piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Mike Baggaley (2019-04-11 07:04:03+00:00): Hi, on way 130438810, you have changed the access to deny pedestrian and bicycle access to the road. Whilst there is an adjacent cycleway, unless there is a prohibition sign for cycles and pedestrians on the roadway, it is legal for them to use the roadway. If there is a prohibition sign, I suggest adding foot=no and bicycle=no and adding a note to clarify the situation. If there is no prohibition, please revert access=no to motor_vehicle=no.

Thanks,
Mike
MacLondon (2019-04-11 15:13:31+00:00): Hi Mike, I've now added foot=use_sidepath for pedestrians along this busway.

The signed access restriction is 'local bus only' for this road, so bicycles are not allowed to use the road.

Although there are also reinforcement signs further along the road (with pictures of motor vehicles, but no bicycle), these aren't access signs and aren't necessary for the 'buses only' restriction to apply. The wording used on those reinforcement signs however is 'no vehicles', which applies to both bicycles and motor vehicles.

Mac
user_5359 (2019-03-19 20:39:44+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please notice: the minimum keys for an address is addr:street and addr:housenumber! Can you add the value for the street name, please?
Fwirt (2019-03-19 20:54:36+00:00): Sorry, I was using the StreetComplete app and thought that information was already present. I'm new to editing, but I think the street has been added. Thanks for the heads up.
rab (2019-03-19 20:20:42+00:00): waterway=dam?
RicoElectrico (2019-03-19 22:16:44+00:00): Cześć, dzięki za samodzielną poprawę :)

Warto by było zamknąć uwagę (pewnie dodaną przez Ciebie): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1716536#map=18/52.37068/16.81369
derredu (2019-03-20 12:00:02+00:00): Hallo Michel, bitte sei etwas gründlicher beim Editieren, vor allem mit dem "iD" Editor. Du hast in dieser Änderung aus dem Stadtgarten ein Gebäude gemacht! siehe:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=68310651

Machst du das wieder rückgängig?
Grüße René
berndw (2019-03-23 10:03:24+00:00): Hallo zusammen

ich habe den Park als MP mit dem Teich eingetragen.

@Michel: bei Fragen bitte melden
Michel Voss (2019-03-24 11:48:56+00:00): Knoten: Fairteilerfahrrad "Unser JAN" habe ich eingetragen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6348273690#map=18/50.95845/7.00701 Wieso der Editor aus dem Stadtgarten ein Gebäude gemacht hat ist mir völlig unverständlich. Es gab an dem Tag allerdings Probleme: Mehrere meiner vorläufigen Änderungen wollte der Editor weder korrigieren noch löschen. Auch war die Internetübertragung endlos langsam. Beim Verlassen der Seite OHNE Speichern waren  dann Veränderungen gespeichert, obwohl ich "Speichern" gar nicht angeglickt hatte.
berndw (2019-03-24 12:15:01+00:00): Versuch mal einen richtigen Editor wie JOSM ;-)

Da gibt es zumindest vor dem Hochladen einen Test ob Fehler in dem Changeset sind.
AntMadeira (2019-04-22 02:07:34+00:00): Olá, Ruben.
Podes explicar que local histórico é este?
Adicionaste mais alguns na mesma rua que estão nas mesmas condições e incluem vários edifícios. Que eu saiba, não existem ali locais históricos. O que estás realmente a tentar mapear?
Ruben Pedrosa (2019-04-22 02:14:17+00:00): Boa noite,

Que local histórico estamos a falar? Não sei bem verificar a qual se refere por aqui :/
AntMadeira (2019-04-22 02:16:42+00:00): Este aqui e os da rua Tenente Valadim:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676083141#map=19/39.74282/-8.80629
Ruben Pedrosa (2019-04-22 02:19:34+00:00): São as antigas ruinas do Hotel Dom João III
AntMadeira (2019-04-22 03:28:20+00:00): OK, mas não deve ser mapeado como local histórico. Deves ler a wiki da tag para perceber melhor o que ela engloba. Além disso, acho que não existem ruínas no local, apenas uma área aberta que receberá um novo edifício.
Além disso, deves sempre especificar as áreas que defines, com nome, no mínimo.
Tal como os edifícios da Tenente Valentim, que não são locais históricos. Quanto muito, locais com história. :D
SomeoneElse (2019-03-20 11:34:48+00:00): Thanks again!
EneaSuper (2019-03-20 14:19:41+00:00): Mi ha incuriosito molto il dipinto sito a Porta Soprana: dalla descrizione, così su due piedi, mi viene da pensare che possa raffigurare la Madonna della Guardia 😗
derredu (2019-03-20 12:14:27+00:00): ich nochmal :)  
lies dir das bitte durch und erkenne deinen Fehler:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Names#name_ist_nur_der_Name

VG René
Sanniu (2019-03-26 13:42:31+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/678005205 it's highway=proposed, but have construction= tag, what is right here?
Mr Massri (2019-03-28 09:50:15+00:00): Hi! thanks for notifying me. I fixed it on changeset #68580346
daganzdaanda (2019-03-22 10:06:11+00:00): Hallo Huisnblasi, willkommen bei OSM!

Bei dieser Änderung ist wohl irgendetwas schief gegangen: Der Weg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/484951910 geht jetzt quer über ein Haus und einen Bolzplatz. Ich mache den Änderungssatz rückgängig.

Servus, daganzdaanda
eggie (2019-03-19 22:06:35+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.

Adresnodes worden direct geïmporteerd vanuit het kadaster. het is beter deze niet te veranderen. Je kunt er uiteraard wel mee schuiven.
MVG,
Eggie
mueschel (2019-03-26 14:30:13+00:00): Hi,
could you check this way? It got a strange tag "193 = 36"
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/152441476

Thanks
muralito (2019-03-20 19:16:43+00:00): Why did you split the way?
There is only one way with 4 lanes.
CapAhab (2019-03-20 19:29:50+00:00): At first look it appeared divided in imagery, I'll make the appropriate fixes.  Thanks for catching this!
eggie (2019-03-19 22:10:46+00:00): De naam heeft een andere spelling dan de naam die al op het gebouw zelf staat.?
Dubbele tags, waar één weer weg kan? 
Gr Eggie
Staðfangaskrá_import (2019-03-19 22:50:32+00:00): Was working on the Staðfangaskrá import and forgot to switch out of import specific user account to make this edit. Reverting
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-05-02 23:53:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 69823262 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some name chanegs in Lebanon.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2733 .
mapper999 (2019-03-22 15:04:14+00:00): Hi,
ich weiß nicht ob du vor Ort warst, vor wenigen Wochen waren aber beide Firmen separat am Gebäude angeschrieben und zwar genauso wie im name-Tag vermerkt war. Foto gerne auf Nachfrage. Die KWK und ascent Makler GmbH sind wohl Tochtergesellschaften der ascent Aktiengesellschaft. 
Falls du dich auf https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1439669 beziehst: Der Note ist deutlich älter als die von dir geänderten Daten in OSM und wurde wohl von mir übersehen als ich die Firmen angepasst habe.
Radboss (2019-03-22 15:53:11+00:00): Okay, danke für den Hinweis. Laut der Webseite war die Differenzierung so nicht zu erkennen. Falls du ein Foto zur Hand hast wäre das sicherlich hilfreich, ansonsten könnte ich auch über die Historie die beiden Einträge wieder herstellen. Ist dann nur die Frage ob es zwei Einträge für die beiden Tochtergesellschaften benötigt -- oder ob auch noch die AG selbst vermerkt werden sollte.
user_5359 (2019-03-20 06:47:00+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please have a look on the notation of openeing_hours (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours).
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-05-02 23:53:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 69823262 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some name chanegs in Lebanon.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2733 .
dktue (2019-03-24 13:07:05+00:00): entrance=entrance?

Ist hier eventuell ein kleiner Fehler unterlaufen? :-)
ajf3934221 (2019-03-24 15:34:15+00:00): oh, na klar, das muss ich ja gleich mal ändern 
;-)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-05-02 23:53:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 69823262 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some name chanegs in Lebanon.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2733 .
MKnight (2019-03-20 10:18:21+00:00): Hi,

i have changed yes to unknown because operator was changed.

I dont think its needless. Someone will see it and change it to correct value. 
No value=nobody sees it.
Kristjan ESPERANTO (2019-03-20 20:28:39+00:00): Hi :-)
I disagree, but if it matters to you, you can undo my change.
MKnight (2019-03-20 20:49:32+00:00): It's not matter to me, but I have reverted it, because i disagree ...
streckenkundler (2019-03-20 07:44:13+00:00): Danke.

Magst du noch bitte den touching Ring auflösen? Sowas ist bei landuse immer vermeidbar. Lediglich bei Relationen vom type=boundary kann sowas auftreten.
Vermeide bitte Relationen bei landuse, die nur aus outer-Segmenten zusammengesetzt sind. Hier reichen stets simple geschossene Linienzüge. 
Nimm bitte niemals reine Linien-Objekte von (z.B. highway) als Teile von Flächen. Das sorgt für extrem fragile, fehleranfällige MP's. Dies erschwert auch extrem die Bearbeitung von solchen Linien.

Andere Mapper werden es dir Danken.
mueschel (2019-03-27 14:11:00+00:00): Hi,
you put the tag "DUPLICADO=C" on many buildings. What does it mean?

Jan
poselab (2019-03-27 17:26:23+00:00): This information is imported from the cadastre and I forgot to delete that data. It is already corrected. Thank you
Marián Kyral (2019-04-02 10:37:43+00:00): Ahoj Majko.
Můžeš prosím mrknout na http://www.geocaching.cz/topic/27893-chyby-v-openstreetmap/page-13#entry570131 ?

Někam ti při úpravách zmizela polní cesta ;-)

Díky
majkaz (2019-04-02 11:37:25+00:00): Tak snad opraveno. Bála jsem se, že k tomu dojde. Ono to tu je zmapované trochu na dvě věci - jsou/byly tam polygony "grass" a "scrub" přesně pod silnicemi a cestami, polygony nalepené k cestám a podobně.  Vypadá to, že se tu udělal původně obrovský polygon "tráva", a postupně z toho je přes LPIS "ukousáváno", takže z toho původního zbývají nesmyslně už jen ty silnice a polní cesty.
tux67 (2019-03-20 06:30:09+00:00): Bitte demnächst vorher abstimmen. Changeset ist aus lokaler Sicht so nicht akzeptiert und wurde erstmal zurückgesetzt.
Gruß
tux67
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/68315395
tux67 (2019-03-20 06:40:31+00:00): P.S.: Ich verstehe was du vorhattest, dann aber nicht mit überlappenden Landuses. Anpassungen von man_made works nehme ich selber vor. Adressen bleiben am Gebäude.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/68315395
ronv10 (2019-03-22 00:23:31+00:00): Added the UNB Library in UNB Engineering Building
Adamant1 (2019-04-20 11:09:50+00:00): This whole thing is mapped wrong. Black's Beach and Lincoln Beach are separate beaches. It needs to lose the park:type tag to. Another major thing is that instead of having all these chopped up Twin Lakes State Beaches with a bunch of unnecessary relations, it should be one long beach. Since that's what it and probably tagged as protected area + class5 and then the smaller, actual beaches can be mapped inside of it.
Adamant1 (2019-04-20 11:10:03+00:00): It's not a park though.
stevea (2019-04-20 18:34:45+00:00): I disagree (that it needs to lose the park:type tag).  Can you offer some (wiki?) documentation about the park:type tag that would support your assertion?

And exactly where is the boundary between Black's and Lincoln?  Many (I've been there and asked people) conflate the two and also disagree with you that Black's and Lincoln are "separate."  My sources are based on local knowledge.  What are yours?

Multipolygons (and their complexity) are necessary to describe complexity.  To simplify them into "unnecessary" relations (which is plainly wrong, as relations are the proper and supported data structure OSM uses to do this) would be vandalism, as it would destroy the richness now captuted in the data.

Offer constructive, specific criticism, and the community will consider your proposal(s).  Simply crying "wrong" will get you nowhere.
Adamant1 (2019-04-26 02:38:15+00:00): There was a map on an official Santa Cruz website that I can't find now where they were separate. I'll try to find it again. 

As far as multipolygons go. They are necessary to describe complexity when they are necessary to describe complexity. I never implied otherwise. This just isn't a "complex thing that need's to be described." At least in my opinion. Your free to disagree, but don't do by making it about multiplygons in general and my none existent dislike of them. 

I'll ignore the last paragraph. As it's obviously useless to the discussion and not productive.
Adamant1 (2019-04-26 02:39:47+00:00): Btw, Sunny Cove Beach County Park still needs to be deleted. Since there's no such thing. I looked into it. It's just a beach. There's nothing called that.
stevea (2019-04-26 02:44:37+00:00): Try, try again.  You buy no time spewing that, sez i.

You don't like Sunny Cove?  Map it.  Or shut the fu*k up.  I'm tired of your verbal vomit abuse time-wasting spin-around-in-circles-go-nowhere.  Map.  Or shut the fu*k up.  You've been given a hundred opportunities.
Adamant1 (2019-04-26 09:28:24+00:00): Yikes. Communication mistakes like here I guess. Real good job being civil. I'll take the high road and ignore most of it, I guess. Except to say that your the one that went on constantly about how I needed the consensus of the local community before doing anything. I told you from the start it wasn't workable. You should have listened and not threatened me with reverts etc. If you hadn't of gone off so much about it though, I would have  100% guaranteed, just edited things and not had any of this conversation. I told you from the start it was pointless, useless, and a waste of both our time. Hopefully you learned your lesson.
stevea (2019-04-26 20:53:02+00:00): https://localwiki.org/santacruz/Sunny_Cove_Beach calls it "Sunny Cove Beach County Park."  https://localwiki.org/santacruz/Sunny_Cove_Beach talks about how County Parks gets to name things in the area.  Importantly, http://www.scparks.com/Home/Parks/ListofAllCountyParks.aspx shows County Parks administers the beach, yet not all of it is beach, as it also includes "Sunny Cove Drive Veteran’s Building" (way 686194442) which clearly isn't a beach, it's (to me) part of a park, the building is surrounded by trees and scrub, it is run by county parks, which, here, also includes beach area.
Jarek 🚲 (2019-03-26 13:44:33+00:00): Hey Nate, we probably shouldn't have the relation for 505 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/72295 as public_transport:version=2 since that requires (? or at least is very usually done with) a separate relation for each travel direction
Nate Wessel (2019-03-26 14:51:19+00:00): Hmm. True... though it is partly tagged according to version two, with some stop areas using the public_transport=platform tagging. 

Probably the most correct thing to do is to remove the version number until it is definitely one or the other. I might have been tagging a bit aspirationally... it takes a lot of work to completely change a route from version one to two.
Jarek 🚲 (2019-03-26 15:30:27+00:00): My understanding was that PTv2 was a tightening and improvement of previous public transit tagging, so I personally wouldn't put version=2 on something that doesn't fully conform to ptv2. I guess it could be a preference thing.

With mapping platforms/shelters as ways like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/678033452, are you intending to show the shelter, or the platform? I ask because that particular one seems drawn a bit bigger than the shelter seen in imagery.

Also to be honest I'm not really a fan of amenity=shelter on ways with public transit tagging because amenity=shelter is such a generic tag - or at least let's have a shelter_type=public_transport on it.

Should we try to come up with guidelines on how to do transit stops in Toronto? In other cities I was seeing a linear way with public_transport=platform + bench=yes + shelter=yes and a node with highway=bus_stop/railway=tram_stop for a virtual (streetside) "platform"; or area with public_transport=platform + area=yes + shelter=yes for actual platforms (like on streetcar RoWs and safety islands). Will that work for ptv2 in Toronto?
Nate Wessel (2019-03-28 13:42:22+00:00): I'd love to find a consistent way to tag stop areas. I know I'm not even being consistent with myself right now, as I try to figure out the best way to handle this. 

I was intending to show just the shelter there. I'm not sure what else would constitute the platform area... I did a few stops with stop area relations, which would link together related amenities and stop positions. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9414075
But I'm not sure how well supported these are. I think the idea is that anything related to the stop (e.g. signpost, shelter, waste basket, stop position etc) could be included, without having to strictly delimit the area where people are expected to wait. 

Do you have any local examples of detailed and well-tagged stops that you think are better handled?
Jarek 🚲 (2019-03-28 15:47:29+00:00): Don't have local examples, sorry. I've just been looking at Berlin, because of past experience and because I figure that if anyone got it detailed correct it's the Germans. Over there the streetside stops are tagged like https://osm.org/relation/5780880 and RoW stops like https://osm.org/relation/5824731 or when mapped as area https://osm.org/relation/8450284

At the risk of sounding annoying like "it's better in Europe" I think just adopting the Berlin scheme is a decent option if we don't have better ideas
Nate Wessel (2019-03-29 13:26:14+00:00): Those look pretty good to me. I'll try tagging a couple stops like that in the next day or two and you can let me know what you think.
Nate Wessel (2019-03-30 14:45:23+00:00): How does this look? 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9444948
I was skeptical about the wiki's suggestion to split out the rails at first, but now I think this makes a lot more sense and actually looks pretty nice. Getting it done for the whole city would be quite a task... but would certainly clarify a lot of things.
Jarek 🚲 (2019-03-30 15:08:30+00:00): That looks good I think. Oh I also saw https://osmand.net/blog/guideline-pt posted recently and it seems to match that as well. Oh, when upgrading the whole 506 to ptv2, membership of the route relation might need to be updated as well - https://osm.org/node/3584751593 should probably be platform in both stop_area and route, and https://osm.org/node/6372373322 should probably be added to the route relation as stop. But that's not as critical while we have one relation for both 506 directions.

Yeah I've been slowly splitting the tracks, it's not too bad and gets me around the city :). Currently working on intersections of Spadina and tracks from Bathurst to McCaul. It does clear up things - my favourite fact (to be double-confirmed in survey) is that Coxwell loop only allows exiting to north on Coxwell, not onto Queen Street - wouldn't know that from current mapping! I can continue on that and finish the system eventually, hopefully this still this decade. The way the tracks are currently glued to the highways is kind of annoying as well - e.g. the former track on Lansdowne https://osm.org/way/9454827 ended up being kept in your changes. "G" to unglue in JOSM and then drag them off to the side a bit...
Nate Wessel (2019-03-30 15:29:27+00:00): Indeed, those glued ways are tricky. I just deleted that rail and discovered it was a 'to' way in a bicycle turn restriction. Looks like I wasn't the only one to miss it!

I'll start working, slowly, on splitting tracks west of ~Ossington. Some of the ones you've worked on look really nice! It's been a while since I looked at the map in the downtown area... though I see even part of Queen is split out now. Nice!
farmal (2019-07-15 05:02:07+00:00): Hi Silvia IRM-ED,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Surabaya, I have come across the 

"way 676737111
way 675355408
way 675355410
way 547343370
way 547343369
way 675352969
way 676758639"

classified as 'unclassified', However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around, this seems to be 'residential'.

As of now correcting the data. Please suggest if it is otherwise.

Thanks in advance.
Silvia IRM-ED (2019-07-18 01:45:21+00:00): that's right, maybe I missed when correcting it. thank you!
Adamant1 (2019-04-20 11:00:30+00:00): This whole thing is weird. You have it tagged as a beach, with no park tag, but then you have it tagged as park:type=state_beach. You can't use a park:type tag if there's no park tag. It's completely nonsensical. It should just be a beach. You should get rid of the double tagged green area around it. There's also a screwed up relation or something where this beach goes to the other of the water half onto Seabright Beach. Which it really shouldn't. 

There's currently four Twin Lakes beaches that come up in the search in this area and there should only be one. The one that's the actual beach. Not some weird spot across the waterway on another beach.
stevea (2019-04-20 18:28:53+00:00): What "whole thing"?  I have tagged WHAT as a beach?  Be specific (as to a way # or relation #)  and this community will (better) know what you are talking about.

Where does it say we "can't use a park:type tag" on what hundreds of millions of speakers of American English mean when they utter the word park:  "a large area of land kept in its natural state for public recreational use."  THEN there is what OSM believes/asserts/states/tags/documents, yet I have no idea of what you speak.

Your sense of "nonsensical" does not seem to acknowledge that American English's definition of park includes these.  How we tag these in OSM in the USA appears to be improving, (though with you it is about as enjoyable as having teeth pulled).  Can you (I mean, literally:  ARE YOU ABLE TO) make constructive, specific improvement recommendations here, or do you simply wish to bullyrag a decade of tagging parks in the USA with nothing to show for it instead of a pile of insults?

If you don't know ("relation or something") or can't articulate what is wrong, with specificity, I'm not sure you can complain about it, say it is nonsensical or assert what it "should" be.

Twin Lakes State Beach has (at least) three distinctly-named beaches:  Seabright Beach (between San Lorenzo River's cliffs and west of the Harbor), Twin Lakes Beach (distinct from Harbor Beach, which is east of the harbor and not included in state jurisdiction, so OSM maps this exactly this way) and Black's Beach/Lincoln Beach (one or the other might become an alt_name or loc_name, there is endless discussion about this, often on this beach itself about what it is called).

Be careful that you don't smear together TLSB with Twelfth Avenue County Park (a beach which might appear to be part of Black's/Lincoln's, but it isn't) or Thirteenth Avenue County Park (ditto).

Please describe how you are doing "your search," as it might be Nominatim, an overpass-turbo query or a download of OSM data, all of which return what I (and others) consider correct-as-entered (and as of today) data:  there ARE four beaches here, as I describe above, though it may be three, with one having two apparently unresolvable names.

Please further articulate why you believe "there should only be one," as I don't understand what about the current tagging doesn't reflect how the beaches are named, how their jurisdictions vary (there are also local and federal parks around here named "Twin Lakes") and that there is a group of them with operator "California Department of Parks and Recreation," quite sensibly.
aharvey (2019-09-01 13:16:33+00:00): When did you survey this, it looks like on a weekday this is a highway=living_street, but on the weekend acts more like highway=pedestrian, as it's closed to cars, but still accepts cars at some hours for deliveries.
randh1 (2019-09-10 10:41:51+00:00): Thank you for the valuable feedback. Please feel free to point out similar suggestions in future as well. 
Regards,
randh1
WoodWoseWulf (2019-03-21 03:41:58+00:00): Hi! What is this supposed to be?