piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SecretOfSence (2020-08-31 23:27:05+00:00): Вы это авторам josm скажите. там именно пустырь.

Сквер был нанесён ещё весной, другим пользователем.
Ser9ei (2020-08-31 23:38:49+00:00): А при чём тут JOSM? Если там кривой перевод, то это не означает, что это истина в последней инстанции. Чтобы не путаться, вообще советую переводами не пользоваться. Часто они очень вольные получаются.

Для обозначения сквера, что используется? Просто интересно. Ещё раз скажу, что это обсуждалось в сообществе. Скверы лучше просто изображать газонами и дорожками, особенно если безымянные. Но тут даже не сквер, а просто благоустройство бульвара. Иначе на Менделеева и Воронцовском тоже надо рисовать парки.
Ser9ei (2020-08-31 22:52:46+00:00): И ещё раз. Не надо перекрашивать строительные площадки в heath. Ознакомьтесь сначала со значением этого тега: это поляны с вереском, черникой, брусникой и подобными растениями. Исправьте, пожалуйста, на корректные теги.
SecretOfSence (2020-08-31 22:56:59+00:00): А вы не местности были? Там реально поляна с вереском.

Или это как Герои меча и магии? территория ваша, значит я должен рисовать только то что вам угодно?
Ser9ei (2020-08-31 23:16:01+00:00): Чтобы не быть голословным — да, был http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/1JwOPugpCtFA8j9Lj8SQV9/photo
Вереска там в помине нет. Погуглите, если не знаете, как он выглядит.

Теперь по территории. Тут нет моего и твоего. Но если вижу ошибку, то прошу исправить. Есть общепринятые правила. Если хочется использовать значение тега не по назначению, то лучше сначала вынести это на обсуждение в сообществе. Поэтому ещё раз прошу исправить все в соответствии с общепринятыми обозначениями, а не вашим личным видением.
SecretOfSence (2020-08-31 23:28:56+00:00): Моё видение основано на вики, но не на одной страничке, а на прочтении её последовательно и в оригинале. Потрудитесь прочитать, чтобы пустырь назвать пустырём вереск не обязательно. 

Если бы heath использовали бы так как вы считаете, то все heath в России неверны... #внезапно
Ser9ei (2020-08-31 23:34:17+00:00): Процитируйте «оригинал» из вики, где говорится, что heath надо использовать для обозначения пустыря.
Ser9ei (2020-09-01 00:00:10+00:00): Ещё рекомендую ознакомиться с тегами landuse=greenfield (который тут больше подходит) и landuse=brownfield и забыть о heath в городе.
Ser9ei (2020-09-01 00:19:46+00:00): Кстати, косяк в переводе JOSM обсуждался ещё аж в 2016м. Вроде, перевод правили. https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=2714&p=162
Но, может, у вас какая-то старая версия. Да и вообще не понимаю, зачем человеку, который прочитал все «в оригинале» (как обычно) кривой русский перевод, чтобы на него ещё ссылаться?
5m4u9 (2020-08-31 22:55:35+00:00): hola, no es necesario añadir el nombre de pasto o arboles en el mapa
muralito (2020-08-31 19:25:28+00:00): Hola.

Los poligonos de las plazas se dibujan en el perimetro de la plaza, no hay que pegarlos a las vias que representan el eje de calle.
marczoutendijk (2021-12-23 19:35:36+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/81629822
historic=* is describing or characterising an object and not a date. It seems you have been trying to put a date in the historic key. Maybe you should use start_date?
Please read: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Ahistoric and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:start_date
Ganesh61 (2022-12-17 05:53:16+00:00): Hi, sorry, it was a mustake, it's heritage and not historic the key. Thank you for the message.
eggie (2020-08-30 22:14:46+00:00): Dag iddo,
man_made	water_tap rendert niet op de kaart. Voeg toe amenity=drinking_water
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddrinking_water
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2020-08-30 22:27:37+00:00): Hier heb ik amenity=drinking_water toegevoegd. Dan zie je het effect. 
Kijk je nog naar je voorgaande edits?
MVG
Eggie
Hb- (2020-08-31 07:37:29+00:00): Die Relation ist mehrfach unterbrochen, d.h. unvollständig, siehe http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=6087428 

Umfangreiche Arbeiten an Relationen sind mit dem Online-Editor iD kaum zu leisten. Empfehlenswert ist JOSM mit seinen integrierten Kontrollfunktionen vor dem Festschreiben in der Datenbank.
HansWürstchen (2020-08-31 17:02:55+00:00): Hallo Hb-,

dessen bin ich mir bewusst, jedoch hab ich keine ausreichenden Daten um die Relation zu vervollständigen, ohne das Urheberrecht zu verletzen, andere Mapper die an dieser Relation arbeiten momentan wohl auch nicht, zumal es in dem Fall auch ansonsten keine gute Idee ist auf andere Kartenwerke zurückzugreifen, da diese oftmals nicht mit der Realität vor Ort übereinstimmen, nicht mal die des Betreibers. Desweitern ist die Wanderroute in einigen Bereichen auf verschiedenen Wegen ausgezeichnet, daher ist sie dort wo das vollständig ist auch hier so erfasst. Wenn Du freie und korrekte Daten hast, oder die Zeit den Weg abzulaufen? Ansonsten verhält es sich mit der Relation sowie mit einigen Harzklub-Wegen, sie sind halt erstmal unvollständig. Das sonstige tagging dieser Relation orientiert sich daran: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/148007

Ich weiß dass es mit JOSM einfacher gehen soll, jedoch hab ich bisher nicht die Zeit gefunden mich damit ausreichend auseinander zu setzen, danke für den Hinweis!
MfG!
Frans S (2020-08-31 10:02:30+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Sorry to say but your mappings lacks accuracy and squaring.
Can you please change your name on OSM? The @ sign is reserved for sending a message?
This document might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10sSghBZ1xSoo0JKAWUJH8VYood6VSL5eUI4ICnO_jg0/edit?usp=sharing

Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90157430
letihu (2020-11-15 19:15:45+00:00): Bekommt man hier
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7859537241/history
nasse Füße?
GITNE (2020-09-14 09:20:09+00:00): Actually, you should have updated the street name to `Southwest Kelly Avenue` here instead because this is what the street name sign says. For example, see street name signs on Southwest Gibbs Street and Southwest Kelly Street. Again, please be careful and double check with what is on the ground. Do not simply copy from other sources and do not assume from one piece of data in OSM on other data.

Anyhow, fortunately because of this mistake we can actually fix the street names now, since Southwest Kelly Street is not the only one which is wrong/incomplete.
tguen (2020-09-14 09:23:50+00:00): The street names were changed on May 1

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/75814
tguen (2020-09-14 09:25:10+00:00): > Again, please be careful and double check with what is on the ground.

Please take your own advice.
GITNE (2020-09-14 09:36:20+00:00): Again, you have referred to an external source. Where is your on the ground evidence?
tguen (2020-09-14 09:45:26+00:00): That is the city of Portland's official website stating that the change already happened. I've been there in person but didn't take any pictures. If I had, I wouldn't bother showing you, as I have no obligation to do so. I'd ask for your evidence that they haven't changed, but I know you have none. You couldn't have any even if you were in Portland, and it has become increasingly obvious that you're not. Frankly, it's sad that you're apparently unwilling to admit that you're wrong.
GITNE (2020-09-14 10:00:20+00:00): As far as I can tell the notice only says that city records have been updated and property owners have been notified, including other agencies like the IRS and USPS. If things have visibly changed on the ground then why did you not add a `source=survey` tag?
tguen (2020-09-14 10:06:07+00:00): Because I don't need to. I surveyed the area. The current names are correct. You can accept that, provide evidence to the contrary, or vandalize the map. If you pick the latter, you will be reported to the Data Working Group.
GITNE (2020-09-14 11:01:09+00:00): I am not going to vandalize the map and if I ever do so then not on purpose (which in that case is not vandalism anymore). You see, the problem we have here is that you could have spared us this conversation if you had attributed your sources. Since readdressing is a big deal, next time somebody, including the DWG, may come along and revert your changes just because you have provided no sources. You could have or rather should have cited city records or the fact that you may have surveyed the area. Even the DWG needs some sort of evidence or attribution to find out what is going on. So, please cite you sources sufficiently. `source=survey;https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/75814` would have been good enough. Anyhow, if this is what is on the ground I am fine with it.
SomeoneElse (2020-09-14 15:57:10+00:00): For what it's worth, I often go with "what a ground survey reveals" as opposed to "what the local city authority thinks that it should be called".  Everyone gets it wrong sometimes (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/149179620/history outside Bletchley Park in the UK is a good comedy example of that), and just because a name change is planned or even is supposed to have happened doesnt mean that it has yet.  The useful street name to quote is what the sign on the ground says, not what the city authority plan that the sign should say in a few months time.
Best Regards,
Andy
tguen (2020-09-15 05:48:35+00:00): Okay, so this is actually not a clean-cut issue.

In May, I noticed a bunch of new issues on Osmose (addr:streetname not matching street) because someone had changed all of the street names from Southwest to South, but hadn't changed the addresses. I found the previously posted link stating that the names had officially changed. I figured since someone had changed the streets it was okay to change the addresses as well.

I surveyed the area a couple weeks ago for unrelated reasons, and I checked one street sign which said South, so I assumed they all did. As I was driving past today I took a short detour through the area. It turns out that nearly all of the street signs still say Southwest. I think while they've officially changed the names, they aren't bothering to change the signs until they need to be replaced.

In that case, the 'on the ground' rule doesn't make sense because the signs are not being replaced on the whole street at once. We don't want to change the street names one block at a time as the signs are replaced. Reverting the changes to the addresses would also require re-adding the zero prefixes on the house numbers on east-west streets to avoid duplicating addresses (this is the reason the city made the change in the first place). I think the only thing that makes sense is to leave it the way it is.
tguen (2020-09-15 06:11:26+00:00): Hi Andy, I just noticed you're a member of the DWG. For context, GITNE first approached me in this discussion:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90174987

Since then, GITNE has continued nit-picking my edits ("why did you not add a `source=survey` tag?"), and making baseless accusations ("Do not simply copy from other sources"). That's why my responses have been less than civil.
GITNE (2020-09-15 11:34:02+00:00): > In that case, the 'on the ground' rule doesn't make sense because the signs are not being replaced on the whole street at once.

It was not me who came up with this rule. So, I do not think pointing this out in some edits could be considered as nit picking. I also do believe that this rule has its merits and drawbacks. So far it has worked well for OSM.

Anyhow, since @tguen has explicitly surveyed the area now and the City of Portland is going to replace existing street name signs though slowly but steadily, I think it is best to accept the current state of things in OSM because it reflects the city's intention and eventually reality is going to catch up with OSM's state. @tguen thank you for surveying the area and providing the link to PBOT's announcement. I just wish the OSM changesets had been attributed with sources, so that we would not have been confused and did not need this conversation.
SomeoneElse (2020-09-22 11:09:01+00:00): @tguen I spotted the initial comments on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90174987 (there's a changeset comment fedd for USA+Canada on the OSM US' Slack channel) and mentioned there that "Again, stop doing this shit!" was an innappropriate conversation-starter.
Recent comments (e.g. immediately previous to this one on this changeset) have been more civil so hopeful things are OK now.
Regards,
Andy (from the DWG).
PS: As ever, if anyone wants to contact the Data Working Group an email to data@osmfoundation.org is probably easiest.
GITNE (2020-09-22 12:07:30+00:00): > (there's a changeset comment fedd for USA+Canada on the OSM US' Slack channel)

Does this mean that changeset comments are automatically and without notice forwarded to a private third party company? If that is so then this practice is surely illegal and may constitute a criminal offense.
SomeoneElse (2020-09-22 13:36:49+00:00): @GITNE - After a comment like that, do you wonder that sometimes people think that you're a bit hostile to other mappers?
With regards to the legality of a third party company using OSM data, please re-read the agreements that you signed when you started contributing to OSM, and then tell us which laws of the US (where this changeset is located), England and Wales (where the OSMF is based) and NL (where most of the servers are) Slack or the operators of that channel are breaking.
GITNE (2020-09-22 15:12:42+00:00): > With regards to the legality of a third party company using OSM data, please re-read the agreements that you signed when you started contributing to OSM

As far as I can tell changeset comments are not covered by the ODbL, simply because it is not part of the map database. Please enlighten us what agreement covers changeset comments because as far as I can tell neither OSMF's terms of service nor the privacy policy mention that commentators relinquish their copyright or agree to transfer rights to a third party.
SomeoneElse (2020-09-22 15:32:53+00:00): A quick web search gets me " You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents". What makes you think that this does not apply to anything that you contribute to the project?
Before replying, please do consider what I said previously - ", do you wonder that sometimes people think that you're a bit hostile to other mappers?".
I would hope that all contributors to OSM do so in good faith and also assume others do so in good faith too.  Your question to me, and your questions in other changesets, did not assume that.
Please, as you continue to contribute to OSM, please think about the people that you ask questions of or reply to as people, not as "adverseries that have to be overcome" (actually, that works in the world outside OSM too).
Best Regards,
Andy
GITNE (2020-09-22 16:01:04+00:00): @SomeoneElse Please excuse the fact that this conversation has gone off topic. However, I do not know of any more adequate place. If you know a better place to continue the conversation about this topic then please share a link or reference of some kind. Thank you.

> content (collectively, 'Contents') to the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project (the 'Project')

Please note that granting copyright applies explicitly only to “the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project”. Thus, please explain what covers changeset comments.
SomeoneElse (2020-09-22 16:26:42+00:00): For "general discussion" stuff one of the mailing lists is probably the best bet, for example https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us is one specifically for the US, but there are others - see the link from that page.
MKnight (2020-08-31 07:56:11+00:00): Moin,
eine Note wäre hier angebrachter, Changesets und fixmes werden eher wenig gelesen.
MKnight (2020-09-06 15:09:48+00:00): ok, gerade gesehen, dass die note nicht direkt von Dir war. Auflösung: Die Angabe des Thüringenforst ist falsch.
Unwahrscheinlich, dass die ein falsches Schild aufgehängt haben ;)
mueschel (2020-09-02 07:45:09+00:00): Welcome to OSM!
You added many tags that are not used by anybody else.
In OSM we have to use a well-defined set of tags to allow all the software tools to understand the data and e.g. show it on maps.
Please use only keys that are documented in the Wiki or are available as presets in your editor.
Thanks!
Geofreund1 (2020-12-05 20:46:05+00:00): Bitte die HN 22b, 22c in der Straße "An der Haarlake" überprüfen.
Danke.
bergaufsee (2020-12-06 10:22:36+00:00): Hallo Geofreund1,
die hier vom bb-viewer abweichenden Eintragungen von mir basieren auf vor Ort Recherchen.
Wie auch Haus Nr. 26f Chaussee, Nr. 26g hatte ich hier deshalb auch gelöscht da nicht vorhanden.
Anmerkung: fehlende plausible Daten ergänzen ok, vom Ändern vorhandener Daten ohne Ortskenntnis würde ich eher abraten. Du hast an vielen Objekten ein fixme gesetzt, warum nicht auch hier? Das wäre hilfreicher gewesen, da du so leider wieder einen Fehler produziert hast welcher schon bereinigt war.
danke
schöne Grüße
bergaufsee
Geofreund1 (2020-12-06 11:55:37+00:00): Ist das Gebäude Chaussee 26g denn abgerissen?
Ich verwende immer die aktuellsten verfügbaren Luftbilder. Wenn die dann nicht stimmen, hat man halt Pech gehabt.
bergaufsee (2020-12-06 16:15:09+00:00): Wieso abgerissen? Stelle einfach für das Gebäude den Zustand vor deiner Änderung wieder her. Ich wusste gar nicht dass man Hausnummern auf Luftbildern erkennen kann, aber vielleicht hilft dir mein Foto weiter https://wtf.roflcopter.fr/pics/aloZmrcf/VcrCEUYj
Geofreund1 (2020-12-06 17:14:20+00:00): Ganz nach Wunsch.
bergaufsee (2020-12-06 17:30:21+00:00): Leider nicht ganz, gut ich hab das nun übernommen
Polarbear-repair (2020-12-16 00:02:01+00:00): Das Argument "hat man halt Pech gehabt" aus der Sesselperspektive gegenüber dem Mapper vor Ort zu verwenden, halte ich nicht für eine angemessene Reaktion, vorsichtig ausgedrückt. 
Auch amtliche Daten haben Fehler, und ebendiese wollen wir nicht nach OSM übernehmen.
Frans S (2020-08-31 09:55:14+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Mappings are fine and accurate. No errors
Just a small remark. Please square all rectangular buildings with the Q key.
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10sSghBZ1xSoo0JKAWUJH8VYood6VSL5eUI4ICnO_jg0/edit?usp=sharing
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90158062
miche101 (2020-09-09 16:26:21+00:00): Hi, 

ein wenig vorsichtiger bitte beim Editieren:

https://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html?lat=48.30549&lon=11.91481&zoom=19&layers=B000TT

War wieder ein Loch im Straßennetz :-(

Hab es wieder geschlossen.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90656850

Gruß Miche
Wegeschlenzer (2020-09-15 22:13:57+00:00): Servus Miche,
danke für Fehlerkorrektur!
An der Stelle waren zwei Straßenspuren angezeigt. Nach löschen der einen sah ich zwar die entstandene Lücke und wollte die auch wieder schließen, wurde dann gestört/abgelenkt und habs vergessen. Klingt wie eine billige Ausrede  
ist klar. Leider wurde das beim Schließen nicht angezeigt wie so manche anderen Versäumnisse... Vielleicht kannst mir mal verraten, wo du da reinschaust?
Gruß
Eggi
miche101 (2020-09-16 08:15:48+00:00): Ja das hab ich nur zufällig gesehen, das da ein Loch ist. 

Aber beim letzten mal ist es durch Toni's ÖPNV Analyse aufgefallen das hier ein Loch ist in der Bus Relation. 

Desweiteren verfolge ich die Gegend auf Änderungen per RSS-Feed und schau mir den einen oder anderen Änderungssatz an.
Simone Saviolo (2020-08-31 08:29:08+00:00): Ciao, c'è un consenso su cosa fare dei passaggi a livello su linee abbandonate? Ho trovato solo una discussione sul wiki in inglese, ma è inconcludente. Da un lato capisco bene la modifica, dall'altro mi sembra di perdere un'informazione.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90158301
mikki65 (2020-08-31 11:50:42+00:00): l 'ho tolto perche hanno tolto le sbarre  mi sembrava giusto toglierlo poi non  so  se ho fatto bene
Simone Saviolo (2020-08-31 12:08:25+00:00): Nessun problema, hai fatto bene. Proverò a chiedere in ML, ma probabilmente va benissimo così. Se hanno persino tolto le sbarre, togliamo il tag - al limite lo rimetteremo, tanto il nodo c'è ancora. Grazie e buona giornata!
Frans S (2020-08-31 09:06:37+00:00): Hello. 

Thank you for mapping on this project.
Your mapping work lacks accuracy and details.
Most buildings here are rectangular. Please square each of them with the Q key in the editor

Here are some tips and hints which might be helpful to improve your mapping skills

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT_4K-s7HItsGTDt4dx43C3iD7u5uHtUyvasd_eMUQIq9zWbwlMXQk90jDHcdq6OcOnMc6B1NHYG4cO/pub
Best regards and keep mapping
pfg21 (2020-10-09 21:33:59+00:00): что ты хотел сказать именуя куски леса "Лес вырубка" ??
Jenya Adventure (2020-10-11 20:12:40+00:00): Уже и не помню... Рисовал карту под приключенческую гонку, с последующим импортом в OOM. Не было целью внести сюда какие-то изменения, а просто сделать хорошую карту для ориентирования.
Как выяснилось позже, наделал много ошибок в OSM, из-за неправильной передачи данных на сервер и плохого знания josm. Пришлось людям повозиться, чтобы почистить, за что в очередной раз извиняюсь.
WoodWoseWulf (2020-08-30 23:24:29+00:00): Some of these changes are associated with the DWG report I raised about a week and a bit ago (id: 2020082110000078). Mapper has continued to add fictional elements to West Liberty and is not responding to changeset comments.
Tomas Straupis (2020-08-31 10:42:07+00:00): Change reverted. iD is terrible/crappy product offerring incorrect changes. Do not "fix" things which are not broken.
#ban_id
Чэшырскі К^-^Т (2020-08-31 11:07:53+00:00): Ok
Warin61 (2020-09-23 07:53:18+00:00): Hi,
Welcome to OSM!

The relation for building=house rel_id: 	11562066 is not quite correct. The outer way way_id: 	842499113 has the same tags as the relation. Remove the tags from hte outerway. Reason: the outer way would have all of the area as a building where as the relation has a hole in it. 

A small improvement in mapping 'square' things (made of right angles) is to press the q key when the object is highlighted. This should 'square' all the corners making it look better.
Frans S (2020-08-31 08:55:10+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Please focus on mapping buildings. This is a building only project.
Another issue on your mappings here. You forgot to tag the road qualification here. 
You overlooked the buildings on the south east corners
This is task 158 marked as complete mapped by you
I invalidate this task. Please continue and complete the mappings

Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90158736
Frans S (2020-08-31 08:57:42+00:00): Tasks has been completed by another mapper.
No need anymore to take action
Best regares
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90158736
Frans S (2020-08-31 08:50:09+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
See my comments on a previous changeset.


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90158777