piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
BCNorwich (2022-04-12 06:41:54+00:00): Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the highways you amended here are in part duplicating,  (on top of) each other. Path, Way: 216882406 and cycleway Way: 769459075 zig-zag over each other and are in part joined. The cycleway Way: 769459075 then continues zig-zaging over and joining to track Way: 170419116.

Could you have a look at this please, need any help just ask.

Regards Bernard.
alopix (2022-04-12 06:48:46+00:00): Hi Bernard,

Sadly that is exactly the case on location (and was before my changes). It’s an unofficial downhill mountain bike track that criss crosses with the walking path and sometimes is the same.
Since editing (since the original tracks were even incorrect in times—going out and over a cliff. Possibly because of fences not having been there before) I’ve actually been pondering about simplifying this to a single track without overlaps, since they’re so close together and nobody would likely care + the cycle path is, as I said unofficial so likely shouldn’t be tagged that way either.

Cheers
BCNorwich (2022-04-13 07:21:41+00:00): Hi, The duplicated sections do confuse routing so I'd agree with combining these highways onto the single original path track lines. I've done this and added tags to show the foot/cycle use and the incline and surface tags.

I hope it's all OK, please check.

Regards Bernard.
culipabe (2022-04-12 15:53:39+00:00): Hallo Isarloisach,

Vorsicht mit der alten Eisenbahnstrecke! Hier liegen zwei OSM-Ways übereinander, nämlich https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/645593342/history für die ehemalige Bahnlinie und https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/103203908 für den Wirtschaftsweg, der inzwischen dort verläuft. Du hast den Bahnstrecken-Way jetzt ebenfalls mit den Tags für den Wirtschaftsweg versehen. Magst du das vielleicht enfernen bzw. deine Ergänzungen auf den eigentlichen Wirtschaftsweg-Way übertragen (soweit du das in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119587192 nicht eh schon gemacht hast)? Aktuell sieht es in der Datenbank nämlich so aus, als wären dort zwei Wirtschaftswege. Wenn du beim Übertragen nicht zurechtkommst, gib Bescheid, ich kann das auch für dich übernehmen.

Viele Grüße

culipabe
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
opendcc (2022-06-03 14:27:26+00:00): Hallo, wo genau liegt die Verbesserung? Alle Wegweisungen von der A9 Richtung Eichstätt gehen über die Römerstraße/Hindenburg. usw. Warum wurde das abgestuft?
opendcc (2022-06-03 14:30:27+00:00): Ergänzung: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
user_5359 (2022-04-11 17:51:12+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1050842433. What is the meaning of the tag Constable = Drive?
Omnific (2022-04-11 18:01:30+00:00): Thanks for the catch.
TrekClimbing (2023-03-13 18:44:38+00:00): Hi there LivingWithDragons. I was wondering if you could say why you changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/841053061 from a footway to a path? I'm interested because I realise you're a very experienced editor. I have tended to follow the advice of SK53 and not used path, but have struggled with this because many 'footpaths' are not explicitly signed regarding use by other modes. In this case there are 'no bike' signs at the entrance to the western side of the Chevin, at least from Surprise View, although that's often flouted. Anyway, I'm just interested in why you made the change. Thanks, Tom
LivingWithDragons (2023-03-13 20:41:53+00:00): Hi Tom,
I agree with SK53 that it's better to stick to footway, and then to use other tags to give specific information.

In this case I'm not sure, as usually I'm doing the opposite change or at least trying to match how things have been mapped locally. Pushing my memory, I may have questioned whether that path should have been mapped at all. Signage doesn't matter as to whether it's mapped, but I think it might have been one that was only just usable by humans and not much more than a steep animal track.
TrekClimbing (2023-03-14 09:37:05+00:00): Thanks. Yes, I realise it's asking a lot to remember from so long ago. Okay, I may have been a bit over-enthusisastic adding it previously - I'll check it out again next time I'm up there. I don't see much wildlife up on the Chevin and there's not usually any sheep so not sure it's animals that have made it but I remember there being a few branches in the way and at the least I should probably add a sac scale. Thanks again, Tom
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
culipabe (2022-04-12 16:01:18+00:00): Hallo Isarloisach,

warum hast du die ganzen Flusskilometer gelöscht? Siehe auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:waterway%3Dmilestone

Viele Grüße

culipabe
Shinsplints (2022-04-14 22:25:14+00:00): Hi

The trail from mt hwy to the top of Fromme is Bills Trail. As per the sign at the trail head.  Calling it per gynt will lead to confusion. 

Only the section above the 7th switchback and where it exits is per gynt
TaxusB (2022-04-14 22:33:52+00:00): Hi Garth, 

That's correct- I'm not sure why both trails are entered into OSM as one continuous track. Do you know an easy way to separate and correctly label them?
Shinsplints (2022-04-15 00:47:56+00:00): Unfortunately no. You would have to delete and renter. 

The lower trail peer gynt is also wrong but that’s ok. It was built by mountain bikers and called MSG. When DNV signed it they named it per gynt… but most people don’t go to Fromme peak that way. Call bills gynt could be confusing. 

You didn’t name it?
EP_Repair (2022-08-11 15:18:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124780086 where the changeset comment is: revert organized attempts to subvert trail networks see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6216
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
DressyPear4 (2022-04-11 22:48:56+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119548908
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:24:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:11:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
EP_Repair (2022-08-11 15:17:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124780086 where the changeset comment is: revert organized attempts to subvert trail networks see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6216
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:11:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SHARCRASH (2022-06-14 18:23:49+00:00): Salut m sartor! Je crois qu'il vaudrait mieux utiliser highway=path+bicycle=designated ou yes et foot=designated ou yes (+surface et c'est nickel ;) ) parce que avec les éditeurs comme StreetComplete proposent d'ajouter des tags plus spécifiques comme par exemple "segregated". Garde highwa=ycycleway pour les chemins exclusivement cyclistes. Possible qu'il demandera de nouveau si le chemin est segregated mais il ne dira plus au contributeur que c'est un cycleway. Voir cette note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3157463 Je vais lui expliquer.
ivanbranco (2022-04-14 21:30:24+00:00): Ciao Giorgio :) benvenuto su OSM!

Ho notato che hai taggato un building come pizzeria contenente un nodo taggato come pizzeria. Su OSM "per ogni caratteristica fisica, si usa un solo elemento OSM", così facendo hai creato un duplicato. Se l'intero edificio è adibito a pizzeria puoi semplicemente aggiungere i tag all'edificio, lasciando solo i dati dell'indirizzo (addr:*) sul nodo [in Italia mappiamo gli indirizzi come nodi].

Un altro appunto, noto che hai l'abitudine di cancellare gli edifici per ridisegnarli. Sarebbe sempre meglio modificare gli edifici già esistenti per preservare la storia dell'elemento.

Se hai domande chiedi pure, ti informo che c'è anche un gruppo Telegram italiano se fossi interessato. Buon mapping!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
ligfietser (2022-04-17 13:14:22+00:00): Ze zijn net begonnen met bouwen hier, woningen zijn nog niet af, maar laat maar zo.
Geim (2022-04-17 16:17:45+00:00): Ach dom. Niet goed op de luchtfoto gekeke, dat waren de oude huizen. 
Sorry, zal beter opletten.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
user_5359 (2022-04-11 17:44:33+00:00): Willkomen zu OSM! Bitte schau Dir nochmal http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51111399 an. Was ist die Bedeutung des Tag deadlock = yes?
user_9385968 (2022-05-09 11:02:33+00:00): Der Aldi ist dort falsch ...
Der ist in Sebnitz ...
NICHT Hinterhermsdorf !
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:24:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
ivanbranco (2022-04-10 21:12:52+00:00): Scusate l'estensione del CS, è partito per sbaglio un edit nel torinese.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
4004 (2022-04-18 00:00:49+00:00): здравствуйте, спасибо за правку.
там не одинаковое количество этажей по подьездам?
bxl-forever (2022-04-11 09:20:32+00:00): Hello,

Your drawings are visually very beautiful, congrats.

Something about sidewalks.  You might be interested to avoid drawing circular ways around blocks + 4 tiny connectors between them and edges near the zebra crossings.
I prefer drawing L-shaped ways (sidewalk along a street, then turning onto the nearest crossing), which makes it considerably easier to maintain the map.  Because those small 1-meter ways are a real pain to deal with.

Just a suggestion but it will be appreciated.

Have a nice day.
elucci (2022-04-14 21:29:14+00:00): Hi bxl-forever,

Thanks, coming from you it is really appreciated.

And also thanks for the tip. Therefore I'll try to avoid "rounded" corners and tiny bits of sidewalks and go straightforward with L-shaped corners and crossings connecting directly to them.

On a side note, while using the UrbisAdm view, I noticed that the buildings at Avenue de Cortenbergh - Kortenberglaan 172-182 should be considered as the same one. However, they all seem to have specific ref:UrbIS numbers, thus I did not make any change to avoid causing issues (I am still not very familiar with UrbIS as I struggle to access their website). Could you please give me some guidance on what to do when facing similar situations?

Thanks!
bxl-forever (2022-04-15 13:10:54+00:00): Hello again.

It’s very hard to know who really uses ref:UrbIS tags in OSM nowadays and if they are really needed.  (And if they are correct, because some data may be outdated.)  In doubt, I keep them.

If buildings are to be merged, usually we expand one of them to swallow the other one, then we either add a dual tag with all values on the building—like this ref:Urbis=7135;7136—or alternatively we create two addr:* nodes for each housenumber and each one gets the ref:UrbIS tag of the building it replaces.

Perhaps it’s not easy to reshape buildings with the iD editor.  If you tell me which building it is, I can easily do it JOSM.
elucci (2022-04-17 10:42:08+00:00): Hi bxl-forever,
Thanks for the advice. I tried to do as you suggested using the iD editor as with the UrbisAdm is pretty easy (although I know I should start getting more familiar with JOSM). If you want to check and give feedback, I did it on changeset #119807778
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.