piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
bradrh (2021-08-23 14:44:51+00:00): I agree, the name is awkward.  That's what the BLM calls it.  https://blm-egis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=59bfb9b9406d4a409e2f510bda9e409f .  Maybe 'region' or something like that make more sense. Open to suggestions
ZeLonewolf (2021-08-23 15:42:39+00:00): That arcgis link seems to divide up the state into "Administrative Unit Names", each with "Such and Such Field Office".  That implies to me that this is the field office responsible for BLM lands within that area.

From their web site (https://www.blm.gov/office/san-luis-valley-field-office): "The San Luis Valley Field Office manages nearly 500,000 acres of public land in Colorado’s Rio Grande Basin."

If you pull up individual parcels in ArcGIS, there's a field "Allotment Name" which is what should go in the name field, and there's also "Allotment Number" which likely should go in the ref tag.

Are you seeing cases where individual parcels have an Alltoment Name of "Such and Such Field Office"?
stevea (2021-08-23 16:47:52+00:00): Brad, the "convoluted mess" you mention (our United States/Public Lands wiki) is a truly valiant effort on the part of many dedicated USA-based OSM volunteers to address what are a great many seriously complex issues.  While it is clearly still "wet paint," it has evolved over years and by many to be the best we have right now.  The "please join us" spirit repeated here is genuine and is earnest consensus-building, truly required in this endeavor.

I appreciate that the official_name=* tag was chosen to be used here, that's excellent.  I'm not local like Brad is, but can we delete "Field Office" from the name=* tag?  This vast, sprawling area truly isn't such a thing, and as Brian says, it is likely that one particular BLM field office is what administers this.  If Brad knows what the loc_name=* ("vernacular by those who live there, use the area") is, it would be good to add that, too.  And I'd guess that omitting "Field Office" from the name, making the name=Sal Luis Valley tag what eventually sticks, is a happy solution for everybody, especially with loc_name and official_name also defined.
stevea (2021-08-23 16:49:13+00:00): San Luis Valley, not Sal Luis Valley.
bradrh (2021-08-23 21:45:38+00:00): I think the local name is just BLM land.   As in, I'm camped on the other side of Poncha Pass on the BLM land, or camped along CR 240 on BLM land.   Is an acronym acceptable in loc_name?  It isn't critical, I've modified my mkgmap scripts to handle the full spelled out name, (altho when someone changes the case or has a typo its broken again). 
I never knew about the field offices until diving into it.  I don't think most folks know about the BLM field offices, It isn't as well known as the distinct Nat Forests, nor is it as important to know.  
As far as the allotment name and number, that's too detailed, &  I don't have any interest in going to that level of detail, nor do I see any reason too.  That would be a huge amount of work and virtually no value added.
stevea (2021-08-23 22:03:41+00:00): Personally (just me, I'm only speaking for myself), I'm OK with a loc_name has an acronym in it, as "that's what the locals call it" (and who am I to argue?!)

There are many "happy mediums" (I know, "media" is plural) to be struck in OSM, purely for practicality.  This seems to be a case of that.  Far-out-on-the-extremes of "must NEVER use acronyms..." (as in this case, in loc_name, we wouldn't be violating the "don't use abbreviations IN THE name=* KEY") and "way, way, too detailed to be of any practical value" (although, you never know...) are OK to be seen as "way too unreasonable" in cases like this, especially with wider community discussion (as here).

So, the old adage of "map your best" seems to hold, although it's great that so many involved, interested parties have chimed in to offer perspective here.  Really, this is about communication and consensus, not so much about what actually persists in the map as "definitive and authoritative."  One person's "best" sometimes becomes another's "bone of contention."  As long as the right people are discussing, we're on the right track.

And just because you, him, she, they...don't know of a particular naming convention or data-flavor-casting does NOT mean that it can be glibly ignored.  Again, "map your best" to be "true to the original source data," but if / as this becomes overwhelming, burdensome with too much details or outright "wrong" (locally speaking, but not officially speaking) OSM has ways to streamline, call something "local parlance" or do similar data smoothing that can avoid ruffled feathers and make (most) everybody (mostly) happy.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-08-21 16:16:48+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 109878003, 109878509, 109879940, 109882668, 110022698, 110023086, 110023160.
ivanbranco (2022-03-20 13:21:15+00:00): Hi RobsOSM,

there's a problem with this CS. You deleted the addr:housenumber, so there's no more a number 11 in this rue + you added an invalid value for the diet tag: diet:kosher=9

could you check it out please?
NieWnen (2021-08-21 16:29:50+00:00): I ponownie został usunięty adres!!!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110034083
NieWnen (2021-08-21 16:55:57+00:00): Poprawiłem.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110034865
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110034083
NieWnen (2021-08-21 16:35:55+00:00): Przestań usuwać te tagi leisure=garden!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110034438
NieWnen (2021-08-21 23:22:30+00:00): Kolejny raz budynek usunięty wraz z adresem...
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110034995
eggie (2021-08-21 16:52:47+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback.. Probeer bij je commentaar duidelijk te maken wat je hebt veranderd op de kaart. 
Foutje op kaart zegt niet zo veel. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
Lithium-Ion (2021-08-21 20:12:14+00:00): I accidentally uploaded the wrong source, I used Maxar Standard Imagery :)
NieWnen (2021-08-21 23:41:56+00:00): Bezpodstawna zmiana części obszarów zajmujących ogrody zarówno małej działki, którą obejmuje już osiedlowy residential jak i dość sporego obszaru zielonego. 

Wycofałem 2 obszary.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110044862
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110035178
eggie (2021-08-21 18:42:43+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
archie (2021-08-21 18:19:52+00:00): This cs was not intended so big at all. Norwegian items were not the target of any change.
topolusitania (2021-08-22 22:08:25+00:00): Olá. Tens a certeza que estas pontes da AE do Norte tem a estrutura de Beam ?
Não são antes Arch ?
https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/filohipo?menu=true&lat=38.800032404055&lng=-9.1095271998022&z=17&pKey=479513126441627
FlipPipe (2021-08-24 12:04:46+00:00): Posso ter confundido com os exemplos do StreetComplete. No iD nem consigo ver onde se pode mudar essa info.
topolusitania (2021-08-25 12:50:10+00:00): Editar, seleccionar elemento, janela lateral esquerda, scroll down, etiquetas,
Aqui podes completar o que quiseres
Cumprimentos
re_map (2021-08-21 18:01:47+00:00): I accidentally added an incorrect comment, but the changes are fine.  What the comment should say is "added crosswalks"
Harel M (2021-08-25 20:10:00+00:00): Hi, Seems like you dragged a point from the roundabout 
(טאגור)
 to a location far away in this commit. Can you please fix this? I can fix the roundabout but I don't know if there are other issues that happened in this changeset
xXTitanXx (2021-08-25 23:29:02+00:00): Oh shit

Thats really weird because I didn’t touch or even get close to Tel Aviv itself. How did this happen?

I’m kind of a newbie and this never happened to me before - how can I know if something else was affected? Is there a way to see every change within a changeset?
Harel M (2021-08-26 18:46:22+00:00): Yes, below you can see the lines and points that were affected by this changeset. There are also other tools like https://overpass-api.de/achavi/ that allow to better see the changes made. I you should start with fixing the roundabout and later on try and see if there's anything else that was affected by this commit...
xXTitanXx (2021-08-26 20:54:45+00:00): fixed the roundabout - dont see 
anything else that was broken.

I must have accidentally moved it when I edited on my mobile - its very easy to drag something on mobile by accident.
Harel M (2021-08-28 09:45:26+00:00): Thanks! Don't worry, It happens to the best of us :-)
yrtimiD (2021-09-14 09:30:40+00:00): Hi, may I ask why you removed wikipedia tag and added same wiki link as a website?
Tsur Halamish (2021-09-14 12:08:36+00:00): I must have made a mistake and then fixed it. So you may ask, but since nothing changed re the link this is really nitpicking
ivanbranco (2021-08-27 16:43:35+00:00): Is this supposed to be a building? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/442040342/history
BCNorwich (2021-08-22 11:43:21+00:00): Fiction removed.
Doug House (2021-08-22 18:10:56+00:00): Dear BCNorwich,

I think there has been some mistake regarding Doug House. Doug House is a newly founded place of worship, focused on the experimentalist teachings of Dougism. To have our only religious site branded as "fiction" is not only offensive but discriminatory towards our new minority. Google maps had the same problem as you did with our mapping request but have since reevaluated and accepted our position, granting us with a verified location on their own mapping service.
I hope you will take similar steps to reinstate Doug House as a verified location on your map.

Kind regards,

Doug House
BCNorwich (2021-08-22 18:31:03+00:00): Hi, I'm very sorry I did indeed try to look into this quite thoroughly but was only able to establish that Dougism was a fiction. Indeed often a quite crude if not rude fantasy. If you can show some form of verifiability as to the physical on the ground presence of the feature then I would indeed reconsider. The POI was in private farm grounds, only open one minute a week, all very suspicious. 

I welcome you to show me wrong and I'll apologise profusely.

Regards Bernard.
ivanbranco (2022-09-21 23:16:32+00:00): Hi Tomasz,

this relations https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13113175/history
looks like a case of: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories

I think that operator=ZTM Poznań on the single ticket machines is enough already. What you think about it?
JassKurn (2021-08-21 20:19:29+00:00): I had already added this "cycleway". It was me who tweeted the video that you used as a source. Replied to your tweet. Also separately added longer stretch of road to Mapillary. 

So the cycleway is present on the main road as cycleway:left=track & cycleway:left:oneway=no

Aware of the debate between the use of on road track vs seperate cycleway, and generally strongly prefer mapping separate. But in this case the cycleway is in the road, does not cross through side roads, and no restrictions to turn and reach destinations on opposite side of road. Still the issue of tags specific for the the cycle lane
CycleStreets (2021-08-22 12:14:57+00:00): We obviously strongly prefer mapping separate also, as it means there is much better representation of metadata for use in route choice but also as cartographically it probably matches what most people would expect.

Not sure about what you meant about side roads - by definition people coming from the side roads do have to cross over the cycleway.

Which would you prefer? Happy to delete whichever you want.
JassKurn (2021-08-22 14:14:28+00:00): I'd prefer, cycleway:left=track, so could you please delete the separate cycleway.

Regarding my side road test.   I feel Track in practice acts as a protected cycle lane within the carriageway (road) and is treated as engaging with sides roads as part of the main road.  If you cycling forward and a side road is to your left, it remains always to your left as track, so you can simply cycle past the side road. 

In practice, in the UK, nearly all "pavement" or road side cycle ways, function separate from the road. If your cycling forward and there is the previously described side road coming up, you have to treat the side road as if your crossing it, rather than passing it. You're generally expected to give way. In the situations where the cycleway has priority, the cycleways general kink in a bit with "give way" markings either side of cycleway on the side road (Mapillary example - https://bit.ly/3kc4uTr  ) A separate cycleway, therefore generally works better in the UK because cycle ways normally have a seperate route at junctions

This a subject I had to give a lot of thought to last summer. Last summer a mapper in Exeter converted nearly every road side cycleway to track. Arguing it improved the database and citing the 2019 SotM talk "Is the OSM data model creaking?" I'd argued that track should almost never be used, because routing assumed you were part of the main road, while in practice nearly every single Exeter cycleway functions separate from the road, especially at junctions. The debate appeared to end after the mapper found this relevant question. https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/73255/cyclewaytrack-versus-separately-mapping

I still had to spend a few weeks restoring all of the Exeter's cycleways. So it feels bizarre to end up supporting a track. But the support only applies to this way for specific reasons.
CycleStreets (2021-08-27 12:33:59+00:00): I've deleted this, at your preference.

In practice, your video shows that the track does function separately to the road. The manoeuvres required are totally different to cycling on the road, in a contraflow direction. You also have to cross over in front of the traffic (which no router will in practice actually model now).

Could you please add metadata attributes such as width to the road.

PS Obviously the talk you mentioned was our talk... :)
Lithium-Ion (2021-08-21 20:12:52+00:00): Wrong Source, it should say National Agriculture Imagery Program :)
Remko_G (2024-09-17 12:58:17+00:00): The speed limitation on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/44221654 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/251563164 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318808959 is not correct. You may drive 50 km/h in this street.
Thibault Rommel (2024-09-18 10:11:20+00:00): Werd de snelheid hier dan onlangs aangepast? In het deel Gravin Elisabethlaan
langs de school is er volgens Mapillarybeelden een dynamische zone 30.
Remko_G (2024-09-18 10:35:18+00:00): Het zou kunnen dat voor het gedeelte langs het VITO een conditionele snelheidsbeperking geldt van 30 km/h, gedurende de momenten dat scholieren aankomen en vertrekken. Ik zal dit controleren.
marczoutendijk (2023-11-22 13:01:14+00:00): leisure=leisure??
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9025332553
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leisure
Also the name should not be used for a description:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
changed to leisure=sports_facility
tszym (2021-08-22 11:00:43+00:00): Hi, you edited a very large area in the same changeset, editing a lot of things that will be hard to discuss and review. In the future, please split your changes in smaller changesets, especially if these are about different locations.
I noticed you moved some building and removed the Cadastre source, which is a pretty accurate source for buildings coordinates. Could you explain why?
Thanks
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110039807
user_1566574 (2021-08-23 11:42:08+00:00): Hi !
Exactly, sorry about this. I've resolved some notes, among other things.

Yes I've removed the Cadastre source because, well, the building weren't aligned/positionned correctly and because the source change, I didn't had reason to keep "Cadastre" when it's "Aerial imagery" instead. Also works with CLC – Corine Land Cover.

Thanks for monitoring and for your comment ! :)
SafetyIng (2021-08-22 20:52:15+00:00): Hey, 
du revertierst hier Daten, die von einem anderen Nutzer vor kurzem eingetragen worden sind - warum hast du den Nutzer nicht vorher kontaktiert oder allgemein, was ist deine Intention?
Gazer75 (2021-08-22 10:31:31+00:00): The ways around the school should probably be highway=footway or cycleway.
The pedestrian value is used for "gågate" or a square in towns/cities.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Norway/Highways
archpdx (2021-09-15 06:05:06+00:00): Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap! I appreciate you trying to improve the map. It looks like you accidentally changed OR-66 to a residential road. I've changed it back to a secondary highway as well as corrected the format of the address you added in this changeset.

-archpdx
NieWnen (2021-08-21 23:54:43+00:00): Niszczenie ogródków, częściowo wycofane.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110040061
Glassman (2021-08-21 23:05:38+00:00): #TIP: Along with the house number, street name and zip code, the city is good information to add. The state can easily be discovered since OSM is basically just a geospatial database. However, the city isn't always what you'd think. (Thank the US Post Office for that).

I'll send you more info on OSM in a message.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110040199
NieWnen (2021-08-21 23:57:25+00:00): Niszczenie ogródków, częściowo wycofane.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110040238
SekeRob (2021-08-21 19:53:26+00:00): Except for the 2 polar zones you did not miss to get a single spot included in your change set boundary box and all with just 7 nodes. It's new record in drawing attention.
Thank you for contributing but please, next time save those changes 1 by 1 and only the very local fellow mapper will see them flashing by.

Greetings from italy, somewhere between detention river and the dinsmore colony.
tschettervictor (2021-08-21 20:29:06+00:00): I don’t understand. I’m trying to map single points and not boundary’s.

These points are all single nodes that are communities.

Can you be a bit more clear.

Thabks
tschettervictor (2021-08-21 20:38:22+00:00): Oh I see.

You want me to map one area at a time, and not move across continents in each save.
MxxCon (2021-08-21 21:45:46+00:00): That's correct. Please try to group and submit your edits to smaller geographic areas, such as neighborhoods or towns or at most, counties/states. That way it makes it easier for others understand what you are editing and correct any potentially issues. And it won't notify people who monitor the map in unrelated areas about your changes.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110040258
tschettervictor (2021-08-21 22:25:57+00:00): Thank you.
Lee Carré (2021-08-22 22:44:40+00:00): “(no comment)”

What makes for http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
aceman444 (2022-01-25 08:14:15+00:00): Dakujem za kopu detailov pri Zelenom plese. Ale napr. tie stoly pri chate by stacili ako picnic_table, nie kazdy ako picnic_site. To by tam malo byt len raz.
A access=permit na tom malom parkovisku je tiez otazne, kedze ku chate je vjazd povoleny len pre motorove vozidla par firiem, tak ak sucasny vyznam access=permit je, ze si treba ziskat niekde oficialne povolenie, ale bezne sa udeluje (aj ked cela tato hodnota 'permit' je sporna a neschvalena), tak to asi nesedi.
NieWnen (2021-08-22 00:07:12+00:00): Niszczenie ogródków, częściowo wycofane. A jak usuwasz proponowaną Tujową, to można było przy okazji ją naprawić i usunąć nazwę tam gdzie nie istnieje. Chyba było to przez Ciebie zweryfikowane zanim zostało usunięte? Czy może jednak tak jak reszta? Usuwane i dodawane bez weryfikacji?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110040560
GinaroZ (2021-08-30 23:35:07+00:00): Hi, I've removed the craft tag and name as there's already an area for the distillery https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/406644353
ALu68 (2021-08-22 07:58:49+00:00): Hello Omowonuola Akintola,

You created 40 very strange objects with non-common keys https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1awJ

Can you please review.

Regards. Andre
Omowonuola Akintola (2021-08-23 07:32:06+00:00): Hello Andre,

Thank you foe bringing this to my notice. I worked it on already.
ALu68 (2021-08-23 09:39:48+00:00): Thanks.
kartler175 (2021-08-22 11:15:47+00:00): Warum noch eine Relation, wenn ein einfacher way genügt? Ausserdem gilt der Grundsatz "one feature , one OSM object": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Ein_Objekt,_ein_OSM-Element

Und wozu zum place noch ein type=boundary?
user_9828679 (2021-08-22 16:19:49+00:00): Там кільцеве перехрестя, навіщо виправляти по знімках 20 річної давнини.
serhiiku (2021-08-22 21:59:24+00:00): Дякую, буду мати на увазі щодо знімків.
NieWnen (2021-08-22 00:09:37+00:00): Niszczenie ogródków, częściowo wycofane.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110040880
Gazer75 (2021-08-22 10:40:06+00:00): Please don't use areas for highway tags it confuses routers that end up using the edge of the area at times.
There are other tags for outlining highway areas.
You also made a duplicate at the helipad by adding an area over the node.
You can draw the outline of the helipad and use that tag, but don't tag it as a highway. Just remmeber to remove the helipad tag on the node.
eggie (2021-08-21 20:40:16+00:00): Dag MRich.. Met BING als achtergrond liggen alle gebouwen verkeerd. BING ligt verschiven. Gebruik liever PDOK actueel.
Verder zijn de meeste gebouwen import vanuit het Kadaster en liggen precies goed.
Ik heb de gebouwen even uitgelijnd met de BAG en BGT
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-08-21 20:42:51+00:00): Typo  Bing ligt verschoven...  
Het linker gebouw staat overigens niet in de BAG (Kadasterdata)?
eggie
user_13567042 (2021-08-29 12:10:23+00:00): Hoi..  was even een snelle bijdrage vanuit ons vakantie onderkomen...  Het is ook geen gesloten gebouw maar een soort grote overkapping (aan twee zijden gesloten, andere twee zijden open. Wordt gebruikt als overdekte parkeerplaats. Vandaar wellicht niet in BAG. En misschien moet ik die dan ook maar niet als 'gebouw' op de map zetten....   Ik begrijp inmiddels ook de reden van de 'offset' van de locatie van het ander gebouwtje ernaast..  Zal daar dus in de toekomst ook maar van af blijven.. Het kadaster zal het vast beter weten dan ik.. ;-)
eggie (2021-08-29 12:17:50+00:00): Oke... helder.

Overkappingen staan inderdaad niet in de BAG.
Je kunt dan building=roof taggen.
Mapse
Eggie
Jrachi (2021-11-24 16:56:32+00:00): Perché stai riportando indietro i tag come usati 10 anni fa?
MapSpot (2021-11-24 18:47:41+00:00): waterway=riverbank is actually an older tagging scheme than natural=water + water=river. There has been a global effort to standardize tags for river areas under the newer system to avoid fragmentation. Outreach has been made to many individual local communities to avoid these sorts of disputes. You can see more about this effort on the project page here. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Waterways/River_modernization

I have discussed this fragmentation issue with UN Mappers on their Discord server (https://discord.gg/dphhqpRV). If you do not have a Discord profile, you can review some screenshots of the conversation here (https://imgur.com/a/vAJPTYV).

According to UN project instructions, natural=water + water=river is strongly recommended currently.

Reply here if you have further questions, but please do not revert tags back to waterway=riverbank in the mean time.