piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
abakus_uploader (2020-12-12 23:32:05+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
user_5359 (2020-12-12 20:57:08+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/node/2547745199/history: What is the meaning of the tag opening_hour = 758?
jmapb (2020-12-12 22:09:57+00:00): Good catch, not sure if it was somehow human error or a bug in Go Map!! but it looks like the "addr:housenumber=758" tag was replaced with "opening_hour=758". Fixed now.
SCHLUMPFs (2020-12-13 02:12:57+00:00): Hey my dude; great effort! i like it. One minor hint however: Normally, the current version of "MAXAR premium" background imagery is more up to date and better aligned.
SCHLUMPFs (2020-12-16 01:12:50+00:00): for this region at least*
ralley (2020-12-12 23:15:00+00:00): Why have you moved Flax Point?  The original location matches the LINZ Topo 50 maps
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95733146
_Pax_ (2020-12-13 01:46:46+00:00): Wow, you are of course right... And I thought that I can trust signs on the Island... How do I revert that?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95733146
ralley (2020-12-13 04:35:39+00:00): Thanks, for replying.  Not sure how to revert in Id but JOSM has a revert tool.  Otherwise just move the new node back to the original position.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95733146
CoyKoi (2020-12-12 23:55:02+00:00): Hi Pax welcome to OSM and thanks for your contributions.
I would agree that the ventilation buildings are not towers, but I would say that these features don't need names ('ventilation' is a description of their purpose, better reflected in some other tag). Also I would have thought that building=service was a more descriptive tag than building=yes.
Check these links on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dservice

Appreciate your edits though, I'm reviewing your other changesets in the area :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95733313
_Pax_ (2020-12-13 01:40:29+00:00): Yep, you are of course right... Still getting used to all those things... Fixed :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95733313
SomeoneElse (2020-12-12 20:54:11+00:00): Actually, quite a lot of this was from OS OpenData StreetView and Bing as well - tidying up where a landuse adder had missed the previously-mapped hedges and had fields terminating on streams et al.
flohoff (2020-12-13 09:28:50+00:00): Moin
nur weil ich gerade drüber gestolpert bin. Ist das an der Henri-Dunant-Straße wirklich eine Brücke? Das ist doch nur ein Rohr unter der Straße oder? Dann sollte doch der waterway nur ein tunnel=culvert und layer=-1 bekommen oder?

Flo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95733806
Rahden 16 (2020-12-14 18:44:06+00:00): Hallo Flo,
danke für die Anmerkung, habe gerade die Durchlässe nach Luftbild angepasst.
Die Gräben sehen im Hillshade riesig aus, die Durchlässe recht klein gegen über den ländlichen Entwässerungsgräben.
Gruß
Volkar
eggie (2020-12-12 20:00:43+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
Review..
De tagging in OSM is UK English.
historic=monument is dus wat anders dan een gedenkteken.. Dan gebruiken we historic=memorial (vanuit het Engels



Een monument is bv de taj mahal in India.. Meestal een mausuleum.
MVG,
eggie

MVG,
Eggie
namens de OSM Community
KoertdeVries (2020-12-13 14:42:53+00:00): OK, dank voor feedback
CoyKoi (2020-12-13 09:37:36+00:00): Review requested. It's quite complex with all the paths around here (as it is in real life) but I would say you did fine with the steps and levels etc. Personally I wouldn't map to that level of detail as long as pedestrian routing works through the market.

One question though, it looks like you deleted the footway ramp between 17 and 19 Drake St. Was this intentional - is the ramp gone? It is quite a 'famous' piece of history in the Markets: http://victoriaparkmarket.co.nz/victoria-park-market/celebrity-walk/
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95733944
_Pax_ (2020-12-15 04:52:24+00:00): I didn't see it when I was at the Oakroom last time, but will go there and re-check
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95733944
_Pax_ (2020-12-17 04:12:10+00:00): I checked today and it still exists. Re-added it and also added the steps at the end and the other connections that were missing...
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95733944
NFZANMNIM (2020-12-12 21:37:00+00:00): Hi, The relationship "Palestinian territories" has a definition in the link below. Me being not-local doesn't change the political definitions.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Israel#Lists_and_Features_of_Interest

 If the issue is "Situation on the Ground", Israel doesn't recognize a Palestinian state. Areas A and B are subordinate to Isarel, so is Gaza Strip in many respects. This distinct delineation of "Facts on the ground" would've made sense if the areas under PA had some independence, similar to how Northern Cyprus has from rest of Cyprus, Until then, "Palestinian territories" is not a fact on the ground at all, and the tag "Disputed", demonstrates that.

This is why "Judea and Samaria" does show up, as a fact on the ground, as does "Gaza Strip", but "Palestinian territories" does not, as it's not recognized by Israel, who maintains COGAT as the supreme authority over Gaza and West Bank.
OrDal (2020-12-12 22:23:55+00:00): I suggest you'll do some further research before you change edits of local users who are familiar with the politics, history, and the current situation of the area.

1. Israel does Israel recognizes PA civilian control over Areas A and B, and de-facto recognizes Hamas control of Gaza Strip.
2. PA in fact recognizes Israeli control of Area C (Although there are places where the PA is less respectful of the Israeli government).
3. COGAT is NOT the supreme authority over Gaza and the West Bank. it's tasks are: Running the "Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria", as Government body in Area C + Coordination of the activity of the State of Israel with the Palestinian Authority (Activities such of giving visiting permits, and travel documents to Palestinians, establishment of joint projects for Israel and the PA like roads, water pipes, electricity lines, etc)
4. The current situation in OSM showing the most close to reality situation. It's much more accurate than including the Jordan Valley and Eastern Jerusalem as part of the PA relation + It showing the situation reached by the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, and does not present a situation that is desirable for only one side.
5. The PA relation have "Disputed" tag only because the PA have limited sovereignty and not reached the definition of "state". It have nothing with Israel.
6. Mapping de-jure is not smart as you can never tell what exactly "de-jure" status is. The desirable status for the the PA is not establish a state in the 67' borders (As you have mapped) but in 48' borders, what means - in all the territories of Israel (you can find it in many official documents of the PA. not beliving me? visit http://geomolg.ps . it is the official GIS website of the PA. just see the logo.)
NFZANMNIM (2020-12-12 23:45:15+00:00): Ok thanks for your reply. I agree with some of your points, but disagree with others. So if it's fine with you, I'd like to discuss. I have a decent experience on this site with disputed and ambiguous territories around the world and im not really trying to enforce or push thru any politically motivated narrative other than what's on the ground.

So, tell me what you think of these points. 

1.i understand what you're trying to map, and that's good. Two edits to it, would be necessary though.  
1a. Gaza maritime borders need to be reduced to those that IDF enforces, in line with cease fire agreements with Hamas. 6 nautical mile from shore minus a 1.5 nautical mile buffer south from Erez fence. 
1b. What you're describing, since it's recognized both by Israel and by PA, is not "disputed". The existence of this entity isn't disputed. Its status is. And for that,  on OSM, we use "admin level 3", ie an entity that exists on that ground but isn't a state

2. By "de jure" I meant 1 thing. What PA, or Israel, or Hamas charter say are irrelevant. "State of Palestine" was admitted to the UN, as an observer state, with certain internationally recognized boundaries, and that's what I meant.  Now the question is, how to map that. I'll answer and tell me your thoughts. 

2a. If you search for "Artsakh", you find two relationships, one an on-the-ground but disputed entity, shown as admin level 3, and another, shown as "claimed". Similarly, I think we can map two relationships for "Palestinian territories". 

2aa. One, being an existing on the ground entity, its status disputed, shown as admin level 3, Areas A, B, Gaza strip, Gazan waters that IDF allows Palestinian access to. 
2ab. A claimed territory, all of WB, including East Jerusalem, and all of Gaza plus 12 nautical mile water, as recognized by the UN, upon admission of "state of Palestine"
NFZANMNIM (2020-12-13 00:24:17+00:00): Two more points

3. The nature reserves east of Hebron  despite being officially "Area B", are not under PA civil admin. They're under Israeli civil admin in reality.

4. This one is a question to you, more so than my opinion. Do you think "Judea and Samaria" should only cover area C? Or should it cover A,B,C?
OrDal (2020-12-13 15:48:14+00:00): 1a. I agree Gaza maritime borders should be changed but I don't know how exactly. Your suggetion sounds good but I am not sure what is last status (It changes a lot).
2a. I think that if we want to remove the "Disputed" tag from the PA relation, we have to exlude Gaza Strip from it as today Gaza and West Bank have separate governments.
2b. As I said before, I don't think it is good idea to create relation for the Palestinian claimed territory, as contrary to popular belief in the world, the PA's ambitions are to establish a state that will replace the State of Israel and not to establish a state within the borders of 67. Also, in the current situation (in which the PA refuses to accept a Jewish presence on its territory) its unlikely that a Palestinian state will be established within the 67' borders.
3. As far as I know, the nature reserves are under PA control.
4. I think it is good idea "Judea and Samaria" relation (1803010) will cover only area C while "West Bank" relation (1613659) will cover Areas A,B.

I suggest opening a thread in the OSM Forum about these topics.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=33

Also, there's a Telegram group for Israel OSM Community and you are welcome to join.
https://t.me/OSM_ISRAEL
NFZANMNIM (2020-12-13 22:57:01+00:00): 1. Ok, I will let go of the topic of "Claimed territories of Palestine for the time being, specifically because Palestinian negotiation team itself has said that they're open to exchange of territory. Your description of PA/PLO stance is reflective of their position before 1993. In 1993, they recognized "Israel's right to exist in peace", same year that Israel recognized PLO

2. I will adjust boundaries of "Gaza Strip" to accurately reflect the latest in force ceasefire agreement.

3. I agree with your point on "Judea and Samria"

4. This link, Isareli official map, shows "Nature Reserves" as separate from Areas A, B, C. And my understanding was that no Palestinian development is allowed in nature reserves unless with IDF permission.

5. The Hamas govt isn't a separatist govt. The existence of it, doesn't dispute the existence of the "Palestinian Territories". Both Hamas and Fatah, as well as Israel, recognizes Gaza, Area A, and Area B, as "The Palestinian territories". The existence of Hamas merely implies a division of governance. And we do already show that, and I propose we continue to show the division. And how? 

As I said earlier, "Palestinian Territories", as an entity on the ground, that exists, but is not a sovereign state in any way, would be best represented as "Admin Level 3"
And, well, nowhere in the Palestinian constitution or laws, does it define "West Bank" and "Gaza Strip" as political subdivisions. But, we will show them, as "admin level 4" as the two divisions of "Palestinian Territories". 

6. And thank you for the forum link. There's also other West Bank border issues that I'd like to bring up there as well later too. (eg how to show Palestinian governorates, etc)
NFZANMNIM (2020-12-13 23:22:27+00:00): (A quick update that I just updated maritime of  Gaza Strip, if you'd like to check and verify)
OrDal (2020-12-14 13:50:00+00:00): 1. Until 1999, the PLO Convention included clauses calling for the destruction of Israel, Then it was removed. But according to Palestinian activity since then (also officially), it seems that despite the reconciliation declarations, Palestinian officials have not really changed their attitude towards Israel. Also, as you said, the PA itself not sure what excatily their claimed territories.

2. About Gaza Strip borders: You have updated the map according to 2012 Ceasefire agreement but it still changes every few months. the last change I know was in June 2019 - it changed to 15 nautical miles, but I have no idea if was changed again since then. It depends on whether there is no terrorist activity from the Gaza Strip, such as rocket fire or the launching of explosive balloons. As I live in a city very close to Gaza Strip, I can tell there was terror activity since June 2019, but I have no idea if the marine space has changed in response.

4. In the interim agreement, it was stipulated that there would be no new construction in the area of the nature reserves, until a permanent agreement (which did not occur), but it was also stipulated that the area would be transferred to PA control.

5. The Hamas govt is NOT a part of the main PA govt. 
A proof: you can find there are different sites for Gaza govt ministries and PA main govt ministries:

PA main ministry of transportation:
http://www.mot.gov.ps/
Gaza ministry of transportation:
http://www.mot.ps/site/

PA Main ministry of health:
http://site.moh.ps/
Gaza ministry of health:
http://www.moh.gov.ps/portal/

PA main ministy of Local Goverment:
http://www.molg.pna.ps/
Gaza ministry of Local Goverment:
http://molg.ps/ar/

and so on.
NFZANMNIM (2020-12-14 16:20:02+00:00): 1. Attitudes and statements by people in govt aren't really what we should pay attention to, with regards to mapping. PA has never taken its recognition back, and many of its functions do depend on recognition cooperation, and coordination with Israel. For example, if once every while when things get tense, and because they wanna do something for the sake of doing it, to not look weak, ", they issue threats , like this from a few months ago. Focusing on attitudes and indirect implication of certain actions creates too many uncertainties, beyond scope of OSM.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/9/14/palestinian-leadership-to-reconsider-relations-with-arab-league

2. I know that Hamas govt is separate. For example they publish covid stat independently of the PA. Nevertheless, both Hamas, and PA/PLO/Fatah agree that the civil authority of the PM of Palestine is over Gaza Strip, Areas A and B. There's no dispute about that. It's a simple division of authority over this single entity, which we do show, by showing WB and GS as sub-divisions. 

3. and ummm, I hear you about nature reserves, but that's also similar wording given for "Area C" in Oslo, "To be transfered to Palestinian control gradually"

4. and for maritime border, 2012 seems to be the reference document, and any change is "temporary measure", no?
OrDal (2020-12-14 17:06:25+00:00): 1. I disagree with you. Since the signing of the interim agreement, the Palestinian side has violated almost all of its obligations. Yasser Arafat, who signed these agreements, himself has stated several times that the agreements with Israel are just like "صلح الحديبية" - the agreements of Prophet Muhammad with Quraish, what signed only to help Prophet Muhammad to conquer the city of Mecca. 
An agreement is measured in deeds. If we look at exactly what the deeds of the Palestinian Authority are, it does not seem that they really intend to establish a state within the 67 borders.

2. OK, but what I mean here is, it will be not accurate mapping the Gaza Strip and West Bank both under on relation, as its two separate bodies.

3. As far as I understand the nature reserves has been already trasfered to the PA.

4. As far as I know, the agreed maritime border was set to 6 nautical miles in the 1993 Cairo Agreement, and since then it has moved several times unilaterally by Israel.
NFZANMNIM (2020-12-14 18:56:36+00:00): 1. I don't get the point of this discussion by now as we already agreed that showing 67 borders is premature. Nor am I particularly interested in defending the PA or Hamas' commitment to a 2-state-solution, or question Israel's commitment. OSM isn't based on what states believe or officially recognize, it's not based on what their deeds and actions imply they want in their heart, it's based on facts on the ground (and at times, international consensus, eg with border of "Cyprus")

2. I'm gonna guess that the boundaries of Areas A, B, C, are subject to change and modification in the past 25 years, similar to Gaza maritime borders. So, in my opinion it's fine, we can update Gaza borders if Israel unilaterally changes them.

3. Separate bodies, in 1 entity recognized by both. Neither one is aiming to alter borders of "Palestinian territories". An analogy I can bring up is, in Syria right now, in a simplified manner. There's a govt in Damascus. And there's a govt in the Northeast, ie Rojava. The existence of the two bodies, doesn't make the existence and de facto (And dejure, but we're not showing that on OSM) borders of Syria, a matter of dispute. If Rojava were to be added, it would be added as "Admin Level 3", subordinate to the "Syria" Relationship. Similarly, "West bank" and "Gaza" will be subordinate to this singular entity.
OrDal (2020-12-16 17:49:46+00:00): 1. OK, Agreed. My point was we can't know if or how the future will look like.

2. It's not the same. The A,B,C boundaries have indeed changed in the past, but with the consent of both sides. Anyway, the situation in OSM is updated to the last change, from 1999 (and as you can see, the natural development no longer fits the boundaries because it was a temporary agreement that was intended for a short period until a permanent agreement, which never happened).
(By the way, for you to know: the ABC Boundaries were imported from http://geomolg.ps - the PA official GIS site but matches the map of the Israeli Civil Administration.)

3.OK, you're right. (as long as we DO NOT change the area of PA beyond areas A + B and the Gaza Strip).
However, I think that a discussion about this should be started in the forum before making changes.
eggie (2020-12-12 20:03:40+00:00): Probeer svp nauwkeurig te werken. Doe niet te veel in het begin.
Je pad zit vastgeplakt aan de landuse forest.
Gebruik de linker alttoets bij intekenen.
Dan plakt het niet.
Je pad heeft geen verbinding met het oostelijke pad. Het eindigt op de bosgrens.
eggie
eggie (2020-12-12 20:36:32+00:00): Pad losgemaakt van bos en doorverbonden met ander pad. access=no verwijderd
gr eggie
KoertdeVries (2020-12-13 14:43:50+00:00): OK, dank voor feedback
flohoff (2020-12-13 09:26:41+00:00): Moin, 
nur weil ich es gerade sehe. Das hier gehört nicht in den name sondern evtl in die "description"  - Der Stein heisst ja nicht so. Das "name" ist ist nur für wirklichiche "Eigennamen" wie "Karl-Wilhelm" oder "Ems" oder "Pader" aber nicht für beschreibendes. Das gehört in description. 

Und ich vermutlich das auch "natural=stone" hier falsch ist. Das ist ja ein Mahnmal.

Flo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95734158
user_10799485 (2020-12-13 10:25:22+00:00): Moin Flo,
das ist so in den Stein gemeißelt. Denn ich komme dort jede Nacht vorbei, da in der Bushaltestelle jede Nacht Ware angeliefert wird, die ich an Kunden (Haushalte) weiter verteile.
MfG: Der Wilderer
GartenStuhl (2020-12-14 11:00:11+00:00): Könnte als inscription eingetragen werden:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:inscription
Pikse (2021-07-02 14:03:40+00:00): Maaüksuse (talu) nime andmine maakasutusele (landuse=residential) ei tundu päris õige, nt Tooma talu puhul[1]. Maakasutuse (kõlviku) piir reeglina ei lange maaüksuse piiriga kokku. Kui talu nime äratoomine hoonete aadressides pole piisav, siis võiks arvatavasti ennem kaardistada talu ja selle nime punktina, mille küljes on lisaks nimele silt place=farm. Punktina, kuna maaüksuste tegelikke piire pole tavaks OSM-i lisada. Vt ka [2].

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/884187246
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Usage
eggie (2020-12-12 20:04:59+00:00): Geef aan wat je aan het doen bent.
Dit heeft niets te maken met een pad dat er nog niet op stond. Dus commentaar kan zijn
surface=asphalt toegevoegd aan Valerialaan.
mvg
eggie
KoertdeVries (2020-12-13 14:44:31+00:00): OK
Frans S (2020-12-13 10:13:02+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Please map more precise and square the buildings you map
This document might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10sSghBZ1xSoo0JKAWUJH8VYood6VSL5eUI4ICnO_jg0/edit?usp=sharing

Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95734276
SPQRobin (2020-12-18 19:25:22+00:00): Beste Kurt, ik had de stationsomgeving Haacht bijgewerkt naar de nieuwe situatie. Je lijkt mijn wijzigingen te hebben terruggedraaid. Dat vind ik vreemd, want je lijkt wel in de omgeving te wonen dus je bent wellicht op hoogte dat het daar veranderd is.
Kurt Roeckx (2020-12-18 20:25:34+00:00): Ik ben er gisteren voorbij gereden en zag dat het allemaal veranderd was, maar had nog geen tijd om het proberen terug te veranderen. Omdat het met de auto was heb ik niet goed kunnen zien wat de huidige sitatie juist is, maar denk dat er nu paaltjes staan, en denk dat ik nieuwe plaats zag voor fietsen.
timmito (2020-12-12 23:50:04+00:00): Hallo alo8, Danke für deine Ergänzung. Der allgemein bekannte Name des Parkplatzes ist Tenohütte. Ich habe diesen Namen wieder als name ergänzt, die Schreibweise TeNo-Hütte habe ich als alt_name belassen. Bei mehreren vorhandenen Namen bzw. Schreibweisen bitte alt_name, loc_name etc. verwenden, damit alle Möglichkeiten über die Suchmaschine gefunden werden können. Siehe auch: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Names
pantufla (2022-01-04 08:55:03+00:00): Hola, veo que hay muchos paths von motor_vehicle = no, en qué te basas para saber cuáles son así y cuáles no?
eggie (2020-12-12 20:07:36+00:00): Het zal toch echt historic=memorial moeten worden.
Een Engels  monument is iets anders..
De vergissing wordt veel gemaakt
gr eggie