piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2017-10-02 17:58:02+00:00): Zoiets gaat niet met een simpele editor iD  Je hebt daar editor JOSM voor nodig.
editor josm stap voor stap
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710
eggie (2017-10-02 17:58:45+00:00): Dus beter niet met editor iD aan landuse en water zitten.
pavdhu (2017-10-05 19:46:53+00:00): Okee, duidelijk
eggie (2017-10-05 19:55:37+00:00): Mocht je vragen krijgen, stel ze dan gerust. 
 
Het wordt je zeker niet kwalijk genomen. OpenStreetMap heeft een leercurve en het is een samenwerkingsproject. We moeten samenwerken om de beste kaart te maken.
pavdhu (2017-10-05 20:03:20+00:00): Jah snap ik, je doet het met zijn allen.
majid1359 (2017-10-02 12:35:43+00:00): دو تا اسم‌مشابه بود یکی پاک شد
Harald Hartmann (2017-10-06 08:13:42+00:00): Hello dgitto. Ok you just fix the typo ... and else?
What about `video`? Could it be `contact:youtube`?
What about `Activities`?
And the best: a name without an amenity or anything else?
Please have a look at the last paragraph (UPDATE) of
https://blog.jochentopf.com/2015-03-05-new-taginfo-features-and-a-challenge.html
dgitto (2017-10-06 08:22:18+00:00): You are right. I will stop to use that tool from my mobile.
Of course the only logic purpose of this tool is to contact the mapper, and avoid to fix whatever, because the activity, in this case, could also be an hotel or a spaceship, we don't know
Harald Hartmann (2017-10-06 08:28:25+00:00): I don't want to stop you! You can still use that tool. But you should be quite sure that the other tags make sense, too. ;-)
I've looked through your other typo fixes and couldn't find any other problems, so everything is fine.
dgitto (2017-10-06 08:35:31+00:00): Actually, if the problem is only a milestone with 2 tags only and an obvious typo, should be safe to fix it.
Thanks for your time
sokol15 (2021-01-08 08:25:06+00:00): Ahoj, našel jsem spoustu budov s tagem start_date=2000_10_03 a nevím proč to tak je. Od několika uživatelů. To byla nějaká chyba editoru? (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/128K)
PT-53 (2020-01-08 11:10:06+00:00): Hallo Akkurator,
diese Straße
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/529006523
hat das Merkmal
access=private
Das sollte dann doch auch für alle davon abgehenden Straßen wioe z.B.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/529006522/history
gelten.

OSMI-Link:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=9.63998&lat=47.81704&zoom=18&opacity=0.34&overlays=islands,islands_car,islands_bicycle,islands_all

Grüße
Akkurator (2020-01-08 11:45:34+00:00): Ich halte es für Overkill und unnötige Redundanz, ALLE abgehenden Straßen zu kennzeichnen. Wo hört das auf? Die parkings aisles auch? Fußwege?
Wenn aus einer anderen Richtung noch ein weiterer Zugang entsteht (oder schon besteht und in der Karte fehlt)?
Oder wenn aus verschiedenen Richtungen unterschiedliche Zufahrtsrechte gelten?

Das wird unübersichtlich.

Ich setze daher access nur so, wie es explizit ausgeschildert ist. Router haben damit kein Problem.
Durch Zugangsstraßen implizierten access zu taggen bringt mMn keinen Mehrwert, erhöht im Gegenteil nur die Fehlermöglichkeiten bei späteren Änderungen.
Akkurator (2020-01-08 12:26:43+00:00): siehe auch https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70338986
und
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/51533715
uvi (2018-03-14 16:07:56+00:00): Hallo agentp2001, Handelt es sich hierbei um einen richigen Milchautomaten oder nur um eine Verkaufsstelle?
Kommen Waren aus dem Regal, ist m.E. zusätzlich shop=farm mit der description, welche Sachen es dort gibt, korrekt. Sobald ein Automat steht, sollte der doch so auch erscheinen und recherchierbar sein. Einige vertreten auch die Meinung, dass der Punkt mit shop=dairy ergänzt werden sollte. Ich denke, es empfiehlt sich folgendes Beispiel ganz gut: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4264211545 .
Gruß Uwe
Marych_ (2017-10-03 06:39:53+00:00): Спасибо!
Отлично получилось.
По 6му массиву удасться вам пройтись?
igor19831 (2017-10-03 12:45:41+00:00): Не думаю, сейчас нет времени. А затем в планах уехать
Mateusz Konieczny (2018-01-31 21:31:03+00:00): Drobna porada na przyszłosć: przy zmianie highway=residential na highway=construction warto dodać też construction=residential (bez tego typ drogi zostaje utracony).

Dla Blich właśnie poprawiam.

construction:end_date jest dobrym pomysłem, ale chyba lepiej użyć opening_date opisanego na Wiki i szerzej stosowanego - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_date
Mateusz Konieczny (2018-01-31 21:31:28+00:00): I dzięki za dodanie informacji o remoncie!
Olga | Yanosik (2018-02-01 08:09:19+00:00): Zwykle dodaję, musiało mi umknąć w natłoku remontów. Typ drogi można też odczytać z historii. Ale oczywiście będę się pilnować na przyszłość :)
Pozdrawiam
Olga
Andrea Musuruane (2017-10-06 12:42:30+00:00): Ciao Michele, è sbagliato aggiungere a un tag place=farm i tag addr:* e un numero di telefono. Se c'è una attività di vendita diretta di prodotti agricoli, questa deve essere mappata a parte con shop=farm. Guarda questo nodo come esempio: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5143049148
Ciao,

Andrea
k1wi (2017-10-07 10:17:51+00:00): No quites los nombres de los pueblos en español. Gracias.
eggie (2017-10-02 14:46:36+00:00): PB met welkom gestuurd
eggie (2017-10-02 14:55:04+00:00): source=BAG wil zeggen dat de bron van de data van Basisadministratie Adressen en Gebouwen komt. het kadaster. Daar hoort dus geen Home te staan. Ik draai je edit terug. Wanneer je vragen hebt stel ze gerust.
eggie (2017-10-02 15:01:20+00:00): Home verwijderd. source BAG teruggeplaatst
eggie (2017-10-02 15:03:13+00:00): PB met welkom gestuurd
eggie (2017-10-02 15:06:35+00:00): Je hebt hier met het commentaar footpath ook een gebouw verwijderd. Was dat de bedoeling? Zorg dat je de paden niet plakt aan andere opjecten of landuse. Ik maak het even los.
eggie (2017-10-02 15:10:55+00:00): barrier=gate kan ook op een node en dan vast op de weg. Klopt het dat dit pad dwars door een deel van het gebouw loopt?
Graag reactie
rmikke (2017-10-04 21:01:48+00:00): Ta droga to na pewno jest otwarta?
Jakieś źródło?
Bo mamy sprzeczne informacje...
amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ (2017-12-15 12:42:18+00:00): Hi! Welcome to OSM. You asked for a review, so here it is.

The only thing you did here was create an outline around Buggar's Bush ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/529472692  ), but you didn't put any tags or anything on it, making it invisible to everything. I've removed it, since it's not doing anything.

If you say what you wanted to map, I can help you
datendelphin (2017-10-02 18:22:21+00:00): Shouldn't there be an underpass where it crosses Nordzufahrt? That's probably why it was split into 3 segments
dippeling (2017-10-02 18:34:23+00:00): You're right. There is an underpass below Nordzufahrt. How shall I revert the change?
datendelphin (2017-10-02 18:47:27+00:00): The easiest is to just split the way again and add tags for "tunnel" on the short section below the primary road. I did it, it should be correctly mapped now.
dippeling (2017-10-02 18:48:44+00:00): Thanks. And sorry for the confusion. I just started mapping.
datendelphin (2017-10-02 19:05:09+00:00): No problem. You did good edits. Hope to see more edits from you, there is still lots to do in Zug. Happy mapping.
zstadler (2017-11-12 01:50:46+00:00): Hi Alaa Odeh and welcome to OSM!
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/529473350 has no tags.
Please tag it or delete it.
zstadler (2020-02-23 13:26:27+00:00): No response. Way was deleted.
kocio (2017-10-03 03:45:36+00:00): Te zmiany ze stacją były celowe i wyjaśnione na liście - co o tym myślisz?

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-October/079019.html
Natsuyasumi (2017-10-03 16:37:17+00:00): Całkowicie nie. Z punktu widzenia pasażera Świętokrzyska jest jedną stacją. Ani MSI, ani samo Metro (czy też ZTM) nie rozróżnia stacji na dwa różne struktury.
W OSM, w innych miastach (jak Berlin, Londyn czy Paryż) również nie ma takiego rozróznienia.

Jeśli chcemy iść za argumentem, że to są różne perony, to na każdej stacji kolejowej czy przystanku każdy peron musiałby mieć swój własny node z railway=station. Osiem różnych railway=station dla takiej Warszawy Zachodniej?

A co do niepoprawnego routingu: Od tego jest public_transport=stop_position, i to on powinen być używany do trasowania.
Więc albo to jest problem ze softem od wyznaczania trasy, albo z relacją linii.
kocio (2017-10-04 00:57:13+00:00): A czy możesz o tym napisać na listę? 

Zverik próbuje wprowadzić ujednolicenie stacji metra, więc dobrze żeby taka dyskusja odbyła się publicznie i żeby w miarę możliwości wyszły z tego wspólne wnioski, a nie każdy tagował po swojemu.
Alan Bragg (2017-10-08 00:11:57+00:00): Nice. I'll have to check it out.
marc__marc (2024-09-07 01:01:04+00:00): Bonjour,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/529476477
Voulez-vous revoir les limites et le type de plantation ?

Si c'est une plantation de palmiers à huile, je pense qu'une bonne description complète serrait :
genus=Elaeis
leaf_cycle=evergreen
leaf_type=broadleaved
produce=palm_fruit
voir species si vous connaissez la sorte.

id:diaf serrait plus consistant en ref:diaf

Cordialement,
Marc
Harald Hartmann (2017-10-06 08:23:28+00:00): Hello Tamas54_hu. At
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5143224332
you have introduced a lot of new keys
`Sukoró`, `nyomós`, `turistaút`.
What are they for?
Please use only english named keys!
The wiki or 
taginfo.openstreetmap.org
could help you.
Tamas54_hu (2017-10-06 09:04:08+00:00): thanks, I repaired them :)
KarmaCleaner (2017-10-02 23:12:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52580987 where the changeset comment is: vandalism cleaned
Andrea Musuruane (2017-10-06 12:44:44+00:00): Ciao Michele, perché hai tolto il nome della via? Dovrebbe essere "Via Fratelli Cervi" almeno fino al passaggio a livello. Ciao, Andrea
mikki65 (2017-10-06 13:07:00+00:00): il fatto e' che prima arrivava fino a Vettigne'
l ho modificato perche pensavo partisse dall' incrocio semplicemente
PT-53 (2017-11-01 08:31:50+00:00): Hallo Ottmar,
Du hast an dieser Straße https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/528942016#map=19/48.06335/9.97080 access=agricultural eingetragen. Jetzt wird im OSM-Inspector für diese Straße https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204558114 dieser Fehlerhinweis angezeigt: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=9.96947&lat=48.06349&zoom=17&opacity=0.34&overlays=islands, weil sie für Nicht-Landwirte nicht mehr erreichbar ist.
Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an ?
Grüße
Peter
OF-1 (2017-11-01 10:53:17+00:00): Hallo Peter,
das habe ich wohl anders gemacht als gedacht. Bei der Straße handelte es sich wohl ursprünglich um einen Feldweg der jetzt auch als Zufahrt zu den Firmenparkplätzen führt. Die Zufahrt ist begrenzt für Fahrzeuge bis 3,5 T. Landwirtschaftliche Fahrzeuge sind davon ausgenommen.
Am Ende des Weges ist eine Höhenkontrolle und vor dem Parkplatz eine Schranke. 
Grüße
Ottmar
PT-53 (2017-11-01 11:33:50+00:00): Hallo Ottmar,
wenn an dieser Zufahrt eine Gewichtsbeschränkung vorhanden ist, müßte sollte diese auch noch an die P-Zufahrt übernommen werden. Sonst wird dies evtl. wieder als Fehler gemeldet.
Grüße
Peter
mavl (2017-10-02 16:02:49+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 48336094, 48336419, 48353899, 48354662, 48354736, 48354953, 48357571, 48357580, 48357704, 48357871, 48358079, 48358101, 48358775, 48498243, 48498602, 48498643, 48498711, 48498786, 48499297, 48499335, 48499425, 48499495, 48499662, 48499953, 48499982, 48500724, 48500774, 48500810, 48500850, 48500863, 48500950, 48500968, 48501116, 48501178, 48501208, 48501248, 48501291, 48501740, 48502386, 48502476, 48502603, 48502639, 48502729, 48502980, 48521177, 48521237, 48521306, 48521364, 48521375, 48521546, 48521613, 48521638, 48521715, 48521736, 48521742, 48521830, 48521914, 48521920, 48521941, 48522129, 48524982, 48527149, 48528762, 48528784, 48529069, 48529574, 48529673, 48529829, 48529923, 48530049, 48530238, 48530626, 48530878, 48531025, 48531534, 48531727, 48531850, 48531897, 48532669, 48532712.
Andrea Musuruane (2017-10-06 12:52:17+00:00): Ciao Michele, ho sistemato il cancello che dava in via Palestro. Non deve essere sull'incrocio ma dove è fisicamente presente il cancello. Inoltre ho cambiato i tag add:unit in addr:housenumber. Ciao, Andrea
yaugenka (2017-10-02 17:25:24+00:00): Jay May, my changes did not delete the previous data, whereas your reverting messed everthing up! There are now duplicate data. If you are doing reverting, do it wisely!
yaugenka (2017-10-02 17:51:43+00:00): I do not mind if you put the previous "name:* values but please be kind to correct the mess and restore the new values I added.
Jay May (2017-10-03 16:48:12+00:00): The values you added were wrong. The only thing called „Hudahaj” is the train station. Those villages are called „Stancyja Hudahaj” and „Maly Hudahaj” respectively. Why should I restore wrong data if I’ve been there a couple of times, the latest of which was this weekend?
yaugenka (2017-10-03 17:33:39+00:00): Read this document from the district's government website:
http://ostrovets.grodno-region.by/uploads/files/000225_408421__selskij_ispolnitelnyj_komitet.doc

I moved the values from "name" tags into "alt_name" tags and put names from the document into the "name" tags. Your reverting deleted the newly added values and messed the tags up. Revert your changes or I willl have to report to DWG!
Once again, I do not mind if we keep "Станция Гудогай" and "Малый Гудогай" in the main "name" tags but the official altertive names must be defined at least in "alt_name" tags.
Jay May (2017-10-04 09:10:07+00:00): Your threat of reporting the above to the DWG is absolutely ridiculous given the fact you are the one who has been reverting my changes without/before even asking why I made them, and thus you brought more confusion. Your behavior is contrary to the good practice of OSM, which pretty much puts your actions into the vandalism category. (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism). Normally you should never revert any changes without asking its author why they did it, and you have been doing that nonstop.
If you want to put your names in alt_name, then do it yourself. However, to me it makes totally no sense. "Stancyja Hudahaj" already existed before the war ("Stacja Gudogaje") as a different village. The only village that used to be called "Hudahaj" is nowadays "Maly Hudahaj". Hence, the only one I can agree on is putting "old_name" tags "Hudahaj", "Гудогай" "Гудагай" and "Gudogaje" on that particular village.

I'm afraid you guys have an *enormous* mess in your documents regarding toponyms, addresses, and so on But this is neither my fault, neither the fault of other OSM users. I keep discovering names that don't match with your papers while being in Belarus. Even worse - sometimes I notice some villages' geographical situation is exactly the opposite than in reality!
You and I have a totally different approach on OSM. You are pretty much into theory, I am into practice, and it is the reason why I keep correcting every time I drive somewhere (especially in Belarus...), and why I want the map to look as the on-ground reality while you stick to your papers and wannabe-reality that is confusing everyone around, even those you think you are defending.
SomeoneElse (2017-10-04 12:41:55+00:00): Er - I'm confused...
That document appears to be a document in Russian listing some village and settlement names in Russian.  It merely confirms that these places have Russian names (which no-one disagrees with) as well as Belarusian names (which in this region I'm sure no-one disagrees with either).  
Also, it lists _two_ different "Гудогай" settlements: "д.Гудогай" and "п.Гудогай".  Where exactly are they?  Do they correspond to "Малый" and "Станция", or something else again?
Finally, what's the licence under which the document was made available?
yaugenka (2017-10-04 17:51:28+00:00): @SomeoneElse, that is exactly the case which we were explaning to everyone in defence of Russian names in the "name" tags - almost all offical documents and maps are in Russian language.
This document is on the govenment website, govenment exacutive authority of the Ostivetskiy disctrict in this case:
http://ostrovets.grodno-region.by/ru/selsovety-ru/
"д.Гудогай" and "п.Гудогай" names correspond to  "Малый" and "Станция".
You can  check it on this official authority map http://map.nca.by/map.html
which is Russian as well btw.
Here is a screenshot of where to look at on that map for your convinience
https://www.awesomescreenshot.com/image/2866033/e8a8da11020db19956be7bbc301f0510
SomeoneElse (2017-10-04 18:57:00+00:00): @yaugenka As I said, no one doubts that these places have BE and RU names.  What I was asking about was your change of e.g. http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=1286803731 to lose the "Станция" part of the name (regardless of language).  
Separately to that, from looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BelarusHomeLanguages2009.PNG this appears to be very much in "BE spoken at home" territory.
yaugenka (2017-10-04 19:33:21+00:00): @SomeoneElse, I'm not argueing about the use of the languigies right now. I just explained that regardless of that the document is in Russian it is an official one.
The official name of the both settlesments is "Гудогай" without the "Малый" and "Станция" parts. It is quite a common thing in Belarus when two settlements have one and the same name within one subdistrict but differ in settlement type which we put in "name:prefix" tag, "посёлок" and "деревня" in this case or "п." and "д." in short.
That was the reason why I moved  "Станция Гудогай" and "Малый Гудогай" into "alt_name" tags and put "Гудогай" into the "name" tags whereas @Jay May just deleted the offical names and create tag duplicates. See how it looks right now:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7522812
SomeoneElse (2017-10-04 20:02:57+00:00): It's perfectly possible for 2 settlements (with different names) to be part of one larger admin area - I live in a place exactly like that myself.
SomeoneElse (2017-10-04 20:15:29+00:00): Also - on the "official languages" point, there are many places in OSM where the "official" language isn't the one used by people and on signs locally, and as per http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf it's the language used by people and on signs that tends to be the one used in OSM, not some nominal "official" name or language.
Some communities have decided to do things differently - India for example has decided to use English (very much a minority language there) in the "name" tag rather than one or more of the many different languages (and language families) in use there.  The Belarus community chose to use Russian in 2009 for various reasons, but while some people still agree with that some people clearly don't.
yaugenka (2017-10-04 20:41:06+00:00): Sorry, I do not quite understand why we are discussing the use of language here. How is it related to the difference between "Станция Гудогай" and "Гудогай".
yaugenka (2017-10-04 21:07:25+00:00): You can also look up the names in the official registry of settlements at http://maps.by/searchate
Here is a screenshot from there
https://www.awesomescreenshot.com/image/2866539/17f558f07c38fa35fd106b9e0650c342
yaugenka (2017-10-04 21:22:17+00:00): If we talk just about the use of these names, then try to search for "Станция Гудогай" or "Малый Гудогай" on the web and you will get "п. Гудогай" and "д. Гудогай" instead, like on this wiki page
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82
So the sign is the only thing which differs from all the rest. An no way @Jay May had the right to just delete the values.
Jay May (2017-10-05 11:16:56+00:00): If the values are wrong, I still don't see what I should keep them as they were. 
 I've corrected many mistakes on OSM where the ending was not the proper one or the name was wrong (just as in this case). I haven't seen districts of one locality signed whatsoever. For instance, Bialkiški used to be a village and is now a district of Astraviec. Only the name of the bus stop is left as it was, but entering it you see an "Astraviec" roadsign. So I seriously doubt the case is different between Mały Hudahaj and Stancyja Hudahaj.
Lately I discovered 2 villages that were place exactly the opposite on OSM as on-ground.
As I said: in Belarus, you have such an enormous mess in your papers that the only way to reflect the reality is to apply a full ground rule. Otherwise, this discussion can last for years and the map will still not be efficient because both the language displayed and the names will be wrong.
Even people within villages argue between themselves whether the right name of their locality finishes with "yzna" or "yna" (interesting, very recent article about such an issue: https://nn.by/?c=ar&i=197923 As in many places, the name of this train station has been changed from a Russian name to a Belarusian name. On the way, the toponym lost a "z" to make is "Hruleŭščyna" instead of "Hrulevščizna").
yaugenka (2017-10-05 17:31:44+00:00): I'm greatfull for your contributions but mapping settlements from signs is not enough. The reality is constantly changing. Some settlements get annexed by larger ones or become independent or are renamed or cease to exist at all. And road signs are always going behind these changes.
For example, Bialkiški you mentioned used to be a village and has been annaxed by Astraviec some time ago and hence is marked wth "place=neighbourhood" tag now. Anaother example is hamlet Družba
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6906948 which was annaxed by town Sianno about two years ago and then become independent again about half a year ago.
Government cannot change signs instantly. So one must always double check it with the official registry.
SomeoneElse (2017-10-05 18:23:12+00:00): > So one must always double check it 
> with the official registry.
I can't comment about Belarus directly but "What people refer to a place and how they classify it" and "how something is treated officially" are often very different in OSM.  In most places the former gets mapped via "place" tags, the latter via "admin" levels.  In many places in the world, including where I live, they don't always correspond, and people map both, separately.
yaugenka (2017-10-05 19:13:21+00:00): There is not a single settlement with "admin" tag in Belarus. All settlements are mapped with "place" tag and correspond to official registry. The prority of mapping for us is actually the law, then the registry and then the signs. Because first comes an official act (e.g. about settlement renaming) then the registry is updated and then the on-ground signs get changed phisically.
This refers to at least settlements because the registry of settlemeents is publicly available and it becomes more and more easier to find govenment acts on the web.
At the same time we are quite flexible and can keep the name from on-ground-signs in the "name" tag for some time but the  official name must be present at least in the "alt_name" tags.
Jay May (2017-10-06 06:24:36+00:00): Bialkiški was marked as a neighborhood by myself :)
There is one thing I noticed in Belarus (very similar to Lithuania and to Ireland): ZIP codes seem not to be used ... Maybe it would be good to find them and map them?
yaugenka (2017-10-06 07:42:37+00:00): Bialkiški was marked as a neighborhood by myself :) 
xm.. the history says it different
http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=6910214
http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=242995527
Jay May (2017-10-06 08:19:14+00:00): Ah, rightttt. Looks like this Georgij also knows about this.
However, I am the one who created the relation between Bialkiški and Astraviec. 
You are welcome to have a look if I did it the right way.