piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
muralito (2021-10-23 13:46:31+00:00): Hola. ¿Que fuente usaste para este cambio?

Hi. Which source did you use for this changeset?
Tremendous Judge (2021-10-23 16:37:37+00:00): Hola,

Los tags de algunos barrios estaban mal (en particular La Comercial aparecía dos veces, una de ellas al lado del palacio legislativo) y para cambiarlo me basé en este documento del INE https://www.ine.gub.uy/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=fb4a2e56-6b1c-49db-9ca2-d99f7923859f&groupId=10181, que es lo más parecido que encontré a una fuente autoritativa de los barrios de Montevideo. Mi idea es eventualmente ponerle boundaries a todos los barrios cuando encuentre el tiempo

Saludos
muralito (2021-10-23 23:27:05+00:00): Es un tema complicado el de los barrios en Montevideo. Como bien decis no existe fuente autoritativa, y hay que buscar que es lo mejor. Los barrios de INE nunca se quiso cargar, en su momento había opiniones en contrario, sobre todo por el tema de poner los limites exactos, por eso siempre estuvieron como nodos, que son difusos.

Tampoco hacer como intentan las inmobiliarias que para ellos mas o menos todo al norte de 18 d Julio es Prado y todo al sur es Parque Rodo.

Por otro lado, hay barrios "grandes" y que han crecido si se puede llamar de alguna forma, como "Pocitos" y otros como "La Mondiola" que existío pero hoy en dia es algo historico. De "La Mondiola" lo unico que quedaba era la parrillada por 26 de Marzo y debe haber cambiado de nombre hace como 20 años. Y a lo sumo, de mantenerse, tendría que ser en un nivel menor que Pocitos, como que lo absorbió. Mismo tema con Villa Dolores.

El otro tema es que por ejemplo, ni los barrios, ni los municipios, se usan para direcciones, asi que son datos de relevancia menor.
Tremendous Judge (2021-10-26 20:54:24+00:00): Estoy de acuerdo con lo que decís de los barrios. No creo que exista un posible mapa de Montevideo donde le marcás los barrios, le preguntes a la gente que vive ahí, y una mayoría esté de acuerdo con que ese mapa es correcto. Y para peor, a diferencia de los municipcios, ni siquiera tienen significación administrativa.

Por otro lado, más allá de que no se usan para direcciones (por suerte), sí es muy común usar los barrios para referenciar lugares aproximados, tanto en el uso casual como en lugares más formales como listados de alquileres. Entonces, me parece importante que las etiquetas de los barrios aparezcan _más o menos_ bien en el mapa.

Lo de la Mondiola es controversial. Hay un grupo muy vocal de vecinos que revindican la existencia del barrio, en contra del uso popular propiciado por las inmobiliarias que como bien decís listan todo como "Pocitos" (y por algún motivo, gMaps que pone "La Mondiola" en Tres Cruces). Cuando lo agregué a OSM había pensado en ponerlo como "neighborhood" en lugar de "borough", pero en el momento decidí que no porque todos los demás barrios de la ciudad están como "borough" y rompería con esa consistencia. Soy nuevo editando y no sé qué política seguir ahí.
JriSv250 (2021-10-25 17:21:47+00:00): The addition of a name=* tag to highways that only have a reference number and no actual name causes unnecessary clutter on the map.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
gscholz (2021-11-01 07:44:47+00:00): Hi Zubulus,
this changeset has created some errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-71.15498&lat=46.98442&zoom=14&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points,single_node_in_way,duplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=112815473

The ways you have added are also overlapping each other.

Can you please fix this?
Kind Regards
Guido
JriSv250 (2021-10-25 17:21:09+00:00): The addition of a name=* tag to highways that only have a reference number and no actual name causes unnecessary clutter on the map.
ZLima12 (2021-10-27 04:20:59+00:00): If this ramp is truly under construction, and not just temporarily closed, please also add construction=motorway_link
DUGA (2021-10-27 12:50:57+00:00): Thanks for the comment. I was driving and only quickly closed the segment via my phone.
DUGA (2021-10-27 12:53:50+00:00): In that morning I was passing by the area and heading south into PA. Town of Dickinson said that it was a temporary closure:

http://townofdickinson.com/news.aspx?zone=News&nID=1867

Weather condition was bad around the time because of raining. But it has been 5 days so I would hazard a guess that the construction had been done. As a result I've reopened the road.
ZLima12 (2021-10-27 18:38:17+00:00): I see. My understanding is that highway=construction is for fairly significant construction, whereas as access=no could be used for shorter duration, and/or lighter repair work. Not sure which would be appropriate for this one, but both are an option.
Kovoschiz (2021-10-22 15:29:14+00:00): According to foreign experience, this should be allowed. The illegality should be represented otherwise.
mariotomo (2021-11-03 22:18:33+00:00): hola. has reclasificado una parte de la panamericana, más allá que Yaviza. cuál es la fuente utilizada? si reviso con Esri, no me parece que se justifique. pero quizás visitaste el lugar?
SomeoneElse (2021-10-27 14:20:21+00:00): Hello,
Looking at the available imagery here this bridge appears to be clearly fictional.  Can you explain why you added it?
Best Regards,
Andy
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:24:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-08-27 20:40:12+00:00): você continua desenhando vias totalmente fora de onde deveriam estar, por favor, não faça isto https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9192078060
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-12-31 23:59:49+00:00): ok, deletado trecho muito desalinhado e criei uma nota no lugar: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3499650
marczoutendijk (2021-12-11 19:46:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114828622 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of incorrect edits to the map due to the use of incorrect tags.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
ivanbranco (2021-12-02 18:02:36+00:00): Hi nisanurlatifa11,

what's the meaning of Kegiatan=Rumah Sedang?
marczoutendijk (2021-12-11 19:46:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114828622 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of incorrect edits to the map due to the use of incorrect tags.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:22:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
felipeeugenio (2021-10-22 11:45:01+00:00): Estimado. La edición contiene varios errores que no hay problemas en arreglar, pero hay algo que llama la atención: borró varios árboles. Ya no existen o fue un error?
saludos
alessandrocarmeli (2021-10-23 22:20:13+00:00): credo che sia meglio prima. Ti invito a guardare i nomi ufficiali di Tpl Fvg nel sito selezionando la fermata. https://tplfvg.it/it/il-viaggio/fermate-tempo-reale/
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112819084
MitjaJez (2021-10-24 06:35:37+00:00): Firstly, OSM should reflect what in on terrain we need to review this by Mapillary or KartaView. Bus stops are designed as pairs for practilal reasons, this is that users come back to bus at similar position. But wou're right, we shoul keep names from Tpl Fgv name in official_name.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112819084
MitjaJez (2021-10-24 06:45:26+00:00): With paired names, we have less mess on OSM and other rendering:
https://lz4.overpass-api.de/api/sketch-line?ref=57&network=Trieste+Trasporti
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112819084
alessandrocarmeli (2021-10-24 11:50:56+00:00): non sarebbe meglio fare il contrario: lascare il nome com'è ed inserire l'alt_name?
MitjaJez (2021-10-24 19:47:58+00:00): Those names doesn't even look like names they are addresses. No, alt_name won't help here.
Now i saw, the real names (those that are also on time tables on paper) are written with capital letters e.g. PIAZZA OBERDAN it seems that all other does not have names or the name is in brackets e.g. (rotonda del Boschetto)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112819084
user_10360149 (2021-10-22 05:38:02+00:00): Thanks for @NM$L 's message let me know this issue!
4004 (2021-10-24 22:43:07+00:00): здравствуйте, спасибо за правку.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/378451240 обратите внимание, вы удалили тег здания. сады и школы, среди прочих, обозначаются по территории https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:amenity%3Dkindergarten
4004 (2021-10-24 22:45:34+00:00): а, ну и адреса пожалуйста не пишите в названия домов, там от них толку не будет
Frans S (2021-12-15 09:52:43+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not always accurate mapped and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention on these points:
A: buildings not always accurately drawn.
B: overlapping buildings drawn.
C: multiple buildings drawn as 1 building.
E: Rectangular Buildings not squared.
H: Incorporated the yard or a clearing into your mapping.



Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
More help information:
View this video's about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
More info can be found on https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112820737
eggie (2021-10-22 06:52:06+00:00): Welkom bij OSM..
Alleen een naam zal niets doen in OSM.
Ook de aard van het bedrijf toevoegen svp.
Zie ook
Eigen bedrijf toevoegen 

https://www.onosm.org/ 

en 

 

https://osmybiz.osm.ch/#/11/46.87897/8.23975 

 

En video 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6edDUi1o9RA 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-10-22 06:57:02+00:00): office=it/website/phone  toegevoegd
MVG
eggie
Mundilfari (2021-10-22 13:55:25+00:00): Hi - are you sure there actually is a no left turn restriction from the parking lot into 111th?
Last time I was in the area, turning left into 111th was allowed,  and in fact, that little access road was two lanes (one of them being a left turn lane). This may have changed recently, I haven't been there in ~1 month, so wanted to confirm.
Thanks!
Mundilfari (2021-10-22 14:10:29+00:00): Ah, nevermind, I didn't look at this right, I was referring to the other exit a little further west. All good.
vrynkevich_lyft (2021-10-22 14:22:51+00:00): Hi, Mundilfari, anyway thank you for your contribution!  Have a great weekend. Regards, Veronika
erickdeoliveiraleal (2021-10-23 01:01:22+00:00): você continua fazendo edições que não fazem sentido, a estação arniqueiras não deve ter uma propriedade apontando para uma wikiveristy que não é a da estação Arnqiueiras. Essas edições serão desfeitas, infelizmente.
Dodko (2021-10-22 17:37:09+00:00): Jednotlivé obchody sa nepíšu do názvu budovy, ale pridávajú sa ako 3 samostatné body zo značkami.

shop=florist
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Tag:shop%3Dflorist

shop=clothes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Tag:shop%3Dclothes

shop=car_parts
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Tag:shop%3Dcar_parts
Marek-M (2021-10-22 08:26:08+00:00): Cześć! Drogi dojazdowe do zabudowań (przykładowa Twoja edycja: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/995483734) należy rysować jako drogi o klasie *nie niższej* niż highway=service z dopełnieniem service=driveway. Na pewno nie może to być track. Jeśli jakość nawierzchni takiej drogi jest niska, to można dookreślić ją tagami surface, smoothness. Na forum OSM była o tym dyskusja - tu jest ten wątek: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66757
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112822170
4004 (2021-10-24 23:13:19+00:00): добры дзень, дзякуй за праўку.
на сайце федэрацыі гольфа ўсё яшчэ гэты адрас, і дакладна памятаю што ў 2020 была навіна пра яго, так што дакладна не "шмат гадоў"
Mixon (2021-10-25 05:02:51+00:00): Вітаю. Так, вы правы. Пра шмат год я памыліўся. Паб-квіз апошні раз там быў у 2019. Пра гольф складаней адказаць, але зараз яго дакладна там няма
4004 (2021-10-25 09:30:49+00:00): зразумела, дзякуй
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:22:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
Владимир К (2021-11-15 10:42:02+00:00): Добрый день!
Зачем вы удалили landuse 47 комплекса? 
Зачем удалили пешеходные подходы к подъездам?
Elizen (2021-11-15 15:18:22+00:00): Добрый вечер.
Landuse был удалён ошибочно. Насчёт подходов к подъездам была не права, удалив их. Приношу свои извинения.
jmty8 (2021-10-22 07:11:58+00:00): right hashtag - #mbx_germany_roads
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
BCNorwich (2021-10-27 06:58:06+00:00): Hi, You've been duplicating sseveral sections of highway. This seriously disrupts routing. I've removed the duplicates but please be careful not to repeat this.

Regards Bernard.
woodpeck (2021-10-22 07:46:11+00:00): Relation 12121247 (whicjh you have deleted) contained the information that these islands were natural=bare_rock. As far as I can see, this information is now lost. Was that on purpose?
hanzlan (2021-10-22 09:14:24+00:00): Hello woodpeck,
I have integrated the information of "natural=bare_rock" into the new relations 13353704 and 13353705 as the islet polygons are already occupied by "natural=coastline", which needs to be set in maritime islands/islets according to osm wiki "If the islet is located in the sea or ocean, add natural=coastline" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dislet). I am not sure, if this is the correct way of tagging it, but otherwise the "name=" tag would refer to the "bare_rock" instead of the islets themselves, what do you think about it?
Ser9ei (2021-10-23 14:41:25+00:00): oneway=no и covered=no - значения по умолчанию для любой дороги. Не требуется указывать это отдельно.

Если там нет знака "20", то следует задавать ограничения неявно maxspeed=RU:living_street
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:maxspeed

Присоединяйтесь к сообществу в телеграм @ruosm и задавайте любые вопросы по редактированию карты.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112824327
ÖTK (2021-10-22 21:17:42+00:00): Warum löscht du die Abrisskante, die besonders im Winter eine Gefahr für Schitourengeher darstellt?
fkv (2021-10-23 01:26:14+00:00): Ich habe keine Abrisskante gelöscht, sondern eine Felswand, die nur in Teilbereichen existiert, entsprechend umgezeichnet. Das hilft auch Schitourengehern, die sich in den Kopf gesetzt haben, wild durch den Wald abzufahren, das wenigstens dort zu machen, wo keine Wände sind. Generell liegt es in der Eigenverantwortung von Tourengehern, auf Sicht zu fahren (genauso wie bei Mountainbikern) und die Verhältnisse vor Ort selber zu beurteilen. Keiner kann sich blind auf eine Landkarte verlassen, geschweige erwarten, dass temporäre Erscheinungen wie Schneewechten darin eingezeichnet sind.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
Vinber-Pro (2021-10-22 07:57:56+00:00): Bonjour,
connaissez vous le nom de cet espace
Par avance merci
Enza03 (2021-10-22 08:01:00+00:00): Bonjour, 
Non je ne connais pas son nom
Diacritic (2021-10-22 10:49:55+00:00): Hi! Me again; I’m a bit disheartened to have not received any engagement here.

There are some changes here that are debatable in this change, but there are one or two changes that I strongly disagree with.

Way 112825020 does not need to exist. There is no separate roadway here for the left and right turns. Putting two ways here is not correct practice and is not a correct representation of the intersection. It causes routing problems and is confusing for users.

This is the same for way 995500551. This junction is more complex, (made more complex by the unnecessary split for a very minor traffic island, but regardless) yet there is no need for two ways from that lane.

Please engage with me on this conversation; these changes are fundamentally incorrect and undermine the usefulness of OSM in every use case. Continued prolificacy in this area will require significant remediation for other editors.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112825020
Supt_of_Printing (2021-10-23 03:48:12+00:00): Hi Diacritic, I did reply to your last message but I realise I did it by just clicking "reply" on the email rather than in this reply box. Here is what I wrote:
Hi Diacritic,

Yes, I did make that a dual carriageway as I feel it effectively is and have followed what many others (but not all) have done.

Part of what I like to do is to edit roads and intersection to show smooth bends and not sudden, clunky, direction changes which are not realistic. In reality, drivers are not going to suddenly change direction or turn into a turning lane or slip lane exactly where the concrete island starts but will start their turn as indicated by the line markings. This is what I have always sought to achieve. It becomes very disheartening when I see the work I have put in edited and reduced to unsightly clunky turns.

Regards,
Supt.

Fair point about was 995500551. As for way 112825020, I couldn't identify which one that was.
As for slip lanes, turning lanes, roads going from undivided to divided, etc., there are plenty of current examples where the road markings are effectively the same as physical islands, medians, etc. as they are effectively an extension of the island. And, as I said before, I hate the look of very clunky, sudden bends and diversions which don't reflect reality.

Regards, Supt.
fabiotofy (2021-10-22 20:56:06+00:00): Ciao, c'è allora anche da rinominare il tag addr:street sull'unico civico presente della via
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112825248
hobbie (2021-10-22 21:05:51+00:00): Fatto
Sheila Job (2021-10-25 06:16:24+00:00): Hi Lidia, well mapped and squared building.
Advice: draw following the design of the house not all has the square shape, zoom out when you are mapping to see better.

Thanks for mapping, please keep going
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112825881
SekeRob (2021-10-22 08:17:21+00:00): Note and funny, Bing street side maps has a copy right bottom right of Openstreetmap and TomTom. Hardly gains anything in information for mapping.
gmar5 (2021-10-22 09:28:50+00:00): Hi. I personally think this is superfluous, given its location. Also it doesn't seem consistent with the local use, nor with how the node is named in most other cities I have seen.
AndyOBC (2021-10-22 09:52:09+00:00): Thanks for reviewing, much appreciated. Locally the term "Oxford City Centre" is well-established (to refer to the general retail area) and right now there are no results from the API for this term. I was aiming for something like this: What I was aiming at was something like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/3256417
gmar5 (2021-10-22 11:00:46+00:00): "Oxford City Centre" is an 'alt_name' in this relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13028443 so I thought it would appear in a search. Perhaps the same could be done with the node? I think "City Centre" is the best name for the suburb object (not all cities have mapped their centre suburb, but if they do it's without repetition of the city name, e.g. Bristol https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6126689739 ; the same is true for cities in other countries). But an 'alt_name' which includes the city name can help with searches.

This is to refer to the whole part of the city, including most of the central colleges and some residential areas, not just the retail area. 
If you want to refer to the retail area only, like in the Reading example, then the name tag would go on the retail area object which covers Cornmarket, etc., not on the suburb. 
I guess it is possible, but I am not sure that it would be totally appropriate in this case, since the overall retail area is more specifically divided already in Covered Market, Clarendon Centre, Westgate, Castle quarter. 

So, if you agree I would leave "City Centre" as primary name and include "Oxford City Centre" as alt_name for the suburb.

Thanks for your contribution to the map. Have fun. All the best.
AndyOBC (2021-10-22 12:32:38+00:00): Many thanks for helping this newbie - I've reverted the change and updated the alt_name as suggested.
PT-53 (2021-10-23 06:37:59+00:00): Hallo Geofreund1,
was war den an dieser TR
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2404160/history
fehlerhaft und wie hast Du diesen Fehler gefunden ?
Fragende Grüße
Geofreund1 (2021-10-23 08:12:10+00:00): Gefunden über MapRoulette Invalid turn restriction.
Eine TR beginnt an der Stelle, ab der die restriction gilt (hier only_right_turn an der Abzweigung Göffinger Straße), läuft über einen via Punkt und endet an der Stelle, ab der die restriction only_right_turn nicht mehr gilt (hier die service Abzweigung nach Westen). In diesem speziellen Fall ist der service way mit access=no getaggt. Die Reparatur wäre also hier nicht unbedingt nötig gewesen. Wenn aber das access=no mal wegfällt, dann ist die TR wieder invalid. Also passe ich invalid TRs immer so an, dass innerhalb der TR kein way die Relation verlässt, auf dem ein Fahrzeug fahren könnte (track, service, residential, usw.). Es gibt da ganz schlechte Beispiele, wo der to Teil der Relation quer durch die ganze Stadt verläuft mit diversen abzweigenden Straßen.
Hoffe, die Erklärung war einigermaßen verständlich.
Gruß
Geofreund1
Geofreund1 (2021-10-23 08:26:09+00:00): Hier noch ein Beispiel für invalid:
Relation 13270437