piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Lezurex (2023-01-23 20:15:52+00:00): Hallo sailman67

Danke für deinen Beitrag. Bei deiner Bearbeitung hast du (wahrscheinlich aus Versehen) den Punkt von Franz AG in den Wald verschoben.
Ich habe den Punkt für dich in diesem Changeset zurück an seine ursprüngliche Position versetzt: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131623269

Schönen Abend
Lezurex
AntMadeira (2023-01-19 20:56:36+00:00): Olá, xanoxcb.
Bem-vindo ao OpenStreetMap.

Podes explicar o que pretendes mapear ao certo com esta tua edição?

Cumprimentos,
António Madeira.
JeroenHoek (2023-01-20 10:57:40+00:00): Misschien een spelfout in de alt_name? (burg → brug).
ff5722 (2023-01-20 11:00:13+00:00): Bedankt, ik los het op
GinaroZ (2023-01-26 16:25:54+00:00): If you check Esri or Maxar imagery you can see the frame of the Aldi being constructed ;)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/110273494
Mikey Co (2023-01-27 10:07:41+00:00): True, they're a bit more up to date than the other aerial shots!
MxxCon (2023-01-21 06:15:00+00:00): What do you mean by "Clothes shops" changeset comment?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131482408
Something B (2023-01-21 21:46:32+00:00): Clothing shops have been edited. Isn't it obvious?
MxxCon (2023-01-21 22:19:12+00:00): No, it's not obvious. How have they been edited? 
Please take a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Something B (2023-01-21 22:26:52+00:00): Just the shops have been edited. I don't understand what You want.
MxxCon (2023-01-22 02:25:39+00:00): For a changeset that covers the whole continental US to have a better explanation of what was edited beyond saying "Clothes shops" or to split changeset into smaller geographic areas.
goldfndr (2023-01-22 04:02:59+00:00): A more intuitive changeset comment would be something like:

Corrected shop=clothing to shop=clothes
Diacritic (2023-01-20 10:00:08+00:00): Hi HighRouleur. Happy New Year.

I'm afraid I disagree with your recategorisation of these roads. While they are narrower than other streets, they are still a lot more similar to a residential road than a shared driveway.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131482653
HighRouleur (2023-01-22 09:58:52+00:00): Hi Diacritic

These observed roads have a cross over from the main road (Oak Avenue) so they really aren’t a road in the traditional sense. They appear minor internal roads which upon my rear are consistent with the pipestems / shared driveway noted in the link below 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway
Diacritic (2023-01-22 21:24:52+00:00): Thanks for the reply HighRouleur.

I don't quite understand what you mean by these roads aren't roads "in the traditional sense". A lot of newer, in-fill development will keep a kerb or other traffic calming measures to try to minimise traffic speed; that's not incompatible with highway=residential.

As a big fan of pipestem tagging myself, I think the definition of a pipestem is a bit broad; it could easily be applied to a traditional court or cul-de-sac. My interpretation has always been that pipestems are more like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1123465671 : unnamed access driveways into residential blocks, with no integration with other roads.

As most, I could see these roads being tagged simply as "service": "Generally for access to a building, service station, beach, campsite, industrial estate, business park, etc." But driveway I think is too far from the nature of the road.
tonyf1 (2023-01-22 21:30:08+00:00): Hi HighRouleur and Diacritic
There is good quality street level imagery by Mapillary which helps. Supporting the driveway case, these roads are narrow and entering from Oak Ave, the footpath breaks the entry road (ie the "crossover"). Supporting the road case, there are road markings supporting 2 way traffic, the roads are named and these names are shown on signposts, there is a 20kmh speed limit, no standing signs, street lights, marked parking bays, some but not many footpaths and even an internal rubbish collection service. It looks more like roads to me.
MxxCon (2023-01-21 06:19:32+00:00): Hello.
As documented in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dschool name of the school is supposed to go only on the amenity polygon, not the school building.
Additionally, dedication name of the school goes into alt_name tag. Furthermore, as documented in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Abbreviation_(don't_do_it) names shouldn't be abbreviated. In this case instead of "PS 70" it should be fully spelled out "Public School 70"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131482702
okadatsuneo (2023-01-20 02:26:13+00:00): Hello,
Welcome to OSM.
When you map the buildings, use "building=yes" tag instead of "landuse=residential".
And if you make rectangular (shortcut "q"), it looks like more better.
Thank you.
olehz (2023-01-22 16:01:11+00:00): Don't overlap lines, please. This is very bad practice. That's what relationships are for. You made a lot of bad edits. You are not helping, but breaking the old mapping standards and making it impossible to use OSM ((
olehz (2023-01-22 16:06:24+00:00): Holy crap. You broke the topology of many lines. All your edits should be reverted. The border areas were mapped almost perfectly, and now everything is broken.
DavidKarlas (2023-04-22 10:17:26+00:00): name:zh tag on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13824732 seems to have accidental content, was that intentional?
NorthCrab (2023-01-20 08:36:58+00:00): Witaj, poprawiłem dodany przez ciebie adres. Jednakże mam wątpliwości co do nazwy tej ulicy, czy masz może jakiś dowód na istnienie takiej nazwy? Bo w okolicy nie widzę aby ulice miały nazwy + adres przez ciebie dodany nie ma nazwy ulicy. Pozdrawiam!
Supaplex030 (2023-01-19 22:42:37+00:00): Hallo msch,

Willkommen zurück bei OSM nach so langer Zeit ;)

Wurden die Durchfahrten südlich und nördlich des Chamissoplatz durch Poller gesperrt? So interpretiere ich deine Änderungen.

Es wäre besser, die Poller als Punkte auf den Straßensegmenten zu platzieren (etwa dort, wo die Poller sind) und nicht ein ganzes Segment mit der Poller-Eigenschaft zu versehen (das ist für viele Anwendungen schwer zu interpretieren - habe es daher erstmal rückgängig gemacht).

Falls du ein Foto/Fotos von vor Ort hast, kannst du sie auch gern teilen, dann könnten wir gemeinsam schauen, wie es sich am besten abbilden lässt. (Könntest du z.B. über einen Bild-Uploader teilen, oder als Notiz mit der OSM-App "StreetComplete" an dieser Stelle hinterlassen oder auch gern einfach mir per Mail schicken: "alex@osm-berlin.org".) Vermutlich können wir die gesamten Straßensegmente nördlich und südlich des Platzes als für den Autoverkehr gesperrt eintragen? Vielleicht sogar als Fußgängerzone?

Kann auch die Tage dort mal vorbeifahren, falls das mit Fotos zu aufwendig für dich ist.

lg, Alex
mueschel (2023-01-22 18:24:11+00:00): Hi,
please check the conditional tag here, something is missing
gpserror (2023-01-22 19:08:40+00:00): should it be yes @ (05:00-22:00) ? will add in meantime
mueschel (2023-01-22 22:08:51+00:00): Now it's a parking=lane for the night and parking=yes during the day. 

According to your last changeset comment I guess you need
parking:both=lane
parking:both:restriction:conditional = no_parking@(00:00-05:00,22:00-24:00)
olehz (2023-01-22 15:37:37+00:00): Do not delete voltage tag, please.
I dont understand why we need separate fake Yards. Use power=switchgear
bradrh (2023-02-15 20:43:34+00:00): Hi Val, FR 346 & 346A are not shown as open on the MVUM, it looks like you were recently there.  Are these open to mtr vehicles?
valhikes (2023-02-15 23:17:26+00:00): You already have your answer since the MVUM literally the legal document that allows motor vehicle use. If it's not there, it's not legal. This one has a locked gate to enforce the closure, but there's enough room for a little parking.
valhikes (2023-02-16 05:27:10+00:00): Unless you meant "MTB", in which case they don't seem to make it quite so easy to know. Ask the district office?
bradrh (2023-02-16 14:34:16+00:00): You added some tags, but did not add motor_vehicle=no.   The MVUM & USFS GIS do have errors.  So I asked the question since I assumed that you would have added that tag if it was relevant
valhikes (2023-02-17 02:20:35+00:00): You're quite right, I should have done that. Even if the MVUM might be changed next year, that's no reason to not have the best information at the time of editing.

There's a bit of a catch 22 for the MVUM having errors.
MxxCon (2023-01-21 06:28:57+00:00): Hello.
What are you trying to map here?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131484414
GMoney0805 (2023-01-22 18:21:41+00:00): Hello!
This is simply referencing this travel circle location by what it is known to locals as. Does that make sense? I've seen many roadway junctions labeled with locality points, but now you've got me thinking. I'm going to go investigate the OSMap forum and see what others have done concerning these types of features. Thanks!
MxxCon (2023-01-22 18:38:12+00:00): Also take a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Local_names_(loc_name)
GMoney0805 (2023-01-22 18:40:27+00:00): I will check that out. Thanks!
GMoney0805 (2023-01-22 18:45:06+00:00): I'll take the next few days and make these changes to the other points i made like this. I appreciate your help!
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-01-29 19:56:51+00:00): Zerkniesz na https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3533463 ?

Jakie są ograniczenia w dostępie do tego parkingu? Każdy tam może parkować?
NorthCrab (2023-01-30 02:23:49+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1133580745

Tego typu parking to nie parking lot tylko street-side parking. Parking lot to duży parking często z uliczkami parkingowymi.

Pozdrawiam!
NorthCrab (2023-01-30 02:24:49+00:00): I czy mógłbyś nie przyłączać parkingów do dróg? Ani żadnych tego typu elementów. Takie coś nie posiada żadnej funkcjonalności a jest niezgodne z prawdą (obrys parkingu powinien być zgodny z rzeczywistym), oraz bardzo utrudnia przyszłe edytowanie mapy.
NorthCrab (2023-01-30 02:25:56+00:00): https://img.monicz.dev/-H2ney9eQeb
Na przykład tutaj, widać że jest tu coś nie tak.
NorthCrab (2023-01-20 08:38:46+00:00): Mam wątpliwości co do nazwy tej drogi. Możesz podać jakiś dowód istnienia tej nazwy, np. jakiś post w internecie albo zdjęcie tabliczki z nazwą. Pozdrawiam!
rskedgell (2023-04-02 14:00:09+00:00): Thanks for deleting the duplicates, but when a new mapper does this, would you mind commenting on their changeset so they know there's a problem? Two months later, @AdamLegg is still making the same mistake, probably because nobody has explained the problem.

Thanks - and keep up the good work spotting QA problems.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134414016
Gonéo (2023-01-22 20:51:25+00:00): Bonjour, merci pour votre contribution. Pour information il est intéressant d'ajouter
* source:maxspeed=FR:urban pour le 50. Si demain la réglementation change en ville c'est plus facile à traiter.
* source:maxspeed=FR:zone30 pour les zones 30.
* ou encore source:maxspeed=FR:rural

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:source:maxspeed

Bonne continuation
map per (2023-01-22 19:15:45+00:00): Reverted, Vandalismus
eggie (2023-01-20 06:08:37+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback  Gebouwen worden periodiek geïmporteerd of kun  je versneld via het forum laten importeren.
Adressen komen dan ook mee.

Het wandelpad is gelukt. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2023-01-20 07:17:34+00:00): Padvindershonk met juiste BAG en adresgegevens toegevoegd. 
Parkeerplaats en paden aangepast. 
Gr eggie
eggie (2023-01-20 06:11:55+00:00): Dag telderman.. Je pad loopt dwars door het water. Is daar een brug. bridge=yes layer=1 ???
Probeer ook je pad los te houden van de landuse. Plakken kun ke voorkomen door de linker alttoets te gebruiken tijdens intekenen.
Ik zal wat losmaken.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-01-20 06:16:16+00:00): Pad losgemaakt van watervlak en landuse. Het begin van het pad is ingetekend door een medemapper met highway=path  (algemeen smal pad)  De rest heb je inhetekend als wandelpad .. dus bebord (G7)  als wandelpad  =footway.
Wellicht even nagaan wat het is..  en is er een brug? 
eggie
eggie (2023-01-20 07:30:22+00:00): De brug heb ik even ingetekend in de nieuwe situatie
Wellicht heb je wat aan deze achtergrond om de loop van de 'nieuwe' Beekhuizense Beek aan te passen.
https://www.satellietdataportaal.nl/?base=openstreetmap&res=0.5&datemin=20-01-2022&loc=51.99870%2C6.030963%2C18z&overlay=mos-0&marker=loc&acqdate=2022-11-14&acqid=20221114_104445_SV2-01&sensor=SuperView-1
Succes,
eggie
eggie (2023-01-20 06:21:14+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback  Goed om zaken actueel te maken.
Maar je hebt de hele weg verwijderd en vervolgens opnieuw ingetekend. Heb je wel rekening gehouden met de fietsknooppunt route. Die is nu onderbroken.
Ook de historie van de weg is verdwenen.
Is er daadwerkelijk een stuk fietspad gekomen of staat er alleen een paaltje?  Mogen brommers ook langs de paaltje. Die worden nu gestopt. Ik zal de fietsroute herstellen. motor_vehicle hoeft niet op een paaltje. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2023-01-20 06:31:34+00:00): Het paaltje stond er al.. Ook eenrichting stond al op oneway=no.
Je hebt een heleboel tags toegevoegd waaronder access=no aan het stukje fietspad. 
Geloof me access=no is bijna altijd fout . Dat zegt. Verboden toegang voor iedereen.
Dus nogmaals .  Is er echt een stuk fietspad?  Of staat er alleen een paaltje? 

Ik heb je edits even teruggedraaid om de routerelatie te herstellen.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-01-20 06:47:20+00:00): Wellicht toch nog anders? 
Routeren doet het zo ook niet voor motorvoertuigen  overigens.. https://www.hillegom.nl/bestuur-en-organisatie/bekendmakingen/bekendmaking/gv-publicatie/verkeersbesluit-instellen-verplichte-rijrichting-op-de-hoofdstraat-prins-bernhardstraat-en-molenstraat-8367

Of wordt een stukje Molenstraat bij de hoofdstraat oneway=yes  ?
PeterPan99 (2023-02-12 14:57:29+00:00): Hi, I was alertted by the iD editor to the fact that you left the footpath (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1133593625) crossing Noon Layer Drive and another footpath, without joining them.  Also you did not join it to the nearby Cycle and Foot Path at its Western end.  After a survey to confirm, I have added the necessary connections.  Could I politely ask that you try in future to join ways that you create to all the relevant other ways?  Then, routing software will not refuse to use the way in question.  Regards,  Peter
ianc (2023-02-12 17:10:14+00:00): There are two ways you could have handled this: 
1. Christ on a bike, this bloke's added a ton of rights of way in MK that nobody had bothered with before, most of which were completely missing. Let's tidy up the loose ends and move on;
2. The way you chose.
May I politely ask that you develop some inter-presonal skills before communicating with me again?
PeterPan99 (2023-02-12 17:18:13+00:00): A.  1.  I have no idea how many PROWs you might have added, but I am (genuinely) grateful that you have.
2.  I thought that I was being polite and I am sorry that you did not perceive it that way.
B.  You can certainly ask, but...
Have a nice day!
ianc (2023-02-13 18:44:03+00:00): Yeah, sorry - bit grumpier than intended. 

It can get a bit wearing dealing with  the passive aggression on open source projects.
PeterPan99 (2023-02-13 18:48:32+00:00): No problem.  Have a good day.
Strubbl (2023-01-19 23:38:12+00:00): in Relation 916036, nicht in 71252
andrewsuzuki (2023-01-24 02:07:28+00:00): Hi again! I'd suggest checking out the layer "CT ECO Shaded Relief" in the iD Editor you're using. It's an extremely detailed elevation map of the state of Connecticut created using LiDAR. It's so detailed that you can usually clearly see the ~1ft deep depressions of hiking trails in the earth, so it's extremely useful for aligning trails. Generally this technique produces much better results than only GPS field recordings -- you can see it's about 20-30ft off in some places. Not a big deal of course but still a good resource
GLCTStewardship (2023-01-24 14:10:59+00:00): I was pointed to that resource earlier and used it to correct some trail locations in East River Woodlands.  I'll check out Mungar Brook and see where things misalign.  Working at the limits of gps/map accuracy leads to continual small location errors as map overlays are generated.  Our boundary work uses Google Earth to calibrate map data to actual location, and there year to year location deltas can be in the order of 10's of feet.  Of course, relative shapes are much better than that.  But eventually,  we need to 'call' a boundary position and move onto other properties.  Changing subjects, are you responsible for all the work done in Northwoods?  It's very well done and a huge effort.  Thanks for taking the time to do this work.
andrewsuzuki (2023-01-24 20:38:39+00:00): Thanks -- yes. To answer the question you asked on the other changeset for the boundaries, I used another resource from CT ECO, which is pretty much a compilation of each individual town's GIS data: https://cteco.uconn.edu/data/parcels/index.htm
So I just imported the parcels directly from what the town supplied.
I wonder how the sources compare -- for example with the data I imported it was previously super accurate in at least one area: the boundary of Bluff Head with Great Hill Rd. It had tons of nodes and closely followed the edge of the asphalt surprisingly accurately within ~1-3ft. But I notice that it's now kinda crossing the road a bit and doesn't appear as accurate.
On the other hand, the data from Guilford didn't match up with the town lines near the Durham-Guilford-North Branford corner particularly well, which is why I didn't join Northwoods / James Valley directly to the town line there. So I'm not sure if Guilford's data is off or the OSM town line is off.
Osmwithspace (2023-06-09 00:49:19+00:00): Hallo hca,
mir ist unter anderem bei folgender Node aufgefallen, dass du die neben einen Weg gesetzt hast, obwohl sie auf einem Weg sitzen müssten (z.B. ein Tor) und auch schon vorhanden waren.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10568959696
Bitte achte auf sowas.
Grüße Osmwithspace
hca (2023-06-12 15:30:54+00:00): Tut mir leid.
Solche freischwebenden Nodes entstehen, wenn man mit dem entspr. JOSM-Tool eine parallel verlaufende Kopie eines Weges erzeugt (z.  B. um diese Linie dann als Waldrand zu verwenden). Beim Löschen des nicht benötigten Teils dieser Kopie bleiben Nodes mit Tags leider übrig und werden in bestimmten Konstellationen auch vom JOSM-Validator nicht gefunden.
Und gerade Dinge wie Tore werden in JOSM sehr unauffällig dargestellt, und deshalb habe ich sie wohl übersehen.
Danke für den Hinweis & danke für's Löschen.
/hca
mrpulley (2024-08-02 13:10:11+00:00): Way 28950552 - most is maxspeed 60 (correct), but southern end is maxspeed 80, eastern end entering Sutton is maxspeed 50. Fixed at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154557739
Way 21234057 - maxspeed correct (50).
Way 10628873 doesn't have any maxspeed signs, but likely that maxspeed 100 is correct (as Sutton Road is maxspeed 100).
eggie (2023-01-20 07:41:19+00:00): Hoi trailrunnert...
Je vraagt feedback.. Ziet er netjes uit. Complimenten..
Groet
eggie
mrpulley (2024-06-14 11:38:51+00:00): Maxspeed of both of these roads is currently 80 (not 100) (checked at survey)
erickdeoliveiraleal (2023-02-01 00:46:25+00:00): please, dont add generic names like here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1133599155
nyampire (2023-01-21 08:07:25+00:00): OSMへようこそ、編集をレビューしました。

下水道処理施設、ということで、施設を表すタグ（man_made=wastewater_plant）を追加しました。
また、descriptionは施設に対する記述を行うものなのですが、文章の内容は取組の沿革とみられましたので、削除しました。

ご確認ください。
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131532757
Happy Mapping！
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131486990
jxeeno (2023-01-20 01:14:09+00:00): Hello!  I see you've removed ref=M4 from way 1133094415 and 1133094416.  Was that intended?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131487239
bxl-forever (2023-01-20 09:20:38+00:00): Hello,

When a shop or a place closes down, you can either use a lifecycle prefix (amenity=restaurant becomes was:amenity=restaurant) or remove the business-related tags, only leaving the address or other tags.
Tags like "disused=restaurant" are not recognised by the system and create problems.
Have a nice day.
ray331 (2023-01-20 15:05:45+00:00): Thanks for the tip! I tried reading about it here (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix) and I'm not too sure when to use was:amenity=restaurant vs
disused:amenity=restaurant

Maybe the wiki can be updated with an example?
bxl-forever (2023-01-20 22:35:51+00:00): Hello,

Thanks for writing back.

Most examples on this page of the wiki are about roads or buildings.
For shops or businesses, disused:* and was:* tags are identical, it is mostly a matter of personal preference and both will achieve the same result, i.e. the place will no longer appear on the map while the information would be easily visible to anyone editing the map, preventing the accidental re-addition of those tags.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:27:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:52:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:25:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:14:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:57:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:44:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert