapping.
deleted_account (2015-02-05 17:13:43+00:00): w adresach bez nazwy ulicy należy stosować addr:place zamiast addr:city
Jojo4u (2017-01-08 17:33:10+00:00): Hallo miscosm, "Albvereinshaus" erscheint mir etwas seltsam für den Hospitalhof (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/273574659). Vielleicht sollte noch eine Quelle daran so dass sich weitere nicht auch noch wundern?

LG Joachim
ivanbranco (2022-09-18 16:18:51+00:00): Ciao massimo,

vedo che sei ancora attivo dopo anni (ultimo update 6 mesi fa) e che hai conoscenza locale del luogo, ti ricordi cosa volevi taggare con questa area? 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/326458108/history
aharvey (2017-10-20 00:47:56+00:00): Is it really named "indistinct track"?
 Better to use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility so it get's the right classification.
jotpe (2015-02-05 19:12:05+00:00): Cool
user_599436 (2015-02-05 12:45:15+00:00): We should come to a consensus on which tag to use, I've also used cafe and fast_food.
DTHG (2015-02-07 06:49:10+00:00): It's hard because they are kind of a hybrid
DTHG (2015-02-05 01:00:24+00:00): I also added a post office on South Salina Street that I had meant to upload separately
Weide (2015-02-06 13:06:21+00:00): Könntest Du vor den Auftrennen von Wegen ("p") den Way und seine beiden Endpunkte anwählen und Alt-Ctrl-D machen? Das vermeidet Schäden an betroffenen Relationen.
hlaw (2015-02-06 15:35:44+00:00): A number of these short sections are necessary to enforce prohibition on U turns across dual carriageways.  This particular changeset removed the restrictions to prevent south bound vehicles on Lai Chi Kok Road to make a U turn, and in addition damaged restriction relation 1466083 which prevents right turn from south bound Lai Chi Kok Road. Need to be reverted
小智智 (2015-02-07 09:55:50+00:00): Properly implementing restrictions should be done using a correct restriction:no_u_turn, specifying the short section as role "via", but not redundant sections.
hlaw (2015-02-07 12:11:22+00:00): Yes except that no today routing software (perhaps except a new trial build of osmand but not tested) understands via way.  Almost all existing services using OSRM, etc and existing apps will be broken.
小智智 (2015-02-07 12:44:04+00:00): For example, if two dual-carriageways intersect with each other to form a #, where right-turning but not U-turning is allowed, tagging in the "proper way" is just done by four no_u_turns, however if to avoid "via way", then two additional short sections forming an X has to be given and "no right turn" restrictions has to be put on the # (to avoid right-right-turning), in addition to the "no u turn" restriction from the diagonal to the opposite way.

I think that, as mappers, we should map restrictions according to proper usage of tags, instead of "working around" to complicate the data.
hlaw (2015-02-07 13:57:24+00:00): In the common case you cited, only one short section is necessary.  The entire intersection is mapped by 6 relations.
I don't think the data is much more complicated. Instead, the reason that via-ways are not implemented is that the latter complicates the route search substantially. 

I think that it is important to ensure that the data users (software) can correctly consume the data.  It is not much useful to map data which nobody would (yet) use.  (If I had used via ways from the beginning, the map is now useless for routing.)  On the other hand, once most routers support via ways, it is not difficult to simplify all intersections automatically.
MyWayOrNoHighway (2017-04-05 17:58:51+00:00): Hey,
here is a current example of u_turn restrictions via ways working. https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=22.31154%2C114.16483%3B22.31160%2C114.16497#map=16/22.3152/114.1636  The extra segments are no longer needed. Thanks
user_599436 (2015-02-05 12:48:06+00:00): Do you know if the Post Office occupies the whole building? If not I can remove the post_office tag from it.
chnav (2015-02-07 10:35:21+00:00): Названия жилых комплексов нужно вешать не на отдельные здания, а на всю территорию. Вот пример https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/43103506

иначе из-за подобной рекламной чепухи не видно номеров зданий.
chnav (2015-02-07 10:36:19+00:00): тем более ЖК обычно позиционируются не просто как отдельный жилой дом, а целый райончик со своей инфраструктурой.
pan1ka (2015-02-09 04:44:32+00:00): спасибо, понял. исправляю :-)
robbieonsea (2015-02-06 20:56:06+00:00): I doubt these are public car parks, probably only for employees of Raymarine.
Thus these should have access=private tags.
emacsen (2015-02-05 11:16:43+00:00): Hi,

I see this is one of your first OSM edits. . This changeset came to my attention because the comment is "added a gas station", but it actually does a great deal more, including adding a number of objects which don't exist, such as roads in the middle of the ocean.

I'm going to revert this edit, but please only add objects to OSM that are ground verifiable.

If you have any questions, you can ask right on this changeset.
hlaw (2015-02-06 15:56:07+00:00): Which router ignores vehicle=no?  Anyway changing from service to motorway_link would only increase the chance of routing through it.
hlaw (2015-02-06 15:58:59+00:00): Thanks for reverting 28583594
Jochen Topf (2015-03-02 10:55:05+00:00): Hi!

Why are you tagging a lake natural=coastline? This tag is for the coastline of the sea only. For years we have been moving away from tagging coastline on inland lakes. There are some leftovers that are too big to change, but lake Ontario worked well without the natural=coastline. Major changes to the coastline like this should not be done without discussion, because it can have worldwide ramification due to the rather brittle coastline update/rendering mechanism. Was this maybe discussed somewhere in the Canadian community?
xmd5a (2015-03-02 11:05:56+00:00): Hi. No, it was not discussed in Canadian community. I tagged Ontario with coastline because all other great lakes are tagged the same way and because there was an issue with OsmAnd. Anyway, this issue is solved another way so you are free to remove these tags.
hlaw (2015-02-06 16:22:08+00:00): Messed up the intersection btw Pokfulam Road and Smithfield seriously
regulusleo (2015-11-17 05:24:15+00:00): 你是菏泽的？怎么不画了？我曹县，我把曹县画了好多。加油！
OpenStreetMap 志愿者QQ群：290278518
London Photo Models (2015-02-05 08:25:56+00:00): The Top London Escort Agency providing all new elegant classes London escorts for your enjoyment.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-04-11 06:31:50+00:00): Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3636850 ?
Stefan Nagy (2020-03-26 10:33:30+00:00): Hallo Patrick, ich hab eine Frage zur "EZ Liezen Runde". Ich weiß, der Edit ist fünf Jahre alt – ich versuche da etwas nachzuvollziehen…

Du hast Anfang 2015 diese Relation mit dem Namen "EZ Liezen Runde" erstellt. Die einzig archivierte Version der Seite, die du in Note verlinkt hast, in der Wayback Machine ist vom April 2016. Und da gibt es – wie heute – keine "EZ Liezen Runde". Heute entspricht auf der Betreiber-Website die "Marienwaldweg" genannte Laufroute vom Verlauf her dieser Route. Meine Vermutung ist die, dass die "EZ Liezen Runde" im Jahr 2015 oder 2016 umbenannt wurde – und sich dadurch das heutige Wegweiser-Wirrwarr ergibt: Manche (vermutlich 2014 aufgestellte) verweisen auf die "EZ Liezen Runde", andere (vermutlich später aufgestellte) auf den "Waldweg". Beide mit der Routennummer L3. Auch die heutige Beschreibung der Route auf der Betreiberwebsite weist in diese Richtung: Der Titel ist "Marienwaldweg", in der Beschreibung ist gleich am Anfang von der "EZ Liezen Runde" die Rede.

Meine Frage: Hältst du das für plausibel? Ich gehe davon aus, dass unter dem Link, den du in Note gesetzt hast, Anfang 2015 noch von der "EZ Liezen Runde" die Rede war – richtig?

Wenn ja, würde ich die Route gerne auf "Mairenwaldweg" umbenennen und old_name oder wohl noch besser old_name:2014-2015 auf "EZ Liezen Runde" setzen. Außerdem würde ich alle L3-Wegweiser (also egal welchen der beiden Namen sie führen) der Relation hinzufügen.

Es gibt auch (wenige) andere Wegweiser für den "echten" Marienwaldweg (also den Weg im Wald, nicht die Laufstrecke, die zu einem guten Teil über die Ennswiese führt). Wie dann damit umzugehen ist, ist eine andere Frage – also eine Relation route=foot oder route=hiking oder einfach die entsprechenden Ways so zu benennen. Das war bis vor einigen Tagen eigentlich so – ich hab diese Benennung gelöscht und die Ways in eine Relation mit dem Namen gefasst, weil ich aufgrund der Beschilderung davon ausgegangen bin, dass es neben der "EZ Liezen Runde" eben eine "Marienwaldweg"-Route gibt.

Aber wie gesagt, das ist eine andere Frage. Worum es mir jetzt einmal geht ist die Route L3. Nachdem du von hier bist und sie eingetragen hast, wollte ich mich mit dir absprechen bevor ich das durchziehe.
Stefan Nagy (2020-03-26 10:50:01+00:00): Entschuldige, hier noch die Links von denen ich rede – damit du sie dir nicht selbst raussuchen musst:

- Version vom April 2016 der von dir als Notiz eingetragenen Website (die einzig archivierte Version): https://web.archive.org/web/20160416172941/http://www.runnersfun.com/referenzen/orte-regionen/liezen/

- Heutige Seite des Betreibers zur Laufstrecke "Marienwaldweg": https://outdoor.runnersfun.com/de/tour/jogging/marienwaldweg/21432206/
paaast (2020-03-26 18:33:45+00:00): Hallo Stefan,

ich kann mich leider auch nicht mehr so genau erinnern, aber ich vermute auch, dass es so passiert ist. Deine Lösung hört sich gut an, wobei der Name ja wirklich komisch ist, da der Marienwaldweg ja nur ein Teil der Runde ist. Aber ist halt mal so 😉. Das mit den Wegweisern ist eine gute Idee.
Stefan Nagy (2020-03-26 19:12:13+00:00): OK, danke für deine rasche Rückmeldung! Ich werde das mal machen und mich dann in den nächsten Tagen um den eigentlichen Marienwaldweg (die Strecke von der Höhenstraße bis nach Weißenbach) kümmern. Schönen Abend, Stefan.
hlaw (2015-02-06 17:54:10+00:00): Breaks routes 2 & 68X
hlaw (2015-02-06 19:15:22+00:00): highway=crossing and crossing=traffic_signal already implies traffic signal.  No need to add another highway=traffic_signal node a few cm from pedestrian crossings
小智智 (2015-02-07 09:53:36+00:00): crossing=traffic_signal only implies pedestrian traffic lights. It does not imply traffic lights for vehicles. It is possible for vehicles to cross a light-controlled pedestrian crossing without an associated vehicle traffic light, as in the case of most intersections
hlaw (2015-02-07 12:15:28+00:00): What do you mean by light-controlled pedestrian crossing without vehicle traffic light?
小智智 (2015-02-07 12:21:00+00:00): For example, vehicles running from south to north along Nathan Road crossing Mong Kok Road will need to pass 1 vehicle traffic signal and 2 signal-controlled pedestrian crossings. Therefore, they are not equivalent and cannot be replaced by the other.
hlaw (2015-02-07 12:43:08+00:00): This changeset was doing the opposite, putting highway=traffic_signal besides every pedestrian crossings (not at the intersection node), while removing the existing highway=traffic signal tag from the intersection node.  Isn't these equivalent? 
Anyway the existing state as restored should be consistent with your statement?
小智智 (2015-02-07 12:46:27+00:00): This is to properly deal with the issue of dual carriageways: we need to ensure that vehicles only passes one highway=traffic_signal node no matter how they turn, and in fact, the vehicles "passes the traffic signal before the pedestrian crossing"
小智智 (2015-02-07 12:48:37+00:00): Btw, it is impossible to right turn from Nathan Road to Mong Kok Road now so the redundant section has to be removed.
小智智 (2015-02-07 13:13:45+00:00): In the restore state a vehicle running straight on Mong Kok Road has to go through two traffic signals, which is wrong in reality.
hlaw (2015-02-07 14:13:31+00:00): "we need to ensure that vehicles only passes one highway=traffic_signal node no matter how they turn" - This is a new issue which this original changeset did not solve.
d1g (2015-03-12 19:52:31+00:00): Этот пакет правок вклинился между проблемным 28481465 и его откатом в 28657451. Дорога 136411418 пострадала потому что к ней прикасались в 28481465.
ika-chan! UK-USA (2015-02-05 10:40:04+00:00): Shouldn't the message when uploading via iD be:

"All changes you upload as (user) will be visible on all maps that use OpenStreetMap data. 

"This is not your own private map. Please don't save test changes or edits for personal use only, or delete anything irrelevant to your edits."
Volker Fröhlich (2017-12-25 17:44:34+00:00): Hallo, mir scheint, da gab es eine Verwechslung von ref und fire_hydrant:diameter!
SomeoneElse (2015-02-11 22:17:34+00:00): I notice that you've removed the name:sr from http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2401263785/history . If the majority of people locally refer to it as "Lubishtë" rather than "Љубиште" then it does make sense for the "name" in OpenStreetMap to be "Lubishtë" rather than "Љубиште". However, if both names are in use, or were in use relatively recently, then it makes sense to keep the "name:sr" set to "Љубиште", even though the "name" is "Lubishtë".

Anyway - hope this helps; if you've any questions please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group.
muralito (2015-02-05 18:36:53+00:00): Es imprescindible respetar las licencias de otros mapas!

Algunos de los cambios que has hecho se basan en fuentes de las cuales no esta claro si esta la autorizacion para usarlas en OSM. 

En este caso ¿Cuando Microsoft, Bing y/o Nokia dieron la autorizacion correspondiente?
neluy1611 (2015-02-05 19:41:43+00:00): Muralito ya no se que contestar o de que fuente sacar información que creas que es libre, soy un simple trabajador que esta queriendo mejorar los datos que tienes, en todo caso dime tú de qué lugares puedo sacar información que me aceptes (y que esté mejor actualizada), puse ese link porque cuando edito la información dice (por lo menos en mi caso) 100% de los mapas estan basados en BING entonces porque si los mapas base son de Bing la información de los nombres de calle no puede ser usada?, si queres cortame el acceso solo trato de ayudar ya lo hemos hablado. En Uruguay no todas las intendencias tienen buena información de sus datos (y tampoco me has reprochado de otros lugares que son del gobierno uruguayo). Estoy con un trabajo que como te daras cuenta tengo que buscar nombres de calle y por eso, aparte, estoy mejorando (a mi entender) tu mapa, ya aprendi que mencionar google no puedo, y he buscado alternativas de todo tipo.
muralito (2015-02-05 20:12:57+00:00): De ninguna manera discuto que quieras mejorar, eso es evidente que es asi, lo que pasa es que no cualquier fuente para mejorar es valida.

Poniendo fuentes no autorizadas, ademas de no cumplir con las licencias de esas fuentes,  estas poniendo en duda la libertad del total de los datos en OSM.

Si tenes alguna duda revisa http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
especialmente los ultimos parrafos.

El tema con la informacion no es que yo crea que sea libre o no, sino con que se tenga la autorizacion correspondiente para usarse.

Como te daras cuenta, puedo no haberte cuestionado otras fuentes porque no haberlas notado o porque no haya problema en usarlas.

Ademas, para el cuestionamiento que hago,  es irrelevante la calidad de informacion que tenga cada intendencia.

Por ultimo, si se respetan los terminos como debe ser, no hay nada que cortar, no es ese el tema.

Y no es que no puedas mencionar Google, la realidad es que no podrias usarlo, tendrias que entender que Google no quiere que lo uses para agregar cosas a OSM, y por tanto en las condiciones actuales, hacer eso es contaminar OSM al no respetar los terminos de uso que te impone Google (no OSM) a sus datos.