piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Yitzchak M (2023-05-23 17:32:58+00:00): Hi Tsur.
Once again, we have a dilemma. 8 days ago, I was hiking on the Israel Trail at the Elad junction and saw new markers showing a new route and fixed the IHM map for this. Two days later, you changed it back to the way it was. In those two days, had they changed the markers back? I think not! There is construction there.
Tsur Halamish (2023-05-24 15:51:13+00:00): 
Hi, 
Sorry about the late response. 
After you pointed the Y2Y bike trail should rather be with the Israel trail, I looked at that area again:
* In Strava Heat Map to see where people ride and walk. 
* In the GIS of the SPNI in
https://www.teva.org.il/israel-national-trail
or
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/cb82523a09db431f9ed47f5645581be5/ 

So I documented the sidewalk and the paths there that did not even exist before. Only then I could have the 2 relations be exactly as the two GIS suggested.

Since we are talking about exact meter distances. It doesn't really matter.  If you think the Israel trail should move, go ahead and change it as required.
Yitzchak M (2023-05-24 16:13:02+00:00): Thank you. I was there hiking from Yaar Kola to Mazur (and back) and noticed as clear as day the trail change. I always wonder if it is a good idea to film changes for future reference if asked about it. What do you think?
Tsur Halamish (2023-05-24 16:33:29+00:00): Its not a court case. I don't think you need for proove anything. If you saw it and it's fine.
Yitzchak M (2023-05-24 17:15:27+00:00): Thanks! :-)
Tsur Halamish (2023-05-25 15:29:36+00:00): Have a look at the new Popularity Heatmap in IHM in that junction.  Seems not used where you marked... 
In Strava cycling Heatmap as well:
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#17.91/34.94273/32.05276/hot/ride

Do you mind if I change just the bike trail Y2Y according the heatmap?
Yitzchak M (2023-05-25 16:02:34+00:00): 1) It seems that the new Israel Trail markers are relatively fresh.
2) I am not familiar with heatmaps. Do they record only bicycles or also hikers?
3) Absolutely, I do not mind. I am not a bicyclist, so those routes are not really my domain. The "on the ground" accuracy of the Israel Trail (no matter what the heatmaps say) is.
Tsur Halamish (2023-05-26 07:02:30+00:00): 3) So I reverted now just the Y2Y mtb route.
2) IHM's new heatmaps records every recoding uploaded to OSM without difference if its bike/hike/fly... Also at this point its since the beginning of GPS recording time. So its limited.
Strava's heatmap is the best tool used to see activity.  Use the link I sent before and filter Activity Type.  Its only the last 2 years.  
1) If changes on the ground are new, neither of these tools can reflect them.
Yitzchak M (2023-05-26 07:18:59+00:00): Thank you so much for your cooperation and your explanations. I hope to meet you one day soon.
hrhino (2023-05-17 13:25:39+00:00): Hi Tyler, and thanks for the change! Just wanted to remind you that street names are not to be abbreviated in OSM (so "Sherman Lane" is correct).
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136212590
mga_geo (2023-05-21 18:53:22+00:00): Bonsoir,
Suite à vos modifications, les deux relations bus TBK sont cassées.
Pouvez-vous réparer s'il vous plait ?
Marc
MacDony (2023-05-22 05:34:09+00:00): Bonjour,
Vous pouvez me préciser à quels endroits se situent les parties cassées, merci
Denis
mga_geo (2023-05-22 14:52:16+00:00): La "louche" dans Clohars-Carnoët, ça commence par un rond-point-doublé, membre 74 et suivant de la relation https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/relation.php?id=13287929&lang=fr

JOSM permet de voir ces problèmes de continuité.
MacDony (2023-05-22 15:11:59+00:00): J'utilise ID et je ne vois pas....
J'ai ajouté la relation ici
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=136212674#map=18/47.78233/-3.56904
mais pas sûr que ce soit ce que vous me parlez...
Denis
MacDony (2023-05-22 15:17:28+00:00): La relation Relation : Bus TBK 05-B  à l'air bonne maintenant
Denis
mga_geo (2023-05-25 05:28:38+00:00): Bonjour,
J'ai utilisé JOSM pour finir de rétablir la continuité des relations. J'ai l'impression qu'Id est moins performant que JOSM dans ce cas.
Marc
MacDony (2023-05-25 05:41:53+00:00): Bonjour,
Ok, merci d'avoir fait les modifs
Bonne journée
Denis
Yunan973 (2024-06-11 15:22:02+00:00): Hi,

the building:levels value should be a number. I think, when you write "building:levels"="طابق أرضي", that you mean building:levels=1 ?
See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels

Best regards
Yunan973 (2024-06-11 15:29:44+00:00): Bonjour

la valeur de building:levels devrait être un nombre. Je pense que, lorsque vous écrivez "building:levels" = "طابق أرضي", vous voulez dire building:levels = 1 ?
Voir aussi https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:building:levels

note : la page wiki en français n'est pas complète. Si vous comprenez l'anglais, il vaut mieux lire la page en anglais.

Cordialement
aTarom (2023-05-17 15:00:53+00:00): Hola, WindHecht,
parece que el tag
"manufacturer:type"
está desaconsejado
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:manufacturer:type
que opinas de usar
"model"
como se sugiere en la wiki?

Saludos cordiales y gracias por editar
eggie (2023-05-17 19:21:07+00:00): Dag jurve

Als Het Zand een wijk is van Huissen dan zal de placenode moeten zijn 
place=quarter
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dquarter
Wanneer het een buurt is dan place=neighbourhood.
Een hamlet is veel kleiner en staat op zichzelf. 
Zie ook discussie op het forum 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gorinchem-getagd-als-place-town/98252

MVG
eggie
felipeeugenio (2023-05-17 14:27:10+00:00): Hola. Calle Interior?
ese es el nombre oficial?
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136213942
rlaracol (2023-05-17 19:10:59+00:00): Segun cartografia comunal, no tiene nombre. Según un cartel que tiene instalado en la entrada del condominio, tiene asignado ese nombre.
felipeeugenio (2023-05-17 19:20:13+00:00): ok,buena
rlaracol (2023-05-17 19:30:10+00:00): no hay problema. intento ser cuidadoso en eso
puma515 (2023-05-17 23:31:39+00:00): 1. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
2. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:place%3Dtown
Lies dir mal die wiki durch und überprüfe deine anpassungen nochmal. 
Arnis ist mit nur 268 einwohnern auf jedenfall viel zu klein für ein place town. 
gruß puma515
maraf24 (2023-05-18 19:29:10+00:00): @puma515: Feel free to revert his changes.  He is known for bad edits in Poland.
puma515 (2023-05-18 19:44:46+00:00): Thanks for the info I revert it since these places are all corresponding to German Wiki Place village
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136270863
eggie (2023-05-19 06:24:34+00:00): Dag M&M  Weet je zeker dat dit een historic=monument is?

De vertaling vanuit het Engels zou dat mausoleum zijn.
Is dat het geval.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmonument

of wellicht gewoon een klokkentoren..
man_made=tower
tower:type=bell_tower
en dan evt historic=yes 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:type%3Dbell_tower

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-05-19 06:27:14+00:00): Geef ook concreet aan wat je edits inhouden. 
Wijziging / toevoeging  zegt helemaal niets.
MVG
eggie
gscholz (2023-05-21 06:26:28+00:00): Hi martin_ferrari85,
your recent activities again have left behind errors in the OSmMdatabase regarding self intersecting ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-58.57732&lat=-26.06083&zoom=10&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2023-05-24 05:26:27+00:00): Hi martin_ferrari85, 
due to your missing feedback I have removed those intersecting items.
Guido
felipeeugenio (2023-05-17 14:26:06+00:00): Hello
what is: en:en:en:en:en:en:en:en:en:en:en:Tierra del Fuego?
What that on purpose?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136215191
luisforte (2023-11-26 01:43:11+00:00): Furthermore, wikipedia tags should refer local language page.
Corrected.
NorthCrab_upload (2023-05-17 14:20:26+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2607468279
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2607468278
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2607468280
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/698721928
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106060724
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106060725
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/202536893
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106060734
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/228996550
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/228996551
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203509581
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104521054
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106338151
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106338156
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/236608761

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
felipeeugenio (2023-05-17 14:23:43+00:00): Estimado. Le llegan estos mensajes?
Está llenando de ópticas la base de datos. esto es información privada.
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136215758
PatrickKnopf (2023-05-26 20:51:05+00:00): finalized in josm
Mxdanger (2024-05-17 07:49:32+00:00): Partially reverted by 151440288. Bus stop merged with building.
felipeeugenio (2023-05-17 20:58:54+00:00): Hola
un gimnasio es fitness_centre.
saludos
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-18 14:42:18+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10905323095/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 )
NieWnen (2023-05-18 08:43:39+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:amenity%3Dschool#Kilka_szk%C3%B3%C5%82_w_jednym_miejscu
Dimitar155 (2023-05-18 16:16:22+00:00): Hi rhhs,

There weren't shelters on these stops the other day. Are you sure that you haven't mistaken them for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1049364205 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1049364208?

Best wishes,
Dimitar
rhhs (2023-05-18 17:17:59+00:00): You are right, I must have tapped the wrong answer by mistake. I corrected it
Dimitar155 (2023-05-18 17:43:59+00:00): Thanks!
VictorIE (2023-05-20 22:55:55+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10905419493

On a power line it is best to use power=pole instead of man_made=utility_pole :)
eireidium (2023-05-21 09:58:17+00:00): Thanks very much - as always - I will adjust accordingly. I wasn't aware of that first one. Am now and checked those definitions. Have to say Celbridge area is sure looking nicely mapped with all the landuses let alone detail. Thanks.
martianfreeloader (2024-07-31 17:03:54+00:00): Hi Bathyscapher, can you help with this note?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4340905
Bathyscapher (2024-09-05 18:53:45+00:00): Hey, has been some time. I remember it was a quite inconspicuous water tap, where we filled water from during a stop at Ljubljana station. Sorry, can't be more help her. All the best, bathyscapher
Gregory Peony (2023-05-17 16:36:33+00:00): Building footprints are not mapped as square. Orthogonolise building footprints by pressing 'q' for buildings with straight edges. 

In the north what seem to be two individual buildings are maped using one footprint.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136218452
trigpoint (2023-05-19 08:03:38+00:00): Hi
This looks very much like a caravan park to me.
Has it been redeveloped?
Cheers Phil
spielmops (2023-05-26 15:39:11+00:00): What you call a caravan park und a park of "mobile homes", that ist a holyday home with 2 wheels. That is for Openstreetmap a "chalet", which does not mean a primitive timber-hut high in the switzerland mountains. 
So this park is a resort with chalets.
The Icon for caravan-park is a motorhome and if you go to this park, you get no pitch for those.
Gregory Peony (2023-05-17 16:46:10+00:00): Building footprints are inaccurate in some instances. Use shadows to ascertain a buildings orientation.

The modification in the NW is incorrect.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136218890
surveyor54 (2023-05-17 16:08:24+00:00): Hallo Hugo,
die ist hier ein kleines Malheur passiert. Irgendwie hast du hier die Punkte verschoben.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2876069032#map=19/50.20491/9.17585

Gruß
surveyor54
surveyor54 (2023-05-17 16:17:56+00:00): Hi, 
mir ist noch etwas aufgefallen.
Warum verläuft landuse=residential hier durch die Gebäude?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1581348606
surveyor54 (2023-05-17 16:30:20+00:00): Hier ist auch noch ein Gebäude verschoben.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1593443777
Ich wurde sagen Go Map eignet sich nur für kleine Korrekturen.

Bitte deine Änderungen noch einmal kontrollieren.

Kollegiale Grüße
suerveyor54
surveyor54 (2023-05-17 17:16:53+00:00): Du hast aus versehen den kompletten way 1151130043 verschoben. Ich habe diesen way gleich revertiert da noch keine Änderungen gemacht wurden. So gab es keine Probleme beim Zurücksetzen. 

Gruß
surveyor54
Map-Noob (2023-05-17 17:23:58+00:00): Vielen Dank, bei der Änderung in der Nähe vom Blockhaus weiß ich nicht ganz wie das vorher war. Könntest du das bitte korrigieren? (Das habe ich auch aus Versehen gemacht)
Map-Noob (2023-05-17 17:26:47+00:00): Und welches Programm würdest du fürs Mappen empfehlen?
surveyor54 (2023-05-17 19:06:31+00:00): Hier siehst du deine Verschiebung.

http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=136219183

Ich habe sie schon korrigiert.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136221904

Hier werden die Editoren beschrieben.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Editing

Entweder den ID-Editor oder den JOSM. JOSM ist sehr mächtig, erfordert aber eine gewisse Einarbeitungszeit. Ich benutze schon von Anfang an den JOSM.
Cayenne17 (2024-11-05 21:50:57+00:00): Bonjour,
Sur cet objet (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1173723802), vous avez mis "private=yes" sur un highway.

Pourquoi vous l'avez utilisé ?
Est-ce qu'il y a une raison particulière ?
Car ce tag est déprécié : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:private=yes

Il faut plutôt utiliser "access=private".

La clé "private" est plutôt utile en complément de : "access=private". La clé "private" ne s'utilise pas avec la valeur "yes" : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:access%3Dprivate

Dans ma zone, je suis tombé sur ce même cas. les routeurs d'itinéraire prenne pas en compte "private=yes".
eggie (2023-05-17 18:51:18+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
feedback Alle begin is moeilijk... Een highway=footway is duidelijk bedoeld voor wandelaars en  heeft vaak een G7 bord . 
Wellicht is het een highway=path.
Daar is fietsen default.
Paden met opstaande stoepranden zijn meestal bedoeld voor wandelaar. bicycle=yes heb ik daarom verwijderd. 
De voetgangersoversteekplaats (zebra?  lijnen op de weg?) heb ik verwijderd. Niet elke kruising is een highway=crossing. 

Veel wegen zijn nog import vanuit de database van kaartenmaker AND (2007)  De straten in woonwijken kun je omtaggen naar highway=residential.. behalve de doorgaande wegen. 
Ik heb wat aangepast en ook de straten wat uitgelijnd. 
MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
Gregory Peony (2023-05-18 03:16:05+00:00): The buildings you mapped as not square in fact are. There is an imagery anomaly toward the north of this changeset which distorts their true shape. In situations where a feature may be distorted, hard to see or obscured I recommend using multiple imagery sources. You can offset the alternative imagery to the reference. If you use this method you can even map using the alternate imagery so long as the same feature exists in the reference.

Some of the building footprints are inaccurate. Use areas of high contrast along the edge of roofs to determine a buildings shape and orientation. Map the building using its corners. If the image is distorted you may decide to map say, a 4 cornered building based on only 3 or maybe  2 of its corners. Use your judgment to decide which corners you will reference.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136219410
Gregory Peony (2023-05-17 16:20:48+00:00): Buildings are not mapped as square. Orthogonolise building footprints by pressing 'q' for buildings with straight edges.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136219471
Gregory Peony (2023-05-17 17:33:22+00:00): You missed buildings in this task area. Use shadows and roof colour to identify buildings in the imagery. Several building's shadows are included in their footprint. Shadows are useful in identifying buildings and their orientation but do not include them in the footprint as this will make it appear bigger on the map than it physically is. 

Two pairs of buildings share common nodes. If buildings are attached they will likely share a portion of one or more of their faces and will not be attached at just one point. I believe you hold alt in ID Editor to avoid nodes automatically snapping to others nearby.

One building in the NE is 'L' shaped but mapped as a rectangle and has an anomaly on its SW corner.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136219506
Gregory Peony (2023-05-17 17:38:56+00:00): You did well to not map the vehicle on the road as a building.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136219506
NorthCrab_upload (2023-05-17 16:00:14+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 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/node/10905518197

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab (2023-07-31 09:49:28+00:00): What do you mean by access=no https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/582017217/history? This is quite odd.. vandalism?
NorthCrab (2023-07-31 09:49:41+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=no
dónal (2023-07-31 13:05:08+00:00): Seems to be what is recommended at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated
NorthCrab (2023-07-31 16:41:06+00:00): I see, okay, why do we even set this if that's a default value for such ways. Seems redundant and unnecessarily complicated:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Ireland
NorthCrab (2023-07-31 18:50:36+00:00): Please read my link which already talks about default tagging for footpaths: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Ireland. Adding access=no, serves no point, adds confusion, and breaks the carto renderer.
NorthCrab (2023-07-31 18:54:03+00:00): Such tagging has zero benefit. It's only making things more complicated and confusing to others. Following your logic, everything would be mapped as highway=some_generic_path and had all access specified. highway=footway already specifies the right access and no proper routing engine will navigate cyclists/cars/horses through it. If a way is intended for cyclists and peds, use highway=path. If a way is intended for cyclists, use highway=cycleway. If a way is intended for peds, use highway=footway.
NorthCrab (2023-07-31 18:54:50+00:00): I can't wait for you to start mapping access=no, motor_vehicle=designated on all roads out there. This logic makes no sense to me.
NorthCrab (2023-07-31 19:06:25+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated

> If an element is meant only to be used by specific designated transport methods (overriding whatever defaults may exist for that way), use access=no in addition of the *=designated value.

>> overriding whatever defaults may exist for that way

>>> defaults: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Ireland

Such tag usage goes against the documentation and should be reverted. I started a topic on the forums: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/access-no-foot-designated-on-highway-footway-should-it-be-reverted/101907
NorthCrab (2023-07-31 19:10:25+00:00): To clarify what I meant by "against the documentation", in those cases there are no overrides, and you make it seem like there are.
SomeoneElse (2023-07-31 20:08:03+00:00): Just to address one point from the long comment above:

>  Use by vehicles, cycles and horses is prohibited and therefore appropriately tagged = No

There is no need to do this on a highway=footway.  Access to all other modes of transport other than foot is implicitly "no".  Arguably it's not "wrong" to add "access=no" but that extra tag literally adds no value on a "footway" and it's a form of tagging that is certainly unusual.
obyrnegps (2023-07-31 23:05:57+00:00): Footpaths are not roads/highways and roads/highways are not footpaths.  There are road networks and there are pedestrian networks and they are different.  I’ve  tag footpaths being separate from roads as dedicated to pedestrian use / access, and no access to vehicles, and horses and where cyclists must dismount.  For footpaths, access to all=No, AND pedestrian=dedicated and cyclists=dismount I feel is correct as footpaths are provided only for pedestrians to access and use. I have not encountered a single source of OSM orthodoxy agreed by everyone specifying only one way to do everything to which everyone must comply.  It seems we must agree to disagree on this.
obyrnegps (2023-07-31 23:11:50+00:00): "Access to all other modes of transport other than foot is implicitly "no", " is weak as "implicitly" falls well short of "no"
SomeoneElse (2023-07-31 23:28:20+00:00): > ...  I feel is correct as footpaths are provided only for pedestrians to access and use. I have not encountered a single source of OSM orthodoxy agreed by everyone specifying only one way to do everything to which everyone must comply. It seems we must agree to disagree on this. 

No, we can discuss it together, and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/access-no-foot-designated-on-highway-footway-should-it-be-reverted/101907 would be a great place to do that.  The way that you are tagging things is very unusual, but not unheard of in OSM.
SomeoneElse (2023-07-31 23:33:32+00:00): > "Access to all other modes of transport other than foot is implicitly "no", " is weak as "implicitly" falls well short of "no"

No, "implicitly" here means "no, unless some other tag such as bicycle=yes is present".  On e.g. the highway=footway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23641643/history no such tag is present, so "access=no" is redundant - the sorts of traffic allowed on this footpath would be exactly the same whether or not the "access=no" tag was preent.
SomeoneElse (2023-07-31 23:42:29+00:00): Just for info, it looks like you'd accidentally disconnected https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/22278279/history from the roads at either end.  I've reconnected it.
SomeoneElse (2023-08-01 00:37:06+00:00): See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7380