piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Hufkratzer (2023-03-06 23:39:33+00:00): Hi,
Here you have mapped 2 nested riding centres; that doesn't make sense. The small round one looks like a round pen and in this case should better be tagged like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/558526499
See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:leisure=horse_riding
F5ZV (2023-03-09 02:41:24+00:00): You are right, it is done.
Thanks.
NorthCrab_upload (2023-03-06 20:10:19+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, dodaj ją w addr:street. Jeśli nie, zamień addr:city na addr:place - tak oznaczamy adresy bez ulic.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1152243800

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Minh Nguyen (2023-03-06 20:07:42+00:00): The tagging was discussed on OSMUS Slack: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1677722616750459

Even though this isn’t a vet facility that would accept walk-ins, it is a veterinarian who makes house calls.
mueschel (2023-03-09 09:43:52+00:00): Hi,
please watch out for the correct spelling of tags. In OSM there are no
Recycling_waste
recycling_waste
recyclling_waste

The only correct spelling that can be understood by any software is  

recycling:waste

Please check the tags you added for these spelling mistakes.
JJIglesias (2023-03-09 21:26:29+00:00): Favor seguir la siguiente guia:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:amenity%3Drecycling
Gracias
Langlaeufer (2023-03-07 09:09:23+00:00): Den Höhen von OpenTopoMap kann man nicht vertrauen. Die Höhen stammen von STRM und sind durch Vegetation und Gebäude verfälscht.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133378232
tkansgar (2023-03-07 16:50:57+00:00): OK, das macht Sinn. Die Bäume sind dort locker 10 m hoch. Werde das Fixme wieder löschen. Danke für das Feedback!
NorthCrab_upload (2023-03-06 20:20:20+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4128458999
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1152245733

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Bobropiton (2023-06-24 03:44:59+00:00): в платформу не добавлены маршруты :( Исправлено
Langlaeufer (2023-03-07 09:06:29+00:00): surface=asphalt heißt i.d.R. auch tracktype=grade1?
Oder ist die Oberfläche bereits extrem verwittert?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133378779
berung (2023-03-07 10:03:37+00:00): Die veralteten Einträge sind bereits korrigiert. Danke für den Hinweis!
Langlaeufer (2023-03-07 11:13:55+00:00): Danke auch.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133378779
Narvik2 (2023-03-07 07:34:56+00:00): Szia!

Lehet, hogy véletlenül állítottad át a földutat, vagy itt tényleg csatorna van?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/463425557
vasony (2023-03-19 07:06:24+00:00): Szia!
Légy szíves tisztázni, kaptál egy ilyet:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3597483

Tamás
Robert46798 (2023-03-08 09:55:05+00:00): Hallo Icebird,

ich bin auf deinen Changeset gestoßen, weil du die entsprechende Option beim hochladen angewählt hast.

Wieso möchtest du das Gebäude denn als Mulzipolygon darstellen? Ich kenne die Situation nur aus dem Luftbild, aber ein MP scheint mir hier nicht zu passen. Wenn der mittlere Teil der Gebäude ein Innenhof wäre, dann könnte man ihn mit einem MP "ausschneiden". Es scheint sich aber um eine andere Ebene zu handeln. Dafür ist building:part (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:building:part) zu verwenden. Das ist bei diesem Gebäude auch der Fall. 
Hier (https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=52.0148612&lon=11.7295183&zoom=20&camera.phi=29.679) kannst du eine 3D-Asuwertung sehen. Wenn die dem tatsächlichen Gebäude sntspricht, ist alles okay.

Viele Grüße,
Robert
Glassman (2023-03-09 17:42:27+00:00): #TIP: no need for the tag access=private on driveways since they are considered private anyway. I do recommending adding access=private when the driveway is either marked as such or has a gate.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133379148
NorthCrab_upload (2023-03-06 21:00:27+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o miejscowości. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, zastosuj kombinację addr:city + addr:street. Jeśli nie, przekaż nazwę miejscowości w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/718692842

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
bxl-forever (2023-03-08 21:58:00+00:00): Hello,

This changeset came to my attention, after changeset 133450402 had to fix almost every single of those ways.

I am curious to hear why you are using landuse areas for each house.  I don’t know any other part of the world where people do that: there will be one single landuse area for an entire block, and then we may make small areas with walls between each property, but areas will be tagged as gardens, not as landuse.

I am particularly concerned about the time and effort it must take you to do this.

Was this decided or recommended by anyone?
mike140 (2023-07-22 21:01:16+00:00): Найнижчу точку позначити тегом гірської вершини - це ж треба додуматись )
Piskvor (2023-03-07 12:22:28+00:00): Ahoj, oneway:bicycle=former není úplně běžný tagování - obvykle se taguje aktuální stav (historie objektu zůstává v databázi tak jako tak). Tady bylo oneway:bicycle=no , když tu byla obousměrka, pak oneway:bicycle=yes , když byla zrušena (tj. explicitně jen jednosměrná i pro kola, vedle obecného oneway=yes ).

Navrhoval bych návrat k užívanému tagování, "tady jednou byla cykloobousměrka" nepopisuje současný stav, a historický stav je dochován v předchozích verzích. 

Zavádět nový tagy i hodnoty je pochopitelně možný, ale "typ obousměrky: zrušená" dle mého názoru není jako nová hodnota vhodná.

V Martinské je to stejný - obousměrka by se tam hodila, ale mapa má svět odrážet v reálném a aktuálním stavu.
Martin2035 (2023-03-15 12:25:00+00:00): Ahoj,
díky za upozornění. Hledáme formu, jak do OSM zanést cykloobousměrky, které byly zrušeny. Nejen v ČR je jich docela dost. Nevíš, jaký byl byl jiný, „legální" postup?
Btw. OSM dřív používala tag pro plánované cykloobousměrky oneway:bicycle=no_planned, toto už také asi neexistuje.

Díky moc za kontrolu

Martin Š.
Piskvor (2023-03-15 14:49:07+00:00): No, asi by bylo vhodné použít lifecycle prefix, tj. proposed:oneway:bicycle=yes

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:P%C5%99edpona_%C5%BEivotn%C3%ADho_cyklu
Piskvor (2023-03-15 14:52:53+00:00): Teda renonc, opačně, tj. proposed:oneway:bicycle=no pro plánovanou cykloobousměrku, obdobně teoreticky removed:oneway:bicycle=no pro bývalou.

Nicméně to mapování bývalých stavů je diskutabilní (v historii objektu lze dohledat). Já bych tagoval oneway:bicycle=yes (tj. jednosměrná i pro kola) a note="cykloobousměrka zrušena 20xy".
Piskvor (2023-03-15 16:14:59+00:00): Upraveno v https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133716451#map=15/50.0883/14.4272
Baloo Uriza (2024-12-24 16:11:25+00:00): The goal of OpenStreetMap is to provide an accurate map of the world, not a game board.  Was the original boundary the correct boundary of the air force base?  If so, then that's where the boundary belongs, not where you moved it to.

Concerns about pokemon spawn points should be directed to The Pokemon Company, not OSM.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133380091
thederektaylor (2024-12-24 16:33:36+00:00): There are several civilians and active duty folks that live and work on base. From what I understood about the boundary was to mark no go areas properly which would be the the actual airfield/runways and surrounding areas. Not the common areas of the base. The boundaries before made it appear that people weren't allowed to enter the base for any reason at all which is not true. I listed Pokemon spawn points as a reason for more context, I should have stated more solid explanations in addition to the Pokemon stuff. If I am incorrect in my reasons for pushing the boundaries back to being around solely the airfield and runways itself then that's fine as I understand this is meant for accurate maps not for games that also use this information. So revert it if need be but I believe it's more accurate to mark off the runways as military zone/airfield instead of the entire Base. Thank you for your input. Have a nice day.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133380091
JesseFTW (2023-05-29 02:47:43+00:00): In this changeset, you added "ref:codcat=blu" to a trail. All the other uses of this seem to have been over in Columbia, South America, and have very different formatted values. Could you say more about what you meant by this use of the key?
LightSpirit (2023-05-29 15:11:16+00:00): If you mean this track: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31129097

I put the tag "ref:codcat=blu" to the track in the hope to change the displayed coulor of the track in OSM, it was at test, i forgotten to take the change back. Now i delete this tag.

best regards
Oliver (LightSpirit)
JesseFTW (2023-05-29 22:37:26+00:00): Makes sense, thank you!
NorthCrab_upload (2023-03-06 21:30:22+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/999253688

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Carto'Cité (2023-06-15 14:36:42+00:00): Hello.
Are sure these stairs are suitable for wheelchair users ? Is there some specific device to move up and down the stairs ?
Antoine for Carto'Cité on behalf of SNCF
Kovoschiz (2023-03-07 04:40:26+00:00): Please don't remove the English from `name=`. Spaced bilingualism is the standard in Hong Kong.
VLD302 (2023-03-10 22:53:20+00:00): Sorry about the mistake, it has been fixed and thank you for the feedback
Frans S (2023-03-08 10:16:20+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator, during the validation process
I noticed that you are a new mapper. Welcome to HOTOSM.
We cannot expect that you are already familiar with all issues around mapping. Therefore, I inform you about the most issues,

Please pay attention to next points:

Buildings are in general rather rectangular. Just 4, 6 or 8 nodes are sufficient.
Please map each building accurate over the rooflines.
Square each rectangular building with the Q key.
Nodes of buildings may NOT  connect to other buildings or features.
The shadow of a building is not a part of the building. 
Do not cluster buildings. Each building need to be mapped individually.


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/133381292
Frans S (2023-03-08 10:16:52+00:00): Pls read the wiki highways 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways
You mistagged most of the roads. 
Read also the instructions about mapping of tracks. 
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133381292
Frans S (2023-03-08 11:10:50+00:00): Hello again.
please read this document
Point 7 about roads

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11PsAW0bzUZHbS8YnbaFzqOYhJY7tSPYG/view?usp=share_link
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133381292
eggie (2023-03-07 09:13:42+00:00): Dag Simon....  Je vraagt feedback...  Gebruik in zo'n geval highway=footway...
pedestrian is meer voor winkelgebieden.

MVG
eggie
GinaroZ (2023-03-23 14:59:24+00:00): Mind and check other imagery (in this case Esri) as one of the construction sites had been finished ;)
Car162 (2023-03-09 09:40:52+00:00): This part of Highway 1 is not considered a motorway
SekeRob (2023-03-07 21:37:02+00:00): Hi,

One of your 'minor changes' broke the Sanctuaire Pelagos in this sector, a 2227 member relation. Please do not ignore the pre-upload validator warning of something being incomplete. Integrity cannot be verified. without a full load of a relation.

Anyway, in 2 step, loading took over 1 hour, sorted the members in a second CS as that too was out of whack.

Thank you for reading.
frasty (2023-03-08 00:07:19+00:00): Hi,
sorry about that. I certainly overlooked something as I was pretty sure that the integrity of the relations were untouched. Next time I'll download all the segments of the relations if I will ever be in a similar situation.
Caconog (2023-03-07 01:56:54+00:00): Estou planejando fazer um levantamento de drone dessa região da nova praça e da Univali
Caconog (2023-03-07 01:57:25+00:00): Ai ja adiciono na sequencia a informação da igreja
adrianojbr (2023-03-07 16:52:07+00:00): Muito bom!
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-03-07 13:24:42+00:00): Do you think that it is safe to blindly retag unsurfaced to unpaved, without local resurvey?

Or could it mean something else?
TrekClimbing (2023-03-07 13:56:19+00:00): Hi Mateusz, it wouldn't be wise to retag blindly but this isn't. I walked it on Sunday with half a mind on mapping. The vast majority is unpaved. There may be very small sections over culverts in concrete or rock but the rest would be somewhere between compacted and dirt. Unpaved is an improvement until it has a more detailed survey.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-03-07 19:22:40+00:00): I was asking not to accuse you about blind retagging but because I am considering retagging other surface=unsurfaced (and if not - then opening notes or adding it to validators to complain about)

Sorry for unclear phrasing.
TrekClimbing (2023-03-08 06:48:44+00:00): Thanks. I expect it is just a typo in the few cases that there are. I suppose some editors could mean an unimproved surface, which is a bit more specific than unpaved, but it's unclear and like an oxymoron. If this was the meaning I would prefer 'natural', and would still think it reasonable for StreetComplete to ask for a more specific tag if possible, as with unpaved. As a side issue, I would sometimes like to tag paths as stony ground, which I don't think is really covered by the other options except unpaved, but it's very rarely used currently.
TrekClimbing (2023-03-08 06:57:24+00:00): To clarify, I'm on the fence about a straight retag - I expect it's a typo and any more specific meaning is still vague and difficult to interpret beyond unpaved, but I suppose it's possible someone meant something different. Given the small numbers maybe start with a changeset comment where this tag was used and then retag if no response? At least unpaved is widely interpreted by consumers.
Car162 (2023-03-09 09:31:15+00:00): This part of Highway 4 is not considered a motorway
pitscheplatsch (2023-03-07 16:26:53+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133382899
pitscheplatsch (2023-03-07 16:26:46+00:00): revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133382847
marczoutendijk (2023-03-07 07:10:26+00:00): You can also add:
service=parking_aisle 
and also make that whole area a parking.
Do you change that yourself?
Igor Bubelov (2023-03-07 04:54:41+00:00): Hi! It looks like check_date tags are broken
CENTSOARER (2023-03-09 00:54:52+00:00): Yes. I haven't received guidance on how to solve it. I'd say people should verify the places on foot, but the alternative is to just put the same date it was announced by Elektra. What do you think?
Igor Bubelov (2023-03-09 01:33:16+00:00): I think that official announcement can be trusted for a one-time import, but the subsequent date bumps should probably be made on food, on a place by place basis
CENTSOARER (2023-03-09 20:01:16+00:00): I fixed it with the current date. I hope you are OK with it. Nathan Day wrote to me:
"Hemos recibido orientación de los mods de OSM antes de que está bien usar check_date donde se ha realizado la verificación remota (como en este caso)."
Igor Bubelov (2023-03-11 04:28:35+00:00): It looks good, thanks!
Christopher (2023-03-07 17:04:20+00:00): Hello,

I'll revert this changeset  because this junction has now only 1 lane not two. I changed this some  weeks ago after a survey. The road works are not completed until today.

https://www.maz-online.de/lokales/teltow-flaeming/ludwigsfelde/ludwigsfelde-kreisverkehr-an-der-l793-und-b101-bei-hornbach-in-genshagen-wird-vollgesperrt-7ELOL3M5M5JLJHVBLWIJIIT5FY.html

Christopher
unni-geo (2023-03-08 11:51:53+00:00): Hi Christopher,

thanks for information and pointing to the sources.

Was it really necessary to revert the _entire_ changeset, because i assume the tagging of the lanes=* items was a minor part of the CS, beside of other changes, see graphical view: 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=133383356

Would you okay with a rerevert and afterwards updating the lanes to your mapping state of: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/13084442 ?

Regards

ps: btw, did the construction works really reduce lanes from 2 to 1 for this: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/4720933 segment? If so, how about is the state for the previous segment: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/254348860 - Does the 'lanes' also has to be reduced (from 4 to 3) for it?

Regards
mueschel (2023-03-11 13:22:38+00:00): Hi,
you tagged these bus stops with "name:Cars Région Isère".
Keys shouldn't contain whitespace or special characters. Typically we use abbreviations of the operators name. 
Could that be e.g. "name:CRI"?
TheOutpost (2023-03-13 03:08:07+00:00): Looks like a cool place to visit!
NieWnen (2023-03-07 09:53:32+00:00): Znowu te same błędy...

Niespójne wymieszane odcinkami cieki wodne.
Nachodzące się niepołączone obszary...

Opis zmiany: "domy",  a zmiany w ciekach wodnych.
Adamant1 (2023-03-14 05:11:23+00:00): Hello. I'm just wondering if you discussed this anywhere before you did it per the comment by Hiausirg in the Name-Suggestion-Index issue that you opened related to this. Also, what's your source for the import?

Thanks
Adamant1 (2023-03-14 05:13:59+00:00): BTW, I also see that you changed "UP Valley Subdivision" to "Valley Subdivision" a few days ago. I'd also be interested to know where exactly that change came from since as far as I'm aware it's still referred to as "Union Pacific Valley Subdivision."
clay_c (2023-03-14 14:18:39+00:00): > Also, what's your source for the import?

This is not an import. The source is the OSM data itself. No external data, other than Wikidata items, was added here. I did cross-reference with a GIS dataset produced by the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration), though OSM data already largely matched the dataset so nothing was changed in that regard.

> as far as I'm aware it's still referred to as "Union Pacific Valley Subdivision."

By whom? Certainly not the FRA, Caltrans, or Union Pacific. The Valley Subdivision here was originally tagged with the operator in the name to disambiguate with the Valley Subdivision on the other side of the state operated by SCRRA. But in general, including the operator in railway line names is a discouraged practice—the operator belongs in the operator tag.
Adamant1 (2023-03-15 01:56:12+00:00): >This is not an import.

I could be wrong, but I think anytime some does a single, mass edit based on an external source like this it's an import. At least colloquially if not in actual policy. Although I think cross-referencing with GIS dataset produced by the FRA would count. Although it mostly semantics and does thing to answer my question about if it if this was discussed somewhere beforehand or not. If it's not an import, cool. It's still an undiscussed mass edit, which isn't any better. At least it is if you haven't discussed it anywhere and I can only assume you haven't since you didn't answer my question. Although I don't want to falsely accuse you of anything. So did you discuss it somewhere before hand or not? Also, is it documented anywhere? 

>By whom? Certainly not the FRA, Caltrans, or Union Pacific.

I'm aware of what led to the original name being it what it was. That whole thing aside though, no one really just calls it "Valley Subdivision" since it's way to ambiguous. Literally nothing comes up in a Google Search for it.   Yet Google Maps does display the route if you search it for "Union Pacific Valley Subdivision." In the meantime I know at least where I live we usually refer to it by that name. I've also read plenty of news articles in the past couple of years that referred to it that way. I'll grant that the FRA probably doesn't refer to it as "Union Pacific Valley Subdivision." But no one consults them before looking for a railroad route on OpenStreetMap, or really otherwise. 

So I think you've lost the point in this if that's the metric your using for what the correct name of something is. Either way, I'm pretty sure that what we put in the name tag should be based on common usage. Not obscure government websites that no one consults or cares about except a small contingency of train buffs.  

The whole operator thing IMO is a strawman since an object can be both the name of the operator and the name of the object. They aren't mutually exclusive. It would be ridiculous to remove all the names from Walmart stores just because they are operated by Walmart Inc.
Adamant1 (2023-03-15 02:00:49+00:00): BTW, that's not to say you couldn't argue Union Pacific shouldn't be in the name if it was there purely to donate the operator, but that part of track wasn't tagged or called "Union Pacific's Valley Subdivision." It was/is "Union Pacific Valley Subdivision." So it was there as an actual part of the name of the railway, not just to use the name as a substitute for the operator tag.
pnorman (2023-05-29 04:34:05+00:00): Hi,
you set a few ways to highway=living_street. Living streets are a concept, that with a couple of rare exceptions, do not exist in the US. I've gone ahead and changed these, but I wanted you to be aware for future.
user_5320128 (2023-05-29 15:13:00+00:00): Thanks I guess? The issue is these are 100 year old “streets” on a military base that are used as driveways and play areas so they meet the actual use case of “living streets”. But I also know that OSM arguments go nowhere so I’m going to leave it at that. ✌️
felipeeugenio (2023-03-07 14:21:40+00:00): Hola. No encuentro nada en internet relacionado con este Hostal. Es real?
saludos
MxxCon (2023-03-07 02:45:01+00:00): Hello.
Your busienss hours are already correctly mapped in opening_hours= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133385212
catdreamer (2023-03-07 03:30:45+00:00): 利用Lifecycle_prefix的tag，前人的編輯紀錄才不會消失，也可看出poi的歷史變革

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
Supaplex (2023-03-07 04:22:34+00:00): 另外店面仍在仍可保留，因為有地址資訊
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133385714