piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:07:13+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92255138
martiensch (2020-11-24 11:05:56+00:00): Hoi,

Jij had de brandgangen in het blok rondom de Centaurstraat tot highway=service gepromoveerd, maar ik weet zeker dat ik niet met de auto daar langs kan (nb: ik woon er, dus enige ervaring is van toepassing :D )

Akkoord dat ik er weer highway=path  van maak?

Groeten,

Martien
smootheFiets (2020-11-24 23:56:46+00:00): Lastige vraag... Ze renderen nu inderdaad als normale service-road's, en dat is zeker niet de bedoeling. Daarom ook service=alley, width=1.5. Dat zou op zich genoeg moeten zijn om autoverkeer te weren, maar daar houden niet alle gebruikers rekening mee.
Wat ik wou uitdrukken is dat die gangen niet zomaar voor wandelaars bedoeld zijn, dat houdt highway=path wel zo'n beetje in. Sterker nog: fietsrouters sturen je daar ook langs. Dat wou ik voorkomen. access-tags zijn geen uitkomst, want er hangen geen bordjes "verboden toegang" oid. Toch zijn die gangen kennelijk niet voor doorgaand (voet-)verkeer bedoeld. Dat drukt service=alley uit.

Op het forum is (algemene) discussie over brandgangen geweest, daar ben ik service=alley voor het eerst tegengekomen. Ik vind het niet zo 1,2,3.
eggie (2020-11-25 08:19:33+00:00): Tip  If a narrow street is prohibited for motor vehicles, consider using highway=footway or highway=pedestrian. 

zie:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dalley

Zelf gebruik ik meestal highway=footway of path al klopt dat natuurlijk ook niet helemaal icm  met access=private want formeel hoort meestal de helft van de brandpoort bij de grond van de woning.
Het is geen openbare weg. 
Je zou een bord art 461 kunnen plaatsen, maar dat is niet gebruikelijk.  
Er is recht van overpad. 
.. maar op het forum kwamen we er ook niet uit. 
gr eggie
smootheFiets (2020-11-25 12:54:00+00:00): Ik kan leven met highway=path, ondanks wat ik boven zei. Footway lijkt me verkeerd (en ook een verkeerde suggestie op de wiki, volgens mij) want je kan en mag hier zeker fietsen. Ik ben er zelf geweest - dus bij Martiens achtertuin langs, zo te zien :)

Misschien moeten wij een nieuw tag bedenken - highway=path, path=alley? Hetzelfde als service=alley, maar te smal voor tweeassige voertuigen. ?
Luzandro (2020-10-10 05:05:53+00:00): Hallo,

ich nehme an, das layer=-1 auf dem Weg wurde wegen des kleinen Abschnitts, der durch das Gebäude verläuft gesetzt? Dann sollte stattdessen für diesen Abschnitt covered oder building_passage gesetzt werden

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:covered

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tunnel%3Dbuilding_passage
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92255273
konradio (2020-10-12 17:05:24+00:00): Hallo Luzandro, danke für für den Hinweis, habe die Wegabschnitte entsprechend geändert und hoffe, dass es nun so ok ist.
Luzandro (2020-10-13 16:40:09+00:00): Danke, schaut gut aus
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:09:37+00:00): Not sure if you wanted footway or path. In OSM a footway is more like a sidewalk while a path is more like a trail. The naming convention is because OSM was started in England so we use British English tags. Sometimes it can get real confusing.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92255660
NathanRoberts (2020-10-11 19:49:16+00:00): Thank you for the clarification. It is a path, unpaved and used by locals to access the park path.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-08-11 22:05:06+00:00): removido
Jan Wilts (2020-10-11 17:59:29+00:00): Waarom heb je gekozen voor vehicle=no ipv access=no?
smootheFiets (2020-10-12 14:32:14+00:00): Bedoel je hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45819180 ?

Daar hangt een bordje C1, volgens wiki houdt dat in vehicle=no, horse=no. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:The_Netherlands_roads_tagging

Het voornaamste (enige?) verschil is voor voetgangers. Die sluit je buiten met access=no, maar ze mogen hier wel langs. Anders zou ook de stoep nutteloos zijn :-)
Jan Wilts (2020-10-12 16:15:03+00:00): Hmmm ja, maar volgens de wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:The_Netherlands_roads_tagging moet een busbaan getagd worden met access=no. Volgensmij gaat het hier wel om een busbaan aangezien het woord BUS op de weg staat..
smootheFiets (2020-10-12 17:53:34+00:00): Kijk, dat staat daar inderdaad. Ik vind dat echter niet precies. Voetgangers mogen hier langs, daarover zijn wij het hopelijk eens? Zelfs in de situatie als op de wiki gefotografeerd zie ik nog steeds geen bord C16 (maar OK, dat is een discussie die breder is dan dit changeset. Misschien begin ik een draadje op het forum).

Ik heb dus geen bezwaar tegen access=no, maar dan moet zeker foot=yes erbij. Komt op hetzelfde neer als vehicle=no, horse=no, denk ik.
smootheFiets (2020-10-13 14:20:22+00:00): Draadje op het forum heb ik aangemaakt: 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=70866
!bm (2020-10-10 13:32:09+00:00): Hallo Mackie Mapper,

#ReviewRequest+: statt Löschen eines leerstehenden Geschäftslokals u.a. POI ist es meist besser, disused:* zu setzen, s. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:disused: (beachte generell  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix ), um die Chronik zu erhalten: s.:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Erhalte_die_Chronik &
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history 

entsprechend geändert in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92275767

--besteGrüße!bm
Mackie Mapper (2020-10-16 00:13:43+00:00): Danke vielmals, werde ich beachten!
ToniE (2020-10-10 14:15:52+00:00): Yeah, this edit sucks!

Reverted, no advertising allowed, please.
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:11:52+00:00): Tip: Square buildings by selecting the outline then just type a "q"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92256850
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:12:08+00:00): Nice fix!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92256908
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:13:09+00:00): We don't have living streets in the US according the our wiki definition. My guess this should be a driveway tagged as highway=service + service=driveway
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92256925
fudsnottica (2020-12-27 19:41:31+00:00): This is the five55 apartment buildings now: https://www.five55santacruz.com/. I was going to update the name and provide an address here, but I'm confused by the way this is currently tagged. Should it be both a building and a commercial landuse? If so, how should it be named?
stevea (2020-12-27 20:13:51+00:00): Please do make those changes; thank you in advance.  I left the landuse=commercial tag here because of the "mixed use" I understood about the property as it was being developed.  But now, I think the landuse=* tag should be removed altogether (on the building).  I think the building should be tagged building=apartments, as that's what I understood the "Now Leasing" sign to offer.  If there are "mixed uses" (including commercial activity) taking place here, I don't know of them.  It is possible that the "parcel" polygon surrounding the building=apartments should be tagged landuse=residential, though this might "flip" to landuse=commercial if it is determined that some of the activity (ground floor units?) actually are commercial.  But again, I don't know of any; it seems like apartments (only).

Mixed-use landuse poses us a conundrum:  OSM forces us to choose one vs. the other.  Another example locally are "family farms" which are "zoned" with a tag SCCGIS calls "RA" which means "residential-agricultural."  (Both).  Which do we choose when it is "both"?  This property is kind of like that, so maybe we best tag the building as building=apartments, MAYBE we tag the parcel with landuse=commercial if there is commercial activity.

The name tag can be as a sign on the outside names it (and I haven't seen that in a while, if you know of a correct name, please do enter it into a name=* tag on the building).  Again, thanks for reaching out, this one WAS a bit confusing!
porfiriopaiz (2020-10-11 08:46:58+00:00): Hola Mike, te saluda Porfirio Páiz.

Te escribo para indicarte que con este cambio has alterado la lógica de los elementos que forman parte de las relaciones de transporte público de varias rutas de Managua.

También me gustaría saber en base a qué criterio has realizados estas modificaciones, me gustaría invitarte a que te suscribas a la lista de correo de OpenStreetMap Nicaragua en la que podrías compartir y consultar con los demás miembros de la comunidad sobre las fuentes que estás usando como referencia para hacer dichos cambios, de manera que logremos mantener consistencia y calidad en los datos.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ni

Saludos.
532910 (2021-01-08 19:23:16+00:00): Тут нет никаких спидкамов, не надо рисовать этот бред.
GeoidDude (2021-01-12 00:02:42+00:00): Здравствуйте, спасибо за сообщение. Tri_Hugger сейчас не работает в нашей команде, поэтому я отвечу от его имени. Я не совсем понимаю, что вы имеете в виду. Вы имеете в виду ограничения поворота который Tri_Hugger добавил?
532910 (2021-01-12 00:45:14+00:00): Я промахнулся адресатом, извиняюсь.

Пользователь RusFox рисует несуществующие камеры скорости.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76802942
Wulfmorn (2020-10-10 09:48:32+00:00): Kan man gå på den då? Vägen ska bara tas bort om den inte finns kvar. Om fordon inte har tillträde så ska den göras om till gång- eller cykelväg.
Amiga6 (2020-10-11 07:48:32+00:00): Ok, lagt dit vägen som gång och cyckelväg.
MapPiper (2020-10-09 23:06:17+00:00): Edit: source should be Maxar Standard Imagery; OpenStreetCam
b-holdet (2021-02-11 09:40:21+00:00): Vej https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/857378526 har du sat som en lang tunnel i layer=-1


Den skal vel deles op i de enkelte bygninger og stykkerne gennem bygninger skal markeres som tunnel=building_passage i stedet for blot tunnel=yes
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:18:09+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92259582
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:18:59+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92259597
gscscnd (2020-10-10 11:53:31+00:00): To jest tylko zmiana highway=footway (przy public_transport=platform) na highway=platform, czy coś jeszcze?
olo81 (2020-10-10 12:23:22+00:00): Tylko ta zamiana
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:19:24+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92259700
aceman444 (2020-10-25 10:51:25+00:00): Sorry, but how can there be turn:lanes=merge_to_left, if there is no other lane to merge to on a single lane road?
jurajik82 (2020-10-26 23:44:22+00:00): I'm not sure which road with lanes tag you don't like. Before or after motorway link joins Viedenska cesta? Before, there are 2 lanes merging together so that they can merge with Viedenska cesta as one lane (again 1 lane coming from Viedenska cesta a 1 merging lane from motorway link). As car driver I would like to have in OSM mapped information whether there is merging lane or whether driver has to (almost) stop and give way. I see similar design in joining Bratska to motorway.
aceman444 (2020-10-29 14:16:31+00:00): I meant https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204483245/history . There is only a single lane motorway_link so there is nothing to merge to. It joins with 1 lane from Viedenska cesta, which is 1 lane too. Only after the join, the right of the lanes merges to the left one at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204483250. The merging lane was already mapped there. So I don't think anything needed to be added to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204483245/. Bratska joining to motorway D2 seems OK, there is no place as what you have done here.
jurajik82 (2020-10-29 21:38:03+00:00): It seems to me OK now. Maybe I had different understanding of lanes tag, somewhat similar to destination. Thank you for keeping OSM consistent.
Tomas Straupis (2020-10-10 05:11:02+00:00): I do not think this qualifies as a "mast". It is just ~3meters high. Mast is an object placed on topographic maps as it can aid in orientation, this one is way too small.
L___I (2020-10-10 21:39:20+00:00): Hi Tomas,

thanks for the interests of my changes. I and our wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=mast - "A man_made=mast is usually a small, narrow mast of only a few meters height. [...]") thinks that also small (with ~3meters) units are okay for man_made=mast. 

I double checked the height of the mast object at the linked mapillary picture. Next to the hgv truck the height of the mast looks like at least rather 4m than 3m. I added it, see here cs: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92287507  

Maybe the rendering logic at topographic maps could be adjusted, so that they only show masts which have big value of height=* 

L___I
Tomas Straupis (2020-10-11 05:24:34+00:00): Chrm. That would be the only "mast" in Lithuania with a special treatment :-) And if we look deeper, if 4m is enough to qualify for a mast, should all weather stations (as this one) be tagged as masts? The same goes for traffic lights which in cities could have height of 4m, the same with say trolleybus wire support pole or even simple light poles. I do not think such schema would be supportable. What do you think?
L___I (2020-10-13 10:48:51+00:00): I'm (and I think the wiki is) still okay with man_made=mast. Maybe add even more details by using mast:type=* or mast=*. If you still think it's too digressive you might change it to man_made=pole or add tags like support=pole, feel free :-)
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:19:39+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92260185
Tomas Straupis (2020-10-10 05:12:15+00:00): Please do not change place classification it is mapped according to official status.
L___I (2020-10-10 21:51:23+00:00): Thanks for checking. 

I changed the classification form 'village' to 'hamlet'.
For my and wiki's understanding hamlets have a dimension of 100-200 citizens. So far i know osm, the definitions are based on osm wiki and not bonded to official status.

But if you prefer that an settlement with a population of 16 people is a 'village' instead of 'hamlet' in this region i'm okay with it.

Thanks for fixing
Tomas Straupis (2020-10-11 05:11:32+00:00): Wiki is just a guidance. Classifying places based on population is not useful (in Lithuania) as it duplicates information which is already in population tag as well as it is not useful in cartography where population is just one of the criteria. Much more important things are: history, administrative status. For example Trakai is a small town even for Lithuania, but as a medeival capital it is of higher status/importance.
L___I (2020-10-13 11:31:10+00:00): Yes wiki is & should be guidance and also it describes the current mainly used tagging scheme. If there are (e.g. local) deviations it's fine, but it would be nice if these are also documented. I couldn't find a local tagging difference documentation, is there one?

I agree, if the population tag already exists the classification adds mainly no more additional info'. But in case renders are using place instead of population it could be helpful for showing different font sizes. (btw. to you know a renderer who prioritize 'population' over 'place' tags?)

For significant history and administrative data i would recommend to use different tags (not place - place describes the dimension of a settlement from small to big and not the importance).

You might look into wiki pages like Key:historic, boundary=administrative, Key:admin_level.

Further i could imagine tags like Key:start_date in general, or in particular for Trakai e.g. historic:capital.
L___I (2020-10-13 11:44:31+00:00): Offtopic: regarding town "Trakai"
If you search by nomination (osm.org - https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Trakai#map=14/54.9995/22.0494) It will currently displayed not in first place (17th far down).

If you want to bring it more up a bit, there is a current hack to add a label role place(=municipality) as a administrative addition for the corresponding relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1518456 

You might compare it with this example object, see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2416047
L___I (2020-10-13 13:33:18+00:00): PS: Seems this is a better example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/46402
the place=municipality is at the role:label node.
Tomas Straupis (2020-10-15 20:03:20+00:00): Lithuanian place official classification mapping to OSM is given here: https://lt.wikibooks.org/wiki/Atviro_%C5%BEem%C4%97lapio_vadovas/Redagavimas/Ta%C5%A1kai

Regarding suggestions on how Trakai could be mapped, like historic:capital etc. I did not get the idea, what is a point of inventing new ways of mapping or mapping two objects in the dataset. That would be very exceptional and therefore practically unusable. There are purposes/resons of having such and such information in order to do this and that and this is the main guide on what to map and how.

Nominatim did show Trakai as the first result for search term "Trakai", another thing is we're not using nominatim (or OSM-Carto for the matter) but rather our own search/map.
L___I (2020-10-16 13:34:10+00:00): Thanks a lot for the link (translated: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Flt.wikibooks.org%2Fwiki%2FAtviro_%C5%BEem%C4%97lapio_vadovas%2FRedagavimas%2FTa%C5%A1kai)

I will read later.

nominatim: Yes i are right, see https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/search.html?q=Trakai but I wondering why the result is so far down by using osm.org (https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Trakai) 

"[...] but rather our own search/map." 
Oh interesting, you want to tell which one?
L___I (2020-10-16 13:34:51+00:00): correction: "nominatim: Yes _you_ are right,..."
Tomas Straupis (2020-10-16 14:50:00+00:00): openmap.lt (lower right corner has a switcher to a number of different purpose maps)
mdelatorre (2020-10-19 04:00:57+00:00): Hello. Thank you for adding information from México to OSM. I reviewed your changeset and determined that can be IMPROVED. You added a diagonal highway crossing several buildings. Please fix it. Thanks.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92260253
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:20:21+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92260268
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:20:12+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92260313
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:20:05+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92260445
datendelphin (2020-12-22 15:54:14+00:00): was partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/92270236
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:21:02+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92260577
JoMapperLate2020 (2020-10-13 05:03:47+00:00): Thank you!
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:21:27+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92260619
Minh Nguyen (2020-10-14 07:11:20+00:00): Changeset 92454266 reverts this changeset along with changesets 92260890 and 92260895. I’ve once again restored the payment:i-pass=* key to distinguish the similarly named iPASS and I-PASS payment methods. See also this discussion: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:payment#Ambiguous_subkeys
user_5359 (2020-10-14 15:14:46+00:00): Sorry for the wrong correction, that was my mistake. I set a mutual reference to the similar spelling in the Wiki at the corresponding keys.
IpswichMapper (2020-10-27 16:06:06+00:00): Hello,

It seems that you have converted bus 65 to ptv2. In my opinion, you should only do this after adding all the stops.

Stop info can be found on this website:

https://bustimes.org

(All open data). As well as this you see timetable information, so you can add "duration", "opening_hours", "interval" and "interval_conditional" tags. This makes the bus routes complete.
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:22:03+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92261507
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:22:28+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92261532
ZeLonewolf (2020-10-11 04:07:00+00:00): Came looking for this, and OpenStreetMap did not disappoint.
Colin Smale (2020-10-10 12:23:26+00:00): Hi Mikhail,
I will ask you once again... Can you please stop changing the admin boundaries? They are based on an authoritative source and are legally correct, even if they don't look right to you. And would you please use English for your changesets when you are working in the UK? Thanks!
Привет Михаил,
Спрошу еще раз ... Не могли бы вы прекратить менять границы админки? Они основаны на авторитетном источнике и юридически верны, даже если вам они не кажутся подходящими. И не могли бы вы использовать английский для своих наборов изменений, когда вы работаете в Великобритании? Спасибо!
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:22:39+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92262113
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:39:10+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks very good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92262114
Glassman (2020-10-11 00:29:34+00:00): Are these paths or footways? Paths are more like trails while footways are more like sidewalks - although not necessarily paved. Blame the naming on British English. OSM was founded in England so we use British English for our tags.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/92262578
NateMaps (2020-10-15 02:54:00+00:00): Apologies for the late reply. These are dirt trails spanning the park. The smaller end is a separate, paved walkway.
Glassman (2020-10-15 12:37:09+00:00): If you haven't do so already, I'd change the dirt section to highway=path.
Cebderby (2020-10-10 15:23:10+00:00): As bus=yes is not a documented or recommended tag for highway=bus_stop + public_transport=platform, it may be considered more of a 'minor error' to add this tag than for it to be absent.