piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
cquest (2022-04-06 13:54:17+00:00): Merci de venir en discuter sur le forum

https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/gros-revert-sur-lorient-votre-avis/8424

Merci de prendre conscience que ces imports sont une très mauvaise pratique dans leur forme. Plusieurs alertes ont déjé été remontées dans le passé par des commentaires, visiblement sans effet.

C'est donc maintenant aux autres contributeurs de faire le ménage...
Landry GAIFFE (2022-04-06 14:07:52+00:00): Re-bonjour, 
Je viens d'envoyer un message sur le forum. Il est en attente de validation par un modérateur
DD1GJ (2022-03-28 17:20:17+00:00): Wurde mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118916159 zurückgesetzt, da administratives Grenzsegment gelöscht wurde.
MxxCon (2022-03-26 01:35:05+00:00): Hello.
Could you please elaborate why did you change building tag from "hotel" to just "yes"?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118913275
julesbdlm05 (2022-03-29 09:53:10+00:00): I just changed the icon because it's a hotel not just a building
MxxCon (2022-03-29 16:46:28+00:00): But you removed the hotel tag...

Please note that these kind of edits are incorrect. It is wrong to intentionally edit the map with wrong info just so that it looks better on the map. Please see this article for more details: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
julesbdlm05 (2022-03-30 08:07:59+00:00): Actually I juste made the hotel appear blue with the bed...
DD1GJ (2022-03-28 17:22:24+00:00): Wurde mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118916159 zurückgesetzt, da administratives Grenzsegment gelöscht wurde.
DD1GJ (2022-03-28 18:44:34+00:00): Ist das so korrekt? Der Weg ist außerhalb des NSG!
Mevess (2022-03-25 15:16:57+00:00): source également utilisée: https://fr.westfield.com/lapartdieu/access
lexiplaisted (2022-03-25 15:02:08+00:00): #gwugeography
Glassman (2022-03-26 18:32:09+00:00): #TIP: When finished edit in one location, save and upload before moving to a distant location.

Also - dikes often have a road on top. When it does, draw the dike as an embankment=dyke instead with the road next to the embankment.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118914604
user_5359 (2022-03-26 05:05:30+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Short inquiry to the key service_times: the services are held every day or only on Sundays? In the latter case add a Su (followed by space character) at the beginning of the value. Please notice also: We use the 24h notation for time informations.
MxxCon (2022-03-26 01:38:08+00:00): Hello.
Please note that bus route go into tag "route_ref". Additionally, multiple bus lines should be listed separating with ";" and not ",". Both of these things are documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:route_ref 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118914902
Mevess (2022-03-25 15:16:47+00:00): source également utilisée: https://fr.westfield.com/lapartdieu/access
felipeeugenio (2022-03-25 15:56:00+00:00): Hola
Se ve que conoces el sector y eres bienvenido de aportar todo lo que puedas.
Respecto de alinear las calles con las fotos satelitales, te cuento que es un poco infructuoso; pues pasa que las imágenes que usaste (Bing) son una de muchas que hay. Cada una con un desplazamiento. incluso las mismas bing tienen desplazamiento entre ellas. Entonces tu acabas de hacer este trabajo, pero puede venir otro mapero mañana y cambiarlo todo de vuelta. Y ninguno va a tener muy buenos argumentos para refutar al otro.

Lo que si es muy util es agregar las velocidades máximas (maxspeed), cantidad de pistas (lanes), cruces que estén obsoletos, semáforos, ceda el paso, pares, etc...
Puedes unirte al chat de la comunidad en Telegram (chatt similar a whatsapp) en el link: https://t.me/OSMcl

saludos y nos vemos
fabiotofy (2022-03-26 02:28:43+00:00): non sono d'accordo. Il nome ufficiale, come riportato anche sul sito https://www.piscinadisangiovanni.com/, è proprio piscina di San Giovanni
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118917092
alessandrocarmeli (2022-03-26 09:21:24+00:00): io ho cambiato il nome come riportato nella targa che ce fuori
alessandrocarmeli (2022-03-26 10:44:25+00:00): ti lascio questo: https://sestacircoscrizione.comune.trieste.it/intitolazione-piscina-san-giovanni/
voteforpedro (2022-04-14 13:04:55+00:00): For future reference, it is best to limit to the area of the changeset, as this now casts a range from Edmonton, across to Prince George, down to Vancouver.
pitscheplatsch (2022-03-27 08:37:13+00:00): #vandalism
Should be reverted.
---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
BCNorwich (2022-03-25 18:05:24+00:00): Don't be silly. Junction removed.
mapper377 (2022-03-25 16:55:00+00:00): "Inflow Avenue" should be spelled "Inlow Avenue".
pyrog (2022-04-07 05:50:08+00:00): Salut Fred,

Ce regroupement de relations correspond à une réalité : la gestion des itinéraires du PDIPR par une même communauté de communes.

La cartographie des réseaux de carrefours (node network) a été discutée au niveau national au sein du groupe OSM Plein Air.
Les relations réseaux correspondent en France au découpage par comcoms (et parfois par parc naturel).

Je te demande d'annuler tes modifications.

Merci,
Yves

PS : Tu peux suivre les modifications sur le réseau de carrefours avec https://knooppuntnet.nl/fr/analysis/network/13436769/changes

L'édition de grandes relations avec iD n'est pas adaptée.
Je te conseille JOSM pour cela.
user_8101879 (2022-04-07 17:49:35+00:00): Salut,

le réseau pédestre de Grenoble Alpes est exactement le même avant qu'après ma modification puisque regroupé en subareas de tailles raisonnables mais contenant exactement les mêmes données.

Si tu veux refaire une relation énorme, à ta guise mais cela ne changera stritement rien au niveau contenu donc totalement inutile (et donc je n'annulerai pas mes améliorations).
En plus il est beaucoup plus simple de maintenir des petites relations que des monstres qui vont probablement être cassés un jour ou l'autre quand quelqu'un va ajouter/couper des chemins.
Lire ceci pour plus d'explications : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation (partie size)

Dans ce changeset je n'ai fait que rétablir des relations existantes auparavant mais j'ai presque été tenté de découper encore plus le réseau de grenoble en d'autres subarea qu'il reste à inventer (si tu regardes la relation on voit clairement des "blocs").

Bien à toi
Fred
eggie (2022-03-25 16:58:02+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
dentonny (2022-04-03 10:12:44+00:00): Nice!
Die GR in jouw naam, staat dat voor gemeenteraad? Want jij bent altijd zo op de hoogte van de laatste nieuwtjes in Geel :)
SekeRob (2022-03-26 09:06:05+00:00): Hi

Quando modifichi i nomi delle strade, devi anche regolare tutti i nodi di indirizzi su quelle strade (Segnalato Osmose) e
Via andrea Doria > Via Andrea Doria

ciao
procuste (2022-03-27 09:25:23+00:00): Grazie della segnalazione, provvederò. Chiedo scusa, ma mi era sfuggito.
Patr1k_P (2022-09-23 11:54:48+00:00): tu je urad, ked je tam aj hotel?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73702127
mapperue (2022-11-03 06:28:39+00:00): Vďaka za upozornenie. Tag som zmenil na old_name.
Dawid2849 (2022-03-26 10:04:04+00:00): Wycofane
RicoElectrico (2022-03-25 18:25:25+00:00): Cześć,

Poproszę o linka do forum, gdzie zmiana została przedyskutowana.

Dzięki!
Dawid2849 (2022-03-26 10:03:59+00:00): Wycofane
eerib (2022-04-01 20:14:29+00:00): Hello,

I am the one that added this trail and did some adjustments to trails in the area. I was wondering what the specific sensitive ecosystem is?

From my understanding back when I added this trail, the trail is a single track mountain bike trail that does see quite a lot of use. I also found that is was used by hikers/trail runners and by Geocachers.

My general reasoning for adding the trail was to prevent users from getting lost in the area, which was common in the general area due to the outdated trail mapping but also due to the unmapped trails.

I checked the wiki and the only entry I can find related to when not to map specifies location specific endangered species habitats, indigenous sacred sites, and safety concerns but it isn't an exhaustive list. Because the area is seeing quite a lot of use from various groups, doesn't go against the limited wiki entry, and has resulted in users getting lost, I am in favor of bringing the trail back. Perhaps we could add tags including a description, note, and informality to add context for the trail.

Cheers, eerib

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information#Other_Reasons_not_to_Map
JonnySmalls (2022-04-01 20:25:30+00:00): There are a few sections that really can't handle increased traffic. The one of most concern is just below the pine forest where it gets more open.

This is also an unsanctioned trail that enters the park.

The builder has also been asking people to please remove this trail from Strava heatmaps and other maps.
eerib (2022-04-01 22:55:01+00:00): I asked around and did some research and I was pointed to the newly formed US Trails Working Group. According to their blog post and suggested tagging, they would recommend keeping the trail but adding the tag informal=yes and access=discouraged (if the trail is interpreted to be a "A social trail, and access to this social trail is not prohibited outright, but is officially discouraged by the land owner/manager.").

Could you please reach out to the trail builder and confirm if he agrees with this interpretation?

---

The section from their blog post I'm referring is:

"The Working Group does not propose to remove trails from OSM if their use is discouraged or illegal. This would be contrary to OSM’s “Map what’s on the ground” rule, and doesn’t make sense for several reasons:

- Good coverage of all trails (including closed or illegal ones) is essential for some mapping applications, such as firefighting and SAR.
- Trail junctions serve as useful landmarks for people traveling in the outdoors. It’s often best for maps to show those junctions, even if only one of the trails is official. People are more likely to make a wrong turn if a junction isn’t shown on their map.
- Deleting a trail from the map only invites it to be re-added soon after by someone who perceives it to be missing."

https://www.openstreetmap.us/2021/12/osmus-trails-working-group
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Trails_Working_Group
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

---

The section from the BC Parks website for Cypress Provincial Park where I interpret them to discourage social trail use is:

"For your own safety and the preservation of the park, obey posted signs and keep to designated trails. Shortcutting trails destroys plant life and soil structure."

https://bcparks.ca/explore/parkpgs/cypress/

Cheers, eerib
eerib (2022-04-11 19:03:14+00:00): Hello,

Have you been able to talk to the trail builder about the trail?

Cheers, eerib
JonnySmalls (2022-04-12 15:29:33+00:00): I do not personally know the trail builder. I just met them on the trail the last time I was there. They put up the signs all over saying to not post the trail anywhere public and told me this as well.

I did however reach out to NSR and they do not want any illegal trails on public maps.

It is technically illegal to build trails on crown land, any type of park, and as well in the British Properties without permission / a permit. 

With that said, it doesn't matter what the "US Trails Working Group" defines as a policy. Adding illegal trails is promoting illegal activity and you're only risking losing something you're clearly enjoying.

I understand you're trying to be helpful and I appreciate that. The forests we have are amazing but I think your efforts are better spent helping with existing public trails.
eerib (2022-04-12 19:38:07+00:00): I understand the concerns but I'm going to side with the established OpenStreetMap policies on this. I'm going to revert the changeset and add some tags to hopefully ameliorate any issues. Please do not delete the trail. If you disagree, I encourage you to contact the Data Working Group to resolve the dispute.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group

An NSR member (user: TaxusB) reached out to me recently via private message about my edits in the area and in the arbutus forest lower down the mountain in the British Pacific Properties Limited lands. The member had some misunderstandings that I've hopefully clarified. The member also deleted some trails in the BPPL lands, which resulted in the Data Working Group reverting the changeset (linked below).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118968582#map=17/49.36354/-123.27004
EP_Repair (2022-08-11 15:18:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124780086 where the changeset comment is: revert organized attempts to subvert trail networks see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6216
user_5359 (2022-03-27 06:52:34+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please use for the keys explicitly British English. For more details have look on the website http://wiki.osm.org.
HirschKauz (2022-03-26 10:25:51+00:00): der ist gut weg, denn ein Hundefriseur ist kein shop=hairdresser - LOL
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118920359
ivanatora (2022-03-26 08:06:10+00:00): Changeset is most probably vandalism from a previously blocked account https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5819
ivanatora (2022-03-26 08:06:49+00:00): Changeset is most probably vandalism from a previously blocked account https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5819
Carto'Cité (2022-09-30 16:05:42+00:00): Bonjour Furdrien,
Je me suis permis de remettre bicycle=designated sur ces chemins (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46150458) car il semble que cet ensemble constitue un « cheminement » cyclable au regard des pictos vélo et du DSC (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46150458).
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
Furdrien (2022-09-30 19:33:08+00:00): Bonjour Charles, 

Effectivement, il est intéressant de rendre cyclable ce chemin du fait des pictos et du dsc dans la desserte de l'école du Noyer

Bien à toi !
Furdrien
Carto'Cité (2022-10-03 13:04:37+00:00): Merci pour ton retour 🙂
À très bientôt
Charles
ivanatora (2022-03-26 08:06:42+00:00): Changeset is most probably vandalism from a previously blocked account https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5819
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2022-03-26 16:05:59+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/229667261
It seems you've accidentally moved a road and a building
arukuni (2022-07-15 07:10:01+00:00): How is this proper?
Sidewalk that is allowed for both pedestrians and cycling is no longer a sidewalk but a path?
Tomasz Herud (2022-07-15 07:26:22+00:00): Please see S7 at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-07-14 16:36:12+00:00): Está utilizando la etiqueta incorrecta, este tipo de etiqueta es highway=milestone.
ivanatora (2022-03-26 08:06:37+00:00): Changeset is most probably vandalism from a previously blocked account https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5819
ivanatora (2022-03-26 08:06:31+00:00): Changeset is most probably vandalism from a previously blocked account https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5819
eggie (2022-03-25 18:15:55+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback Een communicatiemast kan niet opeens een watertoren worden en van functie verschieten..
Die mast hoort gewoon op de watertoren te staan als tower:type	communication . 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-03-25 18:28:28+00:00): De tag tower:type=communication heb ik teruggezet. Je krijgt anders een foutmelding.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:type

Het communicatiegedeelte staat nu op de toren.

MVG
eggie
SchepersZelf (2022-03-25 19:43:32+00:00): Dankjewel voor de uitleg Eggie.

Het was mijn eerste actie als 'mapper'

Ik heb nog wat te leren (:


Waaruit blijkt dat het gebouw een voormalige watertoren is?

Groet

SchepersZelf
eggie (2022-03-25 19:54:21+00:00): Meestal geeft het Kadaster de functie weer
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=hogeveld%206%20u&resultOffset=0&objectId=1509200000237147&geometry.x=224406.58&geometry.y=433989.97&zoomlevel=6&detailsObjectId=1509010000237148

en anders even in wikipedia kijken.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watertoren_(Bontebrug)

Maar vooral eerst plezier in mappen krijgen..  :)

Gr eggie
SomeoneElse (2022-03-29 07:26:01+00:00): I see someone has marked https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/715879092/history as private?
Dimitar155 (2022-03-29 08:09:29+00:00): I've checked the cadastre and that road should be in public property. I've left a comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119052738.
user_5359 (2022-03-28 07:31:29+00:00): Hello. Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9606305344. Did you really mean fireplace=pillar instead of fire_hydrant=pillar?
eggie (2022-03-25 18:34:14+00:00): Hi samia... 
Please don't use name=tafeltennistafel
Don't use name tag to describe things
A lot of tracks named "Waldweg" ("Track" in German).

    Main article: Names

The name tag should be used for the common name of a feature. It should not describe or label the feature. For example, it is incorrect to use name=track on a track road through a forest. Instead it should have the feature tag highway=track. If the track has a common name (like a street name), it would have a name tag too. If not, then there should be no name tag.

You can find appropriate tags in the editors using their presets (in iD start typing after you add an object, in JOSM press F3) and by searching this wiki or Taginfo. If you cannot find matching tags, add description=* or note=* or ask the community.



I added leisure=pitch and removed the name.
See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things
Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2022-03-25 18:38:31+00:00): Have a look here how to map this item

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch#Table_tennis_table
samiamsterdam (2022-03-25 18:41:52+00:00): Thanks for your comments. I am new to this. It makes sense. I still don’t know how I can add leisure = pitch. I can’t seem to find it.
eggie (2022-03-25 18:54:16+00:00): You are mapping with  	OsmAnd Maps 4.1.1

This app is very limited.
You better use editor iD or JOSM.

I wil send you our welcome mail by PM from the Dutch OSM community.
If you language is not Dutch google translate can do the miracle.
Enjoy mapping.
eggie
elcam1no (2022-03-30 08:33:37+00:00): Begehbarkeit ist ja ein subjektives empfinden. 
Löschen finde ich nicht richtig - da die Wege schon noch existieren. Daher habe ich den Zustand geändert und die Begehbarkeit eingeschränkt. 
Wenn sie in 10 Jahren komplett weg sind dann kann man löschen. 

Lehrpfad am Grünen Klassenzimmer ist die Löschung gerechtfertigt, den kann man wirklich kaum noch finden durch die Waldarbeiten.

Grüße,
ein Rühler
skyper (2022-03-28 14:24:23+00:00): Hallo hansjuergen1337
Warum hast Du denn `cycleway:both=separate` an diesen Straßenteil der B 294 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/488922858/9) eingetragen? Gibt es da auf beiden Seiten einen separaten Fahrradweg? Dann trage bitte auch die Wege separat ein.
Zusätzlich ist der Zusatz `:both` nur im Zusammenhang mit `oneway=*` sinnvoll und bei Straßen für beide Fahrtrichtungen überflüssig und nur Ballast.

Fragende Grüße,
skyper
skyper (2022-03-29 13:39:31+00:00): Hey hansjuergen1337
Danke für die Antwort (PM). Bitte antworte in Zukunft möglichst auch als Kommentar, in dem Du dem Link folgst und Dich auf der Seite anmeldest. Dann kannst Du in dem weißen, leeren Block auf der linken Seite antworten.

Ich habe mir den Kreisverkehr der B 294 nördlich von Elzach (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/48.18061/8.08031) mal angeschaut und verbessert (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119068587). Die Eintragungen von `cycleway:*=*` kamen von Dir und ja, es sind leider noch etliche falsch.

Ich bin absolut kein Fan von StreetComplete in der aktuellen Form und kann Dir daher was das angeht nicht weiterhelfen, allerdings brauchen wohl alle bearbeiteten Linien eine erneute Überprüfung.

Ich würde dafür JOSM verwenden, allerdings ist meine Zeit begrenzt und meine ToDo-Liste schon recht lang. Außerdem bin ich der Meinung, dass Beitragende ein Verantwortungsbewusstsein entwickeln sollten und ihre Fehler selbst korrigieren sollten. Wenn das nicht mit StreetComplete geht, ist das nur ein weitere Minuspunkt für die Software.
Vielleicht hilft Dir ja eine andere Person im Forum oder die entwickelten Personen, welche im Unterschied zu mir Geld für ihre Tätigkeit bekommen.

Wenn Du Fragen zum Tagging-Schema oder JOSM hast, helfe ich gerne.

Viele Grüße,
skyper

P.S.: `cycleway:both=no` ist absolut unnötig. Wenn überhaupt reicht `cycleway=no` aus, aber ob das wirklich an 80% aller Straßenabschnitte weltweit ran sollte, ist auch umstritten.
elgolfo (2022-03-28 19:07:41+00:00): Hi severin, 
was war denn hier deine Idee als du den Feldweg direkt neben/auf die Straße gemappt hast?
Meines Wissens gibt es vor Ort nur die Verbindungsstraße nach Freidorf.

Viele Grüße
Moritz
streckenkundler (2022-03-30 09:38:53+00:00): Das alte Leiden dieser Ortsverbindung:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/344127522/history

Normalerweise müsste für mich das wieder auf Track gesetzt werden, der hier erfasste Track wieder raus...

Aber andere Mapper sehen das ja unbedingt als Straße an, auch wenn es nur ein einfacher, frei befahrbarer Waldweg ist... Ich ändere da nichts mehr. Bei dem Weg hab ich resigniert...

Sven
wkdgs (2022-03-28 12:23:34+00:00): Ich gebe dir Recht. Für mich sieht das auch definitiv nicht nach einem Park aus.

Anstatt den zu löschen, würde ich ihn aber lediglich umtaggen. Für solche Innenhöfe kann man gut den "leisure=graden"-Tag in Verbindung mit "garden:type=residential" und "access=private" verwenden.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:leisure%3Dgarden
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118922612
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-23 20:42:49+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9606389308/history has KH=RR 250 key that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What you intended to express by using this unusual key? Is this tag needed? Or maybe can it be expressed in a more typical way that would be easier to understand?
emergency99 (2024-02-24 09:56:28+00:00): Hi, that is sime sort of reference number on the Pipeline/marker if i recall correctly. As I know nothing about mapping pipelines I do not know what key that would go in. But as it may be relevant information for someone, I included it. It could be moved to a note/fixme I guess, but that would make it even less findable in my view.
emergency99 (2024-08-23 06:16:55+00:00): Now I remember, the tag was already on the node, I just moved it to the building. Original Changeset/node: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24820548 / https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3023473668/history
emergency99 (2024-08-23 06:18:23+00:00): So you may have to ask rfuegen what it is supposed to mean. But as it is the only marker with that tag, I guess it could be moved to a note or something like that
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-08-23 09:42:52+00:00): Asked in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24820548 - unlikely that they remember, but maybe...

moving it to note tag would not help at all with meaning being unclear so there is no benefit here