piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frans S (2023-12-05 14:40:47+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. however, not always squared !

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144765942
josmougn (2023-12-06 22:08:11+00:00): Bonjour
On ne tague pas pour le rendu 
"pour qu'elle n'apparaisse pas comme une voie"
Bonne soirée
José
Francheu (2023-12-08 19:27:48+00:00): Bonjour, 
Ok... Dans ce cas que dois-je taguer ?
Dois-je juste dire "le tag unclassified n'est pas correct" et basta ?
Le contributeur précédent doit comprendre qu'au delà du tag, le rendu a aussi son importance non ?
François
josmougn (2023-12-08 22:08:48+00:00): Bonjour,
Une chose est sûre, on ne tague pas pour le rendu :
https://www.openstreetmap.fr/les-10-cosmandements/
Après ça se complique assez vite tant les voies vertes sont des objets mal définis dans la vraie vie et dans osm.
C'est un peu subjectif et du cas par cas. Le long du T12 il y a des sections "voie verte" sur le terrain qui correspondent bien à la description de "track" ou "service" dans osm. Dans ce cas ça ne me choque pas de ne pas mettre "highway=path".
Le long du T12 je ne vois pas vraiment de "voie verte"  qui serait "unclassified" mais ce n'est pas l'avis du contributeur que vous avez corrigé.
Ailleurs on en trouve, par exemple les nouvelles voies vertes dans La Manche qui sont d'anciennes départementales peuvent rester "unclassified" ou "tertiary" ou autre, exemple : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39406816
José
Francheu (2023-12-09 08:02:09+00:00): Bonjour, 
Effectivement, merci pour le rappel !
Convernant la voie verte du T12 ainsi que la voie verte de l'aqueduc de la Vanne un peu plus au nord, de nombreuses sections étaient en unclassified. Le wiki OSM indique pour ce tag "considered usable by motor cars", ce qui n'est normalement pas le cas d'une voie verte, d'où le passage en path, comme recommandé dans le wiki.
J'avais fait la même erreur de commentaire pour la portion de voie verte le long de l'écoute s'il pleut à Ris Orangis, je tâcherai de mieux m'exprimer les prochaines fois.
François
Cebderby (2023-12-05 01:20:09+00:00): Closed in both directions all the time? Doubtful
Cebderby (2023-12-05 01:40:36+00:00): Some indication that full closure here is not in place, nothing matching on one.network.  Based on your other changesets of the same type, this is reverted for now.
spencerledger (2023-12-05 06:36:10+00:00): Howdy!  I'm new to OpenStreetMap. I noticed you reverted some of my recent changes, and I wanted to apologise. I made those edits late at night, and I acknowledge it wasn't the best time for it. I'm still learning, and I appreciate your vigilance in maintaining map accuracy. I'll be more careful in the future! Thanks, Spencer
empty_child (2023-12-04 18:58:13+00:00): Good afternoon
Thank you for the contribution. Preferably, add Abkhazian name in name tag, not Russian
DressyPear4 (2023-12-04 23:13:07+00:00): Não há necessidade de colocar uma via onde já existe
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144766482
Marek-M (2023-12-04 19:04:44+00:00): Cofnięcie revertu przez konflikty

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144766616
Dodko (2023-12-07 18:37:28+00:00): súpisné 1972
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1228711937/history
už existuje tu
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1228711936
Cebderby (2023-12-05 01:17:35+00:00): Are you sure that all the ways are blocked, all the time?
Cebderby (2023-12-05 01:36:20+00:00): Reverted; I see you have even added notes on some of these roads that the way is open! This changeset is not acceptable for routing.  If there are some ways genuinely totally closed for a long period (eg months) then identify them.
Matt_ (2023-12-04 19:07:40+00:00): Please see: Please see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_National_Inventory_of_Dams
Matt_ (2023-12-04 19:10:38+00:00): And also: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/42545
Cebderby (2023-12-05 01:12:52+00:00): Item is "roadworks - delays unlikely", "no carriageway incursion" and only mentions Borrowdale Drive, not Croftholme Way - reverted
EneaSuper (2023-12-05 16:27:29+00:00): Ottimo lavoro, grazie mille!
Cebderby (2023-12-05 01:05:37+00:00): item is roadworks, not closure. reverting this.
Cebderby (2023-12-05 01:00:55+00:00): This does not seem credible.  Aren't the blue lines on one.network the diversion route, not a closure???
Cebderby (2023-12-05 01:25:19+00:00): Reverted
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-17 02:26:44+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great and also the changeset comment. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144767158
emersonveenstra (2023-12-05 15:13:14+00:00): Hi there,

Looks like you created a way with no tags here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1228715572

Would you mind going back and tagging it? Thanks!
rskedgell (2023-12-04 22:27:24+00:00): Does this planting look like it's intended to be sustainable urban drainage? Last time I looked on the wiki, there didn't seem to be anything appropriate to tag the drainage aspect with.
spiregrain (2023-12-04 22:34:02+00:00): It does look like it's designed for soakaway to me.  Will get a closer look next time I go past.   I couldn't find anything in the planning portal that would be definitive.  The earliest versions of the consultation didn't have any trees or planting at all.

Something like this would be too extreme -  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676572396 - not sure what would be best.
adreamy (2023-12-12 10:46:52+00:00): Intentional vandalism may result in sanctions.
OSMCowboy (2023-12-04 19:45:02+00:00): I mistyped here. It was a residential way and not a service way
SpinOff (2023-12-05 21:13:14+00:00): Oprócz zmiany dostępu do dróg, przesunąłeś tez paczkomat SUJ09M i linię średniego napięcia. Przywrócisz te zmiany, czy rewertować?

Tu masz podgląd: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=144767660
SpinOff (2023-12-05 21:14:26+00:00): Przesunąłeś ekrany akustyczne, tak że teraz przecinają S-kę i kończą się w środku osiedla. Popraw proszę tę linię
wroniec498 (2023-12-05 22:16:08+00:00): Dobrze, jestem nowy w edytowaniu jutro poprawię. Przepraszam za błędy
wroniec498 (2023-12-05 22:18:51+00:00): Chyba że możesz, to rewertuj. Nie mam za bardzo doświadczenia tym więc to ułatwi sprawę
SpinOff (2023-12-05 23:52:21+00:00): Pierwsze koty za płoty :)
Naprawione -https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144809906
wroniec498 (2023-12-06 05:55:28+00:00): Dzięki :)
bartovx (2023-12-04 20:31:51+00:00): cześć myślę że większość Twoich ostatnich zmian możnaby zmieścić w jednym changesecie
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2023-12-06 07:52:01+00:00): 以[安朔溪橋 关系](https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14685928)为例：
+ [安朔溪橋 man_made=bridge](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1103079561)的路径做outline是没啥问题的（但outline是应当显式声明的）
+ 被横跨的[安朔溪](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/272383357)并不是across，而沿着桥径向方向通过桥本身的[安朔溪橋 highway](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174173407)才是across

按照 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Bridges_and_Tunnels 中的理解，“the ways supported by (on top of) a bridge / passing through a tunnel. Members without a role should be treated as across / through." 是否如此？

因为 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:bridge 约等于没说

---

我是在OSM台湾社区的Telegram中发现到这个changeset，原始讨论位于 https://t.me/OSMTaiwan/11767
Innertia (2024-02-22 00:54:31+00:00): 對啊，你說的內容跟我理解的一樣，我也是看那個 Proposal (雖然它 inactive)。

我修這個起因是發現有不少bridge relation包含底下的水體，而那個水體前後可能很長，點那個relation會zoom out到超遠甚至連結到無關的水體，看起來超奇怪。去查了以後發現應該這樣實作才是對的。
Tomas_J (2024-08-19 10:10:52+00:00): Zdravim, dva dotazy :
1. Proč jsi zněnil název z Národní přírodní rezervace na Národní přírodní památka? Odkaz na Wiki k oblasti pořád odkazuje na rezervaci, ne na památku .
2. IMHO slovné spojeni "zákaz vstupu mimo značené cesty" v názvu lokality (name) je nesprávné. Název lokality takhle nezní a pokud jsi chtěl dosáhnout aby na neznačené cesty nebyl povolený vstup, je potřeba použít příslušné tagy (access) a ne dávat popis chování v lokalitě do jejího názvu.  
Howgh.
Frans S (2023-12-05 14:38:56+00:00): See my previous comment.
Please take the time to map more accurate and follow the outlines.
Quality prevails above quantity !!
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks has been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers  high quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)


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/144768137
I-76 (2023-12-04 20:03:58+00:00): Also first Rapid changeset!
zorglubu (2023-12-04 21:07:45+00:00): Bonjour, que signifie le commentaire Q123653112  ? Quelles sont les modifications effectuées ? Merci :-)
bouzinac (2023-12-04 21:26:34+00:00): Bjr, il s'agit du numéro wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q123653112
zorglubu (2023-12-05 11:33:47+00:00): Ah ok, merci.
"ajout wikidata" serait bien pour ceux comme moi qui ne connaissent pas ;-)
Frans S (2023-12-05 14:35:46+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers  high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Buildings not accurate mapped.
Buildings not squared.


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/144768521
Cebderby (2023-12-04 21:55:27+00:00): The changeset comment is for describing what you changed and why, eg "add company name" "add industrial buildings" etc.  The source field should be filled in stating your source.  In this case, what website, exactly?
Joaquin_90_UK12345 (2023-12-04 22:06:44+00:00): https://www.chatechnologies.com/
felipeeugenio (2023-12-04 20:46:42+00:00): Hola Dannae. Porque agregas otra vez el CESFAM, si ya hay un policlinico. Porqué no le cambiar el nombre al que hay?
están duplicando todo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144769419
Langlaeufer (2023-12-05 09:16:40+00:00): Der gem. Rad- und Fußweg an der Kanalstraße ist separat erfasst.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144769561
Tzu€ (2023-12-05 09:59:04+00:00): Ja, das ist richtig
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144769561
Langlaeufer (2023-12-05 09:12:10+00:00): Hallo Tzu€.
Willkommen bei OSM. Schön, dass du helfen möchtest die freie Weltkarte zu verbessern. Falls du Fragen hast, kann du dich gerne an mich wenden.

Ich hab zu diesem Änderungssatz ein paar Hinweise.
Die Radweg "An den Grachten" sind farblich "getrennt" vom Fußweg. Ich habe das entsprechend angepasst.

Der Rad- und Fußweg an der Kanalstraße ist als gemeinsam beschildert und sind beide Teile (der Teil auf der Fahrbahn und der auf dem Bürgersteig durch Radfahrer und Fußgänger gleichberechtigt zu nutzten. Ich habe das entsprechend zurückgeändert und einen Hinweis am Radweg angebracht.

Grüße und weiterhin frohes Mappen
Langläufer
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144769641
limes11 (2024-07-15 11:58:00+00:00): Gleiches Thema hier
Herwescheluc (2024-07-15 16:44:41+00:00): Hallo limes11,
Danke, habe aufgrund Deiner beiden Hinweise genauer geschaut: Es waren sogar 4x admin_level=4 - was auch immer mich da geritten hat...
Gruß
Andreas
limes11 (2024-07-15 11:57:27+00:00): Moin, 

ich denke das admin_level=4 passt hier nicht.

VG
Herwescheluc (2024-07-15 16:44:07+00:00): Hallo limes11,
Danke, habe aufgrund Deiner beiden Hinweise genauer geschaut: Es waren sogar 4x admin_level=4 - was auch immer mich da geritten hat...
Gruß
Andreas
fititnt (2023-12-07 04:39:15+00:00): Olá Marcus. Bem vindo à OpenStreetMap.

Pergunta: você se lembra porque apagou o ribeiro https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/166549226/history ?
tastrax (2023-12-05 06:37:35+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features .  I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
literan (2023-12-05 17:12:30+00:00): секция это не физически существующий объект.

такие объекты как секции, мысли, воздух, облака и прочее, мы на карту не наносим
xqnmqx (2023-12-05 22:30:29+00:00): А на яндекс выходит такие объекты попадают?
СтритФитнес
Москва, Восточный административный округ, район Сокольники, территория парка Сокольники
https://yandex.ru/maps/org/225982831288
xqnmqx (2023-12-05 22:31:45+00:00): В том месте работает спортивный клуб.
literan (2023-12-06 06:03:55+00:00): про яндекс ничего не знаю, у них свои правила.

>В том месте работает спортивный клуб

мы наносим на карту физически находящиеся на местности, стационарные объекты. У нас есть принцип проверяемости: любой другой редактор может прийти туда в любое время, и удостовериться, что этот объект здесь есть.
aTarom (2023-12-05 08:54:38+00:00): Hola gràcies per editar, normalment a Catalunya coincideixen els camps "name" i "name:ca"
al ICGC figura com:
"Granja de l'Evaristo Torre"
no es correcte?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10814609/history
Salutacions
aharvey (2023-12-05 01:02:03+00:00): Hi Chris,

That's cool, I think we all agree that NPA don't approve tracks being created without approval.

That said if they have been created without approval and exist in some form, then we have ways to map those as such. We have a section documenting community guidelines at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths

So if the track physically exists but the park authority prohibits access and intends to rehabilitate it, then tagging it as abandoned:highway=type or disused:highway=type along with access=no helps tell OSM data consumers more accurately what's happening here. This is more appropriate than just deleting the way, at least where these is still something existing on the ground.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-05 01:38:57+00:00): Please also see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
Chris Evest (2023-12-05 09:45:50+00:00): Hi,
This particular track was generated by mountain bikers illegally over the past two years, in some cases using chainsaws, there are at least 4 other tracks of this nature in this area which OSM has yet to document, and hopefully will not.  My contacts within the NPA have also been deleting tracks when they find them as they do not want them propagating onto 3rd party apps and are concerned with liability should someone be injured or killed on one of these unmaintained and unsuitable tracks.
These areas within the National Park are also subject to safety back burns and prone to bush fires.  Using tracks that are not maintained or are unknown to NPA pose a danger to those using them.
I understand OSM policy in these matters but by documenting these track some legitimacy is provided and encourages their use.  By deleting them completely they will hopefully fall into disuse and return to natural bush, making their documentation on OSM unnecessary.
Chris Evest (2023-12-05 09:47:18+00:00): I will check with NPA to determine is Abandoned may be a better way of dealing with these tracks to prevent others from simply re-entering them.
Chris Evest (2023-12-06 04:28:36+00:00): I have confirmed with Parks Victoria and they have confirmed that deletion is there preferred method for dealing with tracks that are not defined on official maps or as part of the management plan.
Marking a trail as closed may also be used but mainly for established trails or paths that are not part of the parks management plan.
TheSwavu (2023-12-07 07:41:28+00:00): What Parks Victoria thinks is irrelevant. The guiding principle in OpenStreetMap is to map what is on the ground https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth.
Chris Evest (2023-12-07 09:38:44+00:00): The reason Parks Victoria manage National Parks in Victoria is for the safe use of the facilities by visitors, to protect the environment for both native flora and fauna for the shared enjoyment of visitors.

By creating illegal tracks the flora and fauna is destroyed and safety hazards are created for visitors through the generation of dangerous trails.
By publishing these trails OSM is legitimizing them and encouraging their use.

Am I to assume that Open Street Maps will (like other online platforms) accept liability arising from use of illegal trails posted on their site?
aharvey (2023-12-07 09:59:12+00:00): > By publishing these trails OSM is legitimizing them and encouraging their use.

That's absolutely not the case, if things are entered into OSM correctly, then we publish data that says someone illegally created a trail here and it's use is not authorised. We are aiming to accurately document what actually exists, we are not aiming to falsly claim that these are authorised for use.

Deleting these ways causes a lot of havok as users re-add the ways again and then we loose the history, it's much better to leave the way in OSM and tag it more accurately.

This is all documented on the wiki links I provided, but I'm happy to help. I invite you to join the #oceania channel on https://discord.com/invite/openstreetmap where we can discuss further and provide assistance.
Chris Evest (2023-12-07 21:09:31+00:00): I agree with you regarding their re-appearance.  However, once a path as been deleted and commented as illegal, any re-activation could be regarded as tacit approval of the trail and acceptance of liability.
However, I would rather fix the issue than get caught up with legal rubbish.
It seems to me that the issue is not that the trails are on your database it is that they look like trails that are available for use and that they are copied to 3rd parties who are not fussy how they are used.
Would it be possible for OSM added a new attribute that allows users to classify tracks as unauthorised/illegal.  OSM can then hide these tracks from users and other applications such as AllTrails, etc.
But the trails can still be on the database and show up when someone goes into edit mode.
This would prevent their general use and maintain the history within the database..
Another alternative might be to show unauthorised/illegal trails bright red with the word unauthorised/illegal and block their propagation to 3rd party apps.
By marking them as illegal and preventing them from showing up on 3rd party apps might go some way to fixing the issue an could even assist the park authorities by showing up the tracks and allowing them to close them off.
I will discuss this with my parks contacts and see if this could be a compromise, otherwise parks will just keep deleting and your helpful explorers will just keep adding them.
GeeMaps! (2023-12-07 22:39:26+00:00): But Chris, re " However, once a path as been deleted and commented as illegal, any re-activation could be regarded as tacit approval of the trail and acceptance of liability." If the track has been completely deleted, then there is nothign showing in OSM to say "Don't map here"! If it stays mapped as an abandoned track, with access=no, then any mapper can see that it was there, but isn't to be touched. & if AllTrails etc are still directing people down tracks marked as private / abandoned / no access, than you (or preferably NPA / NPWS) should be complaining to them!
Chris Evest (2023-12-07 22:49:40+00:00): The problem is we are chasing these trails down a rabbit hole.  There are lots of applications that use OSM maps so it is more logical to fix the issue at the source.  
Hence my suggestions that we find some way of maintaining these trails on the database but hiding them from not only 3rd party apps but from general users, otherwise people will still use them.
arctic-rocinante (2023-12-08 00:50:39+00:00): Hi Chris, my understanding is that such mechanisms already exist. For example, tagging a trail with “access=no” will cause AllTrails to display it in red with a “NO ACCESS” warning. There are also lifecycle prefixes such as “abandoned”, which I believe will stop most applications from rendering the trails entirely. 

I’d suggest having an another read through the Wiki pages linked above, which explain these techniques :)
Chris Evest (2023-12-08 01:09:09+00:00): I was unaware of the "Abondoned" classification and that it "should" prevent trails from propagating to 3rd party apps.

However, then trails were recently generated as "No Access" they still showed up on 3rd party apps and not all apps showed them as "No Access".

Also, the term "abandoned" gives the impression that it was a active trail some time in the past and just needs to be opened up again.

People seem to see these tracks and use them regardless.

It would be better if they could be hidden but retained as a record so that when someone goes to place it in OSM again they see it was illegal and do not re-enter it.  This will also help the parks department track these trails and place notices to help prevent their use.

The ideal thing would be for the tracks to be generated as hidden and a message sent to someone at parks to then set the status.  Everyone would be happy then  but I don't know if this is even possible.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-08 01:54:30+00:00): At least part of the problem with regard to recent changes is that while things update almost immediately in OSM itself, it's then dependent on when down-stream users e.g. AllTrails update their database, & then when individual users update the maps on their phone / GPS etc. So we could make a change right now, but Billy the BMXer may not see it for who knows how long? :-(
Chris Evest (2023-12-08 23:04:31+00:00): Not just Billy the BMXer now.

Almost knocked down by Eric the Electric Motorbike the other day.  At least you could hear the old 2 strokes coming, these things fly by at 40km/hr and you do not hear them coming.

Sometimes I hate progress....
Matt_ (2023-12-04 23:59:12+00:00): Please see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_National_Inventory_of_Dams
Matt_ (2023-12-05 00:01:12+00:00): And also: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/42546
user_5359 (2023-12-06 21:39:02+00:00): Hello! Please note that Wikipedia has an internal link to other languages. It is therefore not necessary to write down all the languages of Wikipedia. Can you take back your changes?
ydrgbjo (2023-12-08 01:22:35+00:00): Sure. Done -> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144885126
btw, there is no need to ask, jut do as you like. Cheeers, h.