piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse (2021-11-07 16:16:43+00:00): Re https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/988331792/history , it was only a month ago. Rather than removing something that was "obviously wrong" (which adds no value), why not ask the mapper what they meant?  In that case "ground" would be a guess, but you'll find out if you ask them.
grin (2021-11-07 18:00:42+00:00): @SomeoneElse you are right, I was thinking about that, but right now tools doesn't really help this kind of activity, and it takes exponentially more time to manually conversate hundreds of changes. 
In the later changesets I have checked tag combos and when it was highly probable that "u" meant "unpaved" (especially for parts of ways) then I replaced that. 
I may try to check how simple would be programmatically asking the question and process the reply stream... I am not quite sure it could work feasibly though. 
Until then a completely invalid tagging isn't much different from no tagging at all, that's why I worried just a little deleting.
SomeoneElse (2021-11-07 18:10:29+00:00): > but right now tools doesn't really help this kind of activity, and it takes exponentially more time to manually conversate hundreds of changes. 
Well one way to reduce the number of changesets to check would be to look at changes in a smaller area first...
grin (2021-11-07 18:19:45+00:00): But you know that it doesn't work this way. 100 typos all around the world would be extremely time consuming to cut apart, it would make its handling harder and cause more grief anyway, separating logically connected changes into separate changesets.
SomeoneElse (2021-11-07 18:46:42+00:00): The problem is that removing "tag=unlikely_value" doesn't actually fix the problem the _next_ time that mapper uses _unlikely_value_ - and it doesn't actually improve the quality of OSM data at all since everyone who's consuming it will just ignore _unlikey_value_ anyway.
hfs (2021-11-08 09:15:57+00:00): For https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3824136956/history you removed surface=*, but why did you not remove the other =* tags?
Friendly_Ghost (2021-11-08 13:17:39+00:00): @hfs They must have missed that. I just edited it for you: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113522122

I would love to do more edits to look for these redundant ...=* tags, because they're very easy to query and fix. Sadly, according to the DWG such an would require requesting approval from each regional community and contacting each mapper who has mapped these tags, which would make this process practically impossible.
grin (2021-11-08 13:22:24+00:00): @hfs: because I have tried to fix only one problem in one changeset. (Exception is when the uploading data contains obvious additional errors.)
(I was fixing surface tags and not keys with an asterisk. That one's a good idea, too, I'll check it someday.)
Friendly_Ghost (2021-11-08 14:41:30+00:00): @grin I recommend also fixing other issues while you're doing mass edits. The easiest way is to run JOSM's validator by pressing shift+v. Doing some QA adds extra value to your changeset and makes it so that you're not changing tags purely for the sake of changing tags, but also to improve OSM in a broader sense. The time investment is worth it.
Lee Carré (2021-11-21 13:58:46+00:00): @Friendly_Ghost

“Love you too, Lee ❤”

Aww, shucks. Group hug? 😄

Oh, wait, that only works with fleshies. Hmm.
Lee Carré (2021-11-21 14:02:00+00:00): “Rather than removing something that was "obviously wrong" (which adds no value), why not ask the mapper what they meant? In that case "ground" would be a guess, but you'll find out if you ask them.”

A wise suggestion, @SomeoneElse . I wish more folks would ask before assuming wrongness.

For the benefit of the lurkers, re casually deleting: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Keep_the_history
Lee Carré (2021-11-21 14:25:43+00:00): @grin

“tools doesn't really help this kind of activity”

Considering how strongly you advocated this point in other changeset discussions, you should be only too keen to fix the tools you use, or use better tools.

Oh the irony of having to say those words.

“it takes exponentially more time to [do quality work]”

Welcome to OSM. Nay, any project. Nay, life.

As a surveyor (on-foot), I can muster no sympathy, given how long all sorts of things take to do well enough to be worthwhile.

I'm sure that a similar attitude re time for quality was taken by those who uploaded the tagging you're taking it upon yourself to refine.

“more time to manually”

Sounds dangerously like you're performing (as the DWG define it) automated edits. I don't recall you citing the relevant approved proposal; would you care to, now?

“separating logically connected changes into separate changesets.”

Yet geographically very distinct.

At best they're only connected by your desire lot fix them all simultaneously. Otherwise, what does one forest have to do with another (other than both being forests, since that's a very silly argument, and the implications make it ridiculous)?

“I have tried to fix only one problem in one changeset.”
But, hold on, what happened to them being logically-related? It's the very same element, this time.

Seems horribly inconsistent.
KirillB (2021-11-03 11:51:16+00:00): Additional info. Imagery offsets for Bing aerial and Mapbox satellite maps were made on the basis of own GPS-tracking: two devices recorded tracks simultaneously, accuracy was ca.1-3 meters (I made it on bicycle). To be sure that this data is good enough, I also checked map in the area with my old GPS-tracks from the last year (also on bicycle). Then I downloaded all available GPS-tracks in the area (most of them were recorded on auto, I think) and verify the correctness and consistency of the offset created (I checked that most of the tracks were inside of the roads - it is important to make it outside of the village, as buildings can distort GPS-signals!).
Properly aligned imagery and GPS-tracks were used to fix the roads and paths first. As some buildings crossed the paths and streets, I had to move them. As far as I saw, most of the objects in Laiferde were created with really old aerial maps, so they were misaligned even in comparison with newer satellite maps without offset. 
Then I found that many objects were missing... So, in principle, it was almost total rebuilt of Leiferde. 
I hope that fellow mappers will read this comment to understand, why so many changes were made, before they will decide to move objects according to non-corrected satellite maps
ToniE (2021-11-03 11:21:36+00:00): "Fix station -> stop_position für Zughalt auf GleisJoseph-Wild-Straße ist keine Einbahnstraße" ist ein falsch hier rein geraten
Мы вас похороним (2021-11-03 16:39:59+00:00): How can scrubland in a golf course be publicly operated - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/984715256/history ?
grin (2021-11-03 17:46:03+00:00): It was [[Chuck Sites]], not me. I only removed the buggy surface tag. I haven't tried to fix stuff I have no information about, and there are some REAL weird stuff in various countries. :-) Feel free to fix it further! Thanks!
Lee Carré (2021-11-03 20:42:35+00:00): “[[Chuck Sites]]”

This isn't Wikipedia(, thankfully).
grin (2021-11-04 13:51:21+00:00): This comment of yours show quite plainly that you don't strive to cooperate and understand but to stand against and criticise. Please stop that. If there is something in the world you don't like you do not have to attack it immediately. You could instead try to find things you do happily, which make you satisfied, not stressed.

Global level QA works this way, if it makes you unhappy, exclude them from your view, please, to spare the attacks and needless debates.

If you need help, please tell me what system you're using and we'll try to find a solution.
Lee Carré (2021-11-06 21:58:14+00:00): Pot, kettle, black.

Please state your definition of “attack”, particularly how it's distinct from “(constructive) criticism”.
grin (2021-11-07 10:22:26+00:00): @Lee Carré you have entered a completely unrelated and really unnecessary comment directed against me. You do not honestly believe that I am not aware that this is OSM and not Wikipedia and that you really needed to remind me. Also I am sure you completely understood what I meant.
Lee Carré (2021-11-21 10:37:56+00:00): Pot, kettle, black. Again.

Besides failing to engage (meaningfully) by (not) answering my question / request, you seem to be engaging in presuppositional reasoning, which is intellectually-dishonest, and prevents constructive discussion.
grin (2021-11-21 12:41:48+00:00): Pot, kettle, black. Again. 

You chose to ignore all questions and not to respond to problems. You have not been constructive. (And I've been warned that you aren't with other people, either.) 

Please recognise that you can't handle such problems with constructivity and simply skip them. There are possibly other areas you can work on without artificially generating conflicts.

Have a nice day.
Lee Carré (2021-11-21 16:04:09+00:00): From someone older, wiser & more experienced than I: http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/crybaby.html#respect

Plus at least one other entry from that list.

Sad that you refuse to engage (constructively & honestly), yet then blame others for the effects of that, and lack sufficient self-awareness while readily projecting (wildly) upon others.
To then resort to schoolyard antics; very mature.
Remind me what you said about ‘attacks’?
Takes two to tango.

For someone who exhibits SJW-grade sensitivity, you don't seem to embrace diversity or tolerance. Sounds awfully privileged.

I'm most curious which questions I've ignored (there's (so far) only 1 question mark in this changeset discussion) and which problems I've not responded to (which I should've responded; I can't take on the global set). Seems factually erroneous. I can't help but notice the contradiction between this and your assertion that I won't engage constructively. I predict that this question will go ignored, too; rather proving my earlier points.

I would much rather discuss the actual issue, but when you refuse to, you make that impossible. Only you can change that, because only you can control what you choose to do.

If you don't like the consequences of your choices, then make better choices.

You don't have to respond to me, if it upsets you so much.

If you would prefer me to not comment on your changesets, then you already know the solution; ensure that they don't overlap my locale. That much should be obvious. You caused it to appear in my (very) local list of sets, I certainly didn't go seeking it as you might suggest.

You seem to imply that I should, instead, follow your example (unless you're not attempting to set one, while criticising others), yet from what I've observed (I don't need backroom whispers, myself, especially when they're used to make ad-hominems) that would be most unwise.

Ironically, part of my referencing that this isn't wikipedia, and being thankful of it, is in knowing what wikipedia has become (socially & culturally, within its own (former, now pseudo) community). It saddens & concerns me to see signs that such corrosive attitudes are creeping into OSM too, lately.

You're welcome to try again, when you can muster more rigour & take some responsibility (which includes less projection).

Best of luck.

Instead, perhaps go outside and do some surveying, if people with whom you don't agree (& whom don't pander to your wish of simply dismissing their concerns) upset you.
Visit an actual forest, in person. You might find it peaceful.

Since you've indicated that it's fruitless to respond until you're willing to engage on the matter at hand, I doubt I'll bother. The only exception being any necessary requests re the chosen size of your changeset bboxes.

Be well & enjoy productive mapping.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-12-28 00:51:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 115447422 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes that removed 'unexpected' values from surface tags.  See comments on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113316313 .
Dimacn (2021-11-03 17:00:34+00:00): Ваши банкоматы не попали в здания. Пожалуйста исправьте:
1. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9221097282  2. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9221096735    3. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9221096737
literan (2021-11-03 17:09:00+00:00): lemos, импорты должны быть согласованы с сообществом. Приведите ссылку, где было обсуждение с сообществом. Каков источник данных, свободный ли он?
lemos (2021-11-04 07:17:34+00:00): Источник данных: информация с сайта банка и личные наблюдения.
В каких случаях нужно обсуждение для импорта подобного объекта?
mosstreet (2021-11-04 10:10:21+00:00): Личных достаточно, можно панорамы фото видео, только не с сайтов © там нужно получать разрешение владельца, подробно на форуме
lemos (2021-11-04 10:23:07+00:00): Хорошо, я удалю те, что на основе данных с сайта.
literan (2021-11-05 20:00:23+00:00): еще и дубли существующих банкоматов, например https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9221096953

по-хорошему, надо было делать процедуру conflate, слияния с существующими данными, с целью исключения дублей.

lemos, когда исправите? или мне откатить всю правку?
lemos (2021-11-06 19:58:23+00:00): literan, спасибо, я работаю над этим.
Steve_32 (2021-11-07 13:02:47+00:00): Огромное количество непопаданий на здания и дублей. Нужно откатывать.
lemos (2021-11-08 00:21:46+00:00): Все непопадания и дубли исправил.
literan (2021-11-08 11:51:53+00:00): навскидку тыкнул https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9221097496 - стоит вне пределов здания
abrensch (2022-01-22 09:14:49+00:00): Hallo ToniE,

ich würde Am Mitterfeld gerne dem aktuellen Stand anpassen, habe aber nicht genügend Infos.

Hier lese ich, dass es wohl bis Ende 2022 jetzt Einbahnstrasse ist?

https://stadt.muenchen.de/infos/baustellen-verkehrseinschraenkungen.html

Das access=destination am nördlichen Ende war auch baustellenbedingt und muss weg?
ToniE (2022-01-22 13:18:20+00:00): Servus,

yep, das müsste dann wieder weg. Das Schild habe ich im Norden, von der Riemer Straße aus einbiegend, gesehen.

Gruß,
Toni
Andrea Musuruane (2021-11-04 14:45:55+00:00): Ciao Michele, ma sei sicuro sul surface=asphalt?  https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2877722872508176 Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113327791
mikki65 (2021-11-04 15:04:08+00:00): sono autobloccanti avro schiacciato tasto sbagliato
Zaneo (2021-11-03 11:42:51+00:00): that's fair game.
Tomas Straupis (2021-11-03 12:21:27+00:00): In Lithuania we have clearly defined way to tag riverbanks (https://lt.wikibooks.org/wiki/Atviro_%C5%BEem%C4%97lapio_vadovas/Redagavimas/Plotai). All other values are NOT valid in Lithuania. Double tagging is a bad practice and also not valid in Lithuania where we strive for high quality of GIS data. Note: waterway=riverbank IS NOT deprecated and never was (it is a known bug in iD to lie about depreciation/improvement of tags). All non standard tagging is detected by our QA rules and therefore are fixed straight away. (And we will have to fix you riverbank anyway, as geometries are not satisfactory).
Zaneo (2021-11-03 12:53:03+00:00): Not satifsfactory, would you like to elaborate. Previously there was no river area marked. Now there is a river area marked that is true. Perhaps the river is actually larger, but the portion marked was verifiable.

I had to fix the river the centerline which was a mess and went over clear sections of land.
Zaneo (2021-11-03 12:53:20+00:00): Are you suggesting it was an automated edit that changed the tag?
Tomas Straupis (2021-11-03 13:07:07+00:00): No, it was automated QA scripts which DETECTED errors and afterwards they were reviewed and fixed manually.
Tomas Straupis (2021-11-03 13:11:13+00:00): Riverbanks are never so wiggly in Lithuania. Riverbank lines are much more straight. And of course it is better than nothing, but when time will come for this river to be fully tagged for cayaking, its riverbanks and surrounding areas will also be fixed (unless somebody will fix it earlier).
Zaneo (2021-11-03 14:35:14+00:00): I cannot verify if the river runs under greenery, or if there is a surface that blocks river flow.

What would you suggest? Mapping to the start of greenery at the river edge, then adding wetlands?

Or mapping over the greenery, and assuming that the river flowed there?

Or something entirely different?

I tend to try to map to reality, not to nice rounded corners where possible.
Tomas Straupis (2021-11-03 14:42:36+00:00): Have you been in that place or in any of Lithuanian rivers?
Zaneo (2021-11-03 14:54:26+00:00): Are you suggesting that any mapping done in Lithuania from aerial images is invalid if somebody has not been in Lithuania?

Have I see a river? Yes. In fact there is a famous problem called a "coastline paradox" which also applies to rivers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox

Where it turns out coastlines, and riverbanks are in fact very wibbly-wobbly when you start to actually look at them.

If usage of aerial imagery is banned without having seen the location personally. Then I think we should work together to revert a lot of the invalid data that has made its way into the dataset. There are many buildings that really look like a building from aerial imagery, but you're right it could actually car.
Tomas Straupis (2021-11-03 15:13:40+00:00): I'm suggesting that if you do not know how rivers in Lithuania actually look, you will not be adding any value by doing guesswork and then (directly or indirectly) asking locals to fix. It is easier/faster for us to draw the riverbank from scratch than to fix existing bad data. This particula riverbank segment I can draw in 5 minutes if I delete your data first. If I were to fix your data, it would take half an hour or even longer.
Zaneo (2021-11-03 23:39:35+00:00): Do rivers in Lithuania fundamentally differ from rivers in the rest of the world?
Zaneo (2021-11-04 00:01:51+00:00): In the future I'll endeavor to make rivers (that I add) in Lithuania more blobby, and less squiggly. It's not a big deal to me in the end, and actually saves effort.
cserpell (2021-11-03 12:47:46+00:00): Hola, eliminé el vado que agregaste y lo cambié a un puente, ya que claramente se ve que no es un vado, en el Canal Florida.
Camilo Nuñez Castro (2021-11-03 12:58:30+00:00): Gracias
wkdgs (2021-11-03 15:16:27+00:00): Hallo und willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.

Zunächst einmal Danke, dass du dabei hilfst die Karte zu verbessern.

Mir sind mit deinen Änderungen ein paar Probleme aufgefallen:

Der name-Tag wird normalerweise nur für Eigennamen verwendet. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Names). Falls dort kein tatsächliches Objekt mit dem Eigennamen "Storchennest" steht, sollte das in den description-Tag verschoben werden.

Auch "landuse=meadow" ist hier wahrscheinlich unpassend, es sei denn dort befindet sich wirklich eine kleine Wiese. Sinnvoller wäre hier ein Punkt mit passenden Tags.

Mit welchen Tags man nun ein Storchennest hinzufügt, oder ob man das überhaupt tun sollte, weiß ich auch nicht genau. Ich habe dazu eine kurze Diskussion gefunden, vielleicht hilft die ja weiter (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=12562)

Gruß
winkeldings
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113328540
wkdgs (2021-11-05 13:34:10+00:00): Hi,

ich habe die Tags jetzt nach angepasst :

"natural=birds-nest"
"birds_nest=stork"

Der Tag ist leider nicht besonders weit verbreitet, aber immerhin gibt es schon eine Wiki-Seite dazu: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dbirds_nest

Gruß
winkeldings
Tomas Straupis (2021-11-03 12:24:07+00:00): If service=driveway is not ok for you, change them to other value, not remove them entirely.
pitscheplatsch (2021-11-03 15:09:45+00:00): Hi atiaisp1401, welcome to OSM.

Could you use the comment field of your created changeset for describing your map edits? Thanks. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
Harmonia Garden (2021-11-03 12:17:24+00:00): Единственная проблема в том, что на всех Картах неправильно распределены номера. У нас по юридическим данным 29ой номер, а на Карте почему-то 35 отображается.
Harmonia Garden (2021-11-05 17:07:34+00:00): Hallo, is there any problem with accepting?
ovruni (2021-11-03 22:59:02+00:00): He revertido algunos de sus conjuntos de cambios, al igual que otros similares de los usuarios borovac y PulisakZ, donde se han agregado etiquetas wikipedia de artículos que corresponden a distritos (district) en objetos de centros poblados, los cuales suelen tener etiquetas "place". Los distritos en el Perú son divisiones administrativas que están en relaciones con admi_level=8. Si tiene alguna duda sobre el mapeo en Perú puede hacerla mediante el grupo de telegram https://t.me/osmpe  o la lista https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pe de la comunidad peruana.
Saludos
tordans (2021-11-03 13:00:04+00:00): Hallo MMHFFO, bitte unterbreche deine Lösch-Tirade. Es wäre super, wenn du in die OSM Berlin Matrix Gruppen kommen könntest, um zu erklären, warum du diese Massenlöschungen für sinnvoll hältst. https://matrix.to/#/#osmberlin:matrix.org — Viele Grüße
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113329928
kartonage (2021-11-04 10:18:41+00:00): Daten in CS 113363558 wiederhergestellt. 

Die Zufahrten existieren und eine entsprechende Kommunikation blieb aus. Desweiteren ist es etwas schade wenn flächendeckend gelöscht wird und das Changeset von "korrigieren" spricht, denn eine Verbesserung der Daten ist hier nicht zu erkennen.
tordans (2021-11-04 11:33:09+00:00): Danke, kartonage
eggie (2021-11-03 14:31:10+00:00): Dag Arnout.. Probeer bij te taggen op de bestaande adresnode. Ik heb de info samengevoegd.
MVG
eggie
Arnout Engelen (2021-11-03 14:44:51+00:00): Bedankt! Het lijkt erop dat dat niet mogelijk is vanuit OsmAnd? Ik zal de volgende keer Vespucci gebruiken voor dit soort aanpassingen.
eggie (2021-11-03 15:13:55+00:00): Top!
kartonage (2021-11-04 10:19:03+00:00): Daten in CS 113363558 wiederhergestellt. 

Die Zufahrten existieren und eine entsprechende Kommunikation blieb aus. Desweiteren ist es etwas schade wenn flächendeckend gelöscht wird und das Changeset von "korrigieren" spricht, denn eine Verbesserung der Daten ist hier nicht zu erkennen.
kartonage (2021-11-03 13:01:18+00:00): Hej MMHFFO,

bitte teile uns mit warum die hier flächendeckend Zufahrten löschst die on the ground vorhanden sind.
Bis zu der Klärung würde ich dich auch bitten keine weiteren Änderungen dieser Art durchzuführen.

Schöne Grüße
kartonage (2021-11-04 10:19:00+00:00): Daten in CS 113363558 wiederhergestellt. 

Die Zufahrten existieren und eine entsprechende Kommunikation blieb aus. Desweiteren ist es etwas schade wenn flächendeckend gelöscht wird und das Changeset von "korrigieren" spricht, denn eine Verbesserung der Daten ist hier nicht zu erkennen.
laurent-38 (2021-11-04 12:16:11+00:00): Hi BMEEOFTAMM1-FYT44I,

Thank you for your contributions.

Please, don't make such large changes (from Spain to Hungaria), keep your changesets within small areas, they will be easier to review.

Check the shape of building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/55577127 .

Fix crossing footway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/998739637 : either map it as a node on the street, or, if mapped as a way, connect the extremities to other paths.

fix ways https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/998739635 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/998739636 : add nodes at intersections with other ways.

~~
laurent-38
SK53 (2021-11-05 21:05:34+00:00): Hi,

If you change terrace to house can you also add house=terraced? Otherwise we are losing a bit of information.

Thanks,

Jerry aka SK53
GrooveBox (2021-11-09 09:58:14+00:00): Ta. Will do. I have amended as many of the one's I've amended as I can find. Unfortunately I corrected a lot of my "row houses" recently so I've a lot to tag. Will keep at it though!