piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Velosoph (2020-01-28 20:59:03+00:00): "highway=serial"? Da muss ich komplett gepennt haben... natürlich war "highway=service" gemeint. "service" hatte deshalb ausgewählt, weil dieses recht neue Sträßchen ja ausschließlich als Zufahrt für die Halle dient. Aber "residential" würde wohl auch gehen, wenn ich mir die entsprechenden Seiten im OSM-Wiki anschaue, würde ich es jedoch näher an "service" sehen...

Grüße zurück!
ajf3934221 (2020-01-30 18:30:59+00:00): okidoki, habs repariert. Vorerst 'service' belassen, wenn das gebiet in den nächsten Jahren zunehmend bebaut wird kann man sich ja ein upgrade überlegen.
DaveF (2020-01-28 00:25:54+00:00): Hi
You've added a duplicating railway station even though there's an existing one directly adjacent.
g1750 (2022-02-12 21:23:49+00:00): Apologies for this, hopefully problem you mean has been now resolved?
Supaplex (2020-01-27 04:35:33+00:00): Longshan Temple is not in the middle of the park.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7160698086#map=18/25.03609/121.49974
Supaplex (2020-01-27 15:23:53+00:00): Could you explain what is Milk Donuts. Could not find this store in Taipei.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/80102348
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-09-23 08:58:00+00:00): What is the source of this data?
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-09-23 08:58:11+00:00): Especially "hcpaogis:dorcode" tag.
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-10-19 07:04:53+00:00): Please, answer with info about source of this data.

What is the source of info that you added in this edit? I looks like import from an unknown source and it would be necessary to remove it in such case.

Also, is hcpaogis:dorcode somehow special? building:use tag is a preferred method for tagging this, but maybe I missed something.
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-11-09 09:27:01+00:00): I plan on reverting this edit as an import from an unknown source of an unknown copyright status.

Please, answer - what is the source of this edit?

What is the source and meaning of hcpaogis:dorcode tag?
Luzandro (2020-01-27 17:33:03+00:00): Hallo Junakreiter,

bitte vergib keine Beschreibungen wie ", Sackgasse" als Eigenname
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Names#name_ist_nur_der_Name

der Weg hat unten schon ein access=private weshalb er auf der Standard-Karte auch anders dargestellt wird, allerdings wird das für Fußgänger wieder durch den Wert foot=permissive (geduldet) überschrieben, wodurch diese über den Weg geroutet werden können. Sollte diese Duldung also nicht mehr bestehen, kann der Wert entfernt werden und Fußgänger werden auch rund herum geroutet.

LG Andreas
Junakreiter (2020-01-28 06:25:31+00:00): Vielen Dank Andreas,
Geduldet ist das passieeren, aber möglich ist es nicht. Wie soll ich vorgehen ?
lg, Alex.
Luzandro (2020-02-01 06:52:03+00:00): Zuerst einmal: nachdem du dort ein Tor mit access=private und ohne foot=permissive angelegt hast, wird mittlerweile auch für Fußgänger herum geroutet: 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=47.09786%2C15.43900%3B47.09961%2C15.44000

Ansonsten ist schwer zu beurteilen, was bedeutet, dass es geduldet aber nicht möglich ist. Am ehesten klingt es für mich nach dem lifecycle prefix "abandoned:highway=path", was in der Praxis wohl bei so ziemlich jeder Software den Effekt hat, dass es völlig ignoriert und auch nicht angezeigt wird, sondern eher informativen Charakter für andere Mapper hat, sofern man die Daten nicht explizit nach aufgelassenen Wegen auswertet.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:abandoned:
Junakreiter (2020-02-01 08:54:57+00:00): Ich war dort, eine Zauntür von 1,5m Höhe
sperrt den Weg ab. Das ist die Realität. Ist doch sinnlos wenn hier Jemand durchgeschickt wird !
Luzandro (2020-02-01 09:50:05+00:00): Der Verweis auf das Routing war auch nicht als Kritik gedacht, sondern als Hinweis, dass am Weg selbst nicht mehr zwingend etwas geändert werden muss, um zu erreichen, dass dort niemand mehr durchgeschickt wird. Jetzt kann von jeder Seite nur mehr bis zu diesem Tor geroutet werden. Ob das von Norden kommend korrekt ist, oder dort wo sich access auf private ändert ein 2tes Tor fehlt und entsprechend auch foot=permissive vom Weg entfernt werden sollte, kann ich nicht beurteilen, macht für das Routing in der Praxis aber auch keinen wirklichen Unterschied.
Junakreiter (2020-02-01 11:08:29+00:00): Dann hab ich es richtig gemacht ?
Danke !
Warin61 (2021-05-10 04:24:06+00:00): Hi,

The route information (to, from, etc) does not go on a node but on a route relation and that route relation has this node as a member.
abrensch (2020-02-02 06:26:35+00:00): Hallo VGDermbach,

hier hast Du was unverbunden hinterlassen:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2574353424

Kannst Du das mal anschauen?

Danke und Gruss, Arndt
czubi (2020-10-10 11:50:01+00:00): Hallo, ihr habt verschiedene Straßen von residential in unclassified.
Gibts dafür einen Grund?
M.E. sind das alles Anwohnerstraßen
czubi (2020-10-10 11:52:14+00:00): ISt der Teil hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/766721593#map=19/50.67071/10.10518&layers=N
wirklich noch Goethestraße?
viloan (2020-01-26 17:18:46+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt
Se você está mapeando por causa do jogo do Harry Potter, as dicas e explicações na página anterior também são úteis para você.

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
viloan (2020-01-26 17:18:48+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt
Se você está mapeando por causa do jogo do Harry Potter, as dicas e explicações na página anterior também são úteis para você.

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
Cheeto (2020-01-26 17:29:17+00:00): mostly building alignments?
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=80103820
Andrea Del Sarto (2020-02-06 13:59:12+00:00): salve, ho visto che hai modificato la relation del sentiero ret 141. su quali basi? 
le parti erano state taggate come inesistenti in realtà ci sono ma sono inagibili.
la traccia ufficiale ret non è quella di adesso.
attendo tue grazie
freebeer (2020-03-28 13:40:19+00:00): ciao mcheck,

in this changeset you deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316490717/history based on the contents of a note that i cannot be arsed to find, but there is definitely a path that i was able to walk, even if the previously mapped path is probably missing some switchbacks and now that all the trees are burnt, would benefit from a GPS survey.

I walked the bath with no GPS and no map, knowing it had been present in OSM, but while any markings and signposts may have been burnt, it is clear that it has been well used recently, also with fallen burnt trees arranged along either side as a guide.

I suspect the note and previous revision were based shortly after the fire, and that the way has since been cleared and often used.

I don't know if I should undelete this way and restore it even if not precise, or attempt to make a GPS trace, barefoot, uphill with a full backpack of beer, on the rocks.

if i write a script to show resolved notes in the area, i'll link that particular note in a later comment.

grazie...
skyper (2020-01-28 00:12:37+00:00): Hi Uli
Hier ist wohl was schief gelaufen.
Kannst Du Dir die Mülleimer nochmal anschauen? Entweder muss der Bussteig verschoben werden oder die Mülleimer.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7160806048
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7160806044

Auch sind hier etliche kerbs im Niemandsland z.B.:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7160806049
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7160806049 und mehr.

sloped_curb= ist durch kerb= ersetz worden, somit bitte nur kerb= verwenden.

Ciao skyper
Dr Udo Brömme (2020-01-27 04:03:37+00:00): Hallo schoka,

mein Einwand ist nicht persönlich, sondern generell gemeint: Ist es wirklich sinnvoll so eine Aufräumaktion per Maproulette zu machen? Mit JOSM hat man doch viel mehr Überblick und fühlt sich eher berufen, auch noch in der Umgebung zu bearbeiten.

Viele Grüße
user_10241830 (2020-01-27 11:53:07+00:00): Hallo, an meinen Vorredner:

Grundsätzlich sind derartige Bearbeitungen nicht falsch, aber: nach meiner Erfahrung gibt es kaum noch reine Altenheime in Deutschland mehr, und wenn, dann unter Marketingbegriffen wie "Servicewohnen". Ich tagge grundsätzlich auf Verdacht alle derartigen Einrichtungen für ältere Menschen als Pflegeheime, außer ich weiß ganz genau, dass dort keine Pflege geleistet wird (ist, wie gesagt, die Ausnahme). Das war schon vorher so getaggt, ist also kein Fehler des hiesigen Kollegen, ich wollte aber darauf hinweisen.
schoka (2020-02-01 15:15:03+00:00): Veraltete Eigenschaften auf aktuelle (hier:amenity=social facility anstatt reirement_home) zu ändern halte ich nach wie vor für sinnvoll - egal wo und egal von wem. Ob nun über overpass oder Maproullette, egal ob JOSM oder ID, ist eine Frage der persönlichen Einstellung. Über was man diskutieren kann, ist natürlich eine Verbesserung von social_facility=group_home (Seniorenheim). Hier ist mehr lokales Wissen gefragt, aber schlechter habe ich es hoffentlich nicht gemacht. 
Wenn im Namen Pflegeheim steht, habe ich z.B. social_facility=nursing_home genommen. 
Verbesserungsvorschläge nehme ich gerne an und hoffe auf Dr. Udo Brömme oder andere lokale Mapper die Eigenschaften weiter zu verbessern.
viloan (2020-01-26 17:39:58+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt
Se você está mapeando por causa do jogo do Harry Potter, as dicas e explicações na página anterior também são úteis para você.

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
viloan (2020-01-26 17:40:00+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt
Se você está mapeando por causa do jogo do Harry Potter, as dicas e explicações na página anterior também são úteis para você.

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
pangoSE (2020-01-26 18:08:38+00:00): Välkommen till OSM! Hör av dig om du behöver hjälp med något på epostlistan eller i facebookgruppen.
Sanniu (2020-01-28 08:23:30+00:00): Welcome to OSM!
Please adhere to Israel naming conventions: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Israel#Naming
ofirl24 (2020-01-28 08:27:26+00:00): got it,
sorry, will pay more attention next time :)
Sanniu (2020-01-28 08:28:24+00:00): No problem, there is some learning curve here ;)
azakh-world (2020-01-27 12:00:13+00:00): Hello.
What about using "boundary=disputed" tag or similar? I'm among those data consumers who counts countries as relations tagged with type=boundary + boundary=administrative + admin_level=2.

BR,
Alexey
Verdy_p (2020-01-27 13:25:12+00:00): it was already decided (I did not change that, there was already a polygon about it) that they would be isolated at admin_level 2 (even if they are not isolated as recognized states); this is also true for other condominiums (e.g. between Luxembourg and Germany, or between France and Spain), and in other disputed areas (e.g. between China and India or Pakistan and India, or Sudan and South Sudan, or Sudan and Egypt);
Note that the recognized countries can overlap in these areas, according to the wiki This is here an unsolved case with not even a clear "de facto" state, just peaceful cooperation between the two countries in this area.
There are other disputed areas in the world, msot of them maritime on the EEZ or the continental plate extensions.
Verdy_p (2020-01-27 13:26:27+00:00): Note that if you want to list countries only, you just need to exclude those areas with disputed=yes; but the countries will still overlap in those areas.
Verdy_p (2020-01-27 13:28:23+00:00): The purpose of this edit was to change a polygon into a relation, so they qhare the same border ways, and allow easy addition or removal of these areas without creationg gaps, depending on intended use if someoneone doesn't want these overlaps that may be listed separately.
azakh-world (2020-01-27 15:13:23+00:00): I claim that "type=boundary + boundary=administrative + admin_level=2" tag combination denotes a country feature on the map. Thus, in my vision, you've just created a new country. Please show me in the wiki where disputed territories are recommended to be tagged as countries.
Condominium Lëtzebuerg-Deutschland (relation 3659532) has admin_level=6. Another disputed territory Islote de Perejil (relation 8692572) has boundary=claim, not administrative. May be this is the way to tag?
Verdy_p (2020-01-27 15:28:15+00:00): it was *already* with admin_level 2 (as a single polygon redrawn over the existing boundaries... It was then still already like a "country", it already had a tag "disputed".

The admin_level to give to this is not clear, the condominium at level 6 is not even better and even more wrong because it is an mutual agreement between countries and not subject to the local regulations, and admin_levels between Luxembourg and Germany do not match (so it should also be at admin_level 2, certainly not 6 and not any level > 2).
It's a fact that these agreed or dicputed areas are delimtied by national borders, beyond which there's no dispute and a single national juridiction and regulation possible at more local levels.
Nakaner (2020-01-27 18:07:31+00:00): Hi Verdy_p,

boundary=administrative + admin_level=2 should only be tagged to relations of type=boundary which represent a country claiming independence, controlling its territory and being recognised as sovereign countries (their is grey area in between, e.g. the status of Taiwan, Abkhazia).

This area up in the mountains is not an INDEPENDENT or some kind of independent country. Its just an overlap of claimed territories as it happened multiple times around the world. That's why I changed its tagging in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80156401

It can be compared with the overlap between Slovenia and Croatia or Germany and The Netherlands. The condominium of Germany and Luxemburg is different. They control the river together and the area is a special, non-existent "Kreis" (admin level 6) in Germany.

I hereby ask you not to attempt to restore this fictional country. You have been blocked for other editing disputes in the past recently and I advise you take a break, not to edit for a week and rethink whether all these people around you are really wrong. Thank you.

This dispute was mentioned at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-January/050659.html

Best regards

Michael
Verdy_p (2020-01-27 18:12:56+00:00): I have NOT created it, it was already there as a polygon (single closed way) where I merged its touching ways, and had *already* these tags.
Look at the history of ways correctly
Verdy_p (2020-01-27 18:15:53+00:00): I kept it by removing duplicated overstroke ways and moving them to a relation with the same tags (admin_level=2 and boundary=adminitrative, and its existing names and wiki links, that are unchanged).
May be now you want it to have other tags, but these are not the tags I chose myself. I can if you wzant change it to boundary=disputed if you don't like the admin*, and remove the admin_levels on the relation.
Verdy_p (2020-01-27 18:16:28+00:00): So I've not invented anything. Complain to the other user that created it first.
Verdy_p (2020-01-27 18:17:47+00:00): This was made by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50859732
Alecs01 (2020-01-27 18:48:45+00:00): To be precise, those areas were not created  by me https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/375582882/history https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/375582883/history what I did there, if I well remember, was to restore some deleted boundaries. And I agree with the above comments, this area should not be mapped as it was an independent country.
SomeoneElse (2020-01-27 20:15:16+00:00): @Verdy_p I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you owe the author of changeset 50859732 an apology, since that does not create an extra relation tagged with type=boundary + boundary=administrative + admin_level=2.  For completeness see http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=10629103 , http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=375582882 and http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=375582883 .  Also (since it was mentioned elsewhere) see http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=7357659 .
Verdy_p (2020-01-27 20:58:26+00:00): To be precise, what was before was not a "relation", but a closed way iwith these tags, that was drawn over existing boundaries and causing geometric problems that were left, possibly after your partial revert.
I checked the boundaries there because it created conflicts, but did not ask why ther was this polygon, which is still a true dispute.
I only cleaned up the geometry, this changed the closed polygon into a relation with the same tags.
Alecs01 (2020-01-27 21:26:22+00:00): It’s normal people may disagree on tagging, but I can’t see any trace of your claim that this particular tagging existed already, which is the id of the closed way you name here? See the above links, you did not touch anything else here or before.
Verdy_p (2020-01-27 22:59:44+00:00): There's been lot of modifs from various users here. with some deletions. Because I have splitted the closed way to merge the existing unclosed claimed boundaries, several were deleted. But I can't even see those that were deleted (because of duplication after merge) even by me. Has there been a redaction process that hides some edits?
Unfortunately I've not recorded the way id concerned.
Note also that the supposed claim from France is smaller and not reflected in the French cadastre; if you see the recent edits I made there to improve rthe boundary (that were roughtly estimated and visibly drawn by hand, It now matches the French cadastre for the French claim (southern most limit. I've still not redrawn the Italian clamed border (northern borders).
You can see the the French claim on Monte Blanco di Courmayer is the North-Eastern half of the glacier and not the whole.
Also the borders are not exactly the ridge but follow paths along and sometimles around the summits.
If you are not sure compare with the French cadastre (this does not limit to use the Italian Cadastro to place their own limit, but the French claim is correct.
Also using imagery here (even the best one aviable here: BDOrtho) still shows some parallax, so tracing the visible ridges would not be absolutely exact. The only accurate measures are made on the field with precise GPS and reported on cadastral documents. It's hard to get an imagery that reflects everything exactly, even if the border "should" (may be?) follow the natural ridge.
Note: I have no interest to the dispute even if I'm French, I think this area should be comanaged by the three surrounding countries, for the best protection of the area. And in all cases the three countries cooperate largely for this protection and security, and search/rescue operations. Only the buildings (refuges, meterorological stations, and other security equipements are owned by one country or another and they respect each other and inform each other when needed)
SomeoneElse (2020-01-28 01:02:48+00:00): > Has there been a redaction process that hides some edits? 
No.  Even if there had been, you'd still be abe to browse to the changeset and see the relevant object, just not its contents.
Verdy_p (2020-01-28 02:31:58+00:00): So I have to search manually in lot of objects in many changesets... There must be one way at least that appears (I searched with Whodidit, many changesets are not visible there, possibly a database problem not revealing them, with too many edits at that period or in an unprocessed large diff; I note that the databse has some lags)
user_5359 (2020-01-26 18:37:29+00:00): Willkommen bei OSM! Bitte vergleiche Deinen Eintrag mal mit dem Knoten https://www.osm.org/node/2955591618 ob dies nicht eine Dublette sein könnte.
Davide Lasagna (2020-01-30 09:50:25+00:00): Hi Verdy_p, 

I am not sure adding a further boundary is a good approach to address the fact that this is a disputed area. I think it creates a bit of confusion in the map, rather than resolving the issue. 

Do you think having one boundary "somewhere in the middle" would be a better idea? Or, is there a tag we can use for one of the boundaries, e.g. "boundary_disputed" or something like this?

Best regards,

davide
mweper (2020-01-28 16:35:53+00:00): Tengo entendido que el nombre actual es sólo "Avenida de la Costa" y el nombre anterior fue "Estanislao López", por eso se utilizan las etiquetas "name" y "old_name".
A menos que aparezca con los 2 nombres en los carteles, por favor, ver de revertir el nombre a como estaba en la edición anterior para evitar confusiones.