piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 18:59:27+00:00): City of Alice Springs property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:34:19+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:07:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
mavl (2022-05-20 15:58:24+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
tastrax (2022-04-02 06:23:13+00:00): Can you please advise on the source for this street name?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 18:59:32+00:00): City of Alice Springs property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:33:30+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:07:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 06:22:51+00:00): Can you please advise on the source for this street name?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 18:59:37+00:00): City of Alice Springs property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:39:10+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:37:15+00:00): What is the source you are using for these street names?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 19:01:34+00:00): Property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:41:16+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:11:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
mavl (2022-05-20 15:58:21+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:37:01+00:00): What is the source you are using for these street names?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 19:01:57+00:00): Property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:41:43+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:31:33+00:00): What is the source you are using for these street names?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 19:02:03+00:00): Property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:41:25+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:36:22+00:00): What is the source you are using for these street names?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 19:02:07+00:00): Property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:42:34+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:36:11+00:00): What is the source you are using for these street names?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 19:02:11+00:00): Property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:41:34+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:35:56+00:00): What is the source you are using for these street names?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 19:02:15+00:00): Property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:42:05+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:11:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
mavl (2022-05-20 15:58:18+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:35:39+00:00): What is the source you are using for these street names?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 19:02:20+00:00): Property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:41:54+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:35:24+00:00): What is the source you are using for these street names?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 19:02:23+00:00): Property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:42:20+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
mavl (2022-05-20 15:58:15+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
mavl (2022-05-20 15:58:12+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
mavl (2022-05-20 15:58:09+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
mavl (2022-05-20 15:58:05+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
mavl (2022-05-20 15:58:02+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:45:05+00:00): What is the source for all these street names and the population data?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 19:02:39+00:00): 2016 Census
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:50:31+00:00): ABS census data is copyright and we do not have the required permissions to use the data. We have received permission for a limited dataset for some geographic boundaries
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:43:37+00:00): What is the source of these street names?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 19:02:49+00:00): Property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:44:59+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
CorruptComputer (2022-04-21 22:09:29+00:00): Why did you change this island (relation/536480) into a building? 

Reverted this vandalism in changeset/120021884
MatthewSeale (2022-04-08 09:58:22+00:00): What is your source this is private / access prohibited to the general public? The available Mapilliary shots do not show locked gates, nor any signage stating that accesss is restricted to the public.   The path does appear to be a path of desire, so possibly informal=yes? rather than access=private

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=486689319144557
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.931828128766995&lng=145.18655389224&z=17&pKey=4236327473073676&focus=photo
tonyf1 (2022-04-08 12:14:16+00:00): Hi Matthew and Sebastian, Hansworth St south end I see no gate Oct 3 or Oct 23 2019. North end I see open gates with sign "No through Road" Oct 2 and Oct 23 2019. Nothing I see says private. I was near there today, pity I didn't check.
tonyf1 (2022-05-15 00:49:07+00:00): Hi Sebastian, please reply to Matthew
mavl (2022-05-20 15:57:59+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:47:02+00:00): What is your source for this data?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 19:03:08+00:00): Local knowledge
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:44:30+00:00): Are you a local from Gunbalanya? This is a difficult area to get access to and requires a permit (in most instances)
mavl (2022-05-20 15:57:56+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:50:18+00:00): Please advise a source for these names
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 19:03:14+00:00): Property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:42:41+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
ivanatora (2022-04-03 14:31:04+00:00): Ченджсети 119224138, 119224153, 119224169 са проблемни - всяко от тези общежития е маркирано като отделен университет. 
Може би ползвай или мултиполигон, или residential=university.
Разгледай https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=university
ivanatora (2022-04-05 05:24:09+00:00): Промяната е върната в 119326151
radiotrefoil (2022-04-02 06:35:27+00:00): Hi, why did you delete all these?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119224150
geozeisig (2022-04-02 14:13:20+00:00): I reverted the changeset and revised it again. Sorry
ivanatora (2022-04-03 14:30:50+00:00): Ченджсети 119224138, 119224153, 119224169 са проблемни - всяко от тези общежития е маркирано като отделен университет. 
Може би ползвай или мултиполигон, или residential=university.
Разгледай https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=university
ivanatora (2022-04-05 05:23:22+00:00): Промяната е върната в 119326137
ivanatora (2022-04-03 14:30:36+00:00): Ченджсети 119224138, 119224153, 119224169 са проблемни - всяко от тези общежития е маркирано като отделен университет. 
Може би ползвай или мултиполигон, или residential=university.
Разгледай https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=university
ivanatora (2022-04-05 05:22:33+00:00): Промяната е върната в 119326118
ivanbranco (2022-04-16 15:17:56+00:00): Hi NKA,

were was this import discussed? You didn't put the link in the changeset description.

Also, shouldn't you be using a dedicated account? ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines#Use_a_dedicated_user_account )

This shouldn't be a problem since you already have one (NKA_import), but I see you keep using this one.
NKA (2022-04-17 05:46:11+00:00): It is here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Central_place_name_register_import_(Norway)
tonyf1 (2022-04-07 11:55:36+00:00): Hi
Its very blurry but this pic seems to be saying shared pathway?
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.93175547063321&lng=145.19338706146164&z=17.66803903824338&pKey=480393156499715&focus=photo&x=0.2108589451818847&y=0.3628336350686921&zoom=1.3296853625171
tonyf1 (2022-04-07 12:19:33+00:00): also, also blurry
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.927544487665&lng=145.19451986254&z=17&pKey=809062173361823&focus=photo
tonyf1 (2022-04-08 12:39:40+00:00): Hi, my Mapillary photos have arrived. 

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.927614012747&lng=145.19442952908&z=16.33196096175662&pKey=150951417407767&focus=photo  

First shows shared path, its looking south even though it says north. End shared path signs imply that there is shared path leading up to them.
tonyf1 (2022-04-09 03:40:28+00:00): If I don't hear from you, I will revert this changeset
HighRouleur (2022-04-09 10:05:58+00:00): Mapillary data is acknowledged.
I rode past the Monash Freeway Onramp northbound up Gate Seven Drive, where there was no signage present. The Mapillary data you provided link to is much further north than I ventured, hence I believe  the way needs to be split so that part footway up to Gate Seven Drive and be retained as a shared path further north.
tonyf1 (2022-04-09 13:43:54+00:00): The photo sequence I supplied shows shared path signage to at least just south of Ellis Park Avenue, that's about 300m further south of what you are saying. I see no need to split the path.
HighRouleur (2022-04-10 10:23:13+00:00):  I double checked my gps data and realised got my cross streets incorrect. Agree that it is Ellis Park Avenue where the shared path starts in a northbound direction. I think the way needs to be split south of Ellis park drive as a foot way and north of it to be retained as a shared path.
tonyf1 (2022-04-10 11:05:45+00:00): Hi, what evidence do you have that it is a footway south of Elllis Park Ave, anything other than a lack of signage? That has three problems, (1) the last sign just south of Ellis Pk is an end shared path sign (to cross Ellis Pk Av) which implies a shared path was in force for at least some of that path south, (2) there may be bicycle signage further south (3) OSM consensus does not allow lack of signage as a sole reason for retagging.
tonyf1 (2022-04-10 12:38:41+00:00): Further to point (2) in previous comment, https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.93692468504&lng=145.19257639337&z=17&pKey=1146728119134333&x=0.3784046784323634&y=0.5438261010626115&zoom=1.5

a WATCH FOR BICYCLES sign provides some indication that a shared path or cycleway may cross the freeway on ramp
tonyf1 (2022-05-15 00:44:06+00:00): See Changeset #120996467
ZeLonewolf (2022-04-02 12:31:15+00:00): Hi, can you tell me what the source is for these street names?  I'm sure they're not visible on Bing Maps ;)
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 20:04:20+00:00): Clark County, NV Property records
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:07:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
Dimitar155 (2022-04-02 11:48:54+00:00): Здравей Reaktor,

Без да искаш ли си изтрил https://www.osm.org/way/25310039, https://www.osm.org/way/25317524, https://www.osm.org/way/25363930, https://www.osm.org/way/25365082 и https://www.osm..org/way/25365126? На сателитните снимки се виждат въпросните горски площи.
REAKTOR (2022-04-04 06:12:35+00:00): Здравей,
Тези горски площи са от много стар импорт на CLC, който отразява само един тип гори даже. Сам той не отразява целия горски масив в дадена околност и понеже завбъдеще има разбирателство, че трябва да вкараме по-подробен и необвързващ източник аз ги трия където ги видя.
Dimitar155 (2022-04-04 10:58:42+00:00): Горските площи са от bgtopomaps, което май не е CLC?
jakecopp (2022-04-02 09:53:37+00:00): You beat me by 4 hours! :D
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
user_5359 (2022-04-09 18:16:05+00:00): Hallo! Was soll der in dem Kommentar erwähnte Tag bedeuten?
osmalpe (2022-04-10 18:38:07+00:00): Hallo! Die Salzlacken des Seewinkels so weit wie möglich vollständig zu erfassen. Grundlage ist neben der pdf Quelle das DHM. So ist es möglich, auch verlandete und verbuschte Salzlacken (wetland) einfach wiederzufinden, ebendso ehemalige Salzlacken die noch als solche zu verifizieren sind. Spricht etwas dagegen?
user_5359 (2022-04-10 18:57:36+00:00): Ja, zumal es kein englischer Begriff ist. Da würde ich eher noch zu einer Relation (z.B type=site) greifen.
osmalpe (2022-04-10 19:29:14+00:00): Dann bräuchte es 3 verschiedene Relationen für aktive Salzlacken, ehemalige Salzlacken und noch unklare Salzlacken? Wäre den tag umbenennen  in saltlake_in_Seewinkel eine Möglichkeit? Wenn ja, könnten alle Felder auf einmal umbenannt werden?
user_5359 (2022-04-11 13:34:48+00:00): Die Umbenennung kann ich übernehmen, aber mit den Schlüssel bin ich noch nicht ganz einverstanden. Ich habe mal im Wiki gesucht und den Schlüssel salt=yes/no (siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE%3AKey%3Asalt) gefunden.
osmalpe (2022-04-11 19:45:43+00:00): Das mit der Umbenennung wäre nett.
Die tags water=lake und salt=yes sind jedoch schon gesetzt, aber nicht überall. Somit finde ich wieder nicht die bereits erwähnten andere Lacken. Es gibt existierende Salzlacken, die meist in ihrem Ausmaß deutlich kleiner wasserführend sind, als ihr tatsächliches Lackenbecken. Dann gibt es historische Salzlacken, mit oder ohne Namen, deren Größe in den Jahrhunderten variierten und dann gibt es noch eine Gruppe, die nur im DHM zu finden sind, also noch als fraglich gelten.
Luzandro (2022-04-12 09:58:06+00:00): salt=yes ist auch in Kombination mit natural=wetland in Verwendung

Seewinkel gibt es schon als grobe Region, d.h. im Grunde ist die Information die gleiche, die man auch über "alle salt=yes im Seewinkel" bekommen könnte?

http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=area%5Bname%3D%22Seewinkel%22%5D-%3E.a%3B%0Anwr%5Bsalt%3Dyes%5D(area.a)%3B%0A(._%3B%3E%3B)%3B%0Aout%3B
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119224763
user_5359 (2022-04-12 10:19:05+00:00): Danke @Luzandro für die Abfrage! @osmalpe fehlt Dir noch was oder kann ich mit der Bereinigung anfangen?
osmalpe (2022-04-12 15:17:12+00:00): So funktioniert das nicht.
Obige Abfrage liefert nur 62 Ergebnisse, die Abfrage sollte aber alle 185 rows als Ergebnis liefern.
Es gibt:
  points, polygons
  natural IN ('heath', 'wetland', 'lake') OR natural IS NULL,
  place IN ('locality') OR place IS NULL,
  salt = 'yes' OR salt IS NULL,
  intermittent IN ('yes', 'no')
  nicht alle Lacken haben 'Lacke' im Namen,
  nicht alle sind historisch.
user_5359 (2022-04-12 16:20:38+00:00): Da Du so gar nett darum bittest, habe ich mal Deine Angaben gegen Deine Markierung verglichen.

Lieder verkürzt derzeit die Turbo-Overpass.eu Ihre Abfragen nicht, deshalb wird der Kommentar etwas länger.

Dein Kennzeichnung kann mit [out:csv (::type, ::id, natural, place, salt, intermittent, name, Salzlacke_Seewinkel)][timeout:25];
// gather results
(
nwr["Salzlacke_Seewinkel"="yes"]
);
// print results
out body;
angefragt werden, es kommen 65 Einträge heraus (wobei der Weg https://www.osm.org/way/93249053 ein falsch gekennzeichneter outer Weg von https://www.osm.org/relation/4849346 ist). Auch fällt auf, dass kein Eintrag mit place entsprechend gekennzeichnet ist.

Wenn man Deine Angaben ausformuliert 
[out:csv (::type, ::id, natural, place, salt, intermittent, name, Salzlacke_Seewinkel)][timeout:25];
{{geocodeArea:Seewinkel}}->.a;
// gather results
(
  nwr["heath"](area.a);
  nwr["water"]["salt"="yes"]["intermittent"="yes"](area.a);
  nwr["wetland"](area.a);
);
// print results
out body;
kommen 97 Objekte heraus. Die Einträge ohne Salzlacke_Seewinkel möchte ich Dich bitte nochmal zu prüfen, denn die könntest Du übersehen haben. Alle "überflüssigen" Einträge sind mit wetland gekennzeichnet.

Hauptursache dürfte aber sein, dass bei wetland der Schlüssel salt nicht gesetzt ist, und damit auch Wetland, dass eindeutig mit salt=no gekennzeichnet ist, in den Datenbestand reinrutscht. Ich würde also empfehlen, dass die mit wetland gekennzeichneten Bereich auch das Attribut salt erhalten und die übrige Abfrage entsprechend ergänzt wird. Dann dürften sich die beiden Abfragen schon näher kommen.
osmalpe (2022-04-12 19:10:18+00:00): Lösche bitte den tag Salzlacke_Seewinkel, ich finde die Lacken schon wieder zusammen. So wäre es zwar am einfachsten gewesen, aber ich verstehe, dass solche tags nicht die optimale Lösung sind. Danke auf jeden Fall.
user_5359 (2022-04-12 19:35:35+00:00): Ist erledigt! Danke für die Geduld mit uns!
osmalpe (2022-04-12 20:34:17+00:00): Danke dir. Wir ziehen ja an einem Strang.
Luzandro (2022-04-13 04:27:54+00:00): Ich verstehe jetzt dein Problem mit den ganzen Einträgen, die nur localities sind, wobei die zahlreichen Einträge mit "unbenannte Lacke" mMn. auch kein "name", sondern eher note oder description sein sollte. Dann wird es halt nicht gerendert, aber das sind eben auch offensichtlich keine Namen und zur Darstellung von historischer Information über die Salzlacken im Seewinkel ist evtl. eine umap besser geeignet?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen

https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/de/