piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ToniE (2021-03-07 12:27:33+00:00): Hallo mario_du,

bitte bachte, dass 'role' = 'forward' und 'backward' laut PTv2 (public_transport:version=2) nicht erlaubt sind. Für vom Bus/... befahrene Wege gibt es keine 'role'.

PTv2 ist hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Public_Transport&oldid=625726
beschrieben.

Betroffen: 

https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/results/DE/SN/DE-SN-VMS-Analysis.html#bus_A-10

und weitere Meldungen

- PTv2 Route: falsche 'role' = 'forward'

- PTv2 Route: falsche 'role' = 'backward'

Viele Grüße,
Toni
Ze0zohk1 (2021-08-12 18:52:39+00:00): Hallo AlexJ,

wieso hast du den Namen von "Lettgenbrunn" auf "Lettgenbrunn (Gemeinde Jossgrund)" geändert? Das ist doch falsch. Die Gemeinde ist nicht Teil des Namen eines Ortes.

Viele Grüße
Ze0zohk1
Jrachi (2021-04-20 08:23:03+00:00): Hai caricato un file gpx con il tag ele in ogni nodo.
Credo che sia un'informazione non molto utile.
Anche perché i valori sono tutti a 0 (zero)
gianfox (2021-04-20 18:47:11+00:00): Concordo, ho provveduto a rimuovere l'inutile informazione dell'elevazione 0 ai nodi...
jcr83 (2021-06-12 16:38:00+00:00): "Refuge abandonné" is not a correct name. There are several ways to fix the problem, for example you could use a description tag, or use building=ruins. Look at the OSM wiki for more information.
JulesGabrielVerne (2021-03-08 00:33:08+00:00): tag bicycle=yes nie daje sie zwykłym drogom polnym. Służy on bardziej do oznaczania dróg publicznych z oznaczonym dopuszczonym ruchem rowerowym
Wojtek GGG (2021-03-08 03:10:03+00:00): Akurat tego tagu nie dodawałem ja (tylko uzupełniłem nawierzchnię), ale dziękuję za sugestię - postaram się pamiętać na przyszłość.
Wojtek GGG (2021-03-08 03:15:00+00:00): Swoją drogą, przyszło mi do głowy, dlaczego oryginalna edycja miała taki tag. Ta droga owszem, biegnie przez las, ale jest zbudowana z betonowych płyt i daje dobrą możliwość przejazdu w przeciwieństwie do pozostałych w tym lasku. Dopóki nie była zdefiniowana nawierzchnia, pozostawienie tego tagu miało duży sens z perspektywy wytyczania tras, bo "promowało" tę drogę.
user_5359 (2021-03-07 05:34:13+00:00): Hello again! Please use the key "source" instead of "source:" .
ma-rt-in (2021-05-22 13:52:57+00:00): Moin,

du warst ja an der Brücke über die Binsbar dran. Kannst du mal hier deshalb reinschauen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2668885

vg
hauke-stieler (2021-05-22 14:07:16+00:00): Hi,

ja den hab ich schon in meinen Lesezeichen ;) Bin bisher leider noch nicht dazu gekommen da mal vorbei zu schauen.
maciek-szn (2021-03-06 20:12:34+00:00): Jesteś w stanie jakoś uzasadnić:
- dodawanie bus=yes do przystanków autobusowych (spodziewasz się przystanków autobusowych, na których autobusy nie mogą się zatrzymywać?),
- dodawanie tram=yes do przystanków tramwajowych (j.w.),
- dodawanie public_transport=platform do węzła z przystankiem, chociaż to nie węzeł jest peronem, a sam peron jest już zmapowany?
Wojtek GGG (2021-03-06 20:38:11+00:00): Witaj. Edytor zgłosił mi takie problemy, dlatego skorygowałem je wg sugestii edytora. Jeżeli to problem, mogę jedynie przeprosić za skomplikowanie Waszej pracy - choć dziwi mnie, że mapa zgłasza problem, a jego sugerowane rozwiązanie okazuje się błędem.
maraf24 (2021-03-07 19:48:44+00:00): @diverpl: Takie edycje na podstawie sugestii edytora iD są  w całej Polsce, praktycznie nie ma jak z tym walczyć.
Wojtek GGG (2021-03-07 19:53:49+00:00): OK, teraz będę mądrzejszy o tę wiedzę :) Szkoda, że Wiki tego nie uwzględnia, ale to oczywiście już nie zarzut do Was. Dziękuję za czujność i jeszcze raz przepraszam!
Cristoffs (2021-03-08 00:38:26+00:00): Spoko. Z tym iD trzeba będzie coś zrobić ... zresztą JOSM też ma problem, bo w szablonach nie trzeba wszystkiego podawać, a takiej informacji brakuje.
Wojtek GGG (2021-03-08 03:07:42+00:00): Jeżeli mogę coś podpowiedzieć z perspektywy początkującego: uaktualnić Wiki! 

Wyrobiłem sobie nawyk i staram się sprawdzać przed pierwszą edycją nowego rodzaju, a w tym przypadku nie ma ani słowa na ten temat. Skoro jest z tym problem i skoro iD (jak rozumiem) wprowadza w błąd, może warto byłoby chociaż prowizorycznie obejść poprzez wzmiankę w Wiki?
SekeRob (2022-02-25 12:45:11+00:00): Hi,

I've been pimping your large areas of wood, scrub and grassland in the Majella park and lots more, the Passo San Leonardo grassland area went from 11 to 157 members so far in additional detail, mostly woody areas., but that's not the reason I'm writing, just FYI. What I'm asking is if you could navigate with Keepright ( https://keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14&lat=42.46383&lon=14.21569) to these mountain slopes and look at the red/yellow zigzag arrows with messages that are near identical in nature such as: This relation is tagged 'symbol:it=E2 su bandierina bianca e rossa' where "E0 su bandierina bianca e rossa" looks like "0 su bandierina bianca e rossa". Keepright is not always right as I've learned from a fellow mapper who spacializes in communication/transmission towers . Could you test a few and let me know if these annotations are in essence right or wrong. If false-positive, they could be tagged as such and then they'll disappear from the 'keepright' map. If wrong, if you could find the time to correct or let me know where to find the info allowing me to correct, I'd much appreciate.

As for the pimping, think at least a years more work is needed to close all the white space, just in the park.

MTIA
Robert
itineris (2021-03-09 19:36:37+00:00): Szia Gyula!

Tök jó, hogy ilyen szorgalmasan egyengeted az utcákat. Azt viszont szeretném kérni, hogy iD editorral ne nagyon darabolj utakat, mert rendszeresen széttúrod a rajtuk közlekedő busz útvonal kapcsolatokat. Ezeknél a tagok sorrendje is fontos, és sajnos az iD ezt nem kezeli jól.

Köszönöm:
Ákos
4004 (2021-03-08 00:58:02+00:00): здравствуйте, спасибо за правки.
Именье Болиновых - это имя собственное, вывеска, название фирмы? если это просто дом семьи с такой фамилией, то мы такое не мапим
eggie (2021-03-07 15:25:20+00:00): Dag bvangils
Je vraagt om feedback
De straatnaam is goed gelukt.
Wanneer de weg al klaar is kun je er highway=residential van maken net als de overige wegen in de wijk.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-03-07 15:29:05+00:00): Even het grenspad een naam gegeven  en het Dalkpad toegevoegd. Nu even als track.
bvangils (2021-03-13 12:41:37+00:00): Het grenspad heeft officieel geen naam; kun je dat dan zelf verzinnen?
eggie (2021-03-13 12:47:24+00:00): Hoi.. Nee ..die naam heb ik uit de BGT omtrekgericht. Daarin staan de straatnamen uit de data van de overheid.
De BGT heb ik als tranparant op het scherm.
Mocht het niet kloppen dan kun je een terugmelding doen naar Verbeterdekaart Kadaster.. Even googlen..
Voel je vrij om de naam weer te verwijderen als het niet mocht kloppen..
Mvg
Eggie
bvangils (2021-03-13 12:55:33+00:00): Kan ik de BGT omtrekgericht ook zelf als achtergrond instellen?
eggie (2021-03-13 13:20:18+00:00): Of het in Vespucci kan.. geen idee.
De ervaren mappers mappen allemaal met josm. Daarin is heel veel mogelijk.

Hier wat leesvoer

editor josm stap voor stap 

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710        

 

BGT implementeren  

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=59021 

Forumdraadje ..  De beste imagery layers om NL OSM te mappen met JOSM. 

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64644 

Hier kun je zien hoe je de .jos file kunt gebruiken binnen JOSM.  
https://youtu.be/33EenoZezWg 

Wellicht kun je ergens de url link plakken. In editor iD kan het wel, maar dan moet je dat steeds opnieuw invoeren.

Dus advies.. JOSM gebruiken
Succes,
eggie
bvangils (2021-03-13 13:24:04+00:00): In Vespucci kan dat niet- dat is slechts een app om specifieke vragen te beantwoorden. Het kan wel als ik op mijn computer thuis werk. Dank voor de tips! Fijn als ervaren mensen de nieuwelingen helpen. Vriendelijke groet, bvangils.
!bm (2021-03-08 17:08:20+00:00): Hallo OLAFFAHI,

wieso erst geändert, dann in diesem Cs gelöscht?

--besteGrüße!bm
!bm (2021-03-22 00:13:29+00:00): no response: restore node of ~1 POI and set as disused:*
julcnx (2022-02-20 03:32:37+00:00): Hi nitinatsangsit, what source did u use for the Mae Hong Son - Chiang Mai boundary? According to google and WorldStreetmap, a large section seems out of place by a large offset, so wanted to check with you first before improving it. Cheers, Julien
!bm (2021-03-11 22:56:29+00:00): FYI: vier hier mit removed:natural=tree getaggte nodes wurden in einzelnen Cs gelöscht und in [1] wiederhergestellt, s. Cs disc. [2]

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/100867353
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/100863899
user_5589 (2021-03-15 19:55:14+00:00): Did it ever occur to you that the approaches to that roundabout were laid out like they were before this edit for a good reason? There are turning lanes with islands in between them and the main lines of the roads in question. That means certain movements are not allowed at the roundabout. Those movements were restricted by turning restrictions previously and the geometries of the flows were respected.

Now the layout looks like a mess with absurdly tight turns put in place because you wanted to "tidyup" the roundabout. Now turns can be made by routing software that were forbidden previously. Oh and the gritting route relation is now completely messed up at this roundabout.

Please revert this unhelpful and destructive edit.
robw (2021-03-15 20:28:35+00:00): Sorry but as previously mapped  there were multiple non-existant ways shown. As now mapped all the islands actually present on the ground are correct. Only turn restrictions which are signposted as "not allowed" should actually be mapped as otherwise it is just a matter of opinion what is or is not allowed.  Apologies if i mapped up the gritting route relation - consider it an opportunity for you to fix it.
user_5589 (2021-03-15 21:11:50+00:00): They are signposted, at least on the A452 Binswood Street. What you need to properly consider and be aware of is what counts as "signposted".

The governing rules are the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made

If you look in the schedules to those regulations you will see that road markings count as exactly the same as upright signposts in law. Binswood Street has examples of diagram 1038 in the lanes leading on to the main roundabout. They very clearly indicate that one lane is ahead only and that one lane is right turn only. Diagram 1039 can be found a little further back on the carriageway from the roundabout at the point where the left-turn lane diverges. Again that is the same as an upright signpost in law.

Now they are advisory traffic signs, rather than compulsory traffic signs, but if you tried to turn left from Binswood Street into Rugby Road other than via the left-turn lane or by going a complete circuit around the roundabout then you would be guilty of driving without due care and attention and if you did so in a particularly reckless manner you could be guilty of dangerous driving.

Incidentally I see you've also done a multitude of other destructive and unhelpful edits to a multiplicity of other junctions in the Leamington and Warwick area recently. Given your lack of proper comprehension of the wrong you have done and the damage you have done to junction mapping in the area I intend to get in touch with the appropriate people to get your edits almost all reverted.

Not sure whether this is Data Working Group level of concern, but the amount of damage is considerable.
user_5173844 (2021-03-17 10:04:53+00:00): I came here after reading user_5589's post in Talk-GB and I have only verified the changes in osmcha using Bing imagery.

I see robw has made subsequent fixes in changesets #101074201, #101074494 and #101074890. User_5589, are they addressing the issues you have raised?

I can also see this changeset has indeed mainly removed non-existent islands/ways, so calling it destructive is not warranted. For multiple lanes not separated by traffic islands the consensus is to use tagging, not to create multiple highways.

Overall, this roundabout is mapped very well indeed, much better than most I've seen. Thank you both.
robw (2021-03-17 11:41:29+00:00): Thanks ndrw6.  I have indeed added some turn implicit turn restrictions would should address #5589's comments.  If s/he had been a little more civil in the opening remarks then I would probably not have responded in such a terse manner.  I have also reviewed the other local interchanges which I have recently similary modified to remove non-existant ways and have now add in implicit restrictions where appropriate.
robw (2021-03-17 14:22:25+00:00): Wow.  What a rant.
user_5173844 (2021-03-17 15:05:41+00:00): User_5589, I came here expecting vandalism or at least controversial changes. Instead, what I've seen was a well mapped roundabout adhering to OSM conventions and a previous version that was objectively incorrect, as it introduced ways and crossings where they don't physically exist.

I realise your intention was to map the layout of individual traffic lanes. That's a desirable outcome but, as of now, there is no satisfactory solution to it. You could try adding area:highway or lanes tags. Or even put forward a whole new proposal for broader discussion.
user_5589 (2021-03-17 17:08:30+00:00): "Wow. What a rant."

Wow. What a misuse of a word.

Check out the actual definition of rant and then compare it to what you've called a rant. Then consider actually having a correct usage of vocabulary to describe what I wrote.

It also might help your case if you substantively countered what I've said instead of summarily dismissing it out-of-hand. For example you haven't acknowledged the signposting of lane restrictions on the A452 which directly counters what you claimed.
robw (2021-03-17 18:23:48+00:00): Yep. You are still ranting.  I guess you don't have a day job as if you did and your spoke to co-workers like you do on here, then you soon would not. If you ask politely for an explanation of what I have done or indicate an error and ask me to fix it then I am far more likely to respond positively.  As you have asked about "the signposting of lane restrictions on the A452", then sorry but I can't see any - and as you are very keen on mapping every single signpost you don't seem to be able to see any either.
robw (2021-03-17 18:29:52+00:00): Ooh, but you have identified a problem with the signage at this roundabout - it is not actually signposted as a roundabout at all!  I went past an hour or so ago and there are none of the required signs to indicate that it should be traversed in a specific direction, therefore actually mapping it as one-way is incorrect.  Do you want to fix this or shall I?
user_5589 (2021-03-17 19:25:04+00:00): "I guess you don't have a day job as if you did and your spoke to co-workers like you do on here, then you soon would not."

Ah unwarranted assumptions galore! So nice to see that surfacing.

As for traffic signs on the A452 Binswood Street, note that I referred to traffic signs specifically in the vast majority of my post. I did they very deliberately because traffic sign has a distinct legal meaning. The restrictions are advisory, not mandatory, but they are very much there and very much indicated by traffic signs. Also try going round the junction in normal traffic whilst completely ignoring those restrictions in front of a police officer. You'd end up with a fixed penalty notice so quickly you wouldn't even have time to blink. Like I said driving without due care and attention.

As I have said previously those traffic signs are diagrams 1038 and 1039 from the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and I have told you where they are on the road.

Just to be very, very, very clearly about this: diagram 1038 and diagram 1039 are road markings painted on the road surface. Road markings are just as much traffic signs as things stuck on top of an upright post.

As for, "Ooh, but you have identified a problem with the signage at this roundabout - it is not actually signposted as a roundabout at all!"

Let's see:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.2945455,-1.5400096,3a,75y,359.17h,67.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sOkbgNWENFvR7L3BMrSWZKQ!2e0!5s20201101T000000!7i16384!8i8192

What's that big green thing on the left hand side of the road? Why it's traffic sign signposting this junction as a roundabout.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.2953395,-1.5420073,3a,75y,66.24h,80.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCZoUSx5A_UNvP7itCeRSOg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

What's that big white thing on the left hand side of the road? Why it's traffic sign signposting this junction as a roundabout.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.2967641,-1.5389084,3a,75y,221.55h,70.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siP99PjZrol1H2OocOHCnVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

What's that big green thing on the left hand side of the road? Why it's traffic sign signposting this junction as a roundabout.

So that's three of the four arms of the junction with traffic signs on the approach clearly showing it as a roundabout. Northumberland Road doesn't have such signage, but it's a residential road with local, rather than long- or medium-distance traffic and so rather different priorities for the street furniture.

If you're referring to the Princes Drive junction then you should know as well as I if you're local to the area that used to be a roundabout, until the junction was modified a few years back.

Don't try and get hair-splittingly snarky with me. I can quite easily demolish such attempts, as I have just done with that silly comment over roundabout traffic signs.
robw (2021-03-17 19:54:06+00:00): Oh you really are a giggle.
The signs you link to (why GSV not your own photos?) are all advance direction signs; the actual roundabout has no roundabout (i.e. keep left) signs. And at no point am I referring to the Princes Drive junction as this is not in this changset.  And sorry if you think that is "hair-slippingly snarky" but you have totally failed to "demolish such attempts" - whatever it is that you are referring to.
robw (2021-03-17 19:58:26+00:00): And do you have a name?  Or should I continue referring to you as #5589 - at least that makes a change from number 6.
user_5589 (2021-03-17 21:02:41+00:00): Tell you what, why don't you try not treating it as a roundabout next time you go through the junction? Say what time and date you're going to do it. I can make sure I'm there to record your actions on camera and then I'll pass it on to Warwickshire Police to see what they have to say about it.

I'm sure the lack of diagram 606 signs at the junction will mean that they would be very forgiving of you not going round the junction in a clockwise sense. I'm sure that they would not investigate you for committing a road traffic offence if you were to do that.

Care to take that course of action?
robw (2021-03-17 21:21:44+00:00): Ha. The police have even less understanding of the signage regulations than you do. But as you keep being very keen in pointing out, just because something is not signposted doesn't mean is it is a safe (not: not illegal) manoeuver.
I regularly used to go around the Tesco "roundabout" the wrong way as that is similarly not singposted.
woodpeck (2021-04-27 09:30:12+00:00): The DWG has been alerted to this discussion, also in light of recent edits by robw commented just with "Sigh" (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103294979). Our statement is as follows: user_5589 has been a little obsessive about the level of detail and his interpretation about what "signposted" means. A junction mapped with less detail is very much "good enough" for OSM. user_5589 has been somewhat condescending in his initial changeset comment. The response by robw ("consider it an opportunity for you to fix it") wasn't any better though it seems he has made amends later. Discussion about whether someone has a day job or not is totally inappropriate in OSM changeset comments. Folks, there's so much good you can both do for OSM instead of fighting about just how much detail a roundabout needs. Remember that by and large we're all on the same side! Just a few meters away from this roundabout there are hundreds of buildings without house numbers, and within 30km I can see whole villages without buildings. Don't obsess over details; OSM must remain manageable and understandable to newbies. Most of all, let's try to keep it a friendly place.
rskedgell (2021-03-07 12:03:12+00:00): What is the practical benefit of merging the whole town into a single landuse=residential polygon, which now overlaps landuses which are anything but residential?
rskedgell (2021-03-07 12:22:18+00:00): I see. You converted the landuse=residential polygon to a multipolygon and cut out the non-residential parts as inner members. If you/Potlatch added changeset comments and source information, it might be easier for other mappers to work out what is going on.
ivanbranco (2021-03-07 10:45:25+00:00): Why using the china_population=2123400 tag while there's already the population=2123400 tag?
user_11435438 (2021-03-07 10:51:44+00:00): China has special admin divison.To ensure prefecture-level division render on higher level then connty-level division, the population tag maybe not real population data. So we use the special tag china_population to tag the real data.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:china_population
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-03-07 11:00:05+00:00): Hey guy! This tag is discussed by Chinese OSM Mapper community. Because the large number of population, if fill the tag population with de facto number, it will cause the lower level administrative district render as a higher level area. To show the ration between admin_level and population exactly, we add 2 tag to describe this scenario.

+ {{Tag|china_class}}
+ {{Tag|china_population}}

For more infomation, you can read this paragraph:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hans:%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E5%85%B1%E5%92%8C%E5%9B%BD
ivanbranco (2021-03-07 11:12:47+00:00): Thanks for the quick explanation, I see is a freshly documented tag.
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-03-07 11:23:28+00:00): Yes, as you can see, the problem with the china_class tag has existed for years and has been quite confusing. We only reached a consensus yesterday and started to manually correct some known problems.
Happy your mapping life！
osm915 (2021-03-11 21:14:11+00:00): Hallo Schwoijer
Herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap! Prima das du mit hilfst OSM zu verbessern und vor allem auch aktuell zu halten. Mapper mit Vor-Ort-Kenntnissen sind (aus meiner Sicht) das Rückgrat vom OSM.

Bei dem Hähnchengrill (und vor ein paar Wochen bei https://osm.org/node/8432351728) hast du Öffnungszeiten eingetragen. Damit diese automatisch ausgewertet werden können, sollte man sich an einen speziellen Syntax halten (siehe https://osm.org/wiki/DE:Key:opening%20hours). Wenn man sich nicht sicher ist, kann man einen Eintrag zB hier prüfen https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/. In den beiden genannten Fällen müsste es wahrscheinlich "We 11:00-19:00; PH off" bzw "We 10:00-17:00; PH off" heißen.

Außerdem ist es bei OSM eigentlich nicht üblich Dinge einzutragen, die nicht dauerhaft am selben Ort zu finden sind (OSM ist ja letztlich eine Geo-Datenbank). Wenn dir der mobile Verkaufswagen wichtig ist, wäre es gut solche POIs zusätzlich zu den "Öffnungszeiten" entsprechend zu kennzeichnen. Bei einer kurze Suche auf taginfo (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/) habe ich zwei Möglichkeiten gefunden, die schon verwendet wurden: "street_vendor=food_truck" oder "food_truck=yes".

Falls du dich intensiver mit OSM beschäftigen willst, könnte kreuzschnabels Tutorial (https://einklich.net/osm/osm-tutorial.pdf) eine gute Einstigshilfe sein. Es bezieht sich zwar ab und zu auf JOSM, liefert aber viele allgemein gültige Informationen.

Melde dich wenn du Fragen hast.
Freundliche Grüße!
mueschel (2021-03-21 10:28:05+00:00): Hallo,
schaust du bitte mal über die Ladestationen hier in der weiteren Gegend? Der Key "parking:space" schreibt sich eigentlich "parking_space".
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/15fI