piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SHARCRASH (2022-04-04 11:27:44+00:00): Now about the way in question, in general, the aspects available to recognize a track on terrain are the erosion, interconnection needs in the way network, free space for passage between elements, ground shaping. Our track 965429633, meets the following: interconnection in network, free space for passage (even though there are few fallen branches or logs (but this happens often after strong winds and this should be expressed in OSM with a barrier feature) and ground shaping with its large cutting. Last time I checked it, it didn't have significant erosion and according previous tags, that's why I've put it as tracktype=grade5. Most tracks in natural areas lack human made structure and layout to make less human impact to the environment. Therefore they are prone to renaturalization, like growing vegetation, dead leaves or fallen trunks hiding the erosion, etc. The more degraded, the faster naturalized. Ways in such areas are in constant evolution and may enter a period of disuse for lack of interest, or need but it may be used by few pedestrians attracted by the beauty of untouched nature, horse riders (horses like soft surfaces and large passages) or in the future for forestry vehicles (trees will certainly be cut one day). Did you ever notice a lift barrier on an overgrown track? That's what I mean. Should we delete such track? Not at all, obviously it is a way but restricted to be used by quads, and other off-road vehicles. When not obvious anymore, like there are small shrubs, high vegetation, etc. I totally agree to remove it from the map. But here it's clearly recognizable!
As proof of recognition by other people, there is this post on Facebook talking about the history of this way https://www.facebook.com/Janescube/posts/353281240017925 If you don't have access to FB here are some of the photos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jak9dmXrJ4Y4l9NQQPcg_p82lExi631r 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hgtAI4psSaYcvdIIKMUh22sAEpnZWdHw 
In extra, it has been existing since long a time, see this official old map https://drive.google.com/file/d/119hIq5X-VU6Mw-BOrHBLpNZXiOSdimPc 
This track can also be found on Waze : https://www.waze.com/en/live-map/directions?latlng=49.81287171491718%2C6.193928718566895 
And on Geoportail.lu : http://g-o.lu/3/dY3p 
There are also the previous contributors who think it was a highway! I'm not even the original creator! I just reactivated it after the vandal!

Also for the sake of a faithful map from reality and orientation, if there is only the path in OSM, a tourist who doesn't know at all the region will have to do more guesses and on the location it may confuse the large track, since it is not used often, with the parallel single trail over the cutting. Apparently sometimes the track is muddy, this is why the side path has been created for a nicer passage.
So now explain me why one inexperienced mapper (possibly totally ignorant) should be trusted above several other contributors who clearly can identify this way and even professionals who provide other maps?
SHARCRASH (2022-04-04 11:44:20+00:00): PS: the previous contributors from the track I talked about are in this way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/71029920/history
You need to revert the changeset 108206240 from the vandal in your editor in order to see how it was plotted previously. Revert further in the past if needed.
SomeoneElse (2022-04-04 12:32:14+00:00): @SHARCRASH, I've not read all of your text above, but I've read enough to know that when it comes to the OSM community, you are "the vandal" here. as previous messages at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SHARCRASH/blocks make clear.
Please read those again, and in particular https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5866 .
SHARCRASH (2022-04-04 12:48:22+00:00): You haven't read all... Right, how respectful to contributors and great fake excuse to ignore my defence. Since you're taking it that way, I'll take further steps...

Now to backup your claim instead of making empty nonsense communication, you should list a handful examples of data in question and provide also evidence from the terrain (photos, videos, GPS data, etc...) to prove i vandalize data.
SomeoneElse (2022-04-04 12:56:23+00:00): > to prove i vandalize data.
I believe that you're "vandalising the community" (to use your word); 
I don't know the ground truth of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/965429633/history since I have never been there.  I also asked you for source details (specifically "What evidence do you have that
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/965429633/history actually exists as something that someone on the ground would think was an actual highway? ") but have received none.
SHARCRASH (2022-04-04 13:11:08+00:00): I am vandalizing the community? Concretely how??? Wow i must have some "amazing pseudo psycho-influence" via internet. Hilarious! It's strange though that other people contact me (i have given the names of recent contributors) to ask me my opinion and/or advice. 

Back to the track, you said it yourself, you haven't read all my text. The proofs are written/shared there though with photos, third part post in Facebook and other professional maps. You're ridiculing yourself!
SomeoneElse (2022-04-04 14:07:28+00:00): OK - one last chance - please explain where you have linked to any "proof" above.
SHARCRASH (2022-04-04 18:46:11+00:00): What's your problem? I'm not your slave! I've already explained above why i think it's a valid track and given you links to photos and external third part sources who state it as a valid usable way too! If you're too lazy to read, that's not my fault!

Anyway, I went check today to have a fresh survey. Here are my own new photos :
-  direction to N, there is only one fallen trunk but this happens often depending of weather and if trees are weakened, an authorized 4x4 vehicle can pass over it, horses also as i explained above, they like large soft terrain https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tvNQP9QXMrlU_IJNJjBA9nQBY1wm-_ih
- direction to S to the crossroad with my car as size reference in the back to show that a 4 wheeled vehicle can pass
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X5M_fTc6o1U17qo_pVBYeqQZ69fb41Tr
- proof of relatively recent erosion of a vehicle https://drive.google.com/file/d/17ZNDe39d7jzAXS-HhweLz5wYG3sB5ULZ
- someone added fine gravel at the entrance of the track, it's even after the entrance of the single trail going above the cutting (to the right of the photo), so it was not only added for the path https://drive.google.com/file/d/18nuQ_3PvAE1_D7KzSN55FWjjeP9rL5Ii/
- official board from authorities warning of frequent fallen branches/trunks because of weakened trees, as i explained you here above it may happen but it doesn't mean that the way isn't anymore usable or forbidden: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x2eFZ5sWSsKAA6CmYv9i6KWSKysEQ6hX
SomeoneElse (2022-04-07 08:08:01+00:00): Thanks for the extra links above - I'll go through them (and in particular the lat/long info) later.
SomeoneElse (2022-04-16 10:29:44+00:00): Re the changes to 965429633, I've had a look at the pictures.  The tags that it has had can be seen at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/965429633 .

Working up the hill, it clearly has/had some legal status
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x2eFZ5sWSsKAA6CmYv9i6KWSKysEQ6hX/edit
20220404_170504.jpg
(Avis au public)

and at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18nuQ_3PvAE1_D7KzSN55FWjjeP9rL5Ii/edit
20220404_170403.jpg
a bit of the old surface underneath can be seen

however at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17ZNDe39d7jzAXS-HhweLz5wYG3sB5ULZ/edit
20220404_170255.jpg
although the old surface can be seen,it doesn't look wide enough to be a track

Further up the hill
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X5M_fTc6o1U17qo_pVBYeqQZ69fb41Tr/edit
20220404_170240.jpg
doesn't look like much of a track any more - extra tags would surely help to better describe it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tvNQP9QXMrlU_IJNJjBA9nQBY1wm-_ih/edit
20220404_170232.jpg
doesn't look like a track any more - it just looks like a gap between the trees.
SomeoneElse (2022-04-16 10:32:11+00:00): In summary - I can see your point of view, and I can also see the point of view of those who say that you're wrong.  Unlike your profile picture, not everything in OSM is black and white - sometimes we need to discuss things with other people and come to a compromise.
SHARCRASH (2022-04-16 11:28:43+00:00): The track is wide enough! I placed my car at the beginning of the track to clearly demonstrate that a 4 wheeled vehicle can pass, see on photos 
20220404_170240.jpg and  
20220404_170255.jpg !

What i did is rightfully delete the prefix tag from a vandal who likes to conceal features. Hence my big commentary. Previous several contributors from mine and his edits did plot it also as a track and kept editing it as a track. I've given you also several third part sources outside from OSM that consider it as a usable way! Not my problem if you ignore them and ignore the definition stated in OSM's Wiki! 

How funny, as you just said now, we need to discuss, but they haven't contacted me, they directly contacted you. How civilised and cooperative is that!? Sounds like the advise you just gave me is rather for him/her/them! 

I haven't seen the proofs of those "other contributors" you are pretending... So i demand also where are their proofs and what are the usernames from the people claiming this is not a track?
SomeoneElse (2022-04-16 11:54:08+00:00): ... and here we go again.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are a "vandal".
As to other contributors providing evidence - your own photographs showed that they were at least partially correct!
It appears that everything in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5311 still applies.
Please take a step back and consider how you deal with other people in the project.  If you don't change your ways we may have to restrict your future access to it.
And please, don't try and "argue" with this comment that I have just made.  It will be counterproductive.
SHARCRASH (2022-04-16 12:17:55+00:00): I won't shut up mister totalitarian!

People are vandals when they delete feature and LIED ABOUT THEIR EXISTENCE!!! I've given evidence they did so when i had to prove that the features he deleted were still existing, this on tens of features!!! OK??? Do you understand??? 

I asked you where are their evidences of those people??? I want to see them! I want to see if you judged fairly or just assumed they were right, blocking me without even having seen evidence! And who are those people???

No it doesn't apply! I clearly unmasked a vandal, I proved it and I've created those fixme for the sole purpose to prove he was tempering countless data. In extra, woodpeck was wrong, and NONE OF YOU PROVIDED AN INVESTIGATION, NOT EVEN A RESPONSE!!! All goes AGAINST YOU!!! It's not because you are a DWG member that you are foolproof! I could have accepted a simple block when i was in conflict with tomolobla since he was blocked too, that was fair enough! But how I was treated forward was unfair, tomolobla could continue his vandalism whereas i had been blocked again even though i was authorised if i had been on terrain and I've given proofs of doing so. Woodpeck conveniently IGNORED them!!! How i have been treated and how you are treating me is inadmissible! I've been by far more cooperative that you!!!

So now since i'm talking to a wall who ignores facts, proofs, is harassing me and making favouritism too, i'm going to take steps forward!!!
SHARCRASH (2022-05-07 11:25:16+00:00): Andy Townsend, I'm still waiting for the names and evidences of the other part.
SomeoneElse (2022-05-07 11:46:06+00:00): See my comment above (based on your photo evidence) "In summary - I can see your point of view, and I can also see the point of view of those who say that you're wrong".
SHARCRASH (2022-05-07 11:58:07+00:00): That's not what i've asked. That's just your comment. I'm asking the evidences, be it photos or videos they have given you in order to contact me and block me. And I'm also asking their usernames since we are in a community based project between contributors who should normally cooperate. In such community each contributor deserve to know what the others do.
SomeoneElse (2022-05-07 12:10:20+00:00): For the avoidance of doubt, your most recent block https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5916 was not because of something that some other mapper said but something that you yourself had said.

Previously (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5866 ) we had had reports that you were changing tagging to reflect your point of view; and I replied above that "I can see your point of view, and I can also see the point of view of those who say that you're wrong"  I also said "Unlike your profile picture, not everything in OSM is black and white - sometimes we need to discuss things with other people and come to a compromise".

What absolutely won't happen here is that the DWG will choose which of two sides is "correct"; both arguments have merit.  What we're asking you to do is to take other views on board when you edit in areas where other people are editing too.
SHARCRASH (2022-05-07 12:45:13+00:00): Once again, that's not what i'm asking you! Why are you evading what i'm asking for??? I want to see the evidences, be it photos or videos, the other part gave you in order to contact and block me. You did take side by blocking me! Hence why i'm asking you the evidences to assess how you've been lead to that action. And I'm also asking you their usernames for the reason i explained you in my previous comment.
SHARCRASH (2022-05-07 12:49:29+00:00): And i recall you that you had indeed said "sometimes we need to discuss things with other people and come to a compromise", whereas i have not been contacted by the said other part! Which is in total contradiction with your statement, with which i agree, hence why I find this utterly unfair and I want to go to the bottom of this matter!
user_5359 (2021-12-26 16:52:27+00:00): Hello! Please check the way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194105092. Did you mean int_ref instead of int_tef ?
user_5359 (2021-12-25 20:26:45+00:00): Bitte löscht keine existierende Weg. Der Weg war korrekt mit access=no (kein Zutritt auch nicht für Anwohner) gekennzeichnet.
AnwohnerBuschwindroeschenweg (2021-12-25 22:35:26+00:00): Es geht mir um einen Teil des Pfads 935256145:  Der Teil des Weges 935256145 zwischen den Grundstücken Eichenstraße 27 und Buschwindröschenweg 8a und 8b sowie zwischen Buschwindröschenweg 6(ehemals 4) und Buschwindröschenweg 8a und 8b existiert nicht. Dort befindet sich Gartenland und die genannten Grundstücke sind fest eingezäunt.

Bitte diesen Teil des Pfades löschen.
NiLaKol (2021-12-31 06:22:27+00:00): @user_5359
Einfach reverten ist hier nicht gut. Du hast damit die Information gelöscht, das Weg 1015315185 bis Grundstücksgrenze Eichenstraße 27/29 (node 9366005109) begangen werden kann. Mir ist die Situation da vor Ort nicht klar daher einige Fragen:

Warum nimmst du an dass AnwohnerBuschwindroeschenweg diesen Teil des Weges falsch eingetragen hat?

Warum nimmst du an dass der Weg davor korrekt eingetragen war, ich sehe den auf keinem Luftbild?
user_5359 (2021-12-31 17:50:06+00:00): @AnwohnerBuschwindroeschenweg: Entschuldigung, dass die Reaktion auf Deine Antwort so lange gedauert hat, vor dem Jahresschluß gab es noch einiges zu erledigen und ich musste mich erst in Deine Beschreibung eindenken.

@NiLaKol Da bin ich komplett anderer Meinung. 
Die deutschen Kommunikationskanäle sind voll von Geschichten bei denen Anwohner Wege einfach löschen, weil Sie den Zutritt unterbinden wollen.

Und leider reagieren sehr wenige von Ihnen auf höfliche Anfragen nach Begründungen. Deshalb ist es üblich, dass erstmal der Fehler korrigiert wird und dann nachgefragt wird. Zu 90% sind diese Löschaktionen auch berechtigt.

Deshalb nochmal Danke für Deine ausführliche Begründung  @AnwohnerBuschwindroeschenweg, wenn dies in der Kommentierung des ursprünglichen Änderungssatzes schon erwähnt worden wäre, hätte ich nicht so reagiert. 

Kleiner Hinweis: Bitte Wege nicht neuzeichnen, sondern teilen, und nur den überflüssigen Teil löschen. So habe ich auch meinen Änderungssatz revertiert und den Weg gekürzt. Die Änderung dürfte sich bald in den Karten zeigen.

Eine eingezäunten Garten kann man auch mit barrier=fence (siehe https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/DE:Tag:barrier%3Dfence) zusätzlich markieren.
NiLaKol (2021-12-31 21:12:28+00:00): @user_5359
revert, ohne irgendeine Plausibilitätsprüfung finde ich nicht gut. Dir hätte z.B. auch auffallen können, dass die erste Erfassung des Weges vor 8 Monaten lizenzrechtlich nicht in Ordnung war (CS 103610621 source=Google Earth). Wie auch immer, du schreibt dass die deutschen Kommunikationskanäle voll davon sind und es üblich sei zu reverten und erst dann nachzufragen. Kannst du mir dazu noch nen Link schicken? Also, zum Kanal und wo das als übliches Vorgehen dokumentiert ist.
AnwohnerBuschwindroeschenweg (2022-01-09 19:36:02+00:00): @NiLaKol und @user_5359

Nun ist der Weg korrekt eingetragen.

Noch eine Frage: Was ist CS 103610621 source=Google Earth?
user_5359 (2022-01-09 20:09:08+00:00): @AnwohnerBuschwindroeschenweg
Du weist eventuell das man das Hintergrundbild vom Editor ändern kann (im ID das fünfte Icon am rechten Rand mit den verschiedenen Ebenen). Google Earth wirst Du dort aber nicht finden.

Allerdings ist Google Earth eher eine Quelle, die man mit äußerster Vorsicht geniessen sollte (Allenfalls als Erinnerungsstütze von privaten Kenntnissen). Hier gilt im Allgemeinen die Regel: Nicht von anderen Karten abzeichnen! Dies gilt auch bei Google für die Luftbilder (siehe Nutzungsbedingungen von Google) [im Gegensatz von Bing].

Der Ausschnitt Eurer Straße ist hier zu finden: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Buschwindröschenweg,+21224+Rosengarten/@53.3666704,9.9181711,135m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47b197a815202ce7:0x46cd20a367008506!8m2!3d53.3666672!4d9.9187366

Es gibt aber keine Rundumbilder oder Streetview Bilder aus Euren Bereich. Also hoffe ich mal dies war eine nicht ganz korrekte Quellenangabe.
AnwohnerBuschwindroeschenweg (2022-01-09 20:29:19+00:00): Danke für die Erklärungen.
Lyon-St-Clair (2022-03-02 21:30:43+00:00): Translohr is not a guided bus, it's a tram 'cause he can't move without his rail. And he doesn't have license plate and it's over 24m long. Please, revert all yours changes. In France, only TVR system are guided buses.
Lyon-St-Clair (2022-03-02 21:32:15+00:00): In french regulations it's a tram too.
nouvelle vague (2021-12-26 10:41:12+00:00): l'ehpad samdo est bien avec le ssr à la rue de la maternité!
Miroslav Suchý (2021-12-28 17:57:46+00:00): Proč by tohle měl být ostrov?
dcapillae (2021-12-25 20:57:31+00:00): Buenas tardes, R2004.

«building=church» es más preciso que «building=yes». ¿Por qué cambiarlo?

Por otro lado, no es necesario añadir al edificio la etiqueta «amenity=place_of_worship». Esta etiqueta ya se encuentra en un elemento área que circunscribe al propio edificio y define el contorno del lugar de culto.

Finalmente, la clave «worship» no se usa como se ha usado aquí. Véase «Key:worship» en el wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aworship

Revertiré este conjunto de cambios, no es correcto en ninguno de sus puntos.

Si necesita ayuda para empezar a mapear, por favor, consulte la guía de principiantes: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Gu%C3%ADa_de_principiantes.

Atentamente,

Daniel
user_7508115 (2022-01-25 16:42:36+00:00): Hola buenas, sólo intentaba cambiar el color que resulta el edificio en el mapa, dado que por alguna razón algunas iglesias se ven en un tono más oscuro que otra, saludos.
dcapillae (2022-01-25 17:30:25+00:00): Hola, R2004.

Si desea añadir el color del edificio, puede usar la etiqueta «building:colour=*» en el elemento OSM que defina al edificio (building=*) o la parte del edificio (building:part=*) que sea de ese color. En el wiki tiene los detalles sobre el uso de esta etiqueta: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:colour

Si tiene cualquier duda, no dude consultar. Gracias por su colaboración.

Atentamente,

Daniel
user_7508115 (2022-01-25 18:19:22+00:00): Buenas tardes, no era indicar el color del edificio lo que quería hacer. En algunos dispositivos, algunas iglesias y otros edificios religiosos aparecen en un tono marrón oscuro, mientras que el resto aparecen con la misma tonalidad que los otros edificios. Lo que yo pretendía era que se vieran de forma homogénea en el mapa.

Si lo ve conveniente, puede ser posible adjuntarle una captura de pantalla para que vea la diferencia de tonalidad.

Saludos.
dcapillae (2022-01-25 19:42:48+00:00): Los edificios en el mapa del sitio web de OSM se muestran todos de color gris conforme a las especificaciones del estilo cartográfico OSM Carto o capa de teselas estándar de OSM: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Capa_de_teselas_est%C3%A1ndar

Si se desea, se puede usar otro proveedor de teselas para personalizar como se ven los edificios en el mapa (son posibles múltiples colores y diseños). Lo que no es posible en OSM y se considera una mala práctica es etiquetar para el representador: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Edificios#No_etiquetar_para_el_representador

En el caso de la Iglesia del Santo Cristo de la Salud, se encuentra bien mapeada y convenientemente etiquetada. El edificio se ve en color gris y el área que la circunda y la identifica como lugar de culto (área que engloba al edificio) en un gris de tonalidad ligeramente diferente. El resultado puede no ser satisfactorio, pero eso no es culpa de los datos sino del representador (en este caso, la capa por defecto de OSM). No se deben modificar los datos de forma artificial para que se muestren conforme a nuestras preferencias.

Espero haber ayudado a aclarar este punto. OSM tiene algunas normas, sencillas y no muy numerosas, pero que conviene seguir. Si tiene cualquier duda en este sentido, puede contactar con la comunidad a través de los canales de contacto: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Espa%C3%B1a#Contacto. Si suele mapear en Málaga, estaré encantado de colaborar en todo lo que pueda para resolver sus dudas o echar una mano en lo posible.

Gracias por su colaboración.

Atentamente,

Daniel
user_5359 (2021-12-26 08:39:36+00:00): Hello! Please notice your typo: Use cycleway instead of cicleway.
darkonus (2021-12-25 20:46:10+00:00): Тестовий коментар 2
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-07-16 23:20:22+00:00): Agrega un nombre a la ubicación.
PT-53 (2021-12-27 08:05:37+00:00): Hallo Chris,
Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz diesen Fußweg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27676423/history
gelöscht und damit die Radroutenrelation
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2908449#map=16/47.6850/9.8448
untgerbrochen.
Als teilweisen Ersatz (?) hast Du diese Linie
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1015326187/history
neu eingezeichnet, allerdings ohne Merkmale.

Was bedeutet der CS-Kommentar "Vorbereitung zur LGS" und wo gibt es Infos zu dem neu eingezeichneten Baugebiet
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1015326188/history

Fragende Grüße
ChrisFromRV (2021-12-27 14:41:13+00:00): Der Argenpark wird im Zuge der Vorbereitungen für die LGS 2024 komplett umgebaut und ist auch bis zu deren Beginn gesperrt. Ob in Zukunft dort überhaupt noch ein Fußweg im typischen Sinne gebaut wird und/oder Radfahrer dort noch fahren dürfen, ist noch unbekannt.
PT-53 (2021-12-27 15:03:44+00:00): Dann steht LGS wohl für Landesgartenschau ?

Wurde dort schon mit dem Umbau begonnen und der dort verlaufende Radweg bereits zurückgebaut?

Wie ist die künftige Führung des Radrundweges "Radrunde Allgäu" dort?

Wo gibt es Infos zur LGS 2024?
ChrisFromRV (2021-12-27 17:01:10+00:00): Hier kann man die Veränderung am Besten sehen: https://www.schwaebische.de/landkreis/landkreis-ravensburg/wangen_artikel,-die-argen-erhaelt-bei-wangen-vielfach-neues-gesicht-_arid,11446803.html
os-emmer (2024-10-06 18:15:47+00:00): Hallo Nordseeküstenradweg,
du scheinst hier das Taggingschema angepasst zu haben, indem du emergency=lifeguard und lifeguard=base ergänzt hast. Danke dafür. Gibt es einen Grund dafür, dass du
amenity=rescue_service
emergency_servcie=water
rescue_service=water
nicht entfernt hast? Steckt da noch irgendeine Information drin?