piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
5m4u9 (2025-04-05 01:52:39+00:00): Sí, totalmente. Vi varios documentos que los mencionan y va bien usarlos para que la gente se familiarice.

Sería la página 235 del documento región sudoeste -> https://potosi.bo/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Plan%20Territorial%20de%20Desarrollo%20Integral%20para%20Vivir%20Bien%20del%20Municipio%20de%20Potosi%202021%20-2025.pdf
JJIglesias (2025-04-05 04:26:25+00:00): Si vi el documento. Creí q habría alguna estandarización numérica por Departamentos, pero parece que cada uno pone el numero q se les ocurre. Me gusta más el formato de Cbba.
JJIglesias (2025-04-05 04:30:05+00:00): Por cierto la F5 desde San Pedro de Quemes a la frontera esta mal en OSM segun la última traza que vi de la ABC. Literalmente convierten un track fisico (que ni siquiera es camino) y lo pasan a ser parte de la RVF
JJIglesias (2025-04-05 04:32:07+00:00): otro detalle el PDTI de Potosi está incluido en una Ley Departamental (174) para colocar en la Informacion de la Relacion que construyas.
Saludos
5m4u9 (2025-04-06 22:49:34+00:00): Creo que amparados en la autonomía, cada quien va por su lado, para bien o mal. Como en Bolivia, casi nadie planifica, van a padecer el proceso de actualizar códigos hasta llegar a como está en cbba, pero el ejemplo es Tarija, con ley autonómica y todo.

Vi esa actualización de ruta, tiene "más sentido", porque recorre menos kms. Habría que esperar a 2026 para tener el diseño final del tramo hasta Hito 60. Yo pensaba que lo lógico era optar por Avaroa ya tiene conexión y hay turismo, pero esta más lejos antofagasta que iquique, iquique tendrá la infrastructura suficiente? 🤔

Oh sí, me olvidé eso, pero buscaré esa ley para leer, quizá explica mejor las rutas.
JJIglesias (2025-04-08 06:45:15+00:00): Bueno que recorra mas kilometros solo indica q grandes porciones son sobre zonas de inundación, en cualquier rato actualizo la F5 hasta la frontera.
Ahora estoy por el area de Chacoma y el Salar de Coipasa.
5m4u9 (2025-04-08 13:44:02+00:00): Revisando la última imagen satelital, el trazo que propone la ABC es terrible. Prácticamente la mitad de ese camino se inunda, está sobre el arroyo que se forma desde la montaña cerca a quemes y el otro sector es donde recoge todo el agua hacia ese salar laguani, yo veo inviable ese camino.

Al parecer el trazo en OSM tiene menor interacción con arroyos que nacen en las montañas, pero igual construirán cientos de alcantarillas bajo la plataforma...

Todo ese sector necesita una actualización con los arroyos, esos salares y los fangos alrededor. Lo tengo agendado.

Bien viaje. Recoges fotos en mapillary?, sería genial!
JJIglesias (2025-04-08 17:00:45+00:00): Me referia a que estoy editando esa zona de Chacoma, con el tema de la Gasolina no hay como viajar lejos ya.

Y si las rutas q hago las registro en Mapillary

Saludos
ViriatoLusitano (2025-04-04 08:25:11+00:00): I agree with your definition that they cannot accommodate motor traffic, these roads are more important than normal footpaths as they are in a shopping area that sees wide used by people. 

I feel these ways should still be considered highway=pedestrian.
mackerski (2025-04-04 11:16:41+00:00): highway=pedestrian is the correct tagging for a roadway with the characteristics of a street and with motor traffic excluded. I am reverting this changeset.
MapMenMan (2025-04-04 20:08:31+00:00): These streets are not roadways. They are foot paths that never did or could accommodate motor traffic of any kind. They do not have the characteristics of a street such as separated sidewalks, raised curbs, traffic junctions or traffic rules of any kind. If this should be tagged as highway=pedestrian, the foot path tag is obsolete and every use of it should be changed. Does that seem appropriate?
mackerski (2025-04-04 23:56:25+00:00): Princes Street, Cook Street and Marlborough Street are the archetype of  what we use highway=pedestrian for. They are pedestrian streets. There are many metres wide, they are flanked by buildings and they are accessible to pedestrians. They literally have "street" in their names. On the ground, they are signed with a white disc inside a red circular border. Many of these roads did, by the way, previously carry vehicles, but that is immaterial to their status as _pedestrian_ streets. Likewise raised kerbs, a red herring. Go to some Italian old towns with narrow streets and see how many of those have separate footpaths. As to highway=footway, this is a valid tagging. It can be used for footpaths that run alongside roads (often above raised kerbs) or through green areas. It can even be appropriate for very narrow alleyways between buildings. You'll see this tagging documented on the wiki, and you'll see that at least one of the sample images resembles the streets I've described: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ahighway%3Dpedestrian
MapMenMan (2025-04-05 07:47:28+00:00): After reading the linked article, I am further convinced that these should be tagged as highway=footway. The article for highway=pedestrian states "Generally, mappers use pedestrian tag only on wider streets which might accommodate motor vehicles.". These streets cannot accommodate motor vehicles at all; in fact less so than most routes tagged with highway=footway.

Furthermore, the article describes how these exact areas could be more appropriately tagged as a pedestrian area with a highway=footway running through it. It was/is my intention to do this once the surrounding buildings are filled in.

As a basis for tagging these as highway=footway, I will refer you to the footpaths located with the University College Cork main campus, which I did not add myself. All the ones I have not edited myself are tagged as highway=footway, despite being much wider, having removable bollards to divide them from more active roadways, and regularly accommodating motorised maintenance vehicles.
mackerski (2025-04-05 07:57:28+00:00): If you look here, you'll see that all three of the streets I name do permit vehicle access at specific times: https://www.corkcity.ie/en/council-services/services/roads-and-traffic-management/pedestrianisation/

There is no ambiguity here - these are pedestrian streets.
MapMenMan (2025-04-05 11:28:09+00:00): You have again proven me correct. That website refers to the "South" version of those 3 streets, which I correctly left as highway=pedestrian. The Northern sections are not listed, do not have designated motor vehicle hours, do not have signs, and have failed every definition you presented.
mackerski (2025-04-05 11:46:39+00:00): The council listing is secondary in this - I've walked down these streets, they are about 7m wide and have "street" in their name. Pedestrian streets having these characteristics are routinely tagged like this all over Ireland and have been since the beginning of the project. In addition, I've just been shown a photo of the entrance from Patrick Street. It carries, as I mentioned above, the usual no vehicles sign and has a plate naming the street a "Pedestrian Zone" between 11:00 and 18:00 Monday-Saturday. There's really no more to say here.
dónal (2025-04-05 12:26:30+00:00): Some notes:
 - I have surveyed the northern half of Princes St. Photos of signage available on request.
- the layout of the street is pedestrian in nature BUT the signage seems to permit non-pedestrian access (i.e vehicular access) outside specific times.
- if vehicular access occurs on the northern half of the street, I suspect it is mostly to allow access to destinations on that segment (intent, not legally enforced/ signed). I can re-survey at night to get additional data.
- the southern half of the street is presented / maintained differently. I can survey that at a later date.
- Intent of the council vs what has been legally implemented / signed often differs. I would generally defer to the "map what is verifiable on the ground" in these situations.
MapMenMan (2025-04-05 13:29:36+00:00): You both are correct about the signs on the Patrick's Street entrances to Princes Street, Marlboro Street, and Cook Street. That was my mistake as I walked the Oliver Plunkett Street side only. I apologise for getting that wrong. 
There is no signage on the Oliver Plunkett Street side, or a lowered curb, which would imply there is no through traffic allowed at any time however

Mutton Lane, Winthrop Street, and Rochford's Lane, however, should still be highway=footway in their entirety as they do not have any of the signage, especially Mutton Lane, which can barely fit 2 people, not to mind motor traffic. 

Additionally, Market Alley and Market Avenue, which I did not change, do not have signage and cannot fit motor traffic of any kind. In fact, part of Market Alley is tagged as highway=footway, but not all of it, despite not changing in any way until it reaches the English Market entrance. Refer to the matching Market Lane, which was not disputed in being highway-footway
mackerski (2025-04-05 13:37:43+00:00): At the risk of repeating myself: highway=pedestrian is an appropriate tagging for roads on which vehicles are never permitted. This is very clear from the wiki. Our evolved norms in Ireland for distinguishing between footpaths and pedestrian streets (which are consistent with other countries I have mapped in) are based on a combination of width and "streetiness". Where you see the word "wide" used as a criterion in this context, that should be viewed as wide in the domain of pedestrian ways. So for me, anything above about 4m width is already a strong contender. Streetiness for me is a mixed bag. Being named a street is a strong indicator, and being flanked by buildings likewise. Being historically a city street (often dating from an era before motor vehicles, so could still be quite narrow), likewise. There are grey areas, and some of them probably even occur in Cork near where we are talking about (I'm thinking about some of the alleyways to the north of Patrick Street, say, French Church Street). I think that those are correctly tagged as is, mostly for the sorts of reasons I mention above.
MapMenMan (2025-04-05 13:59:34+00:00): The wiki clearly shows to me that all my remaining examples would be inappropriate to tag as highway=pedestrian, and I would prefer not to have to quote the article. At risk of repeating myself, Market Avenue, Market Alley, Mutton Lane, Rochford's Lane, and Market Lane do not fit any of the criteria no matter what way you look at it, and there still seems to be no issue with tagging Market Lane as highway=footway

Winthrop Street, according to the Wiki, should be tagged as "highway=pedestrian + area=yes" due to it being significantly wider than any other nearby streets and its transition to the Patrick's Street pedestrian areas being arbitrary
mackerski (2025-04-05 20:30:25+00:00): I'll start with the easy one - for the northern "mouth" of Winthrop Street, it would be valid to add a highway=pedestrian area on top of the existing linear feature with connecting nodes. The usual rendered output of that looks like a uniform grey like a pedestrian street but having whatever shape you gave it. You can see an example of this along the west edge of Grand Parade, with a bunch of routable linear pedestrian streets like Tuckey Street padding through. I'm going to have a look at the other examples you gave.
mackerski (2025-04-05 20:44:03+00:00): So:
Mutton Lane, Market Alley/Avenue: I agree with you on these ones.

Rochford's Lane: I mostly agree with you here too. ViriatoLusitano mapped it in its current form, with an earlier version (also from V.) having been a footway, so clearly I'm not the only one who sees it as an edge case.

Market Lane: Actually started on OSM as a footway and was changed in 2020. Your change to that one still has effect. I'm 50/50 on this one, It's wide enough that I'd probably make it a pedestrian street but it's certainly on the cusp. I'd be curious what others think on this one.
mackerski (2025-04-05 20:47:39+00:00): BTW, anybody who's been following all this who isn't in the community telegram channel will find it a low-volume friendly place to  tease out stuff like this. Be welcome: https://t.me/+ubOH4mwEoVhjYzdi
MapMenMan (2025-04-06 14:40:21+00:00): I'm glad we could work this out. I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive at any point; I always seem to have trouble with that in any text-based debate, no matter what my intentions. I will go ahead and change Mutton Lane, Market Alley, and Market Avenue. I will leave Rochford's Lane as is for now but add a note explaining the possible dispute.

I will also add that pedestrian area between Winthrop Street and Patrick's Street
Muhmaker (2025-04-04 08:29:26+00:00): Moin. Ich habe nur Quellen gefunden die von einer Freigabe der Bodelschwinghstraße zum 25.4. sprechen. Hast du belastbare andere Informationen?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164489570
Muhmaker (2025-04-04 19:21:42+00:00): Ich habe mir die Straße heute angesehen. Sie ist noch gesperrt und eine Freigabe in wenigen Tagen ist unrealistisch. Ich habe deine Änderungen zurück gesetzt. Freigabe ist für den 25.4. geplant. Bitte hier keine weiteren Änderungen ohne Ortskenntnis.
AndySchulte (2025-04-05 05:15:16+00:00): Moin Muhmaker,

danke für deine Rückmeldung.

Ich bin grundsätzlich Gegner davon, Sperrungen und Baustellen überhaupt in OSM einzutragen. Meiner Meinung nach gehört so etwas nicht ins Kartenmaterial. Wer Routing auf Basis von OSM anbietet, sollte sich in seinem eigenen System um die Abbildung solcher Sperrungen kümmern – dort gehören sie hin.

Das Eintragen von Sperrungen in OSM führt dazu, dass das Kartenmaterial unnötig verändert wird und nicht mehr die reale, bauliche Situation widerspiegelt. Das ist aus meiner Sicht eine Zweckentfremdung von OSM.

Wenn man OSM-Daten regelmäßig mit dem eigenen Routinggraphen synchronisiert, bringt jede Änderung Kosten und Aufwand mit sich – und führt im Zweifel zu Fehlern, wenn z. B. ein Mapper ohne ausreichende Ortskenntnis Änderungen vornimmt, die nicht korrekt sind.

Ich respektiere, dass du die Straße vor Ort geprüft hast und die Änderung zurückgesetzt hast. Mir ist nur wichtig klarzustellen, dass es aus meiner Sicht nicht die Aufgabe von OSM ist, Sperrungen zu dokumentieren. Dafür gibt es geeignetere Wege.

Viele Grüße
Andy
flohoff (2025-04-05 15:06:06+00:00): Naja - Die Straße ist seit mehr als einem Jahr nicht befahrbar und das "end datum" war ursprünglich nicht vorherzusehen - es war aber immer die Rede von mehr als ein paar Monaten.

Das Rechtfertigt das schon das auch in OSM klar als "kaputt" aka construction zu taggen.

Wir haben in OWL die verabredung das das ab 3 Monaten Sinn macht damit nicht ggfs update intervalle der Navis die "false negative zeiten" das kaputt macht.

Wenn du OSM Daten benutzt und nicht schaffst mind. Monatlich zu updaten dann muss man damit leben das dinge lange kaputt bleiben.

OSMAnd schafft es selbst offline navis tagesaktuell zu halten.

Flo
s777n (2025-04-05 21:48:54+00:00): Здравствуйте. Зачем вы поломали дорожную сеть? Не отсоединяйте дороги от дорог.
jp000000 (2025-07-30 23:05:02+00:00): What was the purpose of importing the address for this area? Nearly every building already had an address, and now many have two.
aharvey (2025-07-29 11:34:57+00:00): most highway=* values are already assumed to be public transport accessible by default, therefore it's not necessary to tag this.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Worldwide

In my view we don't want to be tagging every single road as hgv=yes, psv=yes, bicycle=yes, etc. that's just noise.

Where there are bus lanes we should be indicating that with the relevant tagging, or where it could be ambiguous like highway=pedestrian we should specify or where there's signage like no access, busses excepted we should tag that but otherwise for regular roads we shouldn't usually tag psv=yes.
aharvey (2025-07-31 03:36:45+00:00): I've removed all the superfluous psv=yes tags added to the public roads where it's already implied and we generally don't specify =yes for each mode. I discussed this briefly on the OSM World Discord #oceania channel and there was consensus there.

The psv=yes on highway=busway, per imagery indicating it's Taxi/Bus Only, I updated to psv=designated to reflect the road access.
perenniallylate (2025-04-04 13:41:09+00:00): Hallo MonsterKlaus, warum hast du den surface tag geändert? Für mich fällt der Dorfplatz ziemlich klar in die Kategorie surface=paving_stones
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164489754
MonsterKlaus (2025-04-04 15:06:15+00:00): Hallo, 
du hast recht für den oberen Teil des Platzes. Der untere Teil, südwestlich der Treppe, ist surface=compacted. Bei den Wege-Tags habe ich das berücksichtigt. Für die gesamte Fläche also entweder kein surface Tag oder 2 Flächen zeichnen. 
Grüsse von Klaus
NeisBot (2025-04-04 05:12:40+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Comment
NeisReview (2025-04-06 18:26:48+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/164604347
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-04 07:20:54+00:00): DWG revert - deleted apparently existing features

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164494009
Gino-52 (2025-04-05 07:31:10+00:00): Hallo Lokalfuerst,
Du hast bei der Bushaltestelle in Calbach den tag lit eingetragen. Dabei hast Du ein check_date:lit eingetragen und das check_date auch auf das aktuelle Datum gesetzt. Das ist meiner Meinung nach doppelt. Das check_date gilt eigentlich für die gesamte Bushaltestelle mit allen Tags. Wenn man also die komplette Bushaltestelle geprüft hat, dann genügt es nur das check_date zu setzen. Wenn man wie auch immer nur das Licht prüft, dann ist check_date:lit ok. Dann aber das check_date nicht berändern.
Mir ist aufgefallen, dass diese Vorgehensweise auch von anderen Nutzern gemacht wird. Wo kommt denn das Licht eintragen her? Gibt es da irgendwo eine Anleitung?
Viele Grüße
Gino-52
Lokalfuerst (2025-05-25 17:34:45+00:00): Hallo Gino-52
Der Eintrag wurde von einer OSM App auf Android generiert. Apps, die so etwas standardmaessig abfragen sind StreetComplete und SCEE. In diesem Fall wurde der Eintrag vermutlich von zweiterer App erzeugt. 
Die Apps prüfen während Bewegung auf unterschiedlichste fehelnde Tags, z.B. surface, maxspeed, properties of bus_stop etc. Sehr praktisch  zur Vervollständigung der Karten, kann ich sehr empfehlen, installierbar ueber f-droid.org. 
Da kommen die Einträge in gleichbleibendem Format wohl her. 
Hoffe, das hilft dir weiter.  
Gruesse!
Gino-52 (2025-05-25 17:48:15+00:00): Hallo Lokalfürst,
das die Einträge von StreetComplete erzeugt werden habe ich schon herausgefunden.
Über diese App kann man unterschiedliche Meinung sein.
Wenn die schon ein check_date:lit setzen, dann darf doch das check_date nicht auch noch geändert werden.
Das ist definitiv ein Fehler.
Viele Grüße
Lokalfuerst (2025-05-25 18:32:23+00:00): Ja, da gebe ich dir recht. Wir sollten uns mal an den Entwickler der App wenden, bin sicher, der ändert es ab.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SCEE

Just filed a bug report at github #805 setting check_date:property while setting check_date the same time

Regards
NorthCrab_upload (2025-04-04 06:00:45+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12099610054

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
s777n (2025-04-05 21:52:15+00:00): Здравсвуйте. Имя предназначено для собственных имен. Например "Александровский дворец" или "Магнит". А вот местные названия, номера домов или типы объектов например "Продуктовый" или "Дачный домик" добавлять не нужно. Подробнее: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Названия
NeisBot (2025-04-04 06:18:40+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2025-04-06 18:26:12+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/164604335
NieWnen (2025-04-04 21:23:29+00:00): Czy te budynki na pewno zasługują na tag `tourism=attraction`?

Ogólnie dla mnie byłoby to OK w przypadku dodania tego do samego pałacu (o ile nie zostałby zburzony) i pełnił jakąś sensowną funkcję turystyczną, oprócz "bycia", bo od tego mamy innego tagi jak historic, czy tagi powiązane z wpisywanie do rejestru zabytków.

Ja bym usunął te `tourism=attraction` z tych budynków.
grzegorz75jan (2025-04-04 07:05:04+00:00): Uzupełnienie do opisu zmiany. Informacje nie są szczegółowe, dokładne. Część przepustów śródleśnych dodam z podkładu orto lub hurtem z tymi niewidocznymi (słabo widocznymi) jeżeli uda mi się to objechać na miejscu. 
Jedna z rzeźb jest na Trójce od południa https://mapy.com/pl/turisticka?l=0&sourcep=foto&idp=7005700&x=20.8068823&y=49.9731013&z=17&ovl=2 ale zdjęcie wykonałem dawno i jeszcze nie śniłem o OSM. 

Kolejne parę sztuk różnego rodzaju w tym obszarze https://www.komoot.com/pl-pl/plan/@49.9759805,20.7981387,16.666z?sport=mtb&waypoint=hl:6456577 . Poprzednio widziałem tu tylko figurkę a doszła sowa i podobno jakaś kapliczka niewidoczna na zdjęciach.

Bez wizyty lokalnej wiele więcej nie wycisnę.
grzegorz75jan (2025-04-04 07:41:33+00:00): A cha skróciłem Siódemkę oraz fragment poziomy Szóstki. Szóstka na rzecz wydłużenia Zielonej.
Baloo Uriza (2025-07-29 13:24:10+00:00): Turn restriction already implied by access=no on crossover.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164492939
Baloo Uriza (2025-07-29 13:24:16+00:00): Turn restriction already implied by access=no on crossover.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164492939
Lkumar_lyft (2025-07-31 05:21:13+00:00): Hi, Baloo Uriza,

My name is Lalit, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. As we mentioned in the comment to changeset 166200809 we informed our entire team about this case to prevent such mapping in the future. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by the edit.

Best regards, Lalit
NeisBot (2025-04-04 07:04:35+00:00): Hi nayragamal_123, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 2 highway(s)
- 1 building(s)
- 5 natural(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

PS: I have also sent this message through the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=164493267
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-04 07:15:16+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17504
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-04 07:20:55+00:00): DWG revert - deleted apparently existing features

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164494009
HirschKauz (2025-04-06 07:54:52+00:00): Hi, 
instead of "abandonded=yes"
did you mean 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:abandoned:building 
Greetings