piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Verdy_p (2019-05-01 11:25:19+00:00): Note: the lines added around some coast lines are NOT coast lines but legal baseline boundaries (with references). They are exact and diffferent from coastlines where they are defined as "loxodromy" across bays or between islands.
This is NOT a duplicate of coastlines which are still unique.
Verdy_p (2019-05-01 11:33:28+00:00): Note also that I have removed various real duplicates created by other objects (for bays) that did not follow the coastlines exactly; I also checked the correct interconnection of rivers with the sea.
So I made special attention to not make any duplicate and be as precise as possible for coastlines.
I have also added various missing islets, and checked the lists.
This is still not finished, there are still various bays to check.
Verdy_p (2019-05-01 11:38:14+00:00): Finaly note that lines that cut bays in sea are NOT coastlines, these are untagged ways used in a closed polygon for the bay waters, the other ways of these bays ARE the unique coastlines
Verdy_p (2019-05-01 12:11:10+00:00): So if you find any duplicate, please give the id's. (may be these are spurious old lines left by someone else, but they are not part of any relation as they should (because all the useful relations are properly closed).
This is a large area, and in JOSM I cannot download everything. So There may remain very local and old segments that were not part of any relation I have also consistently updated.
So you claim something that I cannot even detect anywhere.
If your claim is based on an exporte QA tool, may be this tools still does not have the current data (this will take some time for them to download these updates and sync their reports)
Andre68 (2019-05-01 12:52:09+00:00): Line ids 404462767 (which already existed) and 686907210 (which you added) both have natural=coastline and overlap!
Andre68 (2019-05-01 13:02:25+00:00): You can use overpass to download only lines with natural=coastline even for huge areas. JOSM offers a wizard for this.

The tool I use is a own written program which downloads the very recent day and hour replicate files. So I can see coastline errors not later than one hour after they appear.
Andre68 (2019-05-01 13:04:57+00:00): OSM Inspector has also detected this error:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=coastline&lon=70.19559&lat=-49.69507&zoom=13&overlays=coastline,coastline_error_lines,line_not_a_ring,line_overlap,line_invalid,line_direction,questionable,coastline_error_points,unconnected,intersections,not_a_ring,double_node,tagged_node
Verdy_p (2019-05-02 01:19:54+00:00): Both Overpass and OSM Inspector are OUT OF DATE in their own databases, they are not in sync with ongoing changes.
Don't rely on their reports about recent changes !!!

I don't need them to load complete relations, and I'm certain that there's no broken polygons (Everything is checked, IO've NOT redrawn anything and reused the existing lines, except the new maritime baselines that have beedn compeltely redefined by deleting the old ones based on an old French law that was withdrawn in 2015 and replaced with new geometries).

If there remains lines, they've not been part of any polygon. And I've not detected even any conflict while editing.
Verdy_p (2019-05-02 01:22:41+00:00): OSM inspector did not detect that a geometry was redefined (the two ways were alreayd merged by me into one, it keeps a reference to a deleted one: the duplicate was there BEFORE my changes, I have explicitly removed these duplicates, which were cased by old baselines incorrectly tagged, or old bays incorrectlmy drawn with overlaps)
Verdy_p (2019-05-02 01:54:37+00:00): I confirm: the error you see is a duplicate way that was created more than 6 months ago, and incorrectly tagged as a coastline, but never used by the relations that were already there.
So it's definitely not me that created the duplicate.
Verdy_p (2019-05-02 01:58:37+00:00): Also take what "OSM inspector" affirms with care: look at the dates of the data: these dates in its reports are even BEFORE ALL I did there !
Verdy_p (2019-05-02 02:16:06+00:00): I also confirm that EVERYTHING that OsmInspector still reports is wrong. Thery are all based on old datas, and not at all about what I did in the last few days.
OsmInspector is useful only to find things forgotten for more than 1 week ago, in much more frequently edited areas in Europe (but in this area it is even late by several months!)
Andre68 (2019-05-02 03:05:52+00:00): It's simply WRONG, what you are writing! The way id 686907210 was created at 2019-04-30T14:45:16Z by YOU. And just that you believe (which is the opposite of knowing) that tools like Overpass or OSM Inspector have outdated data does not mean that the data is not there. The data of Overpass is normally not more than two minutes behind. You have now deleted way id 404462767 which is good. But I still wonder about that wilful ignorance. Tools are tools and not more. Using a tool to find problems is GOOD. If you than download current data and the problem is REALLY there than you can fix it. There is NO reason complaining about these tools just because you just want to ignore YOUR faults. I've now learned that even if a user has many edits does not mean that this user is REALLY experienced.  That's sad.
Verdy_p (2019-05-02 04:36:07+00:00): yes that way was created from a split of an existing one, and it was alreadfy part of relations.
The way the was spurious was createrd 6 months ago and referneced by no relatioçn at all.
You're wrong. Tools are good only after some times to see what's been forgotten, but I confirm that OsmInspector is wrong here: the Ids indicated either don't exist anymore or are not the way they are shown because it was split in several parts and one part merged with another, and OsmInspector still does not have it.
I've have reverified, everything is OK.
Verdy_p (2019-05-02 04:39:28+00:00): The way 686907210 was exactly created when I splitted an existing way (which was not duplicated) in two parts to delimit a new bay.
But there was another older way (created 6 months ago, not by me, by someone redrawing a part of the coastline without connecting it to any relation) that I deleted at the same time (the way reported by OsmInspector which is incorrect), because it was already a duplicate before my change there.
Andre68 (2019-05-02 06:18:00+00:00): Your problem is that you simply do not agree that you made a mistake. The error was yours. JOSM also should have warned you before upload. And you either have deactivated the JOSM checker or ignored the warning. But I'm pretty sure that JOSM is also wrong, right? The tools are working absolutely correct. As you have now deleted one way the error is gone. My tool and OSM Inspector do not complain anymore. But it is soo easy to blame tools instead of start thinking. I will ignore you now. You are just stealing my time. Hope you learn. *EOD*
Verdy_p (2019-05-02 15:14:35+00:00): If you're patient enough, the QA tools will see the effective changes and will no longer report the alledged "errors", which were there since long before my recent changes but are not caused by my changes that have already solved many of them.
Verdy_p (2019-05-02 23:22:08+00:00): "The error was yours. JOSM also should have warned you before upload. And you either have deactivated the JOSM checker or ignored the warning. But I'm pretty sure that JOSM is also wrong, right? The tools are working absolutely correct."

I completely deny *ALL* these false affirmations. I've not disabled these things in JOSM. Stop this polemic. You just affirms that the external QA tools operate instantly, and this is wrong. It takes them several days to really see what happens, even if they've loaded the data after a few minutes, they don't process the data instantly, and keep their reports online. Zones are processed by them not in the minute, but only once every few days. As well tiles are not rendered instantly (especially for low zoom levels), and even if they are marked for being regenreated, it takes time (more than one month for coastlines in renderers).
So you're just impatient. If you want faster results, donate for hardware to those that really put these tools online.
But I can affirm that you've not even tried to load these areas by just trying to edit them in iD: you would have seen that what is reported is not even there in the database and that the reported "errors" do not even exist and are base on a mix of old data and new data has still not been processed by these tools.
Andre68 (2019-05-03 05:33:09+00:00): Well, this is EXACTLY the answer, which I was expecting from you... Sadly... You are just ignoring the facts and it seems that you are trapped in you own thoughts. It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that I made a mistake, because I did not edit anything in this area. Just because of a case two weeks before I was so prescient to not destroy facts. The last major edits were YOURS. And as you could have seen yourself, there in FACT were a duplicate way, which you deleted TWO DAYS later after I was complaining about this. Complaining about wrong software and slow hardware is simply NONSENS. And I NEVER have said, that QA tools operate instantly. This is also your brain telling you. The only QA tool which is REALLY operating VERY fast is mine. It takes exactly five minutes to check for coastline errors for the whole planet. You believe that you are without fail, but you are NOT! Just accept it! You cannot blame software which is working correctly and you cannot blame users about errors when they did not edit anything. That is a tactic to deviate from own problems. You should solve them instead!

The discussion here is in the changeset which introduced the error and it was YOURS. But as I said before. I think you are trapped in you own thoughts. The proof is that you are now talking about slow hardware and about generating tiles which was NEVER a problem. We are talking about DATA, nothing more.
Verdy_p (2019-05-03 08:14:33+00:00): And I speak about DATA, that you have NOT checked at all, not even tried.
You would have seen that the reports from the QA tools are wrong because they were based on different old data and are not relevant to my recent edits.
Sorry but you don't know how to read these QA reports (notably the dates and given IDs).
I'm not trapped, but YOU are: you incorrectly interpret what these QA tools report and read them superficicially!
All existing external QA tools ARE slow and never give reports accurately before at least several days: the reports are just indications and need further checks.
Compare what these reports say with what you see in the iD editor: things are different including the object id's, the geometries (notably the total way length when the way was split), the tags...
As well as the attached meta data (notably the changeset id for each object: if they don't match the changeset id shown in the QA tool, the report of the QA tool is not relevant, and will be cleaned by them automatically on their next scanning pass which never occurs instantly but always once every few days)
Read the docs about these QA tools: this is always clear that they are not showing "errors", but warnings about possible errors if they are not checked manually.
Unfortunately the reports given by OSM inspector are not very easy to intepret.
I use other QA tools which are more precise (and for this location in France, OSM Inspector is almost never used by French contributors that prefer Osmose)
You also affirmed that I disabled and did not want to use the JOSM validator, and I can affirm you that I always use it strictly and, I never ignore it, it is always enabled by default. I also perform lot of other checks, even if you think the contrary, you're not behind my back to see it, but given that you do not even check what is really in the db by trying to load the data yourself, your claims are invalid.
You'll react the same way with any one else editing data anytwhere in the world if you interpret the QA tools reports the way you do now. For now you are just creating troubles. You need to learn how to use and interpret these external QA tools, and work really in cooperation with others editing in the same area as you, because you'll just harass them needlessly just like you do here.
So keep quiet, and learn.
Andre68 (2019-05-03 19:08:37+00:00): YEAH! GREAT! It's sooo funny reading your comments that I now have laughed loud. No, really... You must have used REALLY GREAT QA tools which did NOT detect the error you created and lasts for nearly TWO DAYS! That's perfect! Especially for people who live in a perfect world! These STUPID QA tools which detected the error MUST be wrong! GREAT!!! YEAH!! Give me MORE!! Especially that I HAVE TO READ the docs for the QA tools I have written myself! Funny! I want to laugh! I'm really looking forward reading these silly things! It's soo sad, that I'm away for this weekend. But soon it is sunday evening and I can laugh again, I hope...
Verdy_p (2019-05-05 12:17:10+00:00): Given the tone of your response, it's evident you cannnot collaborate with any one on OSM and you can harass them just like me at any time. I will complain tyo admins for your attitude. You are not patient and have not understood anything about how these QA tools works, and the fact they need time to be in sync: all external QA tools will frequently report "errors" for recent edits they've still not fully processed. It's evident that you misuse them and give them an incorrect level of trust.
I repeat: there's NO error, and you've not given ANY evidence that there was really "errors". You have NOt tried to load the data or see them by trying to load the data  for example in iD, jsut to make sure that these reports are not obsolete.
Unlike you, I've checked multiple times my edits before and after submission and found absolutely NOTHING.
And given the kind of edits you make everywhere and randomly in the world, without any meaningful comments (always the same), it's eveident that you work only alone from you chair and have never tried to cooperate with any one, you just use your own "knowledge" and bad assumptions, and have not read any doc about the QA tools you use blindly: all what these tools say is: "please check here if there's a real problem".
OSM Inspector is correct but in France here, we've all decided to ignore its too many false positives and we use Osmose instead (which is more complete, more accurate, and in sync after 3 days at most, where OSM Inspector needs weeks or months, or never cleans its old reports in some areas.
Verdy_p (2019-05-05 12:25:49+00:00): Also note that I'm NOT alone to edit in this area; I fix many repeated errors made by jeje23 (incorrect islets added with reversed costlines, broken relations forgotten in most of the time...).
Unlike you I refresh my data frequently before ALL submissions, and I run again the JOSM validator. I do not need external outdated QA tools
PT-53 (2019-04-30 16:23:25+00:00): Hallo roadRunnerzzz,
nächster name-Mißbrauch "Federsee-Tankstelle".
Bitte falsche name-Verwendung löschen.
roadRunnerzzz (2019-05-02 07:07:56+00:00): Erledigt, danke
viloan (2019-04-30 14:34:26+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
PT-53 (2019-04-30 16:05:54+00:00): Hallo roadRunnerzzz,
ein Schützenverein hat nichts, aber auch gar nichts mit dem Miliär zu tun.
Wiki sport=shooting:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:sport%3Dshooting

Beispiele:
Uttenweiler: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/219418395
Altheim-Waldhausen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/269146381
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/206861182
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/269146382#map=19/48.13229/9.43604

Ich bitte um Korrektur und mehr Sorgfalt!
Grüße
pitscheplatsch (2019-04-30 16:16:25+00:00): Should be reviewed by a local or by DWG. Thanks.

See https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=69737431
Mazda05 (2019-04-30 17:21:25+00:00): зачем сменили регистр?
Ars-UA (2019-04-30 17:22:43+00:00): https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=10170&p=63
Mazda05 (2019-04-30 17:50:50+00:00): И? Вы открывали ссылку, которую вам предоставили?
Mazda05 (2019-04-30 17:51:40+00:00): указанная andygol'ом цитата относится к addr:housenumber...
Ars-UA (2019-04-30 17:59:55+00:00): Открывал. Значит будет в общем стиле, везде маленькими.
Mazda05 (2019-04-30 18:00:40+00:00): в документах иначе
Ars-UA (2019-04-30 18:17:21+00:00): Дайте ссылку
Mazda05 (2019-04-30 19:18:55+00:00):  Отредактировано около 2 месяцев назад пользователем Mazda05
Версия #1 · Пакет правок #67827551 
name 	54Б квартал
---
 Отредактировано около 4 часов назад пользователем Ars-UA
Версия #2 · Пакет правок #69738461 
name 	54б квартал
---
От вас аргументов, предпосылок, причин, кроме "я так хочу" не услышал.
Ars-UA (2019-04-30 19:20:08+00:00): Давайте обсудим на форуме
Mazda05 (2019-04-30 19:28:24+00:00): обсуждайте
Ars-UA (2019-04-30 19:43:40+00:00): Обсуждаю. И вас приглашаю. Если правда на вашей стороне, вам нечего бояться.
下り専門 (2019-04-30 23:09:32+00:00): こんにちは。この編集は何をもとにしていますか？以前現地に始点の調査に行ったのですが標識類は無くて不明でした。
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/69738692
HideSuzuki (2019-04-30 23:23:46+00:00): 「静岡県地理情報システム」掲載の道路台帳図が情報源です。
起点側が最初のURL、終点側が最後のURLになります。
https://www.gis.pref.shizuoka.jp/Link/org/601-1/1/%E9%81%93%E8%B7%AF%E5%8F%B0%E5%B8%B3/11_%E4%B8%8B%E7%94%B0%E5%9C%9F%E6%9C%A8%E4%BA%8B%E5%8B%99%E6%89%80/3122_%E6%9D%BE%E5%B4%8E%E6%B8%AF%E7%B7%9A/1/G_3122_11_01_01-04.tif
https://www.gis.pref.shizuoka.jp/Link/org/601-1/1/%E9%81%93%E8%B7%AF%E5%8F%B0%E5%B8%B3/11_%E4%B8%8B%E7%94%B0%E5%9C%9F%E6%9C%A8%E4%BA%8B%E5%8B%99%E6%89%80/3122_%E6%9D%BE%E5%B4%8E%E6%B8%AF%E7%B7%9A/1/G_3122_11_01_04-07.tif
https://www.gis.pref.shizuoka.jp/Link/org/601-1/1/%E9%81%93%E8%B7%AF%E5%8F%B0%E5%B8%B3/11_%E4%B8%8B%E7%94%B0%E5%9C%9F%E6%9C%A8%E4%BA%8B%E5%8B%99%E6%89%80/3122_%E6%9D%BE%E5%B4%8E%E6%B8%AF%E7%B7%9A/1/G_3122_11_01_07-10.tif
https://www.gis.pref.shizuoka.jp/Link/org/601-1/1/%E9%81%93%E8%B7%AF%E5%8F%B0%E5%B8%B3/11_%E4%B8%8B%E7%94%B0%E5%9C%9F%E6%9C%A8%E4%BA%8B%E5%8B%99%E6%89%80/3122_%E6%9D%BE%E5%B4%8E%E6%B8%AF%E7%B7%9A/1/G_3122_11_01_10-17.tif
下り専門 (2019-05-01 10:49:35+00:00): HideSuzukiさん、こんにちは。  
返信ありがとうございます。OSMは自由な地図であるために利用できる情報源に制限があります。  
静岡県地理情報システムにも何かの権利はあり、OSMでの利用の許諾を得ていないので情報源としては使用できません。  

ビギナーズガイド->データの情報源  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Beginners_Guide_1.1
「絶対に著作権があるリソースを使わないでください。」

著作権イースターエッグ->この件について OSM がどう考えるか
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Copyright_Easter_Eggs
「OpenStreetMap としては、決して他の地図を参照したデータを入力しないようお願いします。 」  

とはいえ、静岡県の公開しているデータは良質で利用できたら良いですよね。  
完全に禁止ではなくて、データ提供者にOSMでの利用の許諾を得れば情報源にすることができます。一緒に許諾を得る手続きをしてみませんか？
frosm (2019-05-29 10:44:20+00:00): quelle tristesse de voir que malgré de nombreuse demande, le commentaire de la modification est toujours aussi creu.
pourriez-vous svp faire un effort ?
Carto'Cité (2019-06-10 15:18:11+00:00): Cher Monsieur Géovélo, 
Qu'en est-il de cet ajout de cycleway=opposite sur une voie à double-sens, et quel est le sens de ce commentaire de changeset : "Géovélo" ?
Antoine.
simon_geovelo (2019-07-16 14:12:49+00:00): Bonjour Monsieur Antoine,

Je vais sensibiliser notre contributeur utilisant le compte Geovelo pour ses futures éditions.

Simon de Geovelo
pitscheplatsch (2019-04-30 16:17:53+00:00): Hi jeanne31, welcome to OSM.

May I know the reason behind deleting almost 400 buildings, which have been mapped 10 days ago? Thanks.

See https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=69739330
freebeer (2019-05-04 05:26:32+00:00): with no response, i am as usual tempted to apply a revert, but the achavi visualisation shows almost as many new additions as deletions here.  :-(
Kovoschiz (2019-07-15 19:00:33+00:00): While the other edits are annoying, this isn't the right way either.
Carnildo (2019-05-02 05:40:07+00:00): If you check the Bing Streetside imagery for this area, you'll see that the parking aisle you deleted because it intersected the Mountain Valley Inn does, in fact, exist, and it passes through the building just as the tags on it indicated.
emem (2019-05-02 05:55:18+00:00): As - I see. But that service road had no tags, no nodes designating entry/exit into the building. Please put those in at all times - otherwise its simply intersections that just look like when new buildings are added where there were previously just roads.
philippec (2019-12-09 19:50:18+00:00): Ik zie hier iets vreemds een cafetaria bijna bovenop een sportcentrum getekend.  En is de positie van de aed wil precies , zie foto ?
pointseven (2019-12-10 07:56:39+00:00): Daar is inderdaad iets misgelopen. Er is nog een andere mapper bij betrokken geweest zie ik. De AED heb ik zeker niet geplaatst (ben niet op de hoogte dat er eentje was). Ik heb volgens mij de situatie nu wel rechtgezet met de gegevens die ik online heb kunnen vinden.
SK53 (2019-04-30 16:06:23+00:00): Hi Nick,

Welcome to OSM. 

Really pleased you spotted this as I didn't do it when I had a little wander just over a year ago. We (local Nottingham mappers) don't tend to get up to this neck of the woods that often.

Cheers,


Jerry (aka SK53)
Sosha1996 (2019-05-02 18:34:41+00:00): بخاطر ویرایش‌هایی که روی نقشه میزنید ازتون ممنونم، اما لطفا در کامنت چنجست ننویسید «ماکسیم». در کامنت چنجست باید توضیحاتی در مورد تغییراتی که دادید بنویسید.
با تشکر.
لطفا این متن را مطالعه کنید:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Fa:Good_changeset_comments
BCNorwich (2019-05-02 08:15:58+00:00): Hi the car parking data is already on the feature outline, there is no need for it to be duplicated on a POI. The car park POI can be removed.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2019-05-09 17:35:16+00:00): No response, 5 duplicated parking removed.
jmapb (2019-05-01 03:37:01+00:00): Hi Plooge, seems you tagged the entire riverbank on both sides as a marina, not the docks. Reverted in changeset 69749385.

PS The proper tag for an individual pier is man_made=pier, like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/450283318
There are some marinas in the Hudson too of course, but take care to only tag what you're looking at, not the entire coast.
SomeoneElse (2019-05-01 12:41:46+00:00): Hello,
What does "Zone=PR" mean here?
Best Regards,
Andy
stevea (2019-05-01 16:52:00+00:00): It is an abbreviation from the Santa Cruz County GIS Department's Zoning.zip file (details in the SCC wiki) for "Park."  But in my experience, especially recently, these map logically map much less well to what OSM considers leisure=park.  The tag can be deleted, and in fact, it has been my practice since v3 to reduce such superfluous tags in OSM data by deleting them (I don't always, I'm getting better).  However, much work to do so remains.  I'd say the map is in a "reduction to eventual elimination" phase of these tags being in OSM.
stevea (2019-05-01 17:28:01+00:00): I've deleted the tag.
SomeoneElse (2019-05-01 17:42:04+00:00): Thanks
Sosha1996 (2019-05-02 18:34:39+00:00): بخاطر ویرایش‌هایی که روی نقشه میزنید ازتون ممنونم، اما لطفا در کامنت چنجست ننویسید «ماکسیم». در کامنت چنجست باید توضیحاتی در مورد تغییراتی که دادید بنویسید.
با تشکر.
لطفا این متن را مطالعه کنید:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Fa:Good_changeset_comments