piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
1998alexkane (2024-12-17 17:09:12+00:00): I believe that earlier that the different lines where not particularly well signed, and thus that using the route as the name could be potentially confusing to end users. In any case, it seems like there is more signage being installed, so it might be better to use the line name as the name of the ways now. 

One other thing that came to mind, however, is trails which (very closely) follow a road. (for example, North Menomonee River Parkway between Burleigh and North Avenue) A user receiving a navigation prompt to follow "North Menomonee River Parkway" might be more useful than following "Oak Leaf Trail Menomonee River Line"

Also, btw, we are not the first people to have this discussion, for example there was this thread in the forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/trails-use-name-and-or-hiking-route/110106
I'd rather not get to in the weeds about "what is a name" as usually OSM is best when there are practical, understandable solutions
BPTT (2024-12-17 17:24:55+00:00): Gotcha! Thanks for all this. I think I disagree on your latter point though; I think that a trail user following audio or textual directions would find it more helpful to see/hear "Oak Leaf Trail" than "Menomonee Parkway," because most people have the association that path=trail, and hearing "Parkway" might confuse people into thinking the path/trail is closed and/or the roadway is preferential. Right?

But yes, I definitely agree about the signage and consistency. I've been seeing a lot more signs and trying to mark them as info boards/maps where appropriate. I think by now County Parks has done a good enough job signing the route lines that we should just name the pathways - or at least the "main lines" of the route lines, as drawn in the County's Interactive OLT Map. Maybe this is a good compromise?
treestryder (2023-01-15 18:57:21+00:00): Letting you know, after seeing your recent use of the "whitewater" tag. Whereas, I once recommended its use, now "canoe" is the generic key for all human powered boats in OpenStreetMap. Have a look at the Michigan Wiki for an overview of how to map paddling infrastructure.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Michigan#Common_Tagging_Schemes

These can be seen at
https://openstreetbrowser.org/#map=18/42.74232/-84.54760&categories=paddling_routes,paddling_hazards,paddling_amenities

Also, many Michigan mappers have been meeting together each month. Meeting information can be found in the Community section. Hope to see you around.
adrianojbr (2022-05-11 12:30:22+00:00): Olá, Fidelis! Tem certeza que ainda existem essas lombadas? Tenho impressão que quando passei no início do ano não havia mais.
Fidelis Assis (2022-05-12 18:30:47+00:00): Olá, Adriano. Não sei dizer. tenho migrado para o OSM muitas lombadas  de um arquivo do antigo GPSPoint, mais de 5 anos, da época que eu administrava os pontos de alertas lá. Como não é frequente lombadas serem removidas das vias e essas em particular aparecem nas imagens do Mapillary, eu ioncluí, Mas se vocve
Fidelis Assis (2022-05-12 18:32:41+00:00): que conhece a região, acredita que não existam mais, já vou removê-las :). Abraços,
adrianojbr (2022-05-12 19:16:19+00:00): 👍
adrianojbr (2022-05-11 12:32:29+00:00): Olá, Fidelis! Tem certeza que ainda existem essas lombadas? Tenho impressão que quando passei no início do ano não havia mais.
Supaplex (2022-05-11 08:55:16+00:00): 我加個安中產業道路關係，還有加 alt_name=安中產業道路，就可以把一路上拍的照片加到 commons LOL
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120814037
woodpeck (2022-05-13 11:56:29+00:00): Please note that should you be making these edits in the course of a business activity, the "organised editing guidelines" require that you clearly explain whom you are working for.
marczoutendijk (2022-05-11 14:46:41+00:00): Revealing personal data is not allowed on OSM.
Reverted and redacted:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120844261

Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
ElliottPlack (2022-05-12 20:39:31+00:00): Love it!
marc__marc (2024-09-08 09:10:43+00:00): Bonjour,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1059098258
ce cimetière serrait-il réellement réservé au confucianisme, cette pensée/religion chinoise ?
j'imagine que c'est plutôt une erreur de complétion pour chrétien.
Cordialement,
Marc
mbeyerle (2022-07-07 19:57:41+00:00): Hi dufekin, 
Just wondering, why did you change the parking aisles at Westerly Parkway Plaza to be private in this changeset?
mbeyerle (2022-07-18 19:56:45+00:00): Hi dufekin,
Also, is there a compelling reason you removed the area for Commmunity Field and replaced it with a node?
Thanks!
dufekin (2023-08-28 23:46:53+00:00): Westerly Parkway Plaza is private property, not a public street.  So it's not appropriate (or legal) to drive on the parking aisles without business on the property or permission of the owner.  

For the community field, I think that I was just trying to get the schoolyard perimeter correct. State College has a large number of overlapping area features that can make good edits difficult and complicated.  The area looks mostly good now except the residential neighborhood boundaries.
mbeyerle (2023-08-29 00:05:57+00:00): Gotcha, thanks for the reply! I think access=permissive is a more precise tag in such instances (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access). To the point of Community Field thank you for edits to improve the schoolyard perimeter. One thought there and potentially more broadly is to map what's "on the ground" in the most accurate way possible without worrying about how it renders on the default map (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer). Since the public recreation area that is Community Field indeed exists on school property, I think two overlapping areas are justified.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-05-13 08:19:20+00:00): Hole numbers shouldn't go in the name.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120815447
Carnildo (2022-05-12 00:04:59+00:00): Changing the address doesn't actually move anything: the map still had your business located at the corner of Canal and Auburn, just with a different address.

I've moved it properly, by removing the business information from the old building and adding a business "point" object inside the new location.
Tech Dec (2022-05-11 07:55:09+00:00): Thanks Scottie
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-06-25 19:45:41+00:00): please, remove "true location" word
ClemChay (2022-06-26 10:25:10+00:00): No. It is the true location and the other "native diver" spot is wrong.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-06-26 22:25:07+00:00): no. you can put "true location", that is not part of the oficial name, and you should edit the other one, not create other. duplicating the info. Im reverting this.
hanchao (2022-05-12 10:46:58+00:00): 这里不应该删除楼块，数据已回退
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120881880
user_5359 (2022-05-12 17:29:31+00:00): Hello! Please notice your typo. use source instead of souce.
Kovoschiz (2022-05-12 06:26:09+00:00): What do you mean by the power station's name. It's a cape, and a more well-known toponym in the area. These two can also co-exist.
minghong (2022-05-12 06:52:59+00:00): The English name is Black Point Power Station while the Chinese name is 龍鼓灘發電廠. But sadly both do not describe the correct name of this place, which is Yung Long.

Yung Long is well-known. e.g. the Chinese Wikipedia page is using it since 2006. https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E9%BE%8D%E9%BC%93%E7%81%98%E7%99%BC%E9%9B%BB%E5%BB%A0&oldid=2805584

From the old maps (e.g. 1987), you can see Yung Long was original a village next to a beach / bay. The cape "Black Point" remains undeveloped as of today. https://www.hkmaps.hk/viewer.html
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 03:14:19+00:00): 1. As I said before, two toponyms can co-exist together. 
2. This lacks support from elsewhere. 
3. The place name doesn't have to be directly at the terrain it is named after.
minghong (2022-05-13 03:40:20+00:00): I don't agree.

A simple Google search unveil that Yung Long is more suitable.

1. Black Point: about the power station
2. Yung Long: archaeological study carried out before the construction of power station
3. 爛角咀: hiking activity (excluding the power station which is not accessible by the public)
4. 屯門湧浪: archaeological study and local history (風物志)

Other Geoinfo sites also define Black Point as a cape/point while Yung Long is a populated place. In OSM, suburb is a part of a town or city with a well-known name and often a distinct identity. I understand that OSM does not require suburb to be populated area. But since suburb is used to define the name of a wider area, Yung Long and Black Point are so close to each other, it is illogical to have both as suburb.
minghong (2022-05-13 03:42:59+00:00): Using your arguments, Cape Collinson can also a "suburb" while there is already Siu Sai Wan next to it
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 03:45:50+00:00): I'm obviously not saying both of them should be `=suburb`, but you deleted it first. 
If you look at Wikipedia, zh says Black Point is the "exact location" of the power station below. En writes "build the station at Black Point". 
You are talking about archeology. Yung Long is more of a  village and surroundings. Black Point is suitable for the region from Lung Kwu Tan to Tsang Tsui. 
Inaccessibility by public has nothing to do with the area. 
OSM is also about present concepts, not a historic village.
minghong (2022-05-13 03:46:05+00:00): BTW, the current "Cape Collinson" suburb on the middle of the hill is completely wrong. People say "Cape Collinson" to refer to "Cape Collinson Road", e.g. 我去歌連臣角拜山. That does not automatically turn the cemetery area into a suburb.
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 03:52:54+00:00): Cape Collinson has human activity at the crematorium, 2 jails, and a mosque/
minghong (2022-05-13 03:55:30+00:00): Yung Long is not a historical place. e.g. Yung Long Road is connecting to it. The village disappeared, but the name remains.
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 03:55:37+00:00): Secondarily, there is One Feature One Concept. The `place=locality` is supposedly for the `demolished:place=hamlet`.
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 03:56:42+00:00): A road name is not necessary condition for whether a place is not historical. There are plenty of roads named after gone places/
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 04:06:00+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120912747
minghong (2022-05-13 04:12:16+00:00): Again you are contradicting yourself. I see many "gone places" like Hok Yuen (鶴園), Tai Wan (大環) were created or edited by you. Many not so well known places like Ma Tau Kok (馬頭角), Ma Tau Wai (馬頭圍) were also created or edited by you.

Those names disappeared from HK maps since around 1960s. The name Yung Long still appear now in the official map (although only in the base layer, not the search results). How can you say it is historical?

https://www.map.gov.hk/gm/map/search/keyword/Yung%20Long
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 04:40:58+00:00): I'm saying your concept of Yung Long being the exclusive toponym here being historical. This area is more well-known as Black Point. 
How is Hok Yuen and Tai Wan gone? I don't know what's the relevance of Ma Tau kok and Ma Tau Wai, or how they are "not so well known". 
A reminder you should not directly copy or base you decision solely on official maps in copyright.
minghong (2022-05-13 04:45:39+00:00): Place name is not copyrightable. At least the name Yung Long is still 100% present as close as 1987, unlike the old places in Kowloon which got absorbed by the nearby "big place" like Hung Hom and To Kwa Wan after 1960.
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 05:16:23+00:00): Your source is copyrighted. A collection of facts is also copyrightable as a database. Looking at a map only shows you what the map maker and perhaps government interprets. Other than the public concept of places, there are many aspects to the former, such as postal address, land administration, housing, development, etc.  
I'm not objecting your upgrading of Yung Long. I'm saying you should not delete Black Point. 
Big places can have small places in them. It is not single-level, or non-overlapping. 
For references, I'm not directly adding those. They existed before, that I'm fixing that user's edit. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6791843289/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6791831599
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 05:20:41+00:00): You removed one set yourself, so I'm not sure why you claim I am the original author of this concept  by myself. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5096721441/  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5097533128/history
Ma Tau Kok is created by another user, and was set by you once before https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4254396525/history 
Ma Tau Chung was set by others https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4796025509/history
minghong (2022-05-13 05:21:50+00:00): I was referring to Tai Wan at Hung Hum (Hutchison Park), not the recently added one in Tsim Bei Tsui
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 05:28:40+00:00): For Hung Hom and To Kwa Wan, they  are caused by their status as police districts, and OZP. aside from other possible government sub-divisions. 
Hok Yuen, Ma Tau Chung, and Ma Tau Kok  are still used as constitutency / Electoral districts. Tai Wan is at least on the park, swimming pool, electrical substation, and pumping station; also the electrical cable tunnel.
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 05:29:11+00:00): What at Tsim Bei Tsui?
minghong (2022-05-13 05:29:46+00:00): I don't argue with you one by one anymore. You should get my meaning already.

The deletion of the original point (of 8 years old, which happens to be created by me) was my mistake. Sorry about that.

Yung Long is the officially recognized populated area (whether by government or other Geoinfo site). Black Point as a suburb is purely based on the name of the power station, which is a weak argument.

Anyway, I will not touch your "Black Point" further if you insist.
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 05:59:13+00:00): The government simply thrown a bunch of stuff on the same layer / as the same object type for everything. There is not explanation, distinction, or area of validity. It could even a remnant of the demolished village. 
HK Post even records Lung Kwu Tan Rd in the address only. LandsD has a record of Black Point used as the address. https://geodata.gov.hk/gs/view-dataset;jsessionid=4882EB791AE66D609EE6DD4C8B112750?uuid=f38039e6-29d9-4151-860a-dec8f9ee3d08&sidx=0 
The natural gas pipeline landfall didn't mention Yung Long either. Using your arguement of absorbing into bigger places, doesn't Yung Long only appearing on the base lower at very close zoom shows it's lower significance than Black Point? 
What other Geoinfo sites are you referring to? You have not mentioned this. 
Very funny to claim "weak argument" when your Wikipedia evidence already gives a conflicting account. 
The government has been using Black Point for the power station, radar station, and a demolished weather station. This is also used in the Lung Kwu Tan reclamation study, and future Black Point  quarry. Of course this may refer to the cape and mountain proper, but Yung Long has not been further in use.
tastrax (2022-05-17 07:34:35+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features  - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
DP24PH (2022-05-11 04:19:55+00:00): This changeset resolves the issue wherein OSRM refuses to navigate both bikes, foot traffic into highway=trunk, and moreover, we have to focus on the developments of the upcoming expressway (i.e. CALAx) that would further restrict the highway=primary into local traffic.


DP24
GOwin (2022-05-20 00:14:46+00:00): Hello @xChAosx. Kamusta? 

I'm curious about this cycleway tag update you did. Is it really a cycleway (a highway purposely built for people on bikes), or a multi-use path, where cycling is allowed?

If it's the latter, it's probably better tagged as highway=path + foot=yes + bicycle=yes

This caught my interest because if this is a real cycleway, it would have been in the news, but I couldn't find any reports about it.
xChAoSx (2022-05-20 02:05:55+00:00): Hello @GOwin,

It is in fact purposely built as a bicycle lane, where walking/running is also allowed. Refer to below news posted on facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/624391680921431/photos/a.624413097585956.1073741828.624391680921431/1097834943577100/

Motor vehicles are not allowed on these lanes per the local city traffic. Refer to below news posted on facebook: 
facebook.com/RadyoBida963/posts/1124512220988919/

I have only mapped the first portion of the cycleway as I'm still lacking imagery for the 2nd portion. Refer to news below:
https://edgedavao.net/the-big-news/2016/12/03/koronadal-city-allots-p10m-for-expansion-of-bike-lanes/

I would like to note that there is also an ongoing construction of bicycle/pedestrian lanes on the other side of the road, and am also waiting for updated imagery on those portions.
GOwin (2022-05-21 03:17:06+00:00): That sounds great @ xChAoSx.  Thanks for sharing the links - they didn't come up when I tried to search for *recent* news. 

Looks like they've been in the pipeline for so long.

If you couldn't wait for imagery updates, you might want to consider collecting them yourself, using Mapillary or KartaView.  Even GNSS track logs might be useful
mavl (2022-05-20 16:07:49+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
mavl (2022-05-20 16:07:45+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
mavl (2022-05-20 16:07:41+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
kguenther24 (2022-05-14 12:41:12+00:00): The Alliant Energy buildings in downtown Dubuque were demolished years ago, buildings on Jackson St inaccurate
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120817493
gscholz (2022-06-02 04:28:00+00:00): Hi kseltar,
your recent changesets have added several errors to the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-57.51842&lat=-25.36565&zoom=12&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points,single_node_in_way,duplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=120817743

Can you please fix this?

My impression is, you do not know how to handle multipolygon relations properly. Please educate yourself:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Kind Regards
Guido
avinet_ua (2022-05-13 22:15:11+00:00): stop doing this all over the world! do small changesets!

you spamming map!
iWowik (2022-05-15 18:38:11+00:00): better way do not spam mappers but write to developers of monitoring tools you are using to ask they to make the tools more suitable for your usage
radiotrefoil (2022-05-11 04:20:07+00:00): Addition - remove duplicate place Rove in incorrect location
literan (2022-05-11 17:29:20+00:00): кривая правка, испортили адреску. откат
demon_box (2022-05-11 19:47:26+00:00): ciao, scusami ma NON si mettono i tags dell'indirizzo sull'intero edificio, si mappa un nodo a parte vicino all'edificio (regola consolidata della Comunità OSM). ke senso ha poi mappare soltanto la "Via" addr:street senza il civico????
grazieeeee
demon_box (2022-05-11 19:49:09+00:00): ...soltanto addr:street è un dato inconsistente, incompleto, INUTILE!
ciao
thetornado76 (2022-05-12 03:36:51+00:00): Attualmente non c'è consenso su dove inserire l'indirizzo, si veda il wiki. In Italia, tuttavia, sembra che si utilizzino i nodi, cosa che non avevo notato prima. L'ho usato come in molti altri paesi come Germania, Belgio, Paesi Bassi, Stati Uniti,... Ho aggiunto addr:street, in modo che StreetComplete, ad esempio, debba aggiungere il numero civico solo in un secondo momento.
demon_box (2022-05-12 10:33:03+00:00): ciao, nella ml talk-it@openstreetmap.org già almeno 4 anni fa si è convenuto ke in Italia l'indirizzo va messo su un nodo separato e non sull'edificio molto semplicemente perchè in Italia (secondo la legge e l'ISTAT) il civico identifica il punto di accesso all'edificio e NON l'intero edificio.
ciao, BuonMapping
P.S.: premesso quanto sopra, mi sembra ovvio ke mappare un nodo con soltanto il tag addr:street (senza civico) NON serve proprio a nulla, non ha senso....
thetornado76 (2022-05-12 11:32:07+00:00): Penso che sia positivo che voi in Italia abbiate stabilito questo. Se un edificio può avere più di un indirizzo, non ha senso avere un indirizzo sulla sagoma dell'edificio.
ierihon (2022-05-11 15:27:55+00:00): Need roll back.
nevw (2022-05-13 03:05:27+00:00): Hi
you added your business details to the whole building. I have added your business details to a node within the main building instead.
nevw (2022-05-13 03:24:51+00:00): You also mapped your business to the wrong building. I have shifted it to 303 Collins Street, across the road. 
Please take more care.
TheSwavu (2022-05-12 07:27:37+00:00): Hi,

The no-left turn restriction is required because there is a left turn slip lane. The no-right turn restriction is required because u-turns are not permitted at traffic lights.

I have put them back to what they were.

Happy Mapping.
mavl (2022-05-12 14:53:03+00:00): Здравствуйте. Изменения, сделанные в этом пакете правок, не соответствуют состоянию местности. Этот пакет правок отменён.
mavl (2022-05-20 16:07:36+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
Self-Perfection (2022-05-11 17:35:37+00:00): Hi

Thanks for resolving one of my notes: 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3160901

Yet I have fixed it again.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1337142834 basically is not made to be beautiful or to be a piece of art, it's main function is to commemorate important person. So it is memorial=bust and not a artwork_type=bust

Compare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:memorial and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dartwork

My initial note was an observation that this memorial is not big enough to qualify as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmonument . This confusion is a typical mistake in Yerevan.
Katz K (2022-05-11 19:17:55+00:00): Thanks! Never thought about these deeper differences between memorial and artwork_type.
jtn20 (2022-06-26 15:13:55+00:00): This changeset deleted the turn restriction relation 5756748. It's not clear why, so I have just restored the relation as-is in changeset 122870890.
Your change description doesn't describe precisely what the issue was -- I'm guessing it was flagged by https://www.keepright.at/ ?
The restriction type was unusual (conditional), but I don't think it was "missing form [sic] or to way".
(Your changeset 120821700 similarly deleted a relation which I think was valid -- I haven't repaired that yet.)
I guess this was part of https://github.com/microsoft/Open-Maps/issues/79 "Editorial Work in the British Isles"?
PulisakZ (2022-07-13 06:42:03+00:00): Hi.

I was working on KeepRight to fix turn restrictions in UK. 

You did it right for hgv:conditional. 
And in this type of restrictions "from" must be only one (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction)

I saw in Australia that community only uses "via" and "to". Are there any specific UK community turn restriction rules that I'm not aware off?
eggie (2022-05-11 07:07:33+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
jtn20 (2022-06-27 11:28:46+00:00): In changelist 122905570, I've restored the relation 5756747 deleted by your changelist; see my comments on your other changelist 120821325 for more detail.
Did you delete this relation because of the issue flagged at https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=87&error=77847674 ? (Which I have just reported as a false positive.)
PulisakZ (2022-07-13 06:44:11+00:00): Responded on previous comment.
SLMapper (2022-05-15 01:06:46+00:00): Hi, I updated the entry: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14139736/history