piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Map_HeRo (2021-12-16 21:07:49+00:00): Thanks mate, alles gut! Bin dankbar für jeden Hinweis und Osmose ist m.E. ein gutes Werkzeug zur Fehlersuche. Die Hinweise sind halbwegs verständlich und die Meldungen sind zum größten Teil berechtigt. Ich habe gestern noch eine ganze Reihe Fehler abgearbeitet, waren nicht alle von mir, aber alles echte Fehler (lässt sich im Zweifel ja anhand der wikis überprüfen).

Das generelle Problem mit OSM ist, dass jedermann ermuntert wird, einfach loszulegen, aber der Standard-Editor iD sehr viele oberflächliche Fehler (ohne jeden Warnhinweis) zulässt. Die Wiki-Doku widerum ist so umfangreich und unübersichtlich, dass man Monate braucht, um sich ein fundiertes Basiswissen anzueignen, selbst wenn man Erfahrung im Bereich Kartografie und Datenbanken mitbringt. Gerade bei der Doku gibt es m.E. noch sehr viel Verbesserungspotential. Ich verstehe überhaupt nicht, warum es für diese wichtige Arbeit nicht eine spezielle Arbeitsgruppe gibt, die sich vorrangig darum kümmert ...
eggie (2021-12-13 06:51:57+00:00): Dag Ben,

Gef concreet aan wat je hebt gedaan. Verbeteringen zegt niet zo veel.
Parkeermogelijkheden in straten zijn geen parkeerterreinen. Omdat startende mappers dat maar blijven dien is de 'oplossing'
amenity=parking
parking=street_side
parking:orientation=perpendicular

Dan krijg je niet van die enorme P's in je wijk. 

Brandgangen kun je het beste op sloot zetten met  access=private.. Anders gaat dat ongewenst routeren. 
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-12-13 07:13:39+00:00): Brievenbus weer teruggezet.
Beter niet schuiven met de kaart in editmodus. Dat is de oorzaak voor onbedoelde verplaatsingen.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=114861491
Wandel-Appeltje (2021-12-14 20:53:32+00:00): Hoi Eggie, de brievenbus had ik verschoven want hij stond op de kaart niet op de juiste plek, hij staat vlak bij de kruising. Ik zal 'm van de week exact opmeten met mijn GPS en dan goed zetten.

ik zal de parkeervakken weg gaan gooien hier, en vervangen door de genoemde properties die je aangeeft, en ook de brandgangen dus als 'sloot'  aangeven. dat voelt overigens wel vreemd, maar als het standaard zo gedaan wordt sluit ik me natuurlijk graag aan!
Groeten, Ben
eggie (2021-12-14 20:59:40+00:00): Oke.. duidelijk..
Ik gebruik als achtergrond PDOK actueel 7cm 2021. Die is recenter en veel en veel duidelijker (haarscherp)  dan PDOK =actueel . Daar zag ik die oranhe brievenbus staan waar ik 'm heb geplaatst. Maar alles kan natuurlijk veranderen. 

Hier de link naar de laatste luchtfoto.
https://service.pdok.nl/hwh/luchtfotorgb/wms/v1_0?&request=GetCapabilities&service=wms 

Je zou 'm bij de achtergronden kunnen plakken en kijken of het werkt in editor iD.
Mapse
eggie
Wandel-Appeltje (2021-12-15 20:11:40+00:00): ik haal die extra parkeervakken wel weg dan, en pas het aan zoals je aangaf.
alhoewel: amenity=parking  dat werkt niet, voor een weg vereist hij dat de uiteinden elkaar weer raken, en voor de rotondes  aan de uiteinden van de schoutstraat etc werd de hele rotonde een soort ronde parkeerplaats. dat klopt niet met de werkelijkheid die er toch meer uitziet als een rotonde aan het einde van de doodlopende weg, met parkeerplekken..

Overigens: heb je liever een paar 'grote' wijzigingen met veel wijzigingen, of veel transacties met telkens een paar ?
eggie (2021-12-15 20:32:38+00:00): Ben...  je kunt het beste minder wijzigingen vaker uploaden.
De parkeervakken kunnen volgens de laatste consensus wel degelijk als vlak worden ingetekend met een extra tag parking-street_side en parking:orientation=.....
Dan worden die P's wat kleiner.
Zelf ben ik niet zo'n voorstander van een wijk vol P's. Vooral als je al overal kunt parkeren. 
Zie.. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:parking%3Dstreet_side

Het kan dus wel. 
Zelf ben ik ook maar een medemapper en heb verder niet te vinden. :)
Wanneer iets niet volgens de conventie van OSM wordt getagd krijg je meestal wel een tip of het wordt aangepast.
Dat kan iedere mapper zijn.

De parkeermogelijkheid bij de kerk vind ik van meer belang dan al die parkeerhavens in de wijk. Die heeft een doel als iemand parkeerruimte zoekt. 
Gr eggie
eggie (2021-12-13 08:31:59+00:00): Ben...Dit is oke.. Veel plezier met mappen..
Mvg
Eggie
eggie (2021-12-13 08:36:51+00:00): warnings:crossing_ways:building-building

Hersteld..  Je kunt eigenlijk niet naar de daken kijken. Daar liggen de gebouwen niet. Het is een schuin genomen luchtfoto.
wkdgs (2021-12-14 18:16:05+00:00): Hi,

du hast an der Straße "Alte Heid" die Höchstgeschwindigkeit 5 eingetragen. Ist das ein Tippfehler, oder ist das eine Spielstraße?

Gruß
winkeldings
wkdgs (2021-12-14 18:19:58+00:00): Ach, hab jetzt erst gesehen, dass es als Spielstraße eingetragen ist. Dann kannst du den maxspeed-Tag löschen. Der wird für Spielstraßen nicht benötigt.
mariotomo (2021-12-13 00:57:26+00:00): hola, y gracias por añadir información útil.  cuidado con no confundir 'name' con 'description' y con el sufijo ":en", que tiene sentido para objetos que tienen nombre que se traduce … como por ejemplo "Londres / London / Londra / etc.".
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-12-14 14:01:39+00:00): Zerkniesz na https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114884772#map=19/53.86032/23.52979 ?

Coś się granica rozjechała
Władysław Komorek (2021-12-14 22:37:47+00:00): maraf24 coś przy tym dłubał, ale chyba już poprawił.
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-12-15 08:53:26+00:00): maraf24 podaje że PRG ma błędne dane i że w tej edycji zastąpiłeś poprawne dane wadliwymi aczkolwiek oficjalnymi, przynajmniej w niektórych miejscach
blackboxlogic (2021-12-14 03:34:35+00:00): Welcome to OSM and thanks for fixing this address.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114862472
Pikse (2022-03-20 07:30:21+00:00): Members of tributary role were added to relation/3541310 here. This is problematic as tributaries are separate watercourses, they are not really part of the main river. Name key and KKR:code key of relation/3541310 don't apply to tributaries. Hence it's misleading to include tributary role members. I believe they should be removed from given relation. I commented further on this in wiki talk page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:waterway#Tributary_role
Tramparam Parampampam (2022-03-24 16:50:37+00:00): you could remove this relation, if you wish, but don't reverse whole changeset, please.
Pikse (2022-08-23 13:14:43+00:00): I did remove relation members of tributary role from this example relation and also from a few others having the same issue in this area[1], but for some reason you now readded these, e.g. in case of Pededze[2].

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119678938
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4281870
Tramparam Parampampam (2022-08-31 07:07:02+00:00): i doing this on whole latvian rivers, trying not touching estonian and lituanian parts, but sometimes i do mistakes. you feel free to remove if you find something on your teritory. if you wanna discuss about this you could find me in OSM Discord server as wad[LV].
Pikse (2022-09-07 09:07:00+00:00): I noted this mainly for relations of rivers that cross the country border. I'm afraid we can't really divide these relations by territory.

I believe this member role should be avoided in Latvia, too. See also comments by some others users in wiki talk page[1]. The relation:waterway wiki page now has "tributary" role marked as "to avoid".

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relation:waterway#Tributary_role.
Tramparam Parampampam (2022-09-07 18:10:14+00:00): and i believe otherwise. and we had this sitiation before in Lithuania, about landuse=basin/natural=water, where local editors were acknowledged right. so, you can not expand your belives to Latvia :P
Pikse (2022-09-08 17:10:36+00:00): In general, I do acknowledge that tagging schemes may vary by region. But in this case, what is the justification of such scheme, at all? As explained in wiki, semantically it seems misleading, if not simply erroneous. If it's really necessary to collect waterway relations of some basin, then probably better alternatives can be found for this purpose (again, see comment on wiki).
Tramparam Parampampam (2022-09-09 06:36:55+00:00): i don't see anything erroneus in this tag. for me personally it helps selecting whole river basin and find where are missed parts comparing to https://www.melioracija.lv/
Pikse (2022-09-12 12:03:59+00:00): In brief, the problem is that watercouses like Melnupe and Viru upīte are distinct geographical features, and if you make relation of one river into a member that of another river then the opposite is indicated (as if one river was part of another). I tried to explain this more thoroughly above an in wiki. If you contest this then on what grounds? What am I missing?

I understand that it may be useful to query all rivers of a basin somehow, but data schema that allows this shouldn't be an ad hoc one for personal use, it should make sense for other users as well. Again, as noted above, in wiki I suggested an alternative that may be appropriate (create separate relation for a basin).

This source (melioracija.lv), as far as I can see, doesn't suggest either that a river consists of its tributaries. In this database each tributary of a river is also separate.
Tramparam Parampampam (2022-09-17 14:25:53+00:00): **What am I missing?**
you missing your work. stop wasting my and your time please, and do some important edits to OSM. if you wanna discuss - come to Discord, there are thousands of OSM editors online. sorry if this sounds rude.
Pikse (2022-09-20 13:17:14+00:00): We already have a public discussion, here and more importantly on wiki where other users have commented. Sorry, I don't get what'd be the point of continuing this in private (Discrod) chat now. Based on our discussion so far I conclude that rationale for these tirbutary role members does not exist, and I will refer to this discussion in case of future edit conflicts.
impiaaa (2021-12-13 19:23:05+00:00): Please see this guide for some ideas on how to write a proper changeset description: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments Additionally, you might find this document useful to understand how OpenStreetMap operates as a community: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map
maraf24 (2021-12-13 09:42:03+00:00): Granica idzie po rzece, nikt się tam nie bawi w teoretyczne przebiegi z PRG.
Władysław Komorek (2021-12-13 15:17:11+00:00): Nie granica idzie po rzece tylko rzeka "może" iść po granicy.
Granice jest określana na podstawie aktu prawnego a nie przebiegu rzek, które mogą zmieniać swój bieg.
maraf24 (2021-12-13 16:10:51+00:00): W OSM mapujemy stan faktyczny, a nie urzędowy.
Teren Polski jest do rzeki, nawet gdy granica przebiega jest przed rzeką.
W niektórych miejscach widać nawet na orto polskie słupki graniczne, po Twoich zmianach stojące na terenie Białorusi.
W innych są tablice z opisem dokładnego przebiegiem (śluza), który odbiega od tego w PRG.
Podobnie bywa na granicy z Ukrainą (Bug).
Na granicy z Czechami też są błędy w PRG.
MarcoR (2021-12-13 10:00:55+00:00): ciao! 
shop=jewelry l'avrei messo o nel nodo o nell'edificio (se la gioielleria occupa l'intero edificio puoi spostare tutte le informazioni su quest'ultimo e rimuovere il nodo). Se lo aggiungi ad entrambi poi risulta che sono presenti due gioiellerie.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114862979
Warin61 (2021-12-15 02:35:05+00:00): .
Kovoschiz (2023-07-09 07:14:19+00:00): Please don't remove `historic=aircarft`
MxxCon (2021-12-13 05:39:23+00:00): Hello.
Is this a public toilet or your private home one?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114863319
user_4582693 (2021-12-13 12:37:58+00:00): Macy's toilet, so public during open hours. I can't add more information from Maps.me in Android
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114863319
MxxCon (2021-12-13 19:00:24+00:00): Perhaps consider using a better app such as vespucci or organic maps or osmand. They allow you to add more tags to clarify what you are editing.
Also rather than plopping a toilet tag in the middle of a huge block, consider adding appropriate tags to the macy's entry.
But if you can't do any of that, at the very least describe what you are trying to add in changeset comments so that other people fix it. "created a toilet" isn't very useful.
user_4582693 (2021-12-13 19:22:43+00:00): You're absolutely right. It's on my todo to try a better app and add the appropriate details
o_andras (2021-12-13 01:17:22+00:00): Connected the footways from the fountain to the pedestrian area; is that the right way to do it?
Glassman (2021-12-13 21:07:44+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114863725
Glassman (2021-12-13 21:08:41+00:00): #TIP: Just drag the node to the correct location.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114863770
Adam Franco (2021-12-26 19:23:47+00:00): See the comments on your other changeset at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114507228. The NY DOT has given this section of roadway ACC=3 (which makes it highway=primary) because it just provides a local connection to downtown Albany and not through connectivity to other cities.
archpdx (2021-12-13 16:09:10+00:00): Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for adding more information to  this dog park.
ElliottPlack (2021-12-13 03:16:41+00:00): Hi there, these edits look good, but just a friendly reminder to leave a good changeset comment. Read more here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

- Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114864693
wireguy (2021-12-15 02:59:14+00:00): Hi Lilyan,  many of these buildings are trailer homes, which should be rectangular in shape.   They usually have 4 nodes.  If you select a building and press 'Q' key,  the building will get squared corners.
Keep mapping!
Kovoschiz (2021-12-13 08:37:38+00:00): 1. Sorry `boundary=administrative` was only my tentative solution. `admin_level=6` conflicts with District-s. Should use `boundary=historic` to begin with. 
2. `man_made=obelisk` is still large. If you want correct Tagging For Renderer, could spam `tourism=attraction` on them.
minghong (2021-12-13 08:54:43+00:00): 1. Feel free to change the boundary tags. I've already added historic=yes to indicate that it is a historic boundary
2. Obelisk should be more suitable than a tourism attraction (like Big Buddha). They are some other well known obelisks like North Lantau Obelisk (嶼北界碑). From the wiki page, I think obelisk:size=small or medium can be added to indicate the size (I don't know if it is below 1m tall)
ravali_78 (2021-12-14 06:57:25+00:00): Hi NattamonOn,
I have Fixed classification gaps and inconsistance highway.Kindly check with way 1011582266,https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114908592.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114865225
muralito (2021-12-20 02:54:14+00:00): Hola. He notado que van alternando entre disused y preserved para etiquetar estas vias. ¿Se han contactado para acordar cual seria el mejor etiquetado?
AgusQui (2021-12-20 13:13:24+00:00): No responde los mensajes
muralito (2021-12-25 23:40:59+00:00): Dale un tiempo y si sigue sin responder pasalo a la DWG...
AgusQui (2021-12-26 03:25:06+00:00): Ya lo denunció otro usuario porque le respondió de mala manera
Bob42nd (2021-12-13 04:06:28+00:00): actually I'd recommend deletion of this as a cycle route at all - it is not signposted, and is partially composed of footpaths.
Johnwhelan (2024-07-24 01:17:34+00:00): Could you please revisit this object and  tag a few untagged ways please.  Also it comes up with building within a building.

Thanks John
KingVik (2025-09-15 08:35:17+00:00): Dear Bert Araali, can you Kindly revisit this and give it a proper tagging, I think this field or local knowledge, one without the knowledge won't be able to fix this
Kovoschiz (2021-12-13 08:39:25+00:00): It's better to use English in `description=` and `opening_hours=` comments to allow most to read. Especially here, the law refers to English for any discrepancy. The part on Principal Datum has a confusing translation.
Kautilya3 (2022-11-01 11:52:25+00:00): FreedSky, why was the location of Old Rutog changed?
TagaSanPedroAko (2021-12-13 08:30:22+00:00): If you want to restore trunk status, I'll disagree as I consider Antipolo as part of Manila for the purpose of mapping the trunk network rather than its own destination. It may be a redundant link to Route 1/Maharlika Highway, but I think you need more convincing reasons so to justify adding a trunk routing through Rizal and eastern Laguna.
dasmarinas_mapper (2021-12-13 09:58:23+00:00): @TagaSanPedroAko

Antipolo shouldn't be considered part of Manila as it is one of the control cities of the highway network.

I reinstated trunk status for this section in particular as it is the main route connecting the control cities of Antipolo and Tayabas/Lucena.
TagaSanPedroAko (2021-12-13 10:56:13+00:00): But I'll find fault with trunk here, especially when considering the control cities from Lucena: Tayabas > Lucban > Luisiana > Santa Cruz > Lumban > Siniloan > Tanay (assumed, with the lack of signage on Famy Junction) > Morong > Manila (assumed considering lack of directional signage past Morong town proper). From Metro Manila (or Manila as a control city), Antipolo is the obvious control city, but past that, it's generally towns until you pass through Lucban. The Antipolo-Lucena corridor can be made a trunk, but that should be left out until the near future. 

Also, if there would be a trunk across Rizal, I think that need not to route around Antipolo, especially when considering print/static map users would prefer the lakeside route, and that the Antipolo-Teresa-Baras route is national tertiary and should generally be classified no higher than primary or secondary.
dasmarinas_mapper (2021-12-13 11:54:27+00:00): I'd agree with the lakeside route being a better candidate for trunk however, it completely misses Antipolo.

On the other hand, we can consider this route from Ortigas to Lucena as an alternative trunk and have it route through the lakeside suburbs of Taytay and Angono instead of Antipolo, while retaining its trunk status.

This is after all the most important road in the east of Manila, almost an equivalent of MacArthur Highway in the north, and Aguinaldo and Soriano Highways in the south.
TagaSanPedroAko (2021-12-13 12:08:18+00:00): Fine by me, but I would like to keep those roads as primary with the rather sparse primary network there until some time. Also, between Antipolo and Tayabas, most traffic is between the towns, and some sections narrow and winding. I'll also look into your edit on Marcos Highway.
iandees (2021-12-13 15:52:42+00:00): Hi! Thanks for adding information to OpenStreetMap. You only need to add name information when it has a unique name. The name field shouldn't be used to describe a thing like "8 Tee" or "Cart Path".
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114867447
Glassman (2021-12-13 16:32:43+00:00): Can you add the city and zip code to the address?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114867462
TagaSanPedroAko (2021-12-13 08:41:44+00:00): My thoughts here, I think tertiary is the best classification for the roads to Parañaque City Hall due to frequent jogs across local streets and a rather sparse network of tertiary roads in the area. For BF Resort Drive, you might need to check due to guardhouse (HOA/Friendship Route sticker required or pass-thru allowed?)
dasmarinas_mapper (2021-12-13 10:04:23+00:00): You may be right about BF Resort Dr, I'll revert it back to tertiary.

However, I disagree about the roads to Parañaque city hall as it is the main route connecting Sun Valley/Bicutan and the city hall/San Isidro.
TagaSanPedroAko (2021-12-13 10:59:41+00:00): Been to BF Resort?
dasmarinas_mapper (2021-12-13 11:34:49+00:00): No, but if there's a guardhouse like you said, then access is almost certainly restricted. I didn't know that there's a guardhouse because it's unmapped here in OSM.
TagaSanPedroAko (2021-12-13 12:00:58+00:00): But that's not always the case. There should be any signs it's restricted (sticker required, visitors must sign and present ID), but the case of BF Resort seems to be on the permissive one. Someone local should check.
DD1GJ (2021-12-13 07:30:13+00:00): revert 114868459 114829085 14829021 114828965 114769599 14644459 114644431 114644410, vandalism.

Hallo Ralf Walgern, da Du hier erneut Stücke eines ausgeschilderten Wanderweges  gelöscht hast und kein Vertrauen in die Korrektheit deiner Beträge besteht, habe ich pauschal alle Deine Beiträge zurückgesetzt. So eine "anonyme Mitarbeit" ist hier unerwünscht.

Hello Ralf Walgern, since you have once again deleted parts of a signposted hiking trail and there is no trust in the correctness of your posts, I have reset all of your posts across the board. Such "anonymous contributions" are undesirable here.
Nakaner (2021-12-16 13:15:48+00:00): Hallo IG MTBg LileproNatura,

schön, dass du wegen/trotz deiner dauerhaften Benutzersperre wieder zu uns gefunden hast.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5386

Viele Grüße

Michael
DP24PH (2021-12-13 12:22:06+00:00): You might forget the remaining one, and I have updated it thru subsequent changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114881688. Follow-up edits will be commenced once this UTS Blvd is inaugurated and officially opened to the public.


DP24
nevw (2021-12-13 08:16:17+00:00): Hi
You seem to have tagged South Road as suitable for walking on.
I expect you meant to add something to do with sidewalks instead for people to walk on.
I haven’t mapped any sidewalks so am not familiar but I assume you probably need to add highway=footway plus footway=sidewalk to South Road but I may be wrong so please read the documentation or do a search for footway=sidewalk in osm.org to see how they are normally tagged.   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway   
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk
nevw (2021-12-14 02:03:49+00:00): I see you have fixed this now and good for pedestrian navigation. Thanks.
nevw (2021-12-18 03:29:20+00:00): Hi
another mapper seems to have accidentally reverted your correction.
I have sent him a message and I also now feel that the sidewalk tag may be better. 
Even better would be to map them separately as footways I guess but I'll leave that judgement to local mappers.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115041496#map=13/-34.9757/138.5618
SekeRob (2021-12-13 11:21:30+00:00): From the Netherlands to Java. Big job, though I see only 9 ways and 28 nodes being touched. Pretty please, next time save on a country by country basis. At 3800 change sets and use of JOSM not a big effort ;o)

TYMIA
Skiddaw (2021-12-13 23:51:05+00:00): Hi SekeRob. Thank you for identifying this flagged changeset as being too large. I agree that multi-country edits should be broken down into local edits. This was unintentional. I added an untagged node (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9333582275#map=13/52.2738/4.6158) in the Netherlands and will remove it. And I’ll keep an eye out for for these going forward. Thanks
SekeRob (2021-12-14 13:31:29+00:00): Hi

Thanks for your positive response.

Have a nice (mapping) day.

Rob
Tomas Straupis (2021-12-13 09:00:47+00:00): Peržiūrėjau. Viskas kaip ir gerai. Aš tik pavadinimą perrašiau mažosiomis raidėmis. Patarčiau dar ir svetainę pridėti į website žymą, jei tokia yra (pastaba: facebook NĖRA svetainė).
Dodko (2021-12-13 20:49:50+00:00): Ak si aktualizoval tak uzavri poznámku https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2937124