piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
silversurfer83 (2024-05-17 06:16:30+00:00): Gude :)

ist jetzt schon wieder ein gutes Jahr her, dass ich zum Hünenkeller hoch bin. Mein Eindruck vom Weg, auch noch südlich vom Hochbehälter (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1153892091) war eigentlich, dass es noch als "track" durchging. Aber wenn du meinst, dass dort schon kein Platz mehr für zweispurige Fahrzeuge ist, dann ist das ok. Sollte da noch Platz sein, dann mach da wieder einen track raus. Wenn du dir mit der Einstufung als path sicher bist, dann entfern ruhig auch den tracktype. Gibt sonst wieder Verwirrung.

(falls du mal in der Kernstadt bist, meld dich ruhig. Können mal nen Kaffee trinken)

cheers
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151427291
mcliquid (2024-05-17 07:40:03+00:00): Hi,

please note: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:web to
• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
• keep changes within the same country
• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
citrula (2024-05-17 04:43:24+00:00): You can press "Q" to square the corners of buildings you draw. Otherwise, it looks good to me.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151427589
Baloo Uriza (2024-06-13 20:47:11+00:00): Geographically tighter changesets with more descriptive changeset comments help a lot.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151427746
eggie (2024-05-17 04:37:16+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback....  Bedankt voor de correctie. Het is nog wel inconsistent getagd als straatnaam met stukjes Sterrenlaan ertussen.

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-05-17 08:43:20+00:00): Straatnamen verder aangepast.
Groet
eggie
tsp15 (2024-11-20 01:11:45+00:00): Pasów rowerowych na jezdni nie mapujemy jako osobne ścieżki, tylko jako tagi cycleway=lane dodane do jezdni. Dodatkowo ścieżki, które dodałeś nie tworzą w ogóle węzłów z drogami, z którymi się one krzyżują, tworzą za to węzły z granicą dzielnic, co również jest błędem.
muralito (2024-05-16 22:25:39+00:00): Hola. ¿Porque hiciste este cambio?
Cnidaria (2024-05-17 22:10:10+00:00): Hola muralito. Recibimos un comentario de un usuario de Maps que menciono que el callejón aparecía como Antonio Costa pero debería ser Tomás de Tezanos. Al lado del callejón están las direcciones 1007 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/944755952) y 1029 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/944761569). Esas direcciones tienen Tomás de Tezanos como la addr:street. Parece apropiado que el callejón se llame Tomás de Tezanos para que coincida con las direcciones.
Colbertson (2024-05-17 05:08:53+00:00): Nice
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12
miluethi (2024-05-16 22:17:59+00:00): Hi Sanam,

Please square out all buildings by pressing the “Q” key.

Thank you.
CRCulver (2024-05-20 12:24:11+00:00): Why did you change way 30746989 from highway=path to highway=cycleway? I did an on-the-ground survey here and found that there was official EU signage that this is a footway/cycleway, so highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated is the modern tagging used for this signage (as can be seen e.g. in the JOSM and Vespucci presets).
Vojtěch Kadeřábek (2024-05-20 22:04:33+00:00): I use the editor in the browser, which is translated into Czech. This is perhaps the reason for these conflicts. I changed the category of the route to a path for pedestrians and cyclists, which is according to the official traffic signs (C9). The designation "path" is translated into Czech as "footpath" in the editor, so I changed the category without further investigation.
On the other hand, I think that my marking is not wrong, according to the page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Key:highway#Ostatn%C3%AD_druhy_cest (in Czech) it is better to mark the path more specifically highway=cycleway , in this section the traffic sign is explicitly mentioned as the same as on the spot (C9). If you want to mark it according to your proposal, please do so, but note that perhaps thousands of kilometers of such trails in the Czech Republic are marked in this way, and Kralupy is the only place where I have come across your way of marking.
silversurfer83 (2024-05-17 06:10:46+00:00): Hi Megachip :)

could you please read the following article in the OSM wiki and be so kind and follow the guidelines laid out?
Thank you

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

happy mapping
silversurfer83
Hufkratzer (2024-05-17 21:52:20+00:00): Hi,
The tag leisure=horse_riding is not a building tag. You have removed building=house from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1226912053, Therefore this building is no longer rendered as a building. The tag leisure=horse_riding is for the whole area of a riding centre, like here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/438965728. Compare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dhorse_riding.

Similar problem here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1006397320
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1006395562
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12
keithonearth (2024-05-17 01:51:30+00:00): Thanks SomeoneElse!
Ericles (2024-05-17 17:30:30+00:00): Just noticed those and came to clean up. Thanks!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 151429899 where the changeset comment is: Reverting more childish vandalism.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/12
halloschorle (2024-05-21 16:08:55+00:00): What are you doing? Whats wrong with you child?
Mingwei (2024-05-16 23:16:05+00:00): Thanks SomeoneElse!
Ryan Underwood _01 (2024-05-17 00:00:21+00:00): This is getting ridiculous.
halloschorle (2024-05-21 16:09:33+00:00): What are people doing? Whats wrong with them?!
NeisBot (2024-05-16 22:50:04+00:00): Hi drapspartan, welcome to OSM!

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

Your beach feature's:
https://osm.org/way/107861197
https://osm.org/way/107861593
https://osm.org/way/883804672

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

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
eggie (2024-05-17 04:26:06+00:00): reverted by changeset #151434667 due to pokemon go vandalism
eggie (2024-05-17 11:33:30+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback... Hier wat 'hyperlinks' met leesvoer omdat je nog nooit van PokemonGo hebt gehoord.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/search?q=pokemon


MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-21 16:57:46+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151449157
NicaTopo (2024-06-05 16:59:28+00:00): Hi Ben,

Please square out all building shapes. Just press select a building shape and press the "Q" key.

Thank you for contributing to OSM Nicaragua.
user_14547832 (2024-05-17 02:44:08+00:00): Gosh! An unnamed road fanboy would never do that!
MicDK (2024-05-17 11:40:49+00:00): Many thanks, SomeOneElse
Alex Khimich (2024-05-18 07:49:32+00:00): Thanks
derFred (2024-05-18 10:16:57+00:00): @SomeOneElse thank you! ;-)
agrell (2024-05-18 12:38:23+00:00): Thanks, these vandals are a real pain!
FightnFire5 (2024-05-18 21:10:47+00:00): Thank you!
clegeard (2024-05-20 09:05:49+00:00): Hi,
There are still messages appearing zooming onto position 51.94599,7.7041138
Could you please remove this?
Thanks
SomeoneElse (2024-05-20 09:25:39+00:00): @clegeard yes, other people have reported that, see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/the-osm-standard-tile-layer-looks-wrong-white-lines-abusive-comments-etc/111583/185 .  Please mention in that thread that the CDN is also showing incorrect tiles for you in that location.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-16 22:50:43+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 151429044, 151429116, 151429198, 151429565, 151429573, 151429579, 151429580, 151429582, 151429583, 151429585, 151429586, 151429587, 151429589, 151429591, 151429592, 151429593, 151429594, 151429595, 151429597, 151429598, 151429599, 151429600, 151429602, 151429604, 151429605, 151429606, 151429608, 151429609, 151429610, 151429611, 151429613, 151429614, 151429617, 151429618, 151429619, 151429621, 151429622, 151429624, 151429625, 151429626, 151429639, 151429640, 151429641, 151429643, 151429644, 151429645, 151429647, 151429648, 151429649, 151429664, 151429676.
miluethi (2024-05-17 21:55:39+00:00): Hi Peeters Maarten,

Please square out new buildings in OSM. It's easy: just press the "Q" with a selected building shape.

Thank you for contributing to OSM Nicaragua.
NeisBot (2024-05-16 23:05:03+00:00): Hi drapspartan, welcome to OSM!

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

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1283773486

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

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
drapspartan (2024-05-16 23:14:06+00:00): Hi,

Thank you for reviewing my recent edit and for your feedback.

Regarding the beach feature:

Source: I visited this location personally and observed that it is a sandy area adjacent to Lake Greenwood. During my visit, I noticed several signs and community boards referring to the area as "Greenwood Beach."
Additional Context: The area is known locally as a recreational spot where people often go for sunbathing and swimming, especially during the summer months. Although it may not have the typical characteristics of a coastal beach, it functions as a beach for the local community. The sandy shoreline and the presence of water sports activities (like paddleboarding and kayaking) further support this designation.
I have also found some references online that mention this spot as a local beach:

https://greenwoodcommunity.org/beach
https://localtraveler.com/greenwood-beach
Please let me know if you need any further information.

Best regards,
drapspartan
eggie (2024-05-17 04:24:13+00:00): reverted by changeset #151434630
eggie (2024-05-17 04:30:58+00:00): Wees even voorzichtig met het aanbrengen van nieuwe edits.  
Mocht je op deze manier doorgaan zal er overwogen worden een (tijdelijke) stop op je account te plaatsen.  
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group 
MVG
eggie
drapspartan (2024-05-17 11:03:08+00:00): Hallo Eggie,

Ik snap je positie helemaal en ben het ook wel met je eens. Ik was een beetje aan het experimenteren met het systeem zelf en hoe alles werkt en wat je kan toevoegen. In een van je opmerkingen had je het over een pgo vandalism. Voor mij is niet helemaal duidelijk wat dit precies inhoud. Zou je wellicht kunnen laten weten wat je hiermee bedoeld dan kan ik hier in de toekomst rekening meehouden.

~Drapspartan
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-21 16:56:52+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151434630
rskedgell (2024-05-17 05:12:03+00:00): Would you mind changing these to addr:city=London + addr:suburb=Brentford, as Brentford is not a post town and is an optional part of the address? Thanks.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom
Milhouse (2024-05-17 06:09:11+00:00): H Robert, thanks for getting in touch rather than just changing things. Happy to change them if I've tagged them wrongly, but I'm not sure I have. I think the addr:* tags are for postal addresses and "London" is the postal town only for addresses with London postcodes - "W", "NW", "SW" etc. TW8 isn't a London postcode so it requires a different post town?
I've checked one example in this changeset in the Royal Mail "find a postcode" checker and it confirms this address:
1 Kingsleigh Close
BRENTFORD
TW8 0PA
I've used "London" for addresses just over the border in Ealing because they do have a postcode relative to London.
Let me know if you think this is still wrong.
rskedgell (2024-05-17 07:23:18+00:00): You're absolutely right, I'm sorry! Serves me right for posting before the first coffee of the day took effect.
Milhouse (2024-05-17 08:20:50+00:00): Phew! I probably should re-read that page about UK addressing anyway because the Haverfield Estate here has lots of housing where I'm not sure if they are flats or townhouses or maisonettes, whether they should have a housename or a streetname, a parentstreet, unit numbers or housenumbers. Is there a simple flowchart somewhere that gets you to a consistent answer after answering a few questions?
This block is an example - I don't know how the apartments/houses are numbered inside, nor exactly how they are divided up by floor.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23918393
eggie (2024-05-17 04:21:38+00:00): reverted by changeset #151434580
Violaine_Do (2024-11-27 05:34:00+00:00): Hi SPaceTracer, thks for your edits. Could you explain why you cut the connexion between the roads (not explained and expressed in the changeset comment), just to make sure it was intentional. Thk in advance
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151430398
SpaceTracer (2024-12-02 22:25:10+00:00): Thanks for reaching out. I disconnected the highway here after analyzing various aerial imageries which indicate there is not enough space between the buildings for a road to pass through. Let me know if there are any other edits I can make here!
Violaine_Do (2024-12-02 22:49:36+00:00): Hi thks for the answer. As the original data comes from an official source, I would have suggested to add a fixme or a note, so that we can check on site. I know that the roads can be very tight here. Also when checking with different imageries i am not sure, there is no connexion...
SpaceTracer (2024-12-03 23:00:49+00:00): Thanks for the suggestion! I was able to look into the data you noted based on a link you provided to my colleague Lars. I don’t believe this road exists in that dataset either, in fact it looks like it could possibly end at node 6901977743. Is this the correct layer I should be using to verify this change? (https://www.tefenua.data.gov.pf/datasets/08de13d5a8e94dcea4f15bb9c5280877_0/explore?location=-17.552511%2C-149.596061%2C20.31).
Violaine_Do (2024-12-03 23:38:35+00:00): Oh perfect, you are right, maybe the data got updated at a time, thks !
eggie (2024-05-17 04:20:38+00:00): reverted by #151434564
eggie (2024-05-17 04:19:23+00:00): reverted by changeset #151434535
eggie (2024-05-17 04:18:07+00:00): reverted by changeset #151434506
eggie (2024-05-17 04:17:01+00:00): reverted by changeset #151434463
eggie (2024-05-17 04:15:31+00:00): reverted by changeset #151434433
eggie (2024-05-17 04:14:19+00:00): reverted by changeset #151434403 due to pokemonvandalism
SomeoneElse (2024-05-17 23:16:39+00:00): Hello,
Here you've deleted a multipolygon relation and replaced it with a single way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1283786411 .  What was the reason that you did that?
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)
Jbaker1234 (2024-05-18 00:00:06+00:00): Reason was because it was not showing up as a fairway using Lidar. It wasn't using area mapping but line instead.
SomeoneElse (2024-05-18 00:22:53+00:00): No - it was definitely a multipolygon: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1LEQ .
Also, what does Lidar have to do with rendering OSM data?  You might use Lidar as an imagery source, but that is it.
Baloo Uriza (2024-05-17 00:25:57+00:00): I don't think you intended to make that street a boardwalk?  Also, what kind of traffic calming are you adding?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151430950
Joseph R P (2024-05-29 03:39:38+00:00): Please do not use 'no' for 'all' when tagging road access. Instead, leave it as default to imply other non-foot traffic is allowed on the road and tag access 'no' for foot traffic only. access=no implies the road cannot be traveled at all.
Desert Walker (2024-06-17 20:00:37+00:00): So, as long as there is one mode of travel allowed on a street, you're saying that "All" should be marked as yes, and then no to everything except the one mode that's allowed? If that's how it's generally done then I will absolutely do that from now on.

But "All" yes or "All" no is misleading if not all modes of transport are allowed or disallowed, right? It's like, All yes, except for … or, All no, except for … Confusing, right? :-)
Joseph R P (2024-06-17 21:19:45+00:00): It is confusing. 'All' technically means all applicable rather than all except those specified. It depends on the way, but for instance, a cycle and foot path that allows motor vehicle access from land owners but does not allow horses would be left untagged defaulting to all=yes with motor_vehicle=private and horse=no applied. If this way were permanently inaccessible to anyone or only to government/emergency vehicles, the default all=yes should be changed to all=no, which will make the road inaccessible on routing systems and render as such.
Davileci (2024-07-18 17:59:08+00:00): El código postal de la calle Colón es 46004.
nevw (2024-05-19 18:10:24+00:00): Hi, the correct osm tagging for a swimming pool is leisure=pool and a private pool would also have access=private.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=swimming_pool
nevw (2024-05-19 17:57:10+00:00): Hi, what in Australia is colloquially referred to a dam is tagged in osm as natural=water plus water=reservoir 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water
nevw (2024-05-19 22:30:44+00:00): The dam tag in osm is used to tag dam walls.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddam
dsmit2342q1 (2024-05-23 00:10:10+00:00): ok ill fix
nevw (2024-05-23 01:32:15+00:00): Thanks, I think I fixed it yesterday. Cheers
NeisBot (2024-05-17 00:45:03+00:00): Hi YoshikiBGM, welcome to OSM!

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

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1283797626

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

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
YoshikiBGM (2024-05-17 01:13:14+00:00): sorry, typo
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-21 17:05:38+00:00): Thanks for your answer!

#HappyMapping
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-21 17:06:19+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151431920

The user deleted her/his own fake beach.
nevw (2024-05-19 17:58:52+00:00): These are the correct tags for a swimming pool 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=swimming_pool
You may need to also add access tags if not a public pool
nevw (2024-05-18 09:06:53+00:00): These are the correct tags for a swimming pool
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=swimming_pool
You may need to access tags if not a public pool
gurglypipe (2024-05-17 08:12:40+00:00): Heya, Why change a load of things which, from their name, look like hills, from natural=peak to place=locality? place=locality isn’t very specific tagging.
Sforzando9500 (2024-05-17 09:02:41+00:00): Oh, just because they are very minor features (knolls / slight rises) and I was worried the map would get too cluttered and covered in little brown triangles if there was no distinction made between significant hills and every little rise of the ground. If there is no distinction in common practice then I will happily not make such changes again