piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
alester (2020-08-18 18:09:30+00:00): If you don't mind, I'd like to join this discussion to make a few suggestions:

1. I wasn't aware that some significant changes were already being made to the existing relations, and I bet other Canadian contributors weren't either. There clearly needs to be wider discussion on how to handle the TCT/TGT in OSM. This should be handled through the talk-ca mailing list.

2. In a separate talk-ca discussion, the matter of these proposed routes should be discussed with the wider Canadian community. Like keithonearth, I'm not sure they should be in OSM at this time, but am willing to participate in a discussion where my mind could be changed.

3. I think Sam should provide full disclosure regarding his background with OSM. Namely, that he:
-had previously contributed under a different account years ago (acrosscanadatrails)
-allowed his far-reaching edits to be redacted at the time of the license change, leaving behind a lot of broken data and burning bridges
-had previously created unofficial cycle routes in the OSM database in the Victoria area (and possibly other areas), apparently in support of an intended book

For now, all editing of the TCT/TGT and the proposed routes should stop until wider consensus is achieved, and then a coordinated effort can be undertaken to make sure the OSM data makes sense.
alester (2020-08-18 20:18:09+00:00): Also, I'm willing to give some leeway in discussing the TCT/TGT project in general. While I don't believe it was a "national embarrassment", it wasn't a glowing success story either. Some good did come from it by triggering the creation of a number of good trails, but it fell significantly short of the original vision. The original vision has been watered down so many times that it's almost been lost in the mists of time, but it was originally going to be a pair of parallel trails for non-motorized use and separated from roadways by enough distance to mask traffic noise and reduce the chance of collisions. When I did some research not long after it was announced to be "completed", 65-80% of it was on road shoulders or water routes, so it isn't even close to the original vision. The stretch of the TCT/TGT where the 1985 cycling tragedy occurred west of Calgary (the original inspiration for the project) was designated as using the highway shoulder and missed the point in a most distressing fashion. As it stands today, I don't think those currently involved with the TCT/TGT even know what it is themselves or what their goal is/was, so there's no point using their input to guide our decisions here.
keithonearth (2020-08-19 04:27:27+00:00): Give some leeway in discussing the TCT/TGT in general? I'm not sure what you mean. I do think you are missing the point. It's not a question of it it is good or bad. The big question is whether or not it objectivly exists. To which any reasonable person will say yes it exists. As such it should be included here. When you talk at such length about how shitty it is, I suspect you are biased against it. I think this is why you do not want the sections that are designated for bicycle use to be tagged as part of bicycle relations.
Bike Across Canada Route Network (2020-08-19 18:34:43+00:00): *gets out the popcorn*

Nice to hear that there will be discussion on the talk-ca mailing list, check it each week from the archives and it's been very quiet. 

I see that the rendering of the proposed NCN routes is now a thick dashed brown line and ref ID number isn't shown until the closer zoom.  Looks nice, but it might be confused with a dirt trail network. (Something I still want to build in the future).

The Canada Bikes Organization  board will meet and discuss my ideas presented, it's unclear if it will take weeks or months.  There is an AGM this fall, where I do intend on sharing the project and making the case for adoption (it not done so already by then). 

I see that there are now 2 editors who have requested a stop in editing, that seems reasonable.    

I think the best use of my free time now is to examine the proposed network and look at the quality.  I'm adding the improvements to the 13 regional maps - uploading the segments to uMap seems easier as exporting isn't as easy as possible on other track sharing websites.
Bike Across Canada Route Network (2020-08-24 17:50:06+00:00): There has been no discussion on the talk-ca mailing list as suggested before moving forward.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2020-August/thread.html
keithonearth (2020-08-28 05:08:24+00:00): Sam, just so you know, "getting the popcorn", is usually used to indicate taking enjoyment to watching conflict and disagreement. I hope you didn't mean it that way.

I hope things work out ok with the Canada Bikes Organization, and they are willing to signpost your routes. It'll be a major undertaking. 

You seem to be right, there has been no talk about your changes on the mailing list. You probably should have posted there prior to making such sweeping changes to the Canada's bicycle routes. I am dubious that it is necessary for me to discuss the changes that I've made. I've removed your fictitious routes, and retagged the TCT/TGT back to how it has been for over 10 years. I've cleaned up the relations around Vancouver, removing foot only sections from the bicycle relation, and removing bicycle only sections from the foot relation. I think that tagging all sections, irrespective if they are designated for foot and/or bicycle, as a hiking route is unhelpful and misleading. There are plenty of sections that are specifically designated for one or the other, and having that indicated on the map is good.

I know, you point out that the TCT/TGT is not a bike route, you do not need to link to another facebook page. It is a multi-use trail, that includes cycling over much of it. It is useful to map these parts, and the bicycle route relation is the most useful way to do this.

I feel that you have ignored a few important points that have been brought up. You've ignored my post to help.osm.org that confirms the approach we've taken to multi-use routes. You've ignored my request to post the username You've ignored alester's report that you've used the account of acrosscanadatrails, in the past, did something similar. 

The fact that you view my request to stop adding fictitious routes as a request to stop editing entirely also worries me. I've never said you should stop editing, just that you shouldn't add these routes. You are welcome to add things that really exist. Adding real bike infrastructure is a useful thing to do. 

But it seems like the only reason you are here is to promote your personal routes, and that is not helpful.

alester, thank you for your helpful information. I'm sorry I didn't say so in my last post here. And I'm sorry if my reply came across as dismissive. I agree with your assessment of the TCT/TGT, but feel that assessments of its quality distracts from the question of how to represent it here. I think that how we're doing it is good, other than the fact that little of it is mapped.

If we had all/most of it mapped, showing real gaps and sections on the highway, it would be more useful for map users. As it is now the majority of gaps in the network are just unmapped sections.
Bike Across Canada Route Network (2020-08-28 16:49:35+00:00): https://twitter.com/samvekemans/status/1035193654384648192?s=19

I am the author of the OSM Wiki article about the TCT and encouraged the national wrong tagging of it in the first place.   

Just because it has been wrong for over 10years, doesn't make it right.
keithonearth (2020-08-31 22:38:35+00:00): Of course just because it's been one way for over 10 years doesn't make it right. I never said it did, I said that I was dubious that it is necessary for me to discuss the changes that I've made.

You continue to ignore significant questions that have been asked of you. Please address the statement that you've used the account of `acrosscanadatrails`, in the past, and engaged in similar edits. 

My point of view continues to be that the TCT/TGT is a multi-use trail, with many sections designated for use by bicycle, and some sections designated exclusively for bicycle use. Those sections should be included in a relation tagged as a bicycle route. 

I've done some surveying on the part of the route around Vancouver, and have cleaned up a bunch of foot-only sections that were in the cycle-route. Most of the route I've been on is designated for foot and bicycle use. There are a few bits where pedestrians and cyclists are directed to take separate routes. Additional there are many sections, like around Vancouver's Sea Wall, that are on segregated paths, that we have mapped as separate ways. 

It's useful to map these separate routes, and tag them appropriately. 

I am also concerned that you are trying to trying to brigand the discussion here, trying to drum up support on facebook and twitter.
Bike Across Canada Route Network (2020-09-10 05:03:01+00:00): Sunday September 27th is the Velo Canada Bikes AGM. 
The topic of Schrödinger's Trail which is equally both NOT and IS a National Cycling Route Network and should or should not be tagged as such and is or is not interfering with (anyone's) attempt to build a designated National Cycling Route Network.     (BTW the organization is so polite that they don't want to rock the boat as it's a very delicate discussion to have)
keithonearth (2020-09-14 19:13:35+00:00): I don't think if it's a National Cycling Route or not is a meaningful question. It is a multi-use trail that includes bikes for most of it. 

Here, on OSM, it makes the most sense to include the bike parts as a relation with the ncn tag. 

I think focusing too much on if it *really* is a National Cycle Route or is not is unhelpful.

The route, despite it's shortcomings, is real. Our tagging scheme, despite it's shortcomings, is what we've got. 

In a messy world we have it mapped as well as it can be.
UltimateRiff (2020-08-05 06:31:53+00:00): Also cleaned up some multipolygons around the park
tux67 (2020-08-05 08:35:14+00:00): Hi, wenn du die location kennst, dann sollte da auch ein leisure=picnic_table gemappt werden können?
https://rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/viersen/schwalmtal-rastplatz-und-wegekreuz-fuer-luettelforst_aid-52568651
ggf. - wenn da ein Schild steht - kann die Zufahrt noch den Namen "Kammelsweg" bekommen.
Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88963364
jimmyhendrix (2020-08-05 15:24:56+00:00): Ja ich war vor einigen Wochen dort und habe auch einige Bilder der Örtlichkeit. Picnic_table könnte man dort mappen, abebr ich bin nicht sicher ob bzw. wie man den Rest mappen soll.
Wie im Bild des RP-Artikels zu erkenne ist, gibt es dort einen kleinen Platz mit Rasengittersteinen auf dem Bänke und Tisch stehen. Mappt man den Platz inkl. Zuwegung (etwa 2m breit und 5-6m lang und ebenfalls Rasengitter) als Fläche? Oder nur den Zufahrtsweg als Line und den picnic table ans Ende?
Als ich vor Ort war, gab es dort nur die Schilder der Radwegweisung und ein Anlieger frei-Schild, das sich auf die Straße bezieht.

Viele Grüße
tux67 (2020-08-05 16:26:35+00:00): Tja .. wenn der Tisch so weit vom Weg ist, würde ich den Weg und den Tisch mappen.

Gruß
tux67
shuui (2020-08-05 15:32:30+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM! Just would like to point out Bavette is already mapped as you can see at the link below. Their main function is as a Butcher so that is the tag that was selected. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5502048297#map=19/43.03162/-87.90618
siddhaam (2020-08-05 07:16:36+00:00): Hi, 
Please find the appropriate comment for the Changeset:88963736 I have made. "Added Driveway and Service road connecting to Quail Road".
Regards,
Siddhaam.
yadathot (2020-08-05 07:04:43+00:00): Added Driveway as per Private Maxar imagery.
tordans (2020-08-05 12:54:37+00:00): Danke. Dank deiner Korrektur konnte ich heute direkt mit Supaplex herausfinden, dass scheinbar mein Cache in GoMap zu alt war und wir daher doppelt gemappt hatten.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88965390
kartonage (2020-08-05 13:07:38+00:00): Kein Problem. War zumindest auch exakt gleiche Position und Tagging, sodass es über Osmose auffiel.
eggie (2020-08-05 13:31:48+00:00): In OSM taggen we bij op de adresnodes. Dus niet op de gebouw omtrek.
Kijk je nog even naar je edits?
MVG,
eggie
eggie (2020-08-05 13:32:20+00:00): Een medemapper heet e.e.a. al gecorrigeerd.
Nakaner (2020-08-05 11:24:36+00:00): Hi,

you "fixed" long segments by inserting additional nodes so the warning goes away? Sorry but I don't think that this is helpful. Not all warnings in OSM Inspector are errors which need a fix. Sometimes they are strange anomalities. For example, a long submarine cable or pipeline has no nodes between the coastlines because we do not know its exact path. Adding nodes in between but keeping the straight line makes it look more precise. I don't think that this changeset is really helpful and think that it is best to revert it. What do  you think?

Best regards

Michael
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88965791
lenux (2020-08-05 15:59:07+00:00): Hi,
Спасибо Вам за комментарий! К сожалению уровень английского языка у меня стремится к нулю. Буду отвечать на русском, используя переводчик Гугла и то на сколько он в реальности перевёл смысл.
Действительно, иногда валидаторы считают за ошибки, то, что по факту ими не является. Например, база по территориальному-административному деление не успевает обновляться до актуального текущего состояния (например : упразднили несколько районов в один городской  округ, а валидатор по прежнему показывает старую информацию) 

К сути вопроса. Техническая часть OSM весьма плоха. Вы задумывались на предмет того, почему ОСМ Инспектор ставит 20км? Почему не 30?  Или 300?
Например, JOSM. Попробуйте, загрузить область между двумя точками... И будет сюрприз! Линии не будет! А она по факту в этой области есть!  И таким образом, можно просто не найти какие-то длинные линии, которые по факту есть! Видимо в эти 20 км считает , что можно попасть дабы они отобразились. (Что бы проверить эти слова вы можете взять любую линию и по пробовать  её загрузить между двумя точками)

Далее- по кабелям и pipeline , просто постановка точки не несёт какого-то смысла так как в моём изменении нет изменения геометрии. Смысл точки даёт тэг. Нет тэга, нет и информации. А поскольку я не изменял какие направления, то эти линии как были прямыми, так прямыми и остались.

Довод 2. Наличие не исправленных ошибок в валидаторах мешает реагировать на новые ошибки. При этом огромная часть ошибок на территории РФ (наверное как и внекоторых частях мира) не правятся годами., а то и десятилетия.


Поэтому считаю, что откатывать не нужно.
ququruzka (2020-08-05 17:08:40+00:00): Hi Lenux !
Your English level is must be pre-intermediate or higher . Its' not required, but its recommended . 
Thanks.
Andrii, Crimea, Ukraine. 2020
Nakaner (2020-08-05 18:35:41+00:00): Hi,

it is fine to answer in Russian if you don't speak English.

By the way, did you know the automatic translation service DeepL? It might be a bit better than Google Translator. https://www.deepl.com/translator

Best regards

Michael


----



----

Автоматический перевод:

Привет,

можно ответить по-русски, если вы не говорите по-английски.

Кстати, знаете ли вы сервис автоматического перевода DeepL? Возможно, это немного лучше, чем Google Translator. https://www.deepl.com/translator.

С уважением

Майкл
ACarlotti (2020-08-05 22:52:58+00:00): EN:
Hi lenux,

I agree with Nakaner that these extra nodes should not be added. If the routing is unknown, then a way with no intermediate nodes represents this much better than some arbitrarily placed nodes in the middle of an ocean, which are almost certainly in the wrong place. Extra nodes should mean that someone knows that the way passes through those points in reality. Also, 20km (or whatever spacing you used) seems to be just some arbitrarily chosen spacing - if larger spacings would cause a problem for some users of OSM data, then there's no reason to believe that shorter spacings will fix this problem for all users either.
I therefore agree with Nakaner that this changeset should be reverted.

RU (via Google Translate):
Привет lenux,

Я согласен с Nakaner, что эти дополнительные узлы не должны быть добавлены. Если маршрут неизвестен, то путь без промежуточных узлов представляет это намного лучше, чем некоторые произвольно расположенные узлы посреди океана, которые почти наверняка находятся в неправильном месте. Дополнительные узлы должны означать, что кто-то знает, что путь проходит через эти точки в реальности. Кроме того, 20 км (или какой бы интервал вы не использовали), кажется, просто какой-то произвольно выбранный интервал - если большие интервалы вызовут проблему для некоторых пользователей данных OSM, то нет никаких оснований полагать, что более короткие интервалы устранят эту проблему и для всех пользователей.
Поэтому я согласен с Nakaner, что этот набор изменений должны быть отменены.
alester (2020-08-06 04:05:47+00:00): I agree with the others. Even if they don't have any tags, an intermediate node is assumed to mean that the way is known to pass through that point (look at the nodes on any road). Unless you know (or it's a reasonable assumption) that a way passes through a point, you shouldn't add a node there. Clearing *potential* errors from a validator is not a valid reason for adding arbitrary nodes.

RU (Google Translate):
Я согласен с остальными. Даже если они не имеют каких-либо тегов, предполагается, что промежуточный узел означает, что путь, как известно, проходит через эту точку (посмотрите на узлы на любой дороге). Если вы не знаете (или это разумное предположение), что путь проходит через точку, вам не следует добавлять туда узел. Удаление *потенциальных* ошибок из валидатора не является веской причиной для добавления произвольных узлов.
literan (2020-08-10 21:02:43+00:00): lenux, как участник российского сообщества поддерживаю откат вашей правки: во-первых, правки под валидатор - зло, и они не рекомендуются вики. Во-вторых, подобные массовые правки следует предварительно обсуждать с сообществом (форум или хотя бы телеграм-чат)
lenux (2020-08-11 03:19:59+00:00): А что обсуждать-то? То, что извините я хочу исправить более 1 ошибки по валидатору?
И все дружно: О, если по валидатору, то нельзя!
В нашем сообществе насколько я сейчас знаю ничего не решить от слова совсем.
literan выше я выше по сообщения людям предлагал объяснить, в чём  конкретно ошибки геометрии в ОСМ инспекторе не правильные. И пока, что на все их аргументы у меня были свои.

Что бы завершить эту дискуссию: 
Даю Вам ровно 1 неделю на: 1. Откат 2. На исправление (или "правильное исправление" ) на территории России.
Если второй пункт не будет выполнен в дампе 2020-08-17 18:00 (UTC) и на инспекторе будут эти линии . То оставляю за собой право снова внести эти правки.
literan (2020-08-11 07:17:46+00:00): Если вас не устраивает это сообщество, возможно, следует поискать другое. А ставить сообществу ультиматумы в коллективном проекте или другим способом противопоставлять себя ему - дорога, которая всегда заканчивается однаково.
lenux (2020-08-11 07:28:39+00:00): Я считаю, что данная беседа себя исчерпала. 
Делайте то, что считаете нужным.
Leo Slager (2020-08-05 11:02:20+00:00): Plus Crombach staat nu 2x op de kaart.
De info overgebracht naar de adress-nodes
seattlefyi (2020-08-06 00:41:15+00:00): Hi, thanks for the edits! Most of your edits look fine, but hope you don't mind some more suggestions based on your edits. In this case, the new road added looks more like a driveway. I'll send more info in a separate email.
eggie (2020-08-05 13:28:43+00:00): Beste Bushbeast. je geeft niet aan in je uploadcommentaar wat je doet.
Je hebt grade1 veranderd in Grade1  Waarom.?. Hoofdletters in de values zijn niet correct.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=88966258
Verder heb je straatnamen veranderd.
Graag Grade1 weer terugzetten naar grade1
tracktype=grade1 houdt in dat er hiet asfalt of beton ligt. dirt slaat eerder op grade 4 of 5?

Kijk je nog even naar je edits. 
MVG,
eggie
eggie (2020-08-05 13:38:44+00:00): Zowel het Kadaster als de BGT geeft aan John Kennedy-laan met een streepje.
Wat staat op het straatnaambord?
eggie (2020-08-07 05:29:51+00:00): Grade1 heb ik teruggezet naar grade1
surface=dirt heb ik verwijderd.
MVG,
Eggie
Warin61 (2021-12-27 01:01:00+00:00): Hi,
Just noticed this... nit picking but ... 
The 'farmyard' way 173909018 is a land use - not the legal boundaries but the use to which the land is put. And talking about that - some of this area is for land use residential ... human swimming pools are not part of farm yards. 
The other point it that the present mapping shows the area covered by trees. This can be corrected by making 'inners' in the tree relation.
svenmersi (2020-08-10 08:13:24+00:00): The entry "MomentumNow" has been added to the map and it is now here in the OpenStreetMap visible. But it is not visible in mapbox.com, a map service who relies on opentreetmap-data. Is there anything else to do?
literan (2020-08-10 20:59:44+00:00): не надо хулиганить
BCNorwich (2020-08-05 09:14:27+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Are you sure you've got that right? The area you amended the tagging to nursing home really looks like a wood area. I think the building at the position of your hospital node is the nursing home.
Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2020-08-15 08:36:42+00:00): No response so I've reinstated the woods and added tags to nursing home.
user_535043 (2020-08-12 05:24:41+00:00): Hi Aakriti,
I have noticed that you just mapped many lakes in Tibet, but unfortunately most of them are already mapped, so those areas are overlapped. Or maybe you have some spacial reason to map them again?
eggie (2020-08-05 12:37:19+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Tomas Straupis (2020-08-06 07:50:26+00:00): Atstačiau iD sugadintą dviračių ir pėsčiųjų tako žymėjimą.
gileri (2020-08-05 11:12:13+00:00): Bonjour, bienvenue et merci pour ta contribution à OpenStreetMap !

Si je comprends bien cette passerelle n'est empruntable que par des piétons et vélos.

Un "Chemin piéton" dans OSM implique déjà qu'il n'est empruntable que par les piétons.

Il faut donc enlever l'étiquette "accès à tous" (sinon ça autorise les voitures, camions etc), enlever l'étiquette "accès aux piétons", et laisser que l'accès au vélos.

Si tu as la possibilité d'indiquer l'accessibilité en fauteuil roulant aussi c'est le top :)

Merci

Éric
eggie (2020-08-05 12:40:37+00:00): Dag t Koen   oneway=no hoeft niet op reguliere   .. net als covered = no Die regels gewoon verwijderen
Misschien krijg je die laatste tag gratis erbij.? 
MVG,
Eggie
woodpeck_repair (2020-08-05 08:45:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 88969444 where the changeset comment is: revert rost_huad777 vandalism, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3821
abakus_uploader (2020-08-05 22:31:21+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
eggie (2020-08-05 12:53:08+00:00): Yep.. als hier geen track is dan dus verwijderen .
Gr eggie