piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Truchin (2018-06-21 12:52:31+00:00): Autant le retirer sur la voie aussi pendant que tu y es...
Quand tu es sur ton vélo avec ton GPS, si l'information n'est pas présente sur la piste, et bien tu n'as pas l'information sur la voie que tu dois emprunter.
Le GPS, il te dit "tourner à droite sur "Cours la Reine"".
Et comme justement tu as un panneau au croisement, tu es sûr que c'est cette voie qu'il faut prendre et pas la suivante dans 30 mètres
Truchin (2018-06-21 12:54:20+00:00): Si tu ne mets pas l'information sur la piste cyclable, le logiciel de routage dans les instruction ne peut pas t'indiquer le nom de la voie que tu empruntes.
Effectivement, cela ne change rien à l'itinéraire lui même (idem pour le routage voiture où on pourrait tout à fait se passer du nom des voies)
Rom1 (2018-06-21 12:59:30+00:00): Oui et bien je ne vois où est le problème. Le GPS il peut te dire autre chose que de prendre telle voie avec tel nom, non ? Si on suit ta logique, pour du routage piéton, il faudrait également nommer les trottoirs ?
Truchin (2018-06-21 13:52:11+00:00): Si on suit la logique, il faudrait supprimer l'ensemble des noms des voies.
Et effectivement oui, une voie piétonne dès lors qu'elle peut être utilisée dans du routage devrait être nommée du nom de la voie à laquelle elle appartient.

On voit bien que tu n'utilises pas de GPS à vélo. Parles en à Géovélo...
Rom1 (2018-06-21 14:05:17+00:00): Effectivement je n'utilise pas (encore) le GPS pour me déplacer à vélo. Mais cette façon de cartographier me fait fortement penser à https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tagging_for_the_renderer Je m'en vais de ce pas demander à Géovélo et Cartocité pour tirer tout cela au clair ;)
vincent_95 (2018-06-21 14:22:26+00:00): Je trouve le name sur le highway=cycleway utile, pour les raisons données par Thomas. Pourquoi le guidage à vélo pâtirait de lacunes sur les données, uniquement pour éviter un doublon avec la voie dédiée aux autres véhicules ? Il n'y a rien de faux dans ce nommage, c'est juste qu'il est moins habituel, formatés que nous sommes à considérer les voies pour automobiles "par défaut".
Si on se crispe sur le doublon de tag name entre les 2 voies, alors on peut factoriser l'information de nom via une relation, dont le type est peut-être à définir (je dis ça sans avoir fouillé le wiki). Quoi qu'il arrive, je trouve abusif d'enlever le tag name sur les cycleways, car l'info est juste, à la base.
Truchin (2018-06-21 14:24:22+00:00): C'est toujours un risque de taguer pour le rendu.
Mais là, c'est plutôt le contraire : un rendu qui n'est pas adapté plutôt qu'une information qui est erronée.
Je ne vois pas comment techniquement il est possible aux outils de déterminer que la piste cyclable porte le nom de la voie qu'elle longe si l'information n'est pas directement disponible sur la piste.
Rom1 (2018-06-21 14:38:29+00:00): Je n'imaginais pas qu'il soit nécessaire pour un GPS que les voies portent un nom. Et en fait tout est question de la définition que l'on donne à une "rue". Est-ce uniquement la partie matérialisée par la chaussée centrale ou toutes les voies qui occupent l'espace ?
vincent_95 (2018-06-21 14:44:00+00:00): Hélas oui il faut, il n'y a pas de magie. Ça n'est pas parce que visuellement nous voyons les 2 axes côte à côte, et que nous les associons naturellement, qu'un robot saura faire pareil et aller chercher le nom sur la voie des voitures pour l'utiliser sur la voie cyclable. Il faut l'aider, le robot :). C'est comme l'association d'un n° de rue à une voie : il 'y a rien d'automatique au fait que le n° appartient à la voie dont il est le plus proche. Il y a trop d'exceptions à ce genre de règle pour faire confiance à un algorithme pour résoudre le nom. L'inscrire dans les données est bien plus fiable car dépourvu d'ambiguïté.
Axelos (2018-06-21 19:35:18+00:00): On m'a demandé mon avis.

Alors à titre personnel, de mémoire, je n'ai jamais posé de nom de rue sur une voie cyclable, il ne m'est même jamais venu à l'idée de le faire ! Mais les raisons évoquées se tiennent. J'aurais même tendance à penser que cette pratique est en fait à privilégier. C'est un cas intéressant qui a été soulevé.

Là ou en revanche j'ai tendance à supprimer des noms, concerne des itinéraires cyclables qui sont réintroduits dans des relations dédiées.

Histoire de bien saisir la nuance, il s'agit de deux usages différents.
Rom1 (2018-06-25 08:17:06+00:00): Je ferai donc un revert de mes suppressions du tag name. Désolé et merci pour les explications.
mavl (2020-07-28 13:30:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 88623953 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88500331].
mavl (2020-07-28 13:30:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 88623953 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88500331].
eggie (2020-01-10 20:19:01+00:00): Buiten Nederland begonnen met mappen, maar daardoor nooit een welkomstmail ontvangen... bij deze alsnog Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Michael Simkin (sfdc) (2018-06-18 08:36:09+00:00): #salesforce #salesforceil
Retired Account (2018-06-18 16:27:39+00:00): Hi,
Why are you removing 3D building parts?
Владимир К (2018-06-19 06:20:55+00:00): wheel is not a building https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:building. 
Also that 3d implemenation was completely wrong. And finally  that is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
Retired Account (2018-06-19 08:04:53+00:00): Hi,

Are you able to describe how's the 3D implementation being totally wrong? The previous scheme had the wheel outline tagged as a building, with the 3D parts tagged as building:part. I fail to see how is that incorrect.

In addition, I am also not able to understand which specific part is "tagging for the renderer". Are you able to further elaborate?

Thanks.
Alexander-II (2018-06-19 10:00:59+00:00): Hi, JaLooNz.  

Why do you think that Ferris wheel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferris_wheel) can and should be considered as a building (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building) to be tagged with building scheme?  
Wasn't it made just for 3D rendering purpose despite good practices (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice)? Among which are "Don't tag for the renderer" that mentioned above.

Regards,
Alex
Владимир К (2018-06-19 10:51:52+00:00): please, describe which part of the wheel is building? 
let's compare. This is screenshot of f4map renderer:
http://piccy.info/view3/12425147/66aaffd4d03b4f8fac83e777040927a3/orig/
there you can see part of 3d implementation of wheel on the right side with actual proprietary 3d model. They don't look similar, aren't they? 
tagging for renderer is that you tag object somehow just to look it on the renderer. for example, many people tag aircrafts, ships and other objects with tag building=*
Retired Account (2018-06-19 11:57:21+00:00): The wheel itself is considered part of the building. Thus, I believe the wheel itself should be merged into the flyer wheel building to be more accurate.

3D building parts by themselves are already a form of mapping for 3D renderer, but these tags are not used for the base map renderer. Thus, it is explicit that these are already mapping for a 3D renderer and a well-accepted practice to add additional details for 3D renderer worldwide.


F4Maps in this case utilises an external 3D model. However, for basic maps without support for external 3D models,  removing such details instead of improving the 3D details means that you are taking away data from other maps that only supports the basic 3D model.


If you are trying to fix the artifacts in F4, you should contact F4 and ask them to exclude a bigger area while injecting the actual 3D model. Removing 3D representation just to fix F4 only removes 3D details from other maps without support for 3D models (such as OSMBuildings, MapsWithMe, etc.).
Retired Account (2018-06-19 12:07:44+00:00): Just an example from other 3D maps without 3D model support.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8ey1JGuU16EKPdJ8


If 3D parts are removed, these will simply be missing from the maps. The correct fix is to either improve the 3D details using 3D building parts, or to inform F4 to put in a bigger exclusion zone for 3D building parts.
Retired Account (2018-06-19 12:28:01+00:00): More examples, OSMBuildings (via Mapbox).
https://osmbuildings.org/examples/vectortiles/#16.7/1.289655/103.863477/-28/60
Владимир К (2018-06-19 13:30:25+00:00): I'm not trying fix f4map. I'm trying to fix wrong data! Flyer wheel itself is not building, which should be tagged with building=*.
This is just tagging for renderer, nothing else.
Владимир К (2018-06-19 13:42:16+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buildings#Don.27t_tag_for_the_renderer 
>     tagging e.g. statues, bridge piers, gravestones or sockets as buildings to make them visible on the map. This can be counterproductive even for 3D-Mapping.

Such manipulations damage not only the OSM, but also they are needless, because their effect is usually limited to a single renderer, which will be probably modified soon.
Retired Account (2018-06-19 14:12:15+00:00): In case you are not aware, this is not referring to OSM 3D parts (tagged using building:part=yes). 3D parts are valid data that does not affect Mapnik / Carto-OSM. In addition, there is no manipulation of data to suite Mapnik and the representation is correct.
Retired Account (2018-06-19 14:13:53+00:00): And in addition, static objects like the flyer wheel can be an object itself. This is correct.
Владимир К (2018-06-19 14:30:17+00:00): nice!
let's go deeper.
1) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_buildings
>This page describes tags for basic 3D attributes of buildings. 
>buildings
So, building:part on non buildings still not valid.
2)it is an object itself, of course! I didn't say it is not. Thats why it has 
tourism 	attraction
attraction 	big_wheel

just like WIkiOSM says us:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dattraction
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:attraction
EinKonstanzer (2018-06-18 09:47:10+00:00): Das hinzufügen von psv=yes macht keinen Sinn, da es da einfach keine Nutzungs-Beschränkungen gibt. Und wenn dann müßte eine Beschränkung hinzugefügt werden (für was auch immer) und keine ausdrückliche Gestattung von irgend etwas. Schaden entsteht dadurch zum Glück keiner.
EinKonstanzer (2018-06-18 09:48:19+00:00): Quelle "esri". Kann man das da so erkennen?
Nakaner (2018-06-18 15:53:26+00:00): @EinKonstanzer: Vielleicht tut der Mentz-Router wie der Router eines Wettbewerbers nicht über highway=service routen, sofern nicht ein psv=yes getaggt ist? IMHO ist das ein Bug im Router. Wenn es keinen anderen Weg gibt, sollte highway=service + service!=driveway verwendet werden. In den anderen Fällen sollten Kantengewichte dafür sorgen, dass der Weg nicht genutzt wird.

Vielleicht gibt es diesen Bug aber auch gar nicht, sonst müssten Mentz-Mitarbeiter und Mentz-Kunden ja systematisch alle Busbahnhöfe umtaggen. *stirnrunzel*
mavl (2018-07-20 13:48:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 60894588, 60906989, 60903390 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 17:21:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60911831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 18:42:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60915879 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 13:48:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 60894588, 60906989, 60903390 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 15:39:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60909068 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 17:27:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60911831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 18:40:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60915879 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
atcomapper (2018-06-18 09:27:39+00:00): Thanks for adding this path. Please note that "Foot path to the bus stop" does not appear to be the official name of this path (it most likely does not have a name). You should not define a name for an object unless it actually has an official/commonly used name.
sCoia (2018-06-18 09:48:11+00:00): Thanks for the notice.. It was meant as a description, not as the official name..
mavl (2018-07-20 15:43:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60909068 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 17:20:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60911831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 18:38:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60915879 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
eggie (2018-06-18 09:45:15+00:00): Dag Smart_Geo,, Probeer op je juiste adresnode bij te taggen.  Dat is adresnode nr 18. Doe je het zelf?
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2018-06-18 09:48:58+00:00): ... en svp concreet commentaar.. Dus supermarkt toegevoegd en adresnode goedgelegd.
Smart_GEO63 (2018-06-18 10:35:29+00:00): Hallo eggie, Ik snap het niet zo goed dat taggen. althans waar dat dan precies vast te leggen. Feitelijk moet huisnr 18 meer naar boven (de ingang zit daar nu nml), rechtsonder de hoek van het pand en de 1e "kolom" van de geometrie. Kan jij het aanpassen dan bekijk ik het resultaat. Het is dus een supermarkt van de Lidl
eggie (2018-06-18 11:32:33+00:00): Adresnode nr 18 heb ik gesleept naar de plek waar de lidl was geplaatst. De info heb ik gekopieerd naar de BAG adresnode. Nu is adres gekoppeld aan de info. Verder zou er nog webiste, Phone, openingstijden e.d. aan toegevoegd kunnen worden.
Editor iD is een lastige editor.. Wanneer je door zou zetten stap dan over op editor JOSM.
editor josm stap voor stap
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710       

mapse..
GOwin (2018-06-19 04:37:05+00:00): Hello @Kim Go Tian. I'm glad to see your active participation in OpenStreetMap. Thank you for your edits.

I recently noticed a lot of of editing activities in this area, and the hashtag #prcvcad. Do you mind telling us more about this project, and the editors involved? Feel free to do so in the local mailing list, to give fellow OSM contributors a heads-up about what's going on here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/

Also, in line with improving transparency, and project accountability for directed editing projects, could you kindly add a wiki page about your project?

At the minimum, we hope to see details documenting your mapping project and its goals, list of project leaders and coordinators, and their respective OpeStreetMap iD and contact information, and the usernames of your mapping team.

We are also keen to know what your data validation plans are, and the usernames of your validators.

Kind regards,
@GOwin
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/59936584
geoaria (2019-04-19 15:31:52+00:00): سلام
دوست عزیز ممنون از زحماتتون 
چند مورد را خواهیش می کنم رعایت نمایید :
*لطفا هر کوچه یا مسیر با یک خط ترسیم شود
*مسیر ها کاملاً منطبق بر روی مسیر در تصاویر هوایی باشد.
اشکالات موجود را در نهضت آباد برطرف کردم
*.مسیرها اعواج نباشد.
mavl (2018-07-20 13:51:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 60894588, 60906989, 60903390 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 15:44:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60909068 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 18:43:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60915879 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 13:45:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 60894588, 60906989, 60903390 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 17:29:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60911831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 13:51:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 60894588, 60906989, 60903390 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 15:38:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60909068 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 18:40:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60915879 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 13:56:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 60894588, 60906989, 60903390 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 18:41:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60915879 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 13:43:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 60894588, 60906989, 60903390 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 15:37:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60909068 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 18:39:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60915879 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 13:57:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 60894588, 60906989, 60903390 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
mavl (2018-07-20 18:39:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 60915879 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2095].
Bence Mélykúti (2018-08-06 15:10:06+00:00): The Institutsviertel had already existed (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37486222). To resolve the redundancy, I recommend that you remove both the way and the node created in this changeset.
Reza_koulivand (2019-04-17 19:53:23+00:00): داروخانه امام خمینی را چرا اوردی اینجا؟؟؟ نه دقت میکنی نه جواب میدی،یکی باید بیوفته دنبال ویرایشای تورو ویرایش کنه
abakus_uploader (2018-06-18 22:30:37+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
gileri (2018-06-30 15:03:03+00:00): Bonjour,

cycleway:left=opposite_lane est redondant avec cycleway=opposite_lane.

De plus, cycleway=opposite_lane signifie que la piste cyclable est forcément du côté opposé de la voie, donc à gauche en France.
Myazyk (2018-07-13 10:11:46+00:00): Нагадую: не варто писати addr:street - тре прив'язку робити до вулиці
scai (2018-09-16 13:35:20+00:00): Hallo Klaus,

ist das hier wirklich ein Blitzer? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5698921892
Vor Ort ist mir nur eine LKW-Mautsäule (die großen blauen Säulen) aufgefallen.

Siehe auch https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1528836

Grüße
Alex
PierZen (2018-06-20 01:13:20+00:00): Rivière Bécancour 2018-06-17
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/zGI

Votre message indique que vous voulez corriger des zones non  fermées. Avant vos modifications, Le contour de la Rivière Bécancour était complet, Il ne l'est plus. Et vous avez effacer de nombreuses données. 

Je suggère que vous fassiez un revert de ce changeset.
---------------------------------
Your comment says that you correct areas for ring not closed. Before your modifications, this was closed. It is not anymore and you haved deleted many ways.

Do you plan to revert your changeset ?
Rodrigo Rega (2018-06-22 21:19:11+00:00): Hola,

En la etiqueta "name:es" has cambiado

"Carretera de la Granja"
por
"Estrada da Granxa"

¿Crees que es correcto o fue un error?

Un saludo.