piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
zluuzki (2022-08-31 09:51:29+00:00): "So "All buildings are manually reviewed before uploading." from https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/zluuzki_Import was a lie, right?" No. Read my comments again.
"Please: never, ever import anything into OSM again. It is just waste of your and our time."
We'll see. One could also simply not make such a drama out of a minor thing. No one is obliged to do anything here, so you guys volunteered to "waste" your time here (if you think you wasted it).

"And if you really think that only 50 buildings in this dataset were of such low quality..." Then what? I not only believe, I am sure.

Now what about the deleted churches I mentioned above? They are now just gone? Should I now also revert the entire revert because of an small accidential oversight? Wouldn't that be justified too?
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-08-31 11:35:59+00:00): So if you reviewed each building: why you decided to mark this ones as valid and useful mapping?
SherbetS (2022-08-31 12:12:43+00:00): >Then what? I not only believe, I am sure.

Then you shouldn't import. You do not have permission to import here.
ZeLonewolf (2022-08-31 15:03:27+00:00): Those of you that know me can attest: I don't care about process or procedures or what people describe as "rules" on the project.  I tend to think imports and bulk/mechanical edits are a good thing.  If a rule is inconvenient to what the community wants and accepts, I freely ignore it.   However, when I get that wrong, I accept the community's judgment.

You must understand that we are part of a community that deeply cares about making a high-quality map and working together to build this thing together.  OSM is a local endeavor with people that care very much about data quality in areas that are important to them.

You have consistently thumbed your nose at members of the community that care about the quality of data, and are consistently making large-scale and bulk edits that US-based mappers are objecting to.  You are argumentative and defensive when presented with criticism.  In short, you don't make meaningful attempts to ensure that your edits are welcome by US-based mappers.

I'm pretty confident that a US-based mapper behaving in this manner in Germany would find their edits summarily reverted on short order with a terse admonishment from the DWG with repeat offenses resulting user blocks of increasing severity.

Please, accept the extreme patience that the US community has extended to your bulk mapping as an opportunity to reconsider how your editing approach is viewed here in the US.

I ask that you do two things:

1. Work with the US community to share and vet your plans for bulk editing BEFORE doing so.

2. Accept "no" for an answer if you find that your plans are not enthusiastically received.

We would rather have you as a productive part of our community than the current adversarial relationship in which mappers feel that they have no other choice to address their concerns than to send complaints to the DWG.
bielebog (2022-10-02 14:45:46+00:00): Diesen Weg konnte ich gestern nicht entdecken. Östlich der Straße ist nur ein Rasen bis zu den Sträuchern. Kannst Du den bitte wieder löschen?
bitschubse (2022-10-07 11:06:25+00:00): Da ist definitiv ein Schotterweg. Leider ist der mittlerweile vom Rasen überwachsen.
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-21 02:21:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 125164887 where the changeset comment is: revert questionable contributions of deleted user manriqcy, DWG ticket #2022082010000076
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-21 02:19:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 125164887 where the changeset comment is: revert questionable contributions of deleted user manriqcy, DWG ticket #2022082010000076
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-21 02:18:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 125164887 where the changeset comment is: revert questionable contributions of deleted user manriqcy, DWG ticket #2022082010000076
eggie (2022-08-08 20:15:40+00:00): Dag Arjan..

Het zou zomaar kunnen, maar bedoel je wellicht dat er een bordje 461 wvs staat. Verboden Toegang? 
Dan access=private
Of een bordje Eigen Weg...  Een Eigen Weg is niet verboden toegang. Dan is het alleen access=permissive 
Dan is het wel opengesteld, maar onder voorwaarde. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-08-08 20:16:43+00:00): Halverwege op het pad is een voetgangersoversteekplaats..  Dat kan onmogelijk.
eggie (2022-08-08 20:23:24+00:00): Wat leesvoer: Het Verschil.. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dpermissive
en
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate
ArjanJager (2022-08-09 20:08:21+00:00): Bedankt voor de links. Behulpzaam. In dit geval geen bordje met Verboden Toegang, maar een compleet hek en afrastering, helemaal langs de lichttorenweg.
Matija Nalis (2023-10-20 22:44:48+00:00): building=* is only about architectural type of the building, not about its use (i.e. you could have building=observatory being used as amenity=pub). man_made=observatory (which you deleted) is its actual use. 

So, can you please revert all of those "Why two tags where one may carry the info" changesets of yours?
keithonearth (2023-08-18 21:00:15+00:00): Today I just heard about the Zoji La  tunnel project. Thanks for adding it to the map!
PlaneMad (2023-08-19 16:54:42+00:00): :)
eggie (2022-08-08 20:43:08+00:00): Dag Zsoliman.. Je vraagt feedback.. Lijkt me helemaal prima zo.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-08-08 20:18:41+00:00): Wanneer het priveterrein is en niemand hier iets heeft te zoeken dan access=private  Ook op de track achter het hek.
ArjanJager (2022-08-09 20:06:08+00:00): Ok, goed punt. Onduidelijkheid zit in verschil tussen private en permissive. In dit geval dus private.
eggie (2022-08-09 20:25:10+00:00): Yep...  inderdaad.
eggie (2022-08-08 20:19:20+00:00): Dat zal access=private zijn
ArjanJager (2022-08-09 20:06:40+00:00): Inderdaad net als bij nr. 157.
Matija Nalis (2023-10-20 22:49:27+00:00): 

building=* is only about architectural type of the building, not about its use (i.e. you could have building=observatory being used as amenity=pub). man_made=observatory (which you deleted) is its actual use.

So, can you please revert all of those "Why two tags where one may carry the info" changesets of yours?
streckenkundler (2022-08-08 20:15:41+00:00): Wunderbar! 

Danke! 

Dokumentiere mal diese Knotenpunktfehler. Mindestens als Note... und auch wenn rechcherierbar, als Info an den Landkreis... 

Ich hab damit unterschiedliche Erfahrungen gemacht... mein heimatlicher LDS-Kreis war sehr (!) kooperativ, Nachbarkreis OSL nicht...

Sven
klnkengi (2022-08-08 20:39:46+00:00): Hallo Sven, 

ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher, was Du mit Fehler meinst. "Falsch" ist eigentlich nur die offizielle Übersichtskarte des Knotenpunktnetzwerks im Internet und auf den kleinen Plänen an den Knotenpunkten, die diese  Verbindungen als Knotenpunkt-Verbindungen darstellen. Wobei aus dieser Übersichtskarte nicht hervorgeht, welche der Knotenpunkte 25, 26, 74 und 77 eigentlich jeweils miteinander verbunden sein sollen. 

Diese extrem lange Verbindung von Schönfeld nach Hohenfinow bzw. Niederfinow durch den Nachbarkreis MOL macht als Knotenpunkt-Verbindung eh nicht so richtig Sinn, weil sie über jede Menge Verzweigungen im Landkreis MOL verläuft, die keine Knotenpunkt-Nummer haben. Die Verbindung gibt es aber über die ausgeschilderten Radrouten Theodor-Fontane-Radweg und Holzweg, die ich ergänzt habe.

Meinst Du, dass ich an den Knotenpunkten 25 und 74 eine Note ergänzen sollte, dass dort abweichend von der offiziellen Karte keine Knotenpunkt-Verbindung durch den Kreis MOL verläuft?
silversurfer83 (2022-08-08 20:18:41+00:00): Sorry. CS got a little large. Will edit smaller chunks in the future.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124656545
mnalis ALTernative (2023-10-20 22:48:19+00:00): building=* is only about architectural type of the building, not about its use (i.e. you could have building=observatory being used as amenity=pub). man_made=observatory (which you deleted) is its actual use. So, can you please revert all of those "Why two tags where one may carry the info" changesets of yours?
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-21 02:20:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 125164887 where the changeset comment is: revert questionable contributions of deleted user manriqcy, DWG ticket #2022082010000076
philippec (2022-08-31 14:43:48+00:00): Mechelen kathedraal memorial.
Jef Benijn ?
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-21 02:20:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 125164887 where the changeset comment is: revert questionable contributions of deleted user manriqcy, DWG ticket #2022082010000076
emersonveenstra (2022-08-09 11:14:46+00:00): Hi,

A search for "Marlette Heights, MI" doesn't show any results. Could you give a source for your changes please?
emersonveenstra (2022-08-10 20:34:51+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124748213
mcliquid (2022-11-30 08:08:53+00:00): Hallo Bernhard, du hast bei dem Durchmesser statt einer Null ein O verwendet. Statt 1o sollte es wohl 10 sein. Und statt 1o cm wohl eher 0.10 (da die Standardeinheit Meter sind).
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-21 02:19:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 125164887 where the changeset comment is: revert questionable contributions of deleted user manriqcy, DWG ticket #2022082010000076
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-21 02:21:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 125164887 where the changeset comment is: revert questionable contributions of deleted user manriqcy, DWG ticket #2022082010000076
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-21 02:19:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 125164887 where the changeset comment is: revert questionable contributions of deleted user manriqcy, DWG ticket #2022082010000076
Владимир К (2023-01-02 20:27:20+00:00): добрый день. почему вы вешаете тег доступа motor_vehicle=yes на hw=footway? я на снимках там вижу колею, а значит это hw=track
opendcc (2022-08-09 05:00:36+00:00): Ooch. Die Rettungspunkte - fast schon die letzten Rosenheimer. Also los - zum Spitzstein ;-)
Rainero (2022-08-09 19:28:27+00:00): Oh, beim Spitzstein, die Gegend kenne ich so gar nicht. Wäre das ein Grund, sie zu erkunden?
opendcc (2022-08-09 19:38:36+00:00): Nein ;-)
Frans S (2022-09-09 12:50:54+00:00): I am Sorry to say, but your mappings (over 1000 buildings) are rather sloppy and not squared. Please pay more attention to follow the outlines of a building (with extensions)s
syntex (2022-08-08 21:12:39+00:00): Nie rób tego! Nie twórz aż tak złożonych multipolygonów!! Wszystkie są źle...
Artek (2022-08-09 03:29:59+00:00): Szkoda że nikt nie powiedział mi tego kilka lat temu jak zacząłem dodawać. Teraz robię tylko poprawki.
Jedno pole, jeden multipoligon?
syntex (2022-08-09 12:09:42+00:00): Po prostu nie ma żadnego sensu w gromadzeniu obiektów danego typu w takich relacjach. Dane powinny być jak najprostsze w edytowaniu. Taka powinna być podstawowa zasada. Tutaj masz przykład mojego podejścia do tej kwestii (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.1055/20.9548)
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-21 02:18:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 125164887 where the changeset comment is: revert questionable contributions of deleted user manriqcy, DWG ticket #2022082010000076
silversurfer83 (2022-08-09 07:25:12+00:00): Hi Lucas,
Schön gemacht, das Gebäude inkl. dem Weg. Sahnehäubchen wäre am Punkt, wo der Weg das Gebäude trifft ein Eingang mit Adressdaten (ich vermute einfach mal, dass dort der Hautpeingang ist)

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124657446
Dino Michelini (2022-08-09 18:16:33+00:00): Ti segnalo che in queste modifiche vi sono alcuni problemi: 1) le date non sono scritte nella forma corretta (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:start_date); 2) non è stato compensato lo scostamento delle immagini satellitari di Bing (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing_Maps); 3) l’utilizzo di footaway non è appropriato e andava lasciato il path, caso mai si poteva ulteriormente precisare (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Tag:highway%3Dfootway). Puoi correggere? Grazie
elucci (2022-08-10 18:13:25+00:00): Ciao e grazie per le informazioni! 
Per quanto riguarda le date, correggerò seguendo meglio le indicazioni riportate sulla pagine wiki, e lo stesso vale per i path (credevo fosse più idoneo a sentieri escursionistici, ma quindi non mi è ben chiaro in quali contesti vada utilizzato footaway). 
Infine, per quanto riguarda invece lo scostamento Bing, sono conscio del problema ma non saprei come compensarlo. Potresti darmi indicazioni a riguardo?
Grazie!
Dino Michelini (2022-08-24 09:43:30+00:00): Sia JOSM che Potlatch hanno degli strumenti per l'allinamento delle immagini aeree mentre iD devi fare riferimento a https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_aerial_imagery. La migliore precisione è quella delle ortofoto del PCN 2012 per cui mi servono come riferimento per correggere lo spostamento (traslazione) delle immagini satellitari di Bing, Esri, ecc.
eggie (2022-08-09 05:20:26+00:00): Dag Marcel...  
Schuiven met de kaart levert vaak schade op door onbedoelde verplaatsingen. In dit geval een adresnode. Je selecteert met de rechtermuisknop, maar in iD schui je daar helaas ook mee.
Je edits 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=124658054

Verder lijkt de weg hier vast te zitten aan de landuse=residential van Etten Leur..

Het vastplakken van wegen aan landuse is niet gewenst, maar wellicht was dit al het geval. 
Wegen door woonwijken zijn meestal toch gewoon residential. De routering met een unclassified vergeleken is hetzelfde.
Ontsluitingswegen door wijken zijn soms veel hoger in wegklasse dan residential en/of unclassified.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-08-09 05:33:19+00:00): Het plakwerk was van een voorgaande mapper. Ik heb al gedeeltelijk wat losgemaakt, maar het is een heel karwei. Zal steraks nog wel eens kijken.
Het geeft ellende als iemand met dat vlak gaat schuiven. Dan komen alle wegen mee. 
De consensus is om geen landuse aan wegen te plakken. 
Groet
eggie
eggie (2022-08-09 05:44:39+00:00): M'n losmmaakacties weer even teruggedraaid.. Dat gaf nog meer ellende.
Groet,
eggie
marcelsmidt (2022-08-11 20:21:22+00:00): Bedankt voor de terugkoppeling en het nakijken.

Mocht er nog actie van mij verwacht worden, dan hoor ik het graag.
eggie (2022-08-11 20:43:22+00:00): Gewoon met plezier gaan mappen. De adresnode 32 heb ik net even terugezet.
Denk dat dit soort wegen gewoon highway=residential zijn en niet unclassified.
Voor de routeringsvoorkeur maakt het niet uit, maar beter dus residential. Je zou er nog eens naar kunen kijken.
Alleen de ontsluitingswegen krijgen een hogere wegklasse. 

Wat leesvoer.. Nederlandse wiki wegentagging 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:The_Netherlands_roads_tagging 

Groet
eggie
woodpeck_repair (2022-08-21 02:21:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 125164887 where the changeset comment is: revert questionable contributions of deleted user manriqcy, DWG ticket #2022082010000076
olo81 (2022-10-19 18:51:12+00:00): Dlaczego został skasowany tag historic=locomotive ?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4239155798/history
pneff (2022-08-08 21:21:04+00:00): Sorry, comment is wrong. Edit was for Bill Reid gallery.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-08-11 12:03:41+00:00): por favor agregue nombres a los lugares que ha estado agregando
JJIglesias (2022-08-09 09:11:15+00:00): Saludos.

Al crear edificaciones se requiere q las escuadres (Ortogonalices) para eso se marca la figura y se toca la letra Q, o con el click derecho del Mouse tocas la figurita q muestra un cuadrado.

Por favor visita https://learnosm.org y https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Edificios

Gracias
JJ
JJIglesias (2022-08-09 09:14:20+00:00): Saludos.

Al crear edificaciones de cualquier tipo tienes que tener cuidado q ninguno de sus nodos se conecten con las calles o vias, pues son elementos independientes y NO se conectan entre si, es un error comun al principio por eso te lo hago notar, para q no caigas nuevamente.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Edificios

Gracias
JJ
JJIglesias (2022-08-09 09:15:09+00:00): Saludos.

Al crear edificaciones se requiere q las escuadres (Ortogonalices) para eso se marca la figura y se toca la letra Q, o con el click derecho del Mouse tocas la figurita q muestra un cuadrado.

Por favor visita https://learnosm.org y https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Edificios

Gracias
JJ
mueschel (2022-08-09 09:29:00+00:00): Hi,
could you check 28 nodes you added recently? They have many foreign tags:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=%5Bout%3Ajson%5D%3B(node%5B%22INGARITCKR%22%5D%3Bway%5B%22INGARITCKR%22%5D%3B%3E%3Brel%5B%22INGARITCKR%22%5D%3B)%3Bout%20meta%3B&C=56.01916;12.76491;13
Tomas Marklund (2022-08-09 15:25:21+00:00): Good catch. I forgot to delete the importe tags begfore uploading. It's corrected with changeset 124691275

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124691275
GerdP (2024-02-11 08:58:27+00:00): Moin aus Wildeshausen!
Mir ist gerade der Schulweg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39654187 aufgefallen, der seit dieser Änderung die Lange Straße überlappt. Das ist ein Fehler und sollte behoben werden. Aufgrund der Relationen für die Wegweiser braucht es aber ein bischen mehr Arbeit, und ich kenne mich vor Ort nicht aus. Kannst Du das selbst korrigieren? Sonst würde ich die Community um Hilfe bitten.
BikeTschorsch (2024-02-11 18:27:55+00:00): Moin, also so wie der Übergang vom Schulweg zum Ehrhorner Heuweg. dort dargestellt ist, habe ich das ganz sicher nicht gemacht, so arbeite ich nicht. Ich habe da jetzt quasi eine normale Kreuzung draus gemacht. Allerdings meckert OSM noch über eine Busverbindung. Und welche Wanderwege dort verlaufen weiß ich auch nicht. Ich wohne auch nicht vor Ort. War da nur mal wandern. Mit Relationen oder Busverbindungen in OSM kenne ich mich nicht aus, das müssten sonst andere ggf nochmal korrekt einpflegen.
GerdP (2024-02-11 19:12:52+00:00): Mit der neuen Änderung in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147338588 hast Du einige wichtige Informationen geöscht. Mach da bitte erst mal nichts mehr.
JJIglesias (2022-08-09 09:18:18+00:00): Saludos. Excelente edicion todas las edificaciones estan separadas entre si y la gran mayoria estan escuadradas.
Buen trabajo, si puedes por favor lee esto de la Wiki.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Edificios

Gracias
JJ
streckenkundler (2022-08-09 17:19:21+00:00): Hei,

ich bin von StefanHRT diesbezüglich angeschrieben worden. Ich hab mit das auf Mapillary angeschaut.

An der Ausfahrt des Weges https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827566286 steht Zeichen 267. Das sagt hier lediglich aus, daß man von der Hauptstraße nicht in den Parkplatzbereich ect. reinfahren darf. Am Weg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59546569 steht hingegen auch Zeichen 267, hier aber so, daß man da nicht rausfahren darf. Streng genommen darf man auch nicht von Weg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59546569 auf den Radweg. Vom Radweg selbst darf man hingegen wiederrum auf die Straße, z.B. um vom Radweg aud die Straße "Im Winkel" zu gelangen.
Im ganzen Bereich ist aber nichts von Zeichen 220-10/220-20 zu sehen. 

Man kann hier natürlich ein kurzes Stück oneway=yes setzen, aber schön find ich das persönlich nicht. Sauber wären eche Abbiegebeschränkungen als Relation. (mit except=bicycle)

Ich würde vorschlagen, daß von der Dorfstraße zum Weg  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827566286 zwei Abbiegebeschränkungen gesetzt werden, um Zeichen 267 genüge zu tun, daß man dort nicht von der Dorfstraße aus reinfahren darf. Am anderen Weg dann umgekehrt, wobei ist es ingnorieren würde, daß da Zeichen 267 noch vorm Radweg steht.

Zum Knotenpunkt 93: bei dem wäre es ohnehin besser, den auf den Punkt https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7637491392 zu setzen.

...ungeachtet dessen ist die Beschilderung aber auch etwas komisch.

Sven
CoyKoi (2022-08-09 08:08:02+00:00): I can see a short section of footpath alongside here, I have mapped it separately as it's own way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1085013297
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124659776
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2022-08-12 21:47:04+00:00): Jeg synes ikke at det er en god ide at dække torvehallerne med highway=pedestrian,area=yes

Det er jo ikke en gågade som man frit kan navigere rundt på. Især er der jo to store bygninger, torvehallerne, som begrænser hvor man kan gå.

Man kan ikke se dem på kortet mere, fordi carto bygninger bliver skjult af veje.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-08-11 12:22:38+00:00): reverted
Warin61 (2023-09-07 00:17:01+00:00): There are warning messages about these max speed tags. 

As these are unable to be checked I will delete them.
jMapsAu (2023-09-07 04:34:17+00:00): @Warin61
Can you elaborate on what errors you're seeing? Better to fix these than remove them.
cserpell (2022-08-09 01:59:52+00:00): Por lo que se ve en algunas fotos, tiene toda la pinta de continuar entubado por Retamo hacia el poniente, al menos hasta Freirina. Después no sé, tal vez sigue derecho hasta unirse con el otro curso de agua que hay, pero no lo sé.
afreckelton (2022-08-08 23:59:43+00:00): This changeset comment is incorrect. It should read "Add Huntington Woods Bike Route."
Tolstoi21 (2022-09-13 11:19:05+00:00): Hei, onkohan tämän muutoskokoelman yhteydessä poistettu myös maankäyttöpolygoni paloasemalta. Se voisi olla hyvä lisätä takaisin (vaikka ilman nimeä, niin ei tule tuplana). Ystävällisesti, Tolstoi
MoiraPrime (2022-08-17 19:37:09+00:00): Building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1084947034/history isn't even the same shape as the building in its place. Are you checking these before you import them???
afonit (2022-08-17 23:20:06+00:00): Hello MoiraPrime, thank you for caring enough to reach out.  I have tried to go back and check - I don't see a method to allow me to see how the building looked in prior edits so I can't see the difference between what it looked like from my edits to yours.

To answer your question, Yes I do check them before importing them (as noted in my commit comment).  The process is I scan the map visually to find an area that needs buildings - I check if RapiD has some best guesses, I have to hit 'a' on the keyboard to add each building in turn.  As I add them I then do further edits if necessary such as moving the shape a bit to align with the foundation of the building and most of them need some sort of rotation.  I do apologize if I made a mistake and I do appreciate you pointing it out.
amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ (2025-02-22 11:46:50+00:00): In this changeset, way 1084947854 is tagged as `waterway=rapids`. However is that right? The wiki says a a rapid should be drawn across the river, like  weir¹. I noticed this item because it causes the McKenzie River to be split on WaterwayMap.org². The source of this WWM change is this commit c925507³


¹ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Drapids
² https://waterwaymap.org/#map=13.75/44.10959/-122.42299

³ https://github.com/amandasaurus/waterwaymap.org/commit/c9255079842aed73ecc8488b46de91b4d6269a80
AlaskaDave (2025-02-24 05:25:13+00:00): Hi,
I believe the tagging is correct as is but feel free to replace the line of rapids I've drawn as a way with a node if you wish.

Splits in ways are very common in OSM. We do it for highways all the time, for example, whenever the speed limit changes.  Dealing with such splits is a rendering issue.

But, as I said, feel free to change it to a node or weir if you wish.
amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ (2025-02-25 14:47:32+00:00): I know about needing to split ways (I wrote a post-processing tool to put them back together `osm-lump-ways`) 😉

What do you think about the wiki's description of rapids, compared to your use? Which of you are correct? 🙂🙂