piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2020-04-24 20:26:02+00:00): review.. natural=beach op de nodebeter verwijderen. dat is al als vlak getagd. 
Graag uiterst voorzichtig met de kaart. Het water is anders zo verdwenen als je dit zonder ervaring gaat .aanpassen.
De track die je hebt verwijderd bestaan niet neem ik aan?
MVG,
Eggie
SimoneJ (2020-04-24 20:43:53+00:00): Hi Eggie, Kennelijk leer ik minder snel dan ik dacht, want ik weet niet zeker wat je bedoelt met 'review.. natural=beach op de nodebeter verwijderen. dat is al als vlak getagd.'
Wel is het zo dat ik wel een schets met wijzigingen voor de rechterkant van dit eiland heb. Ik laat dat even zitten, maar moet ik dan wel iets op verzinnen!
Je welkomstmail ga ik nog even uitgebreid lezen!!
gr Simone
eggie (2020-04-24 21:40:54+00:00): Hier zie je wat je hebt gedaan. 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=84079509
Op een knoop.. (node) heb je natural=beach getagd.. Maar dat strand staat er al op als vlak. 
er is dus al een strand gemapt. 
Dat geeft anders een foutmelding.
gr eggie
SimoneJ (2020-04-25 12:59:48+00:00): Ah! ik wilde inderdaad alleen een marker met juiste naam toevoegen ;-)
alester (2020-04-24 23:57:15+00:00): The name of this house is "Shirlea". That wasn't any kind of personalization. Also, "335" isn't a name, it's the address. I've reverted this back to the way it was.
Carto'Cité (2020-05-10 18:34:11+00:00): Je corrige ce way : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/588557125
cycleway=lane était bon :) ; là tu complexifies et utilise des tags normalement faits pour décrire les DSC comme évoqué dans un autre changeset.
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
Carto'Cité (2020-05-10 18:14:55+00:00): Salut nitrix,
J'ai vu que tu avais ajouté cycleway:right:oneway=yes sur cette bande cyclable : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245056743
Ce n'est pas faux mais ça fait doublon avec la valeur par défaut qui est qu'un bande cyclable est à sens unique. C'est généralement cycleway:right:oneway=no qui est utilisé pour les cas (très) particuliers de bande cyclables bidirectionnelles :)
À bientôt.
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
Carto'Cité (2020-05-10 18:22:19+00:00): Re-bonjour,
Sur ce way : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/555776445
Tu as décris cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:oneway=-1 ce qui correspondrait à un double sens cyclable (DSC) si la route était à sens unique. Je ne crois pas que nous soyons dans une situation de DSC justement et donc juste cycleway:left=lane suffit ; la précisions cycleway:left:oneway=-1 apporte une confusion. Je modifie dans ce sens et n'hésite pas si tu as des questions ou des remarques.
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
Carto'Cité (2020-05-10 18:30:12+00:00): Je t'embête encore une fois :)
Quand tu ajoutes une piste cyclable en séparé comme celle-ci : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/794933837 il faut regarder si elle n'était pas décrite sur le way de la route comme cétait le cas avec ce way : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/555776456 et dans l'idéal remplacer le cycleway=track par cycleway=separate pour bien préciser que la piste est bien décrite par un way indépendant.
N'hésite pas si tu as des questions.
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
nitrix (2020-05-11 20:03:46+00:00): Bonsoir,

c'est quoi Carto'Cité ?
Carto'Cité (2020-05-12 06:21:14+00:00): Salut nitrix,
Carto’Cité est une agence de géomatique spécialisée dans OpenStreetMap composée de contributeurs passionnés :) 
Si tu clique sur le lien du compte tu trouveras ces infos ;) (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Carto'Cit%C3%A9)
Comme on est 2 potentiels contributeurs (précisé sur le profile), on signe pour que nos interlocuteurs sachent avec qui ils dialoguent. C'est une pratique discutable mais nous sommes toujours parfaitement transparent et ouvert donc ça fonctionne.
N'hésite pas si tu as d'autres questions.
Je suis aussi cycliste et VTTiste d'ailleurs si tu as besoin d'aide ; j'utilise énormément OSM et OsmAnd pour le vélotaf, la randonnées, le bikepacking, etc. :)
Charles de Carto’Cité
Frans S (2020-05-31 11:59:49+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here
Just a short remark
Please tag buildings only as building=yes
Thanks
Jrachi (2020-04-29 14:23:41+00:00): A cosa serve una relazione che contiene solo una serie di place?
Una relazione deve avere un tipo.
Leggi la pagina: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Relazione
Ze0zohk1 (2021-10-02 08:06:36+00:00): Hallo EinEngener,

in diesem Changeset hast du einige Parkplätze, die schon als Knoten gemappt waren, als Fläche gezeichnet:
- www.osm.org/way/795790234
- www.osm.org/way/795790233
- www.osm.org/way/795790230
- www.osm.org/way/795790228

das ist prinzipiell ja okay, aber dann sollter der alte Knoten in die Fläche mit aufgenommen werden (damit die History erhalten bleibt) und nur die Tags am Knoten gelöscht werden. Der Knoten selber sollte nicht gelöscht werden, aber auch nicht inkl. Tags beibehalten werden. Letzteres ist aber hier geschehen. Daher: Kannst du das korrigieren? Also das Doppeltagging entfernen (am besten, in dem der Knoten Teil der Fläche wird und die Tags gelöscht werden).

Bei Rückfragen kannst du dich gerne melden.

Viele Grüße
Ze0zohk1
Frans S (2020-06-01 14:22:06+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here
Please review this document and follow the guidelines at next mappings .
Thanks and keep mapping
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SxLkCU3IRecsFV2kYx61VImJLLtQiKw3/view
https://crowd2map.slack.com/files/U4AK0AARJ/F013HACFQ3X/crowd2map_get_started_rev_5c.pdf
mapman44 (2020-04-24 20:41:48+00:00): Thanks for your contributions to OSM. Just a tip...sometimes it seems that a building or street or other object is out of position when it's actually the background satellite imagery that needs to be lined up to the existing objects. So it's a good idea to check that first. Here's a Wiki article that explains what to do: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_Imagery
AdVerburg (2020-04-25 14:37:05+00:00): Is de Rijsoordselaan éénriching weg geworden?
De busroutes gaan in beide richtingen, terwijl er geen uitzondering op het éénrichingverkeer is voor bussen??
En *als* dat zo is dat éénrichingverkeer vam toepassingis, dan is het gebruikelijk om voor (brom)fietsen een uitzondering te maken, daar zie ik niets van.
tunnlr (2020-04-30 15:31:45+00:00): Dit was een foutje ontstaan bij het aanpassen en splitsen van de rijbanen van/naar de rotonde. Is inmiddels aangepast!
AdVerburg (2020-04-30 15:40:13+00:00): Dank voor de info, en correctie

.Groet Ad
Frans S (2020-04-28 15:37:46+00:00): Hello, You asked for a review.
First of all, Thank you for mapping here.
I wander if you have read the guidance for road tagging in Tanzania, especial page 14 and around, what to map and what not. 
You mapped quite a lot of highways, but , sorry for your time, quite a lot of unnecessary road/paths. (just ending in the fields)
Residential roads are situated in dense urban areas. Here you will find unclassified highways and paths.
I adjust ( remove a lot of) paths and retag highways
When a highway crosses another highway/path, be sure to connect the nodes to get a network. Crossing without a node is an error.
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84080211
!bm (2020-04-25 15:56:53+00:00): Hallo Georgos20! Lernfrage: Wieso an die einzelnen sector-ways nochmal landuse=cemetery, wenn diese bereits an umgebenden way (hier: w148326854) getagged ist? --besteGrüße!bm
Georgos20 (2020-04-25 20:50:06+00:00): Hallo !bm, diese Anmerkung kam auch von anderer Seite, mit dem Verweis auf https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cemetery_sector. Leider wird die Beschriftung in der Karte nur angezeigt, wenn landuse=cemetery mit angegeben wird. Finde ich (auch) nicht gut, entspricht aber dem Umsetzungsvorgehen auf vielen anderen Friedhöfen, z.B. Washington, aber auch in Berlin. Viele Grüße Georgos20
kartonage (2020-05-02 15:20:32+00:00): Schlechte Beispiele kann man sich immer heraussuchen. Vor allem sind die Sektoren im Arlington National Cemetery teilweise über 5 Jahre alt und haben kein weiteres Sektortagging. Da wurde sowas einfach nur nicht bedacht.

Es ist in jedem Fall auch kein Grund systematisch doppelte Daten zu erzeugen, nur damit auf irgendeiner Karte ein Name erscheint. Entsprechend dazu auch: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Taggen_für_den_Renderer
!bm (2020-05-03 21:30:19+00:00): Vielen Dank für die Antworten! Mangels Zeit konnte ich mich nicht weiter damit befassen, verstehe zwar die Enttäuschung über nicht angezeigte Daten, sehe es aber im Wesentlichen wie kartonage – sollte man also nicht doppelt taggen. --besteGrüße!bm
eggie (2020-04-24 21:04:41+00:00): Dag Eusie,
Lijkt me oke. Tip: Evt cuisine=  erbij
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cuisine
MVG,
Eggie
mapman44 (2020-04-24 21:42:44+00:00): Thanks for all the buildings you've added. They look very good! Very neat work!
mapman44 (2020-04-24 21:37:11+00:00): Thanks for your interest in OSM. Some of your edits in this changeset are good; others need some work. Why don't you start by reading these Wiki pages: https://www.openstreetmap.org/help
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84080922
mapman44 (2020-04-24 21:21:39+00:00): Fords usually don't occur with an irrigation canal crosses a paved road. Do you want to fix it?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84080976
mapman44 (2020-04-24 21:24:00+00:00): Maybe a culvert would be more appropriate. Here's the Wiki page that explains it: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84080976
BCNorwich (2020-04-25 07:19:39+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
There's guidance for mapping a park here :-https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark
Generally the overall outline is drawn and tagged as leisure=park. Individual areas within the park can be drawn tagged surface=grass,  or whatever.

Regards Bernard.
Simon T UK (2020-04-25 07:31:49+00:00): Thank you, this makes sense. I’ll build up a changeset with an outlines area as you suggested.
eggie (2020-04-24 21:06:35+00:00): Dag mreiling.. Wellicht de naam met een hoofdletter en/of aan elkaar?
MVG,
eggie
mapman44 (2020-04-24 21:08:03+00:00): Please find some other place to play. Your "artwork" is being deleted.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84081400
mapman44 (2020-04-24 21:11:29+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism#Vandalism_and_other_types_of_bad_editing
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84081516
eteb3 (2020-11-18 19:27:55+00:00): Hi, I'm wondering about the two letter slots PE1 134 and PE1 1340. Are these the double cast-iron post box aligned with the western edge of the Guildhall? They're shown within a bldg atm but I'm not aware of any within a bldg around there. Can I safely move the postbox to this node here? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8138784272
DanGlover (2020-11-19 14:07:23+00:00): Hi - yes this is the double box - please correct the position or add the reference details to your new node and delete the original. It seems I was somewhat wide of the mark with this one!
joeybab3 (2020-11-12 21:34:56+00:00): Is the running track better tagged as a footpath than a running track? it would seem that leisure=track would be more appropriate for this way but if that is not correct, I'll leave it how you have it, I know sometimes the iD presets are disputed as to whether or not its the best way to tag.
stevea (2020-11-12 22:05:29+00:00): Hi Joey, if you'd like to tag this as a running track (it is one, after all), I encourage you to do so.  I haven't researched what exactly-proper tags might be for a rubberized running track, but if you think you know better tagging, by all means, please apply them.  Thanks for asking.
joeybab3 (2020-11-12 23:03:09+00:00): I wasn't sure, I had tagged it as a running path but you changed it to a footpath so I assumed there might be a reason for that. I will look more into it, I'd assume it would be running track but the documentation on that specific feature is rather poor.
stevea (2020-11-12 23:09:53+00:00): Looking at the history of way/34519577 (Jogging Path), it's presently v24, though what has essentially changed from v23 is from highway=path to highway=footway.  It's possible my tagging didn't like the "dashed" rendering in v23 of highway=track, so what if you change it to highway=track (again, this is for "agricultural paths in the forest" that are double-wide, though it IS a "track" in the US English vernacular sense).  If you added tracktype=grade1 (mostly "paved," which it is with rubberized surfacing,) that is still "more correct" and it would be a solid (rather than dashed) brown line.  I realize we're getting close to tagging for the renderer, but I do strive for accurate tagging and I think highway=track and tracktype=grade1 are both accurate and will "render pleasingly."

This could rear its ugly head yet again, someday, so be prepared for a changeset comment about this coming into YOUR inbox in a not-too-distant-future, too!
eggie (2020-04-24 21:33:27+00:00): Simone,
De winkel zit eigenlijk op nr 4b en de basisschool op nummer 6 
Je kunt gewoon met die adresnode schuiven en dan de info naar het juiste adres kopieren of bijtaggen. 
Je edits
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=84081776
Gr eggie
eggie (2020-04-24 21:55:23+00:00): Info even naar juiste adresnodes verplaatst.
mapman44 (2020-04-24 21:49:41+00:00): Nice work with the houses! Very neat!
theChaparral (2020-04-25 02:42:43+00:00): Thanks
Saritha K S (2020-04-25 06:10:02+00:00): I think its not a stream. its shadow.. only draw if it is sure.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84081974
Vinber (2020-04-25 08:53:22+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenue dans OpenStreetMap,

un petit mot ici pour faciliter votre arrivée : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:WikiProject_France/bienvenue

Cas particulier / Si vous êtes un commerçant et que vous souhaitez voir apparaître votre commerce dans OpenStreetMap et donc également sur Ça reste ouvert, Qwant Maps, ... 1 lien ressource : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:shop 

Dans tous les cas, n'hésitez pas à répondre, poser des questions, ...

Vincent

PS : 2 liens souvent utiles : 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bonnes_pratiques#N.27utilisez_pas_de_tag_name_pour_d.C3.A9crire_des_choses.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bonnes_pratiques#Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications
Vinber (2020-04-25 08:54:50+00:00): Si vous le souhaitez vous pouvez différencier les 2, hors confinement et pendant le confinement.
N'hésitez pas à les signaler ici
cordialement
Chris Fleming (2020-04-26 23:00:19+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap, thanks for signing up and helping to improve the map.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Cheers
Chris
Frans S (2020-05-08 14:36:30+00:00): Hi. You asked for a review.
Your first mapping ?
you mapped just 1 point and called a playground in the middle of a savanna. A bit weird isn't it
Please read the mapping guidelines how and what to map
best regards
Mariusz Dykierek (2022-04-06 06:52:34+00:00): Budynki były ponumerowane. Zrobił to 10 lat temu  Paul Evening  Changeset #11883380.
Wydaje mi się, że trzeba usunąć zduplikowane dane. Źle to wygląda na mapie.
mueschel (2020-04-26 09:26:16+00:00): Hi,
these 4 objects still have some foreign tags, could you remove them?
Btw, are these tiny areas inside the city really preservation areas and not just parks?

Jan
stevea (2020-04-26 09:43:49+00:00): I'm not really sure why these bother you so much, they are documented at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_County,_California#Additional_landuse_tags , where it says if these are really objectionable (I don't see them as such, perhaps you do), they can be removed.  However, they are kept for the specific purpose that they distinctly aid in both tracking (with OBJECTID) and the Shape* keys (as a sort of checksum of whether the data change from upload_version to upload_version).  This reasoning is documented, too.

So, I'd rather not delete them, but if you have truly good reason to do so, and you find them especially objectionable, delete them.  However, offering a good reason why you might do this presented with their wiki documentation for existing seems like a good idea to offer first, though.

Some of these come from CPAD data (which have documented these apparently extraneous, but kept for good reason, for months), some come from SCCGIS data, which have been documented for a shorter time.

Is there some compelling reason (which might overtake the documented reasons for keeping them) which you find so objectionable that they should be removed?
stevea (2020-04-26 09:45:28+00:00): They are not parks, in the OSM sense of leisure=park.  They are "preserved areas" in the sense of leisure=nature_reserve.
mueschel (2020-04-26 09:53:11+00:00): The tags you used here are not mentioned on this wiki page. They are also not used in any other changeset.

You might want to specify what kind of protected area this is, see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area
stevea (2020-04-26 10:03:09+00:00): The tags are mentioned at the very end of this section of the wiki page, just before the beginning of the next section (Parks).

Tagging leisure=nature_reserve is an older, still valid tag for a "less specified" area (as are these) compared to the newer tagging of boundary=protected_area (and protect_class).  I am very, very familiar with this and am involved in discussions on tagging mail list as well as wiki writing / collaboration as in https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Public_lands .

This is all horrifically complex and I'm not going to worry about the very subtle distinctions between a leisure=nature_reserve vs. a boundary=protected_area where I have to spend a lot of time determining which numeric value of protect_class is correct, as leisure=nature_reserve is "close enough."

At least in the USA, the subtle distinctions between a leisure=park (it is, in fact, a "park district" which administers these lands) and leisure=nature_reserve AND a boundary=protected_area do often blur.  Part of that is American English's dialect use of the word "park" which is distinct from what OSM (and its predominantly British English leanings) means by leisure=park.  A year ago, I got hung out to dry by being banned from wiki writing for a short time trying to iron out some of these semantic differences.

If you think you know better tagging on areas in my backyard, then please tag them better than I do and I'll say I appreciate you contacting me first before you do.  However, I am aware of many of the semantic, political, tagging, consensus, local and OSM-global issues going on here.  Maybe you are, too, in which case, I'm glad to have you as a member of the ongoing conversation.
mueschel (2020-04-26 10:18:15+00:00): I can't find any mention of 'ShapeSTLength' or 'ShapeSTArea' on this wiki page.
stevea (2020-04-26 10:20:35+00:00): It is Kleene-star (regular expression syntax) mention as the last two sentences:  "Sometimes tags in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS (some refer to these as "foreign keys") are left in the data when they do not logically map well to OSM tags. Where objectionable, these tags can be deleted from OSM. However, for the reasons indicated above, please leave intact (older) tags of Shape* and OBJECTID."

I hope that helps.

The other place where something similar is done is documented at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/California/Using_CPAD_data .
mueschel (2020-04-26 10:27:58+00:00): So, there are now three tags for exactly the same thing? SHAPESTAre and SHAPE_STAr are mentioned on your page, but now you started tagging ShapeSTArea.
Why do we need all of these tags? Which software is able to handle them all?
stevea (2020-04-26 10:30:45+00:00): No software is able to handle them all.  Humans use them to determine versions of data which are updated over time.  Polygons such as these have been imported and/or curated into OSM for over a decade over many, many versions.  The *ID and Shape* tags allow humans to much-more-easily determine whether data in the OSM database have changed relative to a newly-published version of data by the government GIS agency who publishes them.

Makes sense?
mueschel (2020-04-26 14:03:11+00:00): No. Adding some reference tag to identify objects makes sense, but adding a large number of tags with various different spellings for the same content doesn't. 
My understanding of many past import discussions is that the vast majority of mappers is against adding these raw data fields from foreign shape files.
stevea (2020-04-26 19:22:46+00:00): OK, so we're good with OBJECTID and sccgis:objectid, yes?  Let's also allow (because it is true) that over a decade-plus of integrating our public data into OSM (updates happen every few weeks to few months) thousands of polygons from that source being compared to their data in OSM can be tedious to compare.  The Shape*, SHAPE* and cpad:acres tags make this a numeric comparison rather than a very tedious visual one.  (Visually comparing a slightly modified polygon with its original by algorithmically matching theirs geometries is MUCH more computationally difficult than simply comparing a numerical value used as a checksum.

True, these keys have changed over the years, OSM learns to cope with these, especially by wiki-documenting.

I have heard and agree with similar (local, regional, national in the USA...) import discussions which express concerns about "foreign keys" making their way into OSM.  This really has been minimized in the cases of SCCGIS and CPAD data curation in OSM.  However, given the "good data science" arguments of "id" (which we seem to overtly agree with) and "checksum" (which I ask you to consider as many other have, and have come to agreement with), I hope we can agree here as well.
stevea (2020-04-26 23:24:28+00:00): I (also) welcome further Discussion at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:California/Using_CPAD_data#.22Foreign.22_tags

Two small classes of plastic keys, which slightly buzz and glow with slightly different nomenclature over the years of many versions, used efficiently to identify and checksum data relatively human and computationally efficiently, well, it works.
stevea (2020-04-28 12:16:41+00:00): Hm, was it something I said?
Frans S (2020-05-08 14:39:26+00:00): Hi . Back again.
Again a weird mapping. Are you serious about mapping ? 
I remove this mapping
Nakaner-repair (2020-06-04 07:11:20+00:00): Hi,

this changeset has been reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86170177 because Bayernatlas is not a data source we are allowed to use. The Landesamt für Digitalisierung, Breitband und Vermessung did not grant us a license to use it. Therefore, your usage of that source is a copyright violation.

Best regards

Michael
HenryFjord (2020-04-27 16:05:45+00:00): Correction: The Imagery used was Digital Globe from 2020-02-21
Константин Гам (2020-06-05 11:21:49+00:00): Пытаясь исправить вы внесли полнейший бред и сломали навигацию...

просто highwat=track было бы в разы лучше чем все теги мира без разбора
PLima785 (2020-04-28 10:12:28+00:00): Bom dia, obrigado pelas tuas edições.
Vou só te pedir que uses as imagens de satélite da maxar que são mais recentes do que as da Bing.
Qualquer dúvida tens aqui este canal no telegram https://t.me/OSMPortugal
Cumprimentos,
Pedro Lima
Frans S (2020-05-08 14:55:30+00:00): Hi. I review several mappings from you
Here you added adress details on 1 building , Do you have local knowledge ?
If not, please stay away from that kind of mappings
best regards
chachafish (2020-04-24 23:43:10+00:00): Howdy. I notice here you deleted a large number of paths that had been created a couple of years ago by another user. Was there a compelling reason for deleting them and replacing them with your own? Thanks :)