piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
TomPar (2022-02-09 18:31:34+00:00): I only continue to push this "for fun", not that I care all that much but.  I'd rather focus on the many "public parcels" yet to be fully mapped in OSM for instance.

I think there is sometimes a tagging semantics nihilism that occurs with such debates...edge cases and a desire to be completely logically self-consistent results in tagging that is unintuitive.  Yes, of course, it's not just strictly residents that can traverse "access=private", but it's VERY commonly understood that non-residents like those you pointed out can access the driveway for a relatively narrow set of purposes: walk up drive to return that lost dog? That's ok.  Have a party in a stranger's driveway with 10 of your friends?  Not so much. 

To make a ridiculous counter-argument: it's generally OK to make a "U" turn by briefly turning into someone's driveway and backing up...especially in a rural area.  As the driver wasn't driving the 100m up the driveway to the "destination" "access=destination" does not properly capture all the legal/socially acceptable ways that the driveway can be used.

Why can't "access=private" just be how it's presently defined in the wiki: "not to be used by the general public".  A friend or delivery person is not "the general public".  Granted, this is a bit ambiguous.  But I'd argue for a project like OSM, it's better to have simpler, more intuitive user-friendly tagging than obtuse alternatives that are more "technically correct" but require researching threads on Slack to understand.  Anyways...thanks for the discussion.
A Hall (2022-02-09 20:31:38+00:00): Agreed. I love clarity. I'm surprised OSM doesn't have more of it. I wish they had taken more time to define best practices before rolling out new tagging features. Something as simple as marking a tennis court (does each individual court get tagged, with a sports complex surrounding it?) doesn't have consensus, although it would have been extremely easy to write a definable wiki before people went off tagging.
abrensch (2022-02-14 10:34:43+00:00): Hallo FraukeLeo,

diese Kreuzung funktioniert so nicht:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/10075677

Gruss, Arndt
FraukeLeo (2022-02-14 12:05:07+00:00): Hallo Arndt, du hast recht, aber ich wars nicht :) soweit ich sehe, wurde in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222813173 der nach Osten führende Way gelöscht und der Rest dann geradegezogen. Ich flick das mal.
eggie (2022-02-08 20:52:14+00:00): Beste... Dit is echt niet correct. Het zet mensen op het verkeerde been. Die denken dat hier een ziekenhuis is.
Kijk eens hier  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility

De ziekenhuistag zal ik verwijderen.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-02-08 20:57:42+00:00): Info samengevoegd met adresnode.. Ziekenhuistagging verwijderd
eggie (2022-02-08 20:49:48+00:00): Je vraagt feedback.. Lijkt me helemaal correct.
Gr eggie
Enock4seth (2022-02-08 21:21:02+00:00): Please be careful with existing objects, not to damage them. I have reviewed and reverted this changeset.
AlizwelDigital (2022-02-08 21:25:50+00:00): Noted
Enock4seth (2022-02-08 21:28:05+00:00): Great! LearnOSM is a good starting resource  https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/
Enock4seth (2022-02-08 21:19:37+00:00): Welcome to OSM, and thanks for mapping. Kindly use TitleCase for naming i.e. Gbese Mantse Palace instead ALLCAPS
eggie (2022-02-08 21:04:39+00:00): Dag Information.. Het is even de vraag of de functie name=shelter op de kaart hoort. Beter description=   gebruiken.
Een weg onder een gebouw tag je met tunnel=building_passage  De eindnodes aan het gebouw vastmaken.
Gr eggie
eggie (2022-02-08 21:20:58+00:00): Als voorbeeld bij het oostelijke gebouw tunnel=building_passage toegevoegd.
Information01 (2022-02-09 07:23:28+00:00): Aangepast.
kartler175 (2022-02-27 12:56:56+00:00): Please check your edits and fix problems:
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-79.87707&lat=46.19830&zoom=10&opacity=0.95
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-81.73364&lat=46.06498&zoom=13&opacity=0.95
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-76.14819&lat=46.38437&zoom=12&opacity=0.95
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-84.11987&lat=48.30352&zoom=14&opacity=0.95
wireguy (2022-03-07 19:29:59+00:00): relation 9266673 Nipissing—Timiskaming  is broken
NFZANMNIM (2022-03-07 20:15:26+00:00): fixed it, thanks
Lee Carré (2022-02-09 09:01:20+00:00): “Add missing benches (Europe)”

😮?! all of them?! 🤯🥳
lukabułka (2022-02-09 10:24:58+00:00): no, he added only 12 of them
user_12887748 (2022-02-09 12:07:38+00:00): As many as possible. Not all.
Lee Carré (2022-02-10 06:21:49+00:00): Only a few million to go 😄.
RaccoonFederation (2022-02-10 11:19:32+00:00): Does anyone know who created the mission?
user_12887748 (2022-02-10 12:14:49+00:00): Yes, I created the mission. I hope there is no problem with that?
RaccoonFederation (2022-02-10 12:22:44+00:00): It's a great mission, just could it be smaller next time rather than the whole of europe at once?
user_12887748 (2022-02-10 12:39:06+00:00): Yes you're right. I saw there were problems loading the Mission. Next time i'll make it smaller.
Lee Carré (2022-02-14 20:51:46+00:00): Much smaller changeset areas would be good, too: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
user_12887748 (2022-02-15 07:58:43+00:00): Yes, I've already removed the Europe mission, cause I've got feedback, that it is to big. Now there are tasks for Germany and Poland is this to big too? I'm not sure.
eggie (2022-02-08 21:10:32+00:00): Hier heb ik de lege node weer verwijderd. De info staat al op de adresnode.  Die zie je dan niet als huisnummer, maar dar klopt.
In OSM hoef je geen adressen aan te maken. Die zijn er al.
gr eggie
mariotomo (2022-08-01 14:37:29+00:00): hi. very late to ask you, but can you help me review this contribution? what is it that you attempted to do? when I see you're correcting a "route" I would expect an action on a relation, not on a set of ways.
mariotomo (2022-08-01 14:39:29+00:00): oh, never mind, I see that your action has been reverted in changeset 117951265
danieldegroot2 (2022-02-08 23:19:57+00:00): Use good changeset comments, please. See this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Be sure to reply to this message so other mappers know you have read it.

Regards,

Daniel

-
Find OpenStreetMap communities nearby:
https://openstreetmap.community/?map=10.40286,-61.25722&zoom=7.86
joshuarshah (2022-02-09 00:16:11+00:00): Noted. Sorry about that.
yasobara (2022-02-09 18:10:38+00:00): Please keep this railway as under construction until its official date of opening. Railway=construction.
Natfoot (2022-02-09 18:51:11+00:00): No. trains are now active on this line and it is functional and usable. Please set the construction to the relation as that attribute of use of light rail line continues to be under construction.
yasobara (2022-02-09 19:01:28+00:00): I disagree.
Just because trains are running on the track doesn't mean the construction is complete.
Sound Transit's web page shows this track as in "construction phase". 
https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/east-link-extension/timeline-milestones
Natfoot (2022-02-09 19:07:32+00:00): It would be more appropriate to set to light_rail but I have chosen not brake some routing options that might suggest it being open. But "we do not edit maps for the renderer." Or the implied meaning of a render.  I will agree that both lifecycle tags and railroad tags are different in the way tags things from other features.  It is important to supply as much detail to a map.
Natfoot (2022-02-09 19:10:34+00:00): We are not arguing over the official definition.   We are arguing over how it is defined to be mapped by OSM. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Drail  
As OSM maps what is on the ground. Not an official measure from a governmental source.   I would encourage you to edit the relation as that is the place to make those marks.
Natfoot (2022-02-09 19:14:49+00:00): The line feature is a description of what we see on the ground.  That is the way I enforce this. If you have a problem with this please bring it up within the community. I encourage you to do so as I think the life cycle tagging needs some support.
yasobara (2022-02-09 19:29:33+00:00): I disagree again. Read Tag:highway=construction, it says “This tag is used together with construction=* for any type of highway, including roads, tracks and paths, currently under construction and impassable by the traffic it is intended for.…If you know the date at which a construction site is expected to be completed, you can tag it with opening_date=*.” So until it is open for the traffic it is intended for, it is under construction.
Natfoot (2022-02-09 19:46:17+00:00): I disagree https://www.instagram.com/p/CZu8k5-lGHp/ 
It is passible.
yasobara (2022-02-09 19:54:04+00:00): It is clear to me that construction phase is not complete until it is open to general public. That is what matters to the users of a map.
Natfoot (2022-02-09 19:54:33+00:00): Vehicles can now move freely along the corridor. The construction has ended to the point that allows traffic to move. There for the corridor is passible by rail traffic. Even if the use of the light rail vehicles has not changed to allow passengers.
Natfoot (2022-02-09 19:55:47+00:00): The user of the map need to know to expect rail traffic from any direction at any time on active rail and that is more important for safety than the interpretation of the map for passenger use.
Natfoot (2022-02-09 20:01:35+00:00): Again please add that detail of the opening date and the continued construction to the attributes of the relation related to the Sound Transit rail line.
Natfoot (2022-02-09 20:02:54+00:00): I have request others to look at this for some mediation.
yasobara (2022-02-09 20:23:20+00:00): Sound good.
stevea (2022-02-10 01:42:06+00:00): This seems like it is whether a single railway element has a construction tag or not.  Somebody said, "there is this kind of railway here."  One segment at a time, it is or isn't construction=*.  Say so.  Leave on the tag, take off the tag.  Up to you locally.  One tag at a time, if you have to.  Vehicles on it?  In an "early test," yeah, new track has to have vehicles upon it for the first time someday.
stevea (2022-02-10 03:25:17+00:00): All that is being "said so" here is whether there is rail.  Nothing is said of passenger service or open-to-public as something-else.

Testing of infrastructure happens.  If there are test vehicles upon the rail, remove any construction tag.  A route relation for passengers is in the future as of now.  Theis is "alpha test of welds for structural integrity, safety and signals/switches" stuff, done with an un-humaned robot car with cameras going slow, I'd guess.  So take off any proposed tag on that (those) element(s) of railway=rail.
stevea (2022-02-10 04:51:08+00:00): If I were to look for a parallel, I'd say this Bellevue-Redmond-area line is somewhere about 6 to 9 months ahead of where something like the Redlands line is going (somewhere in 2022, maybe 2023):  "emerging local passenger rail" of a light-rail nature.  Our wiki and map more-or-less capture this, but it's all rough.  What is built in OSM can be used from OSM.
stevea (2022-02-12 10:16:04+00:00): To wrap it up, for any given segment of rail in OSM where traffic is seen on the line, remove its construction tags (no longer railway=construction + construction=light_rail, rather simply railway=light_rail.

This is NOT the same as OSM denoting this is open for passenger service, it simply means "no longer under construction."  When vehicles are being tested upon it, that's no longer construction (and Nat is correct that for safety, it'd be "more correct" to denote it as "active" rail).  Not quite yet passenger rail, but no longer under construction either.

As you know an opening_date, add that tag with a good value.  As you further build the "simply bare naked rail" line of infrastructure into something closer to a passenger line, include stations, stops and so on.  That's what makes it a passenger route.  You might 'ease in" to that by going to a PTv1 flavor light_rail, or go all the way up to PTv2 all at once.  I'd do it in stages (v1, then v2), but that's just me.  It IS helpful to learn how to build good v2 routes, even if you go "through" v1 to do so.
compdude (2022-02-12 23:08:01+00:00): Is there any reason why this can't just be tagged as railway=light_rail but with an access=no tag to indicate that it is not open to the public? I disagree with tagging as railway=rail because it is not heavy rail.
compdude (2022-02-12 23:11:26+00:00): And it's currently being used by light rail trains only, not by heavy rail trains. I strongly disagree with the current tagging of railway=rail.
stevea (2022-02-12 23:17:21+00:00): OK, I think I see what's correct here, though I listen.  "Where true," (where there are active light_rail cars being tested) delete the construction=light_rail tag and change the rail key from a value of construction to a value of light_rail.

So:
construction=(empty)
railway=light_rail

where true in the real world.

Sketching in stations, stops, etc...in the future as they evolve.  This one is getting built in real-time, that's OK.
stevea (2022-02-12 23:21:47+00:00): If it isn't clear, my notation of

construction=(empty)

means "no construction tag whatsoever."
stevea (2022-02-12 23:24:03+00:00): The railway key, not the rail key.
yasobara (2022-02-12 23:31:03+00:00): So if a road is paved but not open for public, a bridge structure is complete but not open for public, should we remove construction tag and add tag Access=no?
I see a problem because unless you are involved in the construction project it is difficult to know when the construction is complete. For an outsider and casual observer like myself it is easier to know the construction is complete when a road, a bridge, railway is open for public use.
stevea (2022-02-12 23:31:06+00:00): OK, I see what happened:  these rail data were entered as railway=rail to begin with, rather than railway=light_rail, which everybody seems to agree the latter is the correct tag for the whole of these rail.

To way/922298053 I've set tags as I believe are correct for the whole.

Gimme a few (10-15) minutes and I'll apply these tags to the entirety of the infrastructure (as I see it, but I think I'm getting it right).

I'll leave on the construction tags, (except that one way I just mentioned at Spring District) and then all anybody needs to do going forward is simply delete the construction tag.
clay_c (2022-02-12 23:34:38+00:00): While it's debatable whether this segment of rail should be mapped as under construction or not, I'm not sure railway=rail was the right choice here. Personally, I would map it as railway=light_rail (not railway=construction) if construction is complete and it's undergoing testing. To indicate that passenger service isn't running on this segment (yet), I would simply leave it out of any route=light_rail relations.

I've suggested the addition of a new lifecycle prefix for situations like this, but I'm not sure it's really necessary. I think it's sufficient to map it as completely built but leave it out of public transit relations.
stevea (2022-02-12 23:35:05+00:00): I think it's clear to everybody (maybe not) that rail ≠ road, as far as access is concerned.

A rail bridge, I think we can remove a construction tag if there are test vehicles checking welds and such.

A road bridge, I think we could do that, too, but it does seem like because of its public nature, access tags are much more important.  The opening_date tag data (if a value is known) is helpful here.
compdude (2022-02-12 23:36:17+00:00): >So if a road is paved but not open for public, a bridge structure is complete but not open for public, should we remove construction tag and add tag Access=no?

I think that's fine. In fact, I've often seen that done in other countries like Germany.

@stevea, I'm okay with you changing the tags to railway=light_rail as long as we tag it in such a way to indicate that it's not yet open to the public.
stevea (2022-02-12 23:38:17+00:00): As I examine tags on the infrastructure, they're pretty complicated and I want to "not stomp on anything that is reflected in its tagging to be representative of reality."

Make that 15 minutes an hour.  I'm pondering these data deeply.
stevea (2022-02-12 23:43:31+00:00): I ask quickly here because it feels "local:"  I see at least one opening_date=2023 tag (no more specific than "next year").  Are people OK with the "whole of it" (light_rail infrastructure) getting that tag?
stevea (2022-02-12 23:56:06+00:00): OK:  what I did:

I found 74 ways tagged largely railway=rail and tagged them all with railway=light_rail .

What I suggest others do is to put opening_date=2023 on the ways where it doesn't exist - most of them, like 11 out of 74 have this, the other 63 don't.

And be happy.  Let the tags reflect reality as best you / we can, it's all good.
yasobara (2022-02-12 23:57:00+00:00): The Sound Transit authority is not giving any specific date to public other than 2023 for opening date of East Link Line between International district and Overlake Technology.
stevea (2022-02-13 00:01:33+00:00): So, propagate the opening_date=2023 tag from the 11 ways where it now exists to "all 74 of them" (the other 63).  And, Bob's your uncle.
clay_c (2022-02-13 00:03:52+00:00): Railroads are not publicly accessible rights-of-way. All railroads would be access=private, because you cannot simply own a railed vehicle and plop it on the tracks wherever. The access tag isn't appropriate for railroads.

What is the purpose of assigning a tag to the railroad indicating that trains
clay_c (2022-02-13 00:04:33+00:00): aren't running in revenue service yet?

(sorry, hit the button by accident)
stevea (2022-02-13 00:05:16+00:00): And, look, Clay is 100% correct, nobody is ginning up a passenger light_rail route right now, this is infrastructure OSM denotes.  A bit of lifecycle pangs (I also agree, no need for lifecycle prefix, here and now) and noting that there is a plethora of construction tagging, including on the route=light_rail (of infrastructure) itself — some ways are tagged construction=light_rail, some are tagged construction:railway=light_rail (whew!)
stevea (2022-02-13 00:08:13+00:00): Congratulations OSM, Washington, Sound Transit...many:  I think we largely give birth to a "light_rail route in place" here.

Sure, maybe some bumps and rocks forward in our tagging, but I think it is clear to many the tagging path ahead.  If not, ask someone.  Maybe on the Washington/Railroads Discussion / Talk wiki page.
stevea (2022-02-13 00:16:52+00:00): Also, I'm seeing news reports from a few days ago that say you've got live wires there now, so all electrified tags should be updated.
stevea (2022-02-13 00:22:03+00:00): There remain 53 ways at both "ends" of the route which remain tagged railway=construction + construction=light_rail.  As these are "no longer under construction," correct is to remove the construction(=light_rail) tag and to make the railway tag become railway=light_rail (not rail).

Some minor eraser crumbs to blow away, we had here today, not terrible.

Choo, choo, everybody.  Nice to be mapping around here with you.
stevea (2022-02-13 10:06:39+00:00): This is a subtle point that doesn't get a lot of visibility by way of example:  a route=light_rail relation can be (semantically considered) EITHER an "infrastructure" route (like a route=railway relation we have the middle-to-later stages of here) OR a light_rail "open to passengers" route.  The difference is twofold:  in both the contents of the relation and in the tags on the relation.

For infrastructure (light_rail), "bare naked" ways with railway=light_rail tags are the only members (no stations, stops, platforms...) and the tags don't mention "passenger oriented" things (like public_transit:version=1 or 2).

For passenger light rail, it's either a fully PTv1- or PTv2-style route with not only OTHER tags on the route (like from=*, to=*, via=*, colour=*, and ref=* (not an exhaustive list, you get the idea), but it ALSO has members that are tagged with "stop" and "platform" (in PTv2) roles in addition to all the ways that make up the "line" of the route.  And (again, for PTv2), there is a route_master relation that ties together a "one direction, the other direction" into a "whole" route.

Continue "sketching" this route to reflect reality (it's looking good so far) to follow "construction" (of infrastructure), "testing" (of vehicles, which at least in my mind means no longer under construction), electrified=* tags, and then as signals, systems and other stuff happens to get closer to ribbon cutting for the public, grow it into a route=light_rail line that doesn't (quite) mean simply "infrastructure only," but rather approaches PTv1 (or PTv2 if you are ambitious and make the jump to it all at once with a route_master) without QUITE going there.  Like, keep on the opening_date tag (in the future) or keep on the tags you have now:

type=construction
construction=light_rail
opening_date=2023

Beef this up to be fully PTv1 (or PTv2) while leaving those tags on.  Then, on opening day / ribbon cutting / revenue service opens to the public, make these:

type=route
route=light_rail

(delete construction and opening_date).

Sorry for the length.

Let's do it again!  (Somewhere else, it's fun to build passenger rail in OSM).
ChrissW-R1 (2022-02-09 08:58:52+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3043013

Please check.
Adam_Piszczek (2022-04-06 14:05:42+00:00): Gdzie ten paczkomat jest przy kiosku?
VA00 (2022-04-06 14:27:03+00:00): Przyklejony z tyłu za kioskiem.
mk2k22 (2024-10-23 09:29:23+00:00): Lucija SUBURB? Odakle ti to?
Badojo (2024-10-23 13:57:27+00:00): Portorož i Lucija nisu službeno gradovi (mesta) (https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MNVP/Dokumenti/Urbani-razvoj/naselja_s_statusom_mesta.pdf), a nisu očito ni sela pošto su urbanija naselja. Suburb je odgovaralo za prijelazni tip naselja. Meni nije imalo smisla svako polu-urbano naselje označavati kao da je zaseban grad
eggie (2022-02-08 21:58:09+00:00): Hoi .. Je vraagt feedback
Onderin bij de afslag naar de van den Eijndekade zet je bicycle=no  naast cycleway=lane
Dat is een onwaarschijnlijk tagcombinatie.. Hoe slaan tweewielers daar af? Rijden die door naar de fietsoversteek of mogen ze voorsorteren. 
Die vreemde afslagen (tags andere mapper) vanaf de Poststraat lijken me overigens ook niet goed.

Gr eggie
eggie (2022-02-08 22:00:29+00:00): Maar even oneway=yes op gezet
eggie (2022-02-08 22:07:48+00:00): cycleway=lane verwijderd op die afslag
hackthemap (2024-08-07 00:42:07+00:00): Hi, danke für deine Mapping Contributions! Kleine Anmerkung: Ist inzwischen zwar schon korrigiert, aber zur Info für die Zukunft:
lanes:forward und lanes:backward sollten sich immer zu lanes aufsummieren. So etwas wie lanes:psv ist nur eine zusätzliche Info und geht nicht in diese Berechnung ein. lanes:psv ist ein Teil von entweder lanes:forward oder lanes:backward, aber wird nicht extra dazu summiert.
Noch fröhliches mappen :)
cyton (2022-02-08 23:25:59+00:00): Darf ich dich bitten, die Änderungen von Streetcomplete auf kleinere Bereiche zu begrenzen? (also Häufiger hochladen, oder bevor man "weit" reist)
Dann taucht das nicht unbedingt bei all so vielen in OSMCha auf.
Danke.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117177586
DieAndereEsther (2022-02-10 20:19:39+00:00): Hallo, klar.
Leider verstehe ich deinen Wunsch nicht ganz, denn ich bin erst seit Kurzem dabei und bin noch dabei herauszufinden, wie alles funktioniert. 
Geht es darum, dass ich in kurzer Zeit nacheinander Dinge für Orte eingetragen habe, die weiter voneinander entfernt sind? Wenn ja, wusste ich nicht, dass das problematisch sein könnte - ich habe einfach Einträge in Orten gemacht, in denen ich mich gut auskenne.
Viele Grüße
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117177586