piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
flylow (2019-06-29 14:20:13+00:00): The way across was already there I just did separate the barrier=kerb from highway=footway. And yes, I did not tell you this problem. All kerbs where pointing the wrong way !

Please, read the whole changeset.
NunoCapeloCaldeira (2019-06-29 14:25:51+00:00): as I said there's one only kerb, not two and they were in the correct direction. I only see one kerb https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/qgL-j2KwieXU-jOxUzrDzA
NunoCapeloCaldeira (2019-06-29 14:27:38+00:00): and I cant read the changeset as you edit thousand of elements within the same changeset and only mention "small adds and fixes", which doesn't drescribe what you done at all to what.
maxolasersquad (2019-06-26 00:05:12+00:00): The "name" tag is used to provide the name of an object, not a description.
felipeeugenio (2019-07-03 14:21:02+00:00): Estimado. Esto es vandalismo puro, por favor no agregar cosas que no existen para jugar PokemonGO o juegos similares. saludos
Supaplex (2019-06-26 09:09:43+00:00): 不好意思，你不小心拖動到兩個節點，導致巷弄有拖拉現象。已經幫你修正了。
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/71616943
HaowenL (2019-06-28 00:07:48+00:00): 抱歉使用上還不熟悉，謝謝修正！
Supaplex (2019-08-09 16:47:47+00:00): 恭喜您完成第一次的地圖編輯！ 歡迎加入開放街圖，群眾共同參與，繪製生活週遭大家關心事物的共編地圖。以下是相關的參考資料，歡迎隨時指教與提問。

編輯須知
台灣的標示依循準則可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taiwan
常見的圖徵標示方式可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features
給Pokemon Go玩家的建議：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers
組織性編輯指南：https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

台灣社群網站
台灣 OpenStreetMap 網站  https://osm.tw/
臉書粉絲頁OpenStreetMap台灣 https://www.facebook.com/openstreetmaptaiwan/
台灣社群Facebook社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Telegram OpenStreetMap Taiwan https://t.me/joinchat/Aqu2IgnTuIidMfREdNmomQ
Telegram OpenStreetMap Asia  https://t.me/OpenStreetMapAsia
Slack https://osm-tw.signup.team/

Happy Mapping!
StephaneP (2019-06-27 04:56:09+00:00): Bonjour Frosm,

Quel était le probleme avec camp_site=reception ?

Stf
frosm (2024-08-30 09:57:02+00:00): la clef camp_site=* décrit la qualité de l'infrastructure d'un camping, la réception n'est pas un niveau de qualité
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR%3AKey%3Acamp_site
StephaneP (2024-08-30 10:16:39+00:00): Ok, je pense qu'Adrien avait lu cette page, qui mentionne ce tag. Mais elle est resté à l'état de proposition.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Extend_camp_site
ElliottPlack (2020-07-31 19:30:04+00:00): Hey there! Looks like you did some work with Maptime Bmore and our playground event. Have we me in person? I co-organize Maptime. Either way, you seem to have knowledge in Bolton Hill. Do you know what the "park" is at 1425 Eutaw Pl? It has some strangle cobblestone-lined humps within a park-like area, but it is not in the Rec&Parks park list. Curious what this might be. It is city-owned land.
Archodee (2020-07-31 20:09:21+00:00): I've driven by them multiple times and my best guess would be things for children to climb on. It was probably built years ago when the city had no money for parks and they just created something with construction debris.

Its definitely a park of some sort, there are multiple benches and a couple picnic tables.

We've probably met as I've been to a handful of maptime bmore meetings. My name is Eric but I'm terrible with names so I forget if I have met you.
TravGW (2019-06-26 03:05:39+00:00): Do not make fictitious edits to the map. This is a real world map that people depend on, it is not a game. Uploading fictitious edits is a waste of everyone's time and will not be tolerated.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-06-26 01:37:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 71618717 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a persistent sockpuppet in Rochester.  See block 2548 et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-06-26 07:47:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 71625827 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a common Pokemon edit.  See note 1821358
Menak Vishap (2019-06-26 16:50:56+00:00): Из-за Ваших правок на юго-западе Ленобласти оказался уничтожен огромный кусок леса сложной формы, создававшийся очень долгим и кропотливым трудом нескольких мапперов, и восстановить его теперь будет очень непросто. :(((
aharvey (2019-07-11 14:04:12+00:00): Hey there, I've added the new node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6571334825 for Central station, however Central station was already mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34891023 as an area. Per one read world feature = one OSM object, we should only have one Central railway=station, and I think it should be the area. Could we delete the one you added and replace it from the relations with the way?
MacLondon (2019-07-11 17:38:21+00:00): Hi. I agree. I had another look at the station and also noticed a public_transport=station area that you created, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/679354513. For relations, I've now used that area instead of the (now deleted) node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6571334825.

I've also created a stop_area for T4 stop/Platforms 24/25 at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9774952 that you might have a look at.

Is it reasonable to have a separate railway=station node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5692089433 for the light_rail trains? I suspect it is, but I don't know if the location of the T4 platforms should maybe mean a shift of the light_rail station node eastwards is needed.
MacLondon (2019-07-11 18:31:28+00:00): Sorry, ignore the question above as I just realised that T4 isn't light_rail.
aharvey (2019-07-12 02:26:47+00:00): Ah thanks, you're right https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/679354513/ is the public_transport=station and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34891023 is the railway=station, per the wiki, one is more the passenger's view of the station, and the other the train's view of the station.

I don't think your T4 stop_area makes sense to me, but then again I don't really understand the stop_area tag...

Platform 24/25 are just two platforms at Central station, I don't think the need to be marked differently to any other platform at Central station.
Warin61 (2022-11-23 23:52:52+00:00): You have tagged the outer way of a platform as a platform. That would be ok if it were not part of a relation that tags it as a platform as well ... duplicated tagging leads to confusion.
MacLondon (2022-11-29 01:52:52+00:00): Hi  Warin61.

I've had a look at this changeset and I can't find the duplicated tagging that you're referring to.
Warin61 (2022-11-29 09:50:52+00:00): Ok,
Example (might be more than one.. I have done some repair work here in 'Central' so I'm not too worried by it .. but something to watch out for)
Way: 229029020 This changeset (dated 6/26/19) add the tags for it to be a platform. 

Pre-existing Relation: Platform 8 (6015394) established 2/29/16 already tagged as a platform. Thus a duplication.
0000FF berries (2019-07-02 00:19:02+00:00): Hello :)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap :)

I noticed that you are a new mapper that followed instructions from https://tasks.hotosm.org/project/5461
Please note that the instructions that were provided to you to map buildings are not clear or complete. For example see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/699797695 To correctly map that building, we would make the outline of the roof (if it corresponds to the outline of the building where it meets the ground) and move the outline to such position so that it corresponds to the location where the building meets the ground. Does that make sense to you? Basically, for buildings we map usually outlines on the ground.

Also note that sometimes photographs are displaced away from the real position of the features that are photographed. You should check that the roads in the photograph are aligned with the GPS tracks that people have contributed to OSM and move the background if you need to.

Could you please review and correct the buildings added so far..?

If you have questions, feel free to ask me or to ask at https://help.openstreetmap.org/

Thank you for your time and I hope that you will continue mapping :)
viloan (2019-06-26 01:36:59+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt
Se você está mapeando por causa do jogo do Harry Potter, as dicas e explicações na página anterior também são úteis para você.

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-06-26 01:37:03+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changeset 71617849.
JJIglesias (2019-06-26 05:16:29+00:00): Slds. Ahora revisa las ediciones y correcciones que yo hice a tu edicion. Y complementa datos faltantes como niveles de los Pisos de los negociones y del Hospital; Nombres de las tiendas dentro de ese Mercado, etc.
Gracias JJ
rivermont (2020-01-19 18:05:04+00:00): Hi,
Did you document this import anywhere, and discuss it with the community? I can't find a page on the wiki for this TNRIS data.
If not I would suggest that this data (all of it) be removed because it is VERY low quality, inconsistent, and just generally not good.
TheDude05 (2020-01-19 18:35:30+00:00): It isn't an import, I made it.  As for the quality it is derived from semi automated classification of aerial imagery with an infrared sensor by the organization in question which is distributed as a faster file under an open license.  From that file I polygonized the different expertly classified vegetation so that it would be compatible with the map.  I then ran smoothing over that and removed areas that were smaller than 100 sq ft as they were usually in areas of urban development.  After that to remove extraneous nodes I simplified the edges.  After all of this geoprocessing was done I brought the file into JOSM and checked that the vegetation didn't overlap roads, buildings, parking lots, or water features (which if we want to talk about quality why not the edges of lakes).  Then I copied the features into the map in JOSM and uploaded it.  It is very similar to natural features found in European countries (Germany for example) where it is nice to differentiate between urban and more natural settings.  My plan is to continue with other counties in the surrounding area.  As the features were created solely by me through geoprocessing and as I copied them into the map myself I do not think it qualifies as an import and the claim that the quality is low doesn't really hold as the classification on the original raster frown which these faces are derived was done by professionals.  To add to that the geoprocessing was also done by a professional as I am an independent GIS consultant with over 10 years of experience.
rivermont (2020-01-19 18:59:20+00:00): > It isn't an import, I made it.
> it is derived from semi automated classification of aerial imagery ... by the organization in question which is distributed as a faster file under an open license.
You performed the processing that took it from one form to another, and then uploaded it. You did not generate/create the data yourself, TNRIS did and made it available.  
Imports do not have to be automated, they can be and often are manual. OSM has guidelines (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines) for importing data from external sources which clearly state **Community Buy-in**, **Documentation**, and **Import Review**. Just because it *is* licensed properly and *can* be imported doesn't mean it should be.

> As the features were created solely by me through geoprocessing and as **I copied them into the map myself** I do not think it qualifies as an import ...
Copying is importing if it is not your data.

As for quality. There is very little that separates these islands of landcover from the area next to them. Just from a single spot check, ways 699813571, 699812272,  699807593, and 699811350 in no way appear to be differentiated from the surrounding terrain. This data would not make it through any community quality review, had it happened.

Bottom line, large imports of data must be reviewed by the local and/or larger community, and I have serious doubts that this would have been approved.
rivermont (2020-01-19 19:02:48+00:00): Got scammed by formatting up there but hopefully it's still readable. :/

I'm also not sure that this is even TNRIS data, as the landcover I can find on their data portal is NLCD data which is created by USGS (https://data.tnris.org/collection/89b4016e-d091-46f6-bd45-8d3bc154f1fc)
TheDude05 (2020-01-19 19:11:29+00:00): The data that has been uploaded is my data as it is in a completely different format than it was originally, even then I acknowledged the original dataset from which it was derived.

As for spot checking it is a highly inaccurate way to see vegetation as your eye is not as sensitive as the sensor, the aerials may be from too high to notice nuance, their quality might be too low, and as they are snapshots in time the vegetation may have changed.

As I have been told by others and have read by others that this method of mapping is not an import then I am afraid we will have to disagree on that issue.  Your doubts are neither here nor there.

As to the quality I am sure I can go through your edits and take issue with quality, it is a matter of opinion and taste and something one has to learn to deal with in a volunteer based cooperative environment.  As this area doesn't tread on your toes in your area of work and I am far more local to it than you (my family lives and owns land in this area) I believe that I should have more say in the matter as we tend to give more credence to the mapper closer to that which is being mapped.

If you do feel extremely strong in your opinion feel free to report the edit to the proper authorities and they can do as they please.
TheDude05 (2020-01-19 19:21:03+00:00): True but as TNRIS is where I got it and they posted the license I give them the credit.
SomeoneElse (2021-06-21 23:14:03+00:00): For info this has just been mentioned again at https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCJ2P6KCH , for much of the same reasons as discussed at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71619765 including "doesn't seem to match what's actually there".  I'm several thousand miles away and am therefore not in a good place to judge how good or otherwise it is, but am happy to help with a revert if that is thought to be the best route forward.
TheDude05 (2021-06-21 23:39:17+00:00): I don't think anyone who has commented thus far has ever even been to this county so their ability to claim what is there or not is questionable at best.  The dataset I derived this data from uses commonly accepted remote sensing practices to ascertain land cover.  To take issue with it is to take issue with the science that backs that.  Prior to all the fuss I had planned on doing many of the neighboring counties so it doesn't look like an anomaly in the state but I don't want to put in the time and effort to make datasets when several people from hundreds if not thousands of miles away feel they can tell what is on the ground better than someone who travels often to this area to visit family.  I think people are a little to skippy with the urge to use revert when the general practice of the map is not to make such broad changes to areas that are remote from your own location.  To each their own I'm done fighting over what a select few think the map ought to be and their tilting at the windmills of acceptable practices in science.
rivermont (2021-06-22 00:01:56+00:00): This discussion has nothing to do with 'questioning practices in science,' and everything to do with data quality (and respect of the import process).

These imported features are not connected and most importantly not bounded by anything representative of reality. They leave large gaps for no reason at all. I could recreate 'landcover polygons' of similar quality by painting with watercolor and running it through an automated classifier.

You say that this is not an import but it by definition is. Regardless, the community guidelines are to consult with the local (and larger) mapping community before importing large quantities of data into OSM. You did not do this, either by following the admittedly odd Import Guidelines or by simply asking "does anyone have problems with importing this data."

You also seem fixated on the idea that one must have physically been somewhere to have any say in how it is mapped. Obviously this is not the case or a project as vast and awesome as OSM would not be able to exist at all. My local areas sometimes get mapped by users in Europe or Asia, but if they aren't mapping incorrectly who am I to call them out for it. I often map in foreign countries like Mozambique, but more local mappers do not delete my edits simply because I've 'never been there and couldnt possibly verify whats there.' If you need me to find a central Texan mapper that wishes the data removed I could probably do that, but I doubt it would actually solve anything.

I stand with my previous statement that this data should be removed from the map; I think we've learned enough from NHD without adding this weird NLCD stuff to more counties.
TheDude05 (2021-06-22 00:23:22+00:00): It's a straw man to say that I have said someone had to have been to a place to map it.  I have never said such a thing and it is disingenuous to say that I have.  What I have said is that it is the practice of OSM to give precedent to those who are more local than those who are far away.

As for your water color analogy it fails because it is you arbitrarily painting rather than using time tested remote sensing practices to derive land cover.  Such a statement isn't made out of a objective opinion but is emotional rebuttal unconnected with reality.

As for it being an import I stand by my statement that since the data has been derived by me through geoprocessing and editing it is not an import any more than mass edits made from a large gps file or hand drawn map.  If it is the case that someone from DWG disagrees with that and chooses to revert it then I disagree with their decision but I'm not going to redo this or decide to start some sort of flame/edit/revert war, I'm an adult and am fully capable of disagreeing without engaging in logical fallacies, ad hominem, or general childish behavior.

I think most of the problem comes from everyone assuming this should look like trees on a satellite, it's scrub and not always easy to see in aerials and it's heavier in some years than others.  It's not like the forests in Missouri and other places that also have discontinuity but are much easier to pick out because they have tall trees.  Vegetation can sometimes blend into the ground depending on climate and region.

In any case what the powers that be decide to do is their purview, I do object to reversion (especially for someone's personal aesthetic preference) and if it must be done I would prefer it be done for the correct reasons and by someone in authority.  If the DWG feels it needs to go then they need to pull the trigger and get it done.  All I was trying to do was add vegetation to areas that look devoid of it in areas I am attached to by family, history, and property.
MikeN (2021-06-22 01:08:15+00:00): I am also an 'outsider'.   I prefer some types of automated data sources as a starting point.   I have worked with traditional handcrafted OSM land uses (not created by me), as it is necessary to modify for landscape changes.    Here I looked in several random areas of the county comparing several imagery sources which should span about 8 years.   I would find it very disorienting to try to correlate this set of land uses to any of the imagery.   I admit my first step would probably be the same as frustrated users took with the land use tagging in the state of Georgia: remove and start over.
rivermont (2021-06-22 01:39:20+00:00): Not sure what the 'personal aesthetic preference' comment is intended for; it seems more of an ad-hom than anything I put forward. I have laid out reasons that this imported data is of low quality but you seem to ignore this by saying it was 'done by professionals' which is neither here nor there as far as OSM is concerned.

There are no 'powers-at-be' here. There is community discussion and if needed the DWG will assist with technical things like reverting or dealing with copyright infringement.
TheDude05 (2021-06-22 02:01:59+00:00): The powers that be that I referenced is the DWG, especially since someone from the DWG had commented here.  As for personal aesthetic that comment was directed at large since many comments have been about how it looks rather than any other objective criteria.  My comment about professionals is a rebuttal to your low quality comments, I'm sure OSM could care less who does what but when making a decision about quality and accuracy I'm sure knowing it's a professional and authoritative original source has merit and since you alone do not speak for OSM I'm sure others in the decision making might care.

I know I'm not wholly objective in this case because it is my edit and work but I'm not sure you are being objective anymore because any argument against your position continues to bring out more unsubstantiated claims meaning emotion rather than objectivity.  This time it is a claim of copyright infringement which I'm sure you know is not applicable in this case.  Data released by the federal government in the United States automatically is part of the public domain and is not copyrighted therefore any derivative of thar days is not subject to copyright violations.

MikeN if that is what is decided by the DWG or a community consensus (more than a couple of people) then feel free to revert the changeset.  I have defended my edits and will disagree with the decision but again I'm adult and I'm not going to throw a fit or do anything rash or detrimental to the map.  I honestly thought after discussing it with another DWG member months ago they had removed it.  I just don't stand by random individuals deciding they don't like something and reverting it.
TheDude05 (2021-06-22 02:03:20+00:00): I apologize for typos, my baby is trying to type for me.
atomwaffen (2020-01-21 12:37:28+00:00): This seems to be an import of TNRIS data. Have you followed the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines ?
TheDude05 (2020-01-21 18:53:40+00:00): It's not so I didn't.  Might want to change your username, that group is pretty violent and intolerant, you wouldn't want to be confused with a white supremacist group.
freebeer (2020-01-21 19:42:54+00:00): the word Atomwaffen has a particular meaning, and i suspect most of the world, including myself, do not associate in any way with a particular ideological group.

looking at this mapper's recent edit history confirms my expectations.  a google text search makes scant mention of the US-based group, from my 'net location, and one should not assume that a US-specific group has relevance to the rest of the world.

just standing up for the use of the generic term and giving the mapper the benefit of the doubt.  although i've just been informed by someone familiar with the world that the group is trying to make inroads into germany; still, i go by the meaning the word has had for ... wow, i am getting old, it's no longer the last 30 years as it was back in my day.