piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
user_15552334 (2022-08-23 16:09:09+00:00): Ok, the primary roads  connect Chukotka, a region of 50k people, only 2 roads lead into the region, I did much research, and these roads are meant to be designated at primary, also if they are primary, it allows truckers in winter to make it easier to get goods to needed communities, as they cannot transport the supplies in summer, so if these roads are highlighted easily too, it will be easier to see for humanitarian supplies like food, water etc, and these supplies last the entire year for those in Chukotka, I cannot speak Russian so I cannot speak to any Russian users easily.
user_15552334 (2022-08-23 16:10:30+00:00): I do have a friend from Russia who I can speak to about this who speaks English.
highflyer74 (2022-08-24 09:48:16+00:00): Hello and thanks for your reply!

"if they are primary, it allows truckers in winter to make it easier to get goods to needed communities"

This to me is an indication that you have not yet understood how OSM works. It is completely irrelevant if they are tagged =primary. This does not improve anything routing wise. What you are looking for is another look on the map, and that is not what we want (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_renderer).

Base your mapping on knowledge, otherwise you will decrease the quality of OSM data. Editing the whole planet without knowledge of local stuff is not helping a lot. Why don't you try to get in touch with your local community and help them to improve your home area?

Besides that: changing your username every couple of days does not make you appear professional.

If you really want to help the project, take it slow, try to be precise (e.g. a building=* is a building, not a whole area of buildings).

If not, please stay away.

Thank you!
user_15552334 (2022-08-24 13:34:15+00:00): Okay, also I will change my name 
less frequently, and maybe only change it when a new meme comes out and ill make it related to the meme.
SomeoneElse (2022-08-24 13:54:53+00:00): Given what happened on Discord, I'd suggest staying away from memes altogether.
user_15552334 (2022-08-25 15:38:49+00:00): I know highflyer is asking me to be professional, but  I  am not here to be the professional  guy who goes to OSM events, I just map out of boredem
GinaroZ (2022-09-10 22:54:15+00:00): Hi, is this unconnected stile a duplicate of the one you added? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5611753886
stevea (2022-08-19 23:02:29+00:00): Toby, that's correct:  that 99 remains a proposed route number for this facility in the (local de facto and proposed but not de jure) CycleNet protocol.  These would/do enter at the "local" level, hence "lcn" as a network value for the route.

Thank you for your improvements!  This has been a "rough place for a bike" for many years and your fresh tagging is a welcome update!
trigpoint (2022-08-20 15:22:15+00:00): Hi, just wondering what sources you have use for this turn-restriction?

There are no signs visible om mapillary so I I wondering how you have concluded that there is a restriction here?

Cheers Phil
trigpoint (2022-08-20 15:33:09+00:00): Sorry, found it further back. There would normally be a sign at the junction.

Cheers Phil
Evan_Cho (2022-09-01 21:58:17+00:00): Hi Phil, Sorry for the delay in the response. Thank you for looking into this edit. It seems you found the No U Turn sign that I found in Mapillary. In case there is any confusion here is the Mapillary image where I found the No U Turn sign. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.96244839789&lng=-0.69162541780395&z=17&trafficSign%5B%5D=all&focus=photo&pKey=532509214437310. Thanks again for looking into it, if the No U Turn sign is meant for something else, please let me know so we can make the proper edits.
eggie (2022-08-19 18:11:24+00:00): Hier ook.. De parkeermogelijkheden losmaken van de hoofdrijbaan.

Je verandert juist de edits (parkeerplaatsen) van ervaren mapper. 
Gr eggie
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=125118661
kees444 (2022-08-21 10:55:56+00:00): Bij de merelstraat had ik het veranderd omdat het getagged was als "parking=surface" ipv "parking=street_side". En er zat een toegangsweg aan de parkeerplaats vast, die er niet is. Ik weet niet of je dat bedoeld?

De wiki zegt "In contrast to parking=surface, these parking spaces are accessed directly from the street without having to use an access/service road or driveway." 
Dus dat leek me wel een logische verbetering.

Ik zal de parkeerplaatsen die ik aan rijbanen heb vast gemaakt losmaken.
eggie (2022-08-21 11:02:19+00:00): Die pakeervakken die als parking=street_side zijn getagd.. of nog moeten worden getagd niet. Die liggen los. 
Wat de wiki bedoelt is dat je geen weg moet afsplitsen naar die parkeervakken die parallel aan de weg liggen en dan een weg over die parkeervakken heen tekenen. 
parking=street_side is een vrije nieuwe manier om die parkeervakken aan te duiden.


Op een echt  parkeerterrein lopen uiteraard wel wegen als highway=service met service=parking_aisle.  Het moet immers routeren op het parkeerterrein zelf.

Mapse,
eggie
kees444 (2022-08-21 11:15:23+00:00): Oké.

Ik heb de parkeervakken naast de merelstraat nu losgemaakt.
syntex (2022-08-20 00:28:33+00:00): Wycofane
eggie (2022-08-19 18:05:01+00:00): Kees kijk even hoe ik de Waterhoenstraat heb verbeterd conform de wiki.
amenity=parking
parking=street_side
parking:orientation=parallel

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-08-19 18:09:07+00:00): Nog een tip.. Niet die parkeervakken aan de weg vastmaken svp. 
gr eggie
eggie (2022-08-19 18:35:41+00:00): Zie https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:parking%3Dstreet_side
kees444 (2022-08-21 10:45:08+00:00): Oké
SzymonH (2022-08-19 20:05:21+00:00): Wandalizm do wycofania
syntex (2022-08-20 00:28:39+00:00): Wycofane
syntex (2022-08-20 00:28:45+00:00): Wycofane
eggie (2022-08-19 18:01:20+00:00): Dag Checker.. Lees anders even dit draadje wat het bekeid is hoe te mappen als paden bewust uit de routering worden onttrokken middels dicht laten groeien.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=73238

MVG
eggie
Flöh (2022-08-21 18:31:18+00:00): Hi eggi,
thanks for the hint. I didn't knew that. I'll add disused:highway and a note...
SzymonH (2022-08-19 20:04:57+00:00): Co mają na celu te zmiany? To wandalizm, bo tam nie ma żadnego remontu
syntex (2022-08-20 00:28:50+00:00): Wycofane
MxxCon (2022-08-20 04:38:56+00:00): Hello.
When you are splitting ways to include maxheight tag, please try to split it as close as possible to the actual location of where the height is restricted.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125120086
edircksen (2022-08-22 12:05:46+00:00): Ok, will do. Thanks for the comment.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125120086
Diacritic (2022-08-19 21:37:15+00:00): Hey Bob!

I stumbled across this edit as I was going through OSMCha, and I was curious who had changed these paths to allow bikes. I couldn't see anything in the Music Bowl history that would account for this. Are you using a particular routing service to plan routes?

Dian
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125120259
user_5359 (2022-08-20 12:56:12+00:00): Hello! Please habe a look on http://www.osm.org/way/1087558146 (one of two objects). What is the meaning of the tag 8 = residential ?
OmSweetOm (2022-08-22 20:50:04+00:00): Hello user_5359, I saw your message to my colleague LuvMapping, they are no longer active so I have removed the tag. Thank you!
ElliottPlack (2022-12-07 22:30:15+00:00): Just a note to be wary of maintaining route connectivity when adding crossings. I know you know this already. In a few instances I see crosswalks were added and, in the process, broke the East Coast Greenway relation. 

Ex: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1087560668#map=19/39.28059/-76.61138
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1087560666#map=19/39.28057/-76.61134
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1087560667#map=19/39.28078/-76.61146

Since you're editing in JOSM, try the "Colorize bicycle routes" map paint style. Thanks!

(I've got a changeset open now so no need to fix, I got them.)
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-08-21 23:59:53+00:00): por favor, retire estes nomes genéricos "acesso não usado" "rotatoria sem nome", se nao tem um nome proprio deixe sem.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-08-22 00:00:20+00:00): e se precisar de uma imagem mais recente: https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/sentinel-playground/?source=S2L2A&lat=-18.88226984122212&lng=-48.239614963531494&zoom=16&preset=1_TRUE_COLOR&layers=B01,B02,B03&maxcc=20&gain=1.0&gamma=1.0&time=2022-02-01%7C2022-08-21&atmFilter=&showDates=false
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-12-31 23:18:37+00:00): removido
Eman_Mehrez (2022-09-06 13:49:15+00:00): Hello Abdullah Al Werfalli;
I noticed you added the wrong value in the key "int_ref" could you check it and fix it, please?
Link for the street:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49267766

Regards
Eman_Mehrez
iz11 (2022-08-22 05:54:29+00:00): Szia!
Miért nem törlünk utakat magánterületen:
(Már írtam neked, egy másik OSM szerkesztő bármikor visszarajzolhatja az utakat és az egész kezdődik elölről.)
 Az access=private tag az utakon jobb megoldás lenne.

További sok más ok is angolul:

Why we won't delete roads on private property

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
MarinoBM (2022-08-21 01:20:23+00:00): Las ediciones que estás haciendo en OpenStreetMap a través de MAPS.ME son públicas y visibles para todo el mundo, y este no es el lugar adecuado. Para uso particular debes utilizar otras alternativas.
Badojo (2022-08-19 21:43:25+00:00): Taman ja htio isto objavit sad sam bio u Splitu :)
emersonveenstra (2022-08-22 11:16:09+00:00): Hi,

In this changeset you added a bunch of driveways that crossed the sidewalk. Those need to be connected to each other using a crossing node. The editor warned you of this when you saved this changeset, please look at those warnings and attempt to fix them in the future. Thanks!
Jack_Ware01UK (2022-08-22 20:05:11+00:00): Thanks for letting me know. Should be sorted out now.
emersonveenstra (2022-08-23 01:35:11+00:00): Great, thanks a lot!
yasslay (2022-11-18 10:48:03+00:00): Hello!

Why did you make this part of the Fosse Way one way? This isn't reflected on satellite imagery, please explain why you changed it to be like this.

Kind regards,
yasslay
trigpoint (2022-11-18 18:05:01+00:00): Its not reflected in my memory or mapillary either https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=281711566996173
user_5589 (2022-11-18 18:27:51+00:00): Definitely not intentional! Corrected as of about 60 seconds ago.
Jan Olieslagers (2022-12-13 17:01:41+00:00): What was the reason for modifying the aerodrom (sic!) ?? It looked quite ok as it was. I intend to revert.
Matija Nalis (2023-11-02 09:22:20+00:00): Reverting due to: not responding on discussion, obvious misspelling of "aerodrom", removal of wikidata.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143518907
trial (2022-09-04 15:25:39+00:00): Bonjour attention nommite aigüe : name c'est fait pour les noms propres et uniquement les noms propres. Ici c'est une simple référence à indiquer par ref.
Binvenu sur OpenStreetMap.
SimonBoulanger (2022-09-05 08:13:13+00:00): Bonjour "Trial"

Vous m'indiquer qu'il faut basculer
"Ligne/Lane XXXX" dans REF et non dans NOM_PROPRE comme nous l'avons fait?
Merci pour votre retours!
marc__marc (2022-09-05 08:20:19+00:00): Bonjour,
en effet, la reférence de quelque chose se met dans la clef ref. la clef nom concerne le nom réel et non un nom descriptif (pas de "arret de bus" ou "bande no 1"
Mais le problème est plus important que cela : vous semblez avoir dessiner autant de route qu'il n'y a de bande de circulation.
hors dans osm, on ne descine pas les bande, on a un attribut pour décrire le nombre de bande de circulation.
on sépare une voie en 2 (ou plus) uniquement lorsqu'il y a des obstacles physique empechant de passer d'une voie à l'autre.
Cordialement,
Marc
SimonBoulanger (2022-09-05 08:26:18+00:00): Bonjour Marc,

J'ai simplement repris ce que les anglais ont fait sur le Port de Douvres...
Il s'agit pour nous d'avoir un guidage complet pour nos clients, ligne par ligne je vous l'accorde...
Merci
trial (2022-09-05 11:23:05+00:00): Merci pour les retours rapides.
> ref=Ligne/Lane 1032 devrait être ref=1032, car le fait qu'il s'agit d'une ligne vient du fait qu'il s'agit d'un parking.
Regarder ce que font les autres est en général une bonne idée mais sur Douvres je vois des loc_ref, pas des name par exemple https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/180982226
De plus sur Douvres il n'y a pas de possibilité de changer de file (traits continus d'après l'imagerie aérienne).

Le problème que je vois dans la modélisation actuelle c'est que les utilisateurs peuvent changer de file tant qu'ils restent dans un groupe de 4, ce que qui n'est pas correctement modélisé. Indiquer le nombre de voies aurait l'inconévient de ne pas individualiser les lignes mais l'avantage de rendre la carte plus lisible/compréhensible. ref=1029-1032 ?
michael60101 (2022-08-23 21:03:35+00:00): This edit has been reverted. The name of the tribe that occupies this reservation is not appropriate to use as the name of the reservation.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125122157
mariotomo (2022-08-19 19:05:46+00:00): useful, thank you, and very welcome to OSM.
emersonveenstra (2022-08-20 15:39:46+00:00): Hi,

Why do you add layer=1 to highways like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1087570058 that don't have a bridge?
Circuit_Rider (2022-08-21 01:06:57+00:00): My understanding is that using layer=-1 has been depreciated for waterways crossing under things like a highway. So that means adding the layer=1 tag to the highway. If I am wrong, I please let me know.
emersonveenstra (2022-08-22 11:25:59+00:00): I'm not sure about the deprecation, although https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer#Things_to_avoid says it's fine to use. If you're going to use layer=1 on a highway, then there needs to be a bridge (see the wiki page for embankment if there's not a bridge) and the layer tag should only be on the bridge.
jeslop (2022-08-21 09:58:37+00:00): Saludos Miguelca. He borrado estas contribuciones ya que no existen estas oficinas donde las has marcado. Como ya te han señalado otros usuarios este tipo de ediciones no están permitidas. 

Si quieres profundizar en OSM te recomiendo que leas primero la guía de principiantes: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Gu%C3%ADa_de_principiantes

Jesús López 
OpenStreetMap Foundation 
Data Working Group
gscholz (2022-08-21 05:24:09+00:00): Hi IIVQ,
this changest has has created errros in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:


https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=9.53883&lat=39.87853&zoom=18&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=125122789

The errors are caused by way 1087576381:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1087576381

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
IIVQ (2022-08-21 15:23:43+00:00): Thx, I have fixed this!
JeroenHoek (2022-08-19 19:57:17+00:00): Duh, stom dat ik Roodbaard niet gelijk even toegevoegd had. Dank je.
E de Wit (2022-08-19 20:04:38+00:00): Ik zag het mooie detailwerk en kon het niet laten om wat aanvullende informatie op te zoeken en toe te voegen. :-)
RicoElectrico (2022-08-19 22:03:33+00:00): Cześć, trochę Ci nie wyszło, dodałeś nazwę do punktu, który jest rogiem budynku - ale tylko nazwę bez oznaczenia typu obiektu. Popatrz jak są zmapowane inne paczkomaty, możesz też przejść samouczek: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Samouczek_edytora_iD
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-05-10 13:48:14+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9026522736/history has building:name = Hôtel du Lotto that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
Is building:name for building name? In such case it would be much better to put it into name tag. If this object merges builing and POI inside such as museum or shop, then having separate objects for point of interest and building would be better idea, museum may have own area or node (see also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element ).

If it is an inscription then it should use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:inscription

If that is not a building name - what you wanted express by this tagging?
user_5589 (2022-08-28 23:25:54+00:00): So then we appear to have a mixture of good work and vandalism in this changeset and some of your other recent changesets.

In most cases the changes to the geometry of the streets are improvements. However what on earth you have done at the south-western approaches to the Pont de l'Entente Cordiale is beyond me. The most recent aerial imagery does not support the changes you have made. The IGN map does not support the changes you have made. Heck the Google Streetview imagery from June 2021 does not support the changes you have made. So why have you made those changes? If the IGN map supported them that would be one thing, but it doesn't.

Then we have the actual vandalism: mass removal of lanes:forward and lanes:backward tagging. That is valid tagging, so why did you remove it en masse? Consider Rue des Bergeronnettes for example. Not only did you thoroughly mess up your alteration of the geometry of the street by leaving multiple traffic sign tags formerly attached to the deleted ways in place as orphaned nodes, but you also removed lanes:foward=1 and lanes:backward=1 from the tagging for no legitimate reason.

There is one lane in the direction of the way. There is one lane against the direction of the way. Hence lanes:forward=1 and lanes:backward=1 is valid tagging. The road is obviously wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other.

Incidentally your vandalism of those tags will be vain. I will simply add them back over the next few days. Oh and yes that does include adding  back lanes:foward to one-way streets as well.
user_5589 (2022-08-29 16:34:52+00:00): Furthermore your mass deletion of traffic signs is also vandalism.

There is no excuse for mass deletion of valid tagging. STOP DOING IT.

Pour les français ici, il y a des vandalisme. Beaucoup de suppression en masse. C'est pas acceptable. Arrêtez maintenant!
Alexb60 (2022-08-29 21:25:59+00:00): To the south-west of the Entente Cordiale bridge, the modifications were first made by another user, I only improved and corrected them because there were some problems. In this area there has been a lot of work, so it is normal that IGN maps and Google StreetView images dating from 2021 no longer support the map.

For the lane tags, many of them report problems in Osmose, I only fixed them and prevented others from appearing. Additionally, there are also "type=restriction" relation on one-way streets which are not needed.

I just wanted to improve the map, I didn't intend to vandalize it.
user_5589 (2022-08-29 21:37:36+00:00): Safe to say that Osmose and I have a fundamental disagreement about lanes:forward as a tag.

They flag it is as invalid tagging if used on a one-way street. It can perhaps legitimately be argued to be redundant tagging. That is not the same as invalid tagging.

Osmose can be useful, but it needs to be treated more carefully as a QA tool than some others. The maintainers have some rather strange ideas about validity of tagging.

Some of your work was indeed improvements. Making geometries better. Improving tagging. However you removed a great deal of validly tagged material and destroyed detail. For example consider Rue de la Gare meeting Rue du Docteur Brousse. It's very clearly marked there that there's a turning restriction. Turning out of Rue de la Gare you can only go right, presumably because of the proximity to the roundabout allowing easy switching of direction on Rue du Docteur Brousse. Your merging of the ways there meant that turn restriction's presence was lost. That merging of ways also meant that the transit of Rue de la Gare across some bricks in between two asphalt-surfaced sections was also lost. You also merged a lot of sections of brick surface where Rue du Docteur Brousse goes across pedestrian crossings. Those are not just painted onto the road, but they are actually brick. Hence the surface of that section of road being marked as paving stones where appropriate.
Map_HeRo (2022-09-05 19:32:56+00:00): Hallo Hamstermann, ich denke, Du solltest Dich noch ein wenig in die grundlegenden Regeln von OSM einlesen. 
1. Name-Tags werden nur für echte Namen vergeben, NICHT für Sachbezeichnungen. "Doppelhaushälfte" oder "Hoffläche" sind KEINE Namen. 
2. Privatnamen und Religionszugehörigkeit von Hauseigentümern haben in OSM NICHTS verloren.
3. Landuse=residential gilt für das gesamte Wohnviertel. Dieses Tag wird NICHT noch ein weiteres mal an das einzelne Grundstück und noch einmal an die Hoffläche gehängt (redundante Daten).
Bitte sei so gut und lösche diese ganzen überflüssigen und fehlerhaften Details selber wieder und wirf doch in Zukunft, bevor Du etwas mappst, erst einen Blick in das OSM-wiki, dort sind alle relevanten Tags recht genau beschrieben.
Danke und Gruß
bxl-forever (2022-08-19 23:16:48+00:00): Hello,

You might want to have a second look at this part:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/997936762

This is now a building inside a building, because it is contained in the outer shape of the multipolygon.  The OSM data model disallows this.  It should either be left out of the MP or tagged as building:part.  You can decide which option you feel most appropriate here.

For the Royal Stables, I remember drawing the former multipolygon; the current release of UrbisAdm shows this building as a plain shape now.  I think UrbIS may be mistaken because the centre of the building is a large patio, covered by a glass roof (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/400967180/history).  Here is a picture that shows what it looks like on the inside: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ecuries_royales_de_Bruxelles_-_03.JPG
JhowieNitnek (2022-08-20 06:56:55+00:00): Hi, 
What do you exactly mean? I just remove the building inside a building part.
bxl-forever (2022-08-20 07:30:45+00:00): OK, you can disregard the "building inside building" part, sorry to have bothered you for this issue.  The MP flagged a warning, and I tried to compare two copies of the database to investigate the issue.  I found the problem now and it's something else.

But I’d like to hear your opinion about the stables and if you think we should do something to it.  Thanks in advance.

Have a nice day.
JhowieNitnek (2022-08-20 07:33:24+00:00): Personally I don't think a multipolygon is in it's place here as the courtyart is now part of the building in general so it shouldn't be tagged as a different part
JeroenHoek (2022-08-20 07:28:53+00:00): Ik heb die note naar description gezet: description kan door apps etc. ook aan de gebruiker getoond worden, note wordt altijd verborgen omdat deze enkel voor andere mappers bedoeld is.
Syl (2022-09-02 20:23:27+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai annulé votre modification sur cet emplacement de parking et sur les autres autour.
Je ne sais pas si "parking space" est parfaitement adapté mais en tout cas "parking" tout court l'est encore moins.
Il me semble que vous avez fait le même genre de modification sur d'autres aires d'accueil, pouvez-vous corriger ?
Merci.
Enock4seth_repair (2022-08-19 20:30:48+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 124722531, 124723055, 124723754, 124723921, 124724339, 124724468, 124724954, 124725525, 124725708, 124725882, 124726189, 124726903, 124727047, 124728455.
emersonveenstra (2022-08-19 22:12:12+00:00): Hi,

These have been classified as paths for a long time, are you sure they are only footways?
adeegan (2022-08-22 17:26:19+00:00): I wanted to make sure it is clear bicycle are not allowed on the paths.  They are for foot traffic only
emersonveenstra (2022-08-22 17:45:39+00:00): Thanks