piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SK53 (2018-11-30 16:01:05+00:00): In general we cant use firms websites to add stuff to OSM, UNLESS they have given us permission. A number of firms have done this. 

There are, however, a lot of other useful sources of info which can be used. For something like this case what we usually do is add a note saying something like "All shops branded as Bunnings now reverted to Homebase with a link, say, to a press article". This alerts people who live or work locally to check. You may find that there are some notes about which Homebase stores are closing already (e.g., https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1589983). You can use overpass-turbo to find locations (e.g., all Homebase: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Eaa), so that you can often avoid referencing a website.

There are two schools of thought about updating stuff remotely: some think it's a no-brainer, others think that having out-dated information makes it more obvious that an area needs a comprehensive overhaul. If you see a BHS store you immediately know that no-one has checked the area for a while, whereas if only that was updated many other changes would be missed. Probably the community is split 40/60 on this issue.

There's an occasionally updated wikipage on UK Retail chains which tries to collect information about proportion mapped, closures etc. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom.

In principle we could also alter data as a post-processing step, so that the map data would remain until re-surveyed but the for making a map we could, for instance mark chains which have closed as XYZ (closed). However no-one has done this yet.

HTH in terms of scratching a shop mapping itch.
TheUKHighStreet (2018-11-30 16:26:28+00:00): Thanks very much - that's very informative. I'm still not sure why it would be felt better to have incorrect information on a map just so it signals that there is a lot of incorrect information in an area but I feel like I haven't quite understood the philosophy behind this site yet. I'm generally feeling that I won't update any more incorrect information I find because I can't understand the logic involved. I've found that there are over 50 Phones4u shops still listed even though the company closed more than 4 years ago. I'm not sure what the value is in having such out of date information if it is possible to easily correct it. But I'm butting out now. Thanks for the explanation anyway.
trigpoint (2018-11-30 17:15:34+00:00): Mapping is great fun, by far my favourite way of updating the map is to go out and explore my local area. 

Remote mapping using websites will by its nature favour the large chains, whereas surveying will add the independents that only exist in one place and are what make each High Street unique.

Please go out and explore, you will find some real gems and add the local knowledge that makes OpenStreetMap stand out from corporate maps.
awesm (2019-01-23 06:42:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 66557476 where the changeset comment is: revert pointless/careless edits based on imagery around Lyttelton, New Zealand
SANDHYARANI (2019-01-23 09:09:33+00:00): I apologies for the mistake happened during copy pasting my comments (a list that i internally maintaining), i will be more vigilant for this kind of mistakes in future however the intent of the edit is correct. 

Modified road geometry according to aerial imagery,Please review and revert back if i need to re insist the edit on the map.


Thanks for your help and advice.
Sandhyarani
GinaroZ (2018-11-30 16:47:46+00:00): Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/321326605 an active church?
Also you probably should "square" some of the buildings you added, eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/650620890
meteorquake (2018-11-30 16:57:03+00:00): Hello, yes I was told a while back when I had asked that the church just opens once a week although I've never passed it when it's open, I can recheck.
The buildings I tend to want to square a bit later down the line if they stand out - I tend to get them in first, separating the two tasks. But you're right I could sometimes do it at the time.
Thanks for your thoughts!
d
awesm (2019-01-23 06:41:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 66557476 where the changeset comment is: revert pointless/careless edits based on imagery around Lyttelton, New Zealand
SANDHYARANI (2019-01-23 09:26:59+00:00): I apologies for the mistake happened during copy pasting my comments (a list that i internally maintaining), i will be more vigilant for this kind of mistakes in future however the intent of the edit is correct. 

Modified road geometry according to aerial imagery,Please review and revert back if i need to re insist the edit on the map.


Thanks for your help and advice.
Sandhyarani
Luckrimm (2018-12-07 21:20:01+00:00): Hola, una consulta, ¿cuál fue el motivo de eliminar el edificio y el área de la PDI y de la prefectura de Carabineros?
maraf24 (2018-11-29 14:37:50+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Good_changeset_comments
kartonage (2018-11-29 13:45:11+00:00): Hey DOR1,

you are actively removing valid data right now and your changes look somehwat messy. I would advise you to at least go through the iD-Editor-Walkthrough (accessible in the iD-Editor via shortcut 'h') and maybe have a look at the OSM-Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org) to make yourself familiar on how OSM works. In any case please be more careful with your edits. Right now, some clean-up will be necessary.

Feel free to ask for help.

Best regards
DaveF (2021-01-20 06:37:17+00:00): What are these?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/650647038
awesm (2019-01-23 06:41:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 66557476 where the changeset comment is: revert pointless/careless edits based on imagery around Lyttelton, New Zealand
SANDHYARANI (2019-01-23 09:11:00+00:00): I apologies for the mistake happened during copy pasting my comments (a list that i internally maintaining), i will be more vigilant for this kind of mistakes in future however the intent of the edit is correct. 

Modified road geometry according to aerial imagery,Please review and revert back if i need to re insist the edit on the map.


Thanks for your help and advice.
Sandhyarani
Frans S (2018-12-18 17:50:31+00:00): Hi, Thanks for mapping on this project. I am reviewing tasks in order to validate them.
A request. Please do not map buildings with nodes connected to each other. Often the buildings mapped on that way don't pass the criteria to be a good squared building . So all connected nodes has to be uncoupled and the ways slightly adjusted. Most buildings don't share walls. When you map buildings separately and square them with the S key you save a lot of work for validators. 
Thank you for your understanding.
Best regards
LLlypuk82 (2018-11-29 15:40:50+00:00): не волнуйтесь, там давно участки дорог заблокированы (логически) для движения, никакой маршрут по актуальным данным не пройдёт
awesm (2019-01-23 06:41:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 66557476 where the changeset comment is: revert pointless/careless edits based on imagery around Lyttelton, New Zealand
SANDHYARANI (2019-01-24 00:27:14+00:00): I apologies for the mistake happened during copy pasting my comments (a list that i internally maintaining), i will be more vigilant for this kind of mistakes in future however the intent of the edit is correct. 

Modified road geometry according to aerial imagery,Please review and revert back if i need to re insist the edit on the map.


Thanks for your help and advice.
Sandhyarani
JJIglesias (2018-11-29 18:16:47+00:00): Saludos, dejaste unas lineas de pasillos de Este a Oeste sin marcar que eran. Ya las cambie todas. Por favor cada pasillo debe estar conectado con el que lo cruza por un nodo (gris), Favor Corregir
Gracias JJ
mavl (2018-12-24 23:59:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-12-24 23:56:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
Spanholz (2018-12-03 15:14:11+00:00): When you trace houses, could you please make them rectangular afterwards? Just press s after you draw them. Real houses also have a rectangular shape ;)
Farras (2018-12-03 19:37:15+00:00): Reverted. Apparently accidental edit.
mavl (2018-12-25 00:29:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-12-25 00:09:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-12-25 00:03:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-12-25 00:06:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
jumbanho (2018-11-30 22:49:11+00:00): Hi,

I just want to explain why I have reverted large parts of this changeset.  I understand your desire to not allow people to use unauthorized trails, but the mandate of OSM is to map what is physically present and to accurately describe it.  I recently passed over all the trails in the Edeburn Division and thrice ended up on unauthorized trails before realizing my error.  Given that these trails are visible and have been mapped, either from people traveling on them, via anonymous gps traces or orthoimagery, I am re adding them.

However, an important part of properly mapping is to note access restrictions and conditions on the ground.  I have noted that all these trails are unauthorized by adding a tag access =no and furthermore have at a distance from their trailheads, changed the tag to abandoned, to indicate that they are (potentially) less visible.   

I have also added bicycle restrictions and blazes where pertinent to more accurate indicate the reality on the ground.
dukeforest (2018-11-30 23:47:01+00:00): Jumbandho, thank you for your attention and understanding about the nature of unauthorized trails. While we appreciate your efforts to add the correct bicycle restrictions (they are only allowed on graveled roads) and abiding to the mandate of open sourced mapping, the public's desire and ability to use mapping software to access land should not and do not superceded the rights of private property owners. The Duke Forest is private land owned by Duke University for teaching and research purposes first and foremost, and the public's creation of and digital documentation of trails on private land is trespassing 

The Duke Forest is explicitly not a park. There are sensitive research sites throughout the land, and the unauthorized access is seriously detrimental to research efforts and to the ecosystems being monitored efforts. The Duke Forest has been operating as classroom and research laboratory since 1931, and while the public is permitted on our private land via authorized trails, any access in unauthorised areas is routinely reported to Duke's campus police and to the relevant county authorities. 

I ask you to please undo your responsive edits in an effort to help us protect our private land and primary missions of teaching and research. And please give me a call next week at 919-613-8631. Perhaps you would be willing to join us on our next volunteer day where we will, yet again, attempt to brush up these trails to discourage use. I would be happy to meet you in our Edeburn division privately and introduce you more thoroughly to our Forest, so that perhaps you can be an advocate for our work (and not get lost when hiking). Forgive typing errors. I'm off work and on mobile.
 - Blake Tedder, Communications and Engsgement Coordinator for the Duke Forest blake.tedder@duke.edu
jumbanho (2018-12-02 22:08:54+00:00): Thanks for the note Blake.  

First a quick explanation of how these tracks were mapped.  I have heard from all the mappers of these trails and none of them physically traversed the trails.  They used Strava heatmaps that are the result of anonymized uploads of people and publicly available orthoimagery.  Presumably these were unauthorized.  So none of the mappers trespassed on Duke property.

That leads me to what I hope is a result of fast typing in your note: "the public's creation of and digital documentation of trails on private land is trespassing". I interpret this as meaning that the public is not allowed to physically traverse these trails, not that we cannot digitally represent them.  

I assure you that my intent, nor that of other mappers, is not to encourage further use of these trails.  However, the accurate information that I have recorded will be of use to trail users.  As users pass by an unauthorized trail if they note on their map that this is, indeed, unauthorized, they will be less likely to use that trail.

I do get that the visibility of such trails on the map may encourage users who do not care about rules, so I think there is a reasonable cost-benefit in terms of trail usage of having these trails visible.

To minimize such use, I have altered how these trails are present in the database.  The vast length of the unauthorized trails are untagged now, so they will never appear on a map.  I have also added a note on these in the database telling future mappers that these are unauthorized trails so that they will not be tempted to re add them as present. 

I have maintained very short stubs (on the order of 5 meters long) where these unauthorized trails intersect with authorized trails and have noted that these are abandoned and unauthorized.  These will not appear on the bulk of maps that use OSM data and when they do appear they will be faded and have prominent markings noting that it is not allowed to cross them.

I feel these changes is a reasonable approach that expresses the reality on the ground and goes to a point of discouraging unauthorized trail use-- the general public looking at OSM derived maps will not see any long connecting trails for exploration.

Finally, I do appreciate the opportunity for recreation, teaching and research that Duke Forest provides (I've participated in all three ,including volunteer days, in the past 15 years or so, though this was my first visit to the Edeburn Division).  During my recreational use of the , I have found that OSM maps have always been as or more accurate than the official maps that I purchased or that are available at the trailheads.
dukeforest (2018-12-03 16:28:38+00:00): Jumbanho, thank you for making these changes. They seem like reasonable ones, and I am interested to see how they play out. Thank you so much to educating me about Strava Maps too. This is an incredible resource for our staff. And yes, my note: "the public's creation of and digital documentation of trails on private land is trespassing" carried the assumption that the mapping was intentionally being done via geolocation on the ground. While mapping from afar is not trespassing, unauthorized access by those users facilitating the heatmap most certainly was trespassing. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to make the distinction. 

On another note: I had also expanded the boundaries of the Edeburn Division to more closely represent the reality and it seems those changes were also removed. Any reason for that? I will expand these again soon, if not. As of now, some of the authorized trails seem to venture outside of Duke Forest property. 

These changes are important, and we appreciate it. As you likely know, popular sites like AllTrails.com use these maps as a baselayer.

Thank you again,

Blake
Communication and Engagement Coordinator
Office of the Duke Forest
Duke University
blake.tedder@duke.edu
919-613-8631
jumbanho (2018-12-03 18:17:22+00:00): Hi Blake,

I'm glad that we can come to an accord.  Regarding the boundary, I looked back the object  history (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/428034185/history) and it didn't look as there had been any changes to it.  Maybe you missed the save button?
dukeforest (2018-12-03 18:34:38+00:00): Must have been the issue. Thanks.
mavl (2018-12-25 00:40:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
escada (2018-12-02 06:45:19+00:00): Beste,

ik zie dat u de knooppunten van dit netwerk hebt geïmporteerd. Volgens mij hebt u hierbij de import procedure niet gevolgd, althans, ik heb hierover geen discussie gezien.

Zou u contact kunnen opnemen met de community en de bron, werkwijze en het nut kunnen toelichten ?

Ik ben vooral in dat laatste geïnteresseerd, waarom deze knooppunten overnemen -- zonder enige vorm van controle --, wat is de meerwaarde daarvan ? Ik heb in het verleden al te veel fouten gezien bij dit soort data sets, en vind dus het copiëren van dit soort data geen goed idee.

mvg
BHiko (2018-12-18 10:52:16+00:00): Dag. Bericht nu pas gezien.
Sorry. Ik ken de import procedure niet. 
Hoe neem ik contact met de community?
Ik wil het graag toelichten.
escada (2018-12-18 11:09:05+00:00): Bovenaan het forum staan alle contact gegevens. Best Riot channel kiezen

De import procedure start met het controleren van de licentie. Ten tweede de kwaliteit en het nut van de import. Voor die 2 laatsten ziet het er niet goed uit voor deze data set.

Vraagje, hebt u al ooit een wandelnetwerk route afgewandeld ? Bent u van plan om de data op enige manier ter plaatse te controleren ?
escada (2018-12-18 11:10:32+00:00): Import guidelines: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
escada (2018-12-18 11:11:35+00:00): welcome post on forum met alle mogelijke contact gegevens: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=61497
BHiko (2018-12-18 11:58:07+00:00): Waar is "het forum"?

Riot channel is voor mij een grote chaos met erg veel woorden. Ik vind daar moeilijk toepasselijke informatie tussen. 

Controle licentie: De data is van agiv. Ik heb van de community dikwijls gehoord dat die dat kan gebruikt worden voor OSM.

Ik zie de externe (agiv) data als een laag in JOSM en gebruik mapCSS. De externe data en de OSM data komen in de grote meerderheid van de gevallen overeen. 

Ik wijzig geen data in OSM (buiten het splitsen van ways), Net om surveyers te respecteren. Ik voeg alleen data toe.
Ik wandel regelmatig. Wandelde in delen van wandelnetwerken, maar heb ze niet volledig afgewandeld. Ik survey regelmatig. Na het wandelen breng ik regelmatig correcties aan.
eggie (2018-11-29 14:46:33+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
eggie (2018-11-29 14:59:35+00:00): Je vraagt om een review.. 
Moeilijk te zien wat je precies gedaan hebt. Een opgeplakt stukje weg verwijderd (dat zou prima zijn) of een stuk er tussenuitgehaald en het oude stuk doorverbonden?
Dit stuk weg staat als permissive. Dan zou het over eigen terrein lopen. Klopt dat? 
MVG,
Eggie
kjoep (2018-11-29 20:40:33+00:00): Dank voor het welkom en de review. Hier lagen twee lijnen over elkaar heen, een korte lijn en een langere. De korte heb ik verwijderd, de lange heb ik ongewijzigd gelaten. 

Of het in werkelijkheid permissive is weet ik niet zeker.
eggie (2018-11-29 21:47:07+00:00): Dan was het in ieder geval een goede actie :)
Soort gelijke tags kun je opsporen met de OSM inspector
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=5.67616&lat=52.02132&zoom=13&opacity=0.59&overlays=duplicate_ways
Andere handige tools.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_assurance#Monitoring_tools
Mapse..
Hjart (2018-11-29 14:37:41+00:00): Bemærk venligst at vores importerede adresser ikke bør flyttes eller på anden måde ændres. Er der fejl på dem bør de i stedet meldes til kommunen og rettes derigennem
atcomapper (2018-11-29 14:44:53+00:00): Alle adresser i OSM er importerer fra Danmarks Adresseregister. Hvis der er fejl i adressedata, skal du ikke rette fejlen i OSM, men derimod kontakte Ringkøbing-Skjern Kommune, som kan rette fejlen i Danmarks Adresseregister. Så bliver adressen også automatisk rettet i Krak og alle mulige andre tjenester.
zstadler (2020-02-25 12:15:00+00:00): Hello,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/214764908 was marked as a black trail in this edit.

Usually, short trails to camp-sites are not marked on the ground. Have you seen a sign there like this, or is it a mapping mistake?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A8.PNG/45px-%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A8.PNG
posix99 (2020-02-26 08:32:31+00:00): Yes i confirm this is marked as black on the ground.
zstadler (2020-02-26 09:48:01+00:00): Thank you!
zstadler (2020-02-26 09:51:47+00:00): Thanks!

I've added a trail relation in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/81495834
mavl (2018-12-24 23:54:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-12-25 00:26:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-12-24 23:34:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
abrensch (2018-12-05 21:57:00+00:00): Hi mathieuS,

can you have a look at this way:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/650670579

it's a duplicate on top of the orginal way without your additional lane tags

regards, Arndt
mathieuS (2018-12-06 09:49:43+00:00): Hi Arndt,

Thanks for pointing out. It is corrected

Best regards, Mathieu
mavl (2018-12-25 00:48:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
josmougn (2019-07-18 21:32:09+00:00): salut Simon, 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/650671147#map=19/49.00048/2.14429&layers=N
ça me gêne toujours de voir des trottoirs footway avec la clé bicycle=designated qui est quand même assez forte. Un trottoir ou un footway normalement c'est pour les piétons, bicycle=yes suffirait peut-être, non ?
Par ailleurs ton trottoir traverse 2 rues, pas commode pour les autres usagers. Les traversées piétons peuvent se taguer footway=crossing et traversée vélo cycleway=crossing cf https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dcrossing
Je fais cette petite modif ici, José