piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
FoldForever (2026-01-08 14:41:45+00:00): No problem, if it helps I'll send a message then!

I think my concern with the sidewalks is that it stops even halfway along existing roads and paths, giving the appearance that the path stops when it does not in person.

For example Wrights Lane implies the path stops halfway. While the neighbour road (to the south) Great Western Drive, shows the path only on one side for a short while - This one in particular is completely correct. But then it is at odds of the other roads where only partial paths have been added where it appears a path may only exist on one side or not at all.

I also completely understand the undertaking of work to achieve such detail and only respect the time it takes - it just feels like this particular area was left in a worst state with this mix of information though, which I think is the crux of my concerns. 

My other concern is how well integrated some of these are. I will fully admit this is outside of my scope and experience - but if you ask for directions which may use these sidewalks, they can show up as "unnamed road", making navigation harder for those using sidewalks. For a visual I have got this example for you to see https://ibb.co/ZR7B2hW7
From my rough understanding the sidewalks may have to be split and tagged to be part of a road, but I don't know enough on this personally, but wanted to point this out.

> I guess that puts up for debate the whole intention of what a heritage trail is for? I'd like to hear your perspective on this.
That's a fair question and point. I don't feel I'm really the best person here but personally I feel like if there was some form of plaque, sign etc it would make sense in a "this was once here" but I am not aware of any such thing.
This would also apply to the Chainshop - It's within the grounds of a local school, but even though at times I have walked past the location daily, there is zero information for the public to know that is has any significant historical value when in person.
On the flip side, areas such as the nature reserves, canals etc - while not obviously sign posted at every second, do tend to have some level of information (The Canal has information and at the Bumble hole visitor centre, Haden Hill at it's Entrance of Halesowen Road, etc)

I think when combined with the fact this trail isn't officially published or supported any more, has at least one location that doesn't exist, I would err on the side of "best not"

From a purely personal and knowingly objective view - if the trail were to stay on the map I would prefer it to stick to the existing roads and visual networks that do exist, rather than leaving partial information of pathways.

Thanks for being open and discussing this too, I appreciate your time and effort on the maps!
mrpacmanmap (2026-01-09 18:43:12+00:00): Hi FoldForever,

I completely see what you mean regarding the appearance of sidewalks stopping midway along roads, and how the mix of partially mapped sidewalks vs roads with full sidewalks can leave the area feeling inconsistent or even misleading.

I agree that in isolation adding selective sidewalks for the purpose of a single route can give the impression of incomplete and messy data, especially where neighbouring roads are mapped differently. That’s a fair criticism, and I can see how this ends up being a net negative in terms of map clarity rather than an incremental improvement.

Your point about routing instructions referring to “unnamed roads” is also a good point. While technically correct from a data-model perspective, I agree that from a user experience standpoint, this makes pedestrian navigation worse, not better  and if improving real world usability is the goal, that’s something I agree should be avoided- it's not something I've necessarily considered before, as I've never used OSM for real world navigation personally before. 

On the heritage trail itself, I think you’ve reasonably summed up the broader issue. While I still feel that mapping historic or former locations can be appropriate in principle, as the route itself has been inferred rather than explicitly defined, I agree that erring on the side of caution and not keeping it as a formal route relation is probably the most sensible approach.

With that in mind do you agree that the best way forward would be for me to:

(a) remove the heritage trail relation itself
(b) clean up any leftover sidewalk/footpath geometry that was only added to support the trail
(c) migrate the trail relation to the underlying road and path network in a more consistent, locally coherent state- that way, if the area is ever remapped in a more complete “all-or-nothing” approach in the future, it can be done holistically rather than being anchored in this ad hoc way.

Thank you again for engaging so constructively; I genuinely appreciate the respectful tone and the shared focus on improving the map for the local area. If you notice anything else that looks off as I map away, please do feel free to point it out.
All the best,
mrpacmanmap
FoldForever (2026-01-10 13:12:11+00:00): I do agree with your ways forward, I wouldn't have any concerns with those points

I understand this may be a lot of steps to work out, but I do appreciate your time and work on this and for being so open to the constructive criticism. Thank you for your thoughts on this too
mrpacmanmap (2026-01-11 17:57:20+00:00): Hi FoldForever, 

I'm still unsure what way forward you think would be best? I'm happy to do either, but in your opinion, should I do a + b or b + c?
FoldForever (2026-01-12 00:14:45+00:00): Hm, I think I'd be leaning towards a + b, if only because the trail has some underlying concerns (not all places exist, the trail is in fact two different trails, no explicitly defined route and only landmarks)

I do feel bad to suggest this after the time it'd take to add and map - please know I do appreciate your time and effort on these! 

If the landmarks could be added as more points of interest - if they aren't already, maybe this could be a middle ground - naturally the larger parks etc are marked, but I had noticed that the chainmakers shop was unmarked for example. I hadn't looked at all points
mrpacmanmap (2026-01-14 23:23:06+00:00): Hi FoldForever,
Thanks for clarifying, it makes sense, and I appreciate your guidance.

I’ve now gone ahead with a + b, and have cleaned up the sidewalk/footpath that was only there to support the route. The surrounding road and path network should now be in a more locally consistent state.

Thank you as well for the suggestion about handling landmarks the route passed as individual points of interest that feels like a good middle ground. I haven’t added all of them yet, but I agree that marking historically significant locations (where appropriate and verifiable) as POIs or at least under a historical:* or was:* tag is a much better fit than maintaining an inferred route. I’ll keep that in mind for future edits, and I may add some of them incrementally once I’ve verified what still exists.

I massively appreciate any constructive feedback and the respectful way you’ve approached this. It’s been a really useful discussion, and I’m glad we could land on an outcome that improves the map overall.
FoldForever (2026-01-15 16:53:33+00:00): Thank you for your understanding and help on all of this! I'm really happy the map has improved overall with all of these changes and for working with the concerns on this - The map feels better in this local area especially
Szymson (2025-02-07 16:32:54+00:00): Hej, rozdział jezdni przed rondem (skromnie bo skromnie) występuje:
https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6165053,18.1763208,3a,53.2y,302.28h,77.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4Vg0NVTcMe1m6TLOH14UQg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D12.577282974650132%26panoid%3D4Vg0NVTcMe1m6TLOH14UQg%26yaw%3D302.2796706156995!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Marek-M (2025-02-07 17:13:04+00:00): A widziałem, widziałem, ale dostosowałem drogę tak, żeby wyglądała tak samo jak wjazd na rondo z ul. Długiej, który ma identyczny rozdział a nie jest rozdzielony :)
Taya_S (2025-02-07 14:19:53+00:00): Reverted SEO vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162247345
domiden (2025-02-07 16:46:34+00:00): Sorry, it should be “Additions …” not “Removing …”
archie (2025-02-07 14:27:02+00:00): Hej, jag reverterade denna cs. Gemensam gång- och cykelväg taggas med path tillsammans med foot=designated samt bicycle=designated. Path har en egen definition i osm och kan inte rakt av översättas med stig eller skogsstig. Titta på osm-wiki för "path". 
Sedan måste taggningen stämma med vad svensk trafiklagstiftning stadgar. En gångväg får inte användas av cykel (förutom för barn upp till viss ålder). Så highway=footway +bicycle=yes rimmar inte med svensk lagstiftning. Likaså med cykelväg som, återigen enl svensk lagstiftning, bara får användas av fotgängare om inte gångväg finns. 
Versamheten med mappningen går ut på att skildra hur förhållandena är på "backen". När det gäller access och användande av vägar är det svensk lagstiftning som är gällande och utslagsgivande. Jag håller det för ytterst osannolikt att det i Hörby kommun gäller trafiklagstiftning som avviker från vad som gäller i landet i övrigt.
mochapy (2025-02-07 15:00:37+00:00): Så det stämde att åtminstone att det inte skulle vara highway=cycleway?

Tackar för ert tålamod.
ch_de_75 (2025-11-24 21:48:09+00:00): Hallo, ich denke bei "lanes" sollten es bei der Bremgartenstrasse zur Kreuzung nur 3 sein. Wie im Wiki beschrieben, zählen Velostreifen nicht dazu.
habi (2025-11-25 16:46:21+00:00): https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/132046618 ist seit Dezember 2022 mit `lanes=3` erfasst.
habi (2025-11-25 16:52:46+00:00): Ah, du meinst https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1118859710, sorry.
Da habe ich die exklusive Velospur neben der Geradeaus-Autospur anhand https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:bicycle:lanes erfasst und mich wohl schlichtwegs in den `lanes` vertippt.
Das Bild ihttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle:lanes zeigt ja ziemlich genau die Situation :)
In https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175119200 korrigiert.
Mersi für den Input.
archie (2025-02-07 14:44:25+00:00): att tagga access=no gäller för alla tänkbara trafikanter. att i det läget lägga till foo=no, motor_vehicle=no är fullständigt överflödigt.
pitscheplatsch (2025-02-07 20:13:02+00:00): #seo #spam ?
askhdfhkasdfhkj (2025-02-07 21:39:49+00:00): no, it's a real bar, and it's been there for more than a year. You can check it on google maps and facebook
Aleksandar Matejevic (2025-02-07 15:04:45+00:00): Hi, rondoncamacho, 
I see that you are working on some modification of the boundaries, can you recheck 
R2465704 - Parroquia Libertad 	
R3457162 - Parroquia Barbacoas 	
R3460992 - Parroquia La Peñita

which are now broken and also adjust admin_level=4 and 6 relations since I see you are updating the boundaries in the region
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-02-07 23:55:01+00:00): missing connection
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162247691
gurglypipe (2025-02-07 16:07:38+00:00): Has the Bike Barn Pier been demolished, or is it still physically present (but unused)?
Dales Ash (2025-02-07 16:15:22+00:00): The pier is still there but the service no longer runs
gurglypipe (2025-02-07 16:27:10+00:00): Thanks for clarifying. You accidentally deleted the pier in your edit, so I’ve added it back in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162251937. Let me know if anything looks wrong with what I’ve done :)
gurglypipe (2025-02-07 16:06:09+00:00): It’s been a few months since I was last there, but doesn’t that service road run under the bridge, and the cycle lane is on top of the bridge? If so, they shouldn’t be connected.
gurglypipe (2025-02-07 16:06:43+00:00): and, if so, that section of cycle lane should be tagged as a bridge, like the road is.
gurglypipe (2025-02-07 16:11:26+00:00): (If you want a hand with this, or have questions, I’m happy to help!)
literan (2025-02-08 11:13:00+00:00): ваш коллега написал нам, что дают доступ службам доставки только на автомашинах, поэтому тег неправильный. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162091252

Заменю на верный
IvanovNikita (2025-02-10 09:48:25+00:00): Спасибо за поправку, учту на будущее!
KarlaIbrahić (2025-02-08 17:03:27+00:00): Reverted because node was created. #OptimoRoute

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162287993
domiden (2025-02-07 16:47:00+00:00): Sorry, it should be “Additions …” not “Removing …”
sophiachen_CRC (2025-02-18 16:07:05+00:00): Sophia: Bâtiments non-orthogonalisés
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162248107
pilvisus (2025-02-07 14:44:00+00:00): note: still need to actually survey the SEB ATM
sophiachen_CRC (2025-02-18 16:15:51+00:00): Sophia: Bâtiments non-orthogonalisés
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162248262
coteyka (2025-02-07 14:47:14+00:00): /69 в Красноярске*
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-23 16:16:15+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12565743117/history has fixme:type = shop that was added in this edit
What kind of shop is here?

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop for common values - is any of them fitting?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-28 10:36:56+00:00): maybe 

amenity=fixme
fixme=type
fixme:type=volunteering

should be simply removed here for https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12565743105 ?
LivingWithDragons (2025-05-01 09:26:15+00:00): yes, those tags could probably be removed
Kovoschiz (2025-02-07 17:22:49+00:00): Please read that `=busway` is only used for phyiscally-separated high-standard busways in the likes of "BRT", not bus lanes which is here  `oneway:bus:conditional=` + `bus:backward=`
Taya_S (2025-02-07 15:27:18+00:00): Reverted SEO vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162249751
Kevin@RouteYou (2025-06-10 07:13:23+00:00): I went along the unpaved track starting at D2 and ending at D947 by bike. Just curious, but on which basis did you set the access tag to no? I didn't see any signposts or gates limiting the access for cyclists or by foot.
NeisBot (2025-02-08 08:06:04+00:00): Hi AntiEntropy, thank you for your contribution to the OSM project.

Over your latest stretch of time, you've made at least 48 changesets with minimal or no meaningful comments.

To enhance collaboration, please consider using the comment field to describe your map changes. This helps others understand and follow your adjustments more easily. You can find guidance on good changeset comments here: https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments 

Thanks!

I've also sent this message through the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#HappyMapping
#ADescriptionSaysMoreThanASingleChar
AntEntro (2025-02-08 13:27:25+00:00): Added a few amenities, and a few playgroud elements. Fix some errors of boundaryies.
pitscheplatsch (2025-02-08 21:05:52+00:00): 👍
Kovoschiz (2025-02-07 17:28:43+00:00): Have you actually checked whether it's an EVA? Because I have.
pitscheplatsch (2025-02-07 20:13:48+00:00): #seo #spam
u111 (2025-02-07 16:01:47+00:00): Grass - A tag for a smaller areas of mown and managed grass for example in the middle of a roundabout, verges beside a road or in the middle of a dual carriageway.

Kas tau netinka?  Keistas zmogus tu esi
Tomas Straupis (2025-02-07 16:37:48+00:00): Wikis yra kelių žmonių nuomonė, kaip galima interpretuoti vienas ar kitas žymas, tai nėra ne tik privalomas, bet nėra net ir rekomenduojamas dokumentas. Kad GIS duomenys būtų naudingi, jie turi būti maksimaliai homogeniški, todėl vieną mažytę teritoriją sužymėti kitaip, nei visa Lietuva yra neproduktyvu. Bet kokioje sistemoje, pradžioje reikia labai gerai pasižiūrėti, ką šimtai žmonių keliasdešimt metų jau darė ir daro, kas neaišku - paklausti, o tik tada pulti „taisyti“ :-) Sėkmės.
u111 (2025-02-07 18:22:05+00:00): Tai gerai, pakeisiu visą Lietuvą,
jeigu tokie principai galioja.
gurglypipe (2025-02-07 16:22:13+00:00): Hiya, thanks for your recent edits locally, it’s nice to see new local contributors :)

I’ve removed the name from this particular section of footpath as it’s actually already correctly part of a ‘relation’ which describes the whole West Windermere Route.

Relations allow for walking/riding/cycling routes to be described in more detail, and deal with the problem where one section of path can be part of multiple routes — if this was done by naming the path, how would a path which is both on the Pennine Way and Pennine Bridleway be named?

There’s some more information about routes here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes

And here are the full WWW route relations, if you’re interested:
 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16216506
 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16216507
 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16216508

Happy to answer any questions if you have them :)

(Partial revert in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162251640)
Taya_S (2025-02-07 15:27:19+00:00): Reverted SEO vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162249751
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-24 02:48:19+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11610272895/history has amenity = fixme that was added in this edit
What kind of object is here? Is it a shop? What kind of a shop? (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop )
evgenykatyshev (2025-04-24 05:14:40+00:00): Fixed. Thanks!
SpinOff (2026-07-28 22:10:35+00:00): Hej. W OSM nic nie ginie i można odtworzyć nawet usunięte linie. Lepiej usunąć te drogi, niż zmieniać je w drzewa.
dafto8 (2025-02-12 18:22:58+00:00): MSP7 nie ma patrona. Nigdy nie miała. W szczególności gdy patron ośmiesza osobę pracującą w tej właśnie szkole (wpisz "godziny dostępności nauczycieli msp7 knurów")
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-02-08 01:06:53+00:00): this si a traffic signals crossing, so you would need to keep the crossing=traffic_signals tag. Thanks!
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-02-08 01:01:43+00:00): Be careful, removing this temporary crossing breaks routing (sidewalks will be completed later)
uᴉʍOꓨ (2025-02-13 04:46:29+00:00): Hi again! Can you provide some details about the basement polygon you added?

I'm curious because the basement polygon is unusually much smaller than the hospital building itself.

If the case is that the basement actually follows the outline of the whole building, you can simply add the relevant tags to the same hospital building, rather than mapping the basement as a separate building.

Can you elaborate a bit?
Taya_S (2025-02-07 15:47:19+00:00): Reverted SEO vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162250509
habi (2025-02-07 15:43:01+00:00): Nö, https://qa.poole.ch/addresses/GWR/355_all.osm.zip war eine Quelle...
OSM_RogerWilco (2025-02-12 08:38:37+00:00): Moin ckret,

willkommen bei OpenStreetMap! Schön, dass Du mitmachst! :-)

Du hast hier zuerst Haus und Garage getrennt eingetragen. Jetzt hast Du alles zusammen als ein Haus eingetragen. Stimmte das nicht mit der separaten Garage?

Viele Grüße
Roger Wilco
ckret (2025-02-12 16:38:47+00:00): Hi,

an dieser Stelle steht ein Haus mit einer Garage, die direkt miteinander verbunden sind.

Ich hatte die zunächst getrennt eingezeichnet (dachte man macht das so). Später habe ich festgestellt, dass die anderen Häuser drumherum auch als ein Gebäude eingezeichnet sind. Deswegen habe ich es geändert.

LG :)
OSM_RogerWilco (2025-02-12 16:47:16+00:00): Alles klar, bei OSM werden oft Gebäude von Luftbildern abgezeichnet. Da weiß man dann nicht, was zusammengehört und was nicht. Gerade früher wo die Qualität der Luftbilder schlechter war.

Es ist also von Vorteil, wenn Du Wohngebäude und Garage separat einträgst. Die dürfen auch miteinander verbunden sein. Wenn die Garage aber in das Haus integriert ist (und alleine gar nicht stehen könnte), dann ist es als ein Gebäude richtig.
ckret (2025-02-12 16:51:45+00:00): Ok, dann ändere ich das nochmal.
Danke für den Hinweis!
StC (2026-04-14 19:09:42+00:00): Hi!

What are your sources for this route, particularly for the section in France? We try to limit ourselves to routes that are either trailblazed or published by official bodies (which ensures that they are endorsed by local authorities), are we in one of these cases here?

Cheers,
St.
ma-rt-in (2025-03-08 08:43:02+00:00): Moin,

durch die Nachrichten zur Sperrung hab ich deine Änderungen entdeckt.
Scheinbar ist bei deiner Bearbeitung ein Teilstück von der Karte verschwunden.
Ich repariere das nun mal fix.

Viele Grüße
SomeoneElse (2025-02-15 12:24:32+00:00): Thanks!
Taya_S (2025-02-07 16:17:17+00:00): Reverted SEO spam

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162251611
dgitto (2025-02-07 17:15:50+00:00): benvenuto in OSM
Glassman (2025-02-07 23:23:51+00:00): OSMCha doesn't seem to be able to handle this large edit. Can you give more detail as to what was done?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162251455
quincylvania (2025-02-08 04:45:05+00:00): Hi Glassman, this changeset just adds the tag `protected_area=game_land` to protected areas operated by Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. This is part of a `protected_area=` tagging effect that @jake-low and I are experimenting with to create better `boundary=protected_area` subcategories. Pretty much every state has a game/wildlife service that operates land that designated for hunting/fishing/trapping (separately from state parks, forest, etc.), so the idea is to give them all the same tag.
jake-low (2025-02-08 19:25:18+00:00): @quincylvania I think that while the majority of the protected areas you retagged are indeed game lands, some are not. Not all areas operated by WDFW are managed for hunting. In particular, a bunch of small coastal wildlife areas are protected beaches or estuaries. Shore fishing and clamming seem to be allowed at these places, but hunting is not. IMO these don't meet the definition of protected_area=game_land.

Overpass query I used to look over the edits:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Ysc
quincylvania (2025-02-09 03:50:41+00:00): @jake-low Okay gotcha. I'm happy to manually revert this edit if you'd rather look at these one by one. I'm honestly not too satisfied with the `game_land` value. I don't think it's self-explanatory to a wide audience, and I don't want to imply hunting is the main or only purpose of these lands. The goal is to imply that these areas provide "wildlife as resource", otherwise we want to tag them `wildlife_refuge`. The `hunting=`, `fishing=`, and `trapping=` tags can be used to specified particular activities. Let's talk more about tagging on Slack.
jake-low (2025-02-09 18:22:21+00:00): No need to revert, but yeah, let's discuss this on Slack. I personally like the value `game_land` but I think we should formally define it on the wiki to make sure we (and other users) are on the same page about what it means.
Superadlen (2025-03-06 09:03:30+00:00): Saha ramdanek
Dablju09 (2025-02-07 17:48:53+00:00): bardzo fajna ścieżka, polecam
pitscheplatsch (2025-02-07 17:16:04+00:00): #seo #spam
Taya_S (2025-02-07 17:30:58+00:00): Deleted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162254527
domiden (2025-02-07 17:00:31+00:00): It should be “… address- and road-related …”
Magic_Towing (2025-02-07 16:46:15+00:00): good
mikedld (2025-02-07 17:18:54+00:00): Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:artwork_type%3Dbust) says that "If a bust represents a specific person, it is a memorial and should be mapped with historic=memorial + memorial=bust.".
Filohipo (2025-02-08 16:40:46+00:00): Hi
Feel free to edit it.
Afterwall it was a note from you 2 years ago.
My edit was automatic by iD
Sammyhawkrad (2025-02-08 12:15:31+00:00): Hello King Cyrus, names on OSM are written in Title Case but not UPPERCASE. Revise this changeset and keep that in mind for future edits.
ziomio (2025-02-07 16:58:29+00:00): https://www.infomobility.pr.it/mappe/
stasiu512 (2025-02-08 01:49:01+00:00): Cześć nie ma sensu dodawać footway:surface i cycleway:surface jeśli jest to jednakowa wartość która jest już określona tagiem surface=