piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:07:33+00:00): Thank you for the feedback and reverting this edit, but can I ask for feedback? To me, it is a map quality problem that non-navigable elements (cycleway) are disrupting the connection between a navigable highway (unclassified) and a general road network. Is there any concern about assuring routing?
eggie (2022-08-05 11:33:08+00:00): There will be an exception on the cycleway for customers, inhabitants and delivery.
It's tagged motor_vehicle=destination
Please check the tagging in the cycleway between track and serviceroad.
Yor edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=124462601

You see.. Its suited designated for motor_vehicle. 
gr eggie
Gan_toon (2022-08-09 14:41:11+00:00): Thanks for your feedback, eggie! I really appreciate it.
OddlyAngled (2022-08-05 05:28:41+00:00): these two segments were part of different relations - one for the JMT and a second for the PCT. combining the two segments breaks the PCT relation.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124462927
OddlyAngled (2022-08-05 05:48:33+00:00): the times I've been through this section of trail, even in wet years like 2017 and 2019, this was definitely not a ford... but I haven't been back in a while. has this changed?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124463048
danfarina (2022-08-05 17:57:32+00:00): No, I could be in error, I just noticed many stream crossings that were flagged with OSM warnings about having no crossing of any kind defined, so I was just looking at aerial photography for e.g. a bridge.  If I didn't see one, I presumed a ford.  Is this in error?
Allison P (2022-08-05 19:50:48+00:00): If you don't know, it is best to leave it as an issue and wait for someone with the right knowledge to fix it.
danfarina (2022-08-06 05:20:03+00:00): Perhaps I will go through the laborious task of reverting my changes. I have a question about this one in particular though: if it isn't a ford, what is it? Is the stream in error, or the alignment of the trail, or is there a bridge?
Allison P (2022-08-06 06:05:51+00:00): It is likely to be a footbridge, if not a ford. It is possible, though rare, for there to be a culvert instead.
OddlyAngled (2022-08-06 14:31:20+00:00): the problem in this area is mostly due to NHD flowlines imported as waterways. many (most?) of these should be deleted but it's a ton of work to clean up an area. Yosemite is much better than Inyo NF in this regard.

the 1994 USGS quads are a better reference for waterways, they're not always correct but they're pretty good. in this case there is no waterway on the USGS quad. the trail however does get wet... just no running or standing water to deal with, at least in my experience.
eggie (2022-08-04 10:17:05+00:00): reverted by changeset #124473012

I think you are not aware of what you are doing!. I seems vandalism to me.
gr eggie
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:07:09+00:00): Thank you for the feedback and reverting this edit, but can I ask for feedback? To me, it is a map quality problem that non-navigable elements (cycleway) are disrupting the connection between a navigable highway (service) and a general road network. Is there any concern about assuring routing?
eggie (2022-08-05 11:26:29+00:00): Yes...  It's not logical... But the road  (highway-service in fact)  is for maitenance. It's a pumpingstation.

Your intention ofcourse is okay.
It's no vandalism.
Ther is no routing over this serviceroad.. It's private..
gr eggie
Gan_toon (2022-08-09 14:40:46+00:00): Thanks for your feedback, eggie! I really appreciate it.
Tilia_J (2022-08-04 09:23:47+00:00): Good morning.

I reverted your changeset.

By checking te history of this track you could have learnt that this track was added by me just six months ago 

In suck cases it is appropriate to first contact the original editor instead of blindly following the instructions or maproulette challenge that apparently  were / was given by TomTom.

If you have local knowledge you know that this track is intended for raiway maintenance vehicles.

Moreover, you should give consideration to the relation and dependencies of all the tagging that was applied to this track:

By changing track to path you left the track_type key which doesn't have any valid relation with a path.

Revert:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124470159
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:28:41+00:00): My apologies, I made a mistake. Thank You for reverting the changes and will review the resources so that I don’t make the same mistake again.
Tilia_J (2022-08-04 10:46:05+00:00): Your changeset was reverted. Obviously you have no clue what you are doing.
melody_Tej (2022-08-05 13:05:25+00:00): My apologies for the mistake. I will review all the resources before I edit again.
eggie (2022-08-04 10:15:13+00:00): Restored old tagging. No footway!
It's a private serviceroad for residents
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:35:13+00:00): My apologies, I made a mistake. Thank you for reverting the changes. I will review the resources so that I don’t make the same mistake again. On the other hand, is there any concern about assuring routing between service roads for last-mile delivery purposes?
eggie (2022-08-05 12:47:19+00:00): Not in this matter.. its a private road for residents.. The cycleway must be motor_vehicle destination.
Gan_toon (2022-08-09 14:44:58+00:00): Thanks for your feedback, eggie! I really appreciate it.
eggie (2022-08-04 10:08:47+00:00): You are familiar here?
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:13:22+00:00): My apologies, I made a mistake. Thank You for reverting the changes and will review the resources so that I don’t make the same mistake again.
eggie (2022-08-05 11:56:14+00:00): Here I'm not sure either  but you could ask the former mapper. 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=124464216
But it's not automatically a path.

Greetz,
eggie
Gan_toon (2022-08-09 14:42:34+00:00): Sure, thank you!
dvdhoven (2022-08-04 14:51:15+00:00): Reverted this changeset Track should not be converted to path
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:40:28+00:00): My apologies, I made a mistake. I have reverted the changes and will review the resources so that I don’t make the same mistake again.
Tilia_J (2022-08-04 10:50:24+00:00): Reverted changeset. The cycleway where your edit branched off was misclassified.
melody_Tej (2022-08-05 13:05:07+00:00): My apologies for the mistake. I will review all the resources before I edit again.
jmarchon (2022-08-04 12:20:02+00:00): Hi,
The previous tags on way #1071703626 were correct, in my opinion. What is your reasoning behind changing them to "place=square"?
Voonosm (2022-08-04 14:00:58+00:00): Hi. I do not think it is correct to mark an area as a roadtype. The official ID Editor also marks this as an error. Place seemed to me to be the nearest thing.
jmarchon (2022-08-05 12:55:18+00:00): Hi,
I have talked with the OSM Discord community, and checked the OSM Wiki. Both say that highway=service together with area=yes is valid tagging.
"area=yes on a highway=* describes a routable highway area on which the dedicated traffic can route omnidirectionally, i.e. from any point along the edge to any other. This is typical for pedestrian areas, or service areas where vehicles drive without prescribed lanes."

In my strong opinion, it is correct in this case. I have been in this area and looked at this spot many times. Unless you have also surveyed this area, or have some other, more reliable source, I will revert this change.

Thank you, have a nice day, and happy mapping!
Voonosm (2022-08-05 13:26:57+00:00): Hm, you might be right that it is OK. ID Editor is a bit too overprotective fot this special case. I see the Wiki accepts the area type for service roads. Yeah why not.
erantr1 (2022-10-31 10:26:05+00:00): These are quite unusual geometries for roads. Are you sure you made them in the correct form?
akuksouski_lyft (2022-10-31 13:56:21+00:00): Hi, erantr1! My name is Alexander and I am a mapper of the OSM Team at Lyft. Thank you for the interest in our edits!

The geometry of the discussed intersection was updated based on the latest street-level photos and telemetry data we had at the time.  As far as I can see, the configuration of this intersection has not changed since then in accordance with the newest aerial Nearmap imagery taken on Sep 2022 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lRk4gwMBx3qkKBGFuvnBY5CfLzEKqn_G/view?usp=sharing), Lyft telemetry data (https://drive.google.com/file/d/15dWhc-PFzlCXiEYHRrZ3BxOwwa3WKSjB/view?usp=sharing) and street-level imagery taken by Lyft’s drivers (photo from westbound direction of East Pecan St taken on 2022/06/14 – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q5JpqVtP5e2Aj7Z5FlGZyLlVy1-3Q-oN/view?usp=sharing), photo from eastbound direction taken on 2022/10/26 – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wgNM7z8iTkQnwoDdGWUNiUG0dPEtq3s8/view?usp=sharing). This information also coincides with Maxar's background.

So, according to the data above I suppose that the current geometry of the intersection corresponds to actual road conditions. Please, let me know if I missed anything, I will definitely correct my mistakes.

Kind regards, Alexander
erantr1 (2022-11-02 14:34:18+00:00): Thanks for the reply!
I did not have this info, and in Bing imagery it looked different, as far as I could understand.
But it looks like you have much more info about this area than I do.
By the way, the 2 latter links are not accessible. But I got the idea from the others :-)
akuksouski_lyft (2022-11-03 12:13:52+00:00): Hi, erantr1! I am so sorry for providing unavailable links. I have fixed their access, so all of the links should work now. Also thanks to your comment, I found some mistakes while reviewing my edits. I fixed them in the changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128427878.
Thank you for your contribution!

Best regards, Alexander
erantr1 (2022-11-06 09:39:54+00:00): Thank you, for making the effort to check and fix :-)
eggie (2022-08-04 10:07:14+00:00): reverted by changeset
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:14:16+00:00): Thank you for the feedback and for reverting this edit, but could I ask for some feedback? To me, it is a map quality problem that non-navigable elements (cycleways and footways) are disrupting the connection between a navigable highway (track) and a general road network. Is there any concern about assuring routing?
eggie (2022-08-05 12:00:19+00:00): Caues a bug in your tool.
Fals positive..
It's a driveway .. The cycleway is motor_vehicle=destination. So for residents allowed. 
Not or regular traffic.
gr eggie
eggie (2022-08-05 12:00:47+00:00): typo Not for... regular traffic
Gan_toon (2022-08-09 14:43:47+00:00): Thanks, eggie. Editing in these quality check challenges has been paused globally while these false positives are being looked into.
Tilia_J (2022-08-04 09:53:09+00:00): Again a revert.

Is my assimption correct that you change tracks to paths that have no "traffic heat"?

In this case that is abvious as the track has access=no
Tilia_J (2022-08-04 09:57:11+00:00): I also notice that you use Bing imagery. It is outdated and its resolution is below standard.

Please change to:

wms:https://service.pdok.nl/hwh/luchtfotorgb/wms/v1_0?FORMAT=image/jpeg&VERSION=1.3.0&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=2022_quick_orthoHR&STYLES=&CRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:23:57+00:00): My apologies, I made a mistake. Thank You for reverting the changes and will review the resources so that I don’t make the same mistake again.
Tilia_J (2022-08-05 12:26:23+00:00): Thanks for the response. I was just reviewing the TomTom maproulette challenges and  was curious on which challenge your input was based. Or are you also using tools like Mapmetrics?

In the latter case the Dutch Openstreetmap community concluded that mapmetrics gives too much false positives, especially in rural area's.
Gan_toon (2022-08-09 14:44:36+00:00): Hi Tilia_J, Atlas checks are used to create these challenges, not MapMetrics.
dvdhoven (2022-08-04 14:42:23+00:00): Reverted this changeset Track should not be converted to path
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:41:27+00:00): My apologies, I made a mistake. I have reverted the changes and will review the resources so that I don’t make the same mistake again.
Bierphysik (2023-11-04 13:51:00+00:00): Hi. VZ357 ist ein Sackgassen Schild, keine Sperrung, warum also auf higfway=footway geändert?
eggie (2022-08-04 10:04:45+00:00): reverted by changeset #124472481
eggie (2022-08-04 10:06:01+00:00): BING is outdated here..Reverted
Use PDOK Quick Ortho 2022 in the Netherlands
gr eggie
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:13:46+00:00): My apologies, I made a mistake. Thank You for reverting the changes and will review the resources so that I don’t make the same mistake again.
eggie (2022-08-05 11:53:34+00:00): This area is under construction.. See the last aerial imagery
https://www.satellietdataportaal.nl/?base=openstreetmap&res=0.5&datemin=05-08-2021&loc=52.35942%2C4.763791%2C18z&overlay=mos-0&marker=loc&acqdate=2022-06-23&acqid=20220623_103209_SV1-01%2C20220623_103210_SV1-01&sensor=SuperView-1
Gan_toon (2022-08-09 14:43:03+00:00): Thanks again, eggie.
Tilia_J (2022-08-04 09:35:42+00:00): Good morning.

Another revert.

This track can be negotated with at least a 4WD or agricultural vehicle


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124471005
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:28:04+00:00): My apologies, I made a mistake. Thank You for reverting the changes and will review the resources so that I don’t make the same mistake again.
highflyer74 (2022-08-04 10:33:26+00:00): Moin und willkommen bei OSM!

Sei so nett, immer das Wiki zu lesen (in diesem Fall https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity=police?uselang=de), bevor du Dinge änderst. Das Präsidium ist nicht das Polizeirevier. Dieses ist etwas weiter nördlich gemappt.

Wenn Du noch Fragen hast, melde Dich gern!
leon1912 (2022-08-04 10:39:18+00:00): Moin!
Entschuldigung und gleichzeitig vielen Dank für den Hinweis! :)
Ich werde künftig das Wiki beachten.

Du hast absolut recht. Das Präsidium ist nicht das Revier.
dvdhoven (2022-08-04 14:44:56+00:00): Reverted this changeset Wrong interpretation. Service should not be converted to path
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:41:05+00:00): My apologies, I made a mistake. I have reverted the changes and will review the resources so that I don’t make the same mistake again.
landini (2022-08-06 06:23:29+00:00): Rettungsteffpunkt OAL-2159.

Hallo,
wurde das Schild inzwischen umgesetzt? Ich war am 6.7.2022 vor Ort und da war das Schild an der von mir eingetragenen Stelle.

Mit der Bitte um Klärung.
Beste Grüße
Richard
BEPOGE (2022-08-06 11:02:39+00:00): Guten Tag,
ear gerade vor Ort. Schild wurde beschädigt und kurzzeitig versetzt. Jetzt steht es wieder an der von ihnen gesetzten Stelle.
landini (2022-08-06 16:20:55+00:00): Danke für die Nachricht.
eggie (2022-08-04 10:11:25+00:00): Not living_street?
You are familiar here?
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:11:59+00:00): Thank you for your feedback and for aligning this edit. I have changed the classification of this path geometry into a navigable one (living_street) in order to assure access to way 7177854. This improves routing and makes highway classification consistent.
eggie (2022-08-05 11:47:13+00:00): Okay... But residential is something different..  It's a living_street. I changed it now.
gr eggie
eggie (2022-08-05 11:50:01+00:00): My changeset https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=124519468

en https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=124519468
Gan_toon (2022-08-09 14:42:14+00:00): Thank you for fixing, eggie.
oba510 (2022-08-04 09:20:58+00:00): Hi,  please don't delete the service=parking_aisle tag from parking aisles.  Thank you.
arivarsh (2022-08-05 10:00:18+00:00): Hi,

Thank you for reviewing my changeset and correcting the edit. 

Apologies for the incorrect road classification and deleting the parking aisle tag. Going forward, i'll ensure to tag such roads as service=parking_aisle in such scenarios.

I appreciate the feedback provided and thanks again for correcting the edit, I'm looking forward to learn more from you.

Regards,
arivarsh
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:33:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
Tilia_J (2022-08-04 10:58:17+00:00): Reverted changeset. Connecting slipway implies that it should be reached by vehicle
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:28:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
SekeRob (2022-08-06 10:40:34+00:00): Hi,

Most odd, I know I mapped this way and tagged, 2 years ago as other part of way shows, it displays in my cycle program, Bosch connect, map base OSM 10/2021, rode it quite a few time, yet no history, version 1, How come, did you split the way in the process which notoriously looses history of segments?  It's btw signed as part of the cycle track B6, but it's used by farmers and service vehicles too. Needs a motor_vehicle=permit tag. Also foot=designated + segregated=no. it's how to get to Punto Aderci from the parking.

ciao
Dhanapot (2022-08-09 14:50:48+00:00): Hi SekeRob, thank you for your feedback. I had reverted the classification back to cycleway before your response, but somehow the version history got deleted. I have restored the history by reverting my changesets.
trigpoint (2022-08-04 10:50:10+00:00): Why have you changed this?

The local who mapped it was correct, it is a driveway to a house.

Cheers Phil
karoAK (2022-08-05 12:44:06+00:00): My apologies, I made a mistake. I have reverted the changes and will review the resources so that I don’t make the same mistake again.
Skogstrollet (2022-08-04 11:41:22+00:00): Hej,
Förlåt om det var ditt arbete jag korrigerade utan att fråga. Läste att man bör göra så först, vilket verkar som helt rätt tillvägagångssätt. Jag tänkte att det vore enklare och mer korrekt med en "path" framför en "area" på träningsbanan. Vad tycker du?
archie (2022-08-04 12:06:05+00:00): Hej, det är ingen fara. Om du har ett bättre sätt att tagga så är det helt ok. Om du kollar dig omkring så ser banorna ut (dvs är taggade) precis så som den gör nu. 
Path inkluderar trafik med häst (tillsammans med foot och bicycle), men här är det ju fråga om utövning av idrott med hjälp av häst. Så path passar inte alls.
Förresten här kan du se vilka vägar som inkluderar vilka "transportmedel" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Sweden.
archie (2022-08-04 12:13:23+00:00): Hej igen, här förklaras bl a skillnaden mot vanliga vägar och leisure=track: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dtrack.
Kolla alltid med wikin, där får man oftas stöd och hjälp.
Skogstrollet (2022-08-04 14:22:31+00:00): Jag förstår. Tack för det!
Bra med wiki.
Kul att kunna bidra med data till OSM.
/Skogstrollet
silversurfer83 (2022-08-04 11:26:51+00:00): Moin :)
Gut zu wissen, dass da was fehlt. Eine Bitte: kannst du bei sowas vielleicht in Zukunft noch eine Quelle angeben? iD hat da extra ein DropDown Menü unter dem Kommentarfeld. Kann auch Freitext rein.
Grüße
silversurfer83
Richard (2022-08-04 09:20:21+00:00): You have changed a road from highway=cycleway (implies bicycle access rights) to highway=service (does not necessarily imply bicycle access rights). This is going to negatively affect bicycle routing. Please revert this change.
Swihail (2022-08-05 12:51:23+00:00): I understand this isn’t correct, but my intent was to create consistent classification between all the elements–service way 1015266517 as a navigable element is surrounded by non-navigable elements. I was thinking about assuring access to this driveway/service for routing engine users. I have reverted the changes.
Tilia_J (2022-08-04 10:37:48+00:00): Obviously you don't really know what you are doing. 

The isolated highway=track was correct, NOT the surrounding highway=path.

I reverted your edit and restored the rest.
melody_Tej (2022-08-05 13:05:42+00:00): Once again, thank you for the feedback.
eggie (2022-08-04 10:03:38+00:00): Wrong interpretation path
Restored
jb54osm (2022-08-04 11:17:59+00:00): Aha, geen noodzaak om er zelf weer toegangsweg van te maken :-). Dank je.
De autootjes van de energieleveranciers moeten toch ergens rijden ...
eggie (2022-08-04 11:24:22+00:00): Zo is dat..  
Ik heb net een bericht gestuurd naar TomTom.
De mappers voor TomTom worden op het verkeerde been gezet als een track of serviceroad afsplitst van een fietspad.
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=15204683

en

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Gan_toon/history#map=8/52.357/5.546
Groet
eggie
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:14:59+00:00): My apologies, I made a mistake. Thank You for reverting the changes and will review the resources so that I don’t make the same mistake again.
CasGroenigen (2022-08-04 08:18:59+00:00): Ter verduidelijking, ik heb bij deze bewerking gevraagd of iemand het na wilt kijken, omdat dit de eerste keer is dat ik Vangrail map en ik vroeg me af of ik het goed doe. Ik heb de wiki gelezen, en dit is als het goed is hoe er stond dat het moest.
eggie (2022-08-04 09:19:26+00:00): Dag Cas...  Je vraagt feedback..  Ben zelf niets zo'n vangrailsmapper, maar lijkt me oke zo. Je hebt bij één rail material ingevuld.. Bij de andere nog niet.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=124467999

MVG
eggie
CasGroenigen (2022-08-04 10:49:27+00:00): Bedankt Eggie.
eggie (2022-08-04 10:00:18+00:00): reverted by changeset      #124472294
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:36:47+00:00): Thank you for the feedback and for reverting this edit. I should have provided connectivity to the service road instead of changing it to a non-navigable element. Could I ask for some feedback? To me it is a map quality problem that non-navigable elements are disrupting the connection between a navigable highway and a general road network. Is there any concern about assuring routing?
eggie (2022-08-05 13:02:41+00:00): No issue...  motor_vehicle destination. 
No regular routing.
Gan_toon (2022-08-09 14:45:18+00:00): Thank you once again, eggie.
Aleksey Gorelikov (2022-08-05 08:55:57+00:00): Added speed limit 30 kph according to local traffic rules #mbx_editing
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124468177
eggie (2022-08-04 10:01:43+00:00): reverted by changeset #124472346
Gan_toon (2022-08-05 11:15:38+00:00): My apologies, I made a mistake. Thank You for reverting the changes and will review the resources so that I don’t make the same mistake again.
Mannivu (2022-08-04 08:42:41+00:00): In "name" va il nome dell'elemento in questione e dubito che questi sentieri si chiamino "300". Se quello è un numero identificativo del sentiero (come sospetto), allora quel dato va nel campo "ref" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref e https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:CAI la seconda sono norme create in collaborazione proprio col CAI).
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:57:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
eggie (2022-08-04 09:11:42+00:00): Dag Arthur... 
Bedankt voor je bijdrage. 
Probeer in het vervolg direct op de bestaande adresnode bij te taggen.. Kijk ook even hoe de format van zo'n adres in elkaar zit.. Het werkt anders niet.
Ik heb je info samengevoegd met de bestaande adresnode.
MVG
eggie