piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Gonéo (2022-01-06 17:16:07+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenue parmi les contributeurs. Tu as demandé une revue sur ce changeset. Voici quelques remarques

* "multiple updates" n'est pas un libellé très explicite. Il aurait été plus clair pour les autres contributeurs de mettre un commentaire tel que "corrections de géométrie sur les bâtiments et ajout de bâtiments"
- plusieurs bâtiments ajoutés ne sont pas orthogonaux. Sur le terrain, la plupart des bâtiments sont orthogonaux. Il y a un menu dans ID qui te permet de rendre ton tracé orthogonal
- l'ajout d'adresse en France se fait majoritairement avec une relation (voir https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Relation:associatedStreet) mais les 2 solutions sont techniquement valables. Prendre une autre adresse dans la même rue pour voir comment c'est fait
- sur les adresses, seuls le numéro et la rue sont utiles. Les autres sont déduits automatiquement puisqu'on est dans le périmètre de la commune
Pour info tu peux retrouver tes modifications ici https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=115843326 pour corriger.

Voilà pour les quelques conseils qui me viennent à l'esprit sur ce changeset.

Bonne continuation
zgroza (2024-02-08 13:38:25+00:00): Odcinek źródłowy jest od strony wsi Nielub: zmapowałem wg https://wody.isok.gov.pl/imap_kzgw/
johantiden (2022-10-26 09:56:49+00:00): Den här gångvägen är ritad rakt över motorvägen, är det en tunnel under eller går motorvägen på en bro?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/540190986#map=17/59.22570/18.12784
johantiden (2022-10-26 09:58:03+00:00): https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=16&lat=59.22684&lon=18.12884&item=xxxx&level=1%2C2%2C3&username=segikip544
johantiden (2022-11-27 09:29:18+00:00): Eftersom du inte svarar så kommer jag att rulla tillbaka positionerna. Det ser ut som att du råkat göra vägen spikrak med något verktyg.
johantiden (2022-11-28 19:55:28+00:00): I have manually reverted the moves made in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124158558

The path now fits the strava heatmap and osm traces again and looks more natural.
johantiden (2022-11-28 19:56:00+00:00): This is the revert changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129490059#map=17/59.22578/18.12770
user_1566574 (2022-01-16 20:18:16+00:00): En fait j'ai fait des tonnes de relevés terrains sur une zone pas mise à jour depuis un bail, juste pour être précédé sur la mise en ligne.

Clairement c'est super rageant mais en même temps c'est plutôt très bien de ta part !

(Fallait que je le dise...)
(Bonne année !)
natolh (2022-01-18 09:04:52+00:00): Ah, désolé, ceci étant dit il y a encore pleins de choses incorrectes dans le secteur / à cartographier mais c'est pas simple comme zone !
user_1566574 (2022-01-18 09:11:47+00:00): Aucun souci, j'ai quand même trouvé à faire, forcément... ;)
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=116229968

Exactement ! Faudrait faire une descente de contributeurs là-bas ! ;p
Bilange (2022-01-06 18:33:05+00:00): Thanks for fine-tuning the buildings physical dimensions! Believe me or not, but it was actually next on my to-do list when I get free time for OSM (I did add the surrounding neighborhood details just yesterday!) 

I wonder, since your last modifications are scattered all around the globe, did this buildings old dimensions were flagged as being problematic by some kind of system? Just wondering if there are tools I can use to see other similar issues like this one. Thanks!
Bilange (2022-01-06 18:37:58+00:00): Sidenote: I reviewed the buildings OSM History, and noticed that the previous changeset was done by me at the date of (or very close to) my OSM account creation. Sorry I made you correct my own mistake ! :(
cserpell (2022-01-07 01:35:55+00:00): Estimado, por favor intenta seguir la convención del resto de Viña del Mar, en el campo de ciudad (add:city), colocar "Viña del Mar", en vez de "Viña Del Mar". Muchas gracias.
gordo anorexico (2022-01-07 09:13:01+00:00): Oh, verdad casi no me fijé en ese detalle, gracias por avisarme
SafetyIng (2022-01-08 15:34:29+00:00): Hey, ich würde dich bitten deine Quellen kenntlich zu machen. Bei durchsicht der Anpassungen im "Wohnpark Hohe Börde" ist mir aufgefallen, dass sehr viele Gebäude aus dem Datenbestand des LVermGeo mit übernommen wurden. Diese haben eine verpflichtende Source-Beschreibung.... 
Allgemein fehlen die verwendeten Luftbilder etc immer in deinen Changesets.
gscholz (2022-05-15 09:05:04+00:00): Hi camdansy,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-13.74021&lat=9.81284&zoom=12

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=115845699

Can you please fix this?

You also did not add any comment to this change set. May be you like to educate yourself about this topic:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2022-06-05 05:30:07+00:00): Hi camdansy, 
due to your missing response I have reverted this changeset now to fix those issues.
Guido
JJIglesias (2022-01-07 17:38:54+00:00): Saludos y Gracias por tus ediciones en Cumana, Por favor toma en cuenta los siguientes errores:

changesets_count	353
created_by	iD 2.20.2
host	https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit
imagery_used	Bing aerial imagery
locale	es
warnings:almost_junction:highway-highway	1
warnings:crossing_ways:highway-highway	1
warnings:disconnected_way:highway	1

Dejastes varias calles cruzandose entre ellas pero sin nodo de conexion; la calle de la plaza estaba totalmente desconectada de todas las otras calles. Estas usando imagenes Bing q estan desactualizadas. Ya hice las correcciones pertinentes
Gracias
AndreyGeograf (2022-01-06 17:08:36+00:00): Первый раз делаю такую конструкцию, приходится смотреть справку и вносить изменения по ходу дела.
mike140 (2022-01-06 21:46:14+00:00): Посмотрите тут как делаются подобные конструкции: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9391059
А в отношение улицы здание должно входить с ролью house
mike140 (2022-01-06 21:49:17+00:00): И тег мультиполигона к линиям добавлять не нужно )
AndreyGeograf (2022-01-06 23:46:15+00:00): Исправил отношения для зданий к улице на house. Тег мультиполигон к линиям не добавлял, этот тег применен к трём полигонами и общему контуру (периметру).
AndreyGeograf (2022-01-06 23:48:41+00:00): Вообще-то я всегда ставил для домов роль house, но в этот раз явно перемудрил))
mike140 (2022-01-07 08:47:44+00:00): Дело в том что полигон - это тоже линия ).
А тег мультиполигона могут иметь только отношения
AndreyGeograf (2022-01-07 10:18:26+00:00): Спросил в личке, продублирую тут. Я разобрался по твоей ссылке с примером. Должен ли я переделать всё здание как в примере или текущий вариант тоже работоспособен? Он будет рендериться в 3D и как можно это проверить?
AndreyGeograf (2022-01-07 12:03:06+00:00): Нашел. Проверил бизнес-центр на https://demo.f4map.com, всё нормально. На osmbuildings.org устаревшие данные.
mike140 (2022-01-07 13:30:58+00:00): То что на одном из рендеров отображается как бы нормально, ещё не значит что данные внесены верно )
user_5359 (2022-01-07 20:29:00+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please what is your interpretation of the tag "Payment"="Contingency"?
user_5359 (2022-01-09 07:31:36+00:00): I delete your entry, because I can’t find the street of your address nearby.
If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data.
Andrea Musuruane (2022-01-07 07:53:42+00:00): Ciao. I nomi si inseriscono in OSM senza abbreviazioni. Inoltre, nel caso di toponimi riferiti a cascine, il nome non si inserisce sull'edificio ma si mette un nodo con place=farm + name=*. Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115846646
Noen (2022-01-19 19:05:07+00:00): Dette endringsettet slettet to bygninger på Holmlia senter, uten å erstatte dem. 
way 151082017 og way 150950134. Nodene ble ikke slettet. Gjenoppretter du dem?
user_11418917 (2022-01-07 00:06:28+00:00): Hello lovelyfurball88, there is no American embassy here, this node is spam.
user_2066394 (2022-01-07 16:48:38+00:00): Coffee to go is aktuell Leerstand?
Nolia (2022-01-07 20:56:20+00:00): the association "Bürgernetz e.v." is just moving in there. I have made the change in the name of the association. I have seen nothing of a Coffee to Go there.
NetiOSM (2022-01-07 21:07:15+00:00): No coffee to go but "Hackerbrause" and nice people in the near future
user_2066394 (2022-01-07 21:27:22+00:00): Einwandfrei/perfect.
paunofu (2022-11-23 22:01:36+00:00): Buenas noches,
 la ortografia era correcta, ya que en valenciano/catalán el artículo de los topónimos es en minúscula. 
Lo modifico, un saludo.
Pherogram (2022-11-25 20:19:12+00:00): Sea artículo u otra categoría, nunca se inicia una frase con minúscula
paunofu (2022-11-25 20:39:39+00:00): En el caso de topónimos en valenciano/catalán si, ya que así lo ha decidido la comunidad
eggie (2022-01-06 19:02:26+00:00): Dag DeMasssel,

Wanneer wegen daadwerkelijk zijn opengesteld dan ook de specificatie construction=residential verwijderen.
Op de laatste satfoto van dec 2021 is nog helemaal niet te zien dat deze wegen daadwerkelijk klaar zijn. 
Het lijkt me beter ze op highway=construction construction=residential te laten staan. 

MVG
eggie
DeMassel (2022-01-06 19:04:11+00:00): je mag en kan er rijden
eggie (2022-01-06 19:04:31+00:00): Zie https://www.satellietdataportaal.nl/?base=brtachtergrondkaart&res=0.5&datemin=06-01-2021&loc=52.37413%2C6.700319%2C18z&overlay=mos-0&marker=loc&acqdate=2021-12-21&acqid=20211221_101147_SV1-01%2C20211221_101149_SV1-01&sensor=SuperView-1

Zet je ze weer terug op construction?
Gr eggie
DeMassel (2022-01-06 19:09:22+00:00): ik ben er vandaag nog langsgereden ?!
eggie (2022-01-06 19:09:35+00:00): Oke...  , maar in het westelijke gedeelte heb je de regel construction=residential laten staan. Die hoort er dan niet meer.
Op het gedeelte met landuse=greenfield gaat nog volop gebouwd worden.
Liggen er daar al volwaardige verharde wegen. Zoniet dan beter mappen als construction.
Wanneer het volwaardige opengestelde wegen zijn is het uiteraard oke.



Gr eggie
eggie (2022-01-06 19:15:21+00:00): Up to you uiteraard. Lokale kennis gaat voor alles.
Een weg staat op constructie in osm
met 
highway=construction
Daar maakte je highway=residential van.
Dat is correct.
Dan blijft over de regel construction=residential... Die laatste regel kan weg. Doe je dat zelf? De weg is immers open. 
mapse
eggie
DeMassel (2022-01-06 19:19:45+00:00): Ik heb de pc inmiddels uit staan.
Voor de sneller verwerking zou ik zeggen doe jij het voor nu.
Dan is het zo actueel mogelijk
eggie (2022-01-06 19:22:46+00:00): Prima.. Ik haal de construction wel weg.
MVG
eggie
evod (2022-04-15 13:38:57+00:00): Are you sure? I am pretty sure that this little part is not a oneway (but can't check right now)
Landswellsong (2022-04-15 18:19:46+00:00): If you can double check it would be awesome. But I did that change when I was on the ground, so at the time of change it was indeed one way.
evod (2022-04-16 11:26:29+00:00): Thanks for the swift reply. I just double checked: It's still no oneway, same as the last few years - I'll revert it now.
nurdafur (2022-08-20 11:10:58+00:00): Hallo Balmfluh

Du hast in diesem Changeset die Etappe 1 der Jurasüdfussroute ( Relation 1684220) gelöscht. Was ist der Grund dafür?

Liebe Grüsse 
Urs
Balmfluh (2022-08-23 04:53:59+00:00): Das war nicht beabsichtigt. Ich werde mich in den nächsten Tagen die Korrektur kümmern. Vielen Dank für den Hinweis.
BioDranik (2022-01-12 11:14:32+00:00): What was buggy here?
woodpeck (2022-01-12 11:53:44+00:00): The building geometries had thousands of self-intersections. This could have been fixed in a collaborative effort, but given that the import was undocumented and undiscussed, any work invested in fixing the geometry issues would have been for nothing :(
BioDranik (2022-01-12 12:12:07+00:00): Interesting, can you please show some examples of self-intersections from the deleted import? I think I know the author and I may help to fix these intersections programmatically before the import.
Pikse (2022-01-27 09:52:24+00:00): Those holes in place of (former) clearcut areas does not seem like a good idea. Landuse didn't change in these places and some of these areas already have 10+ years old forest growing. Even if we specifically mapped landcover as "not treescovered" then how old trees need to be so that the area could be considered treecovered again? I think it's unnecessary to complicate things with any such distinction. Neither are such areas mapped as non-forest on other general maps, such as those by Maa-amet.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2022-01-27 19:20:51+00:00): I agree that landuse should be fixed, thanks for pointing that out. I'll still map these areas separately, but they will be under landuse=forest
Pikse (2022-01-28 08:57:20+00:00): I think at the least this needs more discussion. Now it looks even more confusing to me. I wouldn't say that any one these areas is a grassland only because grasses were dominant for a couple of years. As for scrub, I realize that OSM mappers interpret it very differently, but it'd probably be more intuitive to consider it as a habitat where shrubs are more or less persistent (not very common in our climate, but juniper shrubbery might be a good example), rather than just young forest.

An important question remains: based on what criteria would you consider a young forest simply a forest again then?

Current overlapping polygons are also problematic (forest or scrub or grassland, or all three at the same time, or what's distinction between these etc.) I'd say that some special tagging and rendering is needed to map clear-cut areas in a clean way, if it's really necessary and useful to map these at all in OSM.

I sort of understand the cognitive dissonance here and the temptation to map clear-cut areas differently, as the area really does look different. Then again such clear-cut areas are expected to be temporary and it generally isn't considered a good practice to map temporary features. Also, a young forest by most definitions in common use is also a forest. Hence it isn't really necessary to map such temporary areas differently and this is probably why other general maps such as Maa-amet's base map avoid it. It may be more justified on some maps for specific use, such as orienteering map, though.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2022-01-31 18:54:13+00:00): >I wouldn't say that any one these areas is a grassland only because grasses were dominant for a couple of years.

But this is what a grassland is...

>As for scrub, I realize that OSM mappers interpret it very differently, but it'd probably be more intuitive to consider it as a habitat where shrubs are more or less persistent (not very common in our climate, but juniper shrubbery might be a good example), rather than just young forest.
>based on what criteria would you consider a young forest simply a forest again then?

I agree that definition of a scrub is a bit fuzzy, but it is sometimes used for any small trees. I think it's ok to use it here - trees there are very distinct from the surrounding forest.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub
The only reference to height you can find here is "less than 5 meters tall" here. I'm not really strict about (as with many things in OSM, it's hard to objectively tag) BTW, notice that the next sentence on linked page mentions young trees.

> Then again such clear-cut areas are expected to be temporary and it generally isn't considered a good practice to map temporary features.

Buildings are temporary too. Trees don't grow overnight, Considering that it's a place not far from the capital, it's unlikely to be abandoned by mappers and get too outdated. What this good practice means is "Don't map cars, festivals or weekly markets".

> Also, a young forest by most definitions in common use is also a forest. 

I'm not mapping landuse with grassland and scrub, I'm mapping what's there in addition to landuse.
Pikse (2022-02-01 09:06:11+00:00): Yes, car in a most obvious example of a temporary feature. Buildings on the other hand, though not perpetual, are generally expected to stay for many years and indefinitely. I'd say a clear-cut rather falls in the temporary category as it's expected to develop into something else quite shortly, in a few years time.

Small forest surrounded and managed grasslands exist, but I don't think anyone on the other hand would really consider a clear-cut filled with stumps a grassland. Most of given clear-cuts here also are no longer dominated by grasses. Due to sparse canopy and bare crowns, it may not show well on an orthophoto, but these "grasslands" are filled with (small) trees.

Scrub generally associates to certain plant species that grow maximum a few metres tall. As for trees, OSM wiki foremost associates "stunted trees" to scrub, i.e. junipers or bog pines around Estonia. OSM wiki also mentions NLCD2011 classification  per which scrub may include any young trees as well, but this specific classification probably isn't strictly followed on OSM and if it's all young trees, as is the case for these clear-cuts, then it's less obvious that scrub category applies even under this specific classification.

My point is that despite the young-old forest contrast, it seems most straightforward to classify and map these clear-cuts as forest, both landuse and landcover wise. Here grassland and scrub on the other hand are easily disputable and not intuitive. So for the sake of simplicity I'd map clear-cuts as simply forest.

Map doesn't get outdated? Even if we'd consider it useful to map such short-term plant cover changes, and even if we'd find clear way to do so, then this question remains: how does a mapper know at all that it's no longer something less than a forest and that area can be removed?

Note that man_made=clearcut tag exists. It's not rendered on osm.org and it could be used to sort of work around grassland-scrub. Through criteria to add/remove it appears so fuzzy that using this tag too it feels rather pointless to map clear-cuts.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2022-02-05 11:53:19+00:00): >I'd say a clear-cut rather falls in the temporary category as it's expected to develop into something else quite shortly, in a few years time.

This is your peronal opinion which has nothing to do with best practices you mentioned.

>Small forest surrounded and managed grasslands exist, but I don't think anyone on the other hand would really consider a clear-cut filled with stumps a grassland. Most of given clear-cuts here also are no longer dominated by grasses. Due to sparse canopy and bare crowns, it may not show well on an orthophoto, but these "grasslands" are filled with (small) trees.
>Note that man_made=clearcut tag exists. It's not rendered on osm.org and it could be used to sort of work around grassland-scrub.

I'll add man_made=clearcut you mentioned. But this tag is not exclusive to the vegetation. And the areas with small trees which are mistagged can be mapped as scrubs like it's mentioned on the man_made=clearcut wiki page.

>how does a mapper know at all that it's no longer something less than a forest and that area can be removed?

There is no clear standard on this. I'd wait until the trees are at least 3m in height. Someone else may have a different opinion and I won't be against it as long as he uses common sence and doesn't consider 1m trees grown. As with many things on OSM, common sence should be used and different approaches to tagging may exist until a stricter and more exact standard is implemented. Which highway tag value should be used for a combined foot and cycleway - footway, path or a cycleway? Can a small group of trees be tagged as natural=wood or landcover=trees? How sparse can they grow until they stop becoming one? Can you precisely answer these questions without bringing your PERSONAL opinion? Probably not.

Overall, I get your point and I'm not against having just a landuse=forest with man_made=clearcut, but I also don't agree that it's the only way and think that clearcuts can be descibed in more detail.
Pikse (2022-02-06 10:09:54+00:00): I'd also use common sense, but I don't get why you'd consider forest of about 1 m tall trees against common sense. Take for example the Forest Act, an authoritative source, where the criterium for forest is "woody plants with the height of at least 1.3 metres"[1]. 3 m tall trees aren't really considerably more "grown" than 1 m tall trees, either is far from being mature forest (say, 50+ years in age).

As for temporary features, well yes, I'm interpreting the best practises, it isn't strictly about clear-cuts, nor is it strictly about cars or alike. An intermediate example would be a farmland, some may argue that isn't a farmland during months after crop has been harvested and new one hasn't been sown yet, which necessarily doesn't align with common sense either.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that man_made=clearcut needs to be used, this tag is controversial as well (see wiki talk page, and related openstreetmap-carto ticket in particular). Yes, in wiki page of this tag someone has also documented their suggestion to combine it with scrub, but that's nonetheless at best confusing, and not necessarily worth to follow. Neither do I say that clear-cuts, or some even more temporary features cannot be mapped nor that isn't worth doing so in some circumstance. It just seems to me that OSM doesn't have proper means available to map such features in a way which is helpful rather than confusing. OSM isn't designed to include all possible geographic data anyway.

[1] https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/527012021003/consolide
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2022-02-07 18:13:16+00:00): >I'd also use common sense, but I don't get why you'd consider forest of about 1 m tall trees against common sense.

I'd consider removing scrub against common sense.

Everything else you wrote is again opinions, which can be different. Estonian goverment does not govern OSM and does not define which tags should be used.

Sadly, it would be hard for us to create a big enough discussion in Estonian OSM community to accept some local standard.
Pikse (2022-02-08 08:40:13+00:00): So, you conveniently reduce my view or my reading and interpretation of other views and common practices around there (along with explanations) to just "opinions" that as such have no value whatsoever, while your views are "common sense", even if expressed in form of a more or less random criterium such as "3 m" or bare claim such "I'd consider removing scrub against common sense"? :)

I'm quite sure I did not imply in any way that the Forest Act must be followed here. I referred to it only to show why around 1 m tall forest isn't against common sense, as definition in an authoritative source probably reflects (one) common understanding. Also, lets be frank, above there are other facts as well, in addition to opinion, such as the fact that several other users have contested suggested tagging schemes, as well as different rendering for forest and clear-cut  (again, see wiki talk page and related openstreetmap-carto ticket).

Another thing to consider: in osm.org due to overlapping polygons scrub and forest symbols overlap as well in a messy way, and neither are there legend items on what these tree/scrub/grass combinations actually mean. This quite clearly indicates that such overlaps are not intended.

If local standard cannot be agreed upon, then what's the solution? I'd say this means we stick to status quo and only add features/tags that we can agree upon. Otherwise it would be a mess and it wouldn't make much sense if everyone just did whatever they personally see fit.