piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
tastrax (2022-11-20 03:33:49+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.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX
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
user_16318098 (2022-11-16 07:42:35+00:00): こんにちは。

建物の形状を編集なさっていますが、直角の建物に歪みが生じています。

背景画像に合わせようとされたのであれば、背景画像に使用なさっているBingはズレや歪みが大きいため、国土地理院の物を使用することを推奨します。

背景画像の切り替え方はこちらが参考になるかもしれません。
https://learnosm.org/ja/beginner/id-editor/#%E8%83%8C%E6%99%AF%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F%E3%83%AC%E3%82%A4%E3%83%A4%E3%81%AE%E5%A4%89%E6%9B%B4
Marek-M (2022-11-16 08:11:44+00:00): Cześć, tag access=unknown jest nieprawidłowy i nie powinien być używany. Poprawiłem drogę z tej edycji i usunąłem całkowicie tag accesss. Dostępy dla poszczególnych pojazdów wylistowałeś w innych atrybutach.
nygus7 (2022-11-16 08:14:52+00:00): Serdecznie dziękuję za pomoc!
tastrax (2022-11-21 11:39:01+00:00): What is the source that this business takes bitcoin and how did you survey them?
maraf24 (2022-11-16 11:16:49+00:00): Ktoś mieszka w oczyszczalni ścieków?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1113565780
Aleksey Gorelikov (2022-11-16 08:04:53+00:00): https://data-usdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/highway-performance-monitoring-system-fsys-3/explore?filters=eyJCZWdpbl9Qb2ludCI6WzAsMzQ4LjQ4OF19&location=38.672711%2C-121.035096%2C17.56&style=ROUTE_NAME
MxxCon (2022-11-17 21:41:34+00:00): Hello.
What criteria do you use to decide if that landuse area should cross the street like in 128975618 or create a separate one?
Also shouldn't such areas be mapped closer to the property line, "inside" of sidewalks, rather than extending all the way to the curb?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128976109
akuksouski_lyft (2022-11-18 13:20:56+00:00): Hi, MxxCon! Thank you for your attention to our edits!

I consider this to be a rather controversial issue about how to properly map polygons. At one time we raised this question in the OSM community Slack https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1661266591802339, and haven’t come to a consensus .
And in practice, it is clear that in OSM there are different options for mapping polygons in the USA. My team and I are guided by our internal principles that are based on OSM wiki. We try to add the large areas and not to divide them in places, where the street is not so wide and it has retail/commercial properties with their related facilities on both sides. In our opinion the street could be considered as part of the surrounding area in such cases. But I do agree that it would be better to follow the single approach along the same street. I share your point of view that sidewalks shouldn’t be included in the landuse areas in cases where the retail/commercial properties have clear borders, so we definitely will reconsider our approach about mapping landuse polygons of such properties.

Best regards,
Alexander
jmapb (2022-11-18 22:39:47+00:00): Hi Alexander -- This new effort to map landuse falls under OSM's "organised editing guidelines" ( https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines ). I don't see where this initiative has been documented or discussed with local communities. Have I missed something?

Thanks, J
skudrashou_lyft (2022-11-21 12:27:01+00:00): Hi, jmapb! I’m Policy and Training Lead at the OSM team at Lyft.
We truly appreciate you raising the question of our compliance with Organised_Editing_Guidelines. This initiative has been discussed in the OSM community Slack https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1661266591802339. And our edits are in line with osm wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Land_use. At the same time, we understand that the process of editing alignment hasn’t been completed, so we have stopped adding landuse areas.  Also, we will definitely make further updates of our documentation in order to fully comply with the OSM community guidelines. I want to assure you that Lyft’s Mapping team takes OpenStreetMap rules seriously. I’m incredibly sorry for any inconvenience.
Thanks for highlighting this!
Best Regards!
jmapb (2022-11-21 18:03:32+00:00): Thank you for the reply skudrashou.

First I'd like to extend my appreciation to you & your team for your excellent work on the road network in New York City. Even in my own neighborhood, Lyft often maps changes before I find them. You're quite on the ball.

That said, please note these two points from the Organised Editing Guidelines: 1) Public documentation of the proposal happens first, then communication with mapping communities, and only then, if objections have been resolved, mapping. 2) Communication via Slack doesn't meet the guidelines' criteria, since a third-party registration is required to participate. (For mapping in NYC, the best place for discussion would probably be the "Talk-us-newyork" mailing list, which covers all of NY State -- there's no public forum specifically for NYC at the moment.)

As I'm sure you're aware, landuse mapping standards vary greatly across the globe, and it's a good idea to follow established local norms when they exist. In NYC we've generally avoided grouping unrelated buildings into ad-hoc landuses, instead only mapping those with distinct names and boundaries. This hasn't ever been formally documented, but was arrived at over the years as mappers found that the extreme density of buildings, and the mixed and ever-changing uses of those buildings, made landuse polygons a poor fit -- difficult to map and maintain, subject to interpretation and disagreement.

Also, these recent Lyft landuse changesets have significant quality issues: Covering streets/sidewalks/other areas that don't match the landuse, slicing through buildings and parking areas, modifying building footprints to make room for landuse polygons, incorrect tagging (eg using =retail for a healthcare complex), etc.

Will it be possible for your team to cleanly revert these changes, in particular restoring the modified building footprints? If not, I can take this on myself.

Thanks, J
akadouri (2022-11-23 05:16:39+00:00): Hello,

These retail areas are quite inconsistent, for example the area around: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128995293#map=18/40.58706/-73.96013

NYC has highly mixed land use, it may be better to derive your dataset using something like POI presence vs "empty" (no-poi) apartment/house buildings. Or using NYC's government provided zoning/land use https://zola.planning.nyc.gov/about/

Otherwise we're looking at hundreds/thousands of polygons covering individual blocks, which after mapped may or may not be maintained.

This is different than say a suburban context where you may have a shopping mall area that is clearly defined.

To add onto what jmapb's point, the local community usually discusses large changes on the talk-newyork mailing list. That being said many of us are in #local-nyc in the OSM-US Slack if it is more convenient to have initial discussions there.
skudrashou_lyft (2022-11-23 10:24:27+00:00): Hi jmapb and akadouri.
Thanks for the clarification, both. We are sincerely sorry that this happened and will revert our edits in NYC. We will agree on our approach according to the existing process with local OSM communities. All our new projects will comply with the approval process before the start of the active mapping stage.
Regards!
jmapb (2022-12-20 19:36:24+00:00): Apologies for the late followup... after seeing no action from Lyft on reverting these landuses, I did the reversions last month in the following changesets, one per borough: 129445164, 129446460, 129450557, 129451968, and 129456834. I left in place some landuses that had already been fixed by local mappers (in Staten Island, IIRC)
skudrashou_lyft (2022-12-22 07:45:30+00:00): Hi, jmapb!

We apologize for not reverting our changesets in New York in a timely manner. Unfortunately, due to technical reasons, we were able to start doing it a week after the discussion. By this time, almost all of them have been reversed or modified. Thank you so much for your massive removal of our landuse edits. We really appreciate your input!
eggie (2022-11-16 09:34:18+00:00): Beste Cranite..

Beter geen adressen aan gebouwomtrekken toevoegen.
Een adresnode is voldoende.
Haal je het weer weg?

Mvg
Eggie
eggie (2022-11-16 09:50:54+00:00): Adres verwijderd... BAG data hersteld.
Groet
eggie
Hugoren Martinako (2025-03-08 18:11:26+00:00): Buenas, a pesar de la singularidad histórica del Señorío de Molina, su valor administrativo todavía carece de legalidad. Debido a eso, esta relación no debería ser boundary=administrative, sino historic, así como carecer de admin_level.

Aquí se pueden encontrar las comarcas oficiales: https://ssweb.seap.minhap.es/REL/frontend/inicio/comarcas
LuxuryCoop (2022-11-16 11:20:08+00:00): 안녕하세요! 오픈스트리트맵에 기여해 주셔서 감사드립니다.
오픈스트리트맵 편집에 네이버 지도를 이용하면
1. 저작권 침해
2. 국내 지도 해외 반출 금지
에 걸리게 됩니다.

열심히 기여하신 부분을 되돌리게 되어 유감입니다.
앞으로는 다른 지도를 이용하지 않고 오픈스트리트맵에 기여해 주시면 감사드리겠습니다!
user_11609320 (2022-11-16 08:42:17+00:00): they is greyhound.
vasony (2022-11-27 17:38:23+00:00): Szia!

Nem Vasút akar lenni az a Vaút út?
Illetve mi a forrása az utcanévnek?
Tiszaújváros nem olyan régen megküldte az ő általuk nyilvántartott utcajegyzéket, és ez nem szerepel, ellentétben az átnevezett Erdei úttal.

Tamás
Toms_Toms (2022-11-27 18:57:16+00:00): Szia!

Elírtam. "Vasút út" a helyes. Az Önkormányzat kezdeményezte az eddig név nélküli "kivett közterület" elnevezését címképzés (KCR) miatt.

Tamás
vasony (2022-11-28 09:14:05+00:00): Szia!

Köszi a választ. Esetleg elérhető valaho ez a KCR hirdetmény? Ha nem leírnád mely helyrajzi számokat érinti?

Tamás
Toms_Toms (2022-11-28 10:25:09+00:00): Szia!

A 627. és a 633. hrsz-re adtak be kérelmet a Központi Címregiszterben (KCR) történő címképzés érdekében, de a Streetview-n a Hulladékudvar címe Vasút út 3.

Tamás
Toms_Toms (2022-11-28 10:30:39+00:00): A beadvány nem hirdetmény, hanem egy levél, képernyőkivágatot ne tudok csatolni.
vasony (2022-11-28 10:44:51+00:00): köszi. Azért vicces, hogy a MÉH-nek előbb van címe, minthogy hivatalosan lenne Vasút út, ez elég vicces.  
Mivel az Erdei nincs kiírva, marad így.

Egyénként, a földhivatal szerint az út:
TISZAÚJVÁROS belterület 635	- 3580 TISZAÚJVÁROS Erdei út.

MÉH telep:
TISZAÚJVÁROS belterület 636	- 3580 TISZAÚJVÁROS Erdei út 5.
vasony (2024-04-07 13:04:45+00:00): Szia!

Esetleg ebben van fejlemény, elnevezték már hivatalosan, vagy megakadt a beadván?

Tamás
Toms_Toms (2024-04-07 14:47:55+00:00): Szia!

Csatolom a Földrajzinév-bizottság (FNB) véleményét, amit megküldött a beterjesztőnek:
"121/1059. (2022. XI. 15.) FNB. Vél.: A Földrajzinév-bizottság Tiszaújváros jegyzőjének előterjesztésére megállapítja, hogy a Vasút utca elnevezés javasolt az jelzett közterület elnevezésre a megkeresésben szereplő Vasút út helyett."

Már a KTM alá tartozik az FNB, de a honlap még a ME-nél van:
https://kormany.hu/miniszterelnokseg/foldrajzinev-bizottsag

A honlapon " 2-110. ülés döntései" szerepel, de a 124. ülés döntéseit is tartalmazza.

Az e-közmű oldalon "3580 Vasút utca" elérhető.

Tamás
aixbrick (2022-11-18 20:42:49+00:00): Hallo,
du hast jetzt schon zum 3. Mal bei den Nebengebäuden Hausnummern ergänzt, obwohl diese bereits bei den eigentlichen Gebäuden eingetragen sind. SC-Abfragen können auch übersprungen werden oder man gibt an, dass die Gebäude keine Hausnummer haben. Achte bitte mal etwas mehr darauf.
Rückgängig gemacht mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129100910.
Gruß
Boyan Alexiev (2022-11-16 09:37:04+00:00): Looks good to me, keep it up!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128978105
adiatmad (2022-11-17 03:00:22+00:00): Good work on your edits! However, it would be preferable to avoid adding a generic name, such as name=Hostel building (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/974680648). You might want to take a look at this page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions). Happy mapping!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128978195
eggie (2022-11-18 14:20:09+00:00): Hoi..

Je vraagt feedback.. 
Een ingewikkeld riedeltje..  Alleen UK English wordt begrepen. Tja hoe dan wel.. Vraagje voor het forum van OSM.
Ik gebruik meestal deze 'tool' 
openingsuren-tool 
 
http://projets.pavie.info/yohours/ 
 
Groet
eggie
vasony (2023-02-16 12:11:30+00:00): Szia!

Mi a forrása Lukácsháza, Gyöngyös utca névnek?

Tamás
Toms_Toms (2023-02-16 22:45:13+00:00): A Földrajzinév-bizottság véleménye.
Lukácsháza polgármesterének LH/1490-4/2022 ikt. számú előterjesztésére a Földrajzinév-bizottság  megállapította, hogy a „Gyöngyös utca” elnevezés alkalmas a jelzett közterület megnevezésre (121/1058. (2022. XI. 15.) FNB. Vél.).
vasony (2023-02-17 13:32:42+00:00): Köszi, de ebből nem következik, hogy átnevezték, ez csak egy vélemény. 
Szerencsésebb lenne, ha már meglenne az önkormányzati határozat erről, illetve ki is lenne táblázva így egy kicsit korainak tartom az átirtást.
A földhivatalban is még minden házon Tanács utca szerepel.
Persze lehet, hogy megvan már ez, csak Lukácsháza weboldala teljesen használhatatlan.

Ettől függetlenül kérdezem, hogy a 118. ülés utáni dokumentumok hol elérhetők, mert az általam ismert kormany.hu oldalon itt megállt az idő.
Toms_Toms (2023-02-17 16:45:43+00:00): Lukácsházára január végén került megküldésre az FNB válaszlevele. Át kell futnia ott is a rendszeren.
A honlapot a Miniszterelnökség frissíti.
Lippmann Lászlótól ( +36-1-896-2699, laszlo.lippmann@me.gov.hu) lehet érdeklődni a frissítések állapotáról.
Scout Jens (2022-11-27 10:27:01+00:00): Hallo Henri,
mir ist aufgefallen, dass Du die Richtung der Bordsteine nicht berücksichtigst. Grundregel in OSM ist: Rechts gehts runter (in Richtung der jeweiligen Linie). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:barrier%3Dkerb
Viele Grüße, Jens
Henri97 (2022-11-27 10:36:50+00:00): Hallo Jens,
danke für die Info, das war mir tatsächlich nicht bewusst. Das werde ich noch anpassen!
Grüße
Henri
Scout Jens (2023-01-03 17:21:10+00:00): Die grundregel ist wie gesagt "rechts gehts runter". Die Richtung der Linien wird mit einem Pfeil angezeigt...
balint36 (2022-11-18 03:12:03+00:00): Kérlek, az elmúlt napokban a Keletinél és Keleföldnél végzett valamennyi változtatásodat vond vissza!

Azontúl, hogy indokolatlanul és helytelenül több helyen feldaraboltad a vonalakat, nem a vasúti címkézésnek megfelelően címkéztél, illetve több pontot töröltél is, ezáltal a vonalak pontatlanabbak!

Ezekkel a módosításokkal valójában semmilyen javítást nem végeztél, mert semmi új és hasznos nem került fel, viszont tele van káros változtatásokkal.
Oha80 (2022-11-18 14:29:37+00:00): Miért is kellene visszavonnom? Semmiféle káros dolgot nem tettem. Csakis további információkat töltöttem fel.
Frans S (2022-11-16 10:33:06+00:00): Hello. I am reviewing your mappings.
How did you manage to map like this?
I've never seen such weird mappings. 
Please start to learn how to map buildings on a proper way. I've sent you links to lessons on another changeset.
Take a look at this screenshot of your mapped buildings.  
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h3fg9da4Sys5oQc2NzPXv_pxIpmIomwt/view?usp=share_link
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128979170
GerdP (2022-11-16 09:27:25+00:00): ausserdem Oberflächen, Tempo30 Zone
Patr1k_P (2022-11-20 10:53:44+00:00): snazte sa objekty v mape upravovat a nie mazat a vytvarat nove...v tomto pripade stacilo len upravit znacky...povodny bod som obnovil a vlozil vami zvolene nove tagy
Peter Tulak (2022-11-20 18:54:49+00:00): Ďakujem. Ospravedlňujem sa.
kurisubrooks (2022-11-16 11:35:45+00:00): Hi there, can I please ask why you've been going over my edits and removing footway=sidewalk from sidewalks, and deleting crossings and replacing them with highway=footway in the CBD area? Thanks.
kurisubrooks (2022-11-16 12:35:27+00:00): You also removed shared path tagging from a designated shared path + cycleway. What are you doing man??
ReinerMeyer (2022-11-16 21:33:21+00:00): Sorry we are doing edits in OSM at almost the same time right now and have been interfering.
The sidewalk tag is used in conjunction with a road:
highway residential
sidewalk=left/right/both

If a footpath is explicitly entered, the sidewalk tag is not necessary (see wiki).

highway=crossing usually refers to a node (footpath crosses road). Tagging the footway as such is superfluous (see wiki and German OSM forum).
ReinerMeyer (2022-11-16 21:53:36+00:00): There are several ways to tag shared paths.
This is especially common in conjunction with pedestrians and cyclists.

There are traffic signs that indicate this as well. Then it makes sense to choose this combination:
highway=path
foot=designated
bicycle=designated.

If the use of the common path (e.g. pedestrian) is recognizable, this combination makes sense (as I did it):
highway=footway
bicycle=yes (this means that bicycling is allowed here).
(bicylce=designeted is also possible if a traffic sign indicates this, guideposts are not traffic signs).

These variants and others are also described in the wiki (maybe only in the German version)
aharvey (2022-11-16 23:51:23+00:00): Hi Reiner,

Reviewing your changeset, you've removed footway=sidewalk from the separately mapped highway=footway. It was correct beforehand so this will need to be restored.

Separately mapped footpaths (highway=footway + footway=sidewalk) can coexist with the sidewalk tag on the road way, and in my opinion it's better to do both. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk#Separately_mapped_sidewalks documents how you can mark it as exists and separately mapped if you want (sidewalk:left=separate + sidewalk:right=separate) but personally I'd still just do sidewalk=both.

The crossings were mapped as ways with highway=footway + footway=crossing, which is what you've removed, so your comment about highway=crossing on nodes doesn't seem to apply to your changes.

Keep in mind that the established and community tagging practices do vary a bit in Australia compared to Germany, we've documented this at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths here we will use highway=cycleway + foot=designated + bicycle=designated for shared paths and guideposts or markings are sufficient to indicate =designated.
aharvey (2022-11-16 23:54:10+00:00): Honestly I can't see anything in this changeset we should keep and would suggest we revert it.
kurisubrooks (2022-11-17 05:32:24+00:00): Thanks for your help, @aharvey. As he mentioned, my tagging was in line with the Australian tagging guidelines, and also request that the two changesets be reverted. If you just want to flat revert them, I'd be glad to go over them both and add anything you added in order to minimise the task for you. Thanks again, Chris.
ReinerMeyer (2022-11-17 06:34:09+00:00): Hi aharvey,
thanks for the link about sidewalk.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk#Separately_mapped_sidewalks

I have compared the English page and the German page.
Not everything is translated 1:1 into German, but the core statement I refer to is identical in both language versions, to be found under "Usage" (...sidewalks associated with streets...). I assume that footway is not a street. To me this means that the tag combination highway=footway and sidewalk=yes does not make sense.

It is also interesting for me that the tag sidewalk has changed a lot. So many additions to it have come up in the last few years that I unfortunately haven't kept track of.

Also this link is helpful for me:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths

I'll look at this one a little later. But I already noticed that in the pedestrian area around Darling Harbour there is maxspeed=50, although no cars are allowed.

Regarding highway=crossing see link:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing
Under "How to map" you can read:
To map a street crossing, place a node along the way representing the road, and add the highway=crossing tag to the node.

Sorry that I'm not yet fit enough for the Australian OSM view.
For future edits I will be more careful and not rely on my previous experience.

The reverting thing is one of those critical things. I have not only made the offending edits but also weeded out other errors caused by Australians (e.g. houses connected to roads, which can easily happen because of the snap functionality).
When editing I am very careful that I don't add anything wrong or remove anything right. And as already mentioned above, I have to respect country-specific conditions more.
kurisubrooks (2022-11-17 06:52:08+00:00): Hi again, thanks for your willingness to understand from our perspective. Regarding a few things you've said, I'll break them up a bit so it's easier for me to respond to, and maybe for you to understand or to translate should you need (depending on your English proficiency).

For sidewalks, you're correct in that footways aren't streets, they're foot *paths*. They're usually built adjacent or will always connect to a road at some end, and are only for foot traffic. You can get more specific in its design and intention when adding footway=sidewalk (refers to its intention, i.e. following the contour of the street, is usually mapped separately and often with sidewalk=* tagging on the road itself), as well as footway=crossing (the physical part of the street that the path crosses), etc...

Under your link for highway=crossing, it is true that this is for nodes specifically, but when micromapping, there is also highway=footway + footway=crossing, (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dcrossing) where you can map the span of road that is used for the pedestrian crossing and specify type (zebra, marked, unmarked, traffic_signals, etc.), and this is considered de-facto in Australia, where you tag highway=crossing on the node (intersection of the road and the footpath), and footway=crossing on the way (way intersecting the road, bounded by the kerb). Both are used in Australia in conjunction with one-another. Usually ways that are just plain highway=footway with a crossing node are seen as outdated and we generally update those with the appropriate kerb boundary, way for the section of road the crossing takes up, and the node on the intersection of the two.

Regarding the pedestrian area around Darling Harbour, I think the maxspeed was a left over from when road traffic was allowed on Pyrmont Bridge, but emergency vehicles can still use the bridge and some of the pedestrian area, so I believe that is why it was left (and think it should stay for this reason).

There's a lot of local contextual items around Sydney and Australia as a whole, so please do ask us if you have any questions or before you make any major changes in the OSM Discord server (https://discord.gg/openstreetmap) under #oceania, or the Oceania mailing list. We'd be more than happy to help you.

If you'd like to go ahead with reverting the two offending changesets, I'd also be more than happy to help you re-add any of your correct changes or fix things up that may get mixed up in the edit.

Thanks,
Chris.