piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
TagaSanPedroAko (2022-01-03 08:25:34+00:00): To answer why C-4, Road 10 and Roxas Boulevard got trunk is not just to bypass the center of Manila, but also consideration to those who are diligent and use the static map to determine their route (a routing via nav app would lead you through congested city proper and you would like to avoid such route choice). Same also goes with EDSA (in addition to its expressway-like construction, though its much like the metro's larger thoroughfares). The same goes why trunk has been set to Quirino, Diego Cera and Alabang-Zapote in the south (using a nav app with avoid toll option from Magallanes or EDSA-Roxas Boulevard to Alabang, the best route may take you to East Service Road, but except FTI to Nichols,  it's narrow and congested and aren't designed for through traffic.)

Back on the Dasma-Batangas City route, I can apply the same reasoning as with the Manila trunk routings, primarily the consideration for those looking up the static map in conjunction with the scenario when Diokno Highway gets closed due to landslide (as like what happened 2016). When Diokno gets closed, an alternative would be via Nasugbu and Balayan, but that would be a longer journey. Another alternative under the Diokno closure scenario is via Talisay and Tanauan, but you might want to avoid steep grade in the Ligaya Drive "bitukang manok", so you might want to travel via Laguna, the path or least resistance.
dasmarinas_mapper (2022-01-03 09:38:24+00:00): Nevertheless, it is proper to designate this route via Diokno Hwy as trunk as it completes the trunk network of the Cavite conurbation to Batangas City.

There are other factors as to why Diokno should be designated a trunk highway:
- Tagaytay, albeit a small city by population, is a popular weekend and holiday destination for suburban Caviteños and Manila folks.
- The twin towns of Lemery and Taal also have a combined population of more than 150,000.

I believe that due to the above-mentioned factors, and most importantly being the main through route from the Cavite conurbation to Batangas City, this entire route should remain a trunk highway, and exceptions, if any, be made from the classification guidelines for this particular route.
TagaSanPedroAko (2022-01-03 09:56:03+00:00): The problem is, Lemery and Taal are both medium-sized towns (let's wait years). I'll insist on leaving JP Laurel plus connection to Batangas Pier as the only trunk in Batangas. Tagaytay is a popular getaway, but we don't account that for determining trunk network (trunks link major cities, and Tagaytay isn't among of these as of 2020). Maybe by 5 years, Silang may become city and Tagaytay reaches 100k mark on population, but we should still be careful determining trunks as Cavite pretty dense.

You may treat suburban Cavite as its own conurbation, but it's still part of the sprawl south of Manila, let alone northwest Laguna.
dasmarinas_mapper (2022-01-03 10:15:00+00:00): It is inevitable that higher population densities lead to denser trunk and primary networks.

Both Dasmariñas and Batangas City are major cities, and it's only fitting that the road between them reflects that fact. Both Batangas and Cavite already have developed primary and secondary highways, and i'll insist that this remain trunk.

The Cavite conurbation being a Manila sprawl is partly true. However, the continuous urbanisation, industrialisation and commercialisation in Dasmariñas, as well as it being an education and healthcare hub already makes it comparable to other regional cities like Lucena, Urdaneta, and Cabanatuan rather than a mere suburb of Manila.

I'd consider Bacoor to be a Manila suburb, but definitely not Dasmariñas.

Plus Silang's status as a municipality is more of a political one, and could as well be considered a suburb of either/both Dasmariñas and/or Tagaytay.

I insist that thjs entire route remain designated a trunk highway, and exceptions, if any, be made from the classification guidelines for this particular route.
TagaSanPedroAko (2022-01-03 10:28:01+00:00): Understandable. And yes, Dasma could beat Manila because it's home to PCU and DLSU satellite campus, but you can't deny it's part of the Manila's southern sprawl now. Didn't read my argument against trunk in case Diokno gets closed and you get two detour that you'll might avoid (via Palico and Balayan and via Talisay on the Ligaya Drive "bitukang manok")? I'm already on an edit to downgrade to primary basing on my counterarguments.

(Why use Brit spelling? Trying hard, lol)
dasmarinas_mapper (2022-01-03 11:01:45+00:00): (Ah, no need for personal attacks. British spellings are the norm in Australia, and you didn't ask where I'm from.)

Anyway, the route via Talisay and Tanauan (route 421) may be fitting to be trunk if you insist on downgrading Diokno Hwy, since Tanauan is another major city. The winding route is irrelevant to its status as trunk.

The twin cities of Santo Tomas-Tanauan have a combined population of just over 410,000.

This proposed trunk network could traverse Dasmariñas-Tanauan-Batangas City.
TagaSanPedroAko (2022-01-03 11:10:33+00:00): Yet, I'll not take on that either because you get multiple jogs and the Dasma-Tanauan being very close to Maharlika Highway and leaving only one primary around and in between: Santa Rosa-Tagaytay or Route 420. By the way, there's even a proposed expressway from Tanauan to Tagaytay, but I'm not convinced. Not even Dasma-Palico-Balayan-Batangas City. Now, can we settle with most numbered routes west of STAR and south of Governor's Drive be primary?

Just why I asked about why you use BrE spelling is because of one guy also from Dasma that got into it and sounded trying hard. I understand now.
dasmarinas_mapper (2022-01-03 11:41:17+00:00): It is not that close to AH26/Maharlika. It may be a similar case to the Santiago-Tuguegarao Road (51) or the Andaya Hwy in Bicol, both 'close' and parallel to AH26.

I'll argue that Aguinaldo is of higher or equal importance to the segment of Maharlika Hwy in Laguna due to the existence of SLEX which carries most of the Laguna traffic.

I am convinced that a trunk network should exist south of Dasmariñas. It may be proper to call a discussion with the wider community on whether 421 or 436 should be the best candidate for trunk.

Route 421 (Talisay-Tanauan), according to a landslide map is less prone to landslides than Diokno Hwy is. I am now leaning slightly more towards route 421 over my original edit traversing Diokno Hwy due to it being less prone to landslides and the existence of the twin cities of Santo Tomas-Tanauan.

I am less concerned about jogs as Philippine highways, whether we like it or not, do feature a sizeable number of jogs.

I will cease from making edits in the concerned area for now but I will open a community discussion about the trunk network south of Dasmariñas in the next few days.
TagaSanPedroAko (2022-01-03 11:54:21+00:00): We can settle with that for now. I understand, but I also have objections to Tagaytay-Tanauan becoming trunk, as to leave Santa Rosa-Tagaytay as the only primary in the area. Well, I see now why we should a Dasma-Batangas City link aside from a route via Calamba. I can revert it to how you wanted it.

FYI, if you want further discussion, you may want to register at talk-ph at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph . I already opened a discussion about it, but since I realized you may be right, I'll be undoing my changes.
dasmarinas_mapper (2022-01-03 12:17:56+00:00): Okay, thanks! I'll focus on street name suffixes after I downgrade the main Zambales highway (between Olongapo and Lingayen-Dagupan) to primary.
Tình ca du mục (2022-01-02 20:07:18+00:00): May you please keep some kind of tagging on the spoil heaps?
conifermapper (2022-01-03 09:24:23+00:00): I will add man_made=spoil_heap to the spoil heaps but landuse=landfill is incorrect as the waste is above ground not buried beneath it
user_2066394 (2022-01-03 12:01:45+00:00): man_made=bunker_silo sieht im Luftbild mittlerweile wie ein Gebäude aus?
https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/611878318
user_2066394 (2022-01-03 12:27:02+00:00): Hat sich erledigt, im zweiten Klick eine klassische Überschneidung.
arte2002 (2022-01-02 19:03:50+00:00): Hola Joaquin1989, 
He visto que has reeditado algunas salidas de la autovía, hace poco que las edité y no entiendo por qué los cambiaste.

Deberías revisar los ejemplos de los accesos a la autovías en la wiki antes de realizar más cambios.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Carriles

saludos
Joaquin1989 (2022-01-02 19:33:37+00:00): hola arte2002,
el motivo es por que cuando vas con el Osmand en el coche y existe una bifurcación no detecta bien la dirección de la ruta que tu llevas puesta, solo te indica la salida que se escribió en el nodo que da lugar a confusión, y no es así, debe indicar el carril que debes tomar para continuar tu ruta. Además quien dibujó la cartografía en algunas salidas las realiza bastante tarde, cuando los carriles de aceleración o desaceleración se encuentran antes y hay que ponerlo donde empieza no al final.
Lee Carré (2022-01-04 13:22:30+00:00): Automated edit?
Dodko (2022-01-04 15:16:08+00:00): the tag man_made=hunting_stand was not displayed on OSM, as the tag amenity=hunting_stand is displayed
Kalepom (2022-01-02 22:36:58+00:00): Bonjour, 
Je me suis permis de corriger le tag operator= sur ce panneau d'affichage libre. Ce tag désigne l'entité qui gère l'équipement, souvent la ville pour ce type de panneau. Pour décrire l'objet, on peut utiliser le tag description= ou note=. J'ai aussi complété avec les tags qui vont bien sur les panneaux d'affichage libre https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aadvertising%3Dboard
N'hésite pas si tu as des questions à ce sujet ;)
wolfbert (2025-05-21 06:53:50+00:00): Bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/127677314 und dem nächsten Wegstück gibt's einen Typo ("smoothness=w"). Siehe auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:smoothness
Ich2PunktNull (2025-05-21 08:31:55+00:00): Danke, werd ich korrigieren
Dodko (2022-01-15 15:44:11+00:00): Naozaj boli zlikvidované tieto lavičky?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8261871411
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8261871410

4/2021 tam ešte boli
https://www.freemap.sk/?map=18/48.616098/20.625226&layers=XI&image=308854
*Martin* (2022-01-15 19:11:36+00:00): naozaj.
dasmarinas_mapper (2022-01-02 18:52:42+00:00): ON RETAINING HALSEMA, 204, AND 222 AS TRUNKS:

This forms a network between the two Cordillera cities of Baguio and Tabuk, and by extension, between Tabuk and Tuguegarao.

I am opposed to the planned shifting of the Baguio-Tabuk route through Cagayan Valley.

This route is the shortest by road distance between Baguio and Tabuk. It is also the main through route traversing the Cordillera region, also connecting important Cordillera towns like Buguias and Bontoc, and also acts as a collector for Banaue and Lagawe towards Tabuk, and Sagada towards either Baguio or Tabuk.

It is also crucial to mark this as a trunk to differentiate it from the other major Cordillera routes which are improper to be downgraded to secondaries.

It may be proper to upgrade 110 to trunk to serve the route between Baguio and Santiago, but not at the expense of downgrading Halsema, 204, and 222.
TagaSanPedroAko (2022-01-02 21:55:33+00:00): I'll be opposed to retaining Halsema as trunk. Ideally, that forms the shortest route between Baguio and Tuguegarao from the map, but that's not the case of the ground (that goes to Route 110. Also questionable if there's going to be closure due to landslide.

Concurrently, I also oppose keeping the existing primary network as they mostly serve small towns in a largely sparsely populated area. Cordillera already lacks rural secondaries (many of the primaries better fall under that class).
dasmarinas_mapper (2022-01-03 08:23:19+00:00): Ok, understandable, Halsema's road quality may not be in top shape to be a trunk anyway.

Since we're in the question of trunks, should the Zambales Highway (306) be downgraded to primary?

The only two cities between them are Olongapo and Dagupan. Iba, despite being a capital town is a fairly small town. Most travellers from Olongapo go via the Tarlac route which is both shorter by road distance and faster by travel time. Also, there is a noticeable lack of primaries in Zambales.
TagaSanPedroAko (2022-01-03 08:36:58+00:00): I support that. A primary across the province should be enough, and yes, best route between Olongapo and Dagupan is via Pampanga and Tarlac. That has been one edit I'm considering.

Going back, Route 306 got trunk because it was the main transportation backbone across Zambales, but this is based on a scheme that has the major shortfall of the being more or less obviously Manila-centric; primary being worst offender as you would force such high a class even in a sparsely populated area, with the end result of few to no secondaries around and in between.
Dodko (2022-01-15 15:41:55+00:00): Prečo vadilo vyplnené ele?
Vyskytuje sa to na vyhliadke
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/469327864
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7447222869
*Martin* (2022-01-15 19:18:37+00:00): na mieste nie je ziadna tabula s popisom nadmorskej vysky a pre vyhliadku je to viacmenej irelevantne. tak ako napr ani pramenom nedavame ele. mne tam naviac gps ukazovalo inu vysku.
rab (2022-01-02 19:13:39+00:00): hi,
what kind of facility is this "bla bla"?
gabro00 (2022-01-03 12:22:33+00:00): Szia!
Lehet csak félrenyomtál, de a Nádas utca végén a vízműnél fenyőfák vannak. Javítottam a #115708757 módosításcsomagban.
MacLondon (2022-01-03 20:35:53+00:00): Hi. I think it's a bit premature to consider this barriered cycleway as being officially open. See https://853.london/2021/10/01/deptford-creek-roads-4-2m-cycleway-4-will-not-open-until-at-least-march-council-admits/

If you disregard the barriers, when cycling westbound the 'route' comes to a particularly unsafe cul de sac, with no cycling crossing.

Eastbound is a lot less unsafe, but the (functional) cycle lights for crossing https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6552004400 are kept covered up. Also, I doubt anyone is daring to use (or even move the barriers at) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/697668255 - I think the planned cycle lights might not even work here.

In terms of previously existing cycle routes, the only two-way route that could really be made safely would be the NCN21-NCN4 link to the east of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6552004401. The unstarted work that is holding up the opening of the cycleway is along this section though.

Regards,
Mac
CycleStreets (2022-01-03 21:25:04+00:00): Hi Mac,

We haven't changed its status - there was no construction tag. Feel free to add that.

All we've done is changed it to two-way, which is now the fact on the ground, and added other metadata.
MacLondon (2022-01-03 23:49:29+00:00): There's definitely been a realignment of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11815403.

The cycleway is fully constructed, but is just not officially accessible yet.
kubahahaha (2022-01-04 11:29:21+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1017638057
Czy ta droga już istnieje czy jest tylko w planach?
Jaka tam jest nawierzchnia?
Sandal man (2022-01-02 19:44:02+00:00): Hi, thanks for the edits in the OSM but you have to tag with surface=fine_gravel and not use surface=surface:fine_gravel
Regards Jan
mariotomo (2022-01-02 19:20:26+00:00): hola, con referencia a las calles numeradas, quisieras entrar en el debate en el foro?  aquí pusiste "2" y "2 A", "5" y "5 A", y me pregunto a qué se refieren estas "A".
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=72599
Carlos Eduardo Rodríguez (2022-01-03 21:08:49+00:00): El nombre de la calle  es tal cual indica el plano de urbanización Quintas de Don Bosco en Santiago. En la numeración, adicional al número añade la letra A no sé por qué razón -ni es  mi deber discutirlo-, pero no sé que sentido tiene. En algún momento les comparto el enlace de la imagen del plano de la urbanización donde hace mención a los nombres de dichas calles.
mariotomo (2022-01-06 19:45:59+00:00): "tal cual indica el plano de urbanización", es un buen punto de arranque.  sin embargo, así como cuando una placa indica "Ave J. Arosemena" nosotros escribimos name="Avenida Justo Arosemena", igualmente creo que deberíamos interpretar estas "A/a/ª" y limitar el uso de las letras en la base de datos al caso de las calles A/B/C etc, dejando las que leemos primera, segunda, tercera etc.
faltando un acuerdo municipal, por lo menos quitamos espacio a la confusión dentro de OSM.  es lo que sugiero debatir en el foro.
GinaroZ (2022-01-24 18:11:39+00:00): Hi, I've removed the name from these paths as they are already part of the SUW relation.
Also, please can you use a more descriptive changeset comment than just "edit"? :)
sorcrosc (2022-01-04 01:11:51+00:00): Ciao, ho notato un paio di cose:
Alcuni nomi di strade contengono sigle e non sembrano realmente nomi di vie. Da dove provengono? Nel changeset è indicato come fonte solo immagini aeree.
Noni di località applicati sulle aree landuse. Questo non è corretto. I nomi vanno solo sugli elementi con tag place.

Saluti
Umbyone (2022-01-04 01:15:37+00:00): I nomi delle vie sono provvisorie, mi sono informato precendentemente anche in piattaforma comunale.
Alle strade sono stati dati nomi provvisori dopo il terremoto che colpì la zona.
Attualmente le vie hanno realmente quel tipo di nome che cambierà successivamente. Anno ancora non specificato.
Umbyone (2022-01-04 01:16:13+00:00): In tutte le Aree SAE
LorenzoPesci (2022-01-04 11:30:35+00:00): La rotatoria che avete inserito a sud di Contrada Tappi ha interrotto la relazione "Cammino di San Benedetto - Tappa 01" che va ripristinata.
Inoltre sulla rotatoria NON va il nome delle strade limitrofe
kasztelan111 (2022-02-12 14:58:49+00:00): według serwisu Targeo ten fragment ulicy posiada nazwę "ulica płk. Ryszarda Kuklińskiego", nazwa ta funkcjonuje również w bazie danych GUS TERYT
maraf24 (2022-02-12 21:04:45+00:00): Nie możemy kopiować z Targeo ani Google Maps - z powodów licencyjncych jak i ew. błędnych informacji.
Tutaj jest oryginalne źróło (uchwała): http://uchwaly.um.wroc.pl/uchwala.aspx?numer=LVI/3317/06
Ktoś musiał pomylić Żmigrodzką z Kamieńskiego, co widać nawet w artykułach prasowych:
https://gazetawroclawska.pl/wroclaw-pis-domaga-sie-obwodnicy-im-pulkownika-kuklinskiego/ar/3331651
janolezab (2022-01-02 19:58:46+00:00): Hey, I think you broke the cyrillic characters again. Would you repair them?
janolezab (2022-01-03 12:21:47+00:00): Repaired in https://osm.org/changeset/115708907, but you should really look into the encoding issue of your editor.
TagaSanPedroAko (2022-01-02 20:07:05+00:00): Correction: should be "[Solano, Nueva Vizcaya/Santiago City] review and correct/undo Road reclassifications, move trunk to partially opened bypass
"
Trevor_1 (2022-03-10 02:51:14+00:00): Hi, why did you change the frontage roads to primary? They were fine as secondary.
Sandal man (2022-01-02 22:57:54+00:00): No, sorry for the confusing but the only thing you have to fill in is "fine_gravel" surface is already there.
Regards Jan
Violaine_Do (2022-12-04 21:53:03+00:00): merci de supprimer les tests qui n'ont pas d'intéret pour OSM. .... OSM est un pot commun...
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115684848
Violaine_Do (2022-12-05 00:26:59+00:00): Le point a bien été supprimé. Merci de ne pas prendre en compte le précédent commentaire. Merci pour votre attention à ce beau pot commun! A bientôt sur la carte ou en vrai!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115684848
DD1GJ (2022-12-21 09:02:17+00:00): Hausnummern gelöscht, da der BayernAtlas noch keine offizielle Quelle für OSM ist. Außerdem scheint es aktuell Differenzenzen zur tatsächlichen Hausnummernvergabe vor Ort zu geben.
◪ Jarv (2022-01-03 20:22:13+00:00): I'm slightly confused at the need of adding "Interchange" at the end of the name of the junction along with adding the interchange name to the gyratory, even though it doesn't have a name, but I'll let that slide. But could you explain the need of changing the Toucan crossings from the usual tagging scheme to something that hasn't been documented at all. Why has "crossing=traffic_signals" been replaced by "crossing=toucan" along with then removal of "bicycle=yes" and the incorrect changing of "crossing:island=no" to "yes"???
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115686003
Falsernet (2022-01-06 22:33:08+00:00): To my knowledge that's its name; maybe not in an official capacity. You can search it and find info about the junction. And the interchange thing, well, it's not uncommon practice to include that in exit names to keep things consistent. I remember reading, probably on the wiki, that "crossing=" is actually in more common use than "crossing_ref=", and seems to be the more modern tagging practice. At least it's the norm from what I've seen/edited. Regarding bicycle=yes, I read that it's become officially regarded as an implied tag (for a toucan crossing, that makes total sense. Plus it doesn't make any difference routing. As an example, check out the Cycle Map layer, it's rendered green regardless). And I'd consider a central median to count as an island. You look one way crossing one half, and the other crossing the other, and get a break in the middle. Doesn't have to be there only for the purpose of the crossing imo; I'd be open to hearing your arguments against.

P.S. sorry for not replying sooner, didn't catch the email, and I'm sure you know the main website doesn't give comment notifications. Derp.
Falsernet (2022-01-06 23:00:28+00:00): ^^^ If you want me to provide citations let me know, I can go and have a look
◪ Jarv (2022-01-07 01:58:33+00:00): I do sometimes see it tagged the way you have, but since its not documented in the wiki, and JOSM's presents forces traffic_signals+crossing_ref I presumed that was the correct way.

I've had a look to see which one is most common and:

According to taginfo for the UK. crossing=toucan has been used on 2,479 nodes whilst crossing=traffic_signals has been used on 37,938 nodes with crossing_ref=toucan being on 6,665 of those nodes.

Within the local area there were 48 cases of crossing_ref=toucan and 33 cases of crossing=toucan, so both are used here, so no need to change it back for consistency since its not very consistent.

With the bicycle tag, whilst a toucan crossing it is implied, but providing it in addition means that routers that don't understand UK specific tags still know it is for bicycles. In general I think its better to have it on there than not, even if it is redundant.

With the crossing island, I usually only give yes if there is a localised island at that point and the road is a single carriageway, since the two sides of the central reserve have their own crossing node then I don't consider that to be an island. Islands usually only appear at uncontrolled/marked refuge crossings, although there are cases where they are signalised

Maybe it is worth bringing this to the talk-gb mailing list so see if the tagging of crossings can be standardized across the whole of the UK? Its a bit silly the wiki is completely blank on this alternative tagging scheme


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/crossing=toucan#overview

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/crossing=traffic_signals#overview

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/crossing_ref=toucan#overview