piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Jose Luis Infante (2024-10-09 08:26:24+00:00): Muchas gracias por añadir vuestro negocio en Badalona.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157644709
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:12:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:22:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
emersonveenstra (2024-10-10 10:48:47+00:00): Hi there,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1322354659 now has conflicting sidewalk values (sidewalk=right + sidewalk:both=no), could you please go back and fix that? thanks!
mcliquid (2024-10-09 08:30:19+00:00): Merci
wildmaps (2024-10-08 20:58:32+00:00): Hallo, bin gestern leider nicht mehr fertig geworden. Zeichne momentan die ganze Küstenlinie neu bzw. verbessere diese. Hast du noch andere Änderungen gemacht?
wildmaps (2024-10-08 21:00:35+00:00): Konnte dadurch leider nicht meine Änderungen der letzten zwei Stunden hochladen (hätte ich in kleinere Schritte aufteilen sollen).
Da wir zeitgleich editiert haben kam es bei mir zu mehreren Konflikten.
Könntest du mir ev. noch etwas Zeit geben?
user_177389 (2024-10-09 05:42:20+00:00): Hallo Michael(?),

die Kommentare habe ich gestern gar nicht mitbekommen, JOSM scheint sie nicht mehr anzuzeigen. Sorry!

Die Fehler aufgrund der Versionskonflikte (wiederholtes Einspielen einiger Elemente mit nicht passendem/aktuellen Stand) habe ich soeben behoben.

Sollte derzeit passen.

Beste Grüße,
Mario
user_177389 (2024-10-09 05:52:57+00:00): Ich sehe gerade, dass die Tiles neu gerendert wurden - mit dem Stand des doppelten Coastline-Segments. Elba ist nun in manchen Zoomstufen überschwemmt...

(Mir ist schon mehrmals aufgefallen, dass die Coastline relativ aktuell gerendert wird - eben auch im Falle eines Fehlers,, dann aber nach einer Reparatur längere Zeit nicht mehr, wohl weil die neuesten Änderungen hinten anstehen.)
user_177389 (2024-10-09 06:00:11+00:00): Ach ja, die Richtung zweier Coastline-Ways hatte ich auch korrigieren müssen, ein weiterer Grund für das Fehlrendering.

Also nicht von der Kartenanzeige irritieren lassen.
wildmaps (2024-10-10 15:30:44+00:00): Hallo,

Danke für deine Korrektur. Jetzt müsste es in Ordnung sein (auch laut geofabrik coastline).

Ich habe nun die angrenzenden Flächen an die neue Küstenlinie angehängt auch wenn ich diese Flächen noch korrigieren muss was jedoch noch einige Zeit in Anspruch nimmt.

Sollten die sehr kleinen Inseln und Felsen coastline oder bare rock als wert besitzen? Und auch in der Relation der Insel oder nicht?
user_177389 (2024-10-10 16:50:54+00:00): Die Felseninseln würde ich mit natural=coastline umranden. Aber pass auf die Wayrichtung auf (da habe ich bereits an der Nordküste nachgebessert). Die Felseninseln kommen dann ein Multipolygon mit dem natural=bare_rock (ist jedenfalls besser als je einen zweiten Ring zu zeichnen).

Zur Relation der Insel - die mit place=island - kommen die Ringe meiner Meinung nach dazu, aber eher nicht zu administrativen Grenzen.
citrula (2024-10-08 21:38:18+00:00): Hi Giovanni, and welcome to OSM. Please try to draw the sidewalk a bit more carefully - it crosses into the road and across fences a few times! Also, consider using footway=crossing for the spots where the sidewalk crosses the street ( see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks#Sidewalk_as_separate_way )

Happy to answer any questions you may have!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157645522
Melancholytron (2024-10-09 13:57:35+00:00): Thanks for the info!  I think i fixed all the crossings, but im not sure what you mean by it crossed some fences.
muralito (2024-10-09 02:15:12+00:00): Hola. Este cambio no concuerda con la informacion oficial. Ver en http://visualizador.imcanelones.gub.uy/
(pero la informacion oficial puede tener errores obviamente como cualquier dato). ¿Que fuente usaste tu?
YeiMapea (2024-10-10 20:43:54+00:00): ¡Saludos, muralito! Lamentablemente no puedo acceder al enlace que me proporcionaste. Los cambios realizados se basaron en los comentarios de los usuarios de Maps que sugerían nuevos límites para Doctor Enrique Pouey, terminando en Juan López. Sin embargo, si crees que esto es incorrecto, me remito a su conocimiento. ¡Gracias!
muralito (2024-10-10 23:56:53+00:00): No tengo certeza, no puedo confirmar que sea incorrecto, asi que confiemos en el reporte de los usuarios y su buena intención. Gracias a ti.
Hugoren Martinako (2024-10-15 20:05:35+00:00): Hallo,

All the population values and the respective references were removed from the Statistical Office (INE), presumably merged into the main town (Santa Eulàlia des Riu). Therefore, they're are no longer valid.

This validator tool displays them activating the Sobrantes overlay (leftovers): https://osm-es.github.io/validador-ine/

MfG
thefabi (2024-10-16 07:58:55+00:00): Hello,

All the ref:ine tags that show up as soprantes in the validator tool exists on https://www.ine.es/nomen2/index. With the number of population as does not exist (N.E. No Existe).

In https://github.com/OSM-es/validador-ine/blob/main/ENTIDADES.2023.csv, the ref:ine also exists, even with the number of inhabitants.

It looks as if the number of inhabitants could be out of date or incorrect.
Hugoren Martinako (2024-10-16 08:40:47+00:00): Yep, they remain there as INE keeps a historic. Take a look at the CSV file, you'll see that the next-to-last column is SUPRIMIDA_INE (deleted in INE).

For instance, 07054000407 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5169959769) was deleted in 2015, and the population data was integrated to the remaining entities. Since then, no more updates has received, therefore, population data is out of date.

This procedure is quite usual when there is a separate residential area, and, over the years, due to the urbanization, becomes closer and closer to any place more important. What the INE does then, is about removing the original value they set, and merge the values.

That's the reason these references must be removed, somehow, they become deprecated. Each year, the INE releases a new file, updated values, new entities and old ones also.

I hope you understand.
thefabi (2024-10-16 09:23:08+00:00): Hello,

Thank you very much for your great and detailed explanation. I changed the ref:ine to old_ref:ine considering the lifecycle prefix and removed the wrong or very outdated population number. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157955261
canfe (2024-10-11 15:24:50+00:00): In che senso access=yes ??
Non è che streetcomplete ti chiede il tipo di accesso se street side o altro??
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157645609
ivanbranco (2024-10-11 15:36:54+00:00): StreetComplete chiede "Chi puó parcheggiare qui? Il parcheggio puó essere libero o a pagamento.", le risposte sono "Chiunque", "Chiunque voglia visitare un luogo specifico (es. solo clienti)" e "Solo persone con un permesso". Scegliendo "Chiunque" viene aggiunto access=yes, che secondo la Wiki significa: "access=yes denotes a public car park."
Abellato (2024-10-11 22:51:46+00:00): Si tratta di un parcheggio pubblico, liberamente fruibile a tutte le ore.
canfe (2024-10-12 16:36:45+00:00): Non basta applicare come un computer la wiki, a mio parere bisognerebbe inserire le informazioni che "fanno la differenza".
Di default un parcheggio è pubblico, la cosa importante è evidenziare se è privato.
E' un po' come mettere ad un sentiero lit=no. La cosa è importante è evidenziare i pochi sentieri illuminati.
Il fatto che una app te lo chieda o un editor te lo lasci fare, non implica che lo si debba fare.
ivanbranco (2024-10-12 16:43:41+00:00): Dissento, senza access=yes è impossibile capire se un parcheggio è pubblico oppure non sia mai stato sopralluogato a dovere, che è il caso di moltissimi parcheggi. È davvero fastidioso guidare fino a un parcheggio e scoprire che non è possibile parcheggiarci, quindi sono grato esista questa quest e ringrazio Abellato per aver contribuito.
VictorIE (2024-10-10 10:26:47+00:00): Hi,

Duplicate road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/144943831

I'm thinking that highway=service is the better classification.
b-unicycling (2024-10-10 10:38:17+00:00): thanks!
clay_c (2024-10-30 16:09:57+00:00): Hi Zol87,

How come you changed the street geometry of the bus terminal back to a one-way loop? This doesn't appear to have any physical divider, which would make it a large highway=turning_circle.
Zol87 (2024-11-05 02:09:52+00:00): Sorry for the delay. My job work and personal work like OSM and other tasks have all blurred together. I'm sorry for not responding sooner. I was under the impression that the driveway was shaped like a crescent from the overhead view.
clay_c (2024-11-06 21:40:33+00:00): No worries, we all get caught up sometimes.

There isn't really a 'best' way to map these sorts of bulb-outs as linear roadways. As a highway=turning_circle, it's unusually short and stubby, but as a one-way loop following the path of buses, it would imply the existence of a traffic island. In good faith, I've restored the roadway geometry as a turning circle: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158834101

I'm sure we're not the first to encounter this, though. I've started a thread on the forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/is-this-bus-turnaround-a-highway-turning-circle/121261
silversurfer83 (2024-10-09 19:34:54+00:00): Hi :)

kurzer Hinweis: Objekte wie Parkscheinautomaten bekommen bei OSM keine Adresse wie sie zB Wohn- und Geschäftsgebäude oder Geschäfte bekommen.

Wenn du solchen Objekten unbedingt eine Art Adresse verpassen möchtest kannst du dafür das "object:*=*" Schema nutzen. Siehe:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:object:*

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157646419
silversurfer83 (2024-10-09 19:26:43+00:00): Gude NavakWolf :)

die Eigenschaft "noexit=yes" (vulgo: Sackgasse) vergeben wir bei OSM nur an Endpunkte von Wegen/Straßen, an denen es für KEIN Fortbewegungsmittel (PKW, Fuß, Rad, Pferd,...) mehr weitergeht. Das Verkehrszeichen "Sackgasse" bezieht sich ja nur auf die Straße und dass dort am Ende kein Fortkommen für PKW ist. Dieses Zeichen kannst du als Punkt an der Stelle erfassen, wo es steht mit "highway=traffic_sign" + "traffic_sign=DE:357".
Details: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:traffic_sign%3DDE:357

cheers
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157646555
Allroads (2024-10-09 15:00:28+00:00): De zuidkant van deze way is niet aangesloten op de parkeerplaats.
Daar loopt een afrastering. Tussen dijkje/talud en het pad naar de parkeerplaats.

De sporen op het dijkje lijken hier aan te sluiten bij het hek.
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~allroads/NLOSMOK/OSMOKNL.html#map=21.07/52.7708/6.0003/0

Ik kan je de luchtfoto obliek (45 graden uit noord zuid oost west) beelden april 2024 van Slagboom en Peters niet laten zien, omdat je daar een persoonlijk account moet hebben.  Daar zie ik, meen ik bordjes aan de afrastering hangen.  Zo van een afstand op de luchtfoto obliek beelden bekeken.

Er is daar geen aansluiting.

En ik heb die track bewust niet ingetekend, ik wilde er eerst eens naar toe. Dus tot hier ingetekend met gate.
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~allroads/NLOSMOK/OSMOKNL.html#map=22.06/52.7804/5.9959/0 Bij de luchtfoto obliek 2024 beelden staat dit hek dan open en loopt er iemand een stukje door.

Groeten Allroads.
eric db (2024-10-15 10:37:24+00:00): Hello Allroads,

Thank you for your remark, you are right, i thought i saw a connection with the parking access from imagery, but for sure at the moment there is an electrical fence at the base of the dijk. I was about to correct the track, i just see you did it yesterday with the connection to the Twitterhut.

Fijn dag. Mvg Eric
Allroads (2024-10-19 15:32:15+00:00): Hoi, ik ben er langs geweest afgelopen wekkend in de avond, bij schemering, de openbare weg aan noord en zuidkant en veranderingen doorgevoerd, o.a. locked=yes op de gate gezet. Ook bij de vogelkijkhut de gates links en rechts met locked=yes. Daar is geen overstap ( no stile), dus je kan daar te voet (foot} niet langs. Bij de noordelijk gate daar is een style, die had ik al eens ingetekend, gecontroleerd, daar was de gate nu ook op slot. Ik vermoed dan ook dat halverwege die gate op locked=yes hoort te staan en die track verder naar het zuiden niet mag belopen mag. Immers je mag niet over een hek klimmen.
Op Slagboom en Peters beelden 2024 zie ik geen herkenbare style, is logisch want zuidelijk is ook geen style aanwezig.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-10-10 21:52:13+00:00): Why are you removing landuse tags?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157647072
maulijj (2024-10-12 11:58:06+00:00): Separating the landuse tag from the Village Tag as the areas concerned have different landuses and in different stages of development. Will update landuse areas specific to its contextual use within the "Village" area
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157647072
BCNorwich (2024-10-09 05:31:39+00:00): Placed at number 28, repositioned.
nevw (2024-10-08 22:31:38+00:00): Hi, I removed the ‘Cubby house’ name tag from the small building on the property.
The name tag is not used to describe things but is reserved for things that really do carry a name such as ‘Shirlow Avenue’.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:23:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:24:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
TrickyFoxy (2024-10-11 21:28:57+00:00): Почему вы снова удалили ограничение на поворот? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12501414/history
Константин Гам (2024-10-12 03:15:33+00:00): Потому что оно реализовано без отношения, дублировать его не требуется.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:19:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:14:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:13:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:23:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:21:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:21:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:17:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:10:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
orthocircular (2024-10-08 23:05:22+00:00): Thanks for your contributions!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157647869
eggie (2024-10-09 05:03:25+00:00): Dag Doc.....
Misschien shop=bakery?

Ipv restaurant?

Mvg
eggie
eggie (2024-10-09 08:45:17+00:00): Ik heb restaurant omgezet naar bakker.
Groet
eggie
kot europejski (2024-10-11 22:02:10+00:00): czy parkingi nie powinny być oznaczone jako parking=street_side zamiast parking=surface? Wiem że nie powinno się mapować do renderera, ale szalenie to wygląda na zoomie 17
d3mol3k (2024-10-12 18:34:40+00:00): korzystam z szablonu josm dla parkingów nie dla miejsc parkingowych - fakt super to wygląda na renderze. Poza tym na razie niema podkładu geoportalu który pozwoliłby odwzorować miejsca parkingowe - myślę że na to przyjdzie czas później. Dodałem to czego brakowało w ogóle - czyli uliczek chodników pól parkingowych
SamPro910 (2024-10-09 13:55:43+00:00): So I went to location. The previous path is definitely wrong, but so is what I put in. The entry path is just a short spur from the road, while the other parts of the facilities are only reachable after going in, so no other paths are needed.
Hungerburg (2024-10-09 09:38:50+00:00): Hallo Engener, ich verstehe nicht, warum jemand so wild herumstochert und überall Kleinigkeiten anbringt, die dann aber falsch sind, wo vorher alles richtig war. ZB der Tunnel beim LKH Hall/Ruetz. Was ist der Sinn der Übung? Zeitvertreib?
mrpulley (2026-02-28 09:47:27+00:00): Maxspeed correct for 22729556 (apart from northern end, part of 80 zone for 1322381000)
1322380999 is maxspeed 80, apart from northern end (50) (not 100)
644933368 maxspeed 80
644933367 eastern end 80, remainder correct
644933369 correct
Fixed at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178215139
mrpulley (2026-02-28 09:49:53+00:00): Confirming that maxspeed is correct here (checked at survey)
jhaluska80 (2024-10-09 01:10:38+00:00): If it's on public land and my checking of public plots indicates it is, it shouldn't be private.  It'll confuse mappers in the future.

Now, if the gate is locked, set the gate to locked .

Change the track surface and smoothness to like ATV so routers won't route through it.

It's slightly more correct.  This gives people all the information they need to know about it.
Alliegaytor (2024-11-05 22:01:04+00:00): Hi,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I can see that you have edited the SRL East in this changeset. 

You added these house nodes to it: 12236606341, 12236581442, 12236606400, 12236606376, 12236606374, 12236581497.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12236581442
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12236606341
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12236606400
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12236606376
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12236606374
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12236581497

The railway does not need to be connected to the houses as it will be underground. Could you remove those nodes from the railway please?
NorthCrab_upload (2024-10-09 01:00:50+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12236641519
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12236641517
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12236641516
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12236641515
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12236641514
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12236641513
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12236641512
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439924610
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439913444
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439924611
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439913446
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439913447
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439913449
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439913450
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439913451

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Allison P (2024-10-09 05:49:08+00:00): Source for name "Jeep Trail"? Typically when found in TIGER data it is actually description rather than a name. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13692694/history
Quimby5 (2024-10-09 15:02:58+00:00): Hello, I see you're new to openstreetmap - welcome! Unfortunately this edit doesn't really meet the standards for OpenStreetMap, so I've reverted it.  Please make sure you are mapping features that are actually on the ground and that you are familiar with. If you had visited this location, you would be confident that the road connection you mapped really doesn't exist. Also please note that satellite imagery can be very out of date in places, and misleading.  Especially with complicated areas like this, with many old logging/mine trails, boots on the ground with a GPS is the best way to ensure your edits are correct and good quality.
Kootenehs (2024-10-09 16:08:17+00:00): I went through the way that I mapped yesterday with 2 motorcycles.  I mapped the average of my GPS track going up/down.  Met another person who got lost following the "mapped route" before finding the route that we went through.  The mapped route is the traditional path the road went prior to the washout/new mine work.  What other standard would you prefer for adding the road beyond 3 people and 2 GPS tracks?
Quimby5 (2024-10-09 16:15:48+00:00): Oh interesting! Ok good on ya for using GPS tracks, sorry I jumped to conclusions. Let me pull up my tracks from last week and see.  It's likely that GPS reception is weak/inaccurate in that tight valley, could just be bad GPS jitter on either/both our tracks.
Kootenehs (2024-10-09 16:19:35+00:00): Is the spot you deleted where the washout is?  It's hard telling from satellite but seems close with the cross ditch and smashed gate at Tributary creek.  If you went up through the mine  site (where the other person got lost) and didn't cross the washout your track may also work.  The washout currently has a road to get side by sides and smaller over - definitely no Honda civics crossing yet.
Quimby5 (2024-10-09 16:29:14+00:00): Yeah it's exactly at the start of the washout.  
New edit here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157680352   Might take a while for the map tiles to update.
Kootenehs (2024-10-09 16:36:58+00:00): Yesterday was a quick ride to the top and had been up before so I wasn't watching the GPS to see your route varied from the standard route until I uploaded my trace and noticed.  Next year I hope to head up with a bit more time and I'll try to catch the side spurs up there so those can get added