piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
intgr (2020-08-04 14:43:53+00:00): Tänud tähele panemast.
Mulle endale tundus mõistlikum jõgi ära katkestada selle koha pealt, kus see järveks üle läheb. Kuid paistab, et tõesti on tavaks jõgi järvest läbi viia. Võtan teadmiseks. :)

Uuendan järve piirid ka ära.
intgr (2020-08-04 15:16:46+00:00): Tegin muudatused, loodetavasti sai see kord hästi: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88936710
marc__marc (2020-10-05 23:56:15+00:00): Hello,
The correct tag for a hotel is tourism=hotel and not amenity=hotel
it might be a good idea to add a changeset tag to the url of the import documentation.
it allows other user to check it and correct the errors it contains :)
Regards,
Marc
simoa (2020-10-06 05:53:17+00:00): Thanks for the heads up. I'll fix this
Darellur (2020-08-19 11:49:03+00:00): Nie pamiętam wydzielonej ścieżki rowerowej w tym miejscu; możesz podać źródło tej edycji?
narowerze (2020-08-19 15:04:38+00:00): Zrodlo to moj przejazd. Ale teraz widze, ze kiepsko to zrobilem, bo o ile nawierzchnie wpisuje sobie w slad GPX, to pozostale rzeczy zapisuje w notatniku, a ten po opracowaniu trasy kasuje :-( Niestety z tego odcinka niewiele pamietam juz. Wiem, ze stanalem w Zdrojach przy sklepie i odchodzi od niego droga rowerowa, ale czy na pewno pojechalem nia, no nie dam teraz glowy. Mea culpa. Jedna rzecz, pod tym pytaniem OSM wyswietla mi na dole "Ways (7)" i odcinek 3 od dolu listy (z kierunku Majdany-Debowiec) ja tez edytowalem dopisujac droge rowerowa? Jak to sprawdzic? Jesli tak, to moj blad, bo jechalem Zdroje-Zielonka-Debowiec.
Darellur (2020-08-25 13:20:22+00:00): Dzięki za odpowiedź
1) Nie ma w zdrojach drogi rowerowej; musiało ci się pomylić z inną miejscowością; tego jestem pewien
2) Po historii wnioskuję, że, dodając cycleway, podzieliłeś linię na dwie, jedną skróciłeś (#176780644) i stworzyłeś nową (#833573785), dlatego obie są w zestawie zmian
3) Jeśli sprawdzasz to na stronie osm.org, możesz kliknąć numer lini i przejść do aktualnej wersji, a tam, na dole, jest link do historii wersji
narowerze (2020-08-25 16:10:03+00:00): ad.1) kurcze, mowisz z taka pewnoscia, ze az sam teraz watpie co widzialem :-)). Sam juz nie wiem, ale z kolei pijany nie bylem i pamietam ten sklep w Zdrojach, od ktorego (teraz juz watpie) zaczynala sie droga

Wbije sobie to do moich planow-todo, jakby mi sie udalo, to moze bym podjechal tam jeszcze w tym sezonie :-)

Jak bede mial jakies nowe dane, na pewno zaktualizuje ten odcinek.
narowerze (2021-07-04 20:48:21+00:00): Mea culpa, wlasnie wrocilem z objazdu tego odcinka (Osie-Cekcyn) i jest tak jak mowisz. Nie wiem skad taka wtopa, moge tylko przeprosic (i dziekuje za zwrocenie uwagi).
user_5359 (2020-08-03 16:29:09+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please don't mark the whole property as building. Only mark the building as building.
Ozan_O (2020-08-07 10:58:13+00:00): Hi, ok, it's my fault ))) thanks for your kind note.
eggie (2020-08-03 16:39:28+00:00): Hi... I merged all seperate info with the official addressnoxde
Gr eggie
n2m (2020-08-03 16:30:51+00:00): Për t'u rregulluar: nyjet dhe largimi i lidhjeve jo të rregullta.
Needs improvement: interchanges and removal of illegal access ways.
eggie (2020-08-03 17:35:14+00:00): Please use the present addressnode. Don't add addresses in OSM. 
Don't add twice a subject on the map.
Verify your edits.
I merged the info and deleted duplicated tags
gr eggie
nlme (2020-08-03 18:02:54+00:00): Hey eggie - I didn't add any new nodes for this edit - my change is v6 - apologies if I did something wrong!
eggie (2020-08-03 18:15:56+00:00): No hard feelings.. I think editor iD is a simple tool and it's hard to notice duplicated tagging.
Greetz and have fun in mapping..
Eggie
ACarlotti (2020-08-05 20:46:24+00:00): I think this tagging is generally better. However, I'm pretty sure there is not a central island on the east side of the roundabout (which is what I understand your tag there to mean). Also, when splitting ways, I think it's generally worth trying to preserve the way history on a sensible part of the way - in this changeset you've instead attached the history of three of the roads to a short stretch of way next to the roundabout. There's nothing I'd do to change it now, but it's something you could consider for future changes.

It looks like you also made some change near the Milton Road/Elizaebth Way roundabout, possibly involving bus route 9, but I can't easily tell what it was. Also, I'm curious as to how this changeset was created by both Potlatch and JOSM.
MacLondon (2020-08-06 01:47:39+00:00): Hi. I tend to do most of my editing in Potlatch but then if the changes might involve bus routes I open the same changeset in JOSM and check/repair if the roads in e.g. PTv2 bus routes are still in correct order in the relation. In checking the bus routes I think I might added a missing role=forward to one or two of the bus routes which probably explains Milton Road/Elizaebth Way roundabout.

Unfortunately with Potlatch when you split a way in 2, although it maintains both fragments of the way in bus route relations etc,, it seems to assign the 1st fragment (in the direction the way is drawn ) as the pre-existing way (i.e. the one with the history) and I'm not aware of a way in Potlatch to override this.

You're right about the absence of  crossing island on the east side. I'll have a look again at this and amend it.
eggie (2020-08-03 17:28:50+00:00): Please don't add info on the map that is already there, I will delete your contribution.
tux67 (2020-08-04 06:35:24+00:00): Hi waldhans,

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:sport%3Dshooting für den Schießstand? 
Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88887134
waldhans (2020-08-04 07:19:35+00:00): War überrascht, eine etwa 6m hohe Ziegelmauer zu sehen. Wollte das als Ruine eintragen. Laut ALKIS ist das eine "Sport-, Freizeit- und Erholungsfläche / Schießanlage / 1768". Das in ALKIS eingetragen Gebäude ist ziemlich sicher falsch, das schaut mir eher nach einem Kugelfang aus. Ich werde das an das Vermessungsamt melden.
Hast du eine Ahnung, ob das ein Teil des JHQ war? Nach einer aktiven Sportfläche schaut es auf keinen Fall aus. Nur der Zaun ist noch intakt!
tux67 (2020-08-04 07:28:22+00:00): Von der Lage her kann das fast nur JHQ sein. Wenn's aber nicht mehr in Betrieb ist könnte man's bis zur finalen Klärung vielleicht als disused:sport=shooting taggen mit einem fixme dran?
Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88887134
waldhans (2020-08-05 07:29:19+00:00): Welche Android App zeigt ein "disused:sport=shooting" an? OsmAnd nicht, Maps.Me nicht, Locus nicht. Aber denau dort draußen im Feld braucht man die Information. Du kannst gerne die Tags setzen. Ich bekenne mich dazu, für die Karte zu mappen. Also muss die Information so rein, dass sie auch dargestellt wird.

Das war wirklich ein Schießstand, vor allem für Skeet/Trap. Daher der hohe Kugelfang. 
mfg Kurt
tux67 (2020-08-05 07:53:14+00:00): Hi - keine App zeigt das an. Mein Gedanke war eigentlich, das wir das nicht zeigen, wenns nicht mehr aktiv ist. Das hast du ja mit der Umbenennung ausgedrückt. 
Ich bin da eher nicht so der Freund den Namen zur Beschreibung zu verwenden.
Wenn's aber auf der Karte auftauchen soll wäre vielleicht:
sport=shooting
opening_hours=24/7 closed "always closed"
disused=yes
description=Aufgelassener Schießstand
eine Option?
Gruß
tux67
waldhans (2020-08-05 20:51:10+00:00): „das wir das nicht zeigen, wenns nicht mehr aktiv ist.“
Das sehe ich fundamental anders. AKTIV ist keine Voraussetzung. Vorhanden/sichtbar ist mein Kriterium. Die Mauer ist mehr als nur sichtbar und der Schießstand ist die zugehörige Erklärung.

Dein Tagging würde nur zu einem Schießstand-Symbol führen. description ist ein Tag für die Datenbank. Du müsstest das als name setzen. Und ob ein militaristischer  Schießstand unter Sport fällt, mochte ich nicht beurteilen. Ich finde mein tagging als „benanntes Gebüsch“ auch nicht optimal, aber einfacher und sicher in der Darstellung.

Aber in OSM kann jeder alles taggen. Wenn es dir lieber ist, schreibe es um.
tux67 (2020-08-05 21:07:30+00:00): Naja, so wichtig ist's mir jetzt nicht und du hast ja schon deine Vorstellung. Ich wollte nur eimen Kompromiss aus Sichtbarkeit und Tagging vorschlagen. 
Sowohl description als auch opening_hours werden z.B. bel Osmand angezeigt.

Gruß
tux67
BCNorwich (2020-08-04 07:48:10+00:00): Hi, 
The buildings look a lot better/neater when squared up. This squaring up is real easy in the iD editor, there's a short how-to video here :- https://www.sjtdelfs.de/wordpress/openstreetmap/

You can see the difference to the buildings I've corrected at the top of this changeset area. I also removed/corrected some self intersections, joining of roads and building and joined buildings that ought be separate.

Regards Bernard.
Frans S (2020-08-03 17:55:35+00:00): Hello
Thanks for mapping here
Quite a number of buildings are mapped oversized and not accurate, following the outlines of the buildings
Would you be so kind to open this task again and adjust your mappings.
Task 599
Best regards and keep mapping
Tomas Straupis (2020-08-03 19:08:16+00:00): Kavinės pavadinimas „DI“?
mueschel (2020-08-06 11:04:55+00:00): Hi,
could you check this relation, it got a strange tag:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11377645
conradoos (2022-03-13 16:20:13+00:00): Cześć.
O co chodzi z tymi opisami? To jest dawna owczarnia, czy strażnica?
pan_borsuk (2022-03-14 16:17:19+00:00): hej. z tago co pamiętam z czytanego artykułu historycznego to niemcy przerobili ją na strażnicę. ale po akcji wisła sprowadzona została do..fundamentów. dobrze widoczne na miejscu będąc. polecam.. tylko po cichu.. ;-)
MacLondon (2020-08-03 18:00:54+00:00): David, the Lambeth map you're working from just uses levels to classify "bikeability". Level 1 is described as "...routes, paths and crossings plus shared space...".

This doesn't mean that a way with "Level 1 bikeability" is part of an actual cycle route. Cycle routes that are selected to be displayed on the map are highlighted in green, red or blue, as explained in a separate info box on the map.

I wouldn't consider https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8846995 to be a route, just a cycleway.

Mac
ramthelinefeed (2020-08-03 18:39:08+00:00): LOL l'm not sure why there's such resistance in some quarters to tagging this as a cycle route. :) It's undoubtedly the best child/beginner-friendly circular traffic-free route in the whole of Lambeth borough!
That's why Lambeth mark it out on their official cycle map (very specifically picking out the perimeter path, out of dozens of paths within the park). Whilst it doesn't 'go anywhere', Lambeth have built one toucan and one parallel crossing to provide access to it from the streets. 
Part of it is also labelled on the old LCN+ map of 2004, fwiw.
MacLondon (2020-08-03 19:08:18+00:00): It's just a traffic-free path though, not a circular route. The Lambeth map is a 'cycle map' (rather than an actual 'cycle route map') with most roads in the borough coloured by bikeability.

The bits on the 2004 map were already mapped as the only members of this relation in changeset 63853583, but the extra ones you added in just don't belong in a route.
ramthelinefeed (2020-08-03 19:18:51+00:00): Having cycled round Brockwell Park recently, I must respectfully disagree. It is most definitely a circular route round the perimeter of the park, and recommended as such by the council for novice/underconfident cyclists on their borough cycle map.  I don't see what is to be gained by not tagging it. 

The intention of the 2004 LCN map seems to have been to co-opt some parts of the perimeter path as part of LCN25 / LCN27 as a through route. Doesn't look like that came to fruitition, and there is certainly no LCN signage in the park today.
MacLondon (2020-08-03 20:29:52+00:00): It's a path that is indeed "suitable for cyclists of all levels" as suggested by the bikeability level. Every shared use path in the country would have an identical bikeability level. That does make them cycle routes.

Similarly all yellow residential road on their map are "suitable for cyclists at Bikeability Level 2", just as official Quietway residential would be but they aren't all routes.

As the website states, "Lambeth's roads have been audited for 'Bikeability' which is split into three levels and taught through cycle training which is available for free to all students, residents and workers. Our cycle map shows all roads and their Bikeability level."

"Suitable for" does not make any of these paths/roads actual cycle routes, not from a OSM perspective.

Level 1 equate to a shared use footway/cycleway on OSM and Level 2 to a highway=residential, so the bikeablity of these are already represented  in the dataset.

The 2004 LCN map clearly shows that a proposed route had instead been planned on the east side via the roads OUTside the park and I think road improvements were made there too just a few years back.
MacLondon (2020-08-03 20:54:20+00:00): Also, if you look at the Lambeth LIP3's Healthy Routes map (essentially future Cycleways) the only proposed route around here will be along the road outside the east edge of Brockwell Park - see https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s98795/Appendix%202%20Draft%20Local%20Implementation%20Plan%20IC.pdf#page=26
ramthelinefeed (2020-08-03 21:58:13+00:00): Yeah but when you say "It's a path that is indeed 'suitable for cyclists of all levels' as suggested by the bikeability level. Every shared use path in the country would have an identical bikeability level. That does make them cycle routes" ... so why have Lambeth very deliberately *only* marked the park's perimeter path in that way on their map, and not marked any other the dozens of others? Nearly all the paths in Brockwell Park are tarmac'ed, and several of which are considerably broader than some bits of the perimeter one. 
They've clearly made a special case of the perimeter path on their map. 

Proposal documents are interesting, but you know far better than I do that much of what is in them is fantasy that remains unimplemented 20 years later, so I don't think that has much bearing on what currently makes for a good loop round the park :) And I can see even from a quick glance at the map on p.26 of that document that it has strange omissions of existing routes (where is CS5?) so I wouldn't infer too much from it. The park itself is clearly marked on it in any case.

Anyways, that would be my reasoning on the matter.  
Fundamentally, the circuit of Brockwell Park is the best off-road cycle route in Lambeth borough for kids or novice riders, and can't see what's to be gained from excluding it from a London cycling map, by sticking to a very particular definition of the term 'route' in that context. 
It is far more use to, for instance, a family wanting to do some recreational cycling with their kids to know that they could do a loop of Brockwell Park, than to know that there's some isolated streets elsewhere in the borough which for some reason have had a cycle icon stencilled on the tarmac since about 1994, thus seeing them tagged as a 'route' on OSM even though they're rubbish and don't even go anywhere.  (I've found several more of those today! Was seriously thinking of FoI'd Lambeth to ask what on earth they were for...)
MacLondon (2020-08-04 02:26:25+00:00): It could equally be said that during recreational cycling a family with kids might put off using an (apparent) cycle route!

This could be the best off-road cycleway in the world, but that still doesn't make "what currently makes for a good loop round the park" an actual "network=*cn" cycle route, just a 'fantasy route'... which is why it should be excluded.

Any signed/official cycle route that is rubbish is an actual route though (even if it might include sections where cyclist have to dismount.)

The Lambeth audit just showed the circuit in their map as this was considered "suitable" for novices doing Bikeability cycling training courses. See https://bikeability.org.uk/bikeability-training/bikeability-level-1/: "The Bikeability Level 1 course aims to develop mastery in cycle handling in an off-road environment". There are 4 providers of this training in Lambeth listed at https://bikeability.org.uk/find-a-course/?la=lambeth

The Lambeth Bikeability map you're using as a source for cycle routes is just not a appropriate source for the 'local cycle network'.

BTW in Teddington there was a plan for Q21 to pass into Bushy Park but that apparently has been blocked by the park's authority so, even when it is the intention to do so, it's not always feasible to deliver routes inside parks.
ramthelinefeed (2020-08-04 08:55:34+00:00): Hmmm :) The nub of this difference of opinion seems to me that you are wedded to a very particular technical interpretation of the word "route". Whereas I am considering it in a more general everyday language type of meaning.  I do think the latter is of more relevance to most people who'd be comsuming the OSM map data. 
Also, as you note with Bushy Park, the other aspect here is that Lambeth's byelaws  (https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/lsp-parks-open-spaces-byelaws.pdf ) prohibit cycling in their parks by default except "... on a designated route for cycling." (page 12). I would interpret their orange highlighting on the perimeter path on what's literally referred to as their "Lambeth cycle *routes* map" (https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/cycling/cycle-routes/ ) as being just such a designation (it's reinforced by signboards in the park itself). 

But this is not a hill I would chose to die on :)
mariotomo (2022-05-22 15:59:11+00:00): hola, por favor revisa tus fuentes, pues aquí a nadie nos resulta el topónimo "Uvité", y lo cambié por "Utivé".
gscscnd (2020-08-03 18:32:36+00:00): Informacje o kościele już znajdowały się na węźle <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1204245559>. Usunąłem ten węzeł i przeniosłem pozostałe tagi na obrys kościoła: <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88888875>.
redd (2022-08-01 07:35:30+00:00): Hi RemyH,
thanks for you contributions to OpenStreetMap. 
I hope that you are ok, that I contact you in english language!

May I ask why you replaced fountain=drinking_fountain with fountain=Drinking Fountain?

In OpenStreetMap we usually write the values without capital letters and without spaces. 

Can you please revert your change?

merci!

redd
tyr_asd (2020-08-05 09:05:59+00:00): nice changeset number: eight eights <3
bingo (2020-08-05 09:44:49+00:00): It was pure coincidence :-)
limes11 (2020-08-03 22:11:34+00:00): Hallo Sepathtian, 

willkommen zu osm und danke fuer deinen Beitrag. Der Feldweg sieht gut aus, das westliche Ende der Nordallee gibt in der jetzigen Form Rätsel auf. Hast du dort die Verbindung zur Auffahrt entfernt? Gibt es dort keine mehr? Ein Tor, welches von Fußgängern und Radfahrern durchschritten werden darf, sollte nicht im Nichts enden. Oder darf dort niemand mehr durch? Dieser kurze Pfad nördlich des Tors zur L84 rüber, also dieser hier:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/355283317

gibt es den wirklich? Oder ist das vielleicht die Verbindung am Tor? Zu guter letzt sind die lanes jetzt fragwuerdig.  Ist die Schnellstrassenauffahrt 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/712608630

noch zweispurig? Rechts abbiegen kann man  nicht, wurde die Spur entfernt? Nur noch eine Spur? Oder zwei geradeaus? Gleiche Frage fuer das Stück in Gegenrichtung:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27405194

Wie sind da die Spuren von West nach Ost? 

Besten Gruss, Limes
user_11595502 (2020-08-04 06:56:13+00:00): Hallo Limes,
danke für die Überprüfung und Hinweise.
Ich wohne in der Nähe, kann auch mal ein Foto machen.
Am westlichen Ende der Nordallee (stillgelegte, alte Verbindung zum Flughafen) steht ein Bauzaun, der die Verbindung zur L84 sperrt. Circa 1m im Gebüsch ist der Trampelpfad

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/355283317

der dann zu Fuß/per Rad benutzt wird. Man geht dann sozusagen auf einem 2 Meter breiten Standstreifen neben der Straße bis zur L489.

Die Straßen haben weniger Spuren, das hatte ich vergessen, dass man das dort eintragen kann.
Die Gelbe hat die zwei Spuren (je Richtung eine), die rote und orange Straße haben jeweils nur eine Fahrspur. Werde das gleich noch anpassen.

Ich habe dort noch so einige Pfade und Wege zur Korrektur in der Wahner Heide. Muss noch mehr trainieren :-) Geht recht gut, ist aber ziemlich umfangreich alles hier.
limes11 (2020-08-04 09:09:40+00:00): Alles klar!

Ich habe gerade noch die Abbiegerelationen repariert, ist nicht ganz einfach am Anfang. 

Könntest du die Spuren auf dem gelben Stück noch richtigstellen und dann bei Gelegenheit die Position des kurzen Trampelpfads korrigieren? Aus dem Tor habe ich einen Zaun gemacht mit access=no.

Besten Dank, 

Limes
user_11595502 (2020-08-04 13:25:38+00:00): Ich dachte ich hatte die Fahrspuren auch beim Gelben angepasst. Ist noch nicht so in Fleisch und Blut bei mir.
Das mit der Abbiegerelationen muss ich mir mal ansehen. Bei solchen Änderungen lasse ich es anfangs besser immer nochmals überprüfen.
Den Pfad korrigiere ich die Tage noch. Werde mir noch ein Garmin Gerät leihen, um andere Wege zu korrigieren. 

Grüße und Dank!
Sebastian
eggie (2020-08-03 20:10:29+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
user_2066394 (2020-08-03 18:39:51+00:00): Du hast an verschiedenen Stellen Adressen bearbeitet:

Frühlingstraße 40
Herbststraße 32a
Herrmann-Löns-Str. 8

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=88889484

Die Änderungen wirken eher willkürlich, wird da noch nachbearbeitet?
Christine24 (2020-08-04 13:19:58+00:00): Stimmt, das war nicht so beabsichtigt. Ich bin neu hier. Es sollte nur das Objekt Augsburger Str. 24 modifiziert werden. Könntest du bitte die Änderungen verwerfen. Ich werde es noch einmal probieren.
user_2066394 (2020-08-04 13:34:55+00:00): Ich würde mal nur die geänderten Hausnummer zurücksetzen, das Gebäude passt soweit.

Vielleicht noch ein wenig geradeziehen/orthogonalisieren (Taste Q). Und fehlt da ggf. noch eine Hausnummer 26?
user_2066394 (2020-08-04 13:40:12+00:00): Ich seh grad, das wurde schon repariert. Alles in Ordnung, gutes Gelingen weiterhin.
Christine24 (2020-08-04 13:48:56+00:00): Danke Schön
dgitto (2020-08-05 11:31:00+00:00): Benvenuto in OSM
dgitto (2020-08-05 11:33:35+00:00): Sarebbe meglio piazzare il nodo all'interno dell'edificio e non vicino all'ingresso dell'edificio
ddm-dolomitico (2020-08-04 14:33:43+00:00): Hallo Mjago90, 
When I did the attribution sac_scale = mountain_hiking the way was in this difficulty. I don't doubt that now, as you point out, the difficulty has changed, but it is not correct to attribute the new difficulty to the whole way. You should segment the way and attribute the alpine_hiking to the affected section only, keeping mountain_hiking on the rest of the route. Instead, the difficulty in the relation to which the way is part, that is the path 224A, should be changed, since the difficulty of a relation, which can include multiple ways, must be that of the most difficult stretch.
Best regards
mueschel (2020-08-05 17:46:41+00:00): Hi,
could you explain the meaning of these tags?
  operator = Private.Aided
  rural_urban = Rural
They are not used in other places.
It seems like your schools also miss the necessary "amenity=school" tag.
Could you check and fix this?
Rameez Z (2020-08-06 04:55:06+00:00): Hi,
Operator is nothing but the governance type.
Private aided means the school management is private but it is controlled by government(fee payment,exams etc),which can also be called as government_management. Actually the correct term is governance type,that is why I used this term in my latest edits.
Then there is pure government  and pure private controlled schools.
And amenity option is available in school ground but I used the tag school building,so building=school is shown there.
Rural or urban means whether the school is in town or not.Hope you understood.Is there any other errors or clarifications.