piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mavl (2021-11-02 14:22:54+00:00): Удалён дубликат детского сада.
BurtsevCPU (2021-11-03 02:49:21+00:00): Ну, вот я тоже подумал, что в этой ситуации проще точку удалить, поскольку его территорию так или иначе надо выделять тем же тегом...
neuhausr (2021-11-01 14:42:47+00:00): FYI some of the name:etymology:wikidata tags have the name instead of the Q #
A Hall (2021-11-04 14:47:50+00:00): Thanks for catching that. I think I processed all the fixes.
redd (2022-08-26 21:51:01+00:00): Hi WiederMalVerlaufen,
vielen Dank für deine Beiträge zu OpenStreetMap! Ich hoffe, dass du weiterhin Lust und Spass hast mitzuwirken!
Bei diesem Shelter fehlt das Bindestrich in Baden-Württemberg. Könntest du das bitte noch korrigieren?
Vielen Dank,
redd
redd (2022-08-26 21:52:47+00:00): Als Ergänzung, das könnte vtl. auch als amenity=shelter erfasst werden? Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dshelter
janolezab (2021-10-31 20:42:38+00:00): Der Weg 23786089 ist vom Nennhauser Damm her mit "Fahrrad frei" beschildert. Generell denke ich, dass der Bullengrabenweg ab diesem Schild vollständig für Fahrräder frei ist und nur manchmal das Schild fehlt. Hier wäre vielleicht wieder eine Anfrage beim Grünflächenamt (oder Straßenbauamt?) angebracht. Wie siehst du das?
StefanHRT (2021-11-01 05:18:08+00:00): Der Bullengrabenweg steht bei mir die Tage genauer an zur Kontrolle (RadRoute steht schon hierfür). Bei dem von Dir benannten Weg macht es Sinn da er auf den Mauerweg trifft, aber ich wollte da erst einmal eine Grundsituation schaffen bei den vielen Tulpenschildern ohne spezielle Radfreigabe ;) Da waren ja etliche Wege zu Unrecht mit bicycle=yes
StefanHRT (2021-11-03 06:35:51+00:00): Moin, habe mir den Bullengrabenweg gezielt angeschaut und bicycle=yes wieder bis zum Nennhauser Damm gesetzt. Es fehlte nur an einer Stelle das Fahrrad frei Schild. Westlich vom Nennhauser Damm gibt es aber keine Freigabe, habe da jedenfalls nichts gesehen.
Dave Venables (2021-11-05 13:16:27+00:00): The hotel  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1295941249  is no longer a Premier Inn and I had updated to OYO Tyger Inn in July https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107297443 . Looks like you were prompted by iD validation to change back based just on the old_name which seems a bit strange. I’ve updated again.
DressyPear4 (2021-11-01 13:30:09+00:00): Olá, sempre deve ser colocado 'Rua' antes dos nomes nas vias
Mike Baggaley (2021-12-05 08:37:47+00:00): Hi, if Newport Street is no longer the B6204 please remove the ref, if it is still the B6204, please revert to secondary. It cannot be a B road and tertiary.

Thanks,
Mike
TomJeffs (2021-12-05 21:17:54+00:00): Thanks for the alert, I didn't see that - I changed it because it's now a much less significant road in the transport network (for driving).  I've changed it back.
felipeeugenio (2021-11-02 01:07:53+00:00): Hola
la carcel es amenity=prison y corresponde a todo el recinto. Los edificios son edificios, no la carcel en si mismo. Usó ese tag para cada edificio
Ahora es como que hubieran 17 cárceles. Ojo con esos conceptos. Yo lo arreglo.
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113196891
eggie (2021-11-01 06:53:34+00:00): De toegangsweg kun je het beste taggen als highway=service. Dus niet unclassified of residential.
Het adres hier is Hunse...  Dan lijkt me dat de straat die naar het hek leidt en verder de camping op ook Hunse zou moeten zijn en niet Marenhof.
Ik heb er maar Hunse van gemaakt.
Laat maar weten als het niet klopt. 

MVG
eggie
ntkc-redactie (2021-11-01 09:03:41+00:00): Marenhof moet fout zijn want het BAG adres is Hunse 7. Marenhof is een straat verderop.  Ik stap over op "service" voor de toegansweg.
Nogmaals dank voor de tips.
eggie (2021-10-31 17:06:07+00:00): Wellicht heb je hier iets aan als je een ingang wilt duiden
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:entrance%3Dyes

MVG
eggie
ivanbranco (2021-12-17 20:11:59+00:00): Hi Hervé,

there's a weird tag here:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9214443822

It's supposed to be sport=*?
Hervé TUC (2021-12-20 07:29:24+00:00): Hi, 
It is indeed a weird tag :) 
I don't think I was trying to say sport=multi as I never tag this on schools and I've never seen that combination of tags in France. So I'm just going to remove it.
dieterdreist (2024-10-27 00:32:53+00:00): Ciao AlCe, 
ho notato che hai cambiato il tag dell'edificio centro convegni da building=convention in building=service, non mi sembra un miglioramento. building=service viene utilizzato per edifici poco significativi, solitamente piccoli. Sono ritornato con la classificazione,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building=service?uselang=en

un saluto
Martin
eggie (2021-10-31 17:04:21+00:00): Beste.. Beter niet twee keer name= .. taggen..  Een hek heeft geen naam.
Eén keer de naam van de camping mappen is genoeg.

MVG
eggie
NieWnen (2021-10-31 23:27:35+00:00): Hey, 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/918680969
It looks more like parking=street_side than parking=surface.
NieWnen (2021-10-31 23:35:04+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/989449781
footway=crossing here is incorrect.
NieWnen (2021-10-31 23:37:47+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/566124778
This one too shouldn't have a footway=sidewalk because it's path (bicycle-foot) based on "path" tag, not "footway".
CRCulver (2021-10-31 23:55:25+00:00): The tag path=crossing does not appear to be documented at the OSM wiki. However, footway=crossing is a long-established tag and is what data consumers use.
NieWnen (2021-11-01 00:14:21+00:00): The tag path=crossing is used often in Poland for tagging CPR (Ciąg pieszo-rowerowy) crossings.
I wouldn't mix footway tags with path anyway, because it brokes "CPR" in that way.

On the taginfo site path=crossing has over 7k usages, so it is "alive". It doesn't have own site on wiki, but IT IS documented. Take a look at this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dcrossing
CRCulver (2021-11-01 00:22:00+00:00): As you can see on that page, the link to path=crossing is broken (it just redirects back to footway=crossing). If you really want this tag to be used by other editors, then I suggest documenting it.

Another issue is that there is no sidewalk counterpart to path=crossing. That is, path=sidewalk is considered a tagging mistake on the OSM wiki.

So as long as this is the case, I will assume that international data consumers are expecting footway=sidewalk or footway=crossing tags even on highway=path, and I will tag accordingly.
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-11-01 17:57:28+00:00): > This one too shouldn't have a footway=sidewalk because it's path (bicycle-foot) based on "path" tag, not "footway".

You are wrong, highway=path (and for example highway=construction) also may have footway=sidewalk or footway=crossing
NieWnen (2021-11-01 18:34:53+00:00): For me, this is adding ambiguous tag and trying to change highway type (to recognize it as a "footway", but it's not) – just to force "sidewalk" tags for the road and the path, that doesn't have to be added everywhere.

CPR (path with bicycle and foot designated) will never be a highway=footway or a highway=cycleway, which is why the footway tag is misleading. It's just something different.

The mentioned "path=sidewalk" would be much better in this case, so I also don't understand why it's not recommended and you stay with using footway=sidewalk. Because on the taginfo you can see that it has almost 3k usages.

The mappers will still delete footway=sidewalk from highway=path and others because it's causing errors, e.g. in the Osmose (yeah I know) and I can see your issue that is not resolved after a few years because they made similar conclusions about "path=sidewalk" because using "footway=sidewalk" is inconsistent in this case.

https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-backend/issues/462

Maybe it's a good time to reconsider to use/redocument path=sidewalk? You would have my vote for that :P
CRCulver (2021-11-01 19:22:00+00:00): My goal in all of this recent  tagging of sidewalks (and associated roads) in PL is to improve routing. Developers of routing engines generally go by what is documented on the wiki. In the present case, footway=sidewalk is called the appropriate tagging, while path=sidewalk is referred to as an error. Even if you wanted Polish roads to be tagged a certain way, routing engines are international and their developers cannot be expected to know peculiarities insisted on by a few Polish mappers.

I understand your view that a footway= tag looks incongruous on a highway= that is not a footway. However, you cannot expect OSM tags to be 100% logical. There are all kinds of small inconsistencies in OSM tags.
CRCulver (2021-11-01 19:30:34+00:00): Also, sidewalk-related tags do indeed have to be added everywhere. Not just because editors like Vespucci ask mappers to fill in these details for the sake of data completeness, but also because of real-world usefulness. For roads, it is so that routers will avoid sending pedestrians along the road itself. For sidewalks, it is so that the router can helpfully tell the user clearly "Walk along the sidewalk" instead of merely "Walk along the [unidentified] footway."
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-11-02 11:26:00+00:00): Osmose being buggy is not a valid reason for changing tagging.

"CPR (path with bicycle and foot designated) will never be a highway=footway or a highway=cycleway, which is why the footway tag is misleading."

"ciąg pieszo-rowerowy" (bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=no) along road IS also a sidewalk, therefore footway=sidewalk is not misleading

Also, combined footway + cycleway with segregated=yes can also be sidewalk, such as https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/899988/53487084-db42d980-3a8a-11e9-910a-2c39ae6dbcbf.png
Dodko (2021-11-01 13:53:24+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/997958522/history
Značka area=yes sa nedáva na budovu.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Key:area
AdrianC321 (2021-11-01 14:09:29+00:00): Dakujem za upravu :) ospravedlnujem sa
Jørn-osm (2021-10-31 21:54:54+00:00): Jeg ser mange rettelser fra dig, hvor det kun er versionen der er ændret. Her er det 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/955832456/history
Hvad skyldes det?
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2021-10-31 22:35:24+00:00): Jeg havde ikke lagt mærke til det faktisk blev "rettelser".

Det kommer fra POI's i https://digitalfrihed.dk/restaurants/all.html

Nogen gange er der POI's der har præcist samme position som en adresseknude. Det er normal ikke et problem. Når den bliver læst ind i JOSM så flytter jeg den lidt, fx nærmere til vejen eller en indgang til butikken/restauranten.

Men hvis adresseknuden allerede er læst ind i JOSM, så vil JOSM flette dem sammen og det dur ikke. Så har jeg nogen gange lavet en copy/paste og slettet adressefelter fra fx restauranten og ikke-adressefelter fra fra adresseknuden.
Jeg troede at JOSM så ikke ville uploade adresseknuden, når der ikke var ændring, men det gør den åbenbart.
eginhard (2021-10-31 19:31:00+00:00): Bienvenu et merci pour tes contributions ! Est-ce que tu pourrais décrire tes modifications? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications
Luther C Blissett (2021-11-28 14:17:08+00:00): Hi Fred,

why have you deleted the tidal flats https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/149676511/history – see
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=113199065 for comparison?
user_8101879 (2021-11-30 23:10:47+00:00): Hi,

if you look at the ggle earth imageries (from 1985 to 2017 = 14 differents imageries) + Bing + Maxar, the tide never seems to go there. On the 16 imagery I looked at, the tide is here = https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13405205#map=13/45.8945/-64.3402

But if you have another source (I mean a true satellite view, not another map), I will be please to look at it and use it as a new source.

Best regards
user_8101879 (2021-12-01 15:28:15+00:00): My first answer was a little short because I had to go eating, sorry for that.
To be more specific :
- if you look at this node with Maxar : https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9233847814#map=19/45.87625/-64.33737
you will see that, to the west part, the "river" has 3 different colors : in the center, it is the river alone. Next, it is wet sand (or wet mud) because the tide goes down, there is no more water but the sand is still wet. And the third color is dry sand (or mud). With this imagery, you can see that the river is quite small. When you see a lot of water (for example with Bing), it is not the river but the sea because of the tide = the tidalflat. To the east of this node, river becomes quickly wider despite there is no other source of water : for me it is because the tide is still there. I choose to draw the river with this limit because it is impossible, today, to know where the limits river/tide are, I found no imagery with the tide at the lowest.

- if you look at this way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1000583979
you will see that its length is 81 meters. It is very small and I chose to say that at the north it is the river, at the south it is the the sea so that this way was the limit of the coast.

- for this way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/999066856, if you look on Maxar and on Bing, there are a lot of differences : like I say in my note on this way, Bing is old, Maxar younger and the differences are because the riverbank was destroyed : so the tidalflat here is wider than before.

- the more important = if you look at the relation for the new tidalflat (in my first message), you will see that the color, specifically on Maxar, is light brown/beige, meaning that it is sand or mud, which is the definition of the tidalflat (area covered by the tide 2 times a day where there are only minerals, no vegetation).
If look outside this relation, you will see a lot of green areas, meaning you have vegetation (probably grass), meaning that, maybe sometimes the tide is here (when the tide is big because on the 16 imageries I did't see anything) but otherwise the sea doesn't come here. For all these areas I chose a wet meadow (I know a little this area because I came to visit the "Landscape of Grand Pré", a UNESCO site, and bog or fen doesn't fit). But I didn't add a tag tidal=yes because of the 16 imageries.

I don't know if I answer all your questions. I spent more than 15 days to improve this area : if you have a more specific question, just ask, it will be my pleasure to give you more informations.
Best regards.
mariotomo (2021-12-30 13:22:04+00:00): hola! antes que nada, bienvenida a OSM! es una importación, esta, cierto? es una pregunta por saber, pues yo por lo general prefiero natural=wood o landuse=forest, todavía no me he acercado al nuevo "landcover". cuál es el plan de que esta importación hace parte? gracias. (mi idioma nativo es el Italiano, a veces mi Castellano suena muy brutal, por eso pido disculpa.)
eggie (2021-10-31 16:55:38+00:00): Dag Dave..  Je vraagt feedback,.. Je hebt een node verschoven, maar die weg lag toch goed?

Geef ook svp expliciet aan wat je wijziging is. 

MVG
eggie
A67-A67 (2021-10-31 22:23:10+00:00): Bij een verbindingsweg wordt het hoogste wegtype aangehouden. In dit geval dus primary_link i.p.v. secondary_link.
A67-A67 (2021-10-31 22:23:56+00:00): Zie ook https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Link_roads_between_different_highways_types

Ik heb het verbeterd.
ZldYe (2021-11-01 17:37:19+00:00): Top, dankjewel! Er was maar 1 segmentje primary_link, en ik was niet op de hoogte van het feit dat het altijd het hoogste wegtype moet zijn. Weer wat geleerd, bedankt!
thopf (2021-10-31 17:25:39+00:00): Hallo!

Die eingezeichnete Position der Haltestelle Ragnitz Richtung Gleisdorf stimmt nicht! Sie befindet sich seit 2019, seit dem Umbau des Straßenraumes der Ragnitzstraße, direkt bei der Wendeschleife, wie sie, vor deinem Changeset, richtig eingezeichnet war.
vulasala (2021-11-01 06:55:45+00:00): Hi Timmy_Tesseract,
Trust you are doing well. I have modified the classification of way 804279028 from residential to unclassified, as there is classification gap.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113201330
Timmy_Tesseract (2021-11-01 09:10:54+00:00): Good day vulasala, thanks for catching this!
archpdx (2021-10-31 16:58:40+00:00): *realign
Branko Kokanovic (2022-02-26 17:50:13+00:00): Dodao si node koji treba da je stanica: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9214589973 na E9 relaciju, ali ovo nije bas najsrecnije. Radio sam sa PTNA timom da automatski preuzimaju zvanicne podatke i evo npr. link za ovaj smer linije E9 (osvezeno pre par dana): https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/gtfs/RS/single-trip.php?feed=RS-00-BGPREVOZ&release_date=&trip_id=1325239. Izgleda da se ova stanica zove "Vozdovac". Mozda treba popuniti sve tagove kao sto imaju druge stanice  (ili verovatnije da nadjes postojecu stanicu sa ID-om 169 ("gtfs:stop_id") posto smo sve stanice uneli svojevremeno. Cimaj ako nesto treba;)
matrif (2022-02-26 18:10:21+00:00): Pored se nalazi pravi node za stanicu, sa svim detaljima. Ne znam kako je ovaj node zavrsio kao relation platform member. :(
Branko Kokanovic (2022-02-26 18:56:25+00:00): au, brz si sa popravkama:D
b-holdet (2021-10-31 17:02:07+00:00): Navnet 'Foldby' er rettet til 'Folby' og omkranser Korsholm, som er nedgraderet til surburb.
Blev det bedre?
osmviborg (2021-10-31 17:24:06+00:00): Verdensklasse :-)
maraf24 (2021-12-08 08:50:31+00:00): Po co zrobiłeś bród na ujściu Liwy?
Tam, gdy jest przepływ, nie da się przejść przez wodę.
RicoElectrico (2021-12-08 15:13:48+00:00): @maraf24: najpewniej, bo mu iD "kazał": 

resolved:crossing_ways:highway-waterway=1
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:22:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
Andre68 (2021-10-31 21:20:03+00:00): Direction of coastline is always land on left hand side!
ElliottPlack (2021-11-01 13:30:54+00:00): Hi there, nice work on the park paths and Welcome to the OSM project!! You seem new, so I appreciate you diving in. One minor area of improvement is where sidewalks cross roads. At these places, be sure to add a crossing, whether marked or unmarked. This helps a routing algorithm trace the path that the pedestrian would take. Here's an example I just added for you: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/998153493

Thank you!!
عثمان ਉਸਮਾਨ bgo_eiu (2021-12-01 19:23:02+00:00): Thank you, yes I am new-ish. I have been trying to be more mindful of sidewalk crossings
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:22:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
Lee Carré (2021-11-01 00:36:42+00:00): Smaller changeset areas, please: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
mueschel (2021-11-01 10:50:14+00:00): Hi,
welcome to OSM.
It seems like something went very wrong here - these changesets created about 40000 duplicates of existing objects. 
Please make sure you check what JOSM is going to upload before you start the process!
srbrook (2021-11-01 19:27:43+00:00): Deletion of public footpath and Nursery Walk reverted in changeset # 113211241
Gazer75 (2021-11-02 09:38:24+00:00): Make sure to check with all sources before moving roads. Aerials might not be up to date. The segment of highway 13 between the bridge and tunnel was perfect, but you moved it for some reason.
If you could revert that part it would be nice.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/822323407

Nice import work for Vik btw!
harahu (2021-11-02 16:51:09+00:00): Thank you for catching this! The changes were based on outdated aerials, as you seem to have suspected.

I have now corrected the road based on N50 (the iD layer, which seems to be a lot more detailed than N50). It seems to look more or less like I remember it from before I touched it.

Feel free to review it and tell me what you think.

Sorry about the sloppy work.
Gazer75 (2021-11-02 22:05:35+00:00): The "kartverket road network" overlay is the best one to use. Its a bit spotty with iD as the sever don't like to many requests at once.

The N50 layer is actually currently showing way to much. It's supposed to be 1:50000 max. The resolution it's currently showing we are not legally allowed to use. Keep that in mind.
Gazer75 (2021-11-02 22:17:34+00:00): Also keep in mind we might have used plan drawings to add a road that is not yet in the official Kartverket road database. These are often found on road project websites.
If you don't find a match, ask the previous editor first.

The Norway Orthophoto layer should never be older than around 5 years, but it varies. The low res images(0.25m) are normally rotated every 5 years and is funded by Kartverket. For more central locations the municipality may request higher res images as often as once a year. This typically the cities that have a bigger budget for these things.

What is showing in iD is normally the most recent one even if its the low res image.
harahu (2021-11-04 09:51:11+00:00): > The resolution it's currently showing we are not legally allowed to use. Keep that in mind.

Fair point, and I'll keep that in mind until the layer is mended. Although in this particular case I assume there isn't any difference between this source and other sources we would be allowed to use, hence it's hard to argue anything was gained from using it.

Thanks for the general advice. I appreciate it.
harahu (2021-11-04 09:57:17+00:00): Am done mending most trivial issues resulting from the Vik import, btw. So if you have any feeling of ownership to the area, please have a look and see if there is anything you want to address, post import.

The import has taken quite a bit of effort, so will take a break for the next couple of weeks, but I know there are quite a few nice trails in the south of the county (Stølsheimen) in need of refinement. Might have a look at that again in a while if nobody else gets to it.
maraf24 (2021-10-31 21:05:14+00:00): Wiadomo, że to Bemowo :)
W komentarzu umieszcza się opis co i ew. dlaczego się zmieniło.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
maraf24 (2021-10-31 21:02:00+00:00): Co konkretnie się zmieniło?
Na razie widzę dodane przejścia dla pieszych. Jesli to wszystko, to zestaw można było opisać jako "dodanie przejść dla pieszych".
wireguy (2021-11-04 10:42:14+00:00): the playground relation is getting validation errors. outer way shares segment with other rings.  read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
MxxCon (2021-10-31 19:08:32+00:00): Hello and welcome to OSM.
When you submit your edits, please write a more detailed explanation of what you did rather than just "1".
Please see this article for a more detailed explanation https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments 👍🙂
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113204910
woodpeck_repair (2023-11-06 23:58:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 143714052, 143714026, 143714035, 143714023 where the changeset comment is: revert von edits eines benutzers nach selbstlöschung
woodpeck (2021-11-01 17:42:26+00:00): Tomas, in this changeset you have removed the intermittent=yes tag from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/997941397 - based on what information did you do that. Are you familiar enough with the area to know that that particular basin contains water at all times?
Tomas Straupis (2021-11-01 18:07:01+00:00): It is a typical basin for Lithuania. Water is removed for cleaning purposes less often than in large reservoirs. The right question to ask is why iD is adding this tag by default where such objects are almost never intermittent. And I wouldn't even count wastewater plant basins as intermittent. Only some tiny streams are intermittent in Lithuania.