piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
tguen (2024-04-03 01:03:18+00:00): All of the addresses here are from Clark County. Their data has duplicate addresses as well. I'd remove one, but I don't know which house it belongs to. Not sure if it's surveyable as it looks like a gated neighborhood.

https://hub-clarkcountywa.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/situs-addresses/explore?location=45.594265%2C-122.527777%2C18.97
watmildon (2024-04-06 22:55:55+00:00): Yeah, that's what I figured. Thanks for confirming. Maybe someone right near there will eventually notice and get it sorted. Thanks for the response!
unni-geo (2023-06-14 11:04:54+00:00): Hallo Dreireno,

habe offensichtlich verschobene Punkte durch Änderung https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/137322468 zurückgeschoben.

Bitte sei bei kommenden Änderungen etwas aufmerksamer bezüglich der bestehenden Daten.

Viele Grüsse
unni-geo
Linslade (2023-06-14 02:19:32+00:00): Why mark these (Seneca and River) as "Primary" highways?  By the osm wiki guidelines, these are tertiary at best, in the area where they join.  River could be marked as more significant as you go downstream.
Joseph R P (2023-06-14 16:26:19+00:00): I think there should be a primary route here, but it would be better if it shortcut through Esworthy Road, because this appears to be the most direct route between Poolesville and Bethesda.
Linslade (2023-06-15 00:28:01+00:00): Well, that's a good point about the connection between Bethesda (or DC) and Poolesville, but Poolesville is a small town at best and more like a large neighborhood.  I think the highway importance ratings in general need more consideration in this area.    The description for  “primary” is “connecting large towns/cities”, which Poolesville is not.  “Secondary” is lesser and “forming a link in the national route network”.   “tertiary” are “county roads and main connector roads through neighborhoods”.   Seneca road simply connects old Darnestown to the town of Seneca (which no longer exists).  I would tend towards “unclassified” for Seneca Road, but can entertain an argument for “tertiary”.   I see Esworthy as a neighborhood road with driveways every 100 feet or so that gets significant through traffic (River to 28), so maybe call it tertiary.  The northern half of Seneca is about the same as Esworthy.  The southern half could be “unclassified” but let’s call it “tertiary”.  River from Esworthy to Seneca is even less significant.  Does this make sense to anyone else?
Joseph R P (2023-06-15 14:15:41+00:00): I think it's worth noting that the road classification hierarchy on the OSM Wiki is obsolete, at least in the US and excluding trunk and motorway classifications. The definitions appear to be very European-oriented, since the bulk of the major roads in Europe were built on historic roads that connected directly between other villages, farms, POIs, etc, whereas in the US, that scheme is prevalent, but a lot of the country was planned out rather than built through time and has repurposed these roads as arterial roads or has built entirely new roads that simply intend to connect other roads rather than populated places.

These roads (Seneca, River, and Esworthy) at one point most likely connected between some hamlets at some point, but now serve as links between other distant towns (like Poolesville and Bethesda) or work as collector/arterial roads that serve Travilah and Potomac. Primary might be overkill, but I certainly think that there should be an established route through the area that indicates these roads are part of a direct connection between places like Poolesville, Travilah, Potomac, Bethesda, and DC that doesn't jump between two classifications spontaneously.
WC392309 (2023-06-15 21:19:35+00:00): Also I extended the primary route to river and Seneca because they are both state routes and connect back to the north suburbs of dc. I would have made them secondary but that would have made the map inconsistent
Linslade (2023-06-16 00:18:00+00:00): Just because they are numbered, doesn't make them primary.  I have driven down numbered dirt tracks to nowhere (admittedly not in Md.).  I would like to see the characterization of the roads represent what physically exists, rather than a database characteristic.

To Joseph's comment specifically, if there is  a non-obsolete classification hierarchy, please point me to it and I can update the OSM documentation.  Also, the descriptions I was quoting were mostly from the US specific descriptions in the Wiki.

This area is a mesh of roads without there being obvious direct routes between common destinations.  It is a boundary between suburban sprawl and old farms.  Many options exist to get you from A to B.

My aim is simply to make the map match the reality on the ground as as I reasonably can.  As it stands, there are glaring inconsistencies in the road classifications.
WC392309 (2023-06-16 14:09:38+00:00): I would say yes to an extent. Numbered roads are also a factor in OSM because traditionally, a Interstate(motorway) is more important than a US Route(primary or higher), more important to a primary state route(secondary or higher), more important than a county, secondary state, or farm route(tertiary or higher), more than an unnumbered road(minor or higher). Also River Road and Seneca Road come back to I-270 between Rockville and Gaithersburg
Joseph R P (2023-06-16 17:45:08+00:00): Regarding road classification based on the type of populated place that it links, often times it will be trunk for cities, primary for towns, secondary for villages, and tertiary for hamlets. However, it is difficult to completely base a highway classification scheme around that since occasionally you will have towns that serves as major highway junctions or villages with little to nothing going on in them to warrant a secondary route.

Looking at the pages for primary, secondary, and tertiary classifications on the OSM Wiki:

The US primary definition is extremely vague, stating simply "Primary highway or arterial road." "Primary highway" could mean anything, from a primary state route, the primary road through a region, a primary arterial, etc., and so could "arterial road", as an arterial is simply a major road through an area.

The page for secondary is almost wholly Euro-centric, and lacks any table for country-specific definitions.

The US tertiary definition seems to be the only coherent one out of these, implying it could be for hamlet-connectors or urban/suburban collector roads.

These pages (or at least the ones for primary and secondary) definitely need to be reworked, but each of them are their own separate projects that need to be heavily discussed with other highway-oriented mappers throughout the US to get a consistent definition for how it should be applied in the country, and shouldn't be changed as the result of this discussion or at the discretion of a single user.

As road number-based classification, road should not be classified based on what its number is, since most of the time, especially for state routes, the number just implies how the road is funded. It definitely can be an indication that a road is a major highway, but it is very common to have secondary state routes and county roads play a role similar to what a primary highway would or for primary highways to be dead-end roads just shy from being literal driveways.

All that aside, I think that these roads should neither be classified based on vague/obsolete Wiki definitions nor their road number. I think having two dead-end secondary routes is confusing but primary might be overkill, at least for this alignment. It might be better to have either a secondary or primary route pass through here, but along Esworthy Road, rather than taking an unnecessary deviation towards a golf course. I doubt most traffic driving between Poolesville and Potomac will take a detour just to stay along state routes, and it looks like a lot of traffic does use Esworthy as a shortcut judging by tire track patterns visible from the aerial imagery and in street-level view. However, through trucks are prohibited on Esworthy Road, so I'm not completely sure.
WC392309 (2023-06-16 18:58:20+00:00): That is a good point. You could have a county/secondary state/farm road that acts like a primary highway or could be a major arterial/county parkway/etc it would be at least primary but if it's a US route that is a dead end, it would be secondary unless there is a linking for primary and higher. River Road can link back to Gaithersburg through MD 112. Primary should have been placed earlier to avoid inconsistencies with the map placement and placement of classifications
Linslade (2023-06-16 20:36:52+00:00): First of all, thank you guys for hashing this out with me.  Lots of good points.  It's not easy to apply a single hierarchy (which isn't really a proper hierarchy) to the many qualities of a road.  I'll try to digest all this and provide a proper comment later.
seattlefyi (2023-06-14 00:59:09+00:00): Hi - welcome to OSM and thanks for the edits. Just a tip, it looks like the school name is already tagged on the school grounds outline, so no need to also add it to the building here. Thanks again!
Frans S (2023-07-12 15:09:50+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please don't collect buildings and tag it as 1 building. These are actually 3 buildings.
Best regards
ybungalobill (2023-06-12 19:37:27+00:00): Note: there's no explicit designation for hiking or cycling in the field. The official website mentions "hiking, biking, snowshoeing, and skiing"; horseback riding isn't mentioned anywhere at all.
Therefore, highway=path is probably the best fit for these recreational trails. Accordingly I'm removing any explicit access specifiers as the default ones match.
Andrea Musuruane (2023-06-13 07:02:34+00:00): Ciao. Ti prego di astenerti da modifiche arbitrarie. Sul wiki e' indicato che sono classificate come highway=trunk "le strade extraurbane principali (classificazione tecnica: tipo B) e le strade extraurbane secondarie (classificazione tecnica: tipo C) che non presentino incroci a raso, abbiano accessi e uscite mediati da corsie di accelerazione/decelerazione e presentino il cartello di "strada riservata ai veicoli a motore" a inizio e fine e agli ingressi intermedi." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Tag:highway%3Dtrunk Questa e' una strada extraurbana secondaria e NON ha i cartelli di "strada riservata ai veicoli a motore". Quindi NON puo' essere classificata come trunk. Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137258208
ivanbranco (2023-06-19 20:53:37+00:00): Hi HollyMap, welcome to OSM.

Google Maps can't be used as a source for OpenStreetMap edits: "The Google Maps Terms of Use explicitly forbid using Google Maps content - both map data and Google Street View - for making any other content. It includes using them for OSM mapping."

are all these edits based on Google Maps? if not could you revert the edits that are based on Google Maps please?

good mapping
HollyMap (2023-06-20 02:20:15+00:00): Hello Ivanbranco! No, my edits are not based from Google Maps! I actually live in this area and traverse them on foot regularly! I have been all around the Chestertown area on foot! These changes are accurate and actually up to date, ahead of what's displayed on Google Maps. For example, the "Village at Chestertown" is a new housing community built at the end of Scheeler Road, down Silver Heel Rd and Floating Cloud Dr, and the homes have not appeared on Google Maps yet due to construction being completed only a month ago. Thank you!
gscholz (2023-06-25 05:42:25+00:00): Hi iPappa,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=25.43240&lat=65.02811&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=137258240

Obviously you have shaped a forest into something rectangular. Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
str (2023-07-02 17:07:29+00:00): Näitä rakennuksia ja teitä ei taida olla olemassa? Voisiko merkitä Ground Truthin merkeissä ennemmin proposed:highway=* ja proposed:building=*?
oh8mxl (2023-07-20 16:49:59+00:00): Tämä muutos on siirtänyt Holstinsalmenpolun virheellisesti keskelle metsää.
oh8mxl (2023-07-20 16:53:30+00:00): Voisitko korjata Holstinsalmenpolun entiselle paikalleen. Se on tälläkin hetkellä siellä. Kiitos.
AndresDuhour (2023-07-26 22:28:22+00:00): Hola! quería consultarle si pudo relevar en el lugar el nombre. Estoy revisando que coincida con las etiquetas addr:street que en este caso no tenían acento. Gracias!
VLD521 (2023-07-31 05:11:25+00:00): Hola, AndresDuhour:
Perdona, necesito más información al respecto. ¡Gracias!
notfalltreffpunkt (2023-06-29 13:53:30+00:00): Hallo HarteKarte,
wie kommst du darf, das das location-tag falsch sein soll?
Fragende Grüsse
mp747474 (2023-06-20 09:37:23+00:00): das Eintragen von Airbnb-Angeboten, die vor Ort nicht eindeutig als Ferienwohnung erkennbar sind, halte ich für nicht sinnvoll. Wie unschwer zu erkennen, ist der Link schon wieder verfallen und keiner weiß jetzt, ob es die Ferienwohnung überhaupt noch gibt. Derartige, nur vorübergehende Vermietungsangebote gehören nicht in OpenStreetMap. tourism=apartment ist nur für Ferienwohnungen gedacht, die auch dauerhaft als solche vermietet werden und nicht nur für ein paar Tage.
S_S (2023-06-20 11:07:17+00:00): Soweit mann am Klingelschild erkennen kann ist dies eine FeWo die regelmäßig vermietet wird. Sie hat einen separaten Eingang zum Haus an welcher als FeWo gekennzeichnet ist.

Der Link ist, wie ich gerade getestet habe, aktuell und man kann Buchungen anfragen. Insoweit m.E. i.O.
Falls die FeWo aber nicht alle Bedingungen zu Aufnahme erfüllt (die ich nicht gefunden habe) bitte einfach löschen und danke für den Hinweis.
os-emmer (2023-06-18 17:29:34+00:00): Hallo red nail,
du hast hier den Tag wikidata gesetzt. Dieser muss aber ohne Link angegeben werden, also einfach nur wikidata=Q111395781. Ich habe das mal korrigiert. Dies nur zur Info für dich.
LorenzoPesci (2023-06-13 20:34:38+00:00): Legal restriction for cyclists?
Restrizioni legali con segnali stradali?
drazde (2023-06-14 04:02:20+00:00): No, di fatto non è percorribile in bici, ho messo no per quello non ci ho pensato forse il tag non è corretto se non c'è un divieto di legge giusto?
LorenzoPesci (2023-06-14 06:47:33+00:00): Giusto, vedi 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Key:bicycle?uselang=it
drazde (2023-06-14 08:24:55+00:00): Okey correggo il mio sbaglio
Grazie
NorthCrab_upload (2023-06-12 20:30:28+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Dworzyska":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10972021893
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10972021981

"Wrzosowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10972021899
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10972021985

"Budowlana":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10972021906
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10972021907

"Wybudowanie":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10972021931
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10972021971
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10972021972

"Łożyńskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10972021935

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
G_P_J (2023-06-13 08:13:41+00:00): Poprawione.
dcapillae (2023-06-12 21:31:19+00:00): Buenas tardes.

Gracias por los cambios.

Se ha corregido el nombre de la calle Federico García Lorca. El nombre de los viales debe incluir siempre el tipo de vial, por ejemplo, «Calle Federico García Lorca», «Avenida Europa», «Plaza de la Solidaridad», etc. 

Si está interesado en el mapeo de Málaga y su municipio, quizás le interese consultar esta página del wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:M%C3%A1laga.

Gracias por su colaboración.

Atentamente,

Daniel Capilla
Cisneros1992 (2023-06-12 21:49:32+00:00): Gracias, lo tendré en cuenta para la próxima vez. Un saludo.
habi (2023-06-13 05:16:13+00:00): Ciao donniosten12

Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap!
Schön machst du hier mit und hilfst, die Karte und die Kartendaten zu pflegen.

Hier meine Beobachtungen zu deinem ersten Änderungssatz:

- Es ist sinnvoll, deine Änderungen auf eine kleine geografische Region zu beschränken, das macht die Überprüfung einfacher. So wie jetzt werden Viele, die solche Änderungssätze anschauen möchten (so wie ich in der Schweiz) benachrichtigt.
- Es macht Sinn bei Änderungen in nicht Deutsch sprechenden Gebieten, dem Änderungssatz in Englisch zu beschreiben.
- Es ist nicht nötig, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1181475515 mit Namen zu versehen, die Auszeichnung mit Tags bezeichnet das Ding schon als Parkplatz.
- Die Wäscherei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1181475519 ist schon als https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7300723386 erfasst. Zusätzlich sollten Gebäude rechtwinklig erfasst werden, dafür drücke nach dem Zeichne die Q-Taste.
- Die Sandinsel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1181475524 würde ich als https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:place%3Dislet auszeichnen, das OSM Wiki hilft bei vielen.

Gruss aus der Schweiz,
Habi
habi (2023-06-13 05:18:38+00:00): Kannst du https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1181475520 präzisieren? `shop=yes` ist nicht so aussagekräftig, ist das ein Lebensmittelladen?
habi (2023-06-13 06:27:22+00:00): Du hast die Aussengrenze eines Waldes (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/817198308) als Pfad bezeichnet, teilweise überlappend mit schon bestehenden Zufahrtsstrassen (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169707474/,  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1168260376/ und https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/95193549). War das ein Versehen?
habi (2023-06-13 06:30:14+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1181475537/ sieht auf den Orthophotos von Portugal einfach wie ein Parkplatz aus, der Lebensmittelladen https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1765142888/ ist ja schon dort erfasst. Ist das nicht Schlichtwegs ein unnötiges Duplikat?
habi (2023-06-13 06:34:18+00:00): Die Solaranlage auf dem Dach https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1123402104/ hast du mit 'Lebensmittel' benannt, der Supermarkt ist aber schon erfasst: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6514188934/
Diesen Namen habe ich entfernt.
habi (2023-06-13 06:38:32+00:00): Dem Gebäude https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1181475538/ hast du `amenity=cafe` mitgegeben.
Das Café ist schon seit mehreren Jahren als https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6488406259/ erfasst.
Ich habe die Café-Tags vom Gebäude entfernt.
habi (2023-06-13 06:42:02+00:00): Das Restaurant https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10972053941/ und Restaurant auf dem Gebäude https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1181475521/ sind dupliziert, das macht keinen Sinn und das habe ich zusammengeführt.
aTarom (2024-12-18 15:58:56+00:00): Pots revisar aquest nom si us plau
"Pla[[[ j ]]]a Major"
no estic segur si es tracta d'una "Plaça ..."
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1181476876/history
abans de fer malbé coneixement local prefereixo preguntar
Salutacions
Glassman (2023-06-17 17:03:18+00:00): Is this road posted as no trespassing or something similar? From county records it appears that there are a number of residential houses located along the road. It does appear that the road is privately maintained but that doesn't mean it is no access. Adding the tag access=private will result in routers avoiding the road, even to addresses located on that road. Can you review this edit? Thanks. I'll send more info on OSM in a PM.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137260614
jm428 (2026-01-05 20:55:52+00:00): Hi, I am curious why you added the name "Lighthouse Hill Road" to this building: https://www.osm.org/way/1058591316

A different user has added that name to many of the buildings on that road, which seems incorrect to me but I was unsure because you also added that name to a building.
OldManCelli (2026-01-07 02:26:47+00:00): Must have been an oversight. Definitely didn't mean it. I just fixed the name to remove the street name and the owner's last name
OldManCelli (2026-01-07 02:30:39+00:00): Oh, Now I think I know what happened. There are/were a bunch of address node that I converted into the buildings. It looks like the addresses had names and those names became the name of the building. I think most of the names of these buildings should be removed. Some of them are addresses and some of them are the local name of the house.
jm428 (2026-01-07 20:10:35+00:00): Ah, that makes sense, thanks!
Qwajo OSM (2023-06-12 22:43:24+00:00): Hello Ralph, can you enlighten me on reasons you tagged this highway as service?
RAytoun (2023-06-13 07:48:33+00:00): Hello Daniel, 
The reason I tagged the road as a service - it's function is to connect a single isolated farm to the public road. That makes it the same as a service driveway in a town.
If you can identify that the road goes to other isolated dwellings or farmyards then the tag would change to unclassified.
Qwajo OSM (2023-06-13 15:50:07+00:00): Thank you Ralph. That adds up to my knowledge on highway tags.
ToniE (2023-06-13 10:24:11+00:00): Hi RedstoneRelic,

true, but the station was already (correctly) mapped as such south-east of this stop-position - in the building.

This point here needs to be mapped as a stop / stop_position according to the Public Transport mapping scheme: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Public_Transport&oldid=625726

I'll revert your changes back to stop / stop_position

Best regards
Toni
ToniE (2023-06-13 10:30:32+00:00): Just see that the area https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1117482942 is mapped as the station, showing the station-icon inside the building. That's OK though.
segubi (2023-08-19 08:50:59+00:00): Zum Fahrradwegweiser: Ich würde sehr empfehlen, keine Routenmarkierungen in die direction_* - Tags zu integrieren. Mehr infos: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/reprasentation-des-aktuellen-offiziellen-deutschen-radverkehrsnetzes-nach-den-vorgaben-der-fgsv-in-osm/4805/40
BCNorwich (2023-06-13 06:10:19+00:00): Hi, Although I didn't add the cave entrances I do know that there are many caves in Croydon some of which can be entered. So these entrances could well be valid, thus I've reinstated them.

Please don't remove stuff just on your suspicion without investigation. I would suggest you contact mapper JDurn if you wish to question the cave entrances.

Regards Bernard.
RedAuburn (2023-06-13 07:44:38+00:00): I don't think it's justified to add cave entrances in the middle of the street without sources at least...
VictorIE (2023-06-15 10:07:31+00:00): Untagged way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1181485241 :)
derredu (2023-06-13 12:23:17+00:00): Warum hast du so eine Freude daran Dinge aus OSM zu löschen?
Wem tut die stillgelegte Bahnstrecke weh?
Bitte schau dir
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:railway%3Dabandoned
genau an und entscheide nochmal.
exarkun (2023-06-13 18:08:04+00:00): vom früheren Streckenverlauf ist nichts mehr zu erkennen, auch keine Reste. Schau mal hier 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Mappe_keine_historische_Ereignisse_und_ehemalige_Objekte%E2%86%99
streckenkundler (2023-06-13 18:31:55+00:00): Ich habs mir mit Bing angeschaut... Streckenverlauf ist wunderbar erkennbar. Bitte schau dir das railway- Tagging-Schema nochmal genau an. Solche Objekte sind zugelassen!!! Selbst mit angewendeten Lifecycle- Prefixes ist eine entsprechende Erfassung nach OSM- Regularien möglich. Ein sich möglicherweise ergebener Widerspruch ist nicht lösbar.
bigboss (2023-06-14 14:32:55+00:00): Richtig, der Bahndamm ist nahezu komplett erhalten. Wiederherstellen bitte.
derredu (2023-06-14 15:05:11+00:00): @ exarkun
kriegst du den revert selber hin oder brauchst du Hilfe?
exarkun (2023-06-14 16:17:42+00:00): krieg ich hin