piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
◪ Jarv (2020-11-23 14:51:47+00:00): Hatching doesn't mean to use two separate ways. Unless there is something physical in-between the two ways, it should only be mapped as a single way (in 99.9% of cases in the UK) - Other countries channelise lanes using road markings (the road is just one big paved areas with markings showing the edge of the driveable area, in the UK we do not and use islands because of our climate. If you want to see what they look like, have a look at some of the new emergency sliproads on smart motorways - those are(w/594570571).
Links are used for ways that link two other ways. If a way crosses another way at-grade then it must be mapped as the appropriate way, if actual separated (physically) ways exist for certain turn movements, then these may be mapped as links (normally the lower classification for at-grade, however can be the higher if appropriate). If two separate ways cross at separated grades (i.e. one passes over the other on a bridge), then the slip roads should be mapped as links, of the highest classification.
Links CAN be two-way roads, w/818512442 should be mapped as trunk_link as its purpose if to link the trunk road with the tertiary road - this was correct before your C/S
likewise w/699493776 that you changed a while back and I couldn't be arsed to fix it again. There are other mistakes with this way which are my fault upon looking at it again that I will fix now I've seen them.

Also please can you not remove the names from the imaginary links onto side roads as this makes interpretating the information more difficult for data customers as for example a sat nav would have to say "turn left onto road" instead of "turn left onto Halfway House Lane".

Also I suggest you start reading the wiki and the notes on the map, they can be extremely useful for not messing things up.

note/496126 for example.
hauke-stieler (2020-11-22 23:01:55+00:00): Hi,
nur ein paar Kleinigkeiten: Die Gebäude sind etwas krum und schief (soweit ich weiß bietet iD einen shortcut zum rechtwinklig machen). Zudem hast du im Nachfolge-Changeset 94600379 Hausnummern doppelt eingetragen, was ungünstig ist und auch laut wiki vermieden werden soll.

Außerdem ein evergreen bei den meisten iD Nutzern (woran aber auch iD Schuld ist): Eine Quellenangabe fehlt, die ich immer sehr hilfreich finde um einschätzen zu können wie valide die Änderungen sind. iD schreibt leider nur die benutzten Layer in den changeset, was nur bedingt hilfreich ist.

Grüße
Hauke
Kremper (2020-11-23 07:58:31+00:00): Moin!

Danke für die Hinweise, die ich als Gelegenheits-Mapper begrüße! :)

Ja, mit der Ecke bin ich auch noch nicht zufrieden. Beziehst du dich mit "krumm und schief" auf das Gebäude an der Ecke Elmshorner Straße/Ossenpadd? Das ist wirklich so, und hat mich Nerven gekostet! :)

Ansonsten benutze ich immer die Funktion  'Rechtwinklig machen'.

Die Quellenangabe möchtest du im Änderungskommentar haben?
Das wäre schwierig, da ich öfters (wegen "schlechter Sicht") umschalte.

Ansonsten habe ich mir gerade gestern JOSM heruntergeladen, in das ich mich aber erstmal einarbeiten muss.
Merkaator ist gleich wieder von der Platte geflogen.

Gruß
Frank
hauke-stieler (2020-11-23 09:28:06+00:00): Hi,

die an der Ecke Elmshorner Straße/Ossenpadd passen, die stehen ja wirklich so schief zueinander. Ich meinte eher die 96/96a an der Friedenstraße bzw. die beiden weiter oben am Ossenpadd. Bei den hast du das Gebäude in zwei Hälften geteilt, die halt zueinander schief waren. Nur leicht und ist ja auch nicht schlimm, beim "rechtwinklig machen" muss man dann aber auch beide Hälften auswählen, damit beide auch zueinander rechtwinklig werden.

Die Quellenangabe macht man beim hochladen der Änderungen. Da gibt man dann ja den Kommentar an und in iD steht dann dadrunter "Feld hinzufügen". Wenn man da drauf klickt steht da schon "Quellen", was dann eben sowas wie "survey", "Mapillary" oder auch "Bing" sein kann. Manche fügen da auch Infos zu offenen Datenquellen ein oder sowas wie "note/1990167", wenn die Info aus einem OSM-Hinweis kommt. Ich sehe ab und zu Änderungen, die keinen Sinn ergeben und muss dann immer nachfragen woher die Daten kommen, da macht ein source-tag am changeset es ein wenig leichter auf den ersten Blick zu beurteilen.

Das mit JOSM hätte ich dir direkt empfohlen, aber das brauche ich dann ja nicht mehr :D Wenn du Fragen bei JOSM hast, gibt es eine deutsche und hamburger Telegram Gruppe (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_centric_Telegram_accounts) oder eben die Mailinglisten (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de und https://lists.openstreetmap.de/mailman/listinfo/hamburg). Da werden häufiger Fragen zu JOSM, tagging, etc. gestellt. Gibt auch weitere Kanäle, Richtung Slack und Discord z.B..
Allgemein ist JOSM aber der richtige Weg und zum rechtwinklig machen ist auch da der Shortcut "q" :D

Grüße
Hauke
Kremper (2020-11-23 09:57:51+00:00): Nochmals danke für die Hinweise! 
Ich gelobe Besserung. :D

Das Adresse-Tag hatte ein anderer Mapper eingetragen - hatte ich vergessen zu löschen und wäre mir aber demnächst auch selber aufgefallen.
Es ist auf jeden Fall schön zu sehen, wie aus einer Mapping-Wüste mit der Zeit etwas wird.
Insbesondere wenn man die Feinarbeit hier vor Ort fast alleine macht. :)

Frohes Schaffen
Frank
MikiDi (2021-07-12 07:11:19+00:00): Mogelijk ging er iets mis bij het toevoegen van de Mapillary-link hier. De link komt uit op een aed-foto nabij een sporthal te Tessenderlo, niet nabij de betreffende bakkerij te Westerlo.
Gr,
Michaël
philippec (2021-07-12 08:11:28+00:00): Bedankt, dat gebeurt wel meer.
Gelukkig heeft Mapillary coördinaten.
Ik heb het verbeterd.
jxpsert (2023-05-26 06:56:04+00:00): Hi Philippe,
waarom is de "indoor" key hier een Mapillary link? Zo te zien op de foto's van Mapillary hoort dit "indoor=no" te zijn.
philippec (2023-05-26 07:01:30+00:00): Dat was een foutje.
Dankzij een foto is zoiets rap rechtgezet.
Ik heb het verbeterd.
G_Meredith (2020-12-05 20:42:02+00:00): I was wondering why you changed these routes to paths. They are signposted as combined cycle routes  / footpaths. The original tag was correct.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=cycleway
◪ Jarv (2020-12-06 15:53:24+00:00): Presuming you are referring to the changes on Centurion Way. highway=cycleway is for ways that are designed & designated only for bicycles (however can have foot access to), however Centurion Way is designed as a shared path, with both foot & cycle traffic, as such it is tagged as a path with foot & bicycle with designated access as per guidelines set out in the wiki.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath#Usage_as_a_universal_tag
G_Meredith (2020-12-06 17:06:07+00:00): I am referring to all the alterations to cycle routes around Chichester.
It is an unnecessary and counter productive change.  The original tag ( which is allowed ) meant cycle routes would be rendered on Osmand. Now cyclists just see what looks like a footpath rendered on the map.
◪ Jarv (2020-12-06 21:29:17+00:00): Could you give an example of where, looking at all the ones changed only seem to be shared spaces, not cycle tracks/cycleways

As far as I can see, the changeset improved the tagging. If the paths were designed for bicycles with access for foot traffic, the previous tagging would be correct, but that isn't the case at any of the changes on this change set.

OSM is to reflect what is actually on the ground, and shouldn't be altered to suit a render (such as OSMand).

I've just downloaded OSMand, and it is showing highway=path and bicycle=designated in blue (when in the cycle mode) just the same as highway=cycleway. Likewise every other service I've used shows them the same. Maybe you are running an old version of the software, or not on the cycle mode.
G_Meredith (2020-12-07 08:59:17+00:00): No.I am using Osmand Live with the latest map updates and cycling profile set. How an element is rendered is fundamental to how it is interpreted hence my comments.  A significant and meaningful characteristic of the ways is that cyclists are permitted. OSM works by identifying the significant. Your changeset has ignored that principle and tagged the generic. As a result the map is diminished.
◪ Jarv (2020-12-07 17:09:37+00:00): Well OSMand is rending highway=path & bicycle=designated the exact same as highway=cycleway.
The path is a shared surface, used by more foot traffic than bicycles, as well as being designed for both. So highway=cycleway wouldn't be suitable since how its currently tagged reflects is use better.
The bicycle relation exists (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/21018) & it is tagged as designated for cycles, so OSM and any render, router or other system can easily identify it as suitable and preferable for bicycles to use.

If you wish to ask someone at the Data Working Group or another admin role to resolve this then go for it.
G_Meredith (2020-12-07 18:09:57+00:00): Your first point is incorrect. Osmand update their maps once a month. The current map rending is from my tags not yours. 
Your second point is inaccurate. As a resident and cyclist in Chichester I am fully aware how cycle routes are utilised.
Your third point is also incorrect. If you were to subscribe to Osmand Live and obtain up to date maps you would see that the ways that you have altered are rendered as footpaths.
Your actions have caused unnecessary conflict. You have made alterations without having the decency to discuss the matter with the original mapper first. You are now expecting others at OSM to expend resources on a matter that did not require resolving in the first place. I think you should bow out and reflect.

.
◪ Jarv (2020-12-08 12:40:02+00:00): http://jervi.uk/stuff/path.pdf
Take a look.
I am now even more certain that highway=cycleway is just plain wrong for this path.
If you can come up with any VALID points for it to be incorrectly tagged as a cycleway, I'd like to hear them, otherwise I am not interested in your victim playing games.

I'm not going to contact the original mapper unless it was recently edited, or had a note on it explaining why it was tagged in such a way.
G_Meredith (2020-12-08 20:08:07+00:00): You are using the base layer in Osmand. You have not configured any profiles in the app. There are many settings, map styles and map types. They in turn can be configured in numerous ways.

My maps have again had a full update today.  All your amendments on my cycling profile still show as footpaths. I have used Osmand for cycle touring for many years so I do know my why around the app. 

Using one 14 minute video to somehow validate the use of a “path” is not credible. I have lived in Chichester since 1994. I know how all cycle paths in the area are utilised.

LCN  88 is connected to and forms part of National Cycle Route 2 which passes through Chichester. Details can be found here.

.https://www.sustrans.org.uk/find-a-route-on-the-national-cycle-network/centurion-way/

As custodians of the cycle network Sustrans state on the above website that 
“The Centurion Way is part of the National Cycle Network, cared for by Sustrans”. 
Their logo also appears on the routes information boards, 

I repeat OSM works on the principle of identifying the significant. I think you should show good grace and withdraw.
◪ Jarv (2020-12-10 12:40:47+00:00): I've put this to the mailing list to see what the general consensus is.
Richard (2020-12-10 12:55:35+00:00): Thomas, I'm afraid you're not correct that when you say "highway=cycleway is for ways that are designed & designated only for bicycles".

That has never been the case in UK mapping practice. It wouldn't make sense if it was - there are very, very few paths in the UK that are bicycle-only.

highway=cycleway can be a more useful tag than highway=path as it suggests that the path has been constructed to standards suitable for cycle traffic. To take an extreme example, a mountain path in Scotland could be tagged highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated, surface=gravel. All of those might be true yet it still wouldn't be practically navigable by bike (unless you're Danny Macaskill). highway=cycleway provides that reassurance.
G_Meredith (2020-12-10 13:01:56+00:00): Could you please indicate which mailing list you are referring to.
◪ Jarv (2020-12-10 16:41:09+00:00): If the tagging guidelines of cycleways/paths in the UK is different to the rest of the world, should there be a dedicated wiki page for "cycle tagging in the UK" or something?

I am under the impression that highway=cycleway is for ways that are fully designed around bicycles, such as the examples in the video below.
https://youtu.be/D-o6mSnyWTM

While there isn't a great deal of these  in the UK, how would it be possible to differentiate between these and shared use paths if they are both tagged the same?

Gavin, The talk-gb mailing list.
Richard (2020-12-10 16:50:53+00:00): I'm not saying it's different; I'm just talking about UK mapping practice here because this changeset is in the UK. FWIW, there are plenty of shared-use ways in (off the top of my head) France and the US which are tagged with highway=cycleway.

There really are precious few cycle-only paths in the UK - I don't recall ever encountering one and I run a cycling website! - but if you do encounter one, you simply tag it with highway=cycleway, foot=no.
◪ Jarv (2020-12-10 17:12:11+00:00): So on the wiki there is this section
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath#Usage_as_a_universal_tag
I presume this is correct somewhere in the world, but not here. Plus the article shows the typical Road sign for shared/segregated foot/cycle ways (although we omit the horizontal line). On the cycleway page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=cycleway it shows the sign, however this sign is for an actual cycleway/track (although foot traffic isn't prohibited, it is not designed for it).

These really ought to be clarified since they hold conflicting information.
iandees (2020-11-23 16:25:09+00:00): Please don't delete existing roads en masse.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/94598760
olehz (2020-12-28 12:21:34+00:00): а де то було вирішено, що райони міст обласного рівня тре понизити з 7 до 10?
1gorok (2021-01-07 09:44:43+00:00): Привіт. Заходь в чат спільноти в телеграмі. Там і вирішили. Хоча, остаточно не прийняли адмін левели. Ще триває обговорення. Але міст районного і обласного значення більше немає. Відповідно всі міста і села матимуть один адмін_левел, або ж не матимуть взагалі, і позначатимуться лише тегом place=city/town/village. Але знову ж таки не прийняли ще новий АТУ спільнотою. Тому тимчасово рівень для громад =7, старостинських округи (якщо такі є = 8), всі населені пункти 9. Відповідно, райони в містах не можуть мати рівні вище за рівень міста. Тому 10.але це все тимчасово. Такі справи.
1gorok (2021-01-07 09:45:29+00:00): А ще на форумі є тема де триває обговорення. Приєднуйся
Pitoresker Pi (2020-11-26 14:40:08+00:00): Hallo Weitwanderin und willkommen bei OSM!
Bitte beachte, dass der name-Schlüssel nur für tatsächliche (Eigen-)Namen von Objekten zu verwenden ist. Eine Beschreibung wie "Tischtennisplatte für 4 Spieler" gehört da nicht rein.
Siehe dazu auch: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Verwende_das_Name-Tag_nicht.2C_um_Dinge_zu_beschreiben
Weitwanderin (2020-11-26 14:56:37+00:00): Hallo Pitoresker Pi, danke für den Hinweis! Ich habe den Text in die Beschreibung verschoben.
Zebra131 (2020-11-22 21:48:27+00:00): C'est une erreur veuillez ne pas souscrire cette adresse.
je corrige maintenant dans un nouveau post
Otenkiya (2020-12-03 20:52:36+00:00): 今回通行止めとなった区間は、物理的に消えたわけではないので、今後は wayを消さずにdisused化するようにしてください。
iandees (2020-11-23 16:21:33+00:00): Please don't delete driveways.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/94599824
user_5359 (2020-11-23 15:21:51+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Short question about your entry: You have entered a named object with a hashtag. Is this really the name of the object or "only" a label for your action?
kartonage (2020-11-23 18:09:42+00:00): Hej,

magst du dir mal bitte entsprechend https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:FAQ#Warum_benutzt_ihr_nicht_Google_Maps_oder_sonstwas_f.C3.BCr_eure_Daten.3F durchlesen und dann entscheiden, wieviele Daten du hier von Google Maps/Google Streetview übernommen hast und gegebenenfalls entfernt werden müssen?
In jedem Fall bitte ich dich nicht weiter von diesen Quellen Daten zu benutzen.

Danke.
cronoser (2020-11-22 23:08:07+00:00): se han añadido detalles, no revertido.
user_5359 (2020-11-29 09:04:25+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/node/8152388666? What is the meaning of the tag faces=traffic_signals (normally a number 1 until 4)
Supaplex030 (2020-11-29 10:16:50+00:00): Thanks! This tag does not belong there - I have no idea how it got there :) Corrected it.
Viajero Perdido (2020-11-23 23:44:42+00:00): Hi.  I made a crude emergency fix to the river, in the same area as your changes yesterday, to fix a sudden breakage of the massive polygon.  There were a handful of validation errors (inner overlapping outer, self-crossing ways), and when I fixed these, the river started rendering again.
SomeoneElse (2020-11-23 00:19:19+00:00): Most of this was just from walking between North Moor Lane and Towthorpe Moor Lane, and undoing some of the poorly-done "roughly drawn landuse" that had been added.  In many case I'd already added hedges (from survey and Bing) and ditches (from OSSV, survey and Bing) so there wasn't really any excuse for the landuse tracer to get it wrong, but unfortunately get it wrong they did - connecting fields to ditches, omitting gates from field boundaries and having landuses either overlap where illogical (e.g. fields) or "colouring in" every last corner as something made-up such as scrub when there isn't any evidence for it.
sladen (2020-12-12 14:12:52+00:00): *sigh*

There is so much constructive mapping still to be done.
user_5173844 (2020-12-12 15:12:47+00:00): Hi sladen,

I like what you've done with publicly accessible areas. If you were to expand this level of mapping to a larger portion of Cambridge I would be happy to join you with it.

As for private gardens, for privacy reasons please limit the level of detail to larger features observable from the outside or air: buildings, fences, tennis courts, pools etc. The latter tagged as access=private.

My main gripe was of course the private BBQ mapped as a public memorial site. That's just plain vandalism.
murble (2020-12-12 15:22:34+00:00): The owners of the property are fine with this level of detail.  There are no privacy concerns.

The BBQ exists and has the plaque with the inscription.  I helpfully included a photo link.
Further more it was tagged access=private!
EinvalSledge (2020-12-12 16:11:51+00:00): I'm the owner of this property, and I'm happy with the details here. We regularly hold (well, *held* in years before the plague) large events here and both sladen and murble have visited in the past.

"Vandalism" sounds a bit strong...
sladen (2020-12-12 16:41:09+00:00): This (long) write-up by @SK53 is worth a read; it details appearing at a Public Inquiry to give evidence regarding OpenStreetMap: 

* "OpenStreetMap at a Public Inquiry" (2013-10-02) http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2013/10/openstreetmap-at-public-inquiry.html

Most relevant is a paragraph near the end:

"…I was leaving … opposite was Nottingham Station. Some time earlier in the year Paul had added a lot of detail on OSM to the station. *At the time I thought it was rather absurdly over-the-top.* … it suddenly dawned on me why he'd put in so much detail. There had been another [public] inquiry earlier in the year about a right of way (PRoW) across the station footbridge. Paul had needed a detailed map: OSM was to hand. This was an object lesson that it's quite hard to predict what OSM might be used for, and that, in general, it's best to assume other mappers have sensible reasons for mapping what they do. "Live, and let live""
gszkr (2022-05-11 12:19:26+00:00): Kolejna masówka z wrzucaniem nieistniejących budynków jakoby na podstawie Geoportal - ortho :( 
Nie ma i nie było w dającej się sprawdzić historii (do 19 lat wstecz) takiego budynku: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/875912087/history
cronoser (2020-11-22 23:08:13+00:00): se han añadido detalles, no revertido.
Hungerburg (2020-11-25 09:07:29+00:00): Hallo MaPeTh, meinst nicht auch, dass das Problem mit den Tankstellenzufahrten weniger das ist, dass da kein Radweg ist, als dass es gar keine Primary LINKs sind?

PS: Wie kommt der Editor darauf, dass beim Exerzierweg die Angabe fehlt? Die fehlt dann ja wohl sehr sehr oft?
Meep36 (2020-11-28 07:27:17+00:00): Primary link ist das natürlich nicht.

Aber das bei osm das Ziel ist das Informationslevel zu reduzieren ist mir neu. Haben die Wege Radwege? Nein. Fehlt diese Info flächendeckend? Ja! Sollten wir daran dann nicht arbeiten? Gibt halt auch noch Radfahrer in der Welt.
Hungerburg (2020-11-28 08:37:19+00:00): Radfahrer hier ebenfalls :) Die Info fehlt flächendeckend nicht, wenn die Grundannahme ist, dass kein Radweg vorhanden ist. Bei einer Tankstellenzufahrt wohl zweifelsfrei? Wo nicht? Ich kann mir eigentlich nur dort vorstellen, dass das Fehlen sinnvoll angemerkt wird, wo ein Radweg für ein kurzes Stück unterbrochen ist, damit klar wird, dass das nicht vergessen wurde einzutragen.
Hungerburg (2020-11-29 18:21:03+00:00): Hallo MaPeTh, ich hab nachgelesen bei StreetComplete: Das Fehlen eines Fahrradweges wird eingetragen, damit derselbe Quest nicht noch einmal angezeigt wird. Mit OSM hat das nur indirekt zu tun.
yvecai (2020-11-23 19:40:18+00:00): Cool, la GTJ à ski de fond passe désormais presque derrière chez moi :)
https://www.opensnowmap.org/mobile.html?zoom=15&lat=46.71896&lon=6.47487
Par contre, pour l'enneigement à 500m, j'ai comme un doute?

Trêve de plaisanteries, beaucoup de grandes relations ont été affectées par ce changeset, pensez-vous pouvoir réparer ? Sinon, faites signe pour un coup de main.
Salutations, 
Yves
user_1566574 (2020-11-23 20:09:07+00:00): Oh non ! 😱 Il semble que j'ai eu un problème avec les relations hier, notamment la Rue Arago que j'ai pu rectifier. Je pense avoir une assez bonne maîtrise de JOSM, mais je n'ai aucune idée de ce qu'il s'est passé ! Désolé et merci beaucoup du signalement, il va falloir passer en revue les relations (notamment avec https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/relation/1482062) et annuler ces changements...

Je ne comprend vraiment pas comment ça a pu arriver. o_o
Bon allez c'est parti pour réparer ça ! 😂 Je vous tiendrais informé, encore désolé et merci !
user_1566574 (2020-11-23 21:15:41+00:00): Voilà !
• Ce qu'il s'est passé :
Les membres de 5 relations ont été totalement remplacés par ceux d'une relation. Les voici :
– https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7413278
– https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1482062
– https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/226467
– https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/541598
– https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/206658

Objets provenant de la relation : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10329565

• Ce qui a été fait :
Les 16 relations du groupe de modifications ont été passées en revue, celles qui avaient été largement modifiées dans le viseur. La conclusion est un "clonage" des 154 membres d'une relation sur 5 autres (toujours inexpliqué !).
Elles ont été restaurées via le changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94662119

Normalement tout devrait rentrer dans l'ordre cette fois. Merci beaucoup pour votre vigilance ! Bonne soirée et bon courage. 😉
Cartographiquement. 🗺️
yvecai (2020-11-24 18:23:58+00:00): Ah, dommage. Bon ben je reprendrai la voiture pour aller skier alors :-)
user_1566574 (2020-11-24 19:09:59+00:00): Désolé... :') Votre faute aussi, si vous ne preniez pas la voiture, pas de changement climatique, donc de la neige derrière chez vous... Eh ! 😉

(Ça fera une occasion de [re]-visiter le Haut-Doubs !)