piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
stevea (2020-01-07 22:02:53+00:00): Thank you for taking the time to arbitrate, DWG.  The previous (and only) time both of us were blocked, I was admonished for not specifically saying who was responsible for a poor edit (as you said "it was obvious from the comments who that was") yet here I am told that calling out a specific person is a bad idea, so I am a bit confused.

I did apologize to Adam in changeset/79261829 for my poor choice of word ("sloppy") as I meant it as "definition 1" (untidy) but I can see that is inflammatory as it also could have connoted "definition 2" (little care or attention).  I wished that Adam had paid a bit more attention to the alignment of existing polygons (and hope he does in future), is all.

DWG, btw, noting the acrimony by many about "foreign tags" in (especially CPAD, but also SCCGIS data), I have recently written wiki "Using CPAD data" to mitigate the propensity of such tags finding their way into OSM.  I agree with you that some of these tags do not belong in our data and have for some time said "where objectionable, these may be deleted."

I do give good reasons why (in that wiki) the original datum of OBJECTID (to denote "which polygon?") and the datum ACRES (going forward, cpad:acres) is useful as a sort of checksum against newer versions.  (The same checksum reasoning applies to SHAPE* tags from SCCGIS data, but I have yet to get to writing that as wiki; I intend to).

Please understand that my intentions here are to do my best to make a wonderful map with the best data (most of it from personal experience, not data from elsewhere) possible.  A great deal of that has been to clean up what other people have done, improving it greatly according to the feedback that I have received.  Part of those efforts have left some "cruft" in the map and I hope it is clear (from the Using CPAD data wiki I wrote) that I am very much committed to cleaning these up — I have likened this to there being some eraser crumbs on the page and I have just taken a large breath to blow/sweep them away.  Our map data DO get better and better, sometimes this takes a fair bit of time (and effort!) and there are some crunchy, unpleasant, messy details as we do.  I honestly try to minimize these, as everybody loves sausage, though few like to watch it being made.
Adamant1 (2020-01-07 22:39:39+00:00): Woodpeck, with all due respect where's your comment in changeset 79131363 about how SteveA shouldn't write needless messages to me in discussions I'm involved in? I'm not doing this one sided thing where I should piss off to "my side" of the state, never to map where he's mapped again. While he continues to do whatever he wants where he wants to do it. But yet I'm the one that should restrain myself from making two pixel adjustments to landuse polygons and go somewhere else. 

As I've said before anyway, his area is my area. I have family that lives in the Santa Cruz area and I visit there sometimes. Making it so I can't add something like a phone number to a restaurant the next time down there because SteveA added the building isn't a fair or doable solution. 

As far as this changeset goes, I actually put a lot of consideration into avoiding SteveA's area (Santa Cruz) before I did it. I thought Watsonville would have been fare enough away to not get encroach on "his territory." Plenty of other people have mapped stuff around there to and once your in Id Editor its impossible to tell who did what. I added some houses in Santa Cruz, but that was it and SteveA made clear he doesn't have an issue with it. But don't treat it like I was just running editing things indiscriminately. 

Btw, as I'm sure you know he did the same thing to both me and bdiscoe in 79261829. So, IMO the specifics of his behavior and justification for it still need to be worked out if I where to go somewhere else or not. In his defense he replied civilly there and is at least attempting to explain himself. Even if I disagree with his reasoning. Editing things is not the issue. Arguing is. Although I agree one has a good chance of leading to the next, but that could be said for anyone. 

Id like to see is just compromise on this and SteveA follow the rules of reverts better, instead of us being banished from certain areas or blocked. Perhaps we could at least be given a chance. If not fine though. Your right there's other areas, but anyone can edit anywhere and this is an area I go to, lived in, and still have family. So I'm never going to completely not edit there. I'm doing my best to respect SteveA's "turf" in the meantime though. Hopefully SteveA would have respect for that.
Adamant1 (2020-01-08 22:35:32+00:00): Woodpeck Et al. I opened https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2501 to helpfully address the "messages are to long" issue. 

Its natural to run with the amount of rope we are given. I don't put that on SteveA, freebeer, me, or other users who sometimes write long messages. Limiting the character amount is better then repeatedly calling out particular users for doing what the platform allows them to. As it doesn't really solve the problem. It should especially be limited if long messages are always going to be considered arguing as they have been by Woodpeck and others.
freebeer (2020-01-09 04:38:07+00:00): A. Dama, to go off-topic but to throw in two pence, a character limit on changeset comments seems pointless, as i've not seen the abuse in comments (that can't be anonymous), unlike the osm notes we worked in common in the past where complete junk was posted.

i've hit the recent notes character limit fairly often when going into detail, which can be annoying to me, while a relief to others.

a character limit here won't do anything about going off-topic, deviation, repetition, or ... um ... ah ... ehhh ... hesitation.  these are the issues i need to work on, and i can just as well write a short off-topic or unclear message or loaded with insults and attacks without reaching the limit.

in these two verbal volleys i've come across this morning, i've not felt what y'all have written is too long as such, but rather that the other flaws come to the fore.  i believe i understand what stevea has been doing although it's expressed a bit unclearly, and without looking at the actual data changes, i do know that Potlatch 1 is very prone to slightly moving a way when selected (probably nodes too) and throws up a warning; this was likely made worse for me by remote-X11 editing.  i don't intend it and sometimes may not catch it.

anyway, i'm not back to the recovery point where i can analyse and explain what's happened, if these were wholesale polygon drag-and-drops like i'm interpreting the description.  so i probably shouldn't say anything.

anyway a character count lim
Adamant1 (2020-01-09 05:07:06+00:00): Freebeer, opening the issue was more to push the issue to wider audience so if it gets shot down there hopefully it won't come up here again. Although, I mostly agree shorter won't solve most the problems that come up in changeset comments. 

As far as the polygon thing, since your better then SteveA at explaining things in a way I jive with perhaps you could explain what the problem with a slightly moved way is in the first place? around here for instance there are a lot of overlapping/crisscrossing areas of different none matching types. Which not only wrong (It's not residential/forest/meadow/grass/etc/etc where they over cross each other), but also make it impossible to map the "stuff" underneath. My original intent was to map buildings in this area and I could have really cared less about the landuse. But its impossible not to "adjust" it slightly in some places where they cross each other to map buildings or fences or whatever. Which is the only reason I screwed with it in the first place (at least that I remember). So what's the alternative to moving the landuse polygons? Just not mapping those things? 

My main problem with SteveA is that he is 100% landuse "obsessed" in this area and it comes at the cost of everything else being mapped. A while back he deleted 300 houses I mapped because he didn't like how their offset was compared to landuse's offset. Which is a lot of why nothing else outside of landuse is really mapped around here. That doesn't even speak to the questionable quality of a lot of it. So what's the solution then? Forget mapping buildings where it means moving or modifying the landuse a tiny bit because "hey landuse looks goods, I win awards, and live here so piss off"?
Kovoschiz (2020-01-07 04:27:31+00:00): Won't it be better to create separate new ways to reflect construction and temporary diversion?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/79263191
EarlEBird (2020-01-07 23:30:58+00:00): Hi Kovoschiz, thanks for reaching out. The imagery I referenced does not provide clear evidence that the previous road layout will be retained, and did not want to make any assumptions. I understood the “construction=landuse” polygons present here to represent this project, which suggest that this area is still subject to change. I reviewed the OSM wikis regarding construction (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dconstruction) and am not aware that this is an established best practice.

Let me know if you have any questions,
EarlEBird
Kovoschiz (2020-01-08 08:26:58+00:00): My worry was only from a effort-saving perspective. Don't want you, me, or anyone else having to spend more editing on this afterwards. Let me check this some time later.
EarlEBird (2020-01-08 17:23:20+00:00): Agreed, thanks!
Frans S (2020-04-24 10:59:35+00:00): Hello. Sorry for the delay in responding on your request for a review.
a few issues 
Please re(read) this document how to map and tag highways
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SxLkCU3IRecsFV2kYx61VImJLLtQiKw3/view
You overrate highways
The proposal of RapiD  how to tag a highway is not always right. In rural areas you will find no residential highways, That tag has to be used in urban areas. 
When you take a close look to the highways and measure the width, they are often not more than a path.
Other roads , thoroughgoing , can be tagged as unclassified, add also tag surface=ground
Very short highways, leading to dwellings, hamlets etc which are in clear view from the highway they comes from don't need to be mapped as well, despite RapiD suggest.
Best regards
gentoid (2020-01-08 18:01:40+00:00): Witam,

z ciekawostki pytam. Po co usuwać te wszystkie tagi?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/79263666
pio2_122 (2020-01-08 20:11:36+00:00): Witam,
Odnosząc się do treści Pana komentarza, należy zaznaczyć, że w tym zestawie zmian żadne wartościowe "tagi" nie zostały usunięte, albowiem zostały tylko użyte w nowych punktach typu amenity. Warto nadmienić, iż dotychczasowe obrysy budynków były niepoprawne i ponadto były podzielone dla każdego "amenity" osobno. W tym zastawie zmian został naniesiony obrys budynku z oficjalnego rejestru EGiB. Warto podkreślić również, że przy tej okazji nastąpiła weryfikacja, uzupełnienie i poprawianie tagów, zarówno obrysu budynku, jak i punktów amenity.

W związku z tym, wnoszę o usunięcie oznaczenia "REVIEWED_BAD" w serwisie OSMCha odnośnie tego zestawu zmian, gdyż jest ono niezgodne z prawdą i narusza moje dobre imię.
gentoid (2020-01-10 19:31:01+00:00): Sprawdziłem. Wsystko sie zgadza
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/79263666
maraf24 (2020-01-06 20:26:48+00:00): A na jakiej podstawie są te poprawki?
Te węzły w ogóle mają numery na tablicach? Kiedy je dodano?
ALu68 (2020-01-07 21:33:48+00:00): Appartments
ACarlotti (2020-01-07 00:06:43+00:00): I don't think "disused" has the right meaning here. It's not disused; just temporarily closed for maintenance. The construction tag might be better, but I think the right way to do it (as referenced in the third paragraph on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction) is to use conditional restrictions.
E.g., retaining "amenity=fuel" and adding "amenity:conditional=no @ (2020 Jan 2-2020 Feb 12).
Borbus (2020-01-08 19:26:48+00:00): The wiki says disused means "Not currently available for use, but could be reinstated easily". That was the closest lifecycle prefix I could find (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix)

I agree it doesn't seem quite right, but I wasn't aware of the conditional restrictions.
ma-rt-in (2020-01-07 11:49:04+00:00): Hallo,
statt die Flurnamen an das landuse zu packen arbeite dpch besser mit place=locality
vg
mueschel (2020-01-07 18:11:23+00:00): Hi,
you added several benches with a 'backseat' tag - I guess you wanted to write 'backrest'. Could you check that?

Thanks!
NicoDeRooij (2020-01-07 23:16:01+00:00): Thanks for the correction, stupid of me. I will fix it tomorrow.
unodecrespos (2020-01-07 12:58:26+00:00): Hola, he visto que has cambiado las comarcas de la provincia de Ávila que había creado. En Castilla y León no hay comarcas oficiales y hay varios criterios de comarcalización, por lo que de momento me había limitado a poner las comarcas tradicionales hasta que sean oficiales (soy de la zona). Con tu permiso voy a revertir algunos de tus cambios.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2020-01-06 23:00:14+00:00): voce deuplicou informações aqui, estou deletando isto
trial (2022-11-06 14:49:56+00:00): Là c'est bien toi^^ : quand tu as ajouté les relations d'arrêts https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10551300, tu aurais pu/dû virer les pseudo-noms des plateformes  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/162816182/history car ce sont les arrêts qui sont nommés. C'est le rendu https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79265131#map=19/48.38430/-4.49922 qui m'a fait tiquer.
eggie (2020-01-06 21:30:29+00:00): Hi Ursus.. I added amenity=pharmacy again..
Why deleting that tag?

The pharmacy and the Rabobank are sharing the same address?
Is the bank still present?
Greetz,
Eggie
ursus kirk (2020-01-06 21:37:02+00:00): Yes bank and pharmacy now share the same building and even have the same address. Rabo has sold/rented out half of their building.
The deletion must have been an error. Thanks for fixing it.
eggie (2020-01-06 21:31:55+00:00): Here you find the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpharmacy
eggie (2020-01-06 21:36:15+00:00): Hi... Your highway=steps is a duplicated way on top of the footway.
So you has to devide the footway in three and change the short part into an highway=steps
You will look again?

Eggie
ursus kirk (2020-01-06 21:43:50+00:00): Later, perhaps tomorrow
eggie (2020-01-08 16:14:41+00:00): duplicated way removed
Luley (2020-01-06 21:59:13+00:00): Falls das hier jemand liest: Ich bin was OSM angeht noch ein ziemlicher Anfänger. Kann sich vielleicht jemand nochmal anschauen, ob ich hier alles richtig gemacht habe?
(Ich wollte eigentlich nach dem Bearbeiten ein Häkchen setzen, dass meine Änderung nochmal reviewed wird, aber hab das am Ende leider vergessen.)
skyper (2020-01-07 12:43:59+00:00): Hallo Luley

Sieht gut aus. Nur bei operator=* bin ich mir unsicher. Eventuell nur den Namen der Person verwenden. Auch kannst Du noch operator:type=* setzten. Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:operator:type

Grüße skyper
pitscheplatsch (2020-01-07 19:07:42+00:00): Hi HazeG4, welcome to OSM.

May we know the source of your map edits? Thanks.

More information about your changeset: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=79266485

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
southglos (2020-01-07 00:19:30+00:00): I know this has already been reverted, but I can confirm there are "share space" signs on these roads:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.71812422578387&lng=-1.9686819892394851&z=17&pKey=3yDfZPhOaMDe1IlMVC1n7A&focus=photo

I'm conflicted on this one.  It's not a "home zone", which would be the usual living_street, but it does sort of fit the description in the wiki.  I am concerned what having living_street on here would do to routing, though, as this is the main west→east route through the town.

One to debate elsewhere, perhaps?
SomeoneElse (2020-01-07 00:58:52+00:00): > One to debate elsewhere, perhaps?
Agreed.  Personally, I'd suggest that "shared space" is a different concept to a living street (I'm familiar with both from the Netherlands).  I'd suggest asking on the talk-gb list about it - and maybe asking in the Netherlands forum to see how they tag them?
Best Regards,
Andy
mueschel (2020-01-09 09:49:41+00:00): Hi,
I found the new tag 'oneway:piste' on some ways - the established tag here is 'piste:oneway'. I just fixed that.

Jan
houtari (2020-01-10 04:32:21+00:00): Thanks, my bad

Markku
PT-53 (2020-01-12 08:47:22+00:00): Hallo Christoph21x,
Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz diesen Straßenknoten
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4588920747/history
um 95 m verschoben und damit in die Straße ein Zickzack eingefügt.
Siehe:
http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=79267027

Ich habe Deine Änderung vollständig zurückgesetzt.
Grüße
tanonin (2020-08-16 13:06:23+00:00): Salut l'ami tu est sûr de la position de la fleuriste de oye et pallet?
user_1566574 (2020-08-16 14:39:01+00:00): Salut grand !
Ah oui, effectivement je me suis gentiment planté. 👌

Je vais corriger, merci beaucoup ! :)
SomeoneElse (2020-01-06 23:05:47+00:00): Thanks for this - following a couple of requests to the DWG I've now reverted the offending changesets in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79268097 and, since the "please discuss" message in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3375 didn't work, blocked for a couple of days in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3376 .
Best Regards,
Andy
Rainero (2020-02-12 22:07:37+00:00): Hallo Fritz04,

dieser und einige andere Änderungssätze von dir sind mit "Quelle: Bayernatlas" versehen. 
Der Bayernatlas ist als Quelle für OSM nicht erlaubt, siehe https://geoportal.bayern.de/geoportalbayern/seiten/nutzungsbedingungen.html

Leider gibt es in Bayern keine offizielle Quelle, aus der Adressen übernommen werden dürfen. Es ist lediglich die Verwendung der Luftbilder in 80cm-Auflösung gestattet. Diese Losftbilder sind daher in den Editoren JOSM und iD als Hintergrundbilder verfügbar.
Für die Hausnummern bleibt nur die Straßen abzulaufen und die Nummern vor Ort zu erfassen. Das ist mühselig und daher fehlen in Bayern noch so viele Adressen.
Ich warte noch deine Antwort ab, aber diese Änderungssätze müssen leider zurückgesetzt werden.

Viele Grüße,
Rainer
flohoff (2020-01-07 12:30:58+00:00): Moin,
nur als kleine Nitpick - Ich würde bei großen Gebäude die Adresse nicht auf das Outline verschieben sondern als node lassen.

Damit kannst du steuern welcher exakte Punkt dann in der Navigation angesteuert wird.


Dazu haben wir in OWL mal diskutiert das es bei POIs also Shops etc sinn macht die Adresse doppelt zu haben.

Also einmal auf dem Gebäude outline - Die bleibt - Und einmal auf einem Node mit den POI informationen - Wenn dann das Geschäft/Cafe/Pub schließt kann man den Node löschen ohne das die Adresse verloren geht. 

Flo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/79267761
Polarbear-repair (2020-03-06 00:02:33+00:00): In this CS you have intentionally deleted 8 existing buildings. 
Restored/refined.
DWG Ticket#2020022910000011
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-01-06 22:59:22+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 79211202, 79213373, 79217259, 79245446, 79256074, 79260645, 79266553.
DressyPear4 (2020-01-14 21:28:35+00:00): Não adicione o que não existe, áreas de parque foram removidas.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/79268649
StephaneP (2020-01-07 09:39:01+00:00): Bonjour Wood587,

Tu pourrais me dire quelle est ta source pour indiquer que cette route est nommée "Boulevard périphérique" ?

Merci d'avance

Stf
ralley (2020-01-07 00:25:12+00:00): Is this path actually named "Walking" or is that a desciption being put in the name tag?  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/79268922
cr01 (2020-01-08 00:13:22+00:00): I just followed the example of most other tracks in the forest where 'name' is used to distinguish between walking, bike (MBT) and horse trails (and even 'paint markers')
If there's a better way to do so I'd love to know
cr01 (2020-01-08 00:38:35+00:00): (Ideally, according to the map key, tracks should show brown, bridleways (horse?) green, cycleways blue, footways red.   This doesn't always seem to happen, I can't find which tags influence this, so in some places 'name' seems to be the only way to ensure a track is correctly identified)
ralley (2020-01-08 00:45:06+00:00): Unforunately previous editors look to have set a bad example for naming the trails.  As per the referenced wiki page the name field is for the common "on the ground" name only.  Access retrictions should use tagging like foot=yes|designated|no,  bicycle=yes|designated|no, horse=yes|designated|no etc.  See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation for more info
cr01 (2020-01-08 10:54:50+00:00): Thanks for that, I'll try to apply it.   I think 'name' is legitimate for the Green (walking), Blue (walking), Brown (MTB) and Pink (Horse) trails as they are named as such on Council maps & marked by official coloured posts.
korolenok (2020-01-09 09:54:53+00:00): Весь ваш спам был вычищен. Пожалуйста, не делайте так в будущем, это все-таки не игрушка. От карт ОСМ зависят люди и правила написаны не просто так.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/79269146
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-01-06 23:46:09+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 34915225, 35138173, 38840998, 38841805, 38842599, 72784878, 72814389.
angys (2020-01-07 10:13:54+00:00): Hello, why you double the road? Did you see my message, thank you.
Glassman (2020-01-07 06:24:04+00:00): Happy New Years
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/79269540
skquinn (2020-01-07 00:30:38+00:00): 2048748 was actually *not* resolved in this changeset, but the one I submitted after it.
S-zation (2020-01-07 03:03:43+00:00): This isn't a fix. Those are alleyways. I've surveyed them. What is the source of your change?
S-zation (2020-01-07 02:59:16+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/401333544 is not a one way
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-01-07 01:10:17+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 67328268, 67791893, 67854090, 67870362, 67933291, 67978807, 68195143, 69099878, 69207391, 69219840, 69470721, 70499742, 70568396, 70862950, 71031143, 71120355, 71269801, 71576486, 71973607, 71989898, 72000691, 72159258, 72537137, 73319398, 73455298, 73941792, 73943807, 73985932, 74541335, 74775056, 75257094, 76877177, 76882665, 77151767.
eggie (2020-11-25 10:54:10+00:00): Hi OSMB
This feature will remove oneway:bicycle=no
Better not using Add whether there are cycleways.
I think it's a bug
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/2310
Gr eggie
Marcos_Itba_Kaart (2021-05-05 00:43:07+00:00): Olá,

a restrição de conversão 10551909 (Proibido retornar / no_u_turn) é uma restrição sinalizada? 

Restrições do tipo proibido retornar são desnecessárias, a menos que estejam sinalizadas em campo.

Restrições desnecessárias criam diversos problemas, como dificuldades de edição dos membros e renderização incorreta de nomes no mapa devido à microsegmentações, entre outros.

Para entender melhor, veja essa discussão sobre o tema:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2527

E os alertas logo no inicío da Wiki de restrições de conversão:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction
Marcos_Itba_Kaart (2021-05-05 00:46:01+00:00): Olá,

ver também a restrição 10551910
Marcos_Itba_Kaart (2021-05-05 00:47:13+00:00): Olá,

ver também a restrição 10551911