piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ianc (2022-03-14 22:56:27+00:00): Yeah, that's not the right way to do crossing - that should be on the node. Footway is for public rights of way. It was impossible to pull out rights of way since Designation hardly ever gets filled in (although I have fixed a lot of that now).
LordGarySugar (2022-03-14 23:13:22+00:00): I strongly disagree. The OSM Wiki clearly suggests tagging the crossing as a way as well (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Crossings) and pavements should be tagged highway=footway + footway=sidewalk (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway); as is the broad consensus of the community. There is no justification behind deleting crossings which breaks pedestrian routing at junctions or changing footways to paths which introduces ambiguity over the intended users of the pavement (a path suggests a multi-use way open to bicycles where a footway does not)
ianc (2022-03-15 00:08:31+00:00): Well somebody needs to update the interface and its guides, since footway has foot=designated as an assumed value just as bridleway has horse=designated.  All I know is that it was all but impossible to extract usable rights of way data that wasn't riddled with errors, so I fixed them in the clearest and most consistent way I could that was also consistent with the instructions in the editor.
I can see a case for including a way where there is a clearly separated refuge crossed by a longer path, but none whatsoever where there is no other path or footway.
But what do I know. I just found a whole load of villages hamlets in the heart of England that nobody had ever bothered mapping. I'm beginning to remember why.
LordGarySugar (2022-03-15 00:41:08+00:00): Public rights of ways have a specific tag 'prow_ref' and designation=* for a reason, to be able to differentiate public footpaths from pavements and other general footpaths. These can then be easily extracted into useful data by excluding highway=footway without these tags, for example in this overpass turbo query (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gSJ) which only shows highway=footway with a prow_ref tag. All you would need to do to clear up these 'errors' would be to simply add designation=public_footpath and prow_ref=* and leave everything else untouched. Also, deleting things because you in particular don't see a case for it is uncalled for and extremely selfish.

If you ever need advice on how to solve a problem you have with using OSM data, feel free to ask, as arguments like these could have been easily avoided if you simply asked for advice before going around changing thousands of footways.
ianc (2022-03-15 11:39:59+00:00): What do you think I have been trying to do? I couldn't get clean data. So cleaned it.

But anyway, you are mistaken. The Wiki gives your method as an *alternative* and clearly states that other methods are not deprecated (sidenote: St A is the only place I have seen this method, but I don't map areas I'm not familar with). Also, path+sidewalk renders perfectly well and is much easier to distinguish from the PRoWs when styling downloaded data that has been neglected for years. 

Given that a big fat chunk of St Albans and district is mapped only because I spent weeks doing it in the early days (and recently corrected one of my own 9-year-old errors), and the area I am now is only not 5 years out of date because I do it, we'll have a little less of the of the patronising twattery please.
SomeoneElse (2022-03-15 13:42:21+00:00): Er, I don't think that an attempt to explain really comes under the heading of "patronising twattery".  I get that you don't like being told that you're wrong, but that's no reason to fling insults around.
SomeoneElse (2022-03-15 13:48:18+00:00): The reason why highway=path is less used in England and Wales is partly historical and partly that an access tag is needed here to distiguish foot=yes from =permissive etc.
highway=path can't have both foot=designated (saying it is really a footpath not a cycleway) and foot=permissive or =yes (for the legal access rights).
This isn't a problem where there are sensible access rules like Sweden or Scotland, but it is in England and Wales.
ianc (2022-03-15 14:51:36+00:00): I realise that people who think they own the project don't often react well when they get pushback against their recipe for confusion, but that is the perennial problem with open source projects, and the reason so many editors have just walked away. The number of areas that are badly undermapped or just years out of date speaks to the crisis in editor numbers that has been noted in the press.  This sort of nonsense is why.

I found a load of wildly inaccurate and incomplete information in an area where I have deep roots. I fixed it, taking guidance from the system, in a consistent way that made sense, but not going outside areas I am not familiar with. In my own time, like everyone else.  So if you are going to patronise, do not be surprised at the reaction.
SomeoneElse (2022-03-15 15:14:24+00:00): > I fixed it

I don't think that you did.  Deleting some crossings in the centre of Wheathampstead suggests https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=51.81562%2C-0.29308%3B51.81537%2C-0.29267 as a preferred route by foot, rather than via https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8963157060 .
jpennycook (2022-03-08 17:11:18+00:00): Hi!
I see you've change a service road, which is used to access some houses, to a path.  This will probably affect deliveries to them by parcel companies that use OpenStreetMap (since their journey planning system won't sent vans down a path).

Jon
mueschel (2022-03-19 13:45:51+00:00): Could you check this node, it got a strange tag:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2254858920
  Zabobrze = Pastylka
user_5359 (2022-03-13 07:51:43+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1038238308. What is the meaning of the tag intermittentnam = yes?
rmikke (2022-04-01 22:43:33+00:00): Hejka :)
Tym dwóm aptekom dałeś ten sam ref:csioz:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5041475222
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5759594736
Cristoffs (2022-04-03 14:36:03+00:00): Już poprawiłem. Sprawdź jeśli możesz.
user_2066394 (2022-03-09 16:56:48+00:00): Mit der Taste Q kannst du Gebäude orthogonalisieren/die Ecken rechtwinklig machen.
eggie (2022-03-11 07:56:58+00:00): Why unnecessary?
C_nav (2022-03-14 04:03:15+00:00): Hi eggie, I removed a few backyard roads (alleys) which I created as residential ways.
eggie (2022-03-08 13:13:38+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback...  Wat heb je nu willen toevoegen?

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-03-08 13:17:34+00:00): Het IJsvogelpad zal niet routeren, want de Joseph Corneli Allée staat op slot achter de slagboom.
Is dit wel correct? Er lopen hier fiet- en wandelroutes.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-03-08 13:24:45+00:00): De eerste 'slagboom' heb ik verwijderd. Die is er niet meer volgens mij. access private verwijderd.
Op het vervolg dat nog op access=private staat heb ik foot=permissive getagd zodat de wandelroutes niet zijn onderbroken. 
Mocht je meer info hebben graag. 
Gr eggie
Timmido (2022-03-08 13:37:26+00:00): Hallo!

In eerste instantie had ik een voetpad willen toevoegen vanaf het ijsvogelpad naar Sint Gerlach / Strabeek.

Een 2e aanpassing was inderdaad het weghalen van de blokkering want daar lopen fiets en voetgangerspaden die gewoon voor iedereen toegankelijk zijn.
Timmido (2022-03-08 13:39:21+00:00): De slagboom is er wel nog maar die is voor fietsers en voetgangers nvt. Het is alleen voor hotelgasten naar het Chateau st gerlach die zich daar moeten melden.
eggie (2022-03-08 14:04:56+00:00): Oke....  Dan zal het in ieder geval voortaan routeren. 
Bedankt voor de info. 

MVG
eggie
praeteritum (2023-06-21 05:53:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 137587850.
ivanbranco (2022-04-11 18:27:21+00:00): Hi Sakweb,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9562541718/history

what's this suburb name?
xkillah (2022-07-16 07:49:36+00:00): Hey. Why name:ru was removed?
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
BCNorwich (2022-03-09 08:13:43+00:00): Hi, are you sure the steps go all the way past the hospital? Also you've placed the steps on top of the existing highway (motorable road), the highway or part of it should be removed. I can help if you wish.

Regards Bernard.
AshKechummm (2022-03-09 10:14:03+00:00): I'm sure the steps go all the way past the hospital onto Raintree Marg, since I live nearby. I would like help with removing the road in that section since I'm inexperienced with OpenStreetMap and don't know how to remove features. There are more wrongly marked motorable roads in this region which I will remove soon once i get more experience.

Thanks for offering help, Bernard!

Ash.
BCNorwich (2022-03-09 13:54:39+00:00): Hello Ash, I've removed the section of road where the steps are. Need any more help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.
AshKechummm (2022-03-09 16:26:21+00:00): thanks for removing it! I learnt how to remove roads as well, so i'll be removing any other wrongly marked roads myself soon.

once again, thanks!
Ash.
cserpell (2022-03-08 19:55:49+00:00): La ciclovía quedó desconectada del resto del mapa. Habría que conectarla a las calles y cruces peatonales, supongo.
gordo anorexico (2022-03-09 01:26:11+00:00): Hola, la ciclovía se corta y continua después más adelante
cserpell (2022-03-09 13:36:12+00:00): La conecté usando highway=footway , de manera que quede conectada al resto del mapa. Además aproveché de agregar la costanera de esa manera y algunos cruces peatonales.
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
tomhukins (2022-03-12 17:08:01+00:00): Hi, thank you for all your helpful changes near Hopton recently.  I notice you have tagged several agricultural fields as "landuse=grass".  Although these areas have a grass surface, I wonder whether something like "landuse=meadow" and "meadow=pasture" would be more descriptive given the descriptions on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dmeadow - what do you think?
praeteritum (2023-06-20 06:02:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 137544788.
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
joost schouppe (2022-03-08 15:33:50+00:00): Hoi Hilde,
Bedankt voor je bijdrage! Is dit laadpunt werkelijk in het gebouw? En is het voor iedereen toegankelijk?
Hilde De Laet (2022-03-10 07:34:23+00:00): Dag Joost,
Ik heb het aangepast, icoon had ik inderdaad verkeerd geplaatst. Het oplaadpunt staat buiten. Iedereen kan het gebruiken tijdens de openingsuren van Hidrodoe.
joost schouppe (2022-03-10 08:08:51+00:00): Hartelijk dank, Hilde!
Ik heb de openingsuren toegevoegd (nogal complexe uren, dus met een andere tool). Ik heb een en ander aangevuld op basis van de foto's op Mapillary. Kan jij eventueel nog eens nakijken?
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
praeteritum (2023-06-20 06:01:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 137544768.
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
Hb- (2022-12-29 09:02:54+00:00): Mit dieser Änderung wurde die Fernwanderweg E6-Relation unterbrochen. Ursächlich war das Löschen von https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33791807 . Dies geschah Zusammenfügen/Kombinieren mit dem östlich angrenzenden Straßenabschnitt 651570433.
Die Automatiken in JOSM haben diesen Fehler nicht erkannt, weil der Wanderweg nur auf einem Teil des kombinierten Weges verläuft. 
Daher bleibt die Kontrolle durch den Anwender geboten.

Die Wiederherstellung ist erfolgt mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130633982
praeteritum (2023-06-11 04:38:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 137190642.
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
praeteritum (2023-06-10 06:40:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 137160914.
gscholz (2022-03-09 05:37:07+00:00): Hi Saftirta Gatra,
your recent changesets have creates errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=110.55103&lat=-7.38352&zoom=12&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points,single_node_in_way,duplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=118236117

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
praeteritum (2023-06-09 06:25:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 137121283.
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
praeteritum (2023-06-08 05:48:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 137079773.
eggie (2022-03-08 13:27:32+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback  Alle adresnodes zijn directe import vanuit het kadaster, Deze beter nier veranderen in een ander adres. 
Wanneer de 	Shoeby verdwijnt graag het adres intact laten. Een adres blijft natuurlijk gewoon bestaan.
MVG



Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-03-08 13:35:18+00:00): adres 45 en adres 2cgall en gall hersteld..
Dat was de verkeerde postcode en straatnaam. ....gebruik svp de bestaande adresnodes
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
user_5359 (2022-03-09 11:28:54+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1038255408/history. I remove the key OpenStreetMap = Polska. Was this a copy & paste error?
ptarac (2022-03-09 11:35:21+00:00): Oops... Yes. This is definitely a copy & paste error. Thanks for pointing out this error.
eggie (2022-03-08 13:43:42+00:00): Dag Zutphen.. Het HeelHuus Gezondheidscentrum  in Warnsveld heb ik weer hersteld. Je had de tag building=yes verwijderd.
Dan rendert een gebouw niet meer. 
De info van de instelling staat nu op de adresnode.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-03-08 13:44:08+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/260012222#map=17/52.13401/6.22541
user_5359 (2022-03-10 17:44:44+00:00): Hello! Please what is the meaning on wterway = unclassified ?
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
MxxCon (2022-03-09 00:59:25+00:00): hello.
Could you please elaborate why did you change access tag here? Shouldn't this be tagged as "private" rather than "no"?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118236945
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
DaveF (2022-03-14 14:25:35+00:00): Hi
Unfortunately this is still incorrect. It should be 'water' not waterway for closed polygons. The linear centreline representing the flow should be 'waterway'
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
gscholz (2022-03-11 05:53:27+00:00): Hi Mia Guspitasari,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=106.78476&lat=-6.53652&zoom=17&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points,single_node_in_way,duplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=118237166

Can you please fix this?
Kind Regards
 Guido
user_5359 (2022-03-10 17:45:25+00:00): Hello! Please what is the meaning on wterway = unclassified ?
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
praeteritum (2023-06-07 05:30:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 137039789.
Marek-M (2022-03-08 20:16:07+00:00): Pętla autobusowa powinna być raczej oznaczona jako highway=service + ewentualnie access=no+psv=yes jeżeli znaki zabraniają tam wjazdu. Skrzyżowanie ul. Żuławskiej  i Malowniczej z pętlą autobusową lepiej jest zrobić pod kątem prostym. Dzięki temu nawigacja lepiej zrozumie jak tam można wjechać.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118237418
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
zluuzki (2022-03-08 14:33:19+00:00): You don't know what railway=abandoned means. It means: Demolished railway, but still traces. Obvious traces here are the shapes of buildings (especially at osm.org/#map=17/33.73655/-84.40938) and other things. There is more than 400,000 km of railway=abandoned worldwide mapped, the data is rendered by openrailwaymap.org. Whats your problem with such data?
I restored the tracks at the linked area, as there isn't any good reason to delete these.
CorruptComputer (2022-03-08 14:50:41+00:00): You should map what is on the ground, these lines are unverifiable since the tracks have been removed. Speculation using the building shapes is not a good reason to add these.

See for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability

If you would like to map historical features please use OHM instead of OSM: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-03-08 15:00:15+00:00): railway=abandoned makes sense where there are actual traces (cuttings for example) and hopefully vast majority of 400 000 km mapped fulfills this.

building shapes are very dubious, for example from looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/33.73655/-84.40938 I am not rally able to spot where railway was supposed to be present in the past

> Whats your problem with such data? 

Verifiability, encourages to map additional features that are not existing anymore and were destroyed without leaving any clear traces

note that "XYZ exists somewhere" is not a valid reason to keep it, for example there are several thousands not yet reverted data violating OSM license somewhere which will be reverted once spotted

The same applies to razed railway lines demolished without leaving traces and other similar objects (let me know if you know about any such objects in Poland - I will delete them)
zluuzki (2022-03-08 16:05:43+00:00): No. The tracks i restored are definitly verifiable, with very clear traces. There are even existing track remnants on the linked area (which you deleted too). And there is the USGS topo map layer from the 80s. And then there are older USGS aerial images, public domain too. The "verifiability" is not a problem at all.
"let me know if you know about any such objects in Poland - I will delete them" - Yes, deleting other peoples work is fun.
CorruptComputer (2022-03-08 16:43:38+00:00): Rather than argue about it (I don't think that would accomplish anything here) I reached out to the DWG to weigh in on the issue. I'll hold off on any changes regarding these until hearing back from them.
zluuzki (2022-03-08 17:09:43+00:00): Don't they have anything better to do than deciding if these ten restored tracks can be kept? 
If someone removes what i restored at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118239176 i will treat it as vandalism (deletion of valid data) - because "arguing wouldn't acomplish anything".
CorruptComputer (2022-03-08 17:54:06+00:00): I agree they have better things to do than to decide on these 10 specific train tracks. 

Good thing I asked a different question though: more broadly than this example, does historical train track data like this belong in OSM?

Not saying which way they will decide on it, but I do want to clarify this as well: 

If the DWG says that these don't belong in OSM, be prepared for them to be removed. 

Likewise if they say its fine in OSM, I'll leave them and won't remove any others.
zluuzki (2022-03-08 19:02:07+00:00): "Do abandoned railroads belong into OSM?"
Well, i see it that way: railway=abandoned primarily says "Here (On the ground, in 2022!) are some traces of an old RR". The traces here are the building shapes - they weren't built to look cool, they were built to have good rail access while using a minimum of space. Not to mention the track remnants at https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?#map=21/33.73612/-84.41221

Also, the DWG can't say "This belongs into OSM and this not." They revert vandalism/copyright violations. What belongs into OSM - the community decides it - and the community decided: Everything on the ground can be mapped.
There is also a "sub"-community of rail mappers, and most of them also say former tracks like this should be mapped.