piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-10-29 15:49:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 128216214 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some 'mechanical' maproulette changes, following https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6386 and discussion with Expedia.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-10-29 15:49:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 128216214 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some 'mechanical' maproulette changes, following https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6386 and discussion with Expedia.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-10-29 15:50:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 128216214 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some 'mechanical' maproulette changes, following https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6386 and discussion with Expedia.
ptarac (2022-08-29 19:07:48+00:00): Hello, I have doubts about the quality of your mapping. Please take a look at road # (set #). Can you tell me why the line you have drawn does not follow the axis of the road visible in the image?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125373788
ptarac (2022-08-29 19:11:27+00:00): Here is the link to the screenshot with WAY: 1089191721
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ngV70nw6LMZdt3DZwS0Yo7qoGad7zAEZ/view?usp=sharing
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125373788
easbar (2022-09-07 20:45:30+00:00): Yes, that does not look very accurate, indeed. Honestly, I don't know why it wasn't more precise, but thanks for fixing it in the meantime.
ScantLeopard336 (2022-11-08 02:34:08+00:00): Good afternoon Clay,

I was wondering what sources you use to check for underpass clearances. Every single underpass on Branch Brook Park Drive is signed.
clay_c@wonder (2022-11-08 15:51:33+00:00): Hi there! This was my mistake. I was looking primarily for signage attached to the underpass, and I must have forgotten to look for yellow diamond signs posted in advance. Corrected here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128647091

To answer your question, we mostly use Bing Streetside imagery when looking for low clearances. Much of it is low-resolution or a few years out-of-date, and our mapping team works remotely from outside of New Jersey, so we certainly appreciate local insights wherever we can get them.

-Clay
Retired Account (2022-08-27 01:08:28+00:00): This changeset is an automated edit, solely based on your personal perception that this is nonsense.

The Wiki page itself is meant to document what is the tag meant to be. Woodpeck comment is regarding the removal of the Wiki page (which it is up to the discretion of the Wiki Administrators), but it should not stop mappers doing the actual mapping from mapping how they intend to (whether it is in the area of using a custom tag). 

You are performing wilful data removal away by attempting to remove minor service road classification. The intention for the mapping here is to ensure all minor service roads are classified using service=* and have an approporiate minor service road type.

In any case, there is no banned features and this change should be reverted.
Retired Account (2022-08-27 01:15:17+00:00): As a sidenote, this change also illustrates that whatever you have wrote as your values do not match the action seen here.
ZeLonewolf (2022-08-27 01:45:57+00:00): I disagree.
Retired Account (2022-08-27 01:59:30+00:00): Your change will be reverted as you are not able to provide any substantiation of your stand.
ZeLonewolf (2022-08-27 02:22:38+00:00): The community consensus is that service=driveway2 is nonsense.
Retired Account (2022-08-27 02:28:04+00:00): As stated, there is no banned tags and what you or your community perceives as nonsense does not apply beyond your community. Further, you have no valid justification for any such change, and are in no position to dictate what mappers use.
ZeLonewolf (2022-08-27 02:30:01+00:00): The justification is that the tag provides no specific meaning not already present in highway=service.
ZeLonewolf (2022-08-27 02:34:07+00:00): If you feel my stance and actions are unreasonable, I invite you to submit your objection to the Data Working Group at data@openstreetmap.org, and I will happily submit to and comply with whatever judgment they determine.
Retired Account (2022-08-27 02:34:15+00:00): "To define a service way in more detail, see service=*." You are missing the point stated above by saying it provides no specific meaning.

If we apply this logic to service=driveway, I can similar say that that particular tag also provides no specific meaning. Your logic is not valid.
Retired Account (2022-08-27 02:36:29+00:00): Your stance and actions are unreasonable, and contradicts the infobox stating the following...
"The reason is documented in Deprecated features. You are still free to continue to use or interpret this tag as you see fit since OpenStreetMap does not have “banned features”.
Under no circumstances should you (semi-)automatically change “deprecated” tags to something else in the database on a large scale without conforming to the automated edits code of conduct. Any such change will be reverted."

Your actions, on contrast, is contradicting that.
snoozingnewt (2022-08-27 04:33:34+00:00): Can you tell me what driveway2 is supposed to mean then?
snoozingnewt (2022-08-27 04:35:01+00:00): If it has no meaning or you don’t know one then it is a nonsense tag. If i add h=oefotprkf to 489 reservoirs across the US and someone automatically removes all of them I wouldn’t consider that to be against the rules.
jmarchon (2022-08-27 04:58:39+00:00): I would agree that service=driveway2 is nonsense. At least until someone documents in the wiki its meaning and intended usage.
Retired Account (2022-08-27 05:03:42+00:00): Defines "driveway is a minor service road providing access from the highway to an offstreet area used for driving, servicing, parking, or otherwise accommodating motor vehicles", which can include minor roads linking to parking aisles, or minor roads linking to other minor roads. Your statement saying it is no meaning is false.

Trying to equate tag with meaning to h=oefotprkf is an instance of straw man argument. Please try something better.
jmarchon (2022-08-27 05:12:13+00:00): service=driveway2 is labeled as deprecated, and a possible tagging mistake in the wiki. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to be removing those tags. The wiki states the automated edits should only be done by people who really know what they are doing. I trust ZeLonewolf to be doing it correctly.
Retired Account (2022-08-27 05:18:00+00:00): With your response, it will mean that the official policy should change to...
1) OSM has banned features.
2) Users can and should do automated edits to something that they have not mapped, even if it is different from the intent of the person mapping it.
3) Automated edits can be done without any manual review, "trust" is sufficient condition to trigger such edits.
jmarchon (2022-08-27 05:29:19+00:00): 1) I wouldn't call service=driveway2 banned, just deprecated. If someone has a better tag for it, they are welcome to fix it, in my opinion.
2) Yes, if they really know what they are doing, as the wiki states.
3) I trust ZeLonewolf to have followed the proper procedures, as they are a very experienced mapper. I am not, so this is all my opinion.
Retired Account (2022-08-27 05:51:02+00:00): If simply deleting off all custom tags across several changesets #125373826, #125428168, #125428245 in the middle of an active dispute does not consititute banning, without seeing logical rationale or procedures illustrates a experienced mapper, I am humbled by how such actions can be taken and further justified.
woodpeck (2022-08-27 07:52:25+00:00): I think that using "highway=driveway2" is a very bad idea - it is a bad choice of tags, and it will mean that the information is lost to 95% of software which simply ignores this unknown and esoteric highway category. I would never use it, and if I came across it on an object I was editing for some other reason, I would certainly change it to something different. 

I am pretty sure that, were a proper discussion held on the tagging or talk mailing lists, an agreement could be found to automatically convert this tag like user ZeLoneWolf has done here.

However, quoting a one-year-old statement from me does *not* constitute proper discussion as required by the mechanical edit guidelines.

Therefore, @ZeLoneWolf, please revert your edit, and seek community consensus for this. Then you may make the change again. Being in the business as long as you are, one would hope that you know the rules by now!

Frederik Ramm    
OSMF Data Working Group    
Ticket#2022082710000018
woodpeck (2022-08-27 08:27:31+00:00): Two corrections: 

1. I was mistaken when I spoke of highway=driveway2 above, of course it is service=driveway2 and the fact that this is not known to most of software will make these highways look MORE prominent than a standard driveway. One wonders why e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1087949999 does need to be more prominent than a standard driveway. 

2. It might have made sense to, instead of just deleting service=driveway2, convert it into service=driveway. Those are the things that only a proper discussion can decide.
snoozingnewt (2022-08-27 14:02:20+00:00): Your definition was just the definition of driveway, which is no different than just using service=driveway versus service=driveway2. Why not use driveway? I still don’t understand how there is any meaningful difference
Woazboat (2022-08-27 15:28:21+00:00): > seek community consensus for this. Then you may make the change again.

Adding my 2 cents here to support the removal of `service=driveway2`. It does not provide any value whatsoever and does not convey any additional information. All service ways that can be considered drveways should be tagged with the already existing and widely accepted tag `service=driveway` and those that are not should NOT be tagged simply for the reason of having a `service=*` tag. The notion that "every `highway=service` absolutely needs to have a `service=*` tag" is plainly wrong. If there is some additional or extended classification of service roads that allows for more fine grained distinction and **actually means anything**, then sure, go ahead and tag that (after consultation with the community). `driveway2` does not fall into that category. (What is the 2 even supposed to mean?)
Woazboat (2022-08-27 15:38:08+00:00): Your interpretation of "there are no banned tags" is incorrect. It does not mean that you are free to add whatever nonsensial tags you like. What it means that you can add any information that is (among other things but most importantly):

1) Verifiable
2) Useful (i.e. actually provide meaningful information)
3) Accepted by the community 
(This does not mean that absolutely everyone has to agree or even pre-approve, but it should at least follow local conventions. It also doesn't mean that you always have to ask first before inventing new tags, but if you don't you need to be prepared for pushback and disapproval like in this case)
Retired Account (2022-08-27 16:35:05+00:00): @Woazboat
Your interpretation will likewise apply to service=driveway. That tag itself des not add much value in itself, so do you mean that all service=driveway tags should be removed?
How one determines additional value/information differs from another person. There is value that you do not see from such tagging.

The ways being tagged meets your definition.
1) Verifiable - paths tagged as such meets the Wiki definition.
2) Useful - what is useful to the mapper may not be useful to you, but in your view perhaps only your perception matters and not the mapper's.
3) Accepted by community - the tagging actually originated from avoiding the need to change the existing tag, as per the wishes of "the community". However, it does not preclude the mapper from tagging what he/she intends to map/tag. As stated previously, mappers are free to map what they want to map; this change is trying to subvert what the mapper intends to map.
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-08-27 16:37:07+00:00): > That tag itself des not add much value in itself

This is untrue, it allows to identify roads very likely to be less important
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-08-27 16:40:24+00:00): (nevertheless, as far as I see: this edit has not passed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct )

though I agree that this tag is broken and we would benefit from purging it
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-08-27 16:43:41+00:00): Though main problem with Automated Edits code of conduct it is that it is really strict and vast majority of automated edits violates it, while people are refusing to drop unnecessary parts.
woodpeck (2022-09-02 18:50:05+00:00): @ZeLoneWolf, please revert your edit as you were asked to by me, in this discussion, 6 days ago.
ZeLonewolf (2022-09-02 18:58:42+00:00): Completed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/125711868
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-09-03 09:19:03+00:00): continues in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2022-September/087734.html
Matija Nalis (2023-07-11 20:06:03+00:00): also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-bulk-removal-of-service-driveway2
RutherfordJ20 (2022-08-25 18:25:06+00:00): Can this edit be reverted by a staff member, Just noticed the Bing Satelite images I used was out of date and that 
Esri World Imagery has more up to date imagery
Glassman (2022-08-27 00:05:06+00:00): $TIP: Limit your edit to a small geographical layer then save and upload before moving to a distant location.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125373986
RCRalph (2022-10-24 20:40:43+00:00): Hej, skąd informacja o tym że przy Uroczysku jest opuszczony tor? Nie przypominam sobie żeby tam było coś takiego.
Jarosław (2022-08-28 19:09:09+00:00): Dodanie przystanku kolejowego Pogorzelica Sandra do trasy Gryficka Kolej Wąskotorowa. Przystanek oddano do użytku w 2017 roku.
HellMap (2022-09-08 12:22:57+00:00): Hi! Regarding crossings like [1], `crossing:island=yes` shouldn't be used if the traffic island is separately mapped.

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6294259129/history
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island#Alternatives
mavl (2024-11-13 05:35:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 159076412 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible sources - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16857].
andrewsuzuki (2022-08-30 20:41:24+00:00): Hi again, I see you added bicycle=designated to six residential roads (for example, way 1089199733). Are these roads really signposted for bicycles (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Ddesignated)? If they are simply bike-legal then the don't need a bicycle tag. I know some of them have the East Coast Greenway tag but I'm not sure that counts as bicycle=designated.
andrewsuzuki (2022-08-30 20:49:42+00:00): Also, I'm not sure if this was a mistake, but you split the tunnel (way 1089199734) into two halves and I believe connected the middle node to the road above? Generally there shouldn't be any connection between a bridge/tunnel and the intersecting road.
Jmapper007 (2022-08-31 00:16:17+00:00): The reason I added the bicycle=designated was because it was shown as the route to get from Mechanicsville to where the Airline trail recontinued as shown on the state website (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DEEP/stateparks/maps/AirLineTrailNorthPutnamBypasspdf.pdf). As for the tunnel I will take a look at that.
Jmapper007 (2022-08-31 00:18:31+00:00): It does not seem like the tunnel is connected to the road.
Jmapper007 (2022-08-31 00:18:50+00:00): Though extremely close.
andrewsuzuki (2022-08-31 03:30:02+00:00): bicycle=designated is specifically for roads that are signposted for bicycles (see above wiki link); being a part of a route does not make them designated. You could mark them bicycle=yes I suppose, but that is already implied on highway=residential in the US.
As for the tunnel I already fixed it, I was checking all the tunnels in CT and came across it.
Carto'Cité (2022-12-15 13:14:24+00:00): Bonjour Ephtolens,
Les contributions sur ces objets sont très qualitatives :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1089184543
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1089184545
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1089184544
Il y a juste une erreur que je vais corriger concernant le traffic_sign, la bonne rédaction de ce tag est traffic_sign=FR:C115.
J'améliore aussi un peu la géométrie à l'aide de l'Ortho Express 2022.
À ta disposition pour en discuter.
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #VeloNormandie
Roue-doudou (2022-12-15 14:29:18+00:00): En effet ! 
Je pense que l'on peut egalement enlever la cycleway en construction dans le sens Boos -> Franqueville renseignée par Félix Couillard car rien ne sera construit de ce coté, la voie verte en construction actuellement ce situe sur la rive sud de la route de paris
Carto'Cité (2022-12-15 15:55:50+00:00): OK je modifie dans ce sens. Merci pour ces retours.
Charles
lann (2022-10-15 05:23:33+00:00): Bonjour

Je suis tombé sur la ligne de chemin de fer entre Carhaix et la Brohinnière.
Quelques tags m'interpellent :
- access=private 
Pourquoi private ?
- railway=narrow_gauge
La ligne de chemin de fer a été retirée, non ?
GeorgeKaplan (2022-10-15 05:35:21+00:00): Bonjour,

Ca ne me dit rien, tu parles de quel objet ? Je ne pense pas avoir volontairement modifié une ligne de chemin de fer, une erreur de manipulation sinon.
lann (2022-10-15 17:29:01+00:00): La ligne de chemin de fer qui part de Gouarec et qui s'arrête à Bon repos en suivant le Blavet
GeorgeKaplan (2022-10-22 14:05:23+00:00): OK, je vois. J'étais dans les environs mais je n'ai pas fait de relevé de la voie, seulement consultation du site du train touristique pour vérifier le statut de la voie et des gares.
J'ai probablement continué à harmoniser les tags en fonction de l'imagerie aérienne ce qui explique les access=private, ça ne m'a pas choqué. Si la voie a été démontée, en effet il faut la supprimer.
lann (2022-10-22 18:18:24+00:00): Bon apparemment, ça a été réhabilité :
https://www.letelegramme.fr/cotes-darmor/gouarec/chemin-de-fer-de-bon-repos-un-train-relie-gouarec-et-bon-repos-chaque-dimanche-29-07-2022-13129611.php

Je pense que l'on peut laisser les tags comme ils sont.
Sur la photo aérienne, je ne vois pas les lignes mais elle n'est peut être pas très à jour.
Bonne soirée
Frans S (2022-08-26 09:34:03+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say, but  your mappings are not that accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to these points: 
See my previous comment. These buildings are very sloppy mapped. Please improve your mapping skills



Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125375261
Frans S (2022-08-26 09:49:07+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say, but  your mappings are not that accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to these points: 
See my previous comment. These buildings are very sloppy mapped. Please improve your mapping skills



Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125375261
Frans S (2022-08-26 09:49:51+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say, but  your mappings are not that accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to these points: 
See my previous comment. These buildings are very sloppy mapped. Please improve your mapping skills



Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125375261
Frans S (2022-08-26 09:50:33+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say, but  your mappings are not that accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to these points: 
See my previous comment. These buildings are very sloppy mapped. Please improve your mapping skills



Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125375261
at1839 (2023-08-01 16:28:33+00:00): mtb:scale:imba su una via ferrata? E' un refuso immagino, tag da eliminare? Ovviamente anche sul precedente tratto della via normale all'Agner ...

Ciao. Paolo
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-08-26 09:32:05+00:00): Hallo J-MUC,

kannst Du mir erklären, warum Du denkst, dass die Skulptur figurative Kunst und nicht abstrakte Kunst ist?

P.S.: Denke daran, dass Wikimedia Commons oftmals keine zulässige Quelle ist (in diesem  Fall sind die Bilder mit CC0 Lizenz ok). Die Quellenangabe "Wikimedia Commons" ist daher nicht ausreichen, da das tatsächlich verwendete Bild (und seine Lizenz) entscheidend ist. Die meisten Bilder sind bei Wikimedia Commons nicht OSM-kompatibel, da keine CC0 Attribution. Bei wikidata sollten wir auf die Verwendung verzichten, weil wikidata nicht OSM-konforme Daten (z.B. aus Wikipedia) importiert und als CC0 freigibt. Das ist nicht im Sinne von OSM.
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-08-26 09:42:44+00:00): Deine Änderung vom Bild-Link ist laut Wiki nicht richtig. Wikimedia Commons Bilder sollen im FILE:-Format eingetragen werden:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:image