piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
MxxCon (2025-04-17 14:56:00+00:00): Hello.
It looks like besides just adding city and state, you also moved some buildings distorting their shapes.
Please pay attention during such edits not to damage valid data.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164958290
jmapb (2025-07-22 14:47:40+00:00): I just did changeset 169297918 reverting this, as well as tuesdayyadseut's similar changesets 164998419/164958009/164949377, and your partial repair changeset 165076605 MxxCon. I tried to revert just the messed up building shapes and keep the address updates, but it was too much trouble. But all geocoders I know work fine in Brooklyn without the city and state tags, so no terrible loss.
jmapb (2025-07-23 13:02:13+00:00): Looks like I missed one, just reverted 164941039 with changeset 169342962. In other news, tuesdayyadseut (hello there!) has changed names to tues111, which is a lot less of a mouthful.
aixbrick (2025-04-15 12:49:41+00:00): Hallo,
du schreibst "improve". Worin besteht diese Verbesserung?
Aktuell sehe ich hier
- Doppelte Daten (Bürgersteig als Weg und als Tag an der Straße).
- Beim Weg fehlt die Angabe, dass es ein getrennter Fuß-/Radweg ist (ist bereits an der Straße erfasst, s.o.),
- Die Radroute https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13333706 führt über https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1377607856, der aber nicht für Radfahrer freigegeben ist,
- Bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9949514534 endet aus Richtung Osten kommend die Radfahrer-Freigabe plötzlich.
Gruß
Georg_M_Weber (2025-04-15 15:02:45+00:00): Der Weg verlief über den Bus-Wendekreis im Spitzenweg zur Hauptstraße. Meine Änderung bezog ich nur auf die obere linke Ecke des markierten Rechtecks. Die Tags hatte ich nicht beachtet. Ich hoffe, dass jetzt alles OK ist.
aixbrick (2025-04-15 16:50:36+00:00): Ich würde eher https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24342758/ bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1918315237/ enden lassen, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/181397126/ dort aufsplitten und beim vorderen Teil das "oneway" entfernen. Dann die Tags wieder an https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/519693146/ ergänzen und die Relationen anpassen.
So wie es jetzt ist, stimmt es nämlich auch nicht, z.B. ist die Oberfläche von https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24342758/ im Bereich der Wendefläche nicht "compacted".
aixbrick (2025-04-16 06:49:55+00:00): Zum Vergleich (Fußgänger):
Graphhopper ist schon aktualisiert:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=50.751009%2C6.109428%3B50.750577%2C6.110579
Wenn man von Westen kommt, soll man nun rechts abbiegen und dann wieder links.

OSRM zeigt noch den alten Verlauf (keine Ahnung wie lange noch):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=50.751009%2C6.109428%3B50.750577%2C6.110579
Hier folgt man dem Kornelimünsterweg und wird dann schräg auf den Weg geleitet.

Die Frage ist nun: Was entspricht mehr der Realität (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.750821061111&lng=6.10976425&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=332099148777809)? Eigentlich doch das ursprüngliche Mapping, oder?
Georg_M_Weber (2025-04-16 09:45:42+00:00): Das neue Mapping bildet meines Erachtens, die Realität besser ab. Der Radweg müßte Richtung Westen bis zur Adenauer-Allee verlängert werden. Dies wird aber nur mit dem Tag an der Hauptstraße realisiert. Ein Blick in Google Earth und Streetview zeigt diesen Sachverhalt.
aixbrick (2025-04-16 17:06:56+00:00): Ich habe noch einige Tags korrigiert bzw. ergänzt: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165038048.
von einer Verlängerung bis zur Adenauerallee würde ich abraten, da der Fuß-/Radweg nicht baulich getrennt verläuft und das zu Routingproblemen führen kann. Die Erfassung mit Tags an der Straße ist etabliert, siehe auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren.
Und noch ein Hinweis zu Google Earth und Streetview: Beides ist zur Nutzung bei OSM nicht erlaubt, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google.
rskedgell (2025-04-15 08:02:22+00:00): Please stop mis-tagging crossings at traffic signals as crossing=uncontrolled. Doing so hides information useful to data consumers, particularly those using OSM data for pedestrian navigation. If this is deliberate, it's vandalism.

The crossings here are clearly identifiable from Bing street side imagery as puffin crossings at a traffic light-controlled junction.

It's also pointless to add iD-inspired nonsense like crossing:markings=yes. If you can see what they are - and you can clearly see that they're dots in the Bing aerial imagery - then tag a meaningful value. If you can't see what they are, please don't add a tag uselessly telling data consumers that "this marked crossing is marked".

It's also extremely unhelpful to tag only the cycle Advance Stop Lines (and in the wrong place - they go on the *line* rather than the centre of the protected area). Choosing to tag the ASLs but not the associated traffic signals at the stop line is also unhelpful to data consumers.

Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164971164
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-29 05:29:51+00:00): Hello!

You used
landuse=commerciale
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10309176/history

Have you maybe meant
landuse=commercial
?

I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).

Or have you used this value deliberately? In such case, what was the intended meaning?

If it is a mistake - can you fix it?
totera (2025-04-29 14:52:37+00:00): Hi Mateusz, obviously it was a typo, I just fixed it. Thanks for noticing and commenting
Stalker61 (2025-04-17 17:02:51+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18991850#map=16/52.12765/32.28890 
Это что за бред. В РФ нет административных границ 10 уровня.
Mazda05 (2025-04-17 19:41:32+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:admin_level
https://community.openstreetmap.org/search?q=admin_level%3D10%20%23communities%3Aru
Stalker61 (2025-04-17 20:26:09+00:00): Я ведь уже говорил вам, что нахвататься верхушек не значит приобрести знания. Одно понятно, что с дилетантом общаться бессмысленно. Погугли для самообразования об административной реформе в РФ. Может поумнеешь наконец. Все сельсоветы (10 уровень) упразднены еще в 2017 году, если не ошибаюсь.
Mazda05 (2025-04-17 21:32:13+00:00): osm.wiki/RU:Key:admin_level
https://community.openstreetmap.org/search?q=admin_level%3D10%20%23communities%3Aru
Mazda05 (2025-04-17 21:32:30+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:admin_level


https://community.openstreetmap.org/search?q=admin_level%3D10%20%23communities%3Aru

*
Stalker61 (2025-04-17 21:52:43+00:00): 😅 Финиш. Видно проблемы не только с головой, но и со зрением. Хорошо. Подскажу. 2014 год. Читай хоть что копипастишь. Ну нет мочи более читать бред сумашедшего. Изучай законодательство по административной реформе. 🤣
Stalker61 (2025-04-17 21:55:55+00:00): А то, что wiki никто давно не обновляет это нормальное явление. Привыкай. Изучай нормативную базу и не будешь выглядеть идиотом.
Mazda05 (2025-04-17 22:10:13+00:00): osm.wiki/RU:Key:admin_level

https://community.openstreetmap.org/search?q=admin_level%3D10%20%23communities%3Aru
Stalker61 (2025-04-17 22:18:08+00:00): Иди изучай законодательство.по административной реформе. 😁
Stalker61 (2025-04-17 22:19:15+00:00): Пока твердая двойка и незачет. 😆
b-jazz (2025-04-15 05:15:33+00:00): Hey malifica, when you have a green like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1377611606, instead of drawing the fairway around the green and sharing a bunch of nodes (because the green is at the edge of the fairway), could you draw the fairway so that it borders the green (instead of surrounding it)? I hope that makes sense. Let me know if not.

I also notice a lot of golf=hole ways that you draw have a couple of points close to each other on the green. What's the purpose of this? Most times I see a single endpoint node in the green.

thanks.
malifica (2025-04-15 12:26:59+00:00): The fairway, which has an intermediate cut of rough on it's edge, surrounds the green. It doesn't actually "share" the edge of the green. I suppose the more technically correct way to draw it would be to not share the nodes at all, but  keep the fairway nodes separate by about 1 foot, but OSM doesn't play nice with nodes that close together and will Inadvertently pull the nodes together and/or cause the splines to intersect. 

If they do not have the fairway/intermediate rough surround then the fairway would share the nodes on the "inside" of the green instead of surrounding it. Look at my edits on the course just to the W and NW (Vintage Club Mountain Course) for an example of that.

All golf holes should be a total of three nodes (unless there is a double dogleg par 5 with a blind approach shot which may have 4 nodes). I can move the middle waypoint node on par 3 holes to be in the fairway, but that just boils down to personal preference.
b-jazz (2025-04-15 15:45:19+00:00): When you say "OSM doesn't play nice with nodes that close together", I'm guessing you are talking about the iD editor, or maybe another editor that "snaps" nodes together when you get close. You should be able to zoom in another zoom level or two which will separate the points enough to make snapping not be an issue.

Vintage Club looks great. That's textbook fairway mapping for greens that don't have an (obvious) fringe.

What makes you say that golf holes must have a total of three nodes? I've never heard that before. I pulled up a bunch of classic, real-world golf course maps and every one of the the par-3, straight shot, holes each had a straight, 2 node, line defining them. Is this a rule imposed by simulators?

For your amusement, check out this golf hole: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/975834938

At some point, I'd like to clean all of those up. Especially where people have erroneously added shared points to every tee, fairway, bunker, and green that they intersect with.
malifica (2025-04-15 16:23:05+00:00): So you understand what I am working with, I use the course blueprints, latest (or requested) course/government/surveyor provided elevation data and whatever OSM sat image matches those the best. I will also use the 'imagery offset' in iD to get it as close to the elevation data as possible unless it is so off to cause confusion for anyone looking at the standard OSM layer.

The three node minimum is to establish proper yardages and sightlines for my output and something I have done for years. If the extra node on the Par 3 holes is an issue, I can leave it off (may be a hard habit to break) or make it less conspicuous.

(Checking out golf hole) Oh my, that is hilarious. #16 is especially humorous.

I loathe shared nodes. I understand they can be necessary, but when I come across a boundary, street, cartpath, and landuse feature all intersecting and sharing the same nodes, it makes it very time consuming to get anything done.

I'm not a fan of zooming too far in and increasing node count, but I may see about doing that on future courses where the imagery allows for me to be accurate within a foot or two. Unfortunately, all of this area I am currently working on has some of the worst sat imagery I have seen in a very long time.

Anyway, glad that we are mostly on the same page with similar goals.

If there are problem courses (like you the one you shared) that need some quick fixes/attention, I'd be happy to give them a run through and remedy the obvious errors. Just send me a note and link and I'll see what I can do.
malifica (2025-04-15 16:31:12+00:00): By the way, I went ahead and fixed all those golf holes on Twin Lakes.
Allison P (2025-04-15 17:52:06+00:00): Yes, intersecting nodes are often a pain, but when pieces of related geometry actually touch each other, they are easier to maintain if they share nodes. Boundaries and streets shouldn't touch each other (but often do because of inexperienced mappers and the initial low-quality import adding them). It is easy enough to disconnect only select features from each other to ensure that golf course features touch only each other. I would suggest doing so for any golf course features before working on them.
citrula (2025-04-15 06:46:15+00:00): You also need to move the POI - moving the address is not sufficient. Let me know if you need help with this.
aharvey (2025-04-14 23:58:20+00:00): || vs |yes| is a matter of style, is there a clear consensus? I prefer |yes| since it's a bit more readable and less error prone in getting the wrong number of lanes.
TheSwavu (2025-04-15 04:37:20+00:00): Given that these were wrong, I don't think the style is causing anyone a problem because they were not looking at them anyway.
VlIvYur (2025-09-27 14:48:22+00:00): Hello
Don't copy information from other websites
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12755679827
arichnad (2025-04-18 16:59:32+00:00): I love it when I notice some new bike lanes that aren't on OSM, and go in to add them, and I find that someone added them just days before.  Nice job, thanks!
diamondarmorsteve (2025-07-10 00:33:23+00:00): The Golden Gate Bridge is not comparable to the Coronado Bridge; the Golden Gate Bridge is part of a large freeway section of US 101, whereas the Coronado Bridge is a short spur off of Interstate 5 that consists entirely of itself.
OddBunsen (2025-04-15 04:06:03+00:00): Hi, I'm glad you're making edits! Remember not to make descriptive names. An example of a descriptive name in this changeset is "truck parking," where the correct tag would be hgv=yes on an area surrounding the parking spaces.
Jarek 🚲 (2025-04-15 00:40:25+00:00): (I removed the phone number because the company website now lists a different one. The address and email are still the same on the website.)
MxxCon (2025-04-17 15:35:02+00:00): Hello.
Creating such landuse polygons is rather unnecessary since all these areas already have individual buildings mapped, providing more granular and greater detail than these landuse polygons offer. The fact there's a residential building implicitly indicates that this is a residential area.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164961797
diamondarmorsteve (2025-04-17 19:29:15+00:00): While that may be true, it is much easier for a data consumer to visually display (i.e. on a map) the extent of a residential area using landuse polygons than buildings.
Supaplex (2025-04-18 04:37:03+00:00): 已經有了
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/629399886
aduxas (2025-04-15 16:33:40+00:00): Why not extend the service road till the turning point at the end, and add that too?
aduxas (2025-04-15 18:26:06+00:00): BTW reading the wiki page for service road, this looks like a poor choice here.
StreetSurveyor (2025-04-15 21:02:26+00:00): Driveway because it has the address of the main road. Also, highway=service with service=driveway: This combination is used for private access roads leading to individual properties. It often implies the road is privately maintained and may have restrictions on public access (e.g., access=private)
MxxCon (2025-04-17 15:36:57+00:00): Hello.
When tagging for maximum height, please make sure that only relevant section contains this tag by splitting ways where appropriate.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164962516
Timmy_Tesseract (2025-04-24 09:39:10+00:00): Good afternoon. Not sure if you're familiar with Stava, it's an app for recording and sharing gps tracks of sport activities. Looks like a lot of people have uploaded their runs in this subdivision. We can use this tracks to map the newly built streets even if they don't show up on satellite imagery yet.

Would you like to give it a try? Just use this browser extension to access the heatmap in the editor: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/id-strava-heatmap/eglbcifjafncknmpmnelckombmgddlco
Timmy_Tesseract (2025-05-13 06:19:02+00:00): I finished mapping the road network now. Would be awesome if you could add the street names like you did in Camella Prima!

Also, do you know if the subdivision is private or open?
Frans S (2025-04-21 09:11:18+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
About mapping of high buildings.
Please read this document.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z7uDwYm4oNmlexHIhJxGCjPpNhCQAgRia5aEJr_4MwM/edit?usp=sharing

Best regards
felipeeugenio (2025-04-15 13:05:50+00:00): Hola. El Landuse=grass es mas para un uso urbano de pastos. Son soluciones paisajisticas que no son parques o plazas. no aplican mucho en un pastizal rural.
Usar meadow o grassland.

Saludos
n76 (2025-04-15 19:04:35+00:00): Does way 1377679079 actually exist? I haven't seen it on any other maps including USGS and USFS and I don't recall seeing any evidence of it at the lower end when I have hiked toward the Wind Wolves Reserve from PMC.
Michael Sallwasser (2025-04-16 03:42:36+00:00): On April 12, I hiked a route following the north-south ridge until reaching the east-west ridge until I reached the forest road. There are signs of other following the same route and evidence of a long abandoned collapsed jeep road on the east-west ridge. As noted, I said it was pathless and required navigational skills. 

BTW. I am unfamiliar with how to find way 1377679079 using the OSM tool, but I presume you are referring to the path I added.
n76 (2025-04-16 04:15:21+00:00): The way would be https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1377679079

People have hiked all over these hills and there are at least some published descriptions of hikes from PMC to the top of Mt Pinos, Sawmill & Grouse. But those are, at best, routes rather than trails.

I harbor a strong suspicion that your route up from the trail into Wind Wolves to the old 4x4 track on the top of the ridge falls into that same category.
Kovoschiz (2025-04-15 06:33:35+00:00): Can you please stop adding random `place=` ?
Kovoschiz (2025-04-15 06:36:56+00:00): This is already clearly indicating it's for a `demolished:place=hamlet`
mranderson2025 (2025-04-15 08:54:14+00:00): I'm not adding. It's being developed now after many years. It's not a new place. It's a hamlet being redeveloped into a neighbourhood.
Kovoschiz (2025-04-15 11:13:44+00:00): No, it's not the same. No one calls it that now.
felipeeugenio (2025-04-15 12:57:32+00:00): Hola Pablo. Porfa, si van pegados los landuses o los natural, déjalos pegados, no casi encima o medios superpuestos. Es algo que hemos tenido que ir arreglando por todo Chile.
Con los caminos es distinto. Nunca pegar nada a los caminos.
saludos
Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164963567
Allison P (2025-04-15 18:51:52+00:00): I've been trying to get the Nampa address points server working in MapWithAI but have been running into an issue. I've never seen a MapServer used with MapWithAI before. Can you share your configuration?
CraigPe (2025-04-16 01:56:24+00:00): Sure!  I'll message you directly.
Mashin (2025-04-15 12:43:30+00:00): Hi and Welcome to OSM!

If you enjoy adding new streams then I recommend switching background imagery to LiDAR terrain. There you will be able to see streams clearly even through a thick vegetation.
Just press B and and select "CT ECO Shaded Relief (2023)".
StreetSurveyor (2025-04-20 12:02:42+00:00): This has a town street sign on each end of the road indicating the name. Please don't remove it again. Also, while it may be a "private way", there was nothing that physically restricted any access restriction. I feel access=destination is the most appropriate in this situation.
MelancholicSlav (2025-04-20 13:26:44+00:00): I agree that motor_vehicle=destination is a better tag here, however "Dangerous Passing" is definitely not a name. It is more a way for the town to discourage through traffic even though it is technically legal, because the alley does not have its own parcel. There are multiple other "Dangerous Passing" signs nearby, for example off of Tappan Street behind Star Market and between Beacon and Garrison. Also, the alley should connect to Corey Road since there is no obstruction on that side.
StreetSurveyor (2025-04-20 18:04:14+00:00): Interesting, especially with the sign on each end. I'll take your word for it as this was my first survey in Brookline. Thanks for letting me know!
juminet (2025-04-16 07:16:32+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenue dans OSM. 

Vous avez réattribué plusieurs cours d'eau en rivière et je pense que c'est une erreur. La différence entre ruisseau et rivière est bien sûr sujette à discussion. D'après le wiki, un ruisseau peut être franchi par un bond d'une personne en bonne santé physique (cfr https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway). Je ne connais pas la situation du Ry d'Ernage mais à voir s'il ne devrait pas rester au statut de ruisseau. 

Par ailleurs, si vous changez un ruisseau en rivière, on s'attend à ce que tout le cours d'eau en aval soit également changé en rivière, sinon cela n'a pas de sens. Cela fait des changements à faire jusqu'à la confluence avec la Thyle à Court-Saint-Etienne. 

Pouvez-vous faire des corrections par rapport à cette situation? Sinon, bravo pour vos premières éditions. 

Happy mapping, 

juminet
user_18023081 (2025-04-15 17:26:04+00:00): I doubt you actually surveyed all of them.
lpalli (2025-04-16 09:51:04+00:00): I am preparing a site visit and have completed some information using StreetView
user_18023081 (2025-04-16 16:03:54+00:00): Reverted it as Street View isn't allowed as a source -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165035870
silversurfer83 (2025-04-15 17:25:27+00:00): Hi :)

kann grad nicht beurteilen, ob hier Wege gelöscht wurden. Sollte mir was auffallen, werde ich entsprechend kommentieren und ggf. weiter eingreifen.

Eine Bitte an dich, wenn du Wege (neu) einzeichnest: Bitte achte darauf sie nicht mit Landnutzungsflächen, Grenzen, Stromleitungen und anderen OSM-Objekten, die nicht mit dem Weg verbunden sein sollten, zu verbinden. Vielen Dank.

happy mapping
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164966649
SonoCrasheR (2025-04-15 19:00:25+00:00): Hallo,

ob es vorsätzlich gelöscht wurde kann ich nicht beurteilen, mir war es nur aufgefallen, da sie vor einiger Zeit noch da waren.

Da hast du völlig recht, normalerweiser achte ich darauf, es war einfach eine kurze Korrektur zwischen Tür und Angel. 

Gruß, SonoCrasheR
bes199 (2025-04-15 10:47:42+00:00): Hallöchen!
Ich habe die Tags nochmal angepasst. In Dresden haben wir bei der gesperrten, aber noch nicht abgerissenen Brücke erst einmal access=no gesetzt. Construction wird es erst, wenn tatsächlich Bauarbeiten betrieben werden (Sanierung oder Abriss mit Neubau).

access=no hattest du ja bereits hinzugefügt, wird aber nicht gemeinsam mit highway=construction verwendet, da highway=construction die Unzugänglichkeit impliziert.

Ein weiterer kleiner Hinweis: Du hattest
highway=construction +
construction=highway
hinzugefügt. 
Hier stimmt bloß der Wert von construction=* noch nicht. Der Wert sollte dann den ursprünglichen Wert von highway=* halten. Also:
Zuvor war die Strecke
highway=trunk
also sollte es, wenn die Brücke dann später in Bau ist, so aussehen:
highway=construction +
construction=trunk
(siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:construction)
...dann wird es auch in der Karte korrekt dargestellt.

Danke, dass du die Karte so schnell aktualisiert hast!
infeeeee (2025-04-15 17:22:19+00:00): Szia!

Ezek az útszéli parkolók szerintem inkább parking=lane címkével jobban leírhatók.

Ezen a wiki oldalon van egy jó leírás mi a különbség a lane és street_side között, mikor melyiket kell használni: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:parking%3Dlane

Illetve ha útszéli parkolást külön elemként megrajzolsz, akkor egy parking:left/right=separate-et illik rárakni az útra, hogy nehogy ugyanazt a parkolót más felvegye mégegyszer:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Street_parking#Separately_mapped_parking_areas_and_spaces

Útszéli parkolásról itt található egy nagyon jó és részletes leírás angolul: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Street_parking

Illetve a leggyakrabban előforduló magyar sajátosságokról itt egy: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hungary/Jelölési_példák/Parkolás

További jó térképezést!