piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
PierZen (2023-07-05 23:40:33+00:00): Je ne retrouve aucune documentation sur les sites des organismes de reglementation.  En l'état actuel, ligne déconnecté au niveau du poste convertisseur. 
Voir relation ligne HDVC https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3392247#map=15/45.5626/-71.9455
wolfy1339 (2023-07-06 00:03:56+00:00): Je viens de regarder l'historique, et ce me semble que ce le soit déjà marquer comme non utiliser quand j'ai fait la modification.

Ce serais plutôt dans https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109480983
BCNorwich (2022-02-16 08:29:10+00:00): Duplicated building removed.
ratrun (2022-02-19 10:12:40+00:00): Hi! I see that this is your first changeset. Please check https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286068840, this doesn`t seem correct as it is not connected to the rest of the road network. 
In the north it is crossing the train without any visual indication on Maxar imaginary.
Also the tagging highway=residential with maxspeed=10 looks unrealistic to me.
MarcoR (2022-02-16 17:32:39+00:00): Ciao e benvenuta/o!
Hai cancellato un percorso pedonale che dalle foto aeree sembra invece esserci. Sei sicura/o di non aver commesso un errore?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117445489
MxxCon (2022-02-15 18:47:54+00:00): Hello.
Please note that opening hours that you entered are in invalid format. Please use website similar to https://projets.pavie.info/yohours/ to generate the valid opening_hours tags. 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117445531
Falsernet (2022-02-15 20:42:50+00:00): It q
Falsernet (2022-02-15 20:43:21+00:00): uite literally says cyclists dismount, and then directs them to rejoin the road. That's the real world verifiable truth
Falsernet (2022-02-15 20:44:45+00:00): Dismount doesn't mean carry on being mounted on the bicycle. It's quite clearly legal to get back on and rejoin the carriageway, at least as far as signage is to be trusted
Pete Owens (2022-02-15 21:58:41+00:00): Dismount tradionally is the sign they put at the end of a cycleway to tell you that  IT IS NOI LONGER A CYCLEWAY.
Falsernet (2022-02-15 22:54:45+00:00): And as such you must dismount in order to pass through (legally) on your way
Falsernet (2022-02-20 17:53:37+00:00): You must bear in mind I wasn't mapping the pavement as a cycleway. Just that an intended use case is for cyclists to dismount and get back on at the dropped kerb, hence use of the dismount tag.
Falsernet (2022-02-20 17:54:26+00:00): ^^It's much safer than joining within the junction, past a traffic light
JassKurn (2022-02-23 14:52:22+00:00): There appears to be confusion here regarding the use in the UK of the blue rectangular "Cyclists Dismount" sign. Firstly, the sign is information, and by itself not a command or prohibition. Use is defined in Traffic Signs Manual (ch 3).

By itself, and along a cycle route the sign MUST only be used for the following three reasons. To advise that the Local Authority believes that for an unspecified short distance, cycling may be dangerous due to either (1) Low Headroom (eg subway, (2) reduced width (eg narrow bridge), (3) restricted visibility (eg Don't know of examples). 

*To Repeat* The sign is not an order, and the rider may still continue riding, but it would be there own fault if they had an accident due to one of the three reasons listed. In these situations OSM should use tags to show low headroom, or width. Don't think we have tag for visibility.

The sign can further be used in only two other situations. To create increased awareness that cycling is illegal at two situation, (1) at a pedestrian only crossing (usually joining a cycle route), and (2) at the entrance to a pedestrian only zone. For OSM this would be indicated by footways, or highway=pedestrian, which by default are bicycle=no. 

British blue "cyclists dismount" signs MUST NOT be used for any other reason. It would be unlawful. They must not be used to show the end of cycleway. They must not used to suggest cyclists dismount at difficult cycling situations (eg cattle grids). But Local Authorities do misuse this sign, and where it is miscued, it has no meaning. It should reported to the appropriate authority for removal.

Furthermore the OSM bicycle=dismount tag, does not have the intended use created by the British blue "cyclists dismount" sign.

For this specific case it appears to case to increase aware that the crossing is a pedestrian crossing, so you must not cycle across it. Dealt with by mapping the crossing as (I assume) a Puffin Crossing,
Falsernet (2022-02-23 16:12:16+00:00): The sign is situated at the end of the toucan crossing facing towards the crossing. This plus the dropped kerb directly linking the pavement to the cycle lane Westbound along Midland Way suggests to me that bicycle=dismount on the pavement, and a small way to link it to the road is the obvious choice as clearly this is where the council intended cyclists to go. The practicality of actually dismounting and following the law is another matter entirely, but better that than join the road from the toucan crossing within the junction imo.
JassKurn (2022-02-23 17:15:03+00:00): Can you provide some evidence that the crossing is a Toucan Crossing? Google StreeView can not be used as a source, but images showing that crossing are dated October 2021 and show a pedestrian crossing (outdated Pelican Crossing)

Furthermore, Warrington Council provides a cycle map that shows the cycle track ends at the crossing. From experience I believe the cycle track simply ending at this likely busy junction is leading to cyclists using the pedestrian crossing before joining the road. The "cyclists dismount" sign use is therefore available to the council to clarify the pedestrian only crossing. The sign has been placed on the wrong side of the pedestrian crossing. There is no need to map this "cyclists dismount" sign since as it's function to clarify the crossing is pedestrian is mapped in OSM with highway=footway & a pedestrian crossing node.
Falsernet (2022-02-23 17:19:01+00:00): https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3913669,-2.598002,3a,75y,243.56h,81.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spG01QobJo_xxrWVy3G7jbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Not using this as a source but I can confirm its accuracy as of when I was last there. What appear to be pelican crossings are really pelican-style toucan crossings, going East-West.
JassKurn (2022-02-23 20:50:48+00:00): I've had a look at the google imagery and the photo's from 2009 confirm that the crossing allows cycling. It does not conform to the requirements of a Toucan Crossing, but your mapping of the crossing as highway=cycleway is correct. 

But.. the issue of the blue "cyclists dismount" and the legal meaning is still stands. The sign is not there to clarify the crossing is pedestrian only, and therefore because it is by itself MUST only advise of either low clearance, narrow width, or poor visibility. Even then it would not be an order to actually dismount. Neither of the three reasons appear to be is the case here.  The sign appears to be illegally misused to advise cycling is not allowed, based on the common ignorance over the meaning of the sign.

The current mapping of the junction appears correct to me. But with regard to legislation, and practical and safe use by cyclists, it's an abomination.
Falsernet (2022-02-23 22:46:03+00:00): >it's an abomination
Agreed. Though not unprecedented from Warrington Borough Council.

I still believe, considering it's a pavement, it should feature a dismount tag and link back to Midland Way at the dropped kerb, which conforms to the legal cyclability and is far more practical (less deadly) than joining the A57 within the traffic light junction.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:38:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
DressyPear4 (2022-02-15 21:16:00+00:00): Olá, recomendo usar as imagens da Maxar, estão mais atualizadas
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117445877
Tomas Straupis (2022-02-15 19:53:26+00:00): Astačiau ankstesnę - teisingą - kūdros žymą landuse=basin. iD redaktorius neteisingus siūlumus daro, nereikia jo klausyti :-) Sėkmės
hu9o (2022-02-16 14:34:07+00:00): Bonjour, quelles sont les sources SVP ?
La Voie de la Sagesse (2022-02-16 17:34:14+00:00): Pour le tracé entier, je le tien d'un journal qui lui-même le tient du service des transports de la ville.
Voici le lien du site, que j'ajouterai à la relation.
https://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/indre-et-loire/commune/ballan-mire/la-deuxieme-ligne-de-tramway-officiellement-lancee
Bonne journée !
hu9o (2022-03-30 13:43:29+00:00): Au vue de l'actualité récente, le tracé de la ligne 2 n'est pas DU TOUT défini à ce jour. Et comme Openstreetmap doit cartographier je propose la suppression de ce tracé hypothétique et non sourcé. D'avance merci pour votre retour
hu9o (2022-03-30 13:44:05+00:00): * Et comme Openstreetmap doit cartographier l'existant, je propose la suppression de ce tracé hypothétique et non sourcé.
AurélienQ (2022-03-30 17:14:29+00:00): La source est ci dessus, et OSM prend en compte les projets définis et d'ailleurs il n'est pas "hypothétique" ou encore "non sourcé". Donc je ne suis pas du tout d'accord avec vous pour le second message, néanmoins, je comprends votre premier message donc accepte la suppression du tracé.
AurélienQ (2022-03-30 17:15:00+00:00): *Mais merci de ne plus dire de bètiseS.
eggie (2022-02-15 19:52:23+00:00): Beste fwsmit

Goed om zaken toe te voegen... maar...
Probeer bij te taggen op de bestaande adresnodes. Dus niet zelf adressen aanmaken. Die zijn als het goed is al aanwezig.
Je krijgt anders allemaal dubbelingen in de data.

Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=117446216
MVG
eggie
fwsmit (2022-02-16 11:18:03+00:00): Ik heb in de meeste gevallen op de bestaande adresnode geprobeerd te taggen, maar in een paar gevallen waren er twee dingen op hetzelfde adres. In die gevallen heb ik een tweede node gebruikt (bijvoorbeeld outsite en AEGEE, want AEGEE borrelt elke week in dat gebouw).
eggie (2022-02-16 11:20:12+00:00): Hoi..
Lijkt me inderdaad prima zo. Soms is het schipperen..
Mapse
Eggie
Kovoschiz (2022-02-16 08:56:18+00:00): Is there something wrong here? This should be a public street.
Klamath (2022-02-17 22:04:11+00:00): Thank you for the feedback, do you have a suggestion for a source showing this as a public road?
Gisolic (2022-02-21 12:04:33+00:00): Hello Mohammed Allaf,
Please be attentive while editing not to delete ways Like:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/392694546
and see all deleted ways here:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=117446302
and thank you for your efforts in OSM.
Regards,
Gisolic
NorthCrab (2023-01-31 04:04:21+00:00): Hej zerkniesz na tą nową zmianę? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131886362 Bo trzeba to zweryfikować a taki mały odcinek podejrzanie wygląda.
maraf24 (2023-01-31 11:23:52+00:00): Jest w budowie. Poprawiłem.
NorthCrab (2023-01-31 11:26:00+00:00): Dzięki!
Herwescheluc (2022-02-15 21:58:32+00:00): Hallo Ralf! Fußweg verläuft tatsächlich im Erdgeschoss, war ne zeitlang mein Arbeitsweg, siehe auch: http://www.heimatverein-seelbach.de/AlteSchule_240109.JPG - Gruß - Andreas
rab (2022-02-16 16:46:22+00:00): ich habe es mal auf covered=yes geändert.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered
Gruß Ralf
Herwescheluc (2022-02-16 17:45:19+00:00): ...wieder was gelernt...
seattlefyi (2022-02-16 01:14:35+00:00): Hi, thanks for the edits! I modified the address you added, moving the unit number into its own tag "addr:unit=D3". (you might not be able to do that in Organic Maps). Keep it up!
Eoni-León (2022-02-16 01:38:59+00:00): That sounds totally fine, thanks for the tweak ;).
To be honest it was difficult to find hahah.
NKA (2022-02-16 22:03:10+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging
BCNorwich (2022-02-17 09:01:31+00:00): Hi, With regard to the highway you've removed. It looks like there is a very short stub of Lovatt Avenue joining to the bollards from the A34, where there looks to be pedestrian and cycle access through the bollards. Effectively allowing pedestrian and cycle access from Lovatt Avenue through the bollards onto the stub of Lovatt Avenue to the A34.

I see you have also removed the service road into the pub car park. Being or not being a public right of way has no bearing on OSM mapping. Anything that anyone can verify is a feature that can be added to OSM, (if you can see it in any way, you can map it).

Therefore could you please reinstate the genuine features you removed? Need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.
Walkcycles (2022-02-17 15:56:39+00:00): Bernard, thank you for your overview and advice. I have reentered the service road to the Pub as requested though it now exits to the A34 - which is the only road it joins up to. (Previously it incorrectly implied you joined Lovatt Avenue.)   Your observations as the short stub at the top end of Lovatt Avenue are correct: Decades ago you could access the A34 by car from Lovatt Avenue.  Now that area is considered part of the A34, and in particular part of the bus stop pull in/Traffic Police waiting layby. The fact that the stub aligns with Lovatt Avenue does not make it a part of Lovatt Avenue  - in my opinion anyway. Note: The bus stop is in the wrong area on OpenStreetMap.  The bus stop is in between Thomas Avenue and Lovatt Avenue and not nearer the roundabout as presently indicated.  I have submitted a correction.  But back to the topic of Lovatt Avenue. My TomTom gives the following directions if I am coming out of my home in Thomas Avenue and want to go north on the A34: it says I should 'turn left' into Meadow Avenue - which is correct-  and then turn left into Lovatt Avenue (which is incorrect), and then turn left onto the A34 (which would result in colliding with multiple concrete bollards). Likewise, if I am parked up on the Milehouse pub car park and want to get home my Tom Tom indicates I should exit the car park onto the A34, then turn immediately left into Lovatt Avenue, and [after driving up over the pavement, and through the concrete bollards - which it omits to mention in its instructions ] turn right into Meadow Avenue, before turning right again into Thomas Avenue. That error needs correction, which was my intention when I submitted the change. I believed my submission would work, as it indicated cars could not go through the bollards but cyclists and pedestrians could: I was going to check it once the amendments had been uploaded,and rework the solution if it did not work.  Anyway now that you know the issues and the risks would you mind correcting the map so that in future my Tom Tom (and others for that matter) does not instruct me to drive through the concrete bollards.  Thanks in advance.  I look forward to seeing your changes for future reference.  
Regards,  Rod J
user_5359 (2022-02-17 15:13:19+00:00): Hello! Please have on http://www.osm.org/way/135430728 . Did you mean ref = 0462 instead of brnach = 0462?
Omnific (2022-02-17 16:21:18+00:00): You are 100% right, fixed
DressyPear4 (2022-02-15 21:35:10+00:00): A área aumentada corresponde a mata e não rio
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117448774
BrackoNe (2022-02-15 22:03:04+00:00): Hi,

Please revoke the bad rate since every edit is manually checked by editors within 24 hours. This account doesn't belong to any user, but it is a PROXY user, as is explained on its profile.

Thank you very much in advance,
Nemanja on behalf of Map builder team
eggie (2023-09-15 10:06:41+00:00): Beste CH  Je hebt hier de buildingtags verwijderd, Ik zal het weer herstellen. 
amenity school is een functie.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-09-15 10:11:44+00:00): Svp niet dubbel taggen.. In principe de adresnode gebruiken.
MVG
eggie
martinst (2022-02-15 20:13:15+00:00): Bei name=* werden nur Eigennamen eingetragen, "Markierung auf Stein" könnte man bei description= eintragen.
Samo3 (2022-02-17 20:33:02+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, habs geändert
martinst (2022-02-15 20:19:42+00:00): Auch hier: Bei name=* bitte nur Eigennamen eintragen. 
Wenn der neue Weg Traktorbreite besitzt sollte er mit highway=track statt =path ausgezeichnet werden, wahrscheinlich zusammen mit tracktype=grade5.
Samo3 (2022-02-17 20:41:09+00:00): danke für den Hinweis
user_5359 (2022-02-16 16:16:47+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9509007711. What is the meaning of the tag Floricultura Trevos=Floricultura Trevos?

Note that in OSM classification of the objects has the highest priority. Objects that have only one name, have little sense. As home page for the question "How do I describe you?" I recommend the web site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
Adriano Persch (2022-02-16 16:49:08+00:00): Comercio Local
user_5359 (2022-02-16 17:06:22+00:00): Please have a look on https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:shop
DressyPear4 (2022-02-15 21:30:24+00:00): Olá, não remova vias existentes.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117449778
Adriano Persch (2022-02-16 00:55:26+00:00): Olhe melhor, não existe vias!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117449778
Adriano Persch (2022-02-16 00:56:57+00:00): Olhe bem, não existe vias!!
DressyPear4 (2022-02-16 10:54:55+00:00): Vias internas são classificadas como 'service', você pode acrescentar access=private.
Adicione também um comentário em suas edições para que outros possam entender o que você está adicionando ou modificando
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
ZLima12 (2022-03-26 03:06:58+00:00): Hi,

How do you know what the surface is here? I doubt you visited in person based on the changeset type. Also, you have to add a layer tag when making bridges.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117449849
kortgodt (2023-10-25 09:25:04+00:00): Nye skovarealer er del af True Skov.
aceman444 (2022-02-15 23:12:39+00:00): Hi, please never "upgrade tags according to prompts"! You are a beginner user and can't judge if he prompts of iD editor are valid. Many times they are wrong. E.g. adding network:wikidata to every bus stop is nonsense. Also adding crossing=marked is invalid.
The iD editor is offered to beginners, but these automatic changes must not be done.

Stop doing these changes in Bratislava immediatelly. We now need to see how much damage you have done and what needs to be reverted.
aceman444 (2022-02-15 23:26:37+00:00): I mean stop the automatic changes of tags.
The adding of footway=sidewalk, on parts of footways where it is correct according to aerial imagery, is a good change. Thanks.
kiaraSh-Q (2022-06-29 15:50:28+00:00): سلام، شما در این چنج ست به کل محوطه ترمینال تگ ساختمان زدین که اشتباه هست.
SomeoneElse (2022-02-17 22:54:09+00:00): Hello,
Thanks for deleting the "not a real path" here - it looked like it went straight over a cliff, which didn't look like a good idea at all!
Just one question - do you know how tje Ebor Way gets around it?  You can see the gap at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/370663#map=17/53.91698/-1.80719 .  If not, never mind - I might get the chance to scout for signposts at some point.
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2022-02-20 11:02:51+00:00): Thanks for fixing this - I've made one more minor change in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117633281 to address a couple of stragglers.
literan (2022-02-16 16:17:18+00:00): это же не все здание, здание меньше. Перерисую.
urbalazs (2022-02-18 07:42:16+00:00): Szia! Ez a módosításcsomag elrontotta a körforgalmat a Clark Ádám téren, de kijavítottam. Ez nem a te hibád, hanem az iD szerkesztő hibája. Ha lehet, akkor használd inkább a JOSM szerkesztőt, különben az iD szerkesztővel elvégzett javításaid további hibákat okoznak.
Tompika (2022-02-20 20:00:41+00:00): Szia. Nem akarlak elkeseríteni de az iD szerkesztőm tökéletesen működik. A körforgalmat én vágtam ketté ezért: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=19.03855&lat=47.49881&zoom=17
maro21 (2026-01-31 17:09:05+00:00): To zdecydowanie nie są domy wolnostojące. Mógłbyś to poprawić?
conradoos (2026-01-31 18:46:32+00:00): OK, zmieniłem na "house".
maro21 (2026-02-04 19:38:39+00:00): Dzięki
eggie (2022-02-16 08:33:43+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
SnowDiver (2022-02-16 07:29:07+00:00): Erläuterung zu den gelöschten Knoten: eigentlich sollte der Weg nur verfeinert und um fehlende, aber auf dem Satellitenbild erkennbare Kurven ergänzt werden. JOSM hatte beim Hochladen Probleme und plötzlich war der Weg streckenweise doppelt vorhanden. Ich habe dann den groben Weg aufgespalten und streckenweise gelöscht, um nicht den kompletten Verlauf erneut anzupassen. Die verbleibenden Wegsegmente habe ich wieder vereint und alle Tags, auch die Änderung der mtb:scale in der Mitte des Tracks, übernommen
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117452090
MxxCon (2022-02-16 01:48:16+00:00): Hello.
While your edit is not wrong, it's generally best to format phone numbers as documented in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone#Usage 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117452191
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-02-20 17:48:04+00:00): Hi pkoby,
If you have images it would be helpful for reviewers if you could post an imgur link or something since Mapbox flagged the edit.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117452406
pkoby (2022-02-20 17:55:20+00:00): Haha thanks Mapbox!

Good call. Images here: https://imgur.com/a/vR7j9hK
kartler175 (2022-02-16 11:13:16+00:00): Inner-Mitglieder von Multipolygonen gehören definitionsgemäß nicht zum Objekt, das durch das MP dargestellt werden soll. Ist das tatsächlich so beabsichtigt? Davon abgesehen ist das MP auch geometrisch fehlerhaft: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=13.08909&lat=52.34504&zoom=15&opacity=0.95
dx125 (2022-02-16 19:40:30+00:00): unendliche Geschichte, komplexe Geometrien mit Potlatch erstellt, immer wieder Geometriefehler, andere User bessern nach, anderen Editor angeraten, Hilfe angeboten...
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=84566
streckenkundler (2022-02-16 20:25:17+00:00): Ich hab da ja auch schon herumeditiert...

Tja, das Problem ist auch folgendes...
Sämliche Elemente der Springbruch-Relation im Moment ist das Springbruch... Der Datentyp Multipolygon ist aber nur dafür da, alle beteiligten Elemente sinnvoll nach inner und outer zu sepatieren. Das MP ist nicht dafür da, eine "Sammelrelation" zu sein für alle Elemente, die wie hier zum Springbruch gehören. 
So...
Man könnte jetzt eleganterweise type=site nehmen, aber da fehlt wieder eine gewisse "Renderingantwort" des Namens. Da kann ich sehr gut verstehen, daß für solche Konstrukte eine in meinen Augen durchaus gerechtfertigte adäquate Darstellung des Namens eines solchen Landschaftsteils fehlt...

Das ist z.B. vergleichbar mit dem Bredower Forst: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/111221

Es ist ein MP mit >1 outer...  Für mich fehlt eine Lösung, mit der ich eine Umgrenzungslinie um alles ziehe, diese entsprechend benamse, und den Landschaftstyp festlege, fertig... Polygonmitte =Name...

Eine Art Namensgeometrie...

...ist erst mal eine fixe Idee...

Sven
streckenkundler (2022-02-19 10:17:51+00:00): Schade, daß der Verursacher nicht reagiert... :(