piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Jonathan D Gilbert (2020-06-17 18:51:27+00:00): Hello Bernard,

Thanks for your feedback. I've made the changes you suggested (I hope).

I only realised that the path needed to be attached to the road when looking at The Settlers Stone in the centre of Swaffham. When I looked at on OSM, it looked like it was some way up Settlers Court. However, when I looked again, I saw that Settlers Court is attached to Lynn Street, which is obviously the middle of quite a wide road. So in fact the stone is correctly positioned.

I must admit I got into a bit of a muddle, as  when you put a node on another object, the editor immediately seems to join them, so when you move one, you move the other. Will have to watch out for that.

Thanks for your help. Let me know if I've still not got it right.

Jonathan (changed from swaefas)

By the way, is there anything I need to do for the "Fix Me's"?
Jonathan D Gilbert (2020-06-17 18:55:34+00:00): Just spotted something else. On the other side of the open space (to the west on the extension of the path I added) there is another hedge boundary. It looks like the path crosses an unbroken hedge, but there is also a "gate" node there. Is that mapped correctly, or should there be a break in the hedge, with the gate node attached to the path?

Jonathan
BCNorwich (2020-06-17 19:29:01+00:00): Hi Jonathon,

I've now connected your new path to North Pickenham Road, made a gap in the hedge at the west end of the new path. Removed the two fixme tags as your path fixes that problem/query. I also placed the new hedge line on the residential line and the meadow line as at this point their positions coincide. 

On the far west of the meadow the kissing gate (a node on the hedge line), tagged foot=yes implies that one can route through the hedge. So although the gate is a node/point it is taken that it has a width.

Regards Bernard.
DressyPear4 (2020-06-17 08:14:03+00:00): Suas edições foram revertidas devido a vandalismo.
Não adicione o que não existe.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86738161
Bernhard W (2020-06-19 07:53:06+00:00): Hallo mahowi,
ich finde es toll, dass du die Hochstraßen-Situation in Ludwigshafen aktuell hälst.
Ich würde mich noch mehr freuen, wenn du statt Datensätze zu löschen den Lifecycle-Präfix "demolished:" oder ähnlich verwenden würdest, damit niemand in die Versuchung kommt, die vermeintlich fehlenden Teile aus Luftbildern wieder einzufügen, denn die OSM-Daten bleiben in den Editoren sichtbar und der Grund (demolished) auch. Gelöschte Daten sind nicht mehr sichtbar.
Siehe: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Lifecycle_prefix
Gruß aus Mannheim
Bernhard
Oregon On Demand (2020-11-15 06:38:30+00:00): Hello again. I believe this should be changed back to volcano as well per the usage of the tag described on the wiki for extinct volcanoes.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86738868
Oregon On Demand (2020-11-15 06:29:02+00:00): Greetings. As this is an extinct volcano I believe it should have the volcano tag as described in the wiki.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86738893
Dion Dock (2020-07-31 17:26:05+00:00): I'm curious about the criteria are you using for natural=volcano.  Wikipedia says Hogan Butte is an extinct volcano per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boring_Lava_Field.
Joseph E (2020-08-01 06:22:08+00:00): Tags in OpenStreetMap should be verifiable by regular mappers who visit the area. These buttes do not have any physical characteristics which identify the as volcanoes. Basically all hills in the Cascades range and surrounding areas are volcanic in origin, but if the volcanic vent is extinct (like these, which have not been active for >57k years) and no longer visible, there is no way to know that these hills were volcanoes in pre-history.
That's why the tag natural=volcano is defined as "an opening exposed on the earth's surface where volcanic material is emitted", i.e. a volcanic vent. The mapping instructions also say to "Place [the node] as close to the centre of the main crater/caldera/vent as you can." - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=volcano - so there needs to be a crater, caldera, fissure, fumarole or some other kind of volcanic vent which is active or dormant.
Dion Dock (2020-08-02 23:44:14+00:00): Agreed, it's not helpful to declare 40 million year old features to be volcanoes, for example Elk Rock Island, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Rock_Island, was a volcano. 

However, there are some features that look like volcanoes but aren't, like Spencer Butte in Eugene, while other features,  look like volcanoes and are like Kelly Butte in Portland.  In this case, the tag feels appropriate to me.

Taken literally the lack of a crater indicates, in Oregon, that Mt. Jefferson and Black Butte aren't volcanoes while Mt. Tabor became a volcano when they excavated the basketball court and exposed a crater.
Joseph E (2020-08-04 00:21:50+00:00): > Re: " there are some features that look like volcanoes but aren't, like Spencer Butte in Eugene, while other features, look like volcanoes and are like Kelly Butte in Portland."

How are we to tell them apart, aside from digging in the ground or digging in a library? This is good data for Wikipedia or Wikidata, which rely on citations, but not for OpenStreetMap, which relies on primary research: survey of the location.

"Taken literally the lack of a crater indicates, in Oregon, that Mt. Jefferson and Black Butte aren't volcanoes:

Mt Jefferson does not appear to have an active volcanic vent at the summit. The peak is an eroded remnant, below the old crater which was destoryed by glaciers in the last ice age, if I've read correctly. So I agree that it should be mapped as natural=peak. There might still be semi-active volcanic vents along its flanks that can be mapped as natural=volcano.

Recall that natural=volcano is not a tag for topographic high points (peaks), but for vents in a volcano. If the point is set on the peak of a hill or mountain, it is likely that we are mapping a natural=peak, not the vent of a volcano, though in some cases (lava domes) the peak and vent might be nearly in the same place, that's rare.

It's not necessary to have a crater, but there should be on-the-ground evidence of an active or dormant vent: a lava dome, a crater, a lava plug, a caldera, fumaroles, etc. - otherwise it is just a hill or mountain which happens to have been formed by volcanism in the pre-historic past. Such information cannot be verified, so it's not much help adding it to Openstreetmap.
RubenKelevra (2024-11-17 21:46:11+00:00): Indirekt? Auf welche Gesetzgebung beziehst Du Dich?
user_3022894 (2024-11-25 19:57:40+00:00): Hallo Ruben,

das weiß ich nach so langer Zeit jetzt auch nicht mehr, ob dort wirklich ein rotes Schild stand oder nicht.

Allerdings habe ich gesehen, dass das Tagging mittlerweile auf foot=use_sidepath geändert wurde. U. U. beschreibt das die Situation besser.
MfG
RubenKelevra (2024-11-25 20:07:12+00:00): Ich kann nicht ganz nachvollziehen wie "foot=use_sidepath" die Situation dort besser beschreibt, schließlich gibt es keinen "sidepath". 

Zudem ist es in Deutschland "use_sidepath" immer und überall gültig wo sidewalk=separate gemappt wurde, da es für Fußgänger nach StVO verpflichtend ist Bürgersteige zu nutzen.

Die Frage bezog sich also eher darauf, dass ich den Vandalismus rückgängig machen wollte und mir aufgefallen ist, dass da gar kein Schild steht, dass es verboten ist da herzugehen. Ob das eine gute Idee ist, das zu tun steht auf einem anderen Blatt, aber foot=no ist m.E. dann falsch.

Außer Dir fällt ein, auf welches Gesetz Du Dich bezogen hast.
ChristophH (2020-07-06 23:20:30+00:00): Hallo Rainero, die Dr. Zimmermann Straße wird üblicherweise nicht ausgeschrieben. Im Geoportal BW ist der akademische Titel des Dr. Zimmermann nicht abgekürzt, auch sämtliche Adressangaben, die man sonstwo findet, sind abgekürzt. 

Bei https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/oPrf89ZJo1dwFIniD-N9aQ findet man das Straßenschild ganz rechts auf dem Bild, bei Bedarf kann ich bei Gelegenheit auch ein Bild davon machen.
Rainero (2020-07-07 07:19:10+00:00): Hallo Christpoh,
danke für den Hinweis. Bei OSM schreiben wir Namen üblicherweise aus. Das hat den Hintergrund, dass Maschinen (z.B. für Kartendarstellung, Routing, Adressensuche) vom ausgeschriebenen Namen auf Abkürzungen schließen können, es aber umgekehrt oft nicht eindeutig ist. DR. für Doktor ist da sicher unproblematisch, aber z.B. bei St. wird's schwierig, Sankt, Stefan, auch Saint in D ist mir schon untergekommen.
openstreetmap.org schreibt Namen wie sie in name=* stehen, openstreetmap.de setzt das in gebräuchliche Abkürzungen um, wenn du mal die beiden Karten an der Stelle vergleichen willst.
Viele Grüße,
Rainer
ChristophH (2020-07-07 10:03:01+00:00): Hallo Rainer,

danke für die Antwort und den Hinweis auf den Übersetzungs-Mechanismus. Dass man für "str." "-straße" etwas einheitliches finden muss, kann ich nach nachvollziehen. 

Der ausgeschriebene akademische Grad sieht jedenfalls auf openstreetmap.org sehr komisch aus, da dieser sonst nirgendwo ausgeschrieben wird. im Gegensatz zum Mischmasch aus str. und -straße. Würde mich freuen, wenn man das wieder rückgängig macht. 

Viele Grüße,
Christoph
marczoutendijk (2020-06-18 11:13:41+00:00): Can you give more meaningfull changeset comments?
See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Marc Zoutendijk
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group
Protoxenus (2020-08-04 10:44:52+00:00): Das ist keine Baustelle, sondern ein zeitweiliger Lagerplatz für Baumaterial und die Geräte der Bauarbeiter.
Patchanka (2020-06-17 07:25:56+00:00): bonjour
est-ce vraiment une piste cyclable à cet endroit ? J'aurais dit un espace partagé piétons/vélos, sans séparation (segregated=no)
Qu'en pensez-vous ?
ERIC JAOUEN (2020-06-18 21:01:13+00:00): Bonjour, Oui tout à fait, j'ai fait la modification. pourriez vous vérifier?
Eric
user_8334278 (2020-06-16 21:47:57+00:00): 2 condo's parking lots with a fence in between no crossover except for the hole.
user_8334278 (2020-06-17 03:09:45+00:00): in the fence for a person.
DressyPear4 (2020-06-17 07:24:30+00:00): A praça existe de fato? Você adicionou a geometria bem aleatória
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86740247
JJIglesias (2020-06-16 22:01:56+00:00): Hello. Since when a highway=track, became highway=Track?

If there is NO geometry update, or tagging mistakes, the tracks should remain as they are; of you has been phisically there?

Because I am, and several times...

BsRgds

JJ
RVR004 (2020-11-21 00:03:37+00:00): Hi JJIglesias,

We totally agree with your opinion and appreciate you on helping to revert the changes. 

Best Regards,
Yunzhi
TheTylerS (2020-06-16 21:04:19+00:00): Source should be Esri World Imagery (Clarity) not Maxar
ielham (2020-07-07 17:09:59+00:00): Hola, josesmartphone. En primer lugar, bienvenido a la comunidad de OSM. He visto que ha hecho multitud de aportaciones en forma de caminos que había en la zona. Por otro lado, me gustaría advertirle que los caminos no deben ser nombrados "al libre albedrío", pues se correría el riesgo de que muchos usuarios hicieran lo mismo, resultando en información inexacta en el mapa, me refiero a la siguiente lista que recojo, en parte, de nombres que he ido viendo:

Sendero Franito
Caminito de monapen
Enduro del Portil
Caminito de la Txarini
La novia de la muerte
Camino maravilloso
Caminito del capitan Scott
Sendero La Batidora
Caminito del rey
Caminito de Manuel El Churrero
Sendero esparriais
Caminito de Nacho el abogao
Sendero Jorge Bayo

Le invito a seguir aportando a la comunidad, pero me veo en la obligación de borrar el nombre en todos esos caminos para que se correspondan a la realidad.

Saludos
Allroads (2020-06-18 10:49:19+00:00): Doorgaande wegen binnen een wijk blijven unclassified. Indicatie is vaak naar achterliggende boederijen, bedrijven, winkelcentra scholen. Van wijk naar wijk wegen.
Zoals bijvoorbeeld Vossersteeg Leemculeweg Bontekamp Polhaarweg Ankummer Es etc.
smootheFiets (2020-06-21 22:12:37+00:00): Eens met Allroads, de door hem genoemde wegen zouden naar unclassified teruggezet moeten worden. Wil jij dat doen, b_jansen?

De niet-doorgaande wegen zoals Boskerserf heb je helemaal goed getagd, ervan uitgaand dat ze geen highway=living_street zijn (disclaimer: ik ken Dalfsen niet zo heel erg goed).

Als je toch al bezig bent: hoe hard mag je er rijden? maxspeed=30/50? Surface en smoothness tags zouden ook een mooie aanvulling kunnen zijn, zeker op de doorgaande wegen en op de fietspaden (mijn OSM-hobby).

:)
archie (2022-02-12 02:13:18+00:00): Hej, skulle du vilja göra något åt taggen "1=test" (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/816091565/history). Tack!
geo_roads (2020-06-25 01:05:00+00:00): Hi topius. Motorways are almost always restricted access so that they are only accessible by ramps: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway 

The Lae-Nadzab Main Highway seems to have many roads intersecting it directly. The Papua New Guinea OSM wiki page indicates there are no motorways: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea_Tagging_Guidelines

I think this should be trunk or primary, but let me know your thoughts on how motorway should be used in Papua New Guinea.
woodpeck (2020-06-21 12:56:30+00:00): Hallo ChrisFromRV, trotz mehrfachen Bittens ist hier wieder ein Änderungssatz von Dir ohne Kommentar. Wenn man sich die Mühe macht, nachzusehen, was Du geändert hast, kommt man auf:
1. Metzgerei Walser Swaderer sowie 3 weitere Gebäude von building:demolished auf building_demolished geändert. Das ist falsch oder zumindest sehr unüblich und bedürfte einer Erklärung.
2. Way 758368426: highway=cycleway in highway=footway, bicycle=yes geändert. Das ist korrekt, falls vor Ort ein blaues Fußwegschild mit Zusatz "Radfahrer frei" ist. Ist das der Fall? Dann hätte man das im Changeset-Kommentar als Änderungsgrund angeben können.
Gibt es denn wenigstens einen Grund, wieso Du unsere fortgesetzten Bitten um brauchbare Changeset-Kommentare ignorierst? Ich habe in der Vergangenheit, wenn sich Leute über Deine Edits beschwert haben, immer dafür geworben, mit Dir zu reden statt sich über Dich zu beschweren, aber lange kann ich das nicht mehr tun, wenn Du Dich so beratungsresistent verhältst.

Frederik Ramm - für die OSMF Data Working Group
ChrisFromRV (2020-06-21 13:43:47+00:00): Erstens: Mir wurde das hier so erklärt, das man ehemalige Gebäude mit demolished_building und nicht mit demolished:building beschreibt. Zweitens: Ja, der Weg ist als Fußweg gekennzeichnet bzw. mit dem Zusatz das er für Radfahrer frei ist. Sorry, wegen dem kommentarlosen Ändern, dachte nicht das solche Kleinigeiten kontrolliert werden.
Akkurator (2020-07-25 10:02:56+00:00): Ich habe die falschen demolished-tags korrigiert: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88491003
Schade, dass der Mapper das trotz Hinweis nicht selbst getan hat.

Lesestoff zu demolished:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Lifecycle_prefix
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:building
Akkurator (2020-07-26 10:40:11+00:00): Der cycleway 758368426 passt so wie ChrisFromRV ihn umgetaggt hat, der war von mir nicht korrekt angelegt - danke für die Korrektur.
PelleV (2020-06-23 03:22:44+00:00): Hi, quick question - why did you tag this as "under construction"? I drove it earlier this year and it looked finished (or most of it), but maybe they changed it. Pls check Mapillary for reference :)
(Inactive) Hoordinates (2020-06-23 16:29:06+00:00): I’ve removed the construction tags, thank you.
PelleV (2020-06-23 16:39:17+00:00): Awesome!
gurglypipe (2020-06-17 21:46:24+00:00): Hi, welcome and thanks for your edits. Did you know that you can press the ‘Q’ button when a building is selected to automatically square its corners and hence to fit the satellite imagery better? Happy editing :)
DressyPear4 (2020-06-17 07:20:03+00:00): Não adicione uma via sobre outra, você pode selecionar a "residential" existente e adicionar "foot=yes"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86741723
majkaz (2020-09-29 16:00:48+00:00): Ahoj, jen drobná poznámka, historic=monument v Budějovicích nemáme (velký památník, co se do něj dá vlézt). Nejblíž je té definici asi Trocnov ;)
Tohle budou memorial, nebo ještě spíš artwork.
woodpeck (2020-07-15 13:16:52+00:00): Hello Danil, in this changeset you added a few footpaths through a wooded area in Arlington (816666445, 816666446). Can you clarify the source of these footpaths, as they are not visible on the "Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta" that you claimed to use. I am asking because a local resident complained to DWG that these did not exist in reality. (DWG Ticket#2020071510000064)
kirsanov (2020-07-15 17:47:12+00:00): Hey Frederik, thanks a lot for reaching out. The paths I map are usually based on my walks and GPS traces from my phone (which I don't share on OSM). In particular, I walked in these woods a few weeks ago -- and suggest the "local residents" to reach out to me directly if they have some questions or concerns.
woodpeck (2020-07-15 19:01:13+00:00): The complaint reads (with some redacting from me for privacy reasons):

"My name is ... and I have been in contact with All trails regarding a trail
which is posted on their site. Their information is collected through OSM and I have been advised by All Trails to contact you to update and remove this trail. All trails
will be removing it from their site. The trail which I am referring to is at 11 Kipling Rd in Arlington Massachusetts. This property is private property owned by the
Arch Diocese of Boston and NOT THE TOWN OF ARLINGTON. ... As a long time Arlington resident and a home owner on Kipling Road, I have noticed in increase in people not only walking but biking through Kipling Road to enter the woods. (There is no trail) and they have been exiting through my backyard. ... I am asking first to have this removed from your site before alerting the church (Arch Diocese of Boston) of the trespassing. It is PRIVATE property. WAS THERE NO RESEARCH DONE AS TO WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY BEFORE BEING POSTED ON YOUR SITE? This is becoming a safety issue for my family and our neighbors."

I then asked for clarification: "Do I understand you right that there are no paths whatsoever in the forest? Or does the trail that connects Browning Rd with the parking lot on the South End of the forest actually exist? What about the cross connection between 223 Campbell Rd and the parking lot?"

and the reply came

"The path to which you are referring to does not exist. I’ve lived on Kipling for over
20 years. Nobody has ever walked thru. Only within the last weeks has the traffic
increased. The parcel of land to which you are referring to does butt up against
browning rd as well as Campbell rd. Please research this area of land on the Arlington
town site. This is NOT public property. This is owned by the Arch diocese of Boston.
It’s private property. Anyone on this path is trespassing. As I stated earlier. People
are exiting on Browning through the backside of my house."

Since they're a bit combative I'd prefer not to tell them "sort that out with the guy who added it" ;) If you're certain that you walked there (and not through a wood without any paths) then I'd tell them that we'll re-survey the area and I'd put a note. If however there is a possibility of error on your side and you do not recollect actually walking there in person, then maybe it would be proper to remove the tracks until we can re-check.
kirsanov (2020-07-15 21:41:57+00:00): Oh, interesting; thanks for looking into it and providing the details. The path is there -- I walked it and it does not go through this person's back yard; I understand he might be upset though. What would you recommend for this case? How the discussions "the pass is on the private property of the certain organization" are generally resolved?
woodpeck (2020-07-16 07:35:43+00:00): It depends on local laws and customs. If there is reason to believe that the use of the path is legal for everyone then we do not care on whose grounds it is. If there is reason to believe that using the path requires permission from the land owner (perhaps indicated by signs "private property" or some such) and such permission is not automatically granted, we would add an "access=private" tag to the paths in question. We want to do the right thing here - if the path is legal to use then the property owner has no right trying to keep people from doing just that. If on the other hand the path is informal and using it does indeed infringe someone's rights then we should not give map users the wrong impression and get them into trouble with the law.
kirsanov (2020-07-16 12:14:17+00:00): Thank you, this makes sense to me. Let me double-check today if there are any signs on this land.
kirsanov (2020-07-17 14:11:22+00:00): So I stopped by again -- the trail is there, no signs. The whole area looks a bit abandoned, so it doesn't look like the property owner cares. I think the "no trail" comment in this complaint refers to the fact it's not the city-planned or maintained trail; just the path the locals use to walk through the woods.
woodpeck (2020-07-17 19:50:48+00:00): Thank you. I have replied to the complainant that as long as the Arch Diocese of Boston doesn't put up signs or fence in the area, things will remain as they are.
kirsanov (2020-07-17 19:54:16+00:00): Thank you for the support and guidance!
J0hnny M0rris (2020-06-16 22:29:02+00:00): Adding *house* numbers in my area
Glassman (2020-06-17 23:30:01+00:00): The area is tagged with the address as well as tagging it as building=house. The building outline should just be the house the the property. Can you fix? I'll send you more info on OSM.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/86742633
eggie (2020-06-17 06:24:55+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
Gebouwen worden normaliter geïmporteerd van uit het Kadaster.
Ik zal een verzoek op het forum doen voor import. 
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2020-06-17 06:29:07+00:00): Aanvraag loopt https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=791120#p791120
eggie (2020-06-17 08:20:42+00:00): Woning geïmporteerd.... rendering duurt even.
SK53 (2021-04-07 19:39:57+00:00): Are you sure Ropewalk House has 4 levels? I counted 5 today (3 regular ones & 2 basements).
VlIvYur (2021-04-27 21:33:21+00:00): No,I'm not.Building levels are from my Mapillary and 4is all I can see there
And always is better to put less numbers than guessing is there any more levels.Because if you stand in front of the building and see 5levels but someone put 4there-you can easily correct it (totg).But if you see 4levels and someone put 5-you can't be sure is there another level or it was typo (walking around building could be not enough)
tekim (2020-08-06 23:55:56+00:00): Hi Rob, 
What does the tag "hiker=yes" mean? Is it different than "foot=yes"?  There seems to be very few uses of it (~86).  You and about five others have used it.  Since you are an experienced mapper, and local, I thought I would ask you.  Perhaps we should document it on the wiki?
Mike
rsavoye (2020-08-07 00:02:52+00:00): Maybe. It's an access tag, so maybe extraneous. It was in the original data. I'm doing as bunch of cleanup now ever since you mentioned  lhv, and validating tags, and deleting a bunch of old stuff as "too much useless detail".. :-)
tekim (2020-08-07 00:09:04+00:00): Rob, 
Thanks for the quick reply.  If I had to guess, hiker=yes should probably be translated as foot=yes.  
Mike
rsavoye (2020-08-07 00:17:05+00:00): I'm not sure if either is necessary, my temptation is to delete hiker=yes, instead of changing it to foot=yes. I think those would only be appropriate for =no, not =yes.