piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
silversurfer83 (2024-06-25 11:34:09+00:00): Hi :)

Danke. Hab da schonmal was angepasst.

Vom Wendekreis der Erfurter bis zur Einmündung Berliner in die Rasenallee müsste aber nochmal jemand vor Ort gucken, ob das auch ein 240er ist und wie genau der Weg über die Berliner drüber kommt. Laut Luftbild kann das so, wie es grad kartiert ist, nämlich nicht sein. (ist schon länger unsauber erfasst, was niemanden daran hindern sollte, es zu verbessern)

cheers
silversurfer83
tebby7 (2024-06-20 06:47:27+00:00): Buildings need to be squared when mapping.  Check instructions on the  tasking manager .
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152913242
silversurfer83 (2024-06-20 06:56:15+00:00): Ich schon wieder :)

wie ist dieser Weg denn beschildert? Gibt es dort Verkehrszeichen?

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152913690
Pfeffer55 (2024-06-23 21:12:48+00:00): Fußgängerweg
silversurfer83 (2024-06-24 04:41:58+00:00): Also das runde blaue Schild mit Fußgängern. Auch als Verkehrszeichen 239 bekannt?
Pfeffer55 (2024-06-25 07:34:18+00:00): Ja, sorry fürs Durcheinander, das ich angerichtet habe.
silversurfer83 (2024-06-25 11:21:10+00:00): Hi :)

bitte nicht. Alles in Ordnung :)

Das ist ja das schöne hier, dass jede*r mitmachen kann und helfen kann. Was bei einem solchen Projekt hier klar ist: Niemand kann die vielen Feinheiten und Komplexitäten am Anfang erfassen. Das ist vollkommen in Ordnung. Ich versuche dann ein wenig zu unterstützen, in dem ich erstmal Fragen stelle um mit den Antworten dann die Ergebnisse in der Karte noch besser zu machen.

In dem Fall des Luise-Greger-Weg ist damit alles geklärt, denn mit dem VZ239 haben wir hier einen klassischen "Fußweg" (highway=footway).

Also bitte weitermachen und meine Nachfragen nur als freundliche Hilfe verstehen. So lange hier niemand randaliert ist alles in Ordnung ;)

happy mapping
silversurfer83
johsin18 (2024-06-21 12:23:53+00:00): Hallo enristuda007,
durch deine Änderung wurde der Kirchweg stark in Mitleidenschaft gezogen, 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=152914153
weshalb ich den Änderungssatz komplett rückgängig gemacht habe.
Bitte versuche es nochmal.
Gruß, johsin18
enristuda007 (2024-06-23 16:44:40+00:00): Hallo Johsin18
Danke für Feedback. Ich habe meine Wanderung aufgezeichnet (MapOut) und diesen Track auf OSM geladen. Ziel war: wissen wo ich marschiert bin und das Bänkli am richtigen Ort einzeichnen kann. Kann man diesen Track löschen? Wie ? Oder darf man den Track gar nicht hochladen ? War das evtl. der Fehler ?
Notabene: ich habe ein Mail von dir erhalten und wollte direkt zurückmailen. Das geht offenbar nicht ! Muss alles über "Diskussion" abgewickelt werden ?
Gruss enristuda007
VLD316 (2024-07-09 16:00:29+00:00): Hello OxidizingMap,
I noticed that you added this jewelry store and their hideaway building.
I’m curious if having their hideaway building labeled as such, might raise security/other issues?
Thank you and have a nice day!
-Nick
OxidizingMap (2024-07-10 01:40:27+00:00): Hi Nick, thanks for commenting. In regards to their hideaway, I am not 100% sure what the building even is. I decided to map it since they have signage out front saying that it's the "Hideaway."

They are really nice people over at this shop, so I could go in and ask them next chance I get for more details. After I might add a description or if I learn to remove it then I'll do so. Thanks for checking in :)
vojtechzaboril (2024-08-11 11:28:40+00:00): Hi, you probably added marina (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12937409450) as a mistake.
I deleted it now.
floro15 (2024-08-11 19:33:43+00:00): didnt find the correct type for the area, as the type is only available for a POI. i added the corresponding POI type as POI itself.
vojtechzaboril (2024-08-11 19:58:50+00:00): I used your tags from that point and added them to the area.
Please do not add meaningless and wrong tags, if you can't find the correct ones.
You can add your notes to nodes (for example you can add fixme="change this node to area" to your node or something similar)
floro15 (2024-08-11 20:34:33+00:00): thank.
please note, that i did not add a "meaningless and wrong" tags on purpose! the german word for lounger and marina is nearly the same, i just picked the wrong one accidentally.
vojtechzaboril (2024-08-11 20:40:41+00:00): Ok, sorry. Im not good in german
Vinber-Pro (2026-07-08 07:23:14+00:00): hi,


i think university=Universidad Mayor de San Andrés-UMSA is not correct.


university=* its not for the name, you can see here some values https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/university#values
are you ok with this ?
regards
rodolfovargas (2026-07-08 16:53:28+00:00): Hola Vinber-Pro.

Podríamos aplicar "university=yes" y "university:name" para indicar que todos los elementos están dentro de la "Universidad Mayor de San Andrés-UMSA". Considere que cada elemento mapeado tiene su propio nombre. 

¿Comentarios?
Vinber-Pro (2026-07-08 18:16:50+00:00): hola,
Creo que no es una buena práctica, ya que ya existe esta "way", via https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/581605145, que define la universidad.

Si realmente quieres indicar la relación con la universidad, «operator=*» me parece más adecuado https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:operator

En francés, 

Je pense que ce n'est pas une bonne pratique, car il existe déjà ce way : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/581605145, qui définit l'université.
Si tu veux vraiment indiquer le lien avec l'université, operator=* qui me semble plus adapté
alexnder (2024-06-20 05:51:14+00:00): Vezi că ai pus layer=-1 pe unele footways create, dar nu doar pe porțiunea care trece prin clădire, ci pe toată lungimea lor, ceea ce nu e corect.  De ex,  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1293741775   sau  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1293741785
Emillll96 (2024-06-20 14:50:35+00:00): Salut, mersii de atentionare. Am corectat.
bxl-forever (2024-06-20 08:48:27+00:00): Hello,

Nice but beware of duplicates:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/561288931 was already on the map and you added a node inside it
→ I recommend keeping the node and transferring relevant tags from the building to it.

Same problem here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/120391888

Happy mapping.
Natfoot (2026-02-16 19:36:16+00:00): why?
NeisBot (2024-06-19 21:06:58+00:00): Hello and welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits, particularly those concerning the names you've added or modified.

It seems that some of these names are a bit unusual.

#NameCheck
empty_child (2024-06-19 21:42:51+00:00): Your changeset was reverted
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-20 04:29:26+00:00): Hi Sai Nodobras, welcome to OSM and thanks for your contributions!

I noticed something interesting in your recent edits, specifically with the names at this location:
https://osm.org/node/11992817369

Some of the names appear a bit unusual. Could you share a bit about your sources for these names?

Thanks.
Nodobras (2024-06-24 11:34:13+00:00): Добрый день. Там сложный участок дороги. Крутой подъем, с резкими поворотами. Гравий.
Nodobras (2024-06-24 11:34:57+00:00): И можно добавить в список названий ( для точек на карте):
-опасность
-мост
-тропинка
empty_child (2024-07-05 09:07:18+00:00): These changesets were reverted due to repetitive vandalism against Azerbaijanis toponyms. Keep in mind, that a claim against you was sent to the DWG

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153578764
Erelen (2024-06-21 01:33:30+00:00): way/826235624 (and several other)
But why layer=-1? Is this way really lower, then building ground level? And goes under the building? (not on building ground level)
Srdjan023 (2024-06-21 10:35:51+00:00): Some renderers don't render paths correctly without that tag. Also, layer tag has nothing to do with building level, it's used to describe vertical relationships between crossing or overlapping features. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer
Erelen (2024-06-21 19:52:20+00:00): So, only reason for this tagging - for renders. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Good practice - tunnel=building_passage without any layer: 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel%3Dbuilding_passage
"The layer should be the same as the layer of the building, with the exception when several tunnels are passing on different levels. So if the building doesn't have a layer tag, the way should not have one either."

Also, that's about using layer for buildings. Yes, layer is not level. But building and zero floor tunnel has same layer.
Udarian (2024-06-20 21:39:34+00:00): a few notes 

1:
"bicycle=not specified" is not used anywhere else in the database according to taginfo (as seen in https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/bicycle#values ) so should not be used either remove the tag or change it to yes. 

2:
Southwest 119th Avenue seems much more like a highway=unclassified then a highway=service and should have been left as it was.
Marcos Medeiros (2024-06-19 21:30:26+00:00): Correction of duplicate nodes, blank spaces and intersection of building and watercourse
Gregory Peony (2024-06-19 23:52:05+00:00): It is accurate to delete features that no longer exist. Your change-set comment is informative: thank you for submitting one. It's also good that you included a source. Just know that local knowlege can refer to things like 'my friend told me that a resturaunt I know of shut down', If you have actually seen for yourself that the buisness is no longer opperational, then you can state your source as "survey" instead which carries more credence.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152916133
Gregory Peony (2024-06-19 23:58:10+00:00): Good practice when submitting changeset comments is to include the location of the feature you edited, for example the country and city, or state. It can help other mappers keep track of local edits.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152916152
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 00:05:31+00:00): It's good that you modified this POI, instead of deleting it and adding a new one in its place. This way the history of that node/POI is easier to follow.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152916212
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 00:07:32+00:00): You did not provide a source for this change-set.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152916228
silversurfer83 (2024-06-20 07:06:58+00:00): Moin Uwe,

eine ganz Deutschland umfassende Änderung und dann als Kommentar nur "Objekte aktualisiert"...

Abgesehen davon halte ich es für schwierig einfach aus allen Gravis ein shop=vacant zu machen. Woher weisst du das? Hast du für jede Filiale die Presse durchforstet? 

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152916257
UKausch (2024-08-23 17:42:30+00:00): Moin silversurfer83,

Gravis hat bundesweit alle Filialen zum 15. Juni 2024 wegen Insolvenz geschlossen.  Da bedarf es keiner expliziten Prüfung einzelner Filialen mehr, die normalerweise selbstverständlich nötig ist.  In diesem Fall ist der große Rundumschlag aber durchaus möglich da die Situation absolut eindeutig ist.  Die Information kam auch über so viele Kanäle, wie Presse, TV, die Gravis-Homepage, dass ein Irrtum ausgeschlossen war.  Das Vorgehen war für mich auch eine Ausnahme.  Ohne validen Informationsstand greift ja sonst immer die Regel "Finger weg".

Servus
Uwe
Raymond (2024-10-10 08:09:54+00:00): Hallo UKausch, in Köln bist du leider übers Ziel hinaus geschossen:

Gravis war schon entfernt, du hast nun die building-Eigenschaften komplett entfernt, siehe Version 7 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/328478011/history

Ich habe sie soeben wieder nachgetragen.
UKausch (2024-10-16 00:10:26+00:00): Hallo Raymond,

verdammter Mist, gar nicht gut.  Prima dass Du meinen Fehler bemerkt und gleich korrigiert hast, echt spitze.  

Herzlichen Dank & viele Grüße
Uwe
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 00:08:14+00:00): No source.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152916266
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 00:17:27+00:00): No source. The park and sidewalk in the SW share a common node that I think you added accidentally. Generally highways and boundaries/areas like this should not share common nodes. Hold ctrl when adding nodes in ID if you want to avoid them snapping to other features.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152916339
citrula (2024-06-20 04:33:21+00:00): Please use expanded street suffixes on OSM
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152916422
citrula (2024-06-20 04:34:48+00:00): highway=unclassified is fine for minor public roads. highway=residential should only be used for residential streets.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152916510
Marek-M (2024-06-20 11:50:13+00:00): Cześć, nie zawsze można łączyć punkty z budynkami. W tym budynku https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169621341 RCKiK zajmuje tylko jedno piętro a po tej edycji cały budynek został oznaczony jako RCKiK. RCKiK powinno zostać w oddzielnym węźle. Przywracam edycję tych dwóch obiektów.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152940969
Marek-M (2024-06-20 11:54:53+00:00): Tutaj kolejne błędne połączenie adresu z klatką budynku. Klatka ma oddzielny adres. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169274787
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11957956868
Również przywracam tą część edycji.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152941206
Piotr Strębski (2024-06-20 14:59:34+00:00): Dzięki za te uwagi i odtworzenia. Niestety widać samo bazowanie na punktach adresowych nie jest w 100% poprawne.
A z tym centrum krwiodawstwa moja wina - blednie założyłem (na wzór warszawski) że całość budynku jest zajmowana przez te instytucję (zwłaszcza przy braku innych węzłów innych instytucji w tym obrysie).
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-01 05:23:41+00:00): Good catch.  Hard to keep up with people sometimes.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152916680
miluethi (2024-06-19 22:37:11+00:00): Adriana,

I delete a few of your recent building shapes - they were far bigger than the aerial imagery. Please narrow down your shapes to the imagery without shapes or empty space around the house.
Thank you.
dankarran (2024-06-20 10:23:59+00:00): The postboxes used to just have a simple integer number above the location name, but maybe that's been phased out.

IM00000023IM may be the original 23?
dunkaist (2024-06-20 11:59:16+00:00): Thank you for your feedback. I have a few more days to get familiar with local postbox scheme. More survey data will result in more accurate tags for sure. Have a great day!
dankarran (2024-06-20 14:52:20+00:00): Enjoy your visit :)
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 00:40:45+00:00): No source. Assuming that the imagery is well geo-referenced. This building's footprint should be moved to the NW, because even though the building is casting a shadow on itself, it is possible to see both its North and West sides from this imagery. You are mapping the building's footprint i.e. where its walls touch the ground. Although the roof can help you to get the right shape you are not mapping the roof per se. 

The parts to the SE of the roof should be added before the entire footprint is moved to the NW. You added an unnecessary node to the SE of this footprint, and in this case it appears that it will result in that wall not being straight when rendered on the map. Please press q to automatically square the corners of buildings as it more practical and accurate than drawing 90 degree corners by eye.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917172
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 00:46:13+00:00): Thank you for providing a change-set comment and a source. please press q to square corners, this shouldn't move the nodes associated with the 45 degree wall as it is significantly off-square. Idealy write full sentences in your change-set comments.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917241
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 00:48:31+00:00): No source. Press q to square corners.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917316
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 00:50:21+00:00): Thanks for providing a source and comment. Press q to square corners.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917347
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 00:53:52+00:00): Thanks for the comment and source. This building has square corners, Well done.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917389
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 00:56:11+00:00): Thanks for the comment and source. This building footprint is inaccurate and its corners have not been squared. If the geometry is different in reality than in imagery please state so in your change-set comment.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917430
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 01:11:02+00:00): If your source is GPS you could anonymise and upload the trace for other mappers to be able to verify. There is a redundant node on the southern wall causing the building to look wonky. I uploaded a [change-set](https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152920018) where I edited the geometry of this building as a demonstration, based on the aerial imagery.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917463
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 01:15:49+00:00): Press q to square the corners of regular features like this too. It works on all geometries, **not** just buildings.

Does this parking lot really have a house number and postcode?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917496
PrewarExplorer (2024-06-20 01:18:21+00:00): I'm pretty sure I didn't add a house number. Maybe that was automatic?
PrewarExplorer (2024-06-20 01:19:03+00:00): Also almost all of my current commits are done before I was made aware of the 'q' hotkey to square things automatically, I apologize.
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 01:48:09+00:00): It states the house number is 4402.

I'll stop mentioning using q to square :) I'm sure you'll use it from now on. It's a common beginer mistake. 

Thanks for the reply!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917496
PrewarExplorer (2024-06-20 02:02:31+00:00): No problem!
ZeLonewolf (2024-11-16 14:16:25+00:00): Please provide a source for permit access to inside-the-fence roads at JBPHH. I'm very familiar with area and my understanding is that visitors must be sponsored by a DoD ID holder. This is not a general-public access area.

https://cnrh.cnic.navy.mil/Installations/JB-Pearl-Harbor-Hickam/Operations-and-Management/Nimitz-Visitor-Control-Center-Pass-ID/Base-Access/
ElliottPlack (2024-11-16 14:23:40+00:00): Agreed, all roads on the base, any US DOD installation should be access=private. You can make them private=military although that is still under active discussion on the forum. Think of it like this, say you’re out jogging and approach the gate of an installation. You ask a guard hey can I go in there and run around? Of course, the guy at the gate will probably say GFY especially at bases around here like Fort Meade. Permitted access tagging in OSM is for things where the public and generally get the permit. Joining the military or obtaining a secret security clearance does not meet that bar.
nickvet419 (2024-11-16 15:33:55+00:00): @ZeLonewolf Ya, looks like they went to a sponserd visitor permit access. Different from the last rime i was there. @ElliottPlack only if the roads are inside the gate and access requires a sponsorship. Many bases only require a permit that can be obtained at visitor centers near the main gates. Roads outside the gates are accessable to the general public.
ElliottPlack (2024-11-19 03:02:52+00:00): Yes, there are roads on military based that are open to the public but this is the exception rather than the norm. Garrison commanders can raise the FPCON at any time and limit the accessibility of the base (in areas behind the gates).

What I don't want to see is you (or anyone) make general edits to military installations without checking conditions. There have been a number of DWG cases lately where people make edits to bases over access, only to be reverted. Their reasoning is around being unable to route their [insert delivery app name] there. That is a software problem however. Routers can permit access over private routes if the developer desires to allow this.
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 01:21:54+00:00): Thanks for the comment and source.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917537
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 01:23:18+00:00): Press q when the building footprint is selected (pulsating outilne)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917573
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 02:09:41+00:00): This looks like 2 buildings in the imagery **not** 1. If things look different compared to imagery please state this in your change-set comment to reduce the likelihood of other mappers changing the features you mapped. 

If it is in fact 2 buildings, then map it as 2 buildings and add a POI in the meantime (explain your intent/rationale in your comment for more complex situations). There are other ways to link features in OSM.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917846
PrewarExplorer (2024-06-20 02:23:59+00:00): I'll change it to one, The side building is a small storage building which was most likely used for the schoolhouse since it was built.
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 03:04:48+00:00): By all means feel free to add the storage building. Just map it with a seperate footprint. Otherwise it would look like one big building on the map. This schoolhouse is no longer used for teaching, correct?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917846
PrewarExplorer (2024-06-20 03:11:45+00:00): It is no longer used for teaching, I think it was scrapped for teaching in the 1920's? I don't have the history book I use on hand right now.
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 03:38:32+00:00): In that case I think the way to link those two buildings properly is through a relation becuase, landuse=education or simmilar tags on an area surrounding both of them wouldn't be accurate. Relations are not the easiest things to edit in ID I believe (at least not this kind) so just mapping the buildings is good.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152917846
PrewarExplorer (2024-06-20 03:54:07+00:00): Got it, I'll map them both.
emersonveenstra (2024-06-21 12:49:45+00:00): Hi there,

You created https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1293778091 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1293775577 with no tags, could you please tag them? Thanks!
alexey_zakharenkov (2024-06-20 20:24:23+00:00): Привет.
Школа искусств - это точно не amenity=school. Авторы заготовок Russian POI предлагают следующий набор тегов:
amenity=training
education=facultative_school
education_form:parttime=yes
education_level:primary=yes
education_profile:visual_art=yes
education_system:ru_standard=yes
training=art
Gregory Peony (2024-06-20 02:24:41+00:00): When you modified this building, you took a parking lot with it. This is because they share (grey) common nodes. You can dissconnect common nodes if you click on them, and the right click, dissconnect, or use the appropriate shortcut. You can find shortcuts, and other useful info if you press h for help in ID editor.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152918101