piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
treestryder (2024-07-11 04:02:09+00:00): Regarding https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2125473109

Where did the use of waterway=access_point come from? 

I do not find it on the waterway page, nor anywhere else after a few quick searches of the wiki.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway

That location is a canoe=put_in;egress
I see now that back when I updated its tags I had forgot to add "egress". Still, it shows up well enough on OpenStreetBrowser.
https://openstreetbrowser.org/#map=17/44.65966/-84.71000&basemap=osm-mapnik&categories=paddling_hazards,paddling_routes,paddling_amenities

See the Michigan Wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Michigan#Water
quincylvania (2024-07-11 16:13:56+00:00): Hi treestryder, I've documented the tag at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway=access_point . Not sure why it didn't show up in your searches. I've been experimenting with this tag (and using it alongside canoe=put_in) because I don't think canoe=put_in works well as a primary POI tag. `canoe` is an access tag, and using an access tag as a POI tag is nonstandard in OSM. A gas station isn't motor_vehicle=gas. Anyway, I'm happy to discuss further or brainstorm better tagging for this.
treestryder (2024-07-13 18:43:48+00:00): Nice! Not only does that solve the access tag overload problem, but also avoids the canoe/kayak/sup/paddlecraft/etc nomenclature debate.

I waited until it was clear on the Wiki, despite OsmAnd's excellent support for the whitewater community's narrowly focused tags, that canoe was thee generic term for paddlecraft and canoe=put_in;egress was how transitions between water and land were to be tagged. Then, in a frenzy of stolen time, created the OpenStreetBrowser paddling categories [1], converted Michigan whitewater tags to canoe, and added a note to the Michigan wiki's cheat sheet to help encourage consistency.

Since the creation of the categories, I have seen many new route=canoe appearing in the U.S.. Not sure about canoe=put_in/egress.

So… Is it time to add support for waterway=access_point to OpenStreetBrowser? Maybe make it function the same as canoe=put_in/egress. Leaving support for canoe=put_in/egress for a time.

Any thoughts on tagging portages? Right now, the "Paddling Amenity" category highlights ways tagged canoe=portage.

[1] 
 * https://github.com/plepe/openstreetbrowser-categories-main/blob/master/paddling_amenities.yaml
 * https://github.com/plepe/openstreetbrowser-categories-main/blob/master/paddling_hazards.yaml
 * https://github.com/plepe/openstreetbrowser-categories-main/blob/master/paddling_routes.yaml
MKnight (2024-05-17 12:24:33+00:00): Moin, Du hast hier einen ganzen Schwung Abbiegerelationen gelöscht um die nahezu identisch neu anzulegen, warum?
Jofban (2024-05-17 16:28:44+00:00): Zunächst habe ich sie als Verbote angelegt (kein Links abbiegen, kein Umdrehen). Wegen der durchgezogenen Linie vor Ort habe ich mich danach (leider nach dem Veröffentlichen) entschieden, dass sie als Gebote (nur geradeaus, nur rechts) besser angelegt sind. Intern scheint das zu bedeuten, dass die alten gelöscht und neue angelegt werden.
In der Praxis besteht kein Unterschied zwischen den beiden Varianten.
MKnight (2024-05-18 17:22:06+00:00): Ah, ok, hatte nicht gesehen, dass Du die gelöschten erst selbst eingetragen hattest.
streckenkundler (2024-05-16 20:27:27+00:00): Hei,

schau mal genau hin: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=179890058468909

3D Bild... Am Lichtmast sind touristische Radroutenschilder zu sehen, die für mich eine bidirektionale Nutzung implizieren.

Meinungen?

Sven
Langlaeufer (2024-05-16 20:51:37+00:00): Die habe ich wohl, gesehen, sind aber keine gültigen Verkehrszeichen um einen Radweg in Gegenrichtung freizugeben. Dazu bedarf es 237,240,241 oder 1022-10
Langlaeufer (2024-05-16 20:52:50+00:00): Auf der Einmündung fehlt auch eine Radwegfurt und über dem Vorfahrtsschild das Zeichen Radverkehr aus beiden Richtungen.
Langlaeufer (2024-05-16 20:54:07+00:00): Ich vermute mal hier wurde bei einem ehemals benutzungspflichtiger Radweg die Schilder entfernt um in nicht Benutzungspflichtig zu machen.
Langlaeufer (2024-05-16 20:54:43+00:00): Ich denke die beste Lösung ist die Radroute auf die Straße zu verlegen.
streckenkundler (2024-05-18 20:03:24+00:00): Hei,

...ich arbeite mal meine Mails ab... Hier bin ich mal in mich gekehrt... Ja, du hast recht... diese grünen Radwegeschilder werden gerne mal an Stellen geschraubt, die nicht bei drei auf den Bäumen sind...

Schöne Pfingsten,

Sven
Grass-snake (2024-09-10 19:33:42+00:00): Привет, а где в городе Пудож Центральная улица? Поискал в разных открытых данных, не нашёл.
Grass-snake (2024-11-28 06:01:10+00:00): Не дождался ответа, исправил как посчитал нужным.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-03-14 03:02:06+00:00): Reverted by DWG - undiscussed OEG Import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163594729
Frans S (2024-06-08 09:39:15+00:00): The object you tagged is not a building but a walled yard.
You also added sidewalls to buildings . Here, clear images show both the roof and sidings. Map the building over the rooflines and move them to their footprint.
Best regards
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151366963
miluethi (2024-05-16 01:48:22+00:00): Hi Harshitha,

please square out all your building by pressing the "Q" key with a selected shape.

Thank you for contributing to OSM Nicaragua.
Frans S (2024-05-18 10:06:12+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Inaccurate mapped.

Buildings not squared.

clustered adjacent buildings.



Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151367983
Frans S (2024-06-10 12:07:59+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Building not squared.
Overlapped building.
Added a layer to a building. (to avoid a reported error?) 
connected nodes of buildings to each other.



Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151368012
Frans S (2024-05-21 12:56:35+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. However, Map more accurate and follow the rooflines. Just a rectangular is not enough at many buildings.

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151368061
Frans S (2024-06-10 13:14:50+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please add not tags as a name to  buildings.
Best regards
Frans S (2024-06-02 09:49:06+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Inaccurate mapped.
BUildings not squared.
Connected nodes of buildings to other buildings and features.

Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151368307
Frans S (2024-05-17 12:20:43+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Inaccurate mapped.
Buildings not squared.
Collected multiple buildings.
Connected nodes to other features, here a road.

Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151368567
Frans S (2024-05-17 12:42:04+00:00): Hello. In addition to my comment, please take a look at this webpage, where you can see what had to be modified.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=151452533
Read the legend for more info.
rskedgell (2024-10-11 14:36:59+00:00): You changed a crossing=traffic_signals node to crossing=uncontrolled. WHY?
ChrissW-R1 (2025-01-03 14:30:31+00:00): Why did you remove the peninsula Barry Island (https://osm.org/relation/9258632)?

The changeset description is not very informative and there was no source added.
rskedgell (2025-01-05 12:14:08+00:00): @ChrissW-R1 you won't get a response from @gomedia91, as I discovered while trying to find out why they had mis-tagged almost every crossing=traffic_signals node in the Cardiff area (hopefully now fixed).

I would simply undelete the relation and check that it hasn't been broken in any other ways.
ChrissW-R1 (2025-01-05 15:08:10+00:00): Thanks @rskedgell. Firstly I try to discuss with a member, instead of start an editing war.

But in this case it looks, like there is no real reason or source to remove the Barry Island peninsula, so I re-added it in https://osm.org/changeset/161024103.
Frans S (2024-05-21 11:46:27+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. A few issues.
Trees don't grow in buildings. Check where a building starts and end in such cases.
Don't include a yard into a mapping as well.


Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151368592
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-05-16 17:27:52+00:00): Hi, cycleway:right=track was put in with a goal to show that it's directly adjacent to the carriageway and not protected from the cars. I'm not really against something mapped your way, but in OSM it's better not to break things for each other or we'll have edit wars.

But there is an actual problem here too. You shouldn't have added bicycle=use_sidepath. Access tags are about the law and there is nothing prohibiting cyclists from using the carriageway (sõidutee). In Estonia, bicycle=use_sidepath is not applicable, please remove it.
martinusK (2024-05-17 14:43:24+00:00): The question of protection seems rather subjective. What level of physical separation is required to qualify as a separate path? I think in this case it is important to show it as separate given one is one-way, one is not. But, maitse üle ei vaielda.

use_sidepath indeed my mistake. will fix
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-05-17 16:04:11+00:00): Yes, it's subjective. There is a oneway:bicycle=no, to account for direction, but I've noticed that wiki suggests using cycleway:right:oneway=no which is probably not supported by many apps. So, to avoid confusion, maybe it's better as a separate way.
Frans S (2024-06-10 14:31:05+00:00): Helllo. Thanks for mapping.
A short remark, please add no layer tags to a building. When it crosses ar road, just move the nodes of a road a bit aside. 
Best regards
Frans S (2024-05-18 07:58:58+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please do not collect adjacent buildings to make it 1 building.
Best regards
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151368856
Bigon (2024-05-15 21:16:37+00:00): I would suggest that if you feel that iD presets are bad (for Belgium) that you propose fixes (or at least open bugs) here: https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema.

That would made everybody workload lower if the tags are OK the first time
Bigon (2024-05-15 21:22:34+00:00): And as there is a sign saying explicitly that pedestrian are allowed, foot=designated was still OK, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
bxl-forever (2024-05-15 23:31:50+00:00): Hello,
Yes, I saw the issue you raised on GitHub about this.
Those discussions have been endless in the past years, primarily because legislation is different in every European country: "designated" is really important in the UK but also in Germany, whereas countries like Belgium do not have the same kind of legislation.  Contradictory info on various pages of the wiki does not help, indeed…
Frans S (2024-05-21 12:34:29+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
These changesets are  reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Inaccurate mapped.
Buildings not squared


Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151368900
ChristopherGS (2024-05-21 01:24:53+00:00): Thanks for contributing to the map! I see you are tracing outlines of buildings that are missing from the map--that's great. Please consider "squaring" the buildings that have right angles. I see you are using iD, the default map editor on the website. You can select a building and press the "Q" key and it will square any corners that are very close. This will help us ensure high quality map data.
Frans S (2024-05-18 08:20:38+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Inaccurate mapped.
Buildings not squared.
Connected nodes to other features.
Collected adjacent buildings to 1.
This task is a bit to difficult for a new mapper . Sorry.

Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151369311
Frans S (2024-06-08 08:06:38+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
The objects you mapped are not tagged as building=yes.  just as rectangulars.
Each building need to be tagged !

Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151369802
eggie (2024-05-15 17:55:38+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
Szymson (2024-05-15 18:02:06+00:00): A w takim przypadku co z tymi drogami?:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17453301
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17453024
Sytuacja jest analogiczna, nawet dotyczy tej samej drogi (S7).
theDM (2024-05-15 20:07:53+00:00): Niekoniecznie. Tamte pomijając, że są wojewódzkie, to idą przez większe miejscowości. Ta przez Mławę idzie przez stolicę powiatu. Pytanie, jakie tam są natężenia ruchu? Bo na tych co zdegradowałem, to marginalne. Starodroże DK 7 zostawiłem jako secondary ze względu na standard drogi. Między węzłami Żuławy Zachód a Nowym Dworem nie ma starodroża, bo na tym odcinku DK7 szła dokładnie śladem obecnej jezdni w kierunku Elbląga z minimalnym odchyleniem w Kiezmarku, ale tam ten standard nie jest jakiś wysoki i to krótki odcinek.
Większy ruch i znaczenie ma chociażby dawna DW 218 między DK 20 a S6, gdzie ze względu na okoliczne zabudowania ruch jest wyższy niż na tych jezdniach serwisowych. Taką taktyką, to DW 216 powinno wrócić na primary :).
Też uważam, że ten system dróg w Polsce oparty na urzędowych klasyfikacjach jest taki sobie.
Więcej niż na tych jezdniach równoległych do S7 jeździ też na starodrożu DK 55.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=54.2076%2C19.1172%3B54.1898%2C19.1160#map=13/54.1949/19.1471
SomeoneElse (2024-05-19 10:55:33+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16066 .
obyrnegps (2024-05-20 11:34:33+00:00): While checking for infill housing, garages and sheds, I am finding streets where only one driveway is plotted for a whole street or estate.  Previously I deleted the solitary driveways I found on a street as I could see no reason why only one driveway had been plotted where many others existed, or why that particular single driveway was mapped.  I was accused of vandalising the map for this.  I therefore decided where I found only a single driveway plotted to plot all the rest on the street in the same way that the original single driveway was picked out to be plotted.  If the original single driveway connected to the footpath only, I followed that initial established pattern for all driveways.  If I found the original single driveway connected to both the road and footpath, I follow that pattern for the whole street.  Where no driveway on a street had been plotted by anyone else, I do not start, adding any driveways, leaving those streets without driveways.
The paving in of an entire private amenity front garden for parking or any other use requires planning permission.  This is because it has significant implications.  The widening of a driveway entrance to access additional parking also requires planning permission. The paving in of a grass margin on the public footpath to access additional parking requires a licence from the Local Authority.  The removal of a street tree to access additional parking also requires a licence from the Local Authority.  It also brings about the elimination of public on-street parking space(s) in favour of private only parking.  In some instances such private parking is then made available for rent where the Local Authority has imposed on-street parking restrictions or charges.  It is difficult to establish however where commercial arrangements apply.  I only plot such private parking where the entirety of the front garden has been paved over.
As it seems compliance with a rigid orthodoxy established by persons unknown to me is required for contributing to OSM and no departure is to be tolerated and that none of the points I have made in the previous discussions I have engaged with have been given any merit, instead I’ve received total dismissal of my points (in particular regarding (i) “dismount” for cyclists on a public footpath, and (ii)private parking in residential areas that can simultaneously reduce public parking availability and more than double private parking in residential areas, I see no point in contributing further to OSM
limes11 (2024-05-20 14:18:54+00:00): Moin, 

danke für das Eintragen des NSGs. Woher hast du die Grenzen ? Das stimmt so nicht mit LANIS überein

https://geodaten.naturschutz.rlp.de/kartendienste_naturschutz/index.php?zoombounds=390539.7%2C5474339.04%2C392648.82%2C5475342.42&qlayer=naturschutzgebiet&qfield=id&qid=109459&qidtyp=text&qnum=1&layers=naturschutzgebiet

Ist es vor Ort so beschildert ?

Viele Grüße
Lokai (2024-05-20 16:55:23+00:00): Moin,

vor Ort sind Schilder NSG. Weiter noch für LSG, das ich nebenbei nicht bearbeitet habe. Informationstafeln mit den Grenzen des NSG. Tatsächlich sind Fehler unterlaufen.

Gruß
L.
Frans S (2024-05-16 14:15:07+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Buildings not squared.
Connected nodes of buildings to other buildings
Map the central courtyard as well.


Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151370316
eggie (2024-05-15 17:59:17+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback  Probeer
als het even kan op de adresnode bij te taggen.
MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-05-15 18:03:21+00:00): Over deze bakkerij is nergens informatie te vinden. Graag info bij welk adres deze bakker hoort.
MVG
eggie