piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Galbinus (2020-01-08 15:18:39+00:00): Hallo Webdruide, man kann durchaus darüber nachdenken, ob ein Teil des Waldes statt als landuse=forest (bewirtschafteter Wald) mit natural=wood (Naturwald) einzutragen ist. Nach meiner Beobachtung ist der Wald im Naturschutzgebiet aber nicht komplett aus der Bewirtschaftung genommen, auch wenn man dort einen Teil der Bäume als Totholz liegen lässt. Aber das gesamte Waldstück ist deutlich größer ist als das Naturschutzgebiet, das ja bereit lange eingezeichnet ist. Dein Umwandeln des Waldes in Naturschutzgebiet war somit auf jeden Fall falsch, da dadurch erstens das Naturschutzgebiet doppelt eingetragen war (und davon einmal mit falschen Umriss) eingetragen war, wohingegen weder Wirtschaftswaldflächen noch bewaldete Naturschutzflächen als Wald (egal welcher Art) mehr eingetragen waren. Um zwischen Naturwald und Wirtschaftswald zu unterscheiden, müsste man sich das Gebiet im Detail vor Ort anschauen. Das kann gerne mal jemand angehen. Ich habe den Wald ursprünglich nicht eingezeichnet und konnte aus meiner Sicht erfüllt auch der Wald innerhalb des NSG nicht die Kriterien von Naturwald. Wer das anders sieht, kann gerne die Waldfläche aufteilen in Naturwaldflächen und bewirtschaftete Flächen. Bis dahin war es wichtig, die ursprüngliche Waldfläche wieder herzustellen und damit Deine Änderung wieder rückgängig zu machen.
Leo Slager (2020-01-07 00:13:48+00:00): Dag Remco,
Als je building=construction vervangt door building=apartments dan kun je construction=apartments ook verwijderen.

veel plezier met verder mappen.
Remco Landegge (2020-01-07 19:39:00+00:00): Dank voor de tip, heb het nu aangepast
JM82 (2020-01-25 18:56:01+00:00): Hallo RainerMeyer,

Dankenswerterweise wurde ich durch einen User von OSM aufmerksam gemacht, dass du in diesem CS großflächig Landflächen, welche ich vor Jahren in mühsamer Kleinarbeit in OSM eingearbeitet haben (und die noch immer Aktualität besitzen) gelöscht hast.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=79261743
Aus welchem Grund bitte?
Bekanntlich spricht nichts dagegen, OSM-Daten zu verändern, nur sollte ein zusätzlicher Mehrnutzen (im Sinne einer zusätzlichen Information) gegeben sein. Diese liegt hier offenbar nicht vor bei denen Löschungen. Paradoxerweise hast du die gelöschten landuse-Flächen durch tag-idente, wesentlich gröber gezeichnete Flächen ersetzt. Also, landuse = farmland auf einem einzelnen Acker durch landuse = farmland über mehrere Äcker "drübergezeichnet". 
Bitte erkläre uns - der OSM-Community - a) den Sinn dahinter und b) den Grund dafür?
grelus (2020-05-13 07:03:45+00:00): Na jakiej podstawie są to główne szlaki (regionalne?) Niektóre z nich mają po kilka kilometrów a nawet kilkaset metrów i charakter lokalny. Prowadzą w obrębie jednej gminy.
JIFFNET (2020-05-13 08:39:14+00:00): Posługiwałem się tutorialem z wiki:


"Zalecanym rozwiązaniem jest tagowanie szlaków pieszych PTTK jako "network=rwn" ze względu na to, że niezależnie od długości zazwyczaj łączą się one w sieć."


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Poland/Tutoriale/Szlaki
grelus (2020-05-13 13:34:52+00:00): hmm, tyle że tag "PTTK" przynajmniej w moich zachodniopomorskich okolicach mało ma wspólnego z realiami. Większość szlaków jest odnawiana przez gminy. Jest wiele długich szlaków które nie mają tego tagu i nie zostały zmienione. W ten sposób powstaje trochę bałagan niestety.
JIFFNET (2020-05-16 08:11:19+00:00): Przy zmianach sieci przyjąłem dwa warunki:
szlak musiał mieć wpisane jako operatora PTTK oraz musiał mieć tag osmc:symbol skonstruowany w sposób taki jak dla głównych szlaków pieszych PTTK, czyli kolor:white:kolor_bar co w teorii wyłącza szlaki spacerowe i gminne zazwyczaj znakowane kwadratem z linią po przekątnej albo kolorowym rogiem. Przyznaję że zmiana była wykonana automatem overpass i przyjąłem, że tagi PTTK są wprowadzone poprawnie i są zgodne ze stanem faktycznym. Napisz proszę które szlaki zostały błędnie zmienione to postaram się je naprawić.
VA00 (2020-10-14 18:18:40+00:00): Totalne wariactwo, poza górami 90% tych szlaków praktycznie nie istnieje albo nie da się ich przejść. Przykład: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3988527
Adamant1 (2020-01-07 19:13:22+00:00): Same comment goes for this edit as the other one. 

SteveA, what about the polygons where "smearing" by by me and bdiscoe except that you don't like my edits? I know for a fact that I didn't "smear" anything and I doubt Bdiscoe did either.  Especially the 151 pages of objects you deleted that 
 are included in this. What specific "OSM conventions" were we not following that you are by reverting us and justify it?

it doesn't help when you do 151 pages of changes in one go, including deleting a bunch of stuff. Especially by using the SCCGIS zoning data. Which you've been told before already can't be used to revert people's work you don't like. Which I know you used here even if you didn't give it as the source. Even if you didn't though, the rest still stands. 

1. It's an undisclosed mass edit

2. The purpose of imports and mass edits isn't to revert people you have a personal problem with.

3. Your suppose to contact the user about their problematic edits before reverting them if you do revert. Which you didn't you do in this case with me and I doubt you did with Bdiscoe either. 

You already know all this and I shouldn't have to remind you about those things yet again.

Either explain exactly what the problem with my edits (and also Bdiscoe's) was in a clear none attacking manor and compromise with me on a solution, revert yourself and put it how I (and they) had it then leave me alone, or I'm going to report you. Those are your three options. Because I'm still going to edit the area and I'm not dealing with this kind of thing from you repeatedly for doing it.
Adamant1 (2020-01-07 21:02:16+00:00): 1. Just so we are 100% clear on this, your reason for the revert (and that's what it was) is that "things look different when modified, because software"? 

2. It is a revert because you didn't "improve" on my or bdiscoe edits. You "reset" (erased) them to the state they were before we did the edits. That's 100% a revert. 

3. The data being in better or worse shape due to the "revert" (our really just playing semantics. You know it was a revert), doesn't have any relevance to the definition of a revert. 

4. If you pushed a special "revert" button on some piece software or not doesn't determine if its a revert. 

5. In neither case where the edits by me or bdiscoe vandalism or in violation of the OSM rules. Those are the only 2 cases that you can "revert" an edit. 

6. That you "looked over" the changes and decided it was "smeared" and "didn't look right" is your own opinion. Not an OSM Convention, let alone a reason to revert an edit. 

7. "Smear" isn't an OSM thing anyway. Otherwise show me somewhere it's mentioned on the Wiki, as a convention or otherwise, besides the three articles you added it to. 

8. You cite "overlap" my edits caused as part of the reason for the revert. A lot of the edits I did where to fix "overlap" and join the landuse's at the boundaries. Which is the exact opposite of overlap. So that's not valid. 

8. You said you had no problem with edits, but yet on the other changeset you called me "Cleaning up some sloppy user:Adamant1 landuse polygons." So, it sounds like you have a problem with my edits to me. If I called any of your edits "sloppy user:SteveA edits" you'd conclude the same thing. Plus, you where already told to tone it down and its not like you don't have a long history of this kind of thing already.

9. You still should have contact both me and bdiscoe before you "reverted" us. 

10. Plenty of people do the exact thing I did around here and you don't revert them. So my only conclusion is that it's at least partly personal. Your stated reasons for this clearly don't cut it. You say yourself other people are "cleaning it up" around here. So what's the difference between them and me or bdiscoe doing it? It's the same things being edited in the same exact ways. 
'
11. Lastly, I highly doubt you carefully reviewed each thing we both edited and considered what the best option was in every case. Its also extremely unlikely that if your whole "smeared" thing was actually a real thing (it's clearly not) that every single last landuse edit we did was "smear." Yet you reverted every single landuse edit we did. That's another reason its a mass edit and a revert. 

No changeset comments first, can't cite a specific problematic edit just "smear" whatever that means, didn't do it by hand and used GIS data, claim its OSM conventions but can't cite one (smear doesn't count), extremely unlikely you reviewed every single edit, constructively called me and my edits "sloppy" then back peddled and blamed the software, etc etc.
Adamant1 (2020-01-07 21:27:04+00:00): One more thing, nothing against Jeisenbe because I've done a ton of good work with him on the style and elsewhere (part of the reason he is a maintainer is because I recommended him), but his opinion of places and how good they are mapped doesn't dictate mapping policy or who can edit what where. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want it to either.
Adamant1 (2020-01-08 21:59:08+00:00): Two points and its not arguing because I have every right to ask someone who reverted me why they did. As well as the right to reply when its clearly wrong. Importantly, I'm doing so by referencing the Wiki and established guidelines.  Which is not just my "opinion." Nor an evaluation of SteveA or his behavior. There's nothing inherently confrontational about citing the wiki and its extremely on topic. So I feel I'm within bounds to do so. 

1) You said "The only thing that means revert is literally revert (in an OSM context)." The Wiki says "A change rollback is a way of responding to vandalism and to 'mistakes' This is also known as reverting." Therefore, in OSM terms a revert is not just literally a revert. It can also be a "rollback" and due to "mistakes." You said you "put them back in alignment" and that you "put it back to correct." So, what you did was clearly a revert by OSMs standards.

2) You said "A revert is using JOSM's Revert Changeset command." Again according to the Wiki "You can use Potlatch 1 to revert to an earlier version of a way, or to undelete deleted ways." Freebeer reverts people using Potlatch all the time. So, reverting someone is not exclusive or specific to JOSM and its revert (rollback) command. I'd argue any software including iD Editor could be used to revert (rollback) an edit. At least if you go by OSMs definition of a revert (rollback). Which you say you do.  

I'm not going to address your other points out of brevity. Unfortunately, neither point gets to if your "revert", "rollback", or whatever you call it was justified, but such is life and dealing with these things. Feel free to respond or not. I'm fine either way. This could be (and probably is) the end of the topic for all I care or am concerned. Even if you do respond, I'm probably done with it. At least I was a lot shorter in message length this time. Although, I'm sure it could have been shorter (or probably better yet not sent in the first place), but whatever.
stevea (2020-01-08 22:25:18+00:00): Adam, please let this go.  It absolutely IS arguing and I and this community are absolutely exhausted of your argumentative tone.

1)  I hope to not have to repeat and repeat this as you do:  what I did was not a revert.  I am not artificially semantically splitting hairs as I say that.  "Revert" (in OSM) is a computer science oriented specific set of actions done to the OSM database to specifically and quite exactly remove absolutely each and every edit done to the database in a single changeset.  (In database / CS lingo, this sort of action is called "atomic").  What I did was not that, I changed one relation and two ways (three data altogether), a much more minor edit to the map than your changeset(s) around here recently and nowhere near an entire changeset's worth of data.  So, please:  no more characterizations of what I did as "a revert" as that characterization is demonstrably false.  (I have beaten it dead into the ground already).

2)  You edited in an area with existing data and re-wrote those data in an inferior state.  (Not terribly, but enough that our Validator software noticed and complained to me about it).  I fixed three data, a relation, two ways.  As you like to say, "that's it."  The only fair characterization anybody could make of that is "three minor fixes to three minor errors."  Making a mountain out of this molehill gets us nowhere.

JOSM is not the only method to revert.  It's likely one could write a SQL command line and do the same thing (the very specific thing meant by "revert a changeset").  I haven't done that (I'm not sure I'd know how, but I could learn) as I prefer the straightforward way that JOSM presents to do it, but I didn't do that here and I repeat myself as I say that, I shouldn't have to do with you here.

None of your hairsplitting matters, as I didn't revert you.  I fixed the errors you left in the map.  You do that, I do that, many do that.  Without complaints and without needing to do research on the definition and subtle distinctions between "revert" (which I understand) and rollback (which I'm not familiar with in the OSM context as being any different).

What I did to your data WAS justified, for this very simple reason:  there were data in the map which were (more-or-less) correct and you made them (slightly) worse.  I fixed that by returning them to their originally-correct state.

THAT'S IT.

If you have a complaint, I am not able to better refer you.  I honestly don't wish to continue the conversation with you about it.  And as you say, neither do you, so ahhhh, at long last, we are done with this.

Peace.  Out.  Really, this time.
Adamant1 (2020-01-08 23:37:05+00:00): I let it go Steve. We where good until you sent me the snide message. I've done nothing but bend over backwards to be accommodating of your quirks from the start of this. I don't even open or comment on notes anywhere close to your area anymore because Woodpeck said it would be intimating you if I did. Which is completely BS, but I abide by it anyway to get along. What exactly have you done on your side Steve except not let things go, repeatedly antagonize me, and cause more problems? Where's your sacrifice in any of this? I live in constant paranoia that your going to get involved in something I edited or cause a scene even if its not in your area. Just like you did with managed forest in Lassen that I happen to drive through all the time and isn't one, but your still content going off about on the mailing list, and the miss-named railroad tracks down the street where I live that I can't fix now because you edited and argued about it. While you sit here and go off about the the supremacy of local mappers if its "your area." Just like call you me a cop caller (from the person that threatened to sue a user) when I said freebeer should contact the DWG but then your extremely grateful they are there when its something like this. Your only standard is "do what makes this go in my favor and gets Adam in trouble." And you always get your way on EVERYTHING no matter if you should or not because "arguing" due to you doing nothing but talking in circles. Screw that. I'm done with it. I have to draw the line somewhere. This wouldn't be an issue if you didn't make it one. You could have just lived with your precious landuse being adjusted a couple of pixel over. Which was still correct. If I get banned for sticking up to you here and calling you out for it, I'm 100% good with that. A platform where abusive, controlling people like you get to dictate everything and aren't held accountable for their actions isn't worth my time or energy anyway. Until that happens though, I'm back to mapping where and how I please. I don't have jack to say to you anymore. Here or anywhere else. 

PS, for anyone reading this I opened https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2501 to limit the number of changeset characters so overly long messages won't be an issue anymore. Id appreciate any comments there about it.
stevea (2020-01-08 23:38:59+00:00): Wow.
Adamant1 (2020-01-09 03:20:43+00:00): Steve, pretend its not you I'm talking about here. Simple question, do you think its a normal, civil, "just getting along" thing to threaten to sue someone twice if they ever talk to you again and then waiting for a little time to pass so you can rudely message them against the request of literally everyone on the platform including Woodpeck? Or is that more offensive, insulting, and not doing what others ask?
stevea (2020-01-09 03:24:22+00:00): My behavior speaks for itself.  So does yours.

Enough already.
Adamant1 (2020-01-09 03:52:04+00:00): Yeah it does. That's my point. I knew you wouldn't answer it or respond to anything else. You never do when it's your behavior being questioned. But you'll go on vapidly forever about everyone else. So, useless comments like "wow" are totally expected.
 
"Enough already."

Sure, why not? It's always enough when you say it is, but not when anyone else does. Your always free to say whatever you want as much as you want, but other people can't ask simple questions or make basic observations. There's no reason this time would be any different.

I'll end it there. Feel free to say something utterly useless like "wow" again so you can have the last word like you always do. I could care less.
user_5359 (2020-01-10 08:46:11+00:00): Hello, please don't add an yadd:% keys to a highway. If you want to note the city where the street is located, please use is_in:city
lrw2 (2020-01-13 16:19:24+00:00): Hi user_5389,
Thank you for your concern in this matter. After diving deeper into her history, she did not add that key, rather, she added a turn restriction to the node here. As a courtesy, xiuxialiu has made the correction per your request. Please see changeset ID 79432081. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

Thank you,
Lisa
laurent-38 (2020-02-07 11:00:26+00:00): Bonjour Lorran,

À partir de quelle source as-tu pu mettre à jour la population de « La Gâche » ? Normalement, « place=hamlet » désigne  un hameau de moins de 100 habitants à 200 habitants.

Cordialement
~~
laurent-38
lorran (2020-02-07 14:01:37+00:00): Bonjour,
Je n'ai fait que des ajustements de position de bâtiments. Ce n'est pas moi qui ai indiqué cette désignation. Je ne sais même pas comment faire ;)
lorran (2020-02-07 14:05:49+00:00): j'ai trouvé. tu as raison, on devrait plutôt mettre "neighbourhood" ou "quarter"
laurent-38 (2020-02-07 14:58:58+00:00): Oui, effectivement, quarter semble plus approprié.
Je t’ai interpelé car tu avais modifié la population de ce quartier de 100 à 900 (cf https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/node/2386923884). J'étais curieux de connaître ta source d’information à ce sujet…
laurent-38 (2020-02-07 15:05:47+00:00): Je te propose de remplacer ce point par un périmètre issu du cadastre : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/770662374
user_5359 (2020-01-07 05:08:50+00:00): Willkommen bei OSM! 
die 'Grarant Mockenhaupt eK' ist das eine Geschäft https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/DE:Key:shop, ein Büro https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/DE:Key:office oder ein Handwerker https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/DE:Key:craft ?

Nebenbei gefragt, ist da nicht ein Tippfehler im Namen?
Pulli_HD (2020-01-07 18:53:22+00:00): Erst mal vielen Dank für die freundliche Aufnahme ;-)
Garant Mockenhaupt eK, da ist mir tatsächlich ein Tippfehler unterlaufen, ist ein Versandhandel für Baustellenzubehör.
Hier auch der Link zum Unternehmen:
http://www.garant-mockenhaupt.de
will_p (2020-01-06 23:34:27+00:00): Hi,

How sure are you that the whole of Raleigh Street is now one-way? This looks suspect to me in part because there is currently a bollard mapped part way along the street, meaning that for motor vehicles the one-way goes into a dead end. The bollard is still shown on the Esri World Imagery, which is quite recent. 

I've checked the Nottingham City Council open data for one-way streets, which doesn't list Raleigh Street as one-way, but this was last updated in 2017, so it's certainly possible things have changed. 

Note that the Alfreton Road end of Raleigh Street was already mapped as one-way. When I last surveyed along there, this only applied for a short way along the street, but this was some time ago.

Thanks,
Will
will_p (2020-01-11 16:44:51+00:00): I have reverted the one-way tagging added here after checking on the ground. Raleigh Street is definitely two-way except for a short section at the Alfreton Road end. 

I note that improveosm.org also suggests that Oliver Street between Raleigh Street and Portland Street is one-way. This is also incorrect.

When using data improvement tools, it's usually best to confirm suggested changes with additional sources.

Cheers,
Will
HenryFjord (2020-01-06 20:48:23+00:00): Oops! I cited Bing here but I actually aligned to Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2020-04-17 14:05:07+00:00): Porque voce ocultou essa rodovia?reverti essa edição
fx99 (2020-01-07 15:35:14+00:00): Hello, you destroyd the border of Saint Lucia by changing the relation type from boundary to route. I fixed it. Be a little more carefull next time.
Lupinsun (2020-01-07 20:52:49+00:00): Sorry for the inconvenient, but i don't remember that i change this! So i think that maybe was a problem with my mouse yesterday! Usually I only change Sardinia map.
Adamant1 (2020-01-07 19:05:54+00:00): SteveA, what about the polygons where "sloppy" except that you don't like my edits? Also, it doesn't help when you do 133 pages of changes in one go, including deleting a bunch of stuff. Especially by using the SCCGIS zoning data. Which you've been told before already can't be used to revert people's work you don't like.

Plus, 

1. It's an undisclosed mass edit 

2. The purpose of imports isn't to revert people you have a personal problem with. 

3. Your suppose to contact the user about their problematic edits before reverting them if you do. Which you didn't you do in this case. 

You already know all this and I shouldn't have to remind you about those things yet again. 

Either explain exactly what the problem with my edits was in a clear none attacking manor and compromise with me on a solution, revert yourself and put it how I had it then leave me alone, or I'm going to report you. Those are your three options. Because I'm still going to edit the area and I'm not dealing with this kind of thing from you repeatedly for doing it.
stevea (2020-01-07 19:48:52+00:00): I believe my changeset comments in changeset/79261829 answer your concerns here.  If not, please let me know here.
woodpeck (2020-01-07 21:19:43+00:00): Data Working Group here. You have bother been asked in the past to refrain from fiddling with data contributed by the other. @Adamant1, there is lots of rubbish data all over California that you could fix; could you be persuaded to concentrate your efforts in areas not originally worked by stevea? @stevea, it is an unnecessary slight to brandish someone "sloppy" in a changeset comment. Please don't. To be frank, data like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/281209814 with the tags "OBJECTID", "Zoning", "SHAPE_STAr" and "SHAPE_STLe" should never have been imported that way in the first place; this would never pass muster on today's import guidelines. I would prefer if Adamant1 had not edited this, but editing it and not getting rid of the rubbish tags is doubly bad. But it is what it is! @Both: We have asked you repeatedly to keep the peace and if you don't we will have no choice but give you both a cool-off account block so that you can enjoy the beautiful non-OSM life out there for a while.