piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
woodpeck (2020-07-31 15:06:00+00:00): The DWG would like to ensure that a community consensus exists before this is changed yet again. Please everyone refrain from making further Rio de la Plata edits, and if you want, participate in the discussion on the tagging mailing list.
Verdy_p (2020-08-16 20:24:10+00:00): Don't be abused by the name "Rio", it does not necessarily mean it is a "river".
What is seen is ia an areas largely modeled by the sea, even if there are large flow of non-saline water from the multiple river mouths, and lot of sediments deposited below the saline water (the non-saline water flows on the surface, and given its area, it will slow down in speed and its sediments will more easily disperse and fall down into the saline waters). But note that tide of saline waters will agitate the non-saline waters floating on the surface. This is significant enough that even if the tidal saline movements are small this is no longer the normal movement of the non-saline waters, that no longer flow down. For me the coastline stops to the north border of the Reserva de Biosphera Delta Del Parana, around Isla Martin Garcia (with its small airport) and Isla Lucia, and even a bit further to the north, midway between Nueva Palmia and El Faro: Isla Juncal is a martime island, as weel as Isla Juncalito, but not Isla Montequitti which is a fluvial island termianed to the east by the coastline tip.
What we see here is like a fjord, or aber. If we consider this is an aber, then the sea goes even more to the north near Fray Bentos.
There are several criterias, but looking at the deposited sediments is a bad one (because then all rivers of the world would go far too deep into the ocean/sea). In fact the area of deposit is the indication that this is already the sea. as this is caused by the dispersion of dusts inside the floatting non-saline waters on the sirface by the agitation caused by tide.
muralito (2020-08-16 23:09:05+00:00): This is riverbank, not coastline.

I think you are wrong, and one proof is that many islands of river origin continue to accumulate and emerge. Another is that it would not be navigable by ships without the continuous dredging that is done to the shipping channel.

It is fresh water. It is a river, a river bank, not a coastline. The coastline is for the oceans, not for rivers. Why is it so hard to understand? 

Using the tag natural=coastline to model where there is water and where there is none (for the renderer), is wrong, as happened with the Great Lakes and it was corrected in a timely manner, just like this one, that every so often they want to model it wrong so as not to fix the render. and they don't seem to have the courage to admit it.

And in the real word the coastline is a discontiue line in the mouth of every water course that ends in the ocean.+
The llimit  between Punta del Este and Punta Rasa is like the line that makes the coastline model continue in every other rivers in each continen.

Last week i also went from Montevideo to Punta del Este, and several beaches in between them, to try to see if i am wrong, and I am not, believe me, it's absolutely clear that the cut of the coastline should be done in Punta del Este. It is there where all the geographic featues of the coastline changes.
Hjart (2020-07-22 08:36:21+00:00): Her kunne man med fordel bruge man_made=cutline i stedet for at tegne som arealer. Se eksempel her: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/112306505
bocaj52 (2020-07-22 21:30:51+00:00): Hej Hjart, bestemt - den kendte jeg ikke til.. syntes selv den metode jeg har brugt er skidt og svært at opdatere/ændre.
Jeg retter snarest.
Takker
!bm (2020-09-01 15:57:28+00:00): Hallo Supaplex030, mWn keine Ein-/Durchfahrt, also kein driveway: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/815749155
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74124877 --besteGrüße!bm
Supaplex030 (2020-09-01 18:06:25+00:00): Das ist doch die Einfahrt zum Projekt H48 - als ich das letzte Mal da war, glaube ich das noch als Einfahrt wahrgenommen zu haben. Was meinst du - nur ein Fußweg? Ich kann bei Gelegenheit nochmal vor Ort gucken.
Supaplex030 (2020-10-13 09:53:36+00:00): Du hast recht - eine Einfahrt ist es jedenfalls nicht. Als eingeschränkt begehbarer Zugang zu Fuß zum Gebäude mit H48 dient es aber trotzdem afaik. Ich habe wohl aus der Tatsache, dass dort auf dem Hof Autos stehen (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/815749151) darauf geschlossen, dass müsste die Zufahrt sein. Aber die geht offenbar durch das Haus mit H48 selbst nach hinten durch...
holgi7 (2020-07-19 21:55:57+00:00): Hi, wie kann man Tiefenlinien sichtbar machen? habe eine 2m und eine 4m Tiefenlinie gebastelt ... ist aber nicht sichtbar ("See im See")
Nakaner (2020-07-20 08:37:36+00:00): Hallo,

"gar nicht" ist die Antwort. Bei OSM erfassen wir weder Höhen- noch Tiefenlinien.

Darüber hinaus ist die Art und Weise, wie du es erfasst hast, falsch. Nicht du als Mapper entscheidest, was auf der Karte erscheint. Wir Mapper erfassen nur die Daten, aus denen andere dann anhand von ihnen festgelegten Regelwerken ("Kartenstil") Karten erstellen. Was darauf erscheint, obliegt den Herstellern dieser Karten. Die Karten auf www.openstreetmap.org gehören auch dazu.

Du hast bei deinen Versuchen einen See in einem See erfasst. Das ist aber Tagging for the Renderer (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tagging_for_the_renderer). Könntest du daher diese Eintragungen bitte wieder löschen?

Viele Grüße

Michael
Heideammer (2020-08-03 20:06:55+00:00): Mir ist nach einem Besuch am Kummerower See aufgefallen, dass der See als Wasserfläche dreifach erfasst ist. Ist das korrekt? Muss die Höhenlinie das Merkmal natural = water haben und die Peene-Relation den gesamten See inkl. des Malchiner Sees umfassen?
holgi7 (2020-08-03 21:09:43+00:00): Mein Fehler ... wie kann man das als Höhenlinie erfassen? Hab das fälschlicherweise als See im See erfasst ...(ist aber die -2m und -4m Höhenlinie).
Nakaner (2020-08-03 21:11:28+00:00): Hallo,

ich habe die Tiefenlinien jetzt gelöscht. Die Peene-Relation habe ich ausgemistet. Da sind Beiträge von ulamm enthalten, die man guten Gewissens entfernen kann (siehe seine Benutzersperren).

Viele Grüße

Michael
holgi7 (2020-08-03 21:21:12+00:00): Hm, Danke für's Bereinigen. Aber wie kann man Tiefenlinien (sozusagen wie Höhenlinien) denn nun richtig erfassen? lg, Holger
Heideammer (2020-08-04 08:58:44+00:00): Danke auch von mir. 
Wie man mit den Höhenlinien umgehen kann, weiß ich nicht. Aber Michael verwies ja darauf, dass sie in OSM nicht notwendig sind. Opentopomap nutzt z. B. ergänzend die SRTM-Höhendaten, worin wohl aber keine Seetiefen enthalten sind. Ist sicher eine mögliche Aufgabe des Renderes entsprechende Daten einzubinden.

Gruß, Thorsten
Parzelle13 (2020-08-04 12:22:04+00:00): Wenn man sich z.B. den SRTM-Layer von http://osm.thkukuk.de/srtm.html ansieht, sieht man, das dort wohl keine Isobathen enthalten sind. Wie soll der Renderer diese dann anzeigen? Also müsste man sich die entsprechenden Daten besorgen und in einen eigenen Layer einbauen.
holgi7 (2020-08-04 12:57:57+00:00): Die Daten habe ich ... wie baut man so einen neuen Layer?
Parzelle13 (2020-08-04 14:57:49+00:00): Dann Frag mal im Forum https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=14 
danach. CS-Kommentare sind nicht der geeignete Ort dazu. 
Unter dem von mir angegebenen Link steht auch was dazu.
streckenkundler (2020-08-04 15:30:17+00:00): Tiefenlinien: Schau die mal die OpenSeaMap an:
https://map.openseamap.org/?zoom=13&lat=52.92769&lon=13.66656 Dort haben sie Tiefenlinien, die aber aus einem eigenen Projekt (=eigene Daten) stammen:
https://depth.openseamap.org/

Sven
Pieter Vander Vennet (2020-07-26 15:10:18+00:00): Hallo Patrick,

Het Voedsel-bos is uitgetekend als oppervlakte: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/830329884

 Is er meer informatie die toegevoegd moet worden?

Mvg, Pieter
Alexey11111 (2020-07-21 21:33:39+00:00): Вместо аптеки Шаурма лет 5
literan (2020-07-22 06:46:11+00:00): Не знаю, из машины я увидел, что там (с торца здания) Ивановский трикотаж (или что-то вроде в этом духе)
pza (2020-07-20 00:06:01+00:00): For the building change at St Scholasticas, I know that its' certainly 3 levels at the front of the old building.  Is the rest 2? It might need splitting.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88212901
Anim Mouse (2023-11-16 16:41:51+00:00): Hello, the current barangay boundary for North Caloocan is wrong, I tried editing it using iD but I can't zoom out so that I can edit it properly, can you help to fix it? This is the proper barangay boundaries: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:North_Caloocan_Barangay_Map_with_Area_Names.png notably the boundary of Brgy. 174 is wrong since half of it (on the wrong version) should be owned by Brgy. 178.
seav (2023-11-17 06:17:40+00:00): @Anim, can you provide an official source for the boundaries? I added the boundaries based on Caloocan City government's own maps (although the maps were from 2006). See here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EygqEz_uLk3wsdDzxBcBrrH8aJTveyCV/view?usp=sharing
Anim Mouse (2023-11-17 08:01:29+00:00): @seav, I can say that the map from Wikimedia Commons is the official one, it is the same as the map that is posted at Brgy. Hall of 174, and one of the proof of the map from 2006 you have given is wrong is the fact that the Brgy. Hall of 178 is located at 14.757675, 121.056375 which the map from 2006 is showing that it is located at Brgy. 174, and I currently live in Brgy. 174 that I can say that the map from 2006 is wrong.
eggie (2020-07-20 06:02:29+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
Review.. Je bedoeling is ongetwijfeld goed, maar gebouwen worden niet zelf ingetekend. Er wordt periodiek geupdated, maar je kunt dit versnellen door een verzoek te doen op het forum van OSM in het draadje Verzoek BAG import. 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12
Inlog identiek aan OSM account.
MVG,
Eggie
Diana IRM-ED (2021-06-17 04:08:11+00:00): Hi AlejandroAlba, . I hope all is well. I found a highway crossing with this waterbody (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/827934496) would you mind fixing this issue? or please let me know if there's any update on this area. Thank you and happy mapping!
fkv (2020-07-20 01:49:40+00:00): Wenn es wirklich eine Kapelle ist (= groß genug um von einem Menschen betreten zu werden), kannst du dann bitte ein building=chapel hinzufügen, damit Anwendungen das erkennen können? Am besten nicht als Punkt (Node), sondern als Fläche (hier ein Quadrat oder Rechteck) einzeichnen. Falls es jedoch keine Kapelle, sondern nur ein Bildstock ist, genügt historic=wayside_shrine (statt amenity=place_of_worship).
user_8334278 (2020-07-19 22:35:49+00:00): you can not see it from space, you have to walk it, today it is all grass with short grass ruts.
malcolmh (2020-10-01 07:09:04+00:00): What exactly are the 3 ways tagged as buoys? They cannot be buoys as buoys are always on singular nodes
fkv (2020-07-20 01:32:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 88215305 where the changeset comment is: CS 88213678 revertiert, weil damit ein unzutreffendes Tag hinzugefuegt wurde
Road–Runner (2020-08-15 19:42:48+00:00): Laut wiki ist "vehicle=destination" für Anreiner ausgenommen, denn "private" würde implizieren, dass die Straße in Privatbesitz ist.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:vehicle?uselang=de
fkv (2020-08-15 22:39:23+00:00): Du kennst die endlose Vorgeschichte zu diesem Dokumentationsfehler nicht. Also zunächst mal: Die Werte sind auf der access-Seite definiert, und da wiederum ist die englischsprachige Version die Referenz: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values
Leider haben über die deutsche Übersetzung die Deutschen eine Art Gewaltherrschaft erlangt (immerhin sind sie uns gegenüber zehnfach in der Überzahl) und sie sind ausgesprochen ignorant gegenüber Gesetzen anderer Länder. Sie sind der Meinung, dass "Anlieger frei" heißt, dass jeder zufahren darf, weil es in Deutschland mal ein derartiges Gerichtsurteil gab. Dass in Österreich "ausgenommen Anrainer" wirklich nur für die Anrainer gilt, geht in ihre Köpfe nicht hinein.
Road–Runner (2020-10-06 08:55:41+00:00): Verstehe.
So genau habe ich mich noch nicht beschäftigt mit dem Thema, da wirst du schon Recht haben.
luisforte (2020-07-19 23:27:47+00:00): Qual é a ideia de definir o border_type=nation do Algarve?
luisforte (2020-07-20 20:11:34+00:00): Revertido, cf https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88214195#map=9/37.2460/-8.1952
highflyer74 (2020-07-24 08:26:28+00:00): Good morning!

Have you seen that there has already been a postbox right beside the one you added here since about 12 years...? Or are there two now?

If not, maybe we could agree on removing the one you added.

All the best!
a_d_s (2020-07-24 08:57:22+00:00): Somehow I missed this, thanks for pointing it out. I updated the existing postpox with the collection times I grabbed from the box itself, and removed the second entry.

Thanks,
Andreas
highflyer74 (2020-07-24 09:32:58+00:00): Danke Dir! :-)
highflyer74 (2020-07-27 15:36:20+00:00): Hallo Andreas!

Ganz kurz nochmal zu dieser Stelle. Ich war heute in dem Gebiet unterwegs, und habe Adressen erfasst. Dabei fiel mir auf, dass der Parkplatz, den Du in der Straße hinzugefügt hast, auch bereits an der Straße erfasst ist (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/685014396), was bei Parken am Straßenrand üblich ist.

Sei mir nicht böse, wenn ich deshalb den Parkplatz wieder entferne, da wir sonst zweimal den gleichen Sachverhalt gemappt haben.

Viele Grüße aus HB!
Squizie3 (2020-07-19 23:51:16+00:00): Sorry, I mistakenly uploaded a bunch of stuff to the wrong server, this wasn't meant for osm. It was corrected in the same changeset, so every change made is now already undone
raushiferum (2020-07-22 20:08:41+00:00): Please, a changeset comment!
Parzelle13 (2020-07-23 07:47:54+00:00): Vor allem was ist mit den Mastleichen nördlich davon.
Von hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=50.3452&lon=7.4587
Richtung Nordost bis zur Autobahn.
Toliman (2020-08-03 12:00:54+00:00): Die neue Leitung ist auf den Luftbildern noch nicht zu sehen. Objekte, die abgebaut sind, aber auf Luftbildern zur Erstellung von Openstreetmap-Karten noch zu sehen sind, sollten mit abandoned: gekennzeichnet werden, um Neuanlagen zu verhindern
Warin61 (2020-08-18 05:30:17+00:00): Hi,
Way 399812799 is the boundary of the Talawahl Nature Reserve and should not be modified to be the boundary of an area of trees. In addition several ways have been changed that have altered the Talawahl Nature Reserve boundaries. 

Secondly ... an area of trees is better tagged natural=wood. This does not imply a land use of forestry which is used for State Forests. And the key 'natural' is use for both natural and man effected things. 

Third? Try not to use existing ways that are not related to what is being mapped. For example trees don't always follow the boundary of a National Park, Nature reserve etc. 

This change set has been reverted as I found it too difficult to correct the altered boundaries. Sorry.
bowman_andrew (2020-08-18 05:37:21+00:00): Thanks Warrin, that's my mistake. In this case would it be better to create a second polygon, tagged natual=wood, to define an area of trees within a nature reserve. Cheers.
keithonearth (2020-08-07 06:22:31+00:00): This edit changes the Trans-Canada Trail back to being classified exclusively as a foot route. I see that this user has made *extensive* changes to the Trans-Canada Trail in the 6 weeks they have been signed up with OSM. They have twice changed it from a bicycle route, to a hiking route, despite this relation existing as a bike route for almost 10 years. It is important to realize that while the Trans-Canada Trail may not be a bicycle route in it's entirety, the sections that had been in this relation were specifically for bicycles. Many of those sections have been removed, and replaced by foot sections, but other parts are cycleways and remain in this relation. 

I would ask the user "Bike Across Canada Route Network" to refrain from making any more edits to the Trans-Canada Trail (aka The Great Trail) until other editors can figure out what has been changed, and if it was appropriate and accurately reflects the situation on the ground. I'm concerned that some of the edits might be construed as vandalism, especially as you seem to be promoting alternative trans-Canada routes.
Bike Across Canada Route Network (2020-08-07 07:23:54+00:00): Happy to comply with your request. 

Here's the source indicating approval for making the TCT/TGT a National Waking Route
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2001276213451132/permalink/2726253827620030/

Also note the source

"Please remind people That we NEVER said it was a National Cycling Route Network, The Great Trail of Canada is a network of MULTI-USE trails which is NOT fully designed for self-supported cyclists for the entire network."
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2001276213451132/permalink/2722389021339844/

Seems pretty conclusive....
keithonearth (2020-08-08 01:01:06+00:00): I see the confusion. The route isn't designed for cyclists for the entire network. But many sections are designed for cyclists. Many multi-use routes are represented on OSM by multiple route relations. The sections that are for bicycles are contained in a bicycle relation, the ones for foot are contained in a foot relation. I suppose other uses (like horseback) could be contained in other relations, but I do not have experience with this. I had thought we had two relations in BC, one for bicycle, and one for foot. Did you delete the relation for foot, by any chance?

I would like to keep the sections that are open to bikes in their relation, and the sections that are open to foot likewise in their relation.

Also I'm not convinced that linking to your own posts on facebook is useful.
Bike Across Canada Route Network (2020-08-08 07:02:01+00:00): Thanks. 
The TCT/TGT relations were changed from ncn to nwn (not removed). There is a BC Super Relation, just as there is a super relation for each province - however it's not really well organized with the right super and parent super relations. 
 And yes, making a new separate relation for each recreation (RCN/RWN/horseback/winter sports/paddling) would be useful. 
  For every segment of the TCT/TGT there is a sister local/regional trail segment of a dedicated user type which should be added to the map.  In most cases it's already shown as a separate relation, but there are a few that hasn't been created yet, and are just shown with the same linear segment name. 

I've been open with the 'The Great Trail' facebook group on my intentions, and have clearly shown what has been done (with the lower mainland vancouver/vancouver Island area, and there are no complaints).   The offer is open for anyone to help make the nwn clearly done with levels super relations.  
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2001276213451132/permalink/2751684078410338/

Over on waymarkedtrails, the nwn looks great so far.    I'm happy to continue to fix it, but maybe your right.  It shouldn't be done under this profile, a new personal profile should be used instead so edits can more easily be understood.
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=9!49.0185!-122.6373

If it's ok with you, i'd like to leave my edits as they are done for this area (to show as an example) and continue with just adding in the Proposed Bike Across Canada Route Network (under this profile), and once it's done make a new profile for the TCT/TGT editing work.
keithonearth (2020-08-08 20:51:33+00:00): I'm not satisfied with the changes to the Trans-Canada Trail that you've made. The fact that your facebook group hasn't complained about them is irrelevant. I've not gotten any complaints here about my facebook posts either.

There are disadvantages to organizing outside of the usual OSM channels like that. I don't expect OSM editors will give much weight to the opinions of a facebook group. I know I don't. 

It would be far better to use OSM communication tools, like the mailing lists, help.osm.org, and the wiki. 

A link between your regular account and this one would also be a good idea. If nothing else, it would defend you against accusations of sockpuppetery.

I'm still of the opinion that ridewithgps or similar websites.
Bike Across Canada Route Network (2020-08-09 06:03:34+00:00): I've checked the talk-ca archives, and crickets are to be found, and my inbox from this profile is empty.

Seems you are the only one who is complaining about the Great Work i've done so far to improve the map and the cycling experience from those who use the cyclemap, and map users who have seen this new proposed route have not complained one bit.

I'll leave it the way it is for now, and see if others (OSM editors) complain about it.
keithonearth (2020-08-11 16:11:17+00:00): It often takes weeks or months to come to consensus on these things. I will not delete the proposed routes you've added for the time being, but I think it's only fair to warn you that I think that deletion will be the likely outcome.

I find the damage you've done to the Trans-Canada Trail more troublesome.
keithonearth (2020-08-14 18:09:43+00:00): Our discussion about this has become spread out over a few changesets, in the interest of consolidating it, I'll only be commenting on this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88962380
Marivet (2020-07-20 15:11:49+00:00): Estimado.
Gracias por sus ediciones.

Si no es accesible al publico se le agrega access=private. Pero no se borra por ningún motivo.
Saludos
TECHDEV GPS (2020-07-20 16:51:12+00:00): Ok, será restituida. No obstante la calle de servicio de todas formas estaba erronea. La calle es paralela a acceso los chirimollos, no obstante no existe conexión con el edificio, ya que el acceso al edificio utiliza 2 entradas diferentes a la calle de servicio. En este caso son 2 porticos que acceden a area de estacionamiento subterraneo y estacionamiento de superficie. En este sentido seria más apropiado agregar los 2 accesos faltantes y definir area de estacionamiento. Saludos y gracias por tu comentario.
felipeeugenio (2020-07-20 23:34:49+00:00): ok, por favor corregir, porque quedó como estaba antes. Gracias por aportar con sus conocimientos.
saludos
WoodWoseWulf (2020-07-20 12:01:27+00:00): Hiya lcd15000,

Welcome back to OSM and thanks for your recent contributions!

I'm not sure if leisure=park is the best tag for these reefs - leisure=park is generally used to mark "open space for recreational use, usually designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes" - the latter part might be a little difficult under water.

Depending on the nature of these locations, you might find natural=reef, leisure=swimming_area or possibly sport=scuba_diving (or a combination of tags) might be a better fit.
lcd15000 (2020-07-22 05:43:10+00:00): Thanks for the recommendation, I updated these edits to reflect.
rab (2020-07-20 14:09:19+00:00): Hi,
bing has the higher resolution but maxar is more recent. I would use both.
(shortkey "b")
redd (2026-01-16 12:32:12+00:00): Hallo zusammen,
hier hat sich mindestens ein Fehler eingeschlichen. Das Restaurant Girasol in Stuttgart hat 2 Stufen am Eingang und auch keinen Nebeneingang. Auch die Außenbestuhlung im Sommer ist unterhalb der Bordsteinkante. 

Den hier erfassten Wert wheelchair=yes habe ich daher nun nach 5 Jahren zu wheelchair=no korrigiert.

Grüße,

redd
Tomas Straupis (2020-07-20 05:29:32+00:00): Peržiūrėjau: pakeitimai teisingi - ačiū!
arvdk (2021-11-22 07:10:07+00:00): openstreetmap.org/way/828010807 - zou je eens kunnen kijken naar het stukje achter nummers 1-5? Het lijkt mij dat je daar niet door kunt, toch? Overigens vroeg ik me af of het laatste stukje dan een building passage is... Groetjes, Arjan
Lachgast (2021-11-22 09:49:45+00:00): Ha die Arjan,

Goed punt! Zo te zien is recent de nieuwbouw (gereed 2021) geïmporteerd. Dit pad is nog uit de tijd van de woningen die hier eerder stonden. Ik heb deze bewerkingen nog gedaan met vogelvluchtbeelden van Bing. 
Op basis van recente satellietbeelden en S+P-obliques van de bouwwerkzaamheden ga ik dit pad opnieuw trekken.

Bedankt voor het nagaan!
Groetjes!