piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Erniebert70 (2022-12-13 15:14:12+00:00): Sorry, aber ich kann in meiner Darstellung keinen Fehler feststellen. Die neue Emschermündung verläuft in etwa so wie jetzt dargestellt. (Durch noch verlaufende Bauarbeiten sind später noch ein paar Anpassungen nötig) Aber der neue Emscherverlauf ist so glaube ich richtig. (Mit Mündung in dem Rhein) Aber wenn du der Meinung bist ich habe einen Fehler gemacht korrigiere diesen doch bitte. Ich bin auch nur ein Leihe und bemühe mich nach besten Wissen und Gewissen :-)
UWJ (2022-12-13 20:02:10+00:00): War nicht böse gemeint. :)
Werde es morgen anpassen und die zweite Flusslinie des Rheins löschen.
Erniebert70 (2022-12-14 18:54:49+00:00): Habe ich auch nicht als böse empfunden. Daher danke für die Richtigstellung.
felipeeugenio (2022-12-05 22:55:36+00:00): Hola
El tag building es solo para las estructuras. No para el recinto completo.
saludos
Glassman (2022-12-06 22:30:37+00:00): Check out openskimap.org. Their rendering is designed for skiing. Not sure how long before they update openskimap.org but your edits will appear.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129754844
Mammi71 (2023-08-07 21:09:19+00:00): Hallo letihu, mal ne Frage, warum hast Du hier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/842863107#map=18/54.39427/12.67453 das scrub teilweise bis über das landuse=meadow (überlappend) verschoben?
letihu (2023-08-08 20:43:00+00:00): Wenn ich es gemacht haben sollte, sicher nicht mit Absicht. Ich versuche ja Fehler zu beseitigen.
Mammi71 (2023-08-08 21:36:24+00:00): ok, dann kann ich ja ruhig die landuse-Grenzen wieder dahin schieben, wo sie meiner Meinung nach hingehören und weiterhin, je nach Lust und Laune, die verklebten Hinterlassenschaften (area mit way) von da-sch auflösen.
letihu (2023-08-08 21:50:07+00:00): Ja, es gibt  viel zu tun  ;-)
Glassman (2022-12-06 22:26:51+00:00): #TIP: Don't connect ski runs with wooded areas. The ski run just passes through the wooded area. The reason not to is when you want to improve either the wooded area or the ski run, you the connection can cause problems.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129755062
Szymson (2022-12-05 21:29:30+00:00): To wtedy powinna być kropka po 1
Mariusz J (2022-12-05 21:48:56+00:00): Oczywiście, że tak :-) Już poprawiam.
literan (2022-12-06 17:22:42+00:00): не надо вносить несуществующие объекты. при продолжении вас ждет блокировка
pfg21 (2022-12-06 21:02:14+00:00): запись точек в избранное сделано чутка по другому.
то что вы сделали - создание новых сущностей в карте.
GoHelloAlex (2022-12-07 04:43:10+00:00): Как в итоге точки добавлять? Не пойму
literan (2022-12-07 06:05:50+00:00): что за точки?
pfg21 (2022-12-13 06:27:13+00:00): изучите интерфейс мапсми.
он конечно в своей кривости не изменился за последние кучу лет, но все равно надо разобраться в той програмке которую используешь.
literan (2022-12-13 10:00:40+00:00): только не мапс.ми, а Organic Maps  :)
pfg21 (2022-12-13 12:17:49+00:00): жизнь продолжается, названия меняются - проблемы остаются теже самые....
eerib (2022-12-06 01:39:29+00:00): Hello balski,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for doing your first contributions. Unfortunately, this contribution appears to go against OpenStreetMap policies and therefore I have reverted the deletions.

Please refer to the 'Ground Truth' policy, which I have linked below.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth

Other than the OpenStreetMap policies there are a few other reasons why backcountry features should be on OpenStreetMap. A few of these reasons include:

1. The location of these backcountry cabins is critical for user safety.

2. Professional organizations rely on OpenStreetMap data, including the BC WIldfire Service, BC Ambulance Service, BC RCMP, and Search & Rescue groups.

3. Deleting the backcountry features from the map only invites it to be re-added soon after by someone who perceives it to be missing.

If you disagree with my revert of your deletions then the appropriate approach would be to open a formal dispute with the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group. If you do open a dispute, please include a link to this changeset discussion.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes

Thank you again for joining OpenStreetMap. - eerib
JuanjoMC (2022-12-06 16:52:48+00:00): Hi Thierry,

there is a second 82 node here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.88965&mlon=4.27494#map=19/50.88965/4.27494

You see it here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.8897114&lng=4.2748312&z=17&panos=true&pKey=1352874298459684&x=0.41329340046667185&y=0.6270639694934023&zoom=0.9892907670682889&focus=photo
Thierry1030 (2022-12-07 18:30:35+00:00): thanks! here it's added: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5913715511

If you see similar things in the future, you may add it yourself! :-)
JuanjoMC (2022-12-07 18:49:33+00:00): Hi Thierry,

sure I can ;-) In fact, I was going to add the route 82-83 when I saw that you had already added it, that's why I just put a comment.

Cheers
Thierry1030 (2022-12-07 18:55:00+00:00): OK!

Btw, are you on matrix chat?
https://matrix.to/#/#osmbe-channels:matrix.org
JuanjoMC (2022-12-07 19:28:51+00:00): no, I'm not
Rizky IRM-ED (2023-01-13 01:20:31+00:00): Hi DaDapperMapper. A lot of mapping done,thank you for contributing.
Currently I'm doing remote mapping to validate level crossing on railway check in Malaysia.
I need your help especially for this highway lway(https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/809403424)

I saw in the history changeset you added the highway so that it crosses this railway (2.0381472, 103.3160342). Indeed, the modification that you made is quite new and it seems that more update than the imagery, but did you know that the road that crosses the railway has a bridge/flyover or in the same layer with the highway? or is there any other information that you can explain?

I really appreciate any information you provide.
Thank you
DaDapperMapper (2023-01-18 17:34:33+00:00): Hello Rizky IRM-ED, 
I used Maxar SecureWatch 2022-11-22 Imagery for the source of these edits. According to the imagery the railway construction at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1035127540 has accurate layer level and bridge tags. The other railway at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31005457 appears to no longer be in use and imagery shows it ending near https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10241003966. Thanks!
Iko IRM-RV (2023-01-19 01:20:24+00:00): Hello, DaDapperMapper, and thank you for the railway information. I just want to confirm your information. So, there is a bridge on Jalan Rambutan to cross the railway construction?
i think the main point from Rizky's question in Jalan Rambutan. Any suggestions for that?
Thank you
DaDapperMapper (2023-01-20 21:00:15+00:00): Hello Iko IRM-RV, due to new railway being constructed and now functional, the old railway is no longer in use. Jalan Rambutan has been remodeled and goes under the newly constructed railway which has the appropriate tags. Jalan Rambutan itself does not have a bridge.  Thanks.
Iko IRM-RV (2023-01-24 01:54:22+00:00): Thank you for sharing these useful information
eerib (2022-12-06 01:41:45+00:00): Hello balski,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for doing your first contributions. Unfortunately, this contribution appears to go against OpenStreetMap policies and therefore I have reverted the deletions.

Please refer to the 'Ground Truth' policy, which I have linked below.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth

Further, refer to the 'Why we won't delete roads on private property' wiki page.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

If you disagree with my revert of your deletions then the appropriate approach would be to open a formal dispute with the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group. If you do open a dispute, please include a link to this changeset discussion.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes

Thank you again for joining OpenStreetMap. - eerib
balski (2022-12-06 02:12:50+00:00): Again, this is a private building, on private property, nowhere near a public road. What is OpenStreetMap policy on trespassing on private property?

You can refer to this property map: https://bowmap.bowenislandmunicipality.ca
apsimpson (2022-12-06 02:14:49+00:00): Hi eerib, thanks for your reply.

I've looked through both the links you provided, however I can't see how either are relevant.  This is a private structure, not a road, on private land.   This building is also not visible from the air since it's obscured by trees, and so can not be related to TotG.  It's not near any public trails and isn't relevant to navigation in that way.  I'm concerned that your marking doesn't make that clear and encourages trespassing.

Please reconsider,
Thank you.
eerib (2022-12-06 02:24:23+00:00): Hello balski,

OpenStreetMap policy is that mapping of private buildings is acceptable. Please refer to the page below.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

Hello apsimpson,

I do share the concern with regards to trespassing. I will add the tags:

- access=private
- description="Private residence"

Hopefully this will prevent any trespassing as a result of the building outline appearing on OpenStreetMap.

Thank you both
apsimpson (2022-12-06 02:29:16+00:00): Thanks eerib
balski (2022-12-06 16:19:24+00:00): OpenStreetMap policy aside, you seem to understand that you trespassed onto private property to make this contribution, which I'm sure you are aware is against local law. You are insisting on adding what is a private, unfinished, and dangerous building site to countless public maps which will render it simply as a building. You know that this will only encourage others to break the law, as you have done, and trespass onto private property, potentially putting themselves at risk of injury or death. Are you willing to take responsibility and be liable for such risk? If so, we will need to meet with a lawyer. If not, then I ask you again, remove your contribution. It does not provide any positive value whatsoever.
eerib (2022-12-06 17:21:10+00:00): Hello balski,

The display of this house is no different than other houses on Bowen Island. I do share the concern with regards to trespass but do not believe that it's display on OpenStreetMap will result in an increase of trespassing. I have already gone above and beyond by adding several tags to describe it as a private building at the request of user apsimpson. If you're affiliated with the homeowner then I suggest following established standards by purchasing inexpensive "Private Property" or "No Trespassing" signs at the Dollarama dollar store and putting them up along your property boundary.

If you disagree then the appropriate approach would be to open a formal dispute with the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group. If you do open a dispute, please include a link to this changeset discussion.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes

If you would like to discuss legal issues then you should reach out to the OSMF Board.

Thank you - eerib

---

For any DWG or OSMF member that might end up reading this changeset discussion, I have suspicions that the controversy regarding this property is related to the legal troubles it has. The structures may have been illegally built and the users may believe that the building showing up on OpenStreetMap will exacerbate their own legal troubles. I have included two links that describe the past and current legal troubles that the property has.

https://decisions.assessmentappeal.bc.ca/Decisions/Dfull/dec_2022-08-00024_20222165.asp

https://bowenisland.civicweb.net/document/47127/
balski (2022-12-06 18:05:37+00:00): This is not a house. It is an unfinished, unsafe, and active build site, which you had absolutely no business being at. You have repeatedly ignored the fact that you illegally trespassed onto this property in order to make this contribution. Therefore, I do not believe at all that you share my concern with regard to trespass, or liability, which you have also ignored. The tags which you added by going "above and beyond" will do absolutely nothing as they will not show on most consumer maps. You are well aware of this and seem to be acting in bad faith. I will ask you one last time to do the right thing and please remove this feature.
balski (2022-12-06 18:24:06+00:00): You state your number one reason for adding features as "share information with the general public." Again, this feature is private, unfinished, hazardous, and located in the heart of 54 acres of private forested land to which there is no public access. In what way does the knowledge of this feature benefit the public who has no business being anywhere near it?
eerib (2022-12-06 18:31:34+00:00): Hello balski,

I encourage you to reach out to the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group so that a neutral party can resolve this issue.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group

I am apologize if I have acted in any way in bad faith - sorry.

Thank you - eerib
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2022-12-06 17:14:17+00:00): Hello, name tags are not for addresses
sandyjswl (2022-12-06 19:11:54+00:00): removed the name tag. Thanks for informing!!
Владимир К (2022-12-15 20:26:17+00:00): Добрый день! переходы должны быть на пересечении проезжей и пешей дорог. не нудно перед лежачим полицейским, все должно быть на одной точке 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1175682251
oleinap (2022-12-15 20:32:03+00:00): то есть если просто отмечен пешеходный переход (ПП), а реально это широкий лежачий асфальтовый бугор с ПП, то надо ПП удалить и на пересечение проезжих частей поставить искусственную широкую неровность?
Владимир К (2022-12-17 14:40:09+00:00): не надо ничего не удалять, надо добавить соответсвующие лежачего (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:traffic%20calming?uselang=ru) теги к уже существующему переходу (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:crossing)

как это сделать в вашем редакторе? развернуть теги в левой панели в самом низу и вписать всё что нужно ничего не удаляя. рекомендую установить JOSM, чтобы не путаться в действиях редактора на сайте
MxxCon (2022-12-07 02:30:32+00:00): I'm not sure if Leif Ericson Drive should be tagged as a park. It's just a bunch of fenced off semi-neglected bushes along the belt parkway...
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129758035
Unggo99 (2022-12-07 03:05:24+00:00): I noticed other park ways were named "Leif Ericson Drive" and thought it was reasonable to tag it as a park to those landuse tag. Also the original natural tagging didn't seem to be accurate in terms of large wood/scrub patch.
MxxCon (2022-12-07 03:14:00+00:00): Other ways as well. Ya, it's on nyc parks website, but none of those features people can actually take advantage of...

As your link states "Moses considered Shore Parkway, and the rest of the Belt Parkway, to be a “continuous park system, not merely an automobile artery, a system of shoestring parks and recreational facilities encircling the entire metropolis….” Examples of such parks along Leif Ericson Drive include Dyker Beach Park, Bensonhurst Park and Dreier-Offerman Park. "

But other than those examples and maybe a couple more parks along the highway, none of that other green space is usable. It's just a bunch of fenced of shrubbery along Belt Parkway.
Perhaps the roads themselves should be renamed with Leif Ericson Drive as alt_name, but I'm not sure it should be "leisure=park".
Unggo99 (2022-12-07 04:06:48+00:00): I notice some of the area ways east along the parkway that was once tagged as "name=Leif Erikson Drive and leisure=park" changed to "landuse=transportation". Though there is no render for it. Way=558585173 (Changeset=56355406) as an example.
rskedgell (2022-12-05 21:40:16+00:00): Omitted OS Open Names from sources.
Supaplex030 (2022-12-05 23:51:49+00:00): Hallo bicyclett, nur eine kleine Info, damit du dir nicht umsonst Arbeit machst: Das Parkraum-Tagging-Schema in OSM wird derzeit erneuert - auch StreetComplete wird dahingehend bald aktualisiert, aber verwendet derzeit noch das "alte" Schema. Daher habe ich deine Änderung hier zurückgenommen, da es im Ortsteil Neukölln schon überall Parkrauminformationen gibt. Teils nach neuem, teils nach altem Schema, zunehmend in Umwandlung. In einigen Wochen sollte das alles ein Problem mehr sein. Sorry dafür und liebe Grüße, Alex
bicyclett (2022-12-07 15:45:44+00:00): Hi Alex,
ok, danke für den Hinweis und entschuldige die Umstände.
Hatte mich noch gewundert, dass dieser Straßenabschnitt lt. StreetComplete parking-overlay nicht getaggt war und wollte Freunden zeigen wie einfach die Bedienung von StreetComplete ist.
Supaplex030 (2022-12-07 19:08:38+00:00): Sehr gut :) Das ist ja auch ein sehr ungewöhnlicher Fall, dass sich so ein Tagging grundlegend ändert. Also entschuldige eher die Umstände meinerseits ;) StreetComplete wird dann wahrscheinlich bald aktualisiert. Lg, Alex
CurlingMan13 (2023-03-02 00:12:28+00:00): Please do not add/change valid roadways to cartpaths.
Crsi (2022-12-08 19:13:28+00:00): The node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1567316540 already describes McDonalds here. Are you sure that the musical instrument shop 'Peter Erben' doesn't exist anymore at this place? If that's the case, then remove this node in favor of the existing McDonalds node above. Otherwise, please revert this change, and possibly correct it accordingly (e.g. by adding opening hours). I would be glad to help if further assistance is needed.
Crsi (2022-12-13 18:01:32+00:00): I have resolved the change in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130045503
HellMap (2022-12-07 10:48:19+00:00): Hi,

Could you please not remove individually-mapped sidewalks? They provide information for pedestrians and especially accessibility routing. "Merging" them into the road `sidewalk` tag loses this information and removes the ability to map crossings, add kerbs, wheelchair access, tactile paving, etc. Editors have taken the time to draw these, so I don't see a good reason to delete them.

Thanks.
arcth (2022-12-08 01:26:59+00:00): Hi,

While separately mapped sidewalks provide visual information (for the users of certain OSM renders), they also make poor quality data.

Consider two examples [1][2]. Would anyone actually follow the suggested paths when shorter ones are obvious? This results in less precise distance calculations and routing engines providing longer routes, in some cases up to 1--2 kilometers of extra walking.

A solution would be either adding 'virtual' paths to connect ways on the different sides of the street, or tagging sidewalks on the main way, the latter approach being equally valid [3] as the separate sidewalks and likely requiring less maintenance effort.

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=56.95509%2C24.12704%3B56.95574%2C24.12763

[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=56.96791%2C24.23397%3B56.96781%2C24.23298

[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk
HellMap (2022-12-08 11:41:27+00:00): Thanks for detailed reply. Yeah, I'm aware this is a common topic. And, yes, both methods are valid. I'm not saying that you should use one or the other. I'm only asking to not convert between them at scale, i.e. not remove separate sidewalks if someone has already drawn them.

The data is not poor quality either way. Routers just don't properly handle pedestrian routing. I agree separate sidewalk routing has issues. But integrated sidewalks have equally many problems. They treat sidewalks as if you can always access the road and cross anywhere. Both suck for routing.

If we are talking about examples, here's an example with sidewalk=both that sends you across 4 lanes of traffic because it thinks you can "jump" from one side of the road to the other:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=56.93715%2C24.22460%3B56.93692%2C24.22554

I'm not saying this is or isn't better with either sidewalk method. Integrated sidewalks sometimes produce these impossible routes. And separate sidewalks usually take the long way around. I'm just saying that both suck at routing.

I don't want to repeat everything that has been said on the topic in many places. But, in these examples, my argument for separately-mapped sidewalks is the potential additional information that I mentioned - for wheelchairs or strollers or mobility- or vision-impaired users or just anyone wanting to avoid kerbs and arbitrary crossings or prefer verges and non-adjacent sidewalks. Or just using the map visually for navigation outside motor vehicle. There are a couple active StreetComplete users in the area adding a lot of kerbs, crossings, tactile and other mobility information. This wouldn't be possible for them with integrated sidewalks.

Again, I'm not saying that you should switch to separate sidewalk mapping or add such details. But if someone has already added separate sidewalks, it is easier in the future to add more details. So at least you should not remove them.
t2425b (2023-04-10 21:37:45+00:00): Hallo, warum hast du die Streckennummer auf 5120 geändert? Alle mir bekannten Quellen weisen die Nummern 6311 sowie 5121 aus.
hsimpson (2023-12-13 15:08:51+00:00): Bin da auch grade drüber gestolpert. Der User ist inzwischen gelöscht und der Änderungssatz ist schon über ein Jahr alt... Bekommt man sowas noch geflickt?
pitscheplatsch (2022-12-06 19:15:14+00:00): Hi.

Could you use the comment field of your created changeset for describing your map edits? See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks.

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
NorthCrab (2022-12-07 01:40:31+00:00): The Every Door application didn't let me to put a comment. Welp.
eggie (2022-12-06 06:53:54+00:00): Beste Sebastiaan. Het lijkt me niet correct wat je hebt gedaan.
Wanneer iets kort is afgesloten kun je het beter zo laten.
Voordat de routingapps het hebben doorgevoord in hun updates is de weg al weer open. In OSM blijft het dan maanden op slot staan.
Duurt het langer... Je zegt niet hoe lang.. dan taggen we met conditionaltagging
BV access:conditional=no @ (2021 Jan 20-2021 Apr 3) 

Is het vele maande afgesloten dan zetten we een weg op highway=construction.
Je hebt nu iets onduidelijks gedaan met een restrictie. Dat gaat zeker niet werken.
Hoe lang gaat dit hier duren?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-12-06 07:03:34+00:00): reverted by changeset #129768335
eggie (2022-12-06 07:15:08+00:00): https://www.noordwijk.nl/Inwoners_ondernemers/Over_ons/Nieuws/Tweede_helft_werkzaamheden_Parallel_Boulevard

Kijk even naar het voorbeeld hoe zo iets af te sluiten voor een periode van enkele maanden. 
Dan dus bv
access:conditional=no @ (2022 Sep 12 -2023 Apr 1) 

Zou wel dan nog foot=yes toevoegen. 

De weg gaat in de routing apps dan automatisch weer open na de einddatum.

Doe je het zelf? 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-12-06 07:27:59+00:00): Wat leesvoer https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
eggie (2022-12-06 06:58:07+00:00): Dag Sebastiaan.. Het is onduidelijk wat je hebt gedaan hier.
eggie (2022-12-06 07:02:26+00:00): reverted by changeset #129768293
eggie (2022-12-06 06:57:14+00:00): Je commentaar is De parallel blvd is tijdelijk afgesloten ivm werkzaamheden 
maar je hebt ergens anders een paaltje gezet?
.. en verder een niet werkende afslagbeperking ingevoerd. Het lijkt me beter om dit terug te draaien.
mvg
eggie
eggie (2022-12-06 07:01:14+00:00): reverted by changeset #129768240

Mocht je nog vragen hebben stel ze gerust
MVG
eggie
wusatosi (2022-12-05 23:14:25+00:00): Current edit is restricted only to the roads that's within ann arbor administrative area. Seems like road classification is largly inconsistent with wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Michigan#Highway
wusatosi (2022-12-05 23:16:04+00:00): I've also checked & fixed the assigned speed limited on the majority of edited roads. The speed map is obtained here: https://www.a2gov.org/services/GIS/Documents/SpeedLimits2021v2.pdf