piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
skorasaurus (2021-01-16 20:59:54+00:00): hi, 
welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your edits; they look good!  My only suggestion is that you don't need to add the oneway tag to highways/roads; they are assumed that traffic can go in both directions if the 'oneway' tag is not present.

Regards,
will in lakewood.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97609368
Hedaja (2021-01-16 16:11:24+00:00): Hi
I looked at your changes and couldn't see any issues. If you have time you could add the paths to the buildings.

Happy mapping
-Christian
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97609657
Hedaja (2021-01-16 16:06:54+00:00): your changes are looking good. Couldn't find any issues with them.

Happy mapping
Christian
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97609692
ftrebien (2021-01-17 18:09:58+00:00): Hello. What is the bases for changing the road classification in this area? This has left the secondary mesh open in the area. Road classification in Porto Alegre closely follows official classification and changes like this are usually discussed with the local community first. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Porto_Alegre,_Rio_Grande_do_Sul/Sistema_Vi%C3%A1rio#Porto_Alegre
ftrebien (2021-01-17 23:10:02+00:00): The problem with this change is that the secondary road network was left logically disconnected between rua Cruzeiro do Sul (northeast) and avenida Icaraí (west). The secondary system is quite important because it is used by many people who travel medium distances (several neighborhoods, such as commuting or going to leisure activities). A gap could sometimes be ok in places like the periphery of cities where urban arterials end, but generally not in the middle of densely urbanized areas. You will see that, even with variable physical profiles and (although undesirable) some zigzags, connectivity is a desirable property followed by popular high quality maps in Brazil and abroad. It turns out that recent construction work has progressed on avenida Divisa, which is now the preferred route in the area. So, I promoted this new preferable route to secondary, logically reconnecting the secondary road network. Otherwise, the preferable route would be through rua Butuí, as it has been for many years, and as shown by competing maps. As a developing country with poor planning, Brazil is not easy, you will see this situation in many places (there is another one at the other end of rua Cruzeiro do Sul where it meets avenida Doutor Carlos Barbosa). So don't get discouraged, but be prepared to solve many traffic flow puzzles. The federal department of infrastructure (DNIT) aims to manage Brazilian roads and streets using functional classification based on the US FWHA guidelines, but does not publish the official classification of the road system, only the general guidelines. So, in big cities, the best we can do in OSM is to rely on city plans, which do not always correspond exactly to reality and therefore need adjustments. In odd situations like this one, it is always best to assess conditions on the surrounding streets.
GhostEye (2021-01-20 21:44:06+00:00): Thank you for the quick feedback that you provided. While driving this area I noticed the reduced traffic flow along Rua Butui compared to Avenida Divisa. Your insight into the recent improvements is greatly appreciated. I hope you have a wonderful day!
eggie (2021-01-16 18:57:15+00:00): Dag Jan
Zelf denk ik access=private  Dat is voldoende.
Als die weggebruikers met = niet nader bepaald beter verwijderen.
Dat geeft alleen maar foutmeldingen.
MVG
eggie
audtr (2023-08-10 15:12:30+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3823521
tom_yorados (2021-01-16 20:51:28+00:00): Hi,
sieht mir nicht nach vandalismus aus. Im englischem Wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dmotorcycle

steht: "Object should be mapped as shop=clothes + clothes=motorcycle when it doesn't sell motorcycles)"
Das trifft hier zu. Louis verkauft keine Motorräder.
ti-lo (2021-01-17 11:54:36+00:00): Dann schau Dir mal an, wer das war : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:shop%3Dmotorcycle&action=history
tom_yorados (2021-01-17 15:56:17+00:00): Interessant.
Hungerburg (2021-01-17 11:05:20+00:00): Actually, the tagging was right. Now it is wrong - acc. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dmotorcycle a shop, where there are no motorcycles for sale is not a shop=motorcyle, quote "…tag is redundant…"
Hungerburg (2021-01-18 18:42:13+00:00): You should at least add motorcycle:sales=no
SomeoneElse (2021-02-06 17:39:03+00:00): Based on comments above I've reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/98823084 .
I've been trying to figure out what's the best tag for these items caught up in this edit war between ti-lo and Adamant1.  Each of them are right some of the time, some are 50/50 calls.
Hungerburg (2021-02-06 21:33:44+00:00): Been there only once to buy a torque wrench. They have some shrink wrapped tools, acessories, and perhaps parts in the remote side of the shop.

All the other shop=motorcycle in the larger area actually deal in motorcycles. But wait, there is a shop=car here, that does not sell cars neither, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48578640 - BKD, which stands for brake and clutch service. There is also car_parts, eg. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4811002025 and neighbouring shop.

If any was a Louis though, the sales floor would be 90% dresses for mechanics. Maybe biking is that much about clothes? No other sports shops devote so much floor to it, not even the allrounders like Hervis e.g.
Hungerburg (2021-02-06 21:35:54+00:00): PS: car is not sport, of course, but cycling, at least from the sales perspective, is.
Hungerburg (2021-02-09 22:16:27+00:00): Finally met a biker to get at local_knowledge: The Louis shop has commonly used spare and wear parts on stock, of the kind, that DIY mechanics need, at reasonable prices and quality, for more than one brand. My guess, it is not possible to make a living from parts for motorcycles, unlike for cars, or finance a vanity stores chain, so fashion is a way of combined costing. In this case, it seems overblown to execute a rule that says, the main occupation is the defining one.

Looks like, as a fallout of this, I have to change the BKD-shop from shop=car to shop=car_parts, they call themselves specialist shop, not dealer; motorcyle does not have this detailed keys available. Maybe Louis is shop=motorsports?
ti-lo (2021-02-15 11:26:53+00:00): In this case it's quite easy to figure out what they offer, as it's a shop chain : https://www.louis-moto.co.uk/katalog/hauptrubrik/motorcycle-accessories-equipment-and-leisure/2

Generally, there are a bunch of "mixed" shops (for motorcycle especially in France). So the "main" category would IMHO be motorcycle, as this is the topic. The offered services may easily be expressed by a namespace (instead of inventing new "shop types" for every "mixture of services"). Another (easy) example would be mobile_phone:repair, this may be offered by several shop types. The same generally apllies to all shop types, as they usally offer sales, parts, repair, rental etc. (if it's non-food). But it should be determined for which goods. A car dealer might rent cars and sell bicycles, so there should be a prefix to express which service applies to which vehicle type (car:sales, car:rental; bicycle:sales)
ti-lo (2021-02-15 11:40:03+00:00): By the way, there's a description for this brand, please comment in the wiki in case you feel it should be changed : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:brand=Louis%20Motorrad?uselang=en
Hungerburg (2021-02-15 20:52:47+00:00): I see, it is a motorcycle-themed-shop. At https://www.louis-moto.co.uk/service/louis/impressum they call themselves motorcycle distributor. That though is simply not true, at least not in this shop, nor the webshop. With cars its easier, a shop=car must primarily deal in cars. This aligns with a common perception. If following your description, Louis is a shop=mixed. The category does not exist yet, but it would do away with inventing new shop types for now and forever.
ti-lo (2021-02-16 21:24:50+00:00): And what would be the advantage of a shop type "mixed" ? I understand if it carries any information, such as "no own building" *,but usually every shop got it's "main purpose" 

*https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dstreet_vendor
(the number of entries been artificially reduced by the same guy who's cannibalizing motorcycle shops)
eggie (2021-01-16 18:55:36+00:00): Beste Jan,

De accesstags met =	"niet nader bepaald "  kun je beter verwijderen. Dat zijn geen valide tags in OSM.
Waar komen die 'waarden' vandaan?
Alles is UK English en volgens de afsraken in de wiki.
covered=no hoef je ook niet op refuliere wegen aan te geven Dat spreekt van zelf.
Kijk je nog even?
MVG
eggie
Puxan (2021-01-16 19:22:51+00:00): I think a lot of path tags have been wrongly changed from highway = unclassified to path. I communicate by mail with the author, since I have observed the same thing on multiple occasions
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97611555
rab (2021-01-22 17:30:05+00:00): @Puxan please give us some examples.
like close to here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7443624637/history
why were this ways drawn at all and who validated here?
Puxan (2021-01-23 17:35:49+00:00): @rab He contactado con kibira y ha aceptado que quizá actuó sin demasiado conocimiento de la clasificación de vías en África.  Si desea más ejemplos puede ver los changset 97441825, 97268718, 97221573, en este último está la vía 228199159 en la que se ve que anteriormente el mismo kibira había dado por buena la clasificación de unclassified.  Yo doy el tema por cerrado aunque deben quedar bastantes vías con una clasificación poco ajustada a la realidad
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97611555
rab (2021-01-24 12:42:33+00:00): I would consider to tag roads servicing only one or a small group of buildings as "highway=service" Also I would recommend to search and remove all roads and paths shorter then a certain length.  (<100m for example - remove bridges and fords from the selection) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/799114559
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/803342041
You can do this easily with the search tool in JOSM.  This will remove a lot of the tile mapping artefacts and provide a better staring point for validation.
Puxan (2021-01-24 18:38:42+00:00): Gracias @rab lo tendré en cuenta
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97611555
limes11 (2021-01-16 16:43:00+00:00): Hi,

sind diese Wege entsprechend beschildert? Ich bin dort vor Monaten geradelt und kann mich nicht erinnern, entsprechende Vorschriften verletzt zu haben. 

VG, Limes
user_153091 (2021-01-16 17:17:57+00:00): Hi Limes,
es sind wilde Pfade, im Naturschutzgebiet die eigentlich nicht mal betreten werden sollten. Im Gegensatz zum Siebengebirge halten sich die Behörden hier mit der Beschilderung zurück. Mit der Einstellung soll verhindert werden, dass fremde Fahrradfahrer mit dem GPS durch das Naturschutzgebiet geführt werden.

Gruß
mm
limes11 (2021-01-16 17:38:15+00:00): Hi,

welches Naturschutzgebiet ist hier? Das Siebengebirge als NSG endet an der Landesgrenze. 

VG, Limes
user_153091 (2021-01-16 18:16:52+00:00): 
https://www.vgvunkel.de/vg_unkel/Metanavigation/winkraft/2_BV/Folien%20WeSt.pdf

Seite 7
limes11 (2021-01-16 18:39:03+00:00): Das sind Biotope, keine NSGe. Das Bild ist uralt und wahnsinnig unscharf, der Verlauf laesst sich hier nachvollziehen:

https://geodaten.naturschutz.rlp.de/

Das sind drei kleine Gebiete an Baechen, das hat nichts mit den Wegen hier zu tun.

Der Druck auf Radfahrer im Siebengebirge waechst von allen Seiten. Viele kommen nach RLP um den genervten Wanderern und teilweise der Illegalität zu entgehen. Wir sollten deshalb hier keine Wege grundlos sperren.
user_153091 (2021-01-16 19:08:12+00:00): Auf der Straße „auf dem Hohn“ stehen am Anfang und Ende Schilder, die das Landschaftsschutzgebiet ausweisen. Somit sind sie abzweigenden Pfade erst recht schutzbedürftig. Eine Alternative wäre höchstens, dass die Pfade gelöscht werden.
berndw (2021-01-16 20:10:54+00:00): Normalerweise(!) sollte kein Router Pfade als Radwege vorschlagen, in RLP ist das im Waldgesetz, Link unten, verboten
siehe §22(3) Radfahren nur erlaubt Straßen und Waldwegen
und §3(7) Definition Waldwege.
Wenn es der Waldbesitzer ernst meint, kann es verdammt  teuer werden.
Inwieweit man jeden Weg mit bicycle=no versehen muss, kann ich nicht beurteilen, ich würde das Problem eher bei der Routern lösen lassen wollen
Bei meinen eigenen Karten sind wege unter 1 Meter pauschal zum Routen ausgeschlossen, so sollte das jeder Dienst halten

m2c
Bernd

http://www.landesrecht.rlp.de/jportal/portal/t/775/page/bsrlpprod.psml;jsessionid=81285353D3339779E6BE51B4CF7ABEBD.jp26?pid=Dokumentanzeige&showdoccase=1&js_peid=Trefferliste&documentnumber=1&numberofresults=2&fromdoctodoc=yes&doc.id=jlr-WaldGRPrahmen&doc.part=X&doc.price=0.0&doc.hl=1#jlr-WaldGRPpP3
user_153091 (2021-01-16 20:19:51+00:00): Danke Bend, dann ist das geklärt.
Ich hatte wirklich angenommen dass ein Routing erfolgt, wenn es keine Einschränkung gibt.
Viele Grüße 
Michael
limes11 (2021-01-16 22:36:37+00:00): Hallo Bernd,

die Auslegung dieses schwammigen Gesetzes ist umstritten, 

https://www.dimb.de/fachberatung/die-rechtslage/rheinland-pfalz/

In BW ist das mit der 2m Regel deutlich besser gelöst. 

Es von den Routern lösen zu lassen, wird nicht funktionieren. Über hw=path wird natürlich geroutet. Und ein geringer Wert von "width" wird zum einen oft nicht gesetzt, zum anderen von Routern wie z.B. komoot maximal mit einer Strafe belegt, aber nicht ausgeschlossen.

Da dies eine sehr allgemeine Frage ist, hab ich es im Forum gestellt:

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=71717
berndw (2021-01-17 07:36:53+00:00): Das ist eine immer wiederkehrende Diskussion, ich beobachte sie, werde mich aber nicht beteiligen.
Diese wilden Pfade nördlich von Breite Heide sind IMHO ein Grund, warum so etwas geregelt sein MUSS.
limes11 (2021-01-17 09:21:04+00:00): So wild sind die nicht. Die Wege um 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59208215

ja, aber der Rest ist im Wesentlichen auch auf offiziellen Karten.
5m4u9 (2021-01-18 20:28:54+00:00): hola, como sugerencia, añadí place=square para denote que son plazas españolas (plazas secas), sino queda como acera ancha :v
user_5359 (2021-01-17 17:46:41+00:00): Hello! Please notice type is reserved for a description of a relation.
rout=hiking
route=highway
Which value of route is correct?
user_5359 (2021-01-17 04:34:29+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have revert your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
user_5359 (2021-01-17 17:53:23+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/780088865? What is the meaning of the booth keys https://opc.tycg.gov.tw/home.jsp?id=8&parentpath=0,1&mcustomize=multimessage_view.jsp&dataserno=202007100008&aplistdn=ou=hotnews,ou=chinese,ou=ap_root,o=tycg,c=tw&toolsflag=Y&language=chinese
I assume a copy & paste error.
Supaplex (2021-01-18 01:38:00+00:00): My fault, I'll fix it.
silversurfer83 (2023-03-06 14:54:17+00:00): Moin :)
Bin hier grad über einen hw=path mit foot + bicycle=official gestolpert.
Sollte das nicht eigentlich =designated sein? (kann ja sein, dass official auch gut ausgewertet wird, aber ich hab das bisher noch nicht so gesehen)
Grüße
silversurfer83
bielebog (2023-03-07 07:10:59+00:00): Da wird ein Blauschild stehen (Z. 240 oder 241), die entsprechende Benutzungspflicht kann man mit *=official angeben.
silversurfer83 (2023-03-07 11:43:15+00:00): Ah.
Gestern hatte ich dann leider auch nicht mehr die Zeit da hinter her zu recherchieren. Der kurze CS Kommentar ging schneller.
Habe jetzt aber Zeit gehabt und nochmal im Wiki gewühlt und auf der access Seite einen link hierhin gefunden:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial

Demnach wird es praktisch kaum genutzt und ist eigentlich deprecated. 
Ich will jetzt nicht groß auf die Suche gehen, aber würde schon, wenn ich solche Wege sehe, eher auf designated ändern, wenn ich sowieso grad an der Ecke "arbeite". 
Siehst du das anders? 

Grüße 
Silversurfer83
bielebog (2023-03-07 19:21:27+00:00): Solange die Beschilderung mit traffic-sign=* passend eingetragen ist, sind das Feinheiten. Nur zu.
Dodko (2021-07-18 19:55:19+00:00): Aby zvonica bola na mape naozaj zvonicou pridajte jej značky
man_made=tower
tower:type=bell_tower

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Tag:man_made%3Dtower
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Key:tower:type
Robhubi (inaktiv) (2023-12-20 22:08:51+00:00): Delete instead of repair - great achievement, congratulations. Also very nice to ignore the mapper who built this MP 12 days before. It was bug free back then and you can read the purpose here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Robhubi/diary/395399
mboeringa (2023-12-21 18:50:36+00:00): It is fine to have your own interpretations of OpenStreetMap tagging, but if you clearly violate some of the basic best practices that by now are quite well established around building relations and multipolygon relations to bend them to your own view, you deliberately choose to risk people correcting your work.

There was nothing to repair, as this MP did not pass JOSM mulitpolygon validation due to inner and outer rings intersecting which was a conscious choice by you, which leaves only one real option, that is to delete it, as there is no sensible way to correct it. Likely, with the enhanced validation in iD, iD will now also no longer allow you to build such invalid multipolygons.

The relation between building parts you tried to model, is easily able to be mapped with the type=building relation you already tried to create, but you then also deliberately made that one invalid by not including the role=outline feature (and JOSM complains about this as well with a "Warning"), because in your view, it needed to be a separate feature mapped as that invalid MP, which again is not best practice around how to model type=building relation with building parts.

Honestly, I really recommend you to stick with best practices, if I hadn't done it, someone else was really likely to have fixed this issue in the past three years since these edits because automated online validation tools would have flagged it also as problematic, so you would have ended up in exactly the same situation anyway by another users edit.
Robhubi (inaktiv) (2023-12-21 20:32:06+00:00): I repeat: the MP had no error when I left it. There were no intersecting inner and outer rings!

It is not a problem if you or other mappers do not understand the meaning of the chosen structure. But it is a problem if you delete without thinking in order to get rid of a warning. The validator provides hints for reflection, but it does not replace reflection.

With the exception of vandalism, deleting without discussion neither improves the data nor helps the community. At its core, OSM thrives on tolerance and respect for one another.
mboeringa (2023-12-21 20:41:53+00:00): Well, it is hard to talk about something unless you can view the actual historic object in JOSM, but your own blog post's screenshot appears to show otherwise. The image of the established MP appears to show intersecting inner and outer rings.

I do not make it a practice to delete other users stuff without carefully verifying it in JOSM, also through the included validator there, so I assume JOSM flagged it. 

But again, talking about something that was, is hard. If you can point to some history viewer for OSM that shows the actual historic object at the time of creation, maybe we can have a more productive discussion of this issue.
mboeringa (2023-12-21 20:45:34+00:00): "At its core, OSM thrives on tolerance and respect for one another."

Yes, but there is a second mantra that is well established:

At its core, OSM thrives by people freely being able to correct each others work (no single person "owns" stuff in OSM), and to enhance or fix broken stuff.
Robhubi (inaktiv) (2023-12-21 21:10:19+00:00): That's right, before the deletion the discussion would have been more productive.

After the holidays I'll restore the MP, it's easier and makes more sense than digging through the history.
mboeringa (2023-12-21 21:26:28+00:00): Well, that is your call.

As I've said, I wouldn't recommend it, but instead add the building parts of the ground floor to the building relation as well, as is best practice, and add another part for the true total ground surface outline as role=outline. This is clearly the recommended practice from the 3D buildings' specification.

If you do not do this, you will still have a JOSM validator "Warning" flagged type=building relation, that may trigger other users' attention and you may end up in a similar situation.

But enough said, its your call.
user_5359 (2021-01-17 05:23:45+00:00): A Google map is not a permitted source for a data transfer and, if you will pardon the saying, your change comment does not quite reflect the change you have made.
Lupinsun (2021-01-19 11:57:08+00:00): Hi, sorry, I'm not very practical, my fault, unfortunately I have not read the terms. I know that the change comment is not the best, I always use the same description because I focus more on the changes than the description! I will pay more attention ..
mueschel (2021-01-18 10:57:04+00:00): Hi,
what does 'sanitation:construction=yes' mean? This tag is not used in other places.

Cheers
Jan
frasty (2021-01-18 14:57:52+00:00): Hi,
This tag is mentioned in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:craft%3Dhvac
I thought it could be related to the construction of heating systems for sanitation.
Maybe shop=hvac is more appropriate
mueschel (2021-01-18 15:13:07+00:00): Interesting... these tags were added a year ago to the Wiki, but none of them is in use. And I can't find any discussion about the introduction of these tags. 
The tags seem to make sense, but a silent edit of the Wiki is not really a good way to introduce tags (not your fault, obviously).
luiswoo (2021-01-17 10:11:11+00:00): Вроде же давалась ссылка, для чего нужен access? не? Access регулируются знаками, тут есть установленные знаки об ограничениях?
luiswoo (2021-01-17 11:21:03+00:00): Как говориться, фигня вопрос, сюда https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=47.24012295882795&lng=39.705464152402556&z=11.485064934716274 фотки с регистратора кинуть.
2GarinZmei (2021-01-17 12:44:33+00:00): С экссесом понятно, поправил, по этим косточкам через Темерник не проехать, вроде все указал без эксесса
H@mlet (2021-02-23 13:36:52+00:00): Bonjour,
Concernant votre fixme sur le chemin 790820936, non. Il y a bien un track qui plonge dans l'eau (ou la boue selon le niveau de l'Arz) et un path en surplomb, un peu à l'Est.
Cordialement.
Fabe56 (2021-02-25 14:57:12+00:00): Ok mais du coup ce chemin #790820936 aboutie quelque part ? Il rejoint le chemin #674239026, voir la voie verte Mauron- Questembert ?
H@mlet (2021-02-25 16:28:43+00:00): Non, il se perd dans le marécage... Je suposse qu'il partait vers l'ouest, mais je n'ai pas pris mes bottes pour explorer !
Fabe56 (2021-02-25 16:40:22+00:00): On attendra des conditions moins humides pour explorer ;)
Merci.
user_5359 (2021-01-17 17:59:09+00:00): Hello! I correct you typo of image:2.

To be honest, a mapillary source is enough. A collection of the best individual images is definitely not necessary and the energy should be put into other details.
km2bp (2021-01-17 19:22:05+00:00): Thanks a lot
Luuuddooo (2021-01-18 10:31:40+00:00): Bonjour, j'avais ajouté le nom et le tag pour la mairie ( (amenity=townhall) sur ce bâtiment https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/308410899/
Du coup j'avais tout faux ?