piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
StefanHRT (2024-05-12 13:43:43+00:00): Hallo Ni26,
Du hast hier einen Radweg mitten auf die Straße gelegt ohne weitere Eigenschaften wie Oneway etc. Dies verursacht beim Routing grobe Fehler. Hier findest Du eine gute Übersicht wie man das taggen kann https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren
VG
Supaplex030 (2024-05-12 21:04:34+00:00): Hallo Ni26, ich habe diese Änderung rückgängig gemacht, da sie nicht der Art und Weise entspricht, wie Radwege in OSM üblicherweise erfasst werden. Der oben genannte Link von Stefan ist sicherlich ein guter Einstiegspunkt, um sich näher damit zu beschäftigen.

Ansonsten vielen Dank für deine weiteren Beiträge zu OSM. Du scheinst die Anmerkungen zu deinen früheren Änderungen erhalten und überwiegend beherzigt zu haben. Wir freuen uns auch sehr über eine kurze Rückmeldung von dir :) Und weiterhin gilt, dass du dich gern bei mir oder anderen melden kannst, falls du Fragen hast oder unsicher mit einer Änderung bist. Gerade beim Einstieg in OSM kann und darf immer mal wieder ein Fehler vorkommen, umso wichtiger ist es aber, sich auch gegenseitig auszutauschen.

lg, Alex
Ni26 (2024-05-16 13:08:12+00:00): Hallo Alex, 

danke für die Korrektur und den Hinweis. Ich versuche alle Hinweise zu beachten bzw. nehme sie zu Herzen für meine weitere Arbeit hier. 
Vielen Dank für dein Hilfsangebot, sollte ich fragen haben melde ich mich :)
Ni26 (2024-05-16 13:11:06+00:00): Hallo StefanHRT, 

Vielen Dank für den Hinweis und den Link :) Beachte den Hinweis für meine zukünftigen Arbeiten hier :)
StefanHRT (2024-05-16 13:33:05+00:00): Hallo Ni26,
Danke für Deine Rückmeldung. Wie Alex schrieb, stehen Dir viele User gerne bei Fragen zur Verfügung.

VG Stefan
NeisBot (2024-05-10 17:03:11+00:00): Hi ht7, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1281770624

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
AR_Mapper (2024-05-11 11:54:19+00:00): Reverted https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151182443
André Alvarenga (2024-05-10 22:27:23+00:00): Olá James, seja bem-vindo ao OpenStreetMap!
Fiz alguns ajustes na sua edição.

- As datas devem seguir o padrão indicado na wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours . Outros formatos podem não ser reconhecidos pelos diversos programas que utilizam a base do OSM.
- Na construção da MOAS Informática você indicou a tag shop, além de incluir um ponto com a indicação da loja. Isso acaba criando duas lojas, uma sem detalhes e a outra (ponto) com os detalhes. Se a construção só tiver uma loja é permitido incluir as tags tanto na construção quanto em um ponto separado, mas não em ambos.
- As boas práticas de edição também indicam que não devemos ligar áreas (estacionamentos, construções, etc) com as vias para não prejudicar o roteamento.
- Campos para indicar o telefone devem seguir o padrão internacional, com código do país. Ex: +55 47 XXXX-XXXX.

Você pode visualizar as alterações que fiz através deste link: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=151166099

Se tiver alguma dúvida pode perguntar aqui mesmo. Abraço.
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-11 02:56:25+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have a keen eye for detail so that the unsquared building is squared. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151154359
arcanma (2024-05-13 10:43:34+00:00): Salve Manlio, 
con questa modifica hai cancellato il ponte sul Torrente Cerrano  e la via parallela al torrente, li ho ripristinati.
Prima del caricamento vedo che erano segnalati diversi warnings, per cortesia dai un'occhiata alle modifiche fatte quando ci sono questi avvisi perché molto probabilmente c'è qualche errore da correggere prima del caricamento.
Grazie
BCNorwich (2024-05-12 06:32:40+00:00): Hi, You have highway Way: 1281774249 on top of highway Way: 1281775282.  These two ways contain differing route relations which need to be corrected onto a single highway before the deletion of the duplicate highway. 

Similarly you have highway Way: 1281775281 on top of highway Way: 1281774250. These two ways contain differing route relations which need to be corrected onto a single highway before the deletion of the duplicate highway. 

These duplications could confuse routing. I see you were correcting the route relations here so could you look at correcting the duplication problem, please.

Regards Bernard.
AKAfreaky (2024-05-12 14:07:08+00:00): Hello, I think I've managed to delete the duplicates correctly, though they were hard to get at with iD. Apologies again, not sure how I duplicated them.
BCNorwich (2024-05-12 06:39:35+00:00): Hi, Way: 1281775269 was placed on top of Way: 1281774237. I've deleted the duplication. Please try not to make these duplications as they could cause disruption to routing.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2024-05-12 06:49:48+00:00): Hi, I've removed several duplicate sections of highway from the three roundabout on The Quays. The relations here were easily checked/corrected.

Regards Bernard.
AKAfreaky (2024-05-12 13:59:05+00:00): Hello, sorry not sure how I duplicated these ways, it wasn't intentional. I have to assume its an issue with the editor I used to update the routes, so I'll have to stop using it.
A35K (2024-05-10 18:35:27+00:00): Warum denn use_sidepath wenn der Radweg (zumindest auf einer Seite) nicht benutzungspflichtig ist?
Jorisbo (2024-05-11 04:54:26+00:00): Hallo A35k, danke fur die nachricht und dus änderen.  gr Joris
goedegazelle (2024-05-10 17:48:38+00:00): De gebruikte tag was oorspronkelijk: 
from=Voorthuizen
Dit is ooit abusievelijk veranderd in foot=Voorthuizen
Het verwijderen van de tag was daarom onterecht want dat hersteld niet de fout die was ontstaan.

Je kunt hier voortaan ook zelf achterkomen als je de geschiedenis van de relatie bekijkt. Reden om achterdochtig te worden was namelijk dat er wel een "to" was opgenomen. En waar zou dat nou bij kunnen horen?
Jorisbo (2024-05-11 04:50:11+00:00): Dankjewel voor de uitleg, gr Joris
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-11 08:49:37+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great and also the changeset comment. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151156017
KKS (2024-09-16 10:17:12+00:00): Привіт.
А є якесь розпорядження КМДА про продовження вулиці Матроса до Соборності окрім "Довідника Києва"?
Бо трасування дуже не логічне як для вулиці яка складається з міжквартального проїзду де і всі будівлі знаходяться які відносяться до неї. І прямик до Соборності де жодна будівля не несе цієї назви.
KKS (2024-12-21 21:54:06+00:00): Ну як підтвердження нема. То буде реверт до правди на місці
Urbis13 (2024-05-10 16:55:58+00:00): Intendevo: non vi è nulla che li qualifichi come ciclabili
ExoMal (2024-05-11 09:06:11+00:00): Hi Jorisbo,

Why did you remove the core path designations from these paths? This should still be a core path per (https://www.nature.scot/enjoying-outdoors/routes-explore/local-path-networks)
Jorisbo (2024-05-14 06:14:02+00:00): Hi Exomat, i re-added the designation corepath. Kind regards Joris
ExoMal (2024-05-14 06:58:07+00:00): Thanks Jorisbo
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-11 08:26:45+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great and also the changeset comment. Thanks for properly adding the paths. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151156810
NeisBot (2024-05-10 18:30:50+00:00): Hi kevinchentout, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1281791422

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-10 18:32:14+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151159339
Supaplex030 (2024-05-12 20:38:19+00:00): Once again I had to revert your "corrections" because they falsified correct or meaningful tags.

Please stop blindly working through lists without dealing with the local situation (e.g. with street photos) or without trying to understand what mappers might have had in mind when tagging.

In this case, I recommend wiki pages https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sidewalk%3Dseparate and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Doptional_sidepath, which you could have found/be aware yourself.

Alex
Jorisbo (2024-05-13 06:28:17+00:00): Hi Alex, thx for your time to comment. When using "use_sidepath" or "separate" wiki states that there should be drawn a compulsory line (eg footpath/sidewalk) to really redirect routing over this sidepath. Since this line is not avaliable (only a small part) the edit was meanigfull and helping automated routing tools ro route by foot over the Leinestrasse. There is only 1 usage of foot=optional_sidepath tagged in the world of osm, this could be a clou that it is a rather odd tagging scheme. Of course it is not wrong to introduce new tags. Happy mapping, kind regards, Joris
Supaplex030 (2024-05-13 21:01:38+00:00): So you identified the problem in the 5 meter long section at the southern end of the street, where the sidewalk geometry has already merged into the street, but is still tagged "sidewalk=separate" and "foot=optional_sidepath"? Then it would be appropriate to split the street line at this point, not to falsify the tags along the entire road section.

Your change had no added value for the routing imho, as no "use_sidepath" was used here. But even if using "use_sidepath", a router that assumes a general ban instead of a strong penalty for such short sections should considered to be broken (there is currently a discussion about this in the community forum).

With your change from sidewalk:right="separate" to "yes", on the other hand, you have effectively introduced a second sidewalk or duplicated data, which is definitely wrong.

Regarding "optional_sidepath", of course thats an uncommon tag, but it seems to make sense to me here, as the street is a "living_street", so you can walk there, but there is also an optional sidewalk. In the bicycle context, "optional_sidepath" is often used in such situations, so it is logical to use it for pedestrian traffic as well (even if this situation rarely occurs).

(Sorry for the harsh discussion, but I am more and more annoyed that remote mappers often edit already very detailed data with supposedly good intentions, but make it worse in the process.)
Jorisbo (2024-05-14 05:40:43+00:00): Hi Alex, no hard feelings. Every body has its own intentions spending too much time over here. 'Odd' access tags and values appear in my searches hoping to improve automated routing by whatever third party software that uses osm-data. That's why i came along.
For me, optional_sidepath equals to: "if you like you can use a sidepath". That sounds the same as a legally foot=yes for the Leinestrasse. In Germany that is considered to be the default, so basically it is not really nescessary to add it any way. However i personally  do prefer to be as explicit as possible, so foot=yes would do as well. Splitting the road and tag foot=use_sidepath is the most detailed way of tagging and probably fits best in your precise approach. I leave it up to you.
Concerning the bicycle=optional_sidepath, it is often used wrong in my opinion. Because often there is no sidepath available or it’s arguable considered just to be ‘dangerous’. Access/motor_vehicle/bicycle/foot should describe the legal access, not the preferred. For these cases i would say it's a legal: bicycle=yes + class:bicycle=-1/1/2/3. But you are right that there are still a couple of thousend of them and described in the wiki, so to be considered 'in use’ :-). Kind regards, Joris
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-11 08:14:45+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great. Could you please add also the changeset comment. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151158190
NeisBot (2024-05-10 18:30:53+00:00): Hi kevinchentout, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1281792441

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-10 18:31:46+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151159358
Mannivu (2024-05-11 18:44:29+00:00): With this edit you added non existent footways. You should revert the edit or delete those fake footways.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151158399
Mannivu (2024-05-16 17:10:43+00:00): This CS reverts https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151158399

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151418776
Mannivu (2024-05-16 17:10:54+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151418776
mikimapbuilder (2024-05-13 07:01:51+00:00): Removed descriptive name
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-05-11 00:18:56+00:00): https://imgur.com/a/TrL4yag
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151158519
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-05-11 00:21:12+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-05-11 00:21:54+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes
Langlaeufer (2025-11-20 19:06:16+00:00): wo hast du denn das DE:239,1022-10 gesehen?
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1123727069636881&focus=photo
Langlaeufer (2025-11-20 19:17:12+00:00): hat sich erledigt, ich habs gefunden und eingetragen.
Stahlmann (2024-06-24 14:52:58+00:00): Top, dank dir für die Prüfung vor Ort!
miluethi (2024-05-11 22:26:02+00:00): Hi Grace,

Several of you building shapes are significantly larger than shown on the satellite imagery. Please try to narrow down your shape matching exactly the satellite image.

Thank you for contributing to OSM Nicaragua.
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-11 08:13:21+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great and also the changeset comment. But could you crosscheck the buildings there, they are overlapped. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151160586
ticki_52 (2024-05-11 23:13:27+00:00): Thanks for your message. Could you please tell me the name of the place or coordinates of an overlapped building. Happy Mother's Day.... ticki_52.
danieldegroot2 (2024-05-21 19:03:01+00:00): Hey ticki_52,

at least
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1281809899/history
is overlapping
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/168180635/history
in southwest / bottomleft corner (two nodes are not connected to a nearby node on the other object)
When saving you would have encountered an overlap warning. Here you have chosen to add layer=1 to the building. If there is only a thin roof overlap (and assuming building from cadastre is relatively accurate), layer=1 should not be added. It is more likely the garages are slightly smaller and you are tracing over some blur or vegetation. In this case it looks like the left garage should have its left wall moved to the right, onto the building outline. The roof seems to fit on aerial imagery, but the garages don't quite. Don't forget to connect the nodes and remove the layer=1 tag from the main building.

Regards,

Daniel
ticki_52 (2024-05-24 07:26:57+00:00): Issue solved.  Thanks.
danieldegroot2 (2024-05-25 12:04:07+00:00): @Aarogya Pandey in the future, try to link to the objects in question and try to explain how to resolve the issue, please. (at least one or two good examples.)
I-76 (2024-05-10 19:03:29+00:00): Again, apologies for the large changeset. I am trying to limit these to a specific coast but forgot about one in NJ
Mxdanger (2024-05-11 08:01:43+00:00): For bulk changesets like this could you be more specific in what you mean by fixing? I see you are removing the improper use of name tag as a descriptor, but it would be nice to say that in the title.
felipeeugenio (2024-05-10 21:52:47+00:00): Hola. 
Gracias por sus ediciones.
Borró la línea de numeración en el Pasaje Géminis, además lo transformó en peatonal y lo unió con el camino de la clínica.
Es un error o pasó algo ahí?
saludos
Eddie Bórquez (2024-05-11 22:04:36+00:00): Hola, disculpa, debe hacer sido un error de mi parte, hace años que no editaba el mapa. Lo hice hace años para editar instalaciones y caminos de mi trabajo y me puse a actualizar unos pocos.
felipeeugenio (2024-05-11 22:10:57+00:00): Vale, ya lo corregí. Gracias por responder y por la actitud.

Bienvenido a sumarse al chat de la comunidad en el link de mi Bio.
saludos
Layft Greater (2024-08-27 13:56:57+00:00): Bus station is already mapped

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/301156478
eggie (2024-05-11 04:37:22+00:00): Beste Dalfsenaartje.. Probeer het gebied van je edits wat kleiner te houden en geef svp concreet aan wat je hebt aangepast.
Schuiven met de kaart levert vaak schade op.
Mvg
eggie
eggie (2024-05-11 06:11:30+00:00): Je hebt een natura 2000 gebied verbonden met een stukje bos. Die grenzen kun je beter los houden.
Je edits 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=151161246

MVG
eggie
Dalfsenaartje (2024-05-13 07:12:21+00:00): Klopt inderdaad, door de verbonden grens werd het gebied zo groot. Grens is nu weer los van bos.
eggie (2024-05-13 07:36:51+00:00): 👍
Lumikeiju (2024-05-13 08:41:24+00:00): Hi! For some context on why those types of crossings are mapped in this area as unmarked and not informal: there exists at all intersections a legal pedestrian crossing whether there are any markings or signals present or not, according to Seattle law.

Happy mapping!
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-11 02:44:52+00:00): Thank you for mapping. Please could you square the buildigs (for detailed information look through OSMWiki) and provide changeset comments. Best of luck for further mapping. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151161819
multimodaal (2024-05-17 21:39:11+00:00): Hoi, ik zie dat je de paden in de nieuwe midden- en zuidlus van Schoorl hebt opengesteld in OSM. 

De laatste keer dat ik er was stonden er nog verbodsborden op de splitsing van de oude en nieuwe route. Ook werd je nog niet vanaf de oude route de nieuwe route opgestuurd. Is dat nu gewijzigd in het veld?

Kon namelijk ook na zoeken geen bericht over de -lang verwachte- opening zien.

Thx voor je reactie!

Beeld laatste keer dat ik er langs kwam: 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1326083378060030

Geschiedenis
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/1047678674
Bart Römgens (2024-05-24 09:30:40+00:00): Hoi multimodaal, 

Ik heb de nieuwe route zowel op de mountainbike en als wandelaar ervaren. De route is niet meer in aanleg, is volledig bewegwijzerd en wordt volop gebruikt. Ook bij de fietsverhuur werd gezegd dat de route nu open is nu de uitspraak van de raad van state, zie https://mtb-noordwest.nl/nieuws/2024/april/groen_licht.html

Er lijkt nog geen officiele opening te zijn geweest en ik heb nog een oud 'verboden, glad!' bordje zien staan.

De huidige kaart geeft de ervaring van de realiteit weer, maar de route lijkt officieel nog niet open. Dat zal wel snel gebeuren. 

Ik heb de route de juiste richting gegeven en designated bike gemaakt. Of de under construction al weg kan is misschien de vraag. 

Groet,
Bart
multimodaal (2024-06-02 12:45:39+00:00): Thx Bart! Heb je een PB gestuurd via je OSM-account. Groeten!
NeisBot (2024-05-10 19:50:04+00:00): Hi EGleb, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature's:
https://osm.org/node/11895650493
https://osm.org/node/11895650492

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
Nerpawashere (2024-05-10 20:08:32+00:00): 1) https://osm.org/node/11895650493 - https://yandex.ru/maps/-/CDbZvEkd
2)  https://osm.org/node/11895650492 - https://yandex.ru/maps/-/CDbZr-~X
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-10 20:12:15+00:00): Thanks for your answer.

At least one beach already exists: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/161295476
Filip009 (2024-05-14 16:35:09+00:00): Dobrý deň, informácie odkopírované z iných máp, ktoré nie sú licenčne kompatibilné s OpenStreetMap môžu byť vrátené. https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright viď. časť "Prispievateľom OSM pripomíname, že by nikdy nemali pridávať dáta zo zdrojov chránených autorským právom (napr. Google Maps či tlačené mapy) bez výslovného súhlasu držiteľov práv."
mišof (2024-05-14 19:11:13+00:00): Vďaka za info. Linka na gmaps nebola myslená ako primárny zdroj, len pre potvrdenie. Pôvodné meno lúky sa spomína napr. v urbanistickej štúdii https://www.dubravka.sk/files/documents/uradne_tabule/vseobecna_ut/2021/us_dubravka_park_final.pdf , pridal som ju ako ďalší zdroj informácií. Je lepšie zmazať odtiaľ tú linku na gmaps, či ju tam nechať?
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-11 08:10:15+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great and also the changeset comment. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151162573
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-11 08:09:06+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great and also the changeset comment. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151162692
Tomas Straupis (2024-05-11 06:30:14+00:00): Nereikia atskiro residential žymėti, ten jau yra gyvenamoji žemėnauda. Adresus mes pusiau-automatiškai sužiūrim kas savaitę pagal VMS duomenis.
WoodWoseWulf (2024-05-10 22:22:55+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. Please do not add fictional features to the map.
MxxCon (2024-05-14 00:55:55+00:00): Hello.
How come you tagged this as unclassified rather than a leaving it as a service and add driveway tag?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151163194
Minh Nguyen (2024-05-27 06:12:34+00:00): How are you assessing importance?
Joseph R P (2024-05-27 18:14:31+00:00): Simply based on how the roads serve relative to other nearby roads and how they were initially tagged. There were little to no secondary roads in this area, so I applied that classification to the (now formerly) tertiary routes that provided more access to commercial areas and major roadways than typical tertiary collector roads do.