piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Peter Elderson (2020-03-04 16:58:02+00:00): Dit is buitengewoon vreemd.... ik had een relatie aangemaakt waarin ik wat wegdelen van de schansbaan had opgenomen, en daar had ik die tags ingezet. Ik zie dat op waymarkedtrails nog staan. Maar in JOSM staan de tags aan dat pad waar ik uberhaupt niet aangezeten heb, en de relatie is verdwenen! Zie https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mwhogCZfo32ECqtWqGIRBeP1lRhdjqaSEoZy_K7fQNY/edit?usp=sharing
Hoe dit kan is mij een raadsel, en ook hoe mijn naam dan in die wijzigingenset kan staan. Maar goed, ik herstel het pad en dan zal ik het nog een keer proberen!
smootheFiets (2020-05-27 06:59:38+00:00): Even een vraagje over de twee 'virtuele' fietspaden tussen de Emmaviaduct en de Emmabrug, 777583214 en 96694051: ik had die als G12a getagd (zie Emmaviaduct), jij hebt dit gewijzigd naar G11. Dat staat een beetje in strijd met moped=designated (en brommers moeten hier natuurlijk langs mogen, anders zou brommer-routering op de Emmaviaduct doodlopen). Ik zou dit daarom terug willen zetten naar G12a. Wat denk jij daarvan?
De rest van dit changeset is natuurlijk heel goed werk, zoals andere changeset's van jou die ik op diverse plekken tegen ben gekomen.
Groetjes, smootheFiets
Jan Wilts (2020-05-27 08:51:20+00:00): Je hebt helemaal gelijk, dankjewel! Ik moet je eerlijk toegeven dat ik tot op heden niet erg op de verkeersbord tags heb gelet; dat zal ik vanaf nu wel doen. Ik zat al een beetje in dubio over wat te doen met deze twee "virtuele" fietspaden, maar heb uiteindelijk besloten om ze rechtstreeks van de Emmabrug naar de fietspaden te tekenen (driehoek) ipv een vierkant, omdat dit tot verwarrende routering lijdt wanneer men vanuit het noorden naar het zuiden wil.

Jan
smootheFiets (2020-05-27 11:51:54+00:00): Ik heb de tags net aangepast. Geen punt, hoor, als de access-tags maar kloppen zijn de boordjes toch minder belangrijk. Wel mooier als alles klopt.

Helemaal eens met jou, trouwens, dat de zebrapaden met footway's een waardevolle toevoeging zijn. De driehoeken zijn hier ook overzichtelijker dan vierkanten. Tenminste voor fietsverkeer. 
Voor brommerverkeer die rechts afslaat van/naar het viaduct was het wel een raar hoekje: op Emmasingel/Stationsweg zijn zij op de rijbaan (fietspad=G11), op het viaduct op het fietspad (G12a). Ik heb net vier node's verschoven; wat denk je hiervan?
eggie (2020-03-03 20:05:57+00:00): Top!
user_5359 (2020-03-04 05:50:55+00:00): Hello! Please check the values of lanes for this three street: in total there are at least 23 tracks side by side https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/725437279 (lane=11), https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/778078674, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/725437280 (lane=11)
dgitto (2020-03-06 07:28:44+00:00): benvenuto in OSM
Simolta (2020-03-08 08:07:31+00:00): Graziella
Simolta (2020-03-08 08:08:15+00:00): Ahahah il correttore automatico.
Grazie
Adamant1 (2020-03-10 05:24:53+00:00): Hi there. It seems that in this changeset it appears that you wrongly added some driveways as footpaths and residential roads. With way 776203456 you also added a footpath that probably meant to be a driveway through some trees where there isn't a driveway. So I'd appreciate it if you could review your edits and fix the mistakes. 

Thanks
VLD160 (2020-03-10 18:29:52+00:00): Hi Adamant1,

Thank you for the feedback! After looking over at this changeset again, I believe I did not add any new ways or modify any tags. The only changes I've made in this changeset was adjusting the nodes of pre-existing ways. Here is the OSMCha link that I used to review the changeset: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81743047/. 
Link for the original changeset before I modified any of the ways: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81450814/

Best, 
Kohl
Adamant1 (2020-03-11 02:56:48+00:00): Hhhmm weird. It seems I originally added way 776203456, but that's not typically a mistake I would make. As I'm pretty good about not creating none existing paths. So, I don't know what the deal is. iD Editor sometimes does weird things sometimes like double adding stuff or creating duplicate nodes. Maybe it's something to do with that. I don't know what else it would be. Thanks anyway for  at least looking at it.
scratera (2020-03-03 20:18:21+00:00): scusa non velerrmene ma highway =residential associato a sac_scale=hiking proprio non ci azzecca nulla
ciao paolo
bopoh13 (2020-03-04 09:07:49+00:00): Why did you delete the object osm.org/node/1 ?
The site still exists.
rjipper (2020-03-04 16:34:41+00:00): Not sure what you mean? I only deleted some duplicate items.
woodpeck (2020-03-04 22:59:53+00:00): Have you verified that the large number of "brand" and wikidata tags you have added are actually correct according to your own knowledge, or have you simply applied suggestions without checking them?
freebeer (2020-03-04 23:05:52+00:00):    Loading...

Node: 1

addressing warnings in issues tab

   Deleted 1 day ago by rjipper
   Version #21 · Changeset #81743100
   Download XML · View History

see https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1/history
rjipper (2020-03-04 23:24:16+00:00): What is so special about node 1? I don't even know what it is. For the warnings I used common sense. If the suggestion was a brand that didn't make sense for the location I ignored it, but some were obvious, like Domino's Pizza.
SomeoneElse (2020-03-04 23:25:13+00:00): Hello rjipper,
First of all - welcome to OpenStreetMap!  You may be a bit confused by all the mails you're receiving about your first and (so far) only edit in OSM.
It's a bit complicated - I'll try and explain.  When anyone makes changes to OSM, everything they add gets a number, so the point representing this bench that you edited https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6513640582/history is "node number 6513640582".  Node number 1 is symbolically the first node added to OSM when the project started (I say symbolically because actually the history is a bit more complicated than that).  People are complaining because you've deleted it, but perhaps they need to spend a bit more time looking at the history http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=1 - you can see that it has been various things over the years - a restaurant, a tree, a NOAA buoy in the Atlantic, and recently someone made it part of the Prime Meridian at Greenwich - the metal line on the ground.  It was also a bicycle rental place in Scotland for a short time.  I'm sure that someone will use node 1 for something else again in the future.
Best Regards,
Andy
PS - any questions please don't hesitate to ask.
SomeoneElse (2020-03-04 23:36:27+00:00): Actually - one more thing - I noticed that you (or the editor that you were using) merged the node for Greenwich library into the building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/538205297/history .  There's also a node in there for a fitness centre and a swimming pool, both of which match the council website https://www.better.org.uk/leisure-centre/london/greenwich/greenwichcentre/facilities .  If these are "about equal" things within one building, then having them as separate nodes might actually be better than changing the building to a library which has a swimming pool and a fitness centre in it.  I suspect what might have happened is that the OSM editor that you're using suggested merging the library node into the building (I'm guessing based on the changeset comment "addressing warnings in issues tab")?  Of course I could be wrong - I suspect that that area's been redeveloped since I was last in Greenwich, which was a while ago.  Like you said, you'll need to use common sense on suggested changes within the editor.  Sometimes they'll be correct (like removing the name "bench" from that bench I mentioned earlier) but sometimes they might not be.  If you're familiar with the area you're going to be much more likely to know the I am, of course.
Best Regards,
Andy
user_5359 (2020-03-04 05:42:07+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please don't mark single building as landuse=residential. Please use building=yes. Please note also we note an address with addr:housenumber amd addr:street (as minimum)
Glassman (2020-03-03 21:37:38+00:00): It looks like you duplicated an existing road. I removed your way and but added the name to the existing street. BTW - OSM uses full spellings instead of abbreviations for street names.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81744116
eggie (2020-03-03 21:04:17+00:00): Review .. Volgens mij gaat het wel werken zo. .. en de originele BAG import blijft zo intact. 
Gr eggie
eggie (2020-03-03 21:05:55+00:00): Wel building=construction van je zelf ingetekende delen halen . Anders geeft JOSM een foutmelding van gebouw in gebouw. 
Eggie
Paashaas (2020-03-03 21:13:53+00:00): Mooi, en aangepast.
Tomas Straupis (2020-03-04 06:26:04+00:00): Jei nuo mokyklos pastato nuimama amenity=school žyma, kad ji būtų ant mokyklos ploto, tai tada visas kitas mokyklos žymas (pavadinimą, adresą, wikipediją ir t.t. ir pan.) irgi reikia perkelti į mokyklos ploto objektą.
Tomas Straupis (2020-03-04 06:27:12+00:00): Kadangi iD nemoka žymų perkelinėti, tai geriau tada nekeisti mokyklos žymų apskritai. Arba naudoti pilnavertį redaktorių - JOSM.
Frans S (2020-03-23 17:50:49+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here
A remark. You map often buildings with nodes connected to each other. Please try to avoid that they connect.For validators you makes it difficult to correct and square the buildings involved. You mapped 523 buildings here of which 83 are not squared. ( often caused by the way how you map them.) When you connect nodes the squaring get often lost.
Thanks and keep mapping
Vinber (2020-03-04 07:56:03+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenue dans OpenStreetMap,

nouvelle-nouveau, un petit mot ici pour faciliter votre arrivée : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:WikiProject_France/bienvenue

Cas particulier / Si vous êtes en seconde, en cours de SNT, alors s'il vous plaît, veuillez faire suivre à votre enseignant-e le lien suivant https://dane.ac-lyon.fr/spip/spip.php?article628

Et n'hésitez pas à répondre, poser des questions, ...
theophrastos (2020-03-04 05:58:17+00:00): Hallo,
eine Fahrschule ist keine Schule, amenity=driving_school wäre wohl besser, außerdem ist das Gebäude Gaustraße 133 kein "Schul"gebäude, also speziell für diesen Zweck gebaut, sondern ein ganz normales Mehrfamilienhaus.
MfG
Leo Slager (2020-03-03 23:34:21+00:00): Bedankt voor de melding.
De busroutes zijn niet beschadigd.
Een weetje:
Een weg met eenrichtingsverkeer kan zonder problemen geknipt worden. Dan wordt de routerelatie over die weg automatisch correct gewijzigd.
Het gaat pas mis op een weg met tweerichtingsverkeer
SK53 (2020-06-07 12:54:17+00:00): Hi, 

I noticed that you mapped rooftop solar panels on a house in Cargreen, but also added an output of 400kW which seems unlikely (4kW might have been intended). Could you check please.

Thanks,

Jerry aka SK53
Maxwell-M-Blackman (2020-03-03 22:24:08+00:00): For photos please see:
Unresolved note #2109503
UT93 (2020-05-01 13:31:12+00:00): Hast du dir das Gebäude mal aus der Nähe angeschaut? Wenn es denn wirklich einen Namen tragen soll, wie wäre es denn mit jenem, welcher wirklich über seinem Einganstore prangt, so in etwa mit dem Wortlaut "zur alten Canzley"
UT93 (2020-05-01 13:53:04+00:00): Mit dem Tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:office%3Dgovernment
kannst du die Amtsstelle noch um einiges detaillierter dokumentieren.
Tri_Hugger (2020-03-03 22:59:22+00:00): Correcting source to SDFE aerial imagery and not Bing aerial imagery.
Glassman (2020-03-03 23:34:42+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it look good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81747194
eggie (2020-03-04 07:41:07+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Tri_Hugger (2020-03-03 22:59:47+00:00): Correcting source to SDFE aerial imagery and not Bing aerial imagery.
eggie (2020-03-04 07:48:20+00:00): Kijk even in de wiki welke mogelijkheden er zijn. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:office#Office

We gebruiken geen hoofdletters in een value...  
Je kunt ook phone=+31 ... en website=  toevoegen.
DJ is dus niet correct. Kijk je nog even?
MVG,
Eggie
Glassman (2020-03-03 23:40:16+00:00): It looks like you removed a verified feature. Can I ask why?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81747372
Glassman (2020-03-03 23:48:13+00:00): According to Pierce County, the west side is still named Olympic Drive Northwest. The east side is just Olympic Drive, which is wrong in OSM. Was there a recent change?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81747452
giiiiiig (2020-03-04 18:09:54+00:00): Pierce County hasn't caught up yet.  The City of Gig Harbor officially dropped the NW designation from all of the streets in their jurisdiction.  I just haven't had time to go do all of them yet.  But every street within their City Limits no longer has NW at the end of their street names.  https://www.cityofgigharbor.net/682/NW-Directional-Project
Glassman (2020-03-04 19:46:04+00:00): Thanks for the information. I'll contact the Pierce County GIS department about updating their database. I also notified other mappers on Slack in Washington State about the change.
Glassman (2020-03-04 21:32:41+00:00): FYI - What I discovered is the streets that still have NW suffix are those on Gig Harbor's border. I'm still waiting to hear back from Pierce County GIS. (I happen to know a some of the team since they are active in cugos.org in Seattle)
Glassman (2020-03-03 23:35:52+00:00): This edit also looks good but I don't map too many complicated bus routes. Hopefully other mappers will help out. I'll send you more info on OSM in a message.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81747597
!bm (2020-03-03 23:30:12+00:00): entries => (side) entrances
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81747600
Hjart (2020-03-04 05:55:49+00:00): I have removed this because it was a duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/175208408
shl22 (2020-03-04 09:36:39+00:00): Yes, thanks for the information. My thought is that it did not show the castle symbol on the map. So the tag fort is not represented on the map. See other citadels for reference.
WoodWoseWulf (2020-03-04 03:34:22+00:00): Hi Neffem,

Welcome to OSM and thanks for your recent additions. Do you have any more information about Froglock? Are you sure it's a park by OSM definitions?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park
Aleks-Berlin (2020-03-04 07:43:14+00:00): Hi again, the fast_food which was there before is gone? Or do we have to restore it?
Thx, Alex
EditConscript (2020-03-04 09:57:17+00:00): only restore if it is verifiable to be the case on the ground, i caution you this. please use note to ask for local_knowledge if you must?

Danke,
freebeer (2020-03-04 23:39:10+00:00): it was deleted by you after being damaged by a faulty editor (MapRoulette? see changeset in node history) with the changeset description of
``demo' d''

What does that mean?  a demonstration of what the editor can do?  what were you trying to do?  do you mean `demonstrated' or something completely different like `demolished'?

it is not up to the osm community to justify restoring a mangled-then-deleted node if the intent behind the edit is unclear.

FWIW, i did feed google with some wendy's in this area and came up with a completely different address to what this appears to be, so it may well be there is no wendy's here now, but that is unclear from the changeset description, and the typical use of MapRoulette is not as an editor, as far as i know, which i don't.
EditConscript (2020-03-05 08:42:09+00:00): given your history of getting under the community's skin, i shall refrain from further response in this discussion. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74552428#map=5/24.067/-166.201

i shall direct my efforts into a positive channel for the open climate fix group

Danke,
DUGA (2021-06-29 13:39:39+00:00): Please avoid using Bing in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Each state has its own imagery for public use.
G_Meredith (2020-03-05 17:55:11+00:00): There is a turn restriction on Church Rd. One may turn left onto Westhampnett Rd but not turn right  on the roundabout.
Mike Baggaley (2020-03-05 18:14:03+00:00): Thanks, I think the restriction is now correct.
czubi (2020-03-21 09:11:19+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82407581?xhr=1#map=16/51.1086/11.0017&layers=N
Imaginashun (2020-03-05 22:23:00+00:00): Correction: Changeset was aligned to Maxar Standard Offset (0.00; -3.98) using strava
user_5359 (2020-03-04 05:35:00+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please don't mark the whole property as building. Only mark the building as building.
Canal des Pangalanes (2021-09-10 22:07:45+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/778138072/history probably bridge above, not a culvert.
Jarek 🚲 (2020-03-04 02:11:15+00:00): Didn't adjust alignments very much because I am unused to working with iD on this
luschi (2020-03-04 20:53:30+00:00): Hallo Pathumthani,     
du hast hier die Hausnummer und den Straßennamen angepasst.     
Bei Hausnummern sollte pro Nummer immer ein separater Punkt gesetzt werden.     
Hier wäre es dann "21/B" und "21/C" + jeweils separat mit allen dazugehörenden addr:*** keys.     

Zum Straßennamen konnte ich keine Quelle finden die darauf hinweist, dass das hier die Pfeldererstraße ist. Laut meinen Recherchen gibt es hier keine Straßennamen und somit ist "addr:street" falsch.

Ich habe jetzt die Hausnummer korrigiert und "addr:street" entfernt.

lg
Michael Karazim (2020-03-04 11:28:11+00:00): *Pulaski is not a village
TravGW (2020-03-04 03:21:23+00:00): Please alert me if I made a mistake when removing description tags.
jmapb (2020-03-04 04:57:19+00:00): Hi TravGW -- please don't perform these continent-sized mass edits. They are very difficult for both humans and software to process.

I consider your motive, reducing description tag spam, to be a good one, but this is not a good way to go about it. 
Some mappers I'm familiar with from my area (NYC) like to use wordy descriptions. That doesn't equal advertisement.

I don't know what criteria you used to select these description tags for deletion, but I suspect it's just based on field length without any attempt to examine or communicate with the users in question.

I attempted to revert this changeset with changeset 81755045 but failed -- possibly there are too many changes for the JOSM reverter plugin to handle. All the more reason to use smaller changesets, both geographically and in number of edits.

Thanks, Jason
TravGW (2020-03-04 05:08:15+00:00): I suppose I should have done a few hundred at a time since it covers such a large area. 

For this changeset I loaded all nodes in question into JOSM and used the ToDo plugin to review each and every one. Any tag that read like a advertisement was removed. Any tag that I was unsure of was left alone. I would never perform a purely mechanical edit. Too much paperwork involved for those.
jmapb (2020-03-04 05:36:36+00:00): Thanks for the quick reply TravGW -- I'm happy to hear you did check these manually. But I'd appreciate if you attempted to contact the users in question first, at least those who seem legit. I know that sorting out who's a real mapper with a penchant for adspeak and who's just an SEO bot is hard work. I know because I've done a lot description tag cleanup myself. But it hurts the community to undo the work of real mappers without any communication. 

At first glance I think the vast majority of the changes are for the better. But there are definitely some descriptions you've removed that were written in good faith. Some of these might benefit from a less spammy rewording. Maybe some of them really should be deleted, good faith notwithstanding! But if they were added by real people, an attempt at communicating with those people is better than a mass tag deletion.

Thanks, J
skquinn (2020-03-04 21:51:56+00:00): I'm with jmapb, changesets like this should be split into at least one per state with possible exceptions for combining e.g. Delaware with Maryland and DC, Rhode Island with Connecticut and Massachusetts, Vermont with New Hampshire and possibly Maine.
freebeer (2020-03-05 01:42:53+00:00): having just reviewed 28 of these, the nature of these nodes as potential spam means a good number of them will be candidates for purging entirely after an in-depth review of all details and not just the altered description.

as such, knowing i'd probably be strung up for deleting known and obvious spam, i'd not be using any tool but clicking on all 1'045 notes listed below - and this time not in `lynx' where i work faster without the overhead of a graphical browser, since if an alleged business is nowhere near the given address, or if it looks like a residential neighbourhood for what appears to be a service rather than a storefront, then i feel the node has no place in osm.  particularly if it's an advert for an app as one of the links i posted in the attempted revert.

so in my case i care more about the changeset volume, and not at all the area.

a multiple of 20 items is good as each page below (or better on the revert mini-changeset) shows obviously the place-of-warship spammage, there on the first page.

i gave rough estimates as to the amount of useless spam and the amount of legit descriptions that i could review, but i've the suspicion those numbers are not representative.

as i seem to caught a case of the corona-insomnia, i'm tempted to page through the 500+ pages listing below.  in the hopes i pass out or die before reaching the end to pronounce judgment.

i need a life.  or a hobby.
Adamant1 (2020-03-11 02:51:19+00:00): Id argue most of these are wrongly using the name tag as a descriptor also. Instead of being used for the actual name of the object.
skquinn (2020-03-11 03:11:18+00:00): Most of the names look okay but I question the need to repeat the full business name for a Bitcoin ATM.
Adamant1 (2020-03-11 03:12:39+00:00): Agreed, but then you just have name=Bitcoin Atm. How's that not descriptive?
skquinn (2020-03-11 03:30:41+00:00): Maybe dispense with name=* entirely and just use brand=* and whatever additional tag(s) to indicate it's for Bitcoin.
portalaventura (2020-03-04 03:49:41+00:00): Lei 5558/2011 itens MCCCXIII, CCLXXXVII e DCXIII:
https://www.camara-sm.rs.gov.br/camara/proposicao/pesquisa/2011/1/0/409

Lei 1845/1976:
https://www.camara-sm.rs.gov.br/camara/proposicao/pesquisa/1976/1/0/4122

Não encontrei legislação mais atual que a 2011 que altera a denominação da via.
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-03-04 14:08:57+00:00): Please, use changeset comments.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Marcos_Itba_Kaart (2021-05-10 23:02:30+00:00): Olá,

a restrição de conversão criada por você:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10783719

(Proibido retornar na mesma via / no_u_turn) é uma restrição sinalizada (possui uma placa no "mundo real" correspondente)? 

Restrições do tipo proibido retornar na mesma via são desnecessárias, a menos que estejam sinalizadas em campo.

Restrições desnecessárias criam diversos problemas, como dificuldades de edição dos membros e renderização incorreta de nomes no mapa devido à microsegmentações, entre outros.

Para entender melhor, veja essa discussão sobre o tema:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2527

E os alertas logo no inicío da Wiki de restrições de conversão:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction

Você poderia avaliar e, sendo o caso, excluir essa restrição?
AssisFS (2021-05-11 00:18:09+00:00): Ola Marcos! Obrigado pelo contato! Respondendo a pergunta neste ponto em questão; sim, no local há uma placa R-5a (proibido retorno).