piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2024-05-24 19:48:24+00:00): Hi Tomokino, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/203824035

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
sheikchilli (2024-05-24 20:03:41+00:00): this is not a beach, this is a pond with vegetation right up to its shore. please don't change the map for the sake of pokemon go.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151786656
NeisBot (2024-05-24 19:48:25+00:00): Hi Tomokino, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11931431480

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
sheikchilli (2024-05-24 19:58:20+00:00): I don't think there's a beach here. this looks like a canal in a ditch

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151786532
woodpeck_repair (2024-06-11 23:11:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 152564229 where the changeset comment is: revert dubious edits around Szczecin, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16136
silversurfer83 (2024-05-25 07:21:51+00:00): Gude :)

du hast hier ein VZ250 eingetragen. Das dient in erster Linie anderen Mappern zum Verständnis für die access Werte, die der Weg hat. Die hast du jedoch noch nicht eingetragen. Gilt das Zeichen nur für den kurzen Abschnitt, den du getaggt hast? Dann sollte der auch "vehicle=no" bekommen, damit es für Router verständlich ist.

happy mapping
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151786612
Miselajus (2024-05-25 20:14:14+00:00): Hallo,
die Angabe des Verkehrszeichens bezogen auf die Linie halte ich für eindeutig und hinreichend. Die zusätzliche Angabe ´vehicle=no´ wäre "doppelt gemoppelt". 
Gruß Miselajus
silversurfer83 (2024-05-25 20:37:09+00:00): Hi :)

ich finde im Wiki nirgends einen Hinweis darauf, dass die reine Angabe eines VZ ausreichend ist. Überall wird immer die Kombination des VZ mit den passenden access Werten besprochen. Als Beispiel hier der "Große" Verkehrszeichen in DE Artikel:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Verkehrszeichen_in_Deutschland
Und wenn ich auf taginfo "nur" 3500 ways mit DE:250 finde, halte ich es für sehr angebracht auch die passenden access Werte zu setzen
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/traffic_sign=DE%3A250#overview

Daher nochmal die Frage: Gilt das Zeichen bis zum Gebäude am Ende des Weges?

Grüße
silversurfer83
user_21579662 (2024-05-24 20:45:46+00:00): 部分节点未连接，待修复
citrula (2024-05-25 05:44:33+00:00): I think it's unlikely that these are highway=living_street. Are there signs that indicate that pedestrians/cyclists have right of way?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151787154
Layft Greater (2024-08-30 06:20:54+00:00): This changeset contain duplicates of existing crossings

E.g.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10131146522
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11931597133
Gregory Peony (2024-07-29 00:00:23+00:00): WAY: 1286394684 is an accurate building footprint: map more like this in future, please.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151787726
miluethi (2024-05-25 21:06:55+00:00): Perrier500,

Please square out all buildings: select one or several building shapes and press the "Q" key.

THANK YOU!
Perrier500 (2024-05-28 14:49:37+00:00): I did!  I even press Q several times.
eggie (2024-05-25 05:03:15+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-05-25 05:11:31+00:00): Gebouwen worden in de regel geïmporteerd vanuit de BAG.. Die is hier nog niet bijgewerkt. 
Wanneer je zelf iets intekent kijk dan naar de basis van bv de 'tanks' en niet naar de 'daken' Je kunt ze dus iets verschuiven.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-05-25 05:21:36+00:00): Voor de gebouwen die er al zijn kun je beter om een BAG import vragen. Dan komen de juiste gegevens mee. 
Dat kan in het draadje BAG importverzoeken.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/nl/43
Doe je dat zelf?
Mapse
eggie
Gregory Peony (2024-07-05 01:12:01+00:00): Building footprints inaccurate.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151788237
Hufkratzer (2024-05-25 20:38:38+00:00): Hi,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1286401335 is a riding arena like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/818003018, isn't it? But you have tagged it as a riding centre, compare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dhorse_riding
VSA_ (2024-05-25 20:53:09+00:00): Hey, thanks for checking in. It's already fixed.
NeisBot (2024-05-25 06:52:44+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151796960
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 07:00:27+00:00): Please do not add non existing objects to the map. Thanks!
user_125718 (2024-05-26 22:52:32+00:00): Bei den Öffnungszeiten vonhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11928299022  müssen bei den Wochentagen und Monaten die englischen Abkürzungen verwendet werden. Siehe: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:opening_hours
ZuquetuPlexis (2024-05-27 05:51:18+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis. Das werde ich in Zukunft beachten und bei (meinen) alten Änderungen anpassen.
Pink Duck (2024-05-25 08:21:03+00:00): If you're going to explicit add pavements please make sure to amend the roads with sidewalk=both accordingly. The presence of pavements is already captured and general guidance is only to tag them if there if something separating them from the road curbside.
NeisBot (2024-05-24 21:21:24+00:00): Hi Tomokino, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11931544730

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 06:53:05+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151793517
eggie (2024-05-25 05:14:57+00:00): Kijk even hier hoe een tank te mappen
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstorage_tank

dus extra tag man_made=storage_tank.
En plaats de tank op de basis van het maaiveld.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-05-25 05:35:24+00:00): Tanks uitgelijnd en storage_tank toegevoegd
NeisBot (2024-05-24 21:21:24+00:00): Hi swedishpies, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature's:
https://osm.org/node/11931697005
https://osm.org/node/11931697004
https://osm.org/node/11931697007
https://osm.org/node/11931697006
https://osm.org/node/11931697001
https://osm.org/node/11931697000
https://osm.org/node/11931697003
https://osm.org/node/11931697002
https://osm.org/node/11931696997
https://osm.org/node/11931696999
https://osm.org/node/11931696998
https://osm.org/node/11931697009
https://osm.org/node/11931697008
https://osm.org/node/11931697011
https://osm.org/node/11931697010

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
NeisBot (2024-05-25 06:51:26+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151796904
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 06:52:05+00:00): Please don't add non existing beaches. Thanks.
NeisBot (2024-05-24 21:21:25+00:00): Hi Tomokino, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11931690929

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 06:50:03+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151793517
NeisBot (2024-05-24 21:24:24+00:00): Hi Tomokino, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11931641829

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 06:54:49+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151793517
NeisBot (2024-05-24 21:24:24+00:00): Hi Tomokino, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11931655142

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 06:49:43+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151793517
NeisBot (2024-05-24 21:24:24+00:00): Hi Tomokino, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11931673234

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 06:49:23+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151793517
NeisBot (2024-05-24 21:24:24+00:00): Hi Tomokino, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11931663252

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 06:55:45+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151793517
NeisBot (2024-05-24 21:24:24+00:00): Hi Tomokino, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11931701246

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 06:55:15+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151793517
NeisBot (2024-05-24 21:27:24+00:00): Hi Tomokino, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/157248774

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
NeisBot (2024-05-25 06:54:09+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151797004
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 06:54:29+00:00): Again: Please don't add non existing beaches. Thanks!
eggie (2024-05-25 05:27:03+00:00): Dag Elmar,

Staat hier een bord Voor fietsers en ruiters verboden. Zoniet dan geen bicycle=no taggen.
Wel kun je de smoothness aangeven.
Bv smoothness=bad

Ik haal je tagging weer weg.
MVG
eggie
joel56dt (2024-05-25 01:55:40+00:00): Hello and thanks for updating the map!

Can you provide some context about why you changed these road types? Being 'unclassified' is technically valid and does not mean it needs to be classified. I took a quick look: Most of the changes here look good, but I do not agree with some of them, particularly around Stanley Park and the Port.

It may have been better to submit your changes in pieces instead of city-wide. It makes it difficult to review the changes with such a dense changeset.

Thanks,
Joel
arjweddell (2024-06-12 22:35:47+00:00): Hello and thanks for the feedback.
I work for the City of Vancouver and was tasked with updating OSM to match our street network, in particular correcting errors regarding unclassified streets. I don’t really agree that it’s valid for these streets to be unclassified; for the most part these are normal streets that have a transportation function and should be classified as such. 3rd party data sources like Streetlight Data are omitting important data based on the these streets being unclassified. It’s also important for people who use OSM as a base for network analysis that the streets be properly classified in order to set up preferences and hierarchies.
I do understand your concern with the roads in Stanley Park and near the Port. The “Residential” classification is not ideal as it refers to land use, not transportation function. I do think there is an implied transportation function that these are local roads, meant to serve destinations along them, and not for through traffic. We have many non-residential areas of Vancouver where the “Residential” classification is used to denote minor or local roads – eg Hebb Av, industrial Av, roads south of Marine Drive. 
As OSM doesn’t have a classification for non-residential local streets, I think “Residential” is the closest, but open to other suggestions – but I do think these roads should be classified.
Jarek 🚲 (2024-06-15 00:37:44+00:00): Hello,

> As OSM doesn’t have a classification for non-residential local streets, I think “Residential” is the closest, but open to other suggestions – but I do think these roads should be classified.

OpenStreetMap *does* have a classification for non-residential local streets, and it is precisely highway=unclassified.

The name "unclassified" (like some other OSM details) comes from British terminology, where roads are classified as "unclassified" in the meaning "road too small for a classification number" (more minor than tertiary) in their national government classification scheme. Please check https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=unclassified for more information.

highway=unclassified is a valid OSM tag which doesn't need "fixing" or classifying.

Roads or streets of truly unknown classification are tagged as highway=road instead.
joel56dt (2024-06-15 22:55:38+00:00): Hi arjweddell, thanks for your reply and the additional information.

It is great to hear that the city is using OpenStreetMap data in its work!

> It’s also important for people who use OSM as a base for network analysis that the streets be properly classified in order to set up preferences and hierarchies. 

I completely agree and this is why I raised the issue to begin with. There's a saying, "garbage in = garbage out".

I agree with what Jarek explained: tagging roads as unclassified is valid and common practice in OpenStreetMap. In addition to Jarek's [link to the highway=unclassified wiki page][1], have you reviewed the [wiki guidelines for tagging roadways in Canada][2]? This helped me understand OSM road classifications much better.

If your intent is to get different results from a tool like Streetlight Data, it may be better to reach out to their developers to change how they interpret the data. The OSM community tries to avoid ["mapping for the renderer"][3] and in this case there exist clear guidelines for tagging the roads as unclassified. I appreciate that you improved many incorrectly tagged roads; others should remain unclassified.

Having reviewed the wiki more closely now, I will be making several changes to road classifications in Vancouver. I welcome further discussion since my interpretation is not necessarily best.

I hope you continue to contribute to this collaborative mapping project!

Thanks,
Joel

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=unclassified
[2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada/Tagging_guidelines#Roads
[3]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
eggie (2024-05-25 05:30:36+00:00): Staat hier aangegeven Verboden te fietsen? Ruiterverbod?

MVG
eggie
Elmar Hogenboom (2024-05-25 10:09:54+00:00): Nee, dat niet, maar wel een hek met een hangslot. Het bedoelde pad is een nauwelijks te zien uitgesleten stukje, overgroeid met een meer dan een meter hoog woud aan brandnetels, bereklauwen en gras. 

Zie https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.3432829,5.0143077,3a,79.3y,201.95h,76.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_RjGql_Csu03c3NUp2KDHA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D_RjGql_Csu03c3NUp2KDHA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D201.9489593520412%26pitch%3D13.43533788938575%26thumbfov%3D90!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205410&entry=ttu

Dit pad, maar dan volledig overgroeid lijkt me geen pad waar fietsen = yes voor geldt.
eggie (2024-05-25 10:47:23+00:00): Oke... maar fietsen=no ook niet.
Dat taggen we eigenlijk alleen bij een verbod.
Tegenwoordig mag je ook track_type=grade5 toevoegem aan een pad. surface=.... smoothness=bad tm impassable..
Wanneer het hek op slot zit is het zelfs de vraag of je er kunt en mag komen.
Een hek barrier=gate kun je ook intekenen op een node verbonden met het pad met locked=yes access=......
Up to you..
Een goede router zal een fietser er niet overheen sturen.
Maar zo als jij het schets zal het niet voor fietsers bedoeld zijn.
Mijn bedoeling was eigenlijk je er op te wijzen dat wanneer een pad slecht is dat daar niet automatisch bicycle=no bij hoort.
Up to you....mapse
eggie
felipeeugenio (2024-05-25 13:32:55+00:00): Hola.
en el nombre del edificio se usa el nombre de la oficina solo si la oficina usa todo el edificio. Si hay varias entonces hay que separar en nodos.
Agregué la DT como oficina del gobierno y Coaniquem como un centro de atención médica.
Por favor comentar si es lo que corresponde para Coaniquem
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151789733
VLD549 (2024-06-10 15:38:33+00:00): Hi, could you indicate where BAG (source being used for the name change Schermplaat to Smidsvuur) shows it is called Smidsvuur? According to BAG it is Schermplaat/
Thank you!

https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/?searchQuery=Smidsvuur&objectId=0569300000000325&theme=BRT+Achtergrond&geometry.x=112792.51228037186&geometry.y=462977.104042573&zoomlevel=13.372000765835887
Leo Slager (2024-06-10 16:16:28+00:00): Hi, Good question.
1. There is a nameplate at Schermplaat/Stibbe.
2. All houses along the way have as address Smidsvuur.
3 Someone put a marker on the map.

Also BAG is not always rigth.
There is possibly a mistake in BAG.
Correction of BAG is requested.
Leo Slager (2024-06-10 16:31:30+00:00): See also:
https://www.verbeterdekaart.nl/#?geometry.x=112825.2&geometry.y=463039.02&zoomlevel=13.95
VLD549 (2024-06-12 13:18:31+00:00): Thank you!
felipeeugenio (2024-05-25 13:26:37+00:00): Hola. No usamos nombres descriptivos (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names)
si el banco no existe ya entonces remover los tags referentes a ellos y dejar los que se refieran a la dirección.
saludos
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 07:28:25+00:00): Hi Freigeist20003,

der vergebene Name "(Fahrad Reperatur)" enthält mind. einen Fehler und sollte vermutlich anders geschrieben werden, oder?

Siehe https://osm.org/node/11931754765

Danke. Viele Grüße,
Pascal
Fee2024 (2024-05-25 22:21:16+00:00): Danke zurück, ja ein klassischer Tippfehler,.. muss mir den Namen des Ladens, auch mal beim nächsten Ausflug merken. 
Sollte mit der zum Zeitpunkt des Eintrages, neu getesteten Mobilen APP "Every Door" auch mal auf die schnelle Vorort möglich sein.
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-26 06:57:33+00:00): Danke für die Antwort und das Beheben des "Fehlers".

#HappyMapping
literan (2024-05-26 11:53:50+00:00): градирни это не здания, не надо ставить тег здания на них
FUZZY_42 (2024-08-15 13:52:53+00:00): Да вроде согласно вики не возбраняется а даже желателен тег building
literan (2024-08-15 14:31:33+00:00): это где такое в вики?
FUZZY_42 (2024-08-18 17:47:01+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:tower:type=cooling
literan (2024-08-19 12:37:16+00:00): мда... кто-то внес это в вики без обсуждения, и теперь там так, действительно. Печально это, т.к. здание - это сооружение, предназначенное для пребывания людей, а градирни явно для этого не предназначены
FUZZY_42 (2024-08-19 17:35:43+00:00): И на других языках также, и как посмотрел по истории это изменение/дополнение внесли в 2018 году.
d3mol3k (2024-05-25 16:38:17+00:00): wycofuje całą zmianę porozłączałes ulice dodając jakąś abstrakcje w formie proposed dla linii tramwajowej w ulicy witkiewicza - zgłaszam
diamondarmorsteve (2024-05-27 14:50:48+00:00): Why did you delete the city node for Cancun? It now does not appear on most Openstreetmap-based maps (including the one used on osm.org.)
MxxCon (2024-05-26 06:10:18+00:00): Hello.
This changeset should be fully reverted because these bike lanes are already mapped as tags of the relevant roads.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151790922
VLD062 (2024-05-28 14:12:07+00:00): Hi MxxCon,

Thank you for pointing this out. The changeset has been reverted. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151947133