piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
adrianojbr (2023-06-02 17:49:59+00:00): Olá, Victor 2015!

Por que você está removendo o ponto (.) dos nomes abreviados?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136672402
Victor 2015 (2023-06-03 20:40:51+00:00): Olá, Adriano

É porque no nome oficial da rua é só as letras mesmo, não há nenhum nome nelas, por isso deixa de ser abreviação
adrianojbr (2023-06-04 02:19:32+00:00): Na lei que denominou a via está como abreviação: https://leismunicipais.com.br/a/sc/j/joinville/lei-ordinaria/2001/449/4486/lei-ordinaria-n-4486-2001-denomina-vias-publicas
opendcc (2023-05-29 04:57:47+00:00): Hallo, eine erste Kontrolle der Bierball AG liefert keinerlei Suchtreffer. Kannst Du bitte erläutern, was das ist und eine Quelle angeben? Danke.

(siehe CS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136679016)
Breitengrad-BLN (2023-05-29 06:56:05+00:00): Es ist eine Arbeitsgemeinschaft der sehr progressiven Sophie-Scholl-Oberschule. Online auf https://www.sophie-scholl-schule.eu/index.php/arbeitsgemeinschaften findet man sie leider nicht, da diese Seite seit einigen Jahren nicht mehr aktualisiert wurde. Ich war am Freitag dort und habe mich selbst überzeut. Ob es auch am nächsten Freitage stattfindet, weiß ich nicht, weil die Schulferien nahestehen. Aber in der mitte des Schuljahres kann man dort immer freitags eine Gruppe Jugendlicher dieser Schule treffen.
Breitengrad-BLN (2023-05-29 06:58:33+00:00): Aber ich sehe definitiv ein, das ich die Node an einen falschen objekt hinzugefügt habe. Das habe ich schon heute gemerkt und wollte es sowieso beheben.
silversurfer83 (2023-05-30 07:16:00+00:00): Gude Breitengrad,

Die Wiese sieht eher wie eine allgemein zugängliche Fläche aus und aus deiner Erklärung vermute ich vorläufig, dass der Name eher nur einer kleinen Gruppe Menschen bekannt ist und auch nicht dauerhaft vom Besitzer der Fläche so ausgeschildert ist. In dem Zusammenhang weise ich auf den Inhalt von https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen hin und bitte dies in Zukunft zu beachten.

Weiterhin viel Spaß an der Karte
silversurfer83
kartler175 (2023-06-06 11:57:24+00:00): Please do not overlay already existing trails with newly created paths:
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-119.89003&lat=50.89418&zoom=15&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.95&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Csnap_points%2Cunconnected_open_ends_1%2Cunconnected_open_ends_2%2Cunconnected_open_ends_3%2Cunconnected_open_ends_4%2Cunconnected_open_ends_5%2Cunconnected_open_ends_6
WestCoastNick (2023-06-07 00:29:28+00:00): OK thanks ... removed the overlaps
clay_c (2023-05-28 21:34:59+00:00): see discussion here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/135198660
NorthCrab_upload (2023-05-28 21:40:23+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1177106128
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783128047

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
eggie (2023-05-29 05:16:53+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback 
Tip.. bicycle=no hoeft niet op wandepaden. Dat is default.
,,  layer=-1 betekent dat het pad onder de grond loopt en dat za niet.
Alleen op plaatsen waar het pad door gebouwen loopt voeg je tusnnel=building_passage toe. De eindnode maak je dan vast aan de gebouw omtrek. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2023-05-29 05:36:58+00:00): Nog even gekeken.. Het is een overkapping dus covered =yes toegevoegd aan die 'doorgang'. 
De overkapping heeft dan de tagging building=roof met layer=1
Als voorbeeld even aangepast.
Bron OBLIEK Slagboom&Peeters.
Groet
eggie
user_5359 (2023-06-02 18:42:36+00:00): Hello! Please take a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1177106905, https://www.osm.org/way/1177106910. The highway value is empty!
Alvarado2510 (2023-05-28 22:28:53+00:00): fuente del nombre de la calle: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=665086868150403
AntMadeira (2023-05-29 21:01:02+00:00): Olá, cmjs.
Sê bem-vindo ao OpenStreetMap.

Vi que alteraste duas estradas junto à Aveleira de track para unclassified. Podes explicar-me qual o critério que usaste?

Cumprimentos,
António Madeira.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136673876
cmjs (2023-05-29 23:12:56+00:00): Olá António, obrigado.

Os critérios que utilizei foram as definições dos dois tipos de estrada na wiki do OpenStreetMap.
Li as definições na wiki de língua inglesa, mas verifiquei na wiki de língua portuguesa e as definições parecem ser bastante semelhantes.

Nomeadamente, a página para `highway=track` diz que é "para ser usada em vias (caminhos) agrícolas ou florestais, primordialmente para acesso a campos agrícolas e florestais, normalmente em terra batida ou onde apenas se veem os trilhos deixados pelas rodas de tratores, veículos 4x4 ou outros veículos agrícolas. Em algumas situações, a superfície pode estar pavimentada com alcatrão ou outros materiais. São adequadas para tratores ou jipes."

Por outro lado, a página para `highway=unclassified` diz que "é utilizada para estradas/rodovias de nível hierárquico mais baixo que as estradas terciárias (highway=tertiary). São estreitas, possivelmente não possuem uma linha central separando as duas vias ou não são suficientemente largas para dois veículos poderem passar em sentido contrário ao mesmo tempo. Fisicamente, as estradas etiquetadas com highway=unclassified podem variar imenso entre países e até entre regiões do mesmo país."

Das duas definições, a última pareceu-me muito mais adequada, uma vez que as estradas em questão, apesar de não serem asfaltadas, fazem parte da rede de estradas públicas da região (e têm sinais de trânsito, etc.), e não são apenas para acesso ao terreno - ao contrário da maioria dos outros caminhos de terra batida da zona.

Dito isto, se houver uma convenção diferente que seja utilizada nesta área, terei todo o gosto em segui-la - talvez me possas indicar qualquer documentação relevante.

Cumprimentos,
Caesar
AntMadeira (2023-05-30 00:10:14+00:00): Obrigado pela resposta célere, Caesar,
Talvez já a tenhas encontrado, mas a classificação em vigor das estradas em Portugal está descrita aqui:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Portugal/Padroniza%C3%A7%C3%A3o

No entanto, tal como indicas na tua resposta e como poderás verificar na padronização, existe um certo grau de ambiguidade no uso de highway=unclassified, não só em Portugal, mas em todo o mundo.
A minha pergunta é uma dúvida genuína relativamente à tua opção, pois eu conheço bem a região e essas duas estradas em questão.
Não me recordo de haver sinalização em ambas (ainda no domingo lá passei), além de que a estrada superior foi alargada recentemente para acomodar os veículos pesados durante a construção do parque eólico que ainda não está a funcionar.
Embora a estrada ligue a Aveleira à Selada das Eiras, tenho algumas dúvidas se podemos considerá-la uma estrada de pleno direito, sendo que alguns trechos não são nada fáceis de circular para veículos ligeiros.
A que vai da Aveleira até Valbona suscita-me ainda mais dúvidas, porque ainda que tenha sido alargada recentemente, tal foi feito sobre uma estrada tipicamente florestal.

Eu vejo a questão desta maneira: será que alguém vai usar esta estrada com um veículo ligeiro para ir da Aveleira para Valbona de forma regular? Tenho dúvidas...

Cumprimentos,
António.
cmjs (2023-07-10 13:21:54+00:00): Olá António,

Lamento muito não ter respondido anteriormente à tua mensagem tão detalhada e considerada. Na altura, estava muito ocupado e acabei por me esquecer. Peço desculpa.

Quanto à classificação das estradas, que como dizes parece ser um pouco subjectiva:

Antes de mais, devo esclarecer que vivo na Aveleira, pelo que conheço bastante bem estas estradas. Parece que também vives aqui perto, por isso de certeza que também as conheces.

As placas de sinalização que referi foram colocadas há cerca de um ano nas Almas (na união das estradas para Arganil, para Folques/Valbona e para Selada das Eiras. Se bem me lembro, sem ir ver, a estrada superior está sinalizada para Selada das Eiras, Cepos, Colmeal e Podão. A outra estrada creio que está sinalizada para Monte Alto, Folques e Valbona.

No entanto, tens toda a razão quando dizes que a estrada inferior, em particular, está em péssimo estado, e a superior também podia estar melhor (só foi alargada/melhorada desde a Selada de Eiras até às eólicas). Dito isto, normalmente a Junta manda todos os anos a niveladora repará-las, mas este ano ainda não o fizeram.

Por outro lado, a estrada superior, pelo menos, está definitivamente transitável com veículos ligeiros, porque vejo passar vários deles todos os dias (neste momento mais do que o habitual, porque os trabalhadores continuam a ir para as eólicas). O carteiro também vem de Cepos por aí, e o padeiro usa a estrada para Valbona.

No final, acho que a classificação das estradas é subjectiva. A minha inclinação é que, uma vez que têm sinais, são ocasionalmente niveladas pela Junta da Freguesia, e são utilizadas ligeiramente pelo trânsito de passagem e não apenas para acesso ao terreno, devem ser `highway=unclassified` em vez de `highway=track`. (Isto também ajudará no roteamento para a navegação, porque eu não gostaria de ser encaminhado por qualquer um dos outros caminhos aqui à volta que estão em muito, muito pior estado...)

Mas, dito isto, vou recorrer à tua maior experiência com o OSM e deixar-te decidir sobre a classificação.

Cumprimentos e, mais uma vez, peço desculpa por não ter respondido anteriormente.

Caesar
AntMadeira (2023-07-15 13:22:37+00:00): Olá, Caesar.
Obrigado pela resposta. 

Penso que, dada a situação no terreno que ambos descrevemos, o adequado seria deixar a estrada que vai da Aveleira para Selada das Eiras como "Sem classificação", mas com a indicação clara que é de terra batida, o que já ajudará na maioria dos roteadores, que levam isso em consideração.
Quanto à estrada inferior que vai dar a Valbona, penso que o melhor será deixar mesmo como estrada florestal, não só pelo estado da mesma, mas pela distância que implica para percorrer um troço em mau estado. Quem tiver carros adequados para esse piso não fará diferença, mas para carros ligeiros já é bem mais complicado.

Se concordares, farei as devidas alterações.

Cumprimentos,
António.
cmjs (2023-07-20 08:59:41+00:00): Concordo, e já fiz a alteração (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/138752498). Penso que os metadados relativos ao tipo e estado do pavimento são corretos para ambas as estradas, mas podes fazer as alterações que considerares adequadas. Obrigado pela discussão.
AntMadeira (2023-07-20 11:42:24+00:00): Eu é que agradeço.
mavl (2024-11-13 10:14:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 159083843 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible sources - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16857].
Dillen GJ (2026-03-17 03:41:07+00:00): Landuse=construction definitie van 3 jaar terug nog actueel of kan deze weg A67-A67 ?
Frans S (2023-05-30 09:38:32+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and mapped. 
Please map each building as an individual building. Don't cluster them

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
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve 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/136675121
JAAS (2023-06-12 23:42:48+00:00): Hola Antonio69,

Por lo que veo, debes conocer muy bien este área!

Tengo duda acerca de esta calle: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1109159696, pues no la veo en ninguno de los servicios de las imágenes satelitales (o se encuentra actualmente en construcción?). Además ésta se cruza con un `path` (peatonal) visible que más bien parece un `track` para uso vehicular. Y por último, en la calle: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/161051108, en el nombre: `P. Misión de San Ignacio` esta `P.` al principio no es la abreviatura de `Privada`? Pareciera ser así viendo los nombres de las demás calles cercanas.

Saludos, 
Jorge Aguirre - JAAS
julcnx (2023-05-30 15:46:39+00:00): Hey Bvonter23, could you please provide some details on the specific changes made here and the reason for extending those changes from the US to Asia?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136675597
felipeeugenio (2023-05-29 12:29:37+00:00): Estimado.
Por favor.
building es para las estrucutras, no para los recintos completos.
Sigue haciendo edificios de manzanas completas.
Por favor internalizarlo en sus ediciones, que aportan bastante, pero siempre hay que estas corrigiendo algo.
Saludos
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:05:39+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136675864
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:06:52+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136675889
Frans S (2023-06-04 14:06:16+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this task.
a short comment. 
When a road crosses a waterway, most of the time in these areas these crossings ought to be tagged as ford=yes except you can identify a bridge.
You tagged waterways as residential roads. Please look carefully to the routing of that trace, Winding traces accompanied on both sides with green, are mostly waterways.
See this wiki how to tag them
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway
btw, roads in these rural areas are never residential roads, mostly unclassified, path (<2mtr wide) or track

Best regards and keep mapping
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:07:05+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136675911
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:09:02+00:00): #TIP: square buildings by selecting the outline then just type a "q" - they will look much nicer. Some already fixed this house.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136675945
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:09:36+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136675990
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:11:53+00:00): I see you fixed the tag on the driveway. OSM got its start in England so we use British English for our tags and the English road classification. Unclassified would be be described as a rural residential road.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136676006
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:12:07+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136676006
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:12:16+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136676006
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:12:46+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136676017
Sparks (2023-08-24 14:23:00+00:00): Imagery doesn't show this to be a divided highway.  Is there a barrier between the lanes?
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:13:49+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.

There is also the tag shop=farm I typically use for farm stands.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136676104
MxxCon (2023-05-31 04:07:50+00:00): Hello.
Why did you delete all these way here? Seems like they were correctly mapped.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136676204
brandonbds (2023-05-31 04:29:58+00:00): Resolving the "Crossing highways" warning. My understanding is that a footpath and a pedestrian area should not overlap unless they are on different levels. In other words, for example, mapping "highway=pedestrian" through an area that is already mapped "highway=pedestrian" and "area=yes" would be redundant. Thus the instruction on the wiki: "Also other paths such as highway=footway as well as roads have to connect with the edge of the pedestrian area where they intersect. [However, note that few routers will route through the area, most will route around the edge of it.]"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136676204
MxxCon (2023-05-31 05:50:05+00:00): I don't think it's incorrect to have both area and ways. Crossing highways warning is probably just a matter of connecting them at the intersection points.
But as the warning states, I don't think there are any routers which support navigation through areas, so without ways these areas are unroutable..
brandonbds (2023-06-09 22:44:08+00:00): It looked too daunting to revert the changeset and start over, so I added back footpaths in a new changeset.
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:14:02+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136676225
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:14:12+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136676245
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:14:25+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136676275
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:14:37+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136676292
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-29 11:40:04+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 135872556, 135872589, 135872613, 135872809, 135873182, 135873258, 135873312, 135873484, 135873502, 135873524, 135873625, 135873641, 135873676, 136020838, 136022081, 136022192, 136022264, 136022339, 136022426, 136022702, 136022887.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-11-01 14:02:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 174063813, 174063778, 174063039, 174063675, 174063839, 174063864, 174063733, 174063852, 174063722, 174063049, 174063081, 174063378, 174063746, 174063119, 174063802, 174063878 where the changeset comment is: Following a DWG complaint, reverting a dubious import.  See e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1311170850 https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18848
mariotomo (2023-06-20 04:40:25+00:00): hi. Thank you for clearly describing your first changeset, please take the time to do so in your future contributions. I think we should remove part of the information you added: The 'name' field is explained in the wiki, and we do not store private info in the database.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
user_5359 (2023-05-29 06:19:50+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I remove your SEO SPAM (mostly foreign keys).
Ser9ei (2023-06-04 15:53:56+00:00): Зачем вы окрыли высотную в зоне строительства подземного перехода? Там же стоит забор и сквозного проезда нет.
Dinamik (2023-06-19 04:04:49+00:00): Забор - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1172616611/ , отсутствие прохода - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10936109042 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10936109043 .
user_5359 (2023-05-29 05:55:52+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please be careful when editing the map data. You moved the node https://www.osm.org/node/1507038026 over 100 meters, so there were problems with the corresponding way. I have moved the point back to its original position.
Glassman (2023-05-31 20:18:05+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good except for the dragged node.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136678127
Luen Warneke (2023-05-29 04:10:14+00:00): Stockwellia Track
VigilantPenguin (2023-07-11 19:59:14+00:00): Hello, I think many of the streets you've reclassified from living_street to residential are in fact "living streets," as they are closed to through motor vehicle traffic and motor vehicles must yield to pedestrians and bicycles.

https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/stay-healthy-streets
Glassman (2023-07-13 02:27:20+00:00):  VigilantPenguin check out https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dliving_street#United_States which specifically says Seattle's Healthy Streets don't meet the requirements for living_street.
VigilantPenguin (2023-07-13 04:29:02+00:00): I had read that previously and just re-read it, I don't think the blurb on the Wiki is very definitive one way or the other. I agree the speed limits aren't as low as they could be, but seeing as these streets allow pedestrians to walk throughout the right of way and motor vehicles must yield to them, this is effectively achieving the same goal. My experience living a block from a Healthy Street is that there is much less traffic on them and more pedestrians and cyclists.
eggie (2023-05-29 05:52:53+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback .. leisure=park  hoort eigenlijk niet op een node, maar op een apart ingetekend vlak. Het ligt dan als een transparante deken over de landuse heen.

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2023-05-29 08:06:07+00:00): Gert, 
De info heb ik op het vlak gezet. 
De note op opgelost gezet.
groet,
eggie
Gert_vK (2023-05-29 08:39:30+00:00): Bedankt Eggie !!!
eggie (2023-05-29 05:55:36+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback  Je info heb ik samengevoegd met de bestaande adresnode nr 9

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
Frans S (2023-05-30 15:22:16+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator during the validation process. 
I am sorry to say, but your mappings are not that accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to next points:
E: Most buildings are fair rectangular. Square them with the Q key when the object is selected.
D: Please avoid that nodes of buildings link to other buildings or roads.
* Tagging of buildings. For HOTOSM projects, the standard tagging is 'building=yes' No text adding.  Please keep that in mind at further mappings.
Please tag highways in according to this wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway






Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve 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/136679144