piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
hsimpson (2020-04-01 08:00:54+00:00): Hi,

also ich versuch das jetzt mal so zu beschreiben, wie ich es verstanden habe: highway=footway und =cycleway sind Tags aus den Anfangszeiten von OSM, die in ihrer Bestimmtheit immer wieder Probleme breiteten, weil die Realität viel Komplexer ist. Daher wurde highway=path als Stütze gewählt, auf das dann die verschiedenen Nutzergruppen gescrieben werden. Ein highway=footway ist also gleichbedeutend mit highway=path + foot=designated.

Wenn du jetzt allerdings etwa Zeichen 240 beschriebn willst, funktioniert das nicht mehr mit footway oder cycleway, da eigentlich beides da stehen müsste. Daher muss man spätestens hier path verwenden und zusätzlich bicycle=designated und foot=designated verwenden.

Wenn der Weg allerdings als Gehweg mit Zeichen 239 + "Fahrrad frei" gezeichnet ist, musst du das mit foot=designated + bicycle=yes mappen. Theoretisch ginge hier auch highway=footway + bicycle=yes, aber das würde ich des einheitlichen Taggings wegen lassen. "designated" beschreibt also, ob der Weg / die Straße explizit einem Verkehrsmittel gewidmet ist (also weißes Zeichen auf blauem Grund). Auch das ist wichtig zu Mappen, da sich hieraus weitere Regeln ableite, we etwa der Ausschluss aller weiteren Mutzungsgruppen oder z.B. die Nutzungspflicht für Straßenbegleitende Fahrradwege.

Die in diesem CS geänderten Objekte findest du ganz unten im CS aufgeslistet. Wenn du die Objekte anwählst, siehst du erst deren aktuelle Version, wiederum ganz unten kannst du dir die Chronik anzeigen lassen.

Viele Grüße
hsimpson (2020-04-01 08:04:32+00:00): Ein Einfaches Tool für den direkten Vergleich zweier Changesetzs ist z.B. das hier: https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/460788485

Ich nutze meist das Tool, welches in JOSM verbaut ist. Wenn du intensiver mappst, würde ich dir JOSM ohnehin ans Herz legen.

Grüße
highflyer74 (2020-04-01 12:40:43+00:00): Moin ihr zwei! Ganz nützlich finde ich auch noch das Verkehrszeichen Tool (http://osmtools.de/traffic_signs/) welches einem die richtigen Tags für die unterschiedlich ausgeschilderten Wege zeigt. Hier gilt natürlich auch: kurz mal durchlesen, wie man es verwendet. Viel Spass!
mikkolukas (2021-10-02 17:50:15+00:00): What. Er vejen til Seminarievej VIRKELIG en highway=service?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116751458

Er du fuldstændigt sikker på det? Det virker simpelthen så mærkeligt.
osmviborg (2021-10-02 18:29:10+00:00): Cykelsti.
Henrik PS (2021-10-02 21:03:41+00:00): Ja servicevejen fører hen til Vallensbæk Kommunes Materielgård. Det var en cykelsti indtil de lukkede adgangen til Seminarievej fra vest.
osmviborg (2021-10-03 04:37:00+00:00): I 2008 var der forbindelse, men i 2010 er der lukket af. Så det giver mening. På vejdirektoratets, og andre officielle kort, er vejen markeret som sti.
mikkolukas (2021-10-03 10:50:39+00:00): På dette billede fra august 2012, ligner det helt bestemt en cykelsti.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=418604276218548
osmviborg (2021-10-03 12:37:03+00:00): Ja, men hvordan kommer man ud fra materielgåden hvis man ikke må køre på vejen/stien? Så er der kun Holbæk Motorvejen.
parsd51 (2021-10-03 17:00:52+00:00): På Mapillary se (*) fra august i år, ser servicevej rigtig ud. Der er to østvendte lyskurver mod materielgården som en del af hele krydset. Det kan diskuteres om den skal gøres ensrettet fra materielgården til krydset, da den er forholdsvis smal og der er en anden og bred indkørsel til materielgården.

Den brede vej til materielgården er skiltet med Seminarievej. Den diskuterede vej ser ikke ud til at have navn. 

*) https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=865782230711477&lat=55.643394444444&lng=12.401497222222&z=18.99581251649801&x=0.6268738220437897&y=0.5294469315845771&zoom=1.3729921393619233&focus=photo
mikkolukas (2021-10-03 21:22:14+00:00): pars51 på Mapillary billedet du har linket er den ikke bredere end en cykelsti.

Bedre vinkel her, fra august 2021:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=418604276218548
parsd51 (2021-10-04 18:32:34+00:00): Ja, den har nok været udlagt og brugt som cykelsti tidligere i forbindelse til Seminarievej øst, da der var åbent mellem “øst og vest”. Jeg tænker anvendelsen i dag er i fokus her.
Jeg linkede det andet billede der viser andre ting end bredden. Fordi bredden er som en cykelsti og den ligger langs bilvejen, behøver det ikke være en cykelsti.

Mine observationer:
- Trafiklys i drift mod øst på hver side af vejen i det store kryds
- Ingen skilte med cykelsti
- Vejen fører til/fra materielpladsen, som i øvrigt er skiltet Teknisk Drift på Mapillary.
- Ingen dobbeltrettet cykelsti, i forbindelse med vejen, i det store kryds. 

Hvorfor trafiklys, hvis den kun er for cykler?
mikkolukas (2021-10-04 22:11:54+00:00): Du har mig overbevist. Vi lader det være en servicevej :)
Pietrofù (2019-05-28 15:06:09+00:00): #hotosm-project-5742 #TanzaniaDevelopmentTrust #womenconnect #youthmapperswomenconnect Karatu missing buildings
pyrog (2019-10-06 16:33:40+00:00): Buongiorno Tomi,

The lighthouse already exist : https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/336628434

I will merge the 2 lighthouses...

BR,
__
Yves

You could see it on OpenSeaMap with it AIS position :
http://map.openseamap.org/?zoom=18&lat=37.48879&lon=15.08484&layers=BFTFFFFFFTF0TFFFFFFFFF

Or on Marine Traffic:
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:15.085/centery:37.489/zoom:19
Pietrofù (2019-05-28 15:05:52+00:00): #hotosm-project-5742 #TanzaniaDevelopmentTrust #womenconnect #youthmapperswomenconnect Karatu missing buildings
abakus_uploader (2019-05-27 22:30:27+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!
richlv (2019-06-05 17:29:09+00:00): Hi, this changeset has removed a number of features, including a named feature "Vircavas pils parks" - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9610533/history#map=8/56.810/24.560&layers=N .

What happened in this changeset?
arcth (2019-06-07 11:21:31+00:00): Hi, to my knowledge there is no park, instead there is a schoolyard with a sports pitch surrounded by some allotments and farmland.
richlv (2019-06-10 15:28:55+00:00): Thank you for the reply, greatly appreciated.
Given that there apparently was an old park, maybe that name could be moved in the old_name tag?
PierZen (2019-10-03 18:35:48+00:00): You made modification to this hydropower infrastructure deleting existing info / recreating with two unnecessary relations with no good comment about your modifications and without prior contacting the previous contributor.

 Before you revise major infrastructures, asssure you know well osm tagging for these infrastrutures, Also discuss with contributors before you modify.

Il will revert these modifications to assure we keep history from the first edits about the river and the Staircase.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2024-06-03 18:50:31+00:00): aqui não parece ter ponte. retirei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/692649118
flohoff (2019-05-27 07:52:27+00:00): Moin,
ich suche gerade nach einer routingänderung auf der Buschkampstraße hinterher und bin hier drüber gestolpert:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/476094320

Warum hast du das cycleway:right/left=lane g elöscht?

Ist da nichts mehr?

Flo
BImoBielJH (2019-05-27 09:32:33+00:00): Hallo Flo,
danke für den Hinweis! Ich hatte die Fuß- und Radwege nach https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren
 angepasst und dabei ist mir wohl ein Zwischenstück entgangen.

Habe den Übergang von baulich getrenntem Radweg zum Radfahrstreifen nochmal angepasst, passt das so?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70654640#map=19/51.95563/8.53312

So sollte das Routing auf den Geh- und Radweg klappen... Wenn ein Geh- bzw. Radweg neben der Straße vorhanden ist, soll er ja separat gemapt werden, ansonsten als Tags beim Highway.

Gruß
flohoff (2019-05-27 10:12:35+00:00): Ich hatte da auch nochmal angesetzt und die Rad-/Fußwege bis zur nächsten einmündung weiter gezogen. 

Rad-/Fußwege sind auchz nicht so mein Thema. Das Routingproblem sind Autos.

Da ist irgendwas kaputt gegangen oder viel "schlechter" geworden im sinne von "Travel time". 

Ich habe auch noch die turn:lanes auf der Abzweigung geändert. Die waren rechts nach links sortiert - hätten genau umgekehrt gemusst. Wenn du statt ID Josm nimmst gibts nen schönen view der dir die lanes einbleindet mit den pfeilen - dann sieht man so fehler schnell ;)

Was da jetzt noch fehlt weiss ich auch gerade nicht.

Das hier ist eine Beispielhafte routingänderung. Rot ist alt - grün ist neu.

https://osm.zz.de/routeqa/?rid=116605,135050#51.95321,8.54384,14z

Macht ja überhaupt keinen Sinn so zu fahren.

Ich sehe es aber gerade auch nicht.

Flo
BImoBielJH (2019-05-27 11:20:08+00:00): Hallo Flo,

eine Änderung die Auswirkung auf die Traveltime beim Auto hat, ist die neue Tempo 30 Zone vor der Schule! Das hatte ich auch ergänzt.
Das könnte der Grund für die neue "schnellere" Route über die Autobahn sein.

Ich habe gerade nachgeschaut, die T=30 ist nur zeitlich begrenzt. Das hab ich noch korrigiert:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70657879

Gruß
flohoff (2019-05-27 11:30:07+00:00): 
Ja cool :) Ich habe noch mehr gefunden. Weiter hinten zwischen Kampstraße und Vennkampweg war ein lanes=1 getagged. Damit halbieren die router die Durchschnittsgeschwindigkeit weil es ja begegnungsverkehr gibt der auf die Bankette zwingt. Tempolimit fehlt da auch noch.

Ich habe das korrigiert. Ich denke jetzt schwenkt das zurück.

Das mit dem tempo 30 habe ich gesehen. Aber 100m Tempo 30 sollte nicht so einen riesen unterschied machen. Die route über die Autobahn macht einfach keinen Sinn.

Aber das ist ja auch alles nur mein Gefühl und nicht hart belegt. Gucke halt nach jeder routingänderung ob ich glaube das die Sinn macht und korrigiere ggfs irgendwo daten wenn aus versehen was kaputt gegangen ist.

Flo
Lana Shields (2019-05-26 23:18:23+00:00): Dear Dartmouthmapmaker,

I'm classifying this edit as an import. Do you know your responsibilities according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines ?

Kind regards,
L. Shields
Dartmouthmapmaker (2019-05-27 01:14:44+00:00): Revert for now
user_5359 (2019-05-27 16:02:45+00:00): Hello! What is the meaning of the tag Αριστοτέλους=65?
0000FF berries (2019-05-28 22:18:28+00:00): Hi :) It should have been added as an address.  Thanks for noticing - it was corrected with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70713265 :)
Adamant1 (2019-05-28 02:28:26+00:00): Hi there. You mind if I ask the difference between the Historic Park area and the Natural Preserve area is? Both are considered nature preserves and the boundaries seem a little arbitrary. Also, it's been generally agreed on the USA talk mailing list that state parks should be tagged as boundary=protected_area + protection class 5 or something similar and not as leisure=park. Also, the park:type tag is being depreciated. So I am going to change those things to be more current in absence of any objections. 

Thanks.
Harry Cutts (2019-05-28 05:37:13+00:00): Thanks for the feedback! I haven't dug into the difference in classifications, but the map in the park brochure (page 8 of https://parks.ca.gov/pages/483/files/AndersonMarshSHPWebLayout2015.pdf ) shows the natural preserve as a separate entity, so I went with that. When I visited I found a number of historic ranch buildings on the National Register of Historic Places, and they also have an "Archaeological District", so I'm guessing that's why there are two different classifications here.

Regarding the tags, thanks for the info. I've made the changes you suggest in https://osm.org/changeset/70682393. If you're familiar enough to be comfortable doing so, it might be worth updating the Key:park:type wiki page, as it's not at all clear that it's deprecated without reading quite a lot.
Pietrofù (2019-05-28 15:04:50+00:00): #hotosm-project-5742 #TanzaniaDevelopmentTrust #womenconnect #youthmapperswomenconnect Karatu missing buildings
BCNorwich (2019-06-09 17:08:56+00:00): Hi, Do you know that this is a track or road? It looks more like a river to me. You've also joined the track to the house, does it really join onto the house?

I very much doubt if the building is formally named "Small House" is it.

Everything you add to OSM must be verifiable to other folk, please see :- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2019-06-14 06:53:27+00:00): No response so amendments made.
Pietrofù (2019-05-28 15:04:23+00:00): #hotosm-project-5742 #TanzaniaDevelopmentTrust #womenconnect #youthmapperswomenconnect Karatu missing buildings
aharvey (2019-05-27 02:29:07+00:00): Hey I noticed you just deleted the parking area at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/677568464 I'm reinstating that as I verified yesterday it's still on the ground, and am also uploading Mapillary imagery. I was in the process of fixing it to be surface, but I got many conflicts in JOSM from your changeset (my fault for leaving it open too long), so will redo afresh.
HubMiner (2019-06-07 19:09:01+00:00): Hi, I am correcting many opening_hours in Minneapolis area.  Watch out how you use ";" in rules - check time graph on https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/#check
samhandler (2019-06-11 01:49:00+00:00): @HubMiner Thanks for the head-up, those obviously aren't correct. Let me know if there are any that need to be re-checked on the ground.

Do you have some type of reasonable heuristic for detecting when opening_hours values are syntacticly valid but do not make sense (e.g. one rule-set completely replaces another)? It might be nice to get this put in as a warning in some of the editors.
HubMiner (2019-06-12 12:34:10+00:00): Hi samhandler, 
I am using Osmose to find invalid OH values and there are probably other validators as well (online or Josm). I am not aware that any of them handling this case, but I didn't look into this specially.
Depending on your coding skills you can join a validator project (such as Osmose) on github and add the support yourself! :)
For now, the most realistic option is to find invalid values via a regular expression in OverpassTurbo. 

Let me know if you need more details on any of these.
CC_Simon (2019-05-27 03:12:36+00:00): 香園圍公路雖然達到高速公路的標準，但根據香港《道路交通條例》，并非刊登是在《香港憲報》的高速公路。情況與龍翔道和西九龍走廊一樣，屬於快速公路并非高速公路。
Kovoschiz (2019-05-27 08:08:22+00:00): 1. Hong Kong doesn't use "快速公路" this way. This is a wrong interpretation, based on your misuse of "高速公路" here. .
2. I do not consider Lung Cheung Road as an "expressway". There are direct bus stop access. It's merely a fully grade separated limited access trunk road, not fully controlled-access.
Kovoschiz (2019-05-27 08:09:42+00:00): @hd_scania He has a point on changing the guideline. That can be discussed further. For now I have already put a `motorroad=yes` and `motorroad:tunnel=yes` as a stopgap.
CC_Simon (2019-05-30 08:30:16+00:00): 以龍翔道為例子可能有點不對，因爲他算是一個開放道路。

而以西九龍走廊作爲例子是因爲他與香園圍一樣是達到限速達到高速公路水平，但不是正式的高速公路。而在osm，他是並定性為快速公路，所以我認爲香園圍公路在此也是快速公路。
CC_Simon (2019-05-30 08:31:25+00:00): 西九龍走廊 與這裏 同樣為封閉道路，重點是非《香港憲報》中的高速公路
Kovoschiz (2019-05-30 09:44:15+00:00): >而以西九龍走廊作爲例子是因爲他與香園圍一樣是達到限速達到高速公路水平，但不是正式的高速公路。而在osm，他是並定性為快速公路，所以我認爲香園圍公路在此也是快速公路。
Look I get what you mean, but that's Taiwan usage. In Hong Kong official terminology, "快速公路" means "Expressway" (uppercase, proper term). There's no "高速公路" nor "freeway" here.
Kovoschiz (2019-05-30 09:47:06+00:00): If you note the `motorroad` tags, you will see I have already adopted and tagged "expressway"s in HK.
Kovoschiz (2019-05-30 09:48:13+00:00): >* In Hong Kong official terminology, "快速公路" means "Expressway" designation
>* There's no "高速公路" nor "Freeway" designation here.
CC_Simon (2019-05-30 12:01:27+00:00): Do you can DM me in osm ,coz i am hardly to check the msg (i need to through gmail)

So i think 中環灣仔繞道 and 獅子山隧道 also belonging 快速公路 in there , coz they are not belonging 高速公路 in hk 

but  i think if i want to change them will argue with other , so  I don't do this

nice to talk with you ：）
mavl (2019-08-19 16:34:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 73506374 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted. Reason: suspicious source.
aharvey (2019-06-03 07:53:40+00:00): Thanks for fixing this! I included the old one as old_name as found on this old map http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-231437268/view
Andy_T_56 (2019-06-03 22:38:24+00:00): This name has quite a story. Background information can be found at Placenames Tasmania. Search for "Cape Queen Elizabeth" and hit the details button
SomeoneElse (2019-07-05 15:48:53+00:00): Hello,
What was the source of the access change to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12898666/history (the addition of the "motor_vehicle=yes" tag)?
Best Regards,
Andy
mallared (2019-07-16 03:13:21+00:00): Hi Andy,

The motor_vehicle tag was added based on our delivery partner GPS traces which is verified with the vehicles present in the satellite imagery. However, post the community feedback, we have understood that our understanding was different from that of the community. We are now fully aligned with the community’s view of not adding "motor_vehicle=yes" tag unless a complete evidence is available. 
The access as been reverted by kararcha
Changeset #71996167

Regards,
mallared
SomeoneElse (2019-07-16 10:44:21+00:00): @mallared There are a number of other affected tracks - see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/KLH
Best Regards,
Andy
mallared (2019-07-17 07:10:52+00:00): Hi Andy,

Thanks for sharing the query. Post the community feedback, we had reverted the changesets with similar issues. We ran the overpass query for each of our editors and reverted the change sets highlighted by it. Unfortunately, the query is showing me un-reverted change sets when I ran today. I am not sure of the reasons, however, I will re-run the query to identify if any more such cases are pending and revert them.

Let us know in case you have any other suggestions.

Best Regards
mallared
SomeoneElse (2019-07-17 12:22:51+00:00): @mallared yes, Overpass queries will show cached data until the server has caught up (maybe 15 minutes ot so?).  I think that nearly all of these are fixed now.  One group that may need someone else to look at them are https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/KO7 (that mapper hasn't logged in for a while).
Best Regards,
Andy
mallared (2019-07-18 11:10:51+00:00): Hi Andy,

Thanks for the clarification. We have identified the mapper and we are reverting his edits with the similar issues. 
Let me know in case you have any other suggestion.

Regards
mallared
SomeoneElse (2019-07-18 12:01:22+00:00): Hi mallared,
Thanks.
Supaplex (2019-05-27 15:25:20+00:00): 已經標示是公園了，別重覆標了
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70644868
Glassman (2019-05-27 05:42:52+00:00): Yes you can use King County data
Kovoschiz (2019-07-07 18:22:21+00:00): Can you explain why Ping Yeung Roundabout is `residential`?
Kovoschiz (2019-05-27 08:02:25+00:00): 1. Please comment on other's changeset instead of treating your changeset as an annoucement everyone should read. 
2. Hong Kong doesn't use "快速公路" this way. This is a wrong interpretation, based on your misuse of "高速公路" here. . 
3. I do not consider Lung Cheung Road as an "expressway". There are direct bus stop access. It's merely a fully grade separated limited access road, not fully controlled-access.
Kovoschiz (2019-05-27 08:03:14+00:00): 4. Stop ruining names. You aren't following the convention.
SomeoneElse (2019-12-30 16:03:12+00:00): Can you check that the wikidata Q190464 on the HSBC in here is actually correct (i.e. the object is not a retail bank)?
Best Regards,
Andy
eggie (2019-06-01 19:34:12+00:00): Svp het gebied van je edits kleiner houden ivm validatiecontrole.
eggie (2019-06-01 19:35:19+00:00): Svp niet zelf adressen aanmaken op gebouwen. Probeer bij te taggen op de reeds aanwezige adresnode.
MVG,
Eggie
mavl (2019-07-21 15:58:43+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: copyrighted data were used.
mavl (2019-07-21 15:58:46+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: copyrighted data were used.
mavl (2019-07-21 15:58:49+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: copyrighted data were used.
mavl (2019-07-21 15:58:52+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: copyrighted data were used.
mavl (2019-07-21 15:58:56+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: copyrighted data were used.
mavl (2019-07-21 15:58:59+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: copyrighted data were used.
mavl (2019-07-21 15:59:02+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: copyrighted data were used.
mavl (2019-07-21 15:59:05+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: copyrighted data were used.
mavl (2019-07-21 15:59:08+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: copyrighted data were used.
mavl (2019-07-21 15:59:12+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: copyrighted data were used.
DingoFur (2019-05-27 16:08:38+00:00): Bien hecha la corrección.
DingoFur (2019-05-27 16:09:12+00:00): Si, hay que resolver el tema del nombre, en los planos de la plaza figura "Calle 113".
mavl (2019-11-10 08:10:27+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
korolenok (2019-05-27 09:58:00+00:00): Здравствуйте, zhulikzhulik. Отрисовывайте дома по форме, пожалуйста.
Для примера - 4 дома:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=70649837#map=19/51.80648/77.45788
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70648073
mavl (2019-06-07 14:50:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 71026104 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: the fictional data - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2838].
SomeoneElse (2019-05-27 10:27:43+00:00): Just a reminder, as previously mentioned in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2738 - 'Also, please do use meaningful changeset comments, not just things like “.”.'.
Also, given what you seem to be mapping here, you might find https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dfitness_station helpful.
Best Regards,
Andy
oba510 (2019-05-27 08:58:43+00:00): It looks like you added barrier=kerb to a number of crossing nodes here. That would literally mean that there is a curb in the middle of the street (and crosswalk) that everyone has to drive and walk over, which seems unlikely.
dhogan (2019-05-27 10:34:38+00:00): Previously, the intersection between the sidewalk and the road was tagged with kerb=lowered. The (kerb=lowered) to (barrier=kerb, kerb=lowered) change is an automatic issue correction suggestion provided by iD. This seemed reasonable and was suggested by the editor, so I didn't check the wiki, which was my mistake. This was applied to at least several dozen crossing over six changesets: 70643579, 70643731, 70643774, 70643869, 70647870, and this one.

I'll work on reverting the errors tomorrow.

There is already a bug filed against iD (https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6440).
dhogan (2019-05-27 11:13:54+00:00): I used Overpass to obtain a list of nodes where barrier=kerb, highway=crossing, last modified by me in the previous 24 hours. The list had 1407 nodes.

Relevant part of the Overpass query: node["barrier"="kerb"]["highway"="crossing"](user:"dhogan")(newer:"{{date:1day}}")({{bbox}});

I parsed the response to extract the node ids, downloaded the to JOSM, and deleted the barrier=kerb tag. The correction was submitted as changeset #70657572.
andrewsh (2019-05-27 07:58:13+00:00): Ozaj? :(