piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
fititnt (2023-12-13 03:59:13+00:00): Olá, Everton. Se essa edição é relacionada a Organized Editing que aconteceu 2 meses antes, porque ( conforme o esperado de <https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines>) este changeset e os recentes não usam identificadores da atividade?

Diferente do que aconteceu com os mapeadores/validadores anteriores (todos usaram identificadores, tanto de organizadores, como da atividade) e tem como receber alertas. Não seguir a recomendação do OEG dificulta achar alterações sem assumir que todas as edições da pessoa são da região. Eu só encontrei esse changeset aqui  ao investigar um problema que aconteceu em https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141605992 onde @DScore deletou uma amenity=clinic e criou três no lugar, sem copiar as tags addr:*  (essa POI foi adicionada pelo usuário "suporte - secullum")

Outro ponto: este changeset e os seus recentes (além de não conter identificador do Organized Editing), vão contra o que é recomendado em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Good_changeset_comments . Por exemplo, não explicam o que está sendo feito ou induzem o contrário, como se alterações que você estaria fazendo estariam relacionadas somente ao organized editing, mas quando investigado, está deletando conteúdo adicionado por outros mapeadores antigos, mas sem reusar o histórico. Essa abordagem tanto infla artificialmente, dando entender que pontos de interesse teriam sido criados pelo mapeamento remoto (embora seja incomum o absurdo de 3 amenity=clinic como está agora no mapa nesse lugar aqui, o mais comum é 1 para 1) como não saber quem criou o que, permite que conteúdo inventado permaneça no mapa. Então por favor, explique em detalhes tudo que está fazendo, em especial se alterar conteúdo de pessoas que não fazem parte da atividade.
EvertonBortolini (2023-12-14 00:36:25+00:00): Olá Emerson! Sem problemas, passarei a utilizar as hashtags dos projetos. Demais observações você pode encaminhar na grupo OSMRS, ajuda a responder a pergunta que eu fiz lá para você.
woodpeck_repair (2024-01-04 17:53:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 145891880 where the changeset comment is: revert unnecessary deletions that caused damage to the map, see discussion at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144879408
opendcc (2023-12-07 21:04:11+00:00): reverted with CS 144880672
marczoutendijk (2023-12-08 19:40:45+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15459
pesticides (2023-12-25 05:01:58+00:00): In this changeset, you disconnected South Cove Road from Idaho Road (the southern portion leading to Willard). Was that intentional or a mistake?
pesticides (2023-12-28 12:45:53+00:00): Upon further review, I think changesets 144879254 and 144879408 should be reverted.

Your earlier changes where you removed the bicycle=yes tag and Palouse to Cascades Trail relation are perfectly valid. These two changes (144879254/144879408), where you deleted the abandoned railroad and parts of several nearby roads, are not.

In your comments on changeset 144808909, you mentioned that you were concerned about people mapping routes along the abandoned railroad on Strava, Garmin, and similar tools. By removing the highway=track and bicycle=yes tags, removing the cycle route relation, and updating the access tag, you had already achieved this. There was no need to delete the abandoned railroad entirely.
arctur (2023-12-30 09:45:47+00:00): I agree the deletions should be reverted. OSM is a mapping of things that exist on the ground and this includes private property. Access tags are the way to handle this. In the future the tribe may again open the way to cyclists and the history of the path should reflect that.
Jason Brown CdA Tribe (2024-01-03 16:10:58+00:00): The Coeur d'Alene Tribe, for whom I am employed, and represent absolutely does not agree with your opinion(s).  The Tribe requests it remain as I had it, being deleted.  The Tribe has no intention of ever opening this to public access as a public trail, now or in the future.  The Tribal Council, the governing body for the Tribe, has made that determination on several occassions. 
 If anything, the Tribe would restore the entire route, it to its natural condition, forested area, as it was prior to construction of the railroad.  I also disagree with tags as a method of controlling access.  Even after changing the tags, I was still able to use Strava, Garmin, and Google maps to create routes and even segments within Strava across the Reservation and the Tribe's property.  This remnants of this abandoned railroad to you are seeing on a computer screen from aerial imagery, only exists due to continued illegal access occurring because it is mapped.  Otherwise nature would take it's course, vegetation would return, planting of trees could occur, but you continue to provide a means for people to trespass by creating routes, illegally.  The Tribe does not want this mapped, it is not public.  With whom would the Tribe now appeal your opinion, which in turn has become a determination on what the Tribe wants mapped on it's property.  In addition, where would the Tribe direct legal correspondence and/or actions for your decision(s), a person responsible, an address, etc.  Do you have legal representation or a firm that the Tribe can communicate with?  What legal basis do you have to make these determinations?
whammo (2024-01-03 21:55:29+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
tastrax (2024-01-03 21:57:49+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
whammo (2024-01-03 21:58:00+00:00): This link provides a little more guidance on OSM's approach to preserving trails on the map, which will hopefully clear up any confusion.
snoozingnewt (2024-01-03 21:59:35+00:00): Hi,

In short: You are not unique. There are many cases of people from outside the community that delete private trails on someone's or something's or whatever's private land, and then they talk about legal action, etc etc. It's so common there's a wiki page about it.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

To summarize, just because people aren't allowed to trespass onto an area or because it's a private trail does not mean it cannot be mapped. The thing is, if you can route through it it's either because the trail is not tagged properly (with something like access=private) or it is an issue with the router ignoring the tags and not OSM itself.

Also see
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/26411/removing-data-for-safety-or-privacy-reasons

"If anything, the Tribe would restore the entire route, it to its natural condition, forested area, as it was prior to construction of the railroad."
That's great! If the Tribe does this, you can delete it, as it won't exist.

"This remnants of this abandoned railroad to you are seeing on a computer screen from aerial imagery, only exists due to continued illegal access occurring because it is mapped. "
I would like to see evidence for this.

"Even after changing the tags, I was still able to use Strava, Garmin, and Google maps to create routes and even segments within Strava across the Reservation and the Tribe's property."
You clearly do not understand how OSM data is used. Firstly, Google Maps doesn't really use OSM data for routing. Secondly, it takes time for companies like Strava and Garmin to update their basemaps to a more recent version. It's not immediate. See https://stravametro.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360051965033-OpenStreetMap-Basemap-Updates-Coming-2024- for Strava, meanwhile Garmin updates its maps twice a year.

"Do you have legal representation or a firm that the Tribe can communicate with? What legal basis do you have to make these determinations?"
You won't get anywhere with this. In a nutshell, this has happened often enough that a precedent on any legal action stuff about mapping private paths has already been laid, and it's allowed and encouraged. If you want to try, for legal inquiries you can email legal-questions@osmfoundation.org

-snoozingnewt
woodpeck (2024-01-04 18:05:54+00:00): Hello, Frederik Ramm from OSMF's Data Working Group here. I have reverted the deletions that were mentioned here because there appears to be a consensus among OSM community members that the deletions do not have merit. 

Jason Brown, thank you for being honest with us and straightforward about whose interests you represent; others in the same situation as you sometimes try to edit OSM in "stealth mode" which is not conductive to trust.

My revert does not mean that the abandoned railway lines are here to stay; I would invite everyone to take the discussion to the public forum at community.openstreetmap.org and find an amicable solution there. (In fact, I have frequently removed abandoned railway lines from OSM where they were added by railway fans but in practice they had long been built over - things that only exist in memory do not belong in OSM.)

My revert does, however, mean that it is not a property owner's right to decide what does and does not get recorded about their property in OSM - no matter if the property owner is a smallholder, a nation state, or an Indian Reservation. The land owner owns the land but we own the map, and what happens in OSM is decided by the OSM community.

OSM wants to be a good map - and a good map should never mislead its users into believing they could do something which in reality they can't. So the CdA tribe and OSM have the a shared interest here and I am sure a solution can be found.
woodpeck (2024-01-04 18:10:07+00:00): Regarding the question of where to direct legal correspondence to: all the details are at https://blog.openstreetmap.org/about/, but I would not advise that course of action before other less confrontational avenues have been exhausted since it is unlikely to yield results in any meaningful timeframe and would unnecessarily stir up tensions between the map making community and the CdA Tribe.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-12-07 22:14:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 144882292, 144882293, 144882267, 144882294, 144882250, 144882242, 144882274, 144882236, 144882261, 144882290 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some vandalism in the Eastern Mediterranean
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-12-07 22:14:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 144882292, 144882293, 144882267, 144882294, 144882250, 144882242, 144882274, 144882236, 144882261, 144882290 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some vandalism in the Eastern Mediterranean
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-12-07 22:14:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 144882292, 144882293, 144882267, 144882294, 144882250, 144882242, 144882274, 144882236, 144882261, 144882290 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some vandalism in the Eastern Mediterranean
opendcc (2023-12-07 20:57:56+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. There are some things going wrong with your edits (wrong names, destoyed twoer eiffel). I suggest to stop editing and let us clear the errors,

best regard
opendcc (2023-12-07 20:59:04+00:00): CS was reverted
marczoutendijk (2023-12-08 19:40:34+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15459
225059 (2023-12-07 20:28:32+00:00): Anmerkung: Das Gebilde aus Briefkasten Ringstr. 86 / Packststion 706 / Briefmarkenautomat ist eine „Poststation“.
Die Darstellung in dieser Form habe ich aus den Diskussionen entnommen, die ich zu dem Thema finden konnte.

Vor Ort sieht das Ding aus wie eine gewöhnliche Packststion, nur dass unter dem Display ein Briefkasten eingebaut ist und neben dem Display noch ein Lesegerät für kontaktloses Bezahlen ist.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-12-07 22:14:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 144882292, 144882293, 144882267, 144882294, 144882250, 144882242, 144882274, 144882236, 144882261, 144882290 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some vandalism in the Eastern Mediterranean
opendcc (2023-12-07 20:58:47+00:00): reverted
opendcc (2023-12-07 21:05:02+00:00): I reverted all this 7 vandalism CSets.
marczoutendijk (2023-12-08 19:40:19+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15459
GPYes (2023-12-07 20:27:39+00:00): Correction: 
Comment is "Added a street name in Pontal. #adt"
Source use was Bing aerial imagery.
janolezab (2023-12-08 00:26:54+00:00): Moin!  Du hast hier und in https://osm.org/changeset/144879818 Sportgeräte mit Wiki*-Tags versehen. 

Eigentlich soll der Wiki-Tag genau dieses Objekt identifizieren. Eine Tischtennisplatte wird nur in seltenen Ausnahmefällen ein eigenes Wikidata-Objekt haben.
mweper (2023-12-07 23:12:36+00:00): Hola Serock. ¿Porque añadiste restricciones de giro a la izquierda si estos giros en ese lugar son totalmente válidos?, incluso existen semáforos específicos para tal giro.
-
Soy de Funes y paso todos los días por allí. Lamentablemente tuve que revertir (#144883274) tus cambios porque no reflejan la realidad.
Saludos.
serock (2023-12-07 23:24:16+00:00): Hola, corregí una relación en la cual había 4 from, 4 via, 4 to, y todo en una misma relación.
Pensé que algún usuario trato de hacer restricciones de giro por los semáforos y le salio mal, por eso trate de corregirlo, pero si ya lo revirtió ok
wabozand (2023-12-13 18:21:07+00:00): Hola mweper!

Tengo curiosidad acerca de una relación en la que ha estado trabajando y discutiendo con serock (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16792957). Me acerco para confirmar que esta es la maniobra que se pretendía restringir. No pude encontrar ninguna indicación de que esta maniobra específica estuviera bloqueada en las imágenes Mapillary o Kartaview disponibles en el área, pero quería consultar con usted antes de ajustar esta restricción.

En su estado actual, esta relación tiene dos maniobras dentro de una restricción de un solo giro, lo que solo restringiría una ruta específica en lugar de dos giros separados individualmente. Esto impediría específicamente que un individuo gire a la derecha en Hipólito Yrigoyen, conduzca 2 cuadras por la Avenida Córdoba y luego gire a la izquierda en Presidente Perón. Con el modelo actual todavía es posible realizar los giros individualmente.

Si pretendías restringir ambos giros, creo que deberían modelarse individualmente. Si solo se pretendía girar hacia el Presidente Perón, el conjunto de relaciones de tres miembros debería ser un miembro 'de' de Avenida Córdoba: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/236440063, con un miembro 'vía' en la intersección nodo:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/935424028 y un 'to' miembro del Presidente Perón:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1153790739).

Gracias por tu tiempo. Wabozand

(Traducción automática)

Hello mweper!

I am curious about a relation that you have been working on and discussing with serock (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16792957). I am reaching out to confirm that this is the maneuver that was intended to be restricted. I could find no indication that this specific maneuver was blocked in available Mapillary or Kartaview imagery in the area, but wanted to check with you before adjusting this restriction.

In its current state this relation has two maneuvers within a single turn restriction which would only restrict a specific route rather than 2 separate turns individually. This would specifically block an individual from turning right on Hipólito Yrigoyen, driving 2 blocks down Avenida Córdoba, and then turning left onto President Perón. With how this is currently modeled it is still possible to make the turns individually.

If you intended to restrict both turns, I believe they should be modeled individually. If only the turn on to Presidente Perón was intended, the three member relation set should be a 'from’ member of Avenida Córdoba:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/236440063, with a ‘via’ member at the intersection node:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/935424028 and a ‘to’ member of Presidente Perón:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1153790739).

Thanks for your time. Wabozand

(Automatic translation)
mweper (2023-12-13 22:00:28+00:00): @wabozand. Las imágenes de Mapillary y Kartaview pueden estar desactualizadas. 
La idea es restringir el giro a la izquierda hacia Presidente Perón, viniendo desde Hipólito Yrigoyen, no son 2 giros individuales sino todo uno solo. Es decir, si quieres ingresar en Perón, desde Yrigoyen, lo puedes hacer siguiendo 2 cuadras más hasta Sarmiento o girando antes tanto por Cabral como por Houssay/Moreno. 
No se si me llego a explicar.
wabozand (2023-12-14 22:30:10+00:00): mweper,

Gracias por la aclaración, tiene sentido. Dado que usted tiene conocimiento local del área, me remitiré a sus ediciones aquí. ¡Feliz mapeo!

wabozand

(Traducción automática)

mweper,

Thanks for the clarification, it makes sense. Since you have local knowledge of the area, I will defer to your edits here then. Happy mapping!

wabozand

(Automatic translation)
janolezab (2023-12-08 00:28:44+00:00): Danke für das Kartieren der Geräte; die Wiki-Tags sind aber eigentlich nicht so angemessen für Sportgeräte.
notmyproblem1 (2025-07-09 13:59:48+00:00): mh, moving address from building, però tocchi pure le fermate bus? come mai?
Syl (2023-12-10 07:47:05+00:00): Bonjour, pour les bâtiments rectangulaires et carrés c'est possible de transformer les angles pour qu'ils soient droits. Pour ça il suffit de sélectionner le bâtiment et d'appuyer sur Q.
tom_yorados (2023-12-07 21:12:07+00:00): sehr informativer Change comment :-)
Fizzie-DWG (2024-01-08 03:37:56+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146013274
Fizzie-DWG (2024-01-08 03:37:51+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146013272
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-12-07 22:14:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 144882292, 144882293, 144882267, 144882294, 144882250, 144882242, 144882274, 144882236, 144882261, 144882290 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some vandalism in the Eastern Mediterranean
supersellout6907 (2023-12-10 00:14:05+00:00): thanks 4 da fix
Fizzie-DWG (2024-01-08 03:37:47+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146013270
YomanNH (2023-12-07 22:46:06+00:00): Czyli konno można tu wjechać? ;)
uprkos (2023-12-08 08:38:41+00:00): Podnosiłem jakiś czas temu ten temat na forum i sugestia była taka, że jeśli nie ma fizycznych barier i każdy może na dany teren wejść, to access=private jest błędny, ponieważ sugeruje, że teren jest niedostępny. Ja dużo chodzę pieszo, więc jestem na to dość wyczulony. Kombinacja z foot=yes jest już teoretycznie poprawna, ale nadal droga taka renderuje się na większości map jako private. Ja wolę dać vehicle=private - efekt w nawigacji jest taki sam, a render lepszy (przynajmniej dla mnie :D). Często nawet naginam nieco interpretację i daję motor_vehicle=private, np. na terenach spółdzielni, które walnęły zakaz ruchu z wyjątkiem mieszkańców - bo wiem, że to tylko ich niedbalstwo, a intencją jest ochrona miejsc parkingowych, a nie ograniczenie ruchu rowerowego czy konnego. Ale patrząc czysto formalnie masz rację - jeśli chodzi o koniki to są zignorowane ;).
YomanNH (2023-12-08 09:09:38+00:00): Podrzucisz link do dyskusji na forum? Chętnie poczytam.

Jeśli jakaś spółdzielnia da zakaz ruchu/wjazdu z wyjątkiem mieszkańców i rowerem nie da się wjechać jakoś "dookoła", inną drogą czy chodnikiem, to dawanie motor_vehicle=private jest moim zdaniem błędem. Znaki (chociaż może niezbyt sensowne) jednak nie zezwalają w takim przypadku na wjazd rowerem. Nie my powinniśmy oceniać co było intencją spółdzielni, tylko powinniśmy mapować to, co jest w terenie :)

I mapowanie pod render też nie jest za dobrą praktyką https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_praktyki#Nie_mapuj_pod_render ;)
uprkos (2023-12-08 09:31:34+00:00): Spróbuję odgrzebać tę dyskusję wieczorem, była w wątku "Pytania początkujących". Na razie podrzucam też niedawną dyskusję na ten temat w notce: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1955566#map=14/50.1481/19.9132&layers=N

Wiem o zasadzie niemapowania pod render, natomiast tu akurat uważam, że rodzaj mapowania robi różnicę. Access=private + coś=yes sugeruje że na danym terenie obowiązuje generalny brak dostępu z wyjątkami, podczas gdy w rzeczywistości zakaz ruchu oznacza generalnie otwarty dostęp, z wyjątkami. W przeciwnym razie w taki sam sposób traktujemy fizycznie otwartą drogę osiedlową spółdzielni i teren osiedla ogrodzonego zasiekami. 

Jeśli chodzi o literalne mapowanie znaków - wiem że formalnie masz rację i nie poprawiałbym po kimś vehicle na motor_vehicle=private. Ale jednak czasem zasada "na zdrowy rozsądek" nie pozwala mi kliknąć tak jak powinienem. Czasem zastosowanie literalnie oznakowania spółdzielni oznaczałoby, że rowerem trzeba by objechać całe osiedle.
uprkos (2023-12-08 10:03:07+00:00): Oto wątek na forum:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/pytania-poczatkujacych/52707/6277
YomanNH (2023-12-08 10:30:21+00:00): Dzięki!
uprkos (2023-12-08 10:37:28+00:00): Daj znać co o tym myślisz, ja jestem otwarty na dyskusję, tylko idealnie dobrze byłoby mieć wypracowane w miarę wspólne podejście przynajmniej w Krakowie. Dzięki temu będzie spójnie i nie będziemy się edytować nawzajem ;)
YomanNH (2023-12-08 10:59:42+00:00): Jasne :) Przeanalizuję dokładniej temat i pewnie wieczorem podzielę się przemyśleniami.
YomanNH (2023-12-09 18:03:02+00:00): Moim zdaniem najlepiej trzymać się tego, co jest na stronie https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/. A tam, na stronie opisującej znaki drogowe (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Road_signs_in_Poland), dla znaku B-1 jest informacja, że należy stosować "access=no + foot=yes". Tag "motor_vehicle=no" z kilkoma innymi jest stosowany w przypadku znaku B-3.

Co w przypadku, gdy jest szlaban i nie ma obok niego znaku? Jeśli jest zostawione miejsce, żeby dało się przejechać rowerem, to pewnie najlepsze jest stosowanie "vehicle=private + bicycle=yes". Ewentualnie jeszcze "foot=yes", jeśli nie ma osobno narysowanego chodnika i "horse=private".

Stosowanie "vehicle=private" w przypadku znaku B-1 jest błędne jak chodzi o wspomniane konie, ale także rowery (gdy nie ma możliwości wjazdu w inny sposób).

A dostosowywanie tagowania do "lepszego" wyglądu mapy nie ma większego sensu. O ile na podstawowej mapie "access=private + bicycle=yes" pozornie wygląda na drogę niedostępną dla ruchu rowerowego, to już przełączając się na warstwę "CyclOSM" widać, że rowerem można jechać bez problemu. I dla aplikacji nawigujących takie tagowanie też nie stanowi problemu.

Pozdrawiam :)
eggie (2023-12-08 08:50:16+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community