piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Christophe Mathieu (2018-01-13 10:36:12+00:00): Hello!
            I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
            Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/53485904
Christophe Mathieu (2018-01-13 10:36:21+00:00): Hello!
            I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
            Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/53485929
Christophe Mathieu (2018-01-13 10:36:29+00:00): Hello!
            I reviewed your changeset on OSMCha and it looks great!
            Thank you very much for your contributions to OpenStreetMap!
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/53485969
4004 (2017-11-03 22:12:40+00:00): здравствуйте и спасибо за обновление карты,
даже как то упустили, что номер там с литерой
iRewer (2017-11-04 21:31:01+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Belarus:Общественный_транспорт_Беларуси#.D0.A0.D0.B5.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.BC.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B4.D0.B0.D1.86.D0.B8.D0.B8_.D0.BF.D0.BE_.D1.82.D0.B5.D0.B3.D0.B8.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8E

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Belarus:Общественный_транспорт_Беларуси#.D0.A8.D0.B0.D0.B1.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.BD_.D1.82.D1.8D.D0.B3.D0.B8.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F_.D0.BE.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.BE.D0.BA_.D0.9C.D0.B8.D0.BD.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.B0_.D0.B4.D0.BB.D1.8F_JOSM
cserpell (2017-11-07 12:09:41+00:00): Hola Gustavo,

Vi que cambiaste las etiquetas de nivel de las calles de Quilpué. Hace algunos meses tuve una discusión con el usuario MappingStuff sobre los cambios que hizo de estos mismos niveles, ya que no quedó claro de dónde se basó para hacerlo, y no eran muy representativos. Fue muy insistente en sus cambios y finalmente quedaron como él los dejó. Me gustaría saber en qué te basaste para los cambios de nivel en tu caso, ya que me parecen mejores. Mi propuesta es que deberían basarse en la clasificación que tiene la municipalidad de vialidad estructurante. Esas vías son las que permiten transporte público y mayor cantidad de comercio. Luego, las colectoras, y finalmente el resto.

Saludos !!
mapper999 (2017-11-03 20:56:59+00:00): Hallo olvagor,
bitte nochmal die Öffnungszeiten prüfen, das PH sollte ganz an den Schluss. Außer nachmittags ist auch an Feiertagen geöffnet.
olvagor (2017-11-03 21:26:14+00:00): Auch hier, der erste Versuch mit Vespucci. Ich habs mal händisch korrigiert, auch wenn ich die Reihenfolge ehrlich gesagt nicht für wichtig halte.
mapper999 (2017-11-03 20:57:05+00:00): geöffnet bis 29 Uhr?
olvagor (2017-11-03 21:23:12+00:00): Hab mal Vespucci ausprobiert und offenbar kommt der nicht mit Öffnungszeiten wie 20:00-05:00 Uhr zurecht. Super... hab sicher noch mehr kaputtgemacht. Ich schau mal, ob ich noch was find.
SafwatHalaby (2017-11-04 10:58:38+00:00): Your mapping has many problems. Mapping roads and buildings that don't exist, intersections, etc. Please stop mapping the West Bank and contact me if you need further explanation.
SafwatHalaby (2017-11-04 10:59:15+00:00): I have repeatedly contacted you with no reply. I will be deleting all of your bad edits.
SimonPoole (2017-11-04 12:13:58+00:00): Reverted in #53502574
eggie (2017-11-04 21:04:00+00:00): oke...
Arend Jan K (2017-11-03 20:18:22+00:00): Omschrijving is niet parkeerplaats Broekdijk: voetpad toegevoegd. Stuw toegevoegd.
SimonPoole (2017-11-04 12:12:32+00:00): Reverted in #53502549
BCNorwich (2017-11-04 07:49:20+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
I looked at the Bing imagery for the location Silver Court and it looks like there is a building where you've drawn the way. Does the way go through the building or is the way misplaced? 
I can see cars parked at the west so perhaps the way is through a tunnel or covered passage. May I suggest the tag tunnel=yes for any part of the way that is a passage through a building.
Regards Bernard
123mapper (2017-11-04 09:50:13+00:00): Thanks! I've had a go at putting the archway in as a tunnel as you suggest.
BCNorwich (2017-11-04 10:20:19+00:00): Really good job, well done! 
Regards Bernard
eggie (2017-11-04 21:02:47+00:00): lijkt me oke zo..
majid1359 (2017-11-03 20:19:58+00:00): تغییرات
eggie (2017-11-03 20:39:34+00:00): :)
SimonPoole (2017-11-04 12:11:09+00:00): Reverted in #53502515
eggie (2017-11-04 21:05:34+00:00): oke...
eggie (2017-11-03 21:36:59+00:00): Alleen dan nog tracktype eraf halen van de serviceroad, want het is geen highway=track
:)
eggie (2017-11-04 07:47:44+00:00): inrit aangepast. Kijk even welke tags er nu op staan.
eggie (2017-11-04 08:04:42+00:00): 'k Heb gelijk dat bos dat door die beek heen schijnt gerepareerd. Had niet met je eigen edit van doen. Water hoort eigenlijk niet op de landuse te liggen.
SimonPoole (2017-11-04 12:09:47+00:00): Reverted in #53502478
bdustan (2017-11-04 02:02:55+00:00): Looks like you noticed that the intersection of Hwy 57 and Conc Rd 3 doesn't match the Bing imagery. I can assure you that the intersection was changed around the beginning of 2017 and the map was updated based on on-the-ground info. Current Google imagery can be seen at http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#17/43.9314/-78.7111&num=4&mt0=mapnik&mt1=google-map&mt2=google-satellite&mt3=mapnik . I should have set the source tag to "survey" to indicate that I had been there.
Bootprint (2017-11-04 14:54:49+00:00): reverted
corfede (2017-11-05 16:14:33+00:00): Ciao Cesare, aggiungendo un nuovo nodo per indicare il pronto soccorso con amenity=hospital appare come se vi fossero due ospedali in quella zona. Mi pare che se ne sia parlato in lista più volte, ma non ricordo purtroppo quale sia la soluzione migliore per individuare il punto del pronto soccorso, lasciando il tag amenity=hospital solo per l'ospedale.
cesaregerbino (2017-11-05 20:20:00+00:00): Ciao Federico, forse ti riferisci a questo thread http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Come-mappare-i-Pronto-Soccorso-td5892708.html#a5892800 ..... Sto lavorando ad un servizio che offrirà accesso ai dati dei numero di pazienti in attesa / visita nei pronto soccorsi quando questi sono offerti come open data o comunque tramite pagine web. Mi serve la localizzazione del pronto soccorso (nota del pronto soccorso NON dell'ospedale ... ), perchè vorrei anche offrire il percorso per arrivarci. Questo è il motivo per cui ho aggiunto un punto perchè il simbolo che riporta il nome "Vito Fazzi" è in realtà relativo all'area ospedaliera che è <> da quello dove c'è l'ingresso del PS. Poi nel caso specifico si hanno due simboli vicini, sebbene con label diverse, ma questo è un "accidente" sulla rappresentazione che, concordo con te può non essere bellissimo ..... Si può risolvere "spostando il nodo "Vito Fazzi" al centro dell'area a cui si riferisce? Possibile? Grazie
corfede (2017-11-12 21:58:41+00:00): Grazie Cesare per avermi ricordato la discussione in lista che non ero riuscito a ritrovare (infatti risaliva addirittura a marzo scorso). Capisco benissimo la tua necessità di individuare il punto esatto del pronto soccorso, purtroppo però creare un nodo amenity=hospital dentro un poligono amenity=hospital secondo me non è un buon metodo, al limite mi pareva migliore la proposta di Martin per amenity=emergency_department, anche se non è documentato. Per rispondere alla tua domanda il nodo "Vito Fazzi" non si può spostare perchè è posizionato in automatico dal motore di rendering, visto che ho mappato l'ospedale con un'area.
totera (2017-11-29 19:26:59+00:00): Cesare, capisco anch'io la tua necessità, ma così facendo stai duplicando tutti gli ospedali con pronto soccorso d'Italia! "emergency=yes" è chiaramente definito come una proprietà dell'ospedale, se lo usi per il pronto soccorso non puoi discriminare tra un ospedale con pronto soccorso taggato correttamente e il pronto soccorso aggiunto da te.
cesaregerbino (2017-11-29 19:38:07+00:00): Ciao! Vedrò a breve di utilizzare, come suggerito,  amenity=emergency_department, anche se non è documentato. Così non dovrei generare pasticci e raggiungere al tempo stesso quello che mi serve
Nakaner (2017-11-04 09:54:37+00:00): Hallo tomzis,

in diesem Änderungssatz hast du einen Way hochgeladen, der keine gescheiten Tags hat. Was soll denn bitte area=yes an https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/538091813 bedeuten? Könntest du bitte noch vernünftige Tags ergänzen, damit Datennutzer (deren Software) auch wissen, was das sein soll?

Viele Grüße

Michael
trigpoint (2017-11-04 14:01:04+00:00): Since when has Worthen been in Wales?
Nuno Salgueiro (2017-11-04 14:40:31+00:00): My friend moved from Welshpool to Worthen recently. For some reason, I still think he's living in Wales. :)
trigpoint (2017-11-04 14:58:31+00:00): No problem. Worthen is in Shropshire, England but not far from Wales.
SimonPoole (2017-11-04 12:08:26+00:00): Reverted in #53502445
SimonPoole (2017-11-04 11:45:38+00:00): This and previous changesets have broken multiple really existing municipality borders in the canton Vaud. 

Not only that, but the data you added is historic and doesn't belong in OSM in the first place, not to mention that your source hasn't been verified as legit.

Barring any good arguments to the contrary I'll start reverting the changesets in a couple of hours.
SimonPoole (2017-11-04 12:06:50+00:00): Reverted in #53502412
SimonPoole (2017-11-04 12:16:54+00:00): Further note due to the large number of changes and the use of an external datasource this was further clearly an undiscussed import.
Jonathan Masur (2017-11-04 12:47:43+00:00): Bonjour Simon,

Tout d'abord je vous prie de me bien vouloir m'adresser la parole en français, car c'est la seule langue officielle de la région. L'anglais n'est pas une langue Suisse.

Ensuite, je vous signalerais que j'ai fait un effort considérable pour harmoniser la représentation des frontières des anciennes communes vaudoises sur OSM. Avant les changements que j'ai fait hier et la semaine passée, il n'y avait pas de tagging cohérent : Certaines fois la frontière avait été hélas supprimée, certaines fois elle était taguée admin_level=9 et certaines fois avec admin_level=10, certaines fois "boundary=old_administrative", et dans tout les cas, sans la date de la fusion des communes.

Suite à mes modifications, toutes les communes vaudoises fusionnées ont été taguées de manière consistante. De plus j'ai suivi les instructions de Wambacher concernant les anciennes frontières où il est plus exact d'utiliser "admin_level=8" et "boundary=historic" que "admin_level=10", qui représente d'habitude les frontières de quartier au sein des grandes villes.

Si cette façon de faire ne vous convient pas, il n'y a aucun problème je suis ouvert à la discussion. Il est possible que en faisant ce travail j'y ai par hasard commis une erreur, en effet seuls ceux qui ne font rien ne font jamais d'erreur. Dans ce cas il faut me dire laquelle et je la corrige très volontiers.

Mon avis personnel est que anciennes communes de notre canton sont une partie intégrale du patrimoine de la région, et souvent celles-ci ont été fusionnées de force par les élites politiques en promettant moins d'impôts aux habitants (promesses qui ne sont évidemment pas toujours tenues). Les anciennes communes sont toujours d'actualité dans le coeur des gens.

Cependant, je trouve votre attitude extrêmement arrogante : "Vous ne faites que de la merde et j'annule toutes vos modifications", sans plus de détails. Si vous voulez me dégoûter de contribuer à OSM pour toujours, vous ne pourrez pas mieux vous y prendre.

Avec mes salutations les meilleures,
Jonathan
datendelphin (2017-11-04 21:13:30+00:00): What an arrogance of you, Jonathan. English may very well be used as a means of communication on OpenStreetMap.
stedewa (2017-11-07 09:41:15+00:00): Bonjour Jonathan et Simon,

J'espère que vous allez enterrer la hache de guerre... l'important et contribuer positivement à OSM ;-)

Je n'ai pas très bien compris où était l'urgence de Simon à supprimer cette modification...sont impatience, il a proposé quelques heures avant de supprimer, supprimer une heure après... et je pense que les sources de Jonathan sont sa connaissance du terrain et la géo-politique locale.

A noter également une discussion sur la mailing-list à ce sujet :
http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/2017-November/004407.html

Meilleures salutations
SimonPoole (2017-11-07 12:57:43+00:00): @stedewa after renewed inspection of the changes, I came to the following conclusions:

- its an import, not a manual edit, with other words it is easy to redo (if after discussion parts of it are determined OK)
- it is using an undocumented and likely non-legit source (not mentioning that it was completely undiscussed)
- it broke multiple boundaries in non-obvious ways 

A fast, complete revert is the simplest, easiest and cleanest way to undo something, waiting longer would have increased the danger of somebody trying to fix things piecemeal making it far more difficult to rectify things.
SimonPoole (2017-11-07 13:03:32+00:00): @stedewa the source is stated as "Anciennes cartes de la confédération" Jonathan needs to show that whatever maps he was using is actually legit.
stedewa (2017-11-07 13:38:49+00:00): La source des données n'est pas ? : http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/8820938
Jonathan Masur (2017-11-07 20:34:12+00:00): Bonjour,
En ce qui me concerne je regrette de m'être si vite emporté, ce n'était pas très malin de ma part. Je préfère discuter sur la mailing-liste en public qu'ici, donc là discussion continue là-bas.
Salutations.
aharvey (2019-07-14 00:59:10+00:00): eg. The Langham needs tourism=hotel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/152423825/history
drewda (2017-11-03 21:44:20+00:00): Oh no. This was supposed to be sent to my local instance of the OSM API.

I will work to revert these changes using JOSM.
drewda (2017-11-03 21:54:16+00:00): All of these changes have now been reverted in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53490625 (which I created following the instructions at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Reverter#Usage )

Apologies to all for this error on my part.
Basstoelpel (2018-12-16 11:52:20+00:00): Hi segg,

bist Du sicher, daß das Heveser Feld noch zu Seggebruch gehört?


https://osm-suspects.gbconsite.de/map#15/52.3011/9.0796/osm-wrongcity-minimalmissing-wrongstreet-wronghousenumber-outsideplz-dupes

Gruß,

Baßtölpel
segg (2018-12-16 19:01:08+00:00): Danke! Habe den Fehler korrigiert.
(Das kommt, wenn man bei "kopieren und einfügen" von Objekteigenschaften nicht auf die Gemeindegrenzen achtet.)

Gruß
segg
SimonPoole (2017-11-04 12:05:14+00:00): Reverted in #53502380
4004 (2017-11-03 22:20:19+00:00): радует, что вы сверяетесь с кадастром, но там тоже бывают ошибки
Аndrey (2017-11-05 07:50:28+00:00): Возможно пригодится:

http://grodno.gismap.by/ArcGIS/rest/services/public/Land_Grodno_public/MapServer/tile/{z}/{y}/{x}

http://grodno.gismap.by/arcgis/rest/services/public/Uchastki_Grodno_public/MapServer/tile/{z}/{y}/{x}

http://grodno.gismap.by/arcgis/rest/services/public/ATE_Grodno_public/MapServer/tile/{z}/{y}/{x}
hsimpson (2018-01-13 14:51:53+00:00): Hallo jotpe,
ich bitte dich darum, diesen Änderungssatz zu reverten!
Der Grund dafür ist, dass dieser Fuß- und Radweg keinerlei Bauliche Trennung zur angrenzenden Hauptstraße aufweißt und daher eine seperate Eintragung schlicht falsch ist. Aus diesem Grund habe ich die Seperaten Wege an der Severinsbrücke vor gar nicht allzulanger Zeit entfernt, was mit einem nicht unerheblichen Aufwand verbunden war. Dass du dies jetzt zurück drehst, ohne auch nur zu gucken, ob da sich vieleicht wer was bei gedacht hat, ist daher mindestens grenzwertig.
-
Nebenbei ist deine Behauptung, dass ein seperates Mapping dem Routing zugute kommen wurde vollkommen falsch. Neben der Tatsache, dass durch diese Mappingart immer de Gefahr besteht, dass Direktverbindungen nicht routbar sind, da die Wege getrennt sind, versprechen seperat gemappte Wege ein erhöhtes Maß an Sicherheit und Abgeschiedenheit vom motorisierten Verkehr, was Router wie BRouter auch genau so berücksichtigen. Diese Annahme ist natürlich falsch, wenn der Weg eigentlich gar nicht seperat geführt wird.
-
Beim eigentlichen Wegführungsprozess macht es hingegen schlicht keinen Unterschied, ob der Weg getrennt eingetragen ist oder nicht.
-
Daher nochmal die Bitte: Bitte mach diese Änderungen rückgängig!
-
Viele Grüße,
haimpson
aharvey (2019-07-14 01:07:51+00:00): more tourism=hotel tags deleted here, I've fixed these up
woodpeck_repair (2017-11-14 22:42:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 53785191 where the changeset comment is: revert undiscussed mechanical edits - mostly automated name:sr adding, is_in adding, and changes to wiki link - by user 'Serbian OSM Lint bot
SafwatHalaby (2017-11-04 10:53:30+00:00): بني شمعون منشة الإقليمي 
is a bad translation.
SafwatHalaby (2017-11-04 10:54:22+00:00): I suggest
مجلس اقليمي بني شمعون
سامبا (2017-11-04 18:17:37+00:00): Thank you, I will change it.
SimonPoole (2017-11-04 12:03:54+00:00): Reverted in #53502344
SafwatHalaby (2017-11-04 11:11:43+00:00): I fail to understand how you're seeing buildings there...
JJIglesias (2017-11-04 07:12:08+00:00): Saludos Enrique. Gracias por editar en #OSM_BO; ya que agregaste varias escuelas, yo agregue las poblaciones donde estan esas escuelas. Un detalle es que ahora a todas las escuelas se las denota como UE (por unidad educativa) seguidos del nombre; de acuerdo a la nueva Ley de Educacion, Slds JJ
SafwatHalaby (2017-11-04 11:09:03+00:00): Those are valid roads. Thanks. But most of your edits seem random. Please use this as an example of a good edit and avoid adding random features.
SafwatHalaby (2017-11-04 11:09:23+00:00): Also note these seem to be track roads and not unclassified
aharvey (2017-11-03 23:05:15+00:00): How is this signposted on the ground? If it says left turn only then it's better to map it as only_left_turn rather than with the no_straight_on. only_left_turn implies you can't go straight or or turn right already.
evo_evz (2017-11-03 23:49:11+00:00): Yes it's signposted left turn only but when I added left turn only and removed no straight on you were still able to go straight on according to the diagram. At the moment it has both. I didn't seem to be able to get it to not be able to go straight on just with a left turn only.
aharvey (2017-11-04 00:04:31+00:00): "according to the diagram" which diagram?

If the sign just says left turn only, then it should be mapped in OSM with an only_left_turn relation (and not with a no_straight_on as that is implied already by the only_left_turn).
evo_evz (2017-11-04 00:39:19+00:00): Is there anyway I can send you a screenshot? Might make things easier. Thanks for your time I really appreciate it. I would like to get more involved and I want to do things properly.
nevw (2017-11-04 00:58:00+00:00): Just paste the url here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=-34.04077%2C151.12012%3B-34.03938%2C151.12055#map=17/-34.03909/151.11937

Note that the router data does not get updated as often as the standard layer so may not reflect changes you make for some time, and depends also on which router you use.
aharvey (2017-11-04 01:17:50+00:00): You could use something like https://imgbb.com/ ?
evo_evz (2017-11-04 04:02:56+00:00): Check out these two screenshots of the same screen. You can see the diagram I was talking about in one. Atm I'm working on the south end of Willarong Rd traveling north. You can see that you can still travel straight through even though there's a Left Turn Only role assigned on the other screenshot. The only way I can stop the straight through is to assign the No Straight On role also.

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ajj783zGADEkgZkNe8KbxJN2tORA9A
aharvey (2017-11-04 04:26:07+00:00): That diagram isn't showing what turn restrictions are in affect, it's showing you what ways you can select for the current turn restriction you are adding. So even with just the only_left_turn it will prevent routing straight through.
evo_evz (2017-11-04 05:00:08+00:00): Ok then I understand, and I can test the routing by using ORSM and it's routing correctly with only the Left Only Turn. Do I need the U turn restrictions with Left Turn Only? Thanks so much.

In regards to the other side of Willarong Rd heading south. Yes of course I shouldn't delete the small section of Willarong Rd between the Kingsways as that would stop the right hand turn into Willarong when heading north on Kingsway. You need to think of other turns also not just the one you're trying to fix and like you say there is no physical barrier either. Just learning.
aharvey (2017-11-04 06:58:13+00:00): Glad to help. Be sure to sign up to the talk-au mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au. I'm organising an OSM event for later this month (will post details on the mailing list) and it would be a good opportunity to learn more about mapping and OSM, see what others are up to, and share what you're interested in.

> Ok then I understand, and I can test the routing by using ORSM and it's routing correctly with only the Left Only Turn.

Maybe, maybe not. Since the routing only get's updated with new data ever several hours I think we can't know for sure if it's using the new turn restrictions, or if it's just avoid going that way since http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/151022092 was oneway=yes before. (ps. it's fine to just delete oneway=yes, as the default is oneway=no. It doesn't hurt to leave oneway=no in there but it would be confusing if every road had it. But in this case where you wan't to signal to other mappers that it's not oneway then that's okay)

I don't know what the point of the no-u-turn there is, if it's not signposted then it's best to leave it to routing engines to apply sensible defaults. You would expect all routing engines to never tell you to take a u-turn in the way your no-u-turn relation is set up already. We want to avoid adding no u turn relations to practically every intersection as it just makes it harder to edit without any benefit as defaults can be applied anyway.
evo_evz (2017-11-05 08:29:43+00:00): Thanks, I subscribed to the mailing list but I'm away until 5th Dec. Thanks for the info on OSRM, oneway and U turns.

Both ends of Willarong Rd have only Left Turn Only assigned to it (and the U turn which I will remove) but the OSRM routes traffic straight through even after leaving one day to update. So I am not sure what I am doing wrong?
aharvey (2017-11-05 11:42:31+00:00): The left_turn_only relation is missing some members for from and to and the role for the via node, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7707084. The relation needs 3 members, from via and to, but it only has one member the node and no role.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Members

https://ibb.co/jvdJ0w

I find JOSM much easier to work with when doing relations/turn restrictions, as when you select the relation in ID you can't add members to it, you have to select the ways then add it to the relation. Maybe give JOSM a go?

For this one I've fixed it up in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53525466, but it looks like you'll need to add one for when you head southbound towards the Kingsway too.