piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
santamariense (2025-02-23 22:13:16+00:00): Olá feduardof,

Notei que você adicionou este prédio https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/249099949/history como tendo endereço na "Av. Prof. Moraes Rego", porém, não encontrei rua nos arredores com este nome. Poderia indicar a qual rua se trata?

Bons mapeamentos!
feduardof (2026-01-15 13:20:58+00:00): Olá santamariense, essa Avenida começa no viaduto ad Caxangá e vai até o Girador da Reitoria da UFPE. Apesar do prédio em questão (DINE) não ficar exatamente nessa avenida, é o endereço costumeiramente utilizado por grupos e salas que encontram-se nesse prédio.
santamariense (2026-01-15 13:40:05+00:00): Obrigado, agora compreendi e consegui achar onde fica. É tipo um endereço da universidade como um todo ou algo assim, né?

Imaginei que pudesse ser alguma viazinha menor como esta https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/688310568 . Mas não foi como imaginei.

Quando for cadastrar um endereço, utilize sempre o nome completo e 100% igual ao nome que está na rua. Isso garante padronização e que os endereços sejam melhor capturados por diferentes aplicações.

Valeu!
feduardof (2026-01-15 14:04:24+00:00): Isso mesmo, é o endereço da universidade como um todo. Exemplos de lugares que utilizam esse endereço podem ser encontrados em:
https://www.ufpe.br/
https://www.gprt.ufpe.br/gprt/
https://sites.ufpe.br/lamp-nupitsg/

Onde eles inserem o endereço da universidade (a avenida em questão) e informam o prédio do DINE como local mais "exato", pois o prédio do DINE em si está em uma via sem nome/número.

Eu acredito que cadastrei o prédio com o endereço completo, com nome e número utilizados conforme observações de campo que fiz e informações da universidade que encontrei.

Caso haja alguma sugestão explícita que eu possa acrescentar, ficarei contente em fazê-lo.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:11:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
Константин Гам (2022-04-03 12:51:49+00:00): Пожалуста не удаляйте данные не нужные вам.
Трамвай останавливается в этой точке, согласно сигналам отдельного светофора. Навигатор в трамвае не использует граф highway и на их пересечениях нет highway=traffic_signals, которые и приводят к вероятной остановке вагона (highway=crossing на пути может быть много и рядом, при этом это всё будет один перекрёсток, подчиняющийся общему traffic_signals)
Dinamik (2022-05-04 22:18:09+00:00): Предлагаю использовать на обсуждаемых точках railway = tram_traffic_signals.
eggie (2022-04-03 06:49:39+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
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
adrianojbr (2022-04-02 23:46:36+00:00): Olá, Paulo. "Motor Vehicle" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motor_vehicle) abarca também automóveis, motocicletas, caminhões..., então pode haver roteamento indevido de veículos para as vias exclusivas para ônibus etiquetadas com motor_vehicle=designated.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119249277
Paulo Sérgio Mota (2022-04-03 04:10:09+00:00): Olá, Adriano. O link que você sugeriu menciona o seguinte:

"motor_vehicle=no – prohibited for motor vehicles of all types"

, o que basicamente implica no que eu comentei na alteração principal: ônibus são veículos automotores, e portanto, deixar a tag como "no" não seria o adequado nessa situação. Entendo que algumas aplicações podem gerar roteamento indevido de veículos indevidos para essas vias, contudo, no meu entendimento, isso é algo que precisa ser resolvido na aplicação.

Nesse caso, acredito que seria interessante adicionar tags como "motorcar=no" e "motorcycle=no".
adrianojbr (2022-04-05 13:28:13+00:00): Paulo, as etiquetas funcionam em conjunto, assim motor_vehicle=no (ou access=no) seria a regra, mas tem a exceção assinalada por bus=yes e psv=yes (talvez seja até redundante, mas deixo isso pra outro momento). 

Na documentação sobre access (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access) inclusive se mencionam os exemplos: 
1. access=no, bus=yes means that only buses are allowed to enter (for example a road only for buses and forbidden also to pedestrians)

2. access=yes, motor_vehicle=no means that all transport modes except motor vehicles can use the element

Claramente, o exemplo 1 é o tema dessa discussão.

A sua sugestão alternativa não deixa de estar correta, mas peca pela complexidade quando há uma solução mais simples, já que em vez de usar 2 ou 3 etiquetas (access=no + bus=yes + psv = yes) teria que usar muitas outras além de "motorcar=no" e "motorcycle=no" (foot, bicycle, horse, hgv, goods, etc.).

Não vejo que seja um problema a ser resolvido na aplicação, pois a documentação é clara quanto ao uso correto. Então é questão de mapeamento mesmo.

Abraço!
adrianojbr (2022-04-05 16:53:24+00:00): Complementando, veja a solução apresentada para substituição do uso depreciado de highway=service para busways: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=service?uselang=pt-BR#Deprecated:_highway.3Dservice_for_busways
Paulo Sérgio Mota (2022-05-01 19:09:44+00:00): Olá Adriano,

Peço desculpas pela demora em retornar a discussão.

Acredito que nenhum dos casos que você mencionou no seu primeiro comentário, ou no seu complemento, agreguem muito à nossa discussão.

O foco central da nossa discussão é a tag "motor_vehicle". Ela sequer é mencionada no link que você anexou.

Entendo que adicionar as tags "motorcar=no" e "motorcycle=no" nas vias é um processo mais trabalhoso, porém é importante entender também que, embora rotas com ônibus sejam mínimas se comparadas a rotas de carros e motos, ônibus são veículos automotores, e por isso não me parece correto manter a tag "motor_vehicle=no".

Desconsiderar que ônibus são veículos automotores simplesmente para facilitar a inserção de tags não me parece uma ideia virtuosa.

Penso que considerar ônibus como veículos automotores seja algo unânime, mas caso você não concorde, podemos tentar uma arbitragem com a comunidade OSM.

Por hora, acredito que manter as tags:

motor_vehicle=designated
bus=yes
motorcar=no
motorcycle=no

é o mais ideal a ser feito, visto que elas atendem a todos os nossos propósitos.
adrianojbr (2022-05-01 23:21:28+00:00): Olá, Paulo. Vendo pelo lado positivo, já temos 2 pontos de concordância:
1. Concordamos em discordar; e
2. Concordo que a arbitragem da comunidade OSM é a melhor saída para essa situação.

Como prefere fazer? Pedir comentários (p. ex., via Telegram) aqui nesse changeset ou abrir um tópico no fórum? Fique à vontade para agir como achar melhor.

Abraço!
Paulo Sérgio Mota (2022-05-03 02:09:53+00:00): Olá Adriano,

Visto que foi você que discordou das minhas alterações inicias, penso que seria adequado que você abrisse essa discussão.
Você pode fazer da forma que achar melhor.
adrianojbr (2022-05-03 18:51:14+00:00): Incluí para discussão em: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/openstreetmap-brasil-pt-br/1010/4
adrianojbr (2022-05-04 12:51:47+00:00): Novo link: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/etiquetar-vias-com-acesso-exclusivo-para-onibus-de-transporte-publico/1378
adrianojbr (2022-05-19 20:37:08+00:00): Passadas 2 semanas do início da discussão, a conclusão é que a maneira correta é highway=service + access=no + bus=designated
Paulo Sérgio Mota (2022-05-20 01:46:36+00:00): Obrigado pela discussão nos fóruns.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:07:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:07:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:11:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:11:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:07:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
JakeTheMoose (2023-07-31 22:02:29+00:00): Hi ExpresswayDave,

I noticed you mapped the "minspeed" tag as 45 mph. During a survey I noticed the speed limit on OSM way 124471097 is 45 mph.

I wanted to consult with you the best way to update the maxspeed & minspeed tags for parts of the highways near downtown Chicago.

I'm thinking wherever there is a posted speed limit of 45 on the highway, to correct the maxspeed and just remove the minspeed tag.

Let me know what you think.
Regards,
Jakub
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
Allison P (2022-04-03 03:10:20+00:00): Why is part of Allumbaugh in the route?
Gfeich (2022-04-03 05:54:43+00:00): Pretty much all of it. There are actually two routes there: the Allumbaugh and Liberty routes. https://achd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1583f1226bbd4c46bea2d5d764895497
Gfeich (2022-04-03 05:59:07+00:00): These streets are designated bike routes by the local road agency (ACHD). N Cole between Emerald and Mountain View is terrible to ride on, but OSM thinks it’s a designated bike route. I ride these roads all the time, and cycling GPS apps get really confused by N Cole and the local cycle routes that aren’t marked.
Allison P (2022-04-03 07:21:56+00:00): I'm referring to this specifically. It's not attached to the rest of the relation. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/978856080
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
kornad (2022-04-03 11:42:17+00:00): Proponuję natychmiast wycofać ten wandalizm - zamieszanie i niekonsekwencję w randze dróg oraz liczne kolizje i błędy, które powstały w ramach tych edycji.
theDM (2022-04-03 13:14:54+00:00): Słowackiego na tym odcinku jest drogą G lub GP na leśnym odcinku.
kornad (2022-04-03 13:29:05+00:00): Dróg na OSM nie mapuje się ze względu na ich klasę techniczną, lecz ze względu na ich rangę i ważność w danym regionie. Ponownie apeluję, aby nie wprowadzać wandalizmu.
theDM (2022-04-03 13:52:26+00:00): Sugerowałem się dokumentacją https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Znakowanie_dr%C3%B3g_w_Polsce a Słowackiego jest jedną z ważniejszych dróg, tak jak Płażyńskiego. Wandalizm to subiektywna opinia.
maraf24 (2022-04-05 19:35:05+00:00): "Sugerowałem się dokumentacją https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Znakowanie_dr%C3%B3g_w_Polsce"

Ta strona jest tak ogólna, a kategorie dróg tak zachodzą na siebie, że nie wiem w jaki sposób można się było zasugerować, by zmienić na primary.
theDM (2022-04-05 20:03:04+00:00): I tak, i nie. W wielu przypadkach to jest oceniane subiektywnie. W primary jest napisane, "lub drogi o klasie GP lub G". Słowackiego jest taką drogą, która raz, że jest łącznikiem z obwodnicą, dwa, że jest głównym połączeniem z lotniskiem, trzy że jest głównym łącznikiem tej części Gdańska i gmin ościennych z centralną częścią Gdańska i tymi kryteriami się sugerowałem. Rzeczypospolitej jest też jedną z ważnych dróg na dużej części prawie niekolizyjną, ale tutaj to zależy jak na to patrzeć. Z kolei odcinek Al. Płażyńskiego to część zbudowanej Drogi Czerwonej w standardzie G na skraju GP i GP w zależności od odcinka. Dlatego z uwagi na standard i rangę zmieniłem jej kawałek na primary  do kolizyjnego skrzyżowania z Uczniowską. Z Sucharskiego, to dokumentacja też stawia ją między primary a z uwagi na łącznik z jednym z największych portów i parametry bliskie drodze szybkiego ruchu dyskusyjnie jako wyjątek trunk. Jednak tu się z większością trasy wstrzymałem z taką zmianą z uwagi na dyskusyjność.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
maraf24 (2022-04-05 19:36:10+00:00): "drobne techniczne" - to nie jest prawidłowy opis tego i podobnych zestawów zmian.
tux67 (2022-04-04 08:26:10+00:00): Hi wermak,

wieso mappst du einfache Kreuzungen von Einfahrt oder Straße wie hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9632333467 als highway=crossing?

Ohne Spezifikation würde das auf jede Schnittstelle zwischen 2 Wegen zutreffen.

Wenn du es spezifizieren wolltest würde ich für die vorliegende Situation hier kein passendes Szenario finden:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dcrossing

Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119250610
tux67 (2022-04-04 09:49:38+00:00): Siehe auch: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=74620
wermak (2022-04-04 19:26:36+00:00): Dies mappt halt der iD Editor automatisch. Werde das hw=crossing bei dieser Kreuzungskombination erstmal entfernen.

Schöne Grüße
tux67 (2022-04-04 19:34:58+00:00): Danke für die Rückmeldung . Sodass mappt iD,  oder schlägt er das als Fehlerkorrektur vor?
Wandten m.E. noch mehr davon nur in diesen CS.
Ich hatte nur ein Beispiel genannt.
Gruß Tux67
wermak (2022-04-04 23:16:06+00:00): Wie in den oben verlinkten Forenbeiträgen schon erwähnt, meldet iD unverbundene Wege als Fehler u. schlägt vor, diese zu verbinden. Dies macht er dann generell mit highway=crossing.

Schöne Grüße
tux67 (2022-04-05 06:19:53+00:00): Bei dem Verhalten von iD ein guter Grund, diese Fehler händisch zu korrigieren. 

Gruß
tux67
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
DiogoBaptista98 (2022-04-03 00:40:39+00:00): obrigado pela correção, boas edições
DiogoBaptista98 (2022-04-03 00:43:43+00:00): porque foi alterada a forma da relva (935204010) modificando o canto em angulo recto com a praça do comercio? peço que seja corrigido de forma a seguir a realidade e a imagem em satélite.
Filohipo (2022-04-05 12:03:02+00:00): Olá
As minhas fontes são o conhecimento pessoal, as fotos que tirei para o Mapillary e as fotos satélite Maxar.
Posso saber quais são as tuas para verificar qual foi o erro introduzido ? 
Cumprimentos
Rahagol (2022-04-03 00:46:30+00:00): بهترین گلفروشی
user_5359 (2022-04-09 17:55:55+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on .  What is the meaning of the tags
currency:rr 	yes
ele 	@rahagol.ir
opening_hours 	شنبه تا شنبه ساعت ۷صبح ال ۲۳شب
payment:rahagol.com 	yes
payment:انلایین 	yes
payment:حضوری 	yes
payment:سایت_rahagol.com 	yes
payment:کارت_به_کارت 	yes
payment:کارت_خوان 	yes
?
Did you mean currency:IRR instead of currency:rr?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible.  Meaningful communication with the mapper failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5881 and previous blocks.