piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Grzegorz_Kujawa (2024-04-21 20:26:51+00:00): Bardzo proszę :). Akurat mapowałem tam inne rzeczy, więc czemu nie zrobić od razu kilku dodatkowych fotek i uzupełnić braki.
Manuel H (2024-04-21 19:46:48+00:00): Falscher Name. Richtig: Taxfixes, Bearbeitungen nach Luftbild
BCNorwich (2024-04-23 06:49:43+00:00): Duplicated section of highway Way: 1274701123 removed.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2024-04-23 06:51:03+00:00): Also Way: 1274692511 removed as it's a duplication.
ftrebien (2024-04-23 19:49:35+00:00): The previous was based on the relative importance given the local context. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Assumptions
ftrebien (2024-04-23 21:22:01+00:00): *the previous classification
felipeeugenio (2024-04-23 22:26:01+00:00): Hello @ftrebien
The link you are citing is out of context. And having studied some of your previous editions, I would kindly ask you to be open to suggestions, because you have some concepts mixed. (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133341838, sorry, but that is not an unclassified road).
The classifications in OSM are, with the exception of motorways, a matter of the purpose that the road serves in a given reasonable big network. But that doesn´t mean that, given a reduced place (a small island) all the categories immediately go up one or two steps.
So, the examples that this paragraph gives, are the trans-Amazonian Road, which, despite its quality, connects big cities, some of them with millions of inhabitants.
Both Russian examples are roads that connect big cities in the far east.
The Madagascar example refers to a road that connects dozens of towns in the northern part of the country. And serves a wider network.
The Sudan example is one of the most important roads in the country, despite its quality.
King George's island reportedly has maybe a hundred inhabitants. spread in several settlements. There are mines on this planet with more inhabitants.
So, we will all understand that mapping the roads that connect them as tracks or even paths is wrong because they serve a purpose in this very little network. But secondary is a huge overrepresentation. Tertiary is, maybe, an appropriate category. Some will say unclassified. Take into consideration that secondary implies motorcar=yes.
Sorry for the long response, my only intention is to help, and the time will come when a combined effort will have to be made in Antarctica because some other editions here are just wrong (not by you).
felipeeugenio (2024-04-23 22:26:18+00:00): On a side note: in Antarctica happens what we, in Chile, have in Easter Island or Torres del Paine, which are the most touristic places in the countriy that receives people from all the planet and on season we experiment dozens of mappers, from different communities, editing very useful information, but with a very wide set of interpretations of the Wiki.

You are welcome to Join the Chilean Community in Telegram (https://t.me/OSMcl). There we discuss the wiki almost on a daily basis and we have been discussing categorizations along with all other south American communities.
jptolosa (2024-04-23 23:32:10+00:00): Hello ftrebien,
inside the local context that you refers, tertiary is the higher classification you can use. Even these tertiaries can be unclassified. Here "Villa Las Estrellas" is the unique relevant settlement. The nearby bases have little or zero permanent population. A reasonable solution can be using tertiary to join aerodrome with Villa Las Estrellas and using unclassified to connect Villa Las Estrellas with the bases that depending of the village.
Regards.
ftrebien (2024-04-24 02:33:55+00:00): @jptolosa

Why would tertiary be the highest classification that can be used in the Fildes Peninsula?

"A reasonable solution can be using tertiary to join aerodrome with Villa Las Estrellas and using unclassified to connect Villa Las Estrellas with the bases that depending of the village."

I disagree with this based on the text in the wiki about highway=* assumptions, particularly this part: "In a region with poor infrastructure, a road of highest importance, forming the main road network there, should be highway=trunk, regardless of being a high-quality wide asphalt road or a low-quality narrow track worse than highway=service in other regions." These roads constitute the region's main network and are vital for its functioning, so their classification should not be so low.

For comparison, the Norwegian Arctic island of Svalbard has about 2,600 inhabitants, one airport and one larger town (Longyearbyen) of 2,100 inhabitants. A highway=primary road connects the town to the airport. The winter population in the Fildes Peninsula is about 115 people based (from COMNAP's 2017 Arctic Station Catalogue, referenced in Wikipedia), or about 1 order of magnitude below that of Svalbard, so it makes sense to use highway=secondary for an analogous connection. A highway=secondary way connects Longyearbyen it with the small Nybyen suburb which is similar in size (number of buildings) to Artigas Base and Great Wall Station, so again it makes sense to use highway=secondary for these analogous connections.

"The nearby bases have little or zero permanent population."

If permanent population becomes a criterion in Antarctica, then there will be no Antarctic roads with a class higher than highway=unclassified. McMurdo Station has a wintering population of 153 people and Amundsen-Scott Station has a wintering population of 49 and neither have permanent residents, yet there is little doubt that the South Pole Traverse, the most important (ice) road in Antarctica, should be displayed very prominently on the map.

Many local communities have adapted their thresholds for classifying sparsely populated places. Several local communities employ highway classification systems based on place hierarchy. And some even allow these population thresholds to vary across the country's territory, in order to achieve a more sensible and useful highway classification. Advocating for applying some sort of worldwide default population threshold to the sparse regions of Antarctica would go against what several local communities have done in the sparse regions of their own countries.
jptolosa (2024-04-24 04:37:41+00:00): @ftrebien

The decisions of some local communities is not compatible with definitions is some cases.

There are a lot of remote islands with similar population where the maximum classification used is tertiary or unclassified.

The general agree criteria for measure the importance is based on population of places. All examples shown in "assumptions" paragraph of the wiki are big/medium cities joined by a highway that crossed entire countries; that's not the point.

Well, before your intervention in Fildes Peninsula was accepted "de facto" the unclassified value, then the tertiary value is a intermediate of both positions and a just solution in case of disagree.
felipeeugenio (2024-04-24 12:25:16+00:00): @ftrebien
Hello.
It is very common to find such misconceptions in Europe too. And it is sadly becoming very frequent that local communities agreeing in just ignoring the wiki and take into consideration only what they want in order to make OSM look how they want to.
You just picked up one island of thousands the fit your criteria and went on with that. How about a complete survey?
On the wiki segment you are citing as an argument, after being totally dismantled and proved out of context, you are just holding on to just one line, and taking it out of context again.
You talk about a community but let´s dig into that. The whole sector you are claiming to map under a community agreement was made entirely by members of the Chilean community (take a look into the history of each and every road please). Those categories went on for years even under your own mapping activity, which included several names that you removed after some months.
Did you contact the community? No. So is there another community? Because it doesn´t seems so. And if it does, they are adding motorcar roads to a system that connects some camps.
It is clear to me that you are stuck on that sector moving things over and over again and never discussed with nobody. Not that it is wrong to map only one sector, but please take a deep look into correct mapping.
We had to correct an unclassified road into Mount Vinson from you.
Then again, please join the Chilean community. There, around 200 mappers share doubts every day.

regards
felipeeugenio (2024-04-24 12:33:16+00:00): And even the Svalbard example that you are citing, they are using a secondary (wrongly) to join two sectors of the same urban settlement. But as soon as the roads leave the Village they become unclassified roads.
And as soon as the road becomes a smaller road to reach the antennas, Here you don´t have an urban sector, just camps.
regards
felipeeugenio (2024-04-24 12:36:41+00:00): The eastern part, which starts as primary (wrongly), then leaves town as a tertiary just to head to a radar and the OREO Doomsday Vault.
That is wrong too.
ftrebien (2024-04-24 14:02:57+00:00): @felipeeugenio

"which included several names that you removed after some months."

I removed information based on lack of verifiability as I have mentioned in my changeset comments. I have always been very lenient in Antartica as the data sources are difficult to come by, but I have seen many really bad edits all over it, including mappers using it as a scratchpad and leaving junk behind. So, in order to maintain data reliability, if you can provide a source, I will readd those names or features after verifying them and also add the source to the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Antarctica/Data_Sources

"We had to correct an unclassified road into Mount Vinson from you."

I don't fully agree with the correction, but none of us have access to data that demonstrates which mapping is more correct, we only have the Strava running heatmaps, where many tracklogs match motorised routes elsewhere in Antarctica, so I think it is not worth discussing this case without better data.

"And even the Svalbard example that you are citing, they are using a secondary (wrongly) to join two sectors of the same urban settlement. But as soon as the roads leave the Village they become unclassified roads."

Using highway=secondary to connect place=suburb is generally correct as far as I know if we don't assume any country's specific highway classification scheme. Ways that continue into sparser areas past a settlement's core have lower classification in Svalbard as they did in the Fildes Peninsula before these recent edits, so the pattern was essentially the same.

"Then again, please join the Chilean community."

Thank you, I will look into that. But as Antarctica is international space under the Antarctic Treaty, I think any discussion on it should involve communities from multiple countries, be it in Fildes, McMurdo or other areas. Since each local community has its own ideas about highway classification, disagreements are inevitable and it's best to find consensus rather than impose any country's specific system. While the Chilean settlement in the Fildes Peninsula is the largest and oldest, the peninsula is also home to year-round Russian, Chinese and Uruguayan stations.

"The eastern part, which starts as primary (wrongly), then leaves town as a tertiary just to head to a radar and the OREO Doomsday Vault. That is wrong too."

I think it would generally make sense for this route to be highway=tertiary up to the entrance of the Camp Beretz settlement (currently not mapped in OSM) and also all the way up to the Gruve 7 coal mine which likely attracts heavy traffic.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-04-24 15:03:57+00:00): note: tagging of road has now thread at tagging mailing list

See https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2024-April/067807.html
felipeeugenio (2024-04-24 18:41:29+00:00): 
Hello @ftrebien
In the first paragraph of the mailing you wrote to open the discussion (today) you talk about “I”, and basically confessed that you discussed this with nobody (For a while, I tried to come up with a balanced generic scheme based on the regional importance of these roads,[2] which has been questioned,[3] so I would like to hear opinions on the matter.) 
This is just you making editions given your personal opinions. 

You just said it. Don´t invoke local communities. Be honest please.

Even the wiki you cite is partially written by yourself. We checked the versions.
And if there is a local community: are they really local? Do they have a mandatory saying over the wiki? Where do they live? Do the Chilean mappers have a say in this? Did you discuss with the Chinese and Uruguayans? But when the actual mappers that did this are mappers you can contact, then you switch to “this is international” and post a mailing list asking for opinions, while dismissing the wiki. Sorry, but this is a blatant contradiction.

Is the wiki not international? Or is this just another “We are special, we don´t want to follow the rules”?
So, you change versions while running from your debunked examples. When it fits it's international, when it doesn´t it is local. (and then you change the wiki).

Sadly, I think you don´t understand the classification system at all, invoking high traffic and thinking the classification system lies upon what you think is important is just not understanding it.
Regards and sorry if I am not going back on this, but IMO this is another "I own the place" mapper that writes his own wiki and then invoke a one-man local community rights while not contacting the very same people that draw the roads in the first place.

not ok.
ftrebien (2024-04-24 20:18:57+00:00): @felipeeugenio

"How about a complete survey?"

I actually did this a long time ago, but here are some other examples of similar regional configurations:
- Norway: Gamvik, Fredvang
- Faroe Islands: Tjørnuvík, Kunoy
- Iceland: Flateyri, Tálknafjörður, Hjalteyri
- Canada: Whatì, Tulita
- United States (Alaska): Eagle, Teller
- Russia: Varzuga, Yamburg, Chasovenskaya
felipeeugenio (2024-04-24 20:31:25+00:00): Dude, the example in Canada is a 269 village totally connected to the rest of the country with a primary that turns into a secondary in the middle of nowhere with no apparent reason.
You are not even aware of the main issue here.
Any experimented mapper would see the mistake here and how this is totally unrelated to the topic being discussed.

regards
ftrebien (2024-04-24 20:40:21+00:00): @felipeeugenio

"Don´t invoke local communities."

Why?

"Do the Chilean mappers have a say in this?"

Of course! Please feel free to comment, and as someone who has been watching the region for a long time, I'm taking your point of view into consideration, even if I disagree. For me, your opinion counts, adding to those on the tagging mailing list. Together, they all currently lean towards your version. If within a few days the consensus continues to indicate that, I will update the wiki and downgrade highway classification in all of Antarctica uniformly to reflect the consensus.

"Did you discuss with the Chinese and Uruguayans?"

There are very few mappers in Antarctica, so I haven't found any yet other than casual mappers uninterested in highway classification. In fact, over two years, you are the first Chilean mappers I have come across in Antarctica. I've seen mainly Europeans from various countries. The initial mappers of the Fildes Peninsula no longer appear to participate in OSM.

"this is another "I own the place""

Quite the opposite. You can check the history of highway classifications in Antarctica in multiple places, not just the Fildes Peninsula. When I started, there were big discrepancies between these places: what you just changed to tertiary was similar to another road somewhere else that was mapped as service, somewhere else as track, somewhere else as residential, somewhere else as highway=road, etc. I welcome suggestions on how to improve the result. I don't think different parts of Antarctica should follow different rules, but the rules are up for debate, and as far as I know, this is the first time the are being debated specifically for Antarctica, which is a unique place in the world.
felipeeugenio (2024-04-24 20:40:29+00:00): not even going to waste time reaching for the others.
ftrebien (2024-04-24 20:46:28+00:00): After asking me to conduct a "complete" survey, when I do, the results are dismissed and no counterexamples are provided, indicating you haven't done such survey either. That's not a discussion.
felipeeugenio (2024-04-24 20:56:09+00:00): I asked you if you did, not asked you to do, big difference.
And I just told you how the Canadian example is out of context and wrongly mapped. Please continue the discussion in the mailing list thread, where I can see you were refuted.
Please stop sending me messages.
ftrebien (2024-04-24 21:09:39+00:00): To me, the highways in Whati and the Whati Access Road appear to correctly follow Canadian tagging guidelines. If you found an error, please add a note to the map or contact the local community in Canada. I will assume that the other 13 examples I provided do not have mapping errors.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-04-25 08:07:06+00:00): > If you found an error, please add a note to the map

I did this, route classification mear Whatì is clearly broken given highway=primary changing class without reaching city (and  Whatì does not look at all like major city to which highway=primary would go)

> I will assume that the other 13 examples I provided do not have mapping errors.

I will look at them after Whatì case is processed
ftrebien (2024-04-25 11:19:20+00:00): @Mateusz Konieczny

See also similar nearby places (little villages) in the Faroe Islands and Iceland. I have chosen only a few representative examples, as a complete list would be too long and would miss the point.

I still think that Svalbard is the place that has been verified by the most mappers and so it is the best example to base any comparisons on. It was mapped according to Norwegian mapping practices, the other examples are here simply to show that this practice is not specific to a single local community.
Julio_Costa_Zambelli (2024-04-28 00:28:46+00:00): Since the "initial mappers of the Fildes Peninsula" have been invoked and I admit that some of us may increasingly look as if we "no longer appear to participate in OSM", here is my opinion on this topic: 

Anything over highway=unclassified in this context sounds kind of absurd to me, some kind of "mapping for the render". We are talking about a region that is under the jurisdiction of no state or single OSM local comunity that could agree on a grand scheme classification/network to be use to tag "roads" that are, in the best case scenario, mere muddy tracks for the snowcat to move people and stuff from the shelters to the aerodrome. Given those two facts I can barely understand why would someone spend time promoting all this fuss.
ftrebien (2024-04-23 19:46:07+00:00): Why?
jptolosa (2024-04-23 22:56:57+00:00): Hello, service is used to access specific building or unique property. Unclassified is used to access several buildings or at least two properties as minimum requisite.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-04-21 20:10:26+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/387746770

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Tjuro (2024-04-22 18:13:05+00:00): Beste Xerini,

Feedback: het gebruik van leisure=garden ligt ingewikkeld. Verschillende mensen zijn het niet eens over waar en hoe leisure=garden gebruikt zouden moeten worden. Daarom is er eigenlijk geen goed of fout meer voor leisure=garden.

Maar als je het aan mij vraagt zou ik voor perken zonder paden, dus wat niet echte tuinen zijn. Eerder kijken naar andere tags. Daarvoor zijn verschillende opties. Zoals natural=shrubbery. Dat is voornamelijk voor onderhouden houtachtige planten (struiken). 

Voor bloem(bollen)velden kan je landuse=flowerbed gebruiken. 

Voor hagen kan je ook barrier=hedge+area=yes gebruiken. Maar die is in recentere jaren wat in gebruik verminderd.

Als ik een perkje niet kan plaatsen onder een bestaande categorie dan kies ik voor landcover=greenery. Maar die is wat minder gebruikt.

Beantwoord dit je vraag?

Met vriendelijke groet,

Tjuro
Xerini (2024-04-24 08:41:43+00:00): Beste Tjuro,

Hartelijk dank, dat verduidelijkt het zeker (voor zover er duidelijkheid is op dit gebied). Ik ga de tags meteen aanpassen.

Groet, Xerini
grzegorzmilosz (2024-04-21 20:27:59+00:00): Bunkry oznaczone na podstawie warstwy hipsometrii Geoportalu i historycznych zdjęć lotniczych natomiast ścieżki BMX / MTB zostały przeze mnie wstępnie zaznaczone z czasem przebiegi tras MTB / BMX zostaną zmienione i skorygowane na podstawie GPS.
Tomas Straupis (2024-04-22 08:18:29+00:00): Šaligatvių atskirais vektoriai mes nežymime, jei ten nėra žymaus fizinio atskyrimo, todėl ir tokie vektoriai nesudėti prie Žirmūnų tilto. Tokia informacija neduoda naudos, bet mums - vietos žymėtojams padidina priežiūros darbų - todėl mes jų ir nežymime ir prižymėtus ištriname.
Tomas Straupis (2024-04-22 08:19:35+00:00): Prašyčiau nekeisti nesuprantant, ką čia gyvenantys žymėtojai čia jau pažymėjo. Atstačiau neteisingai ištrintas sidewalk žymas.
BCNorwich (2024-04-23 06:54:19+00:00): Way: 1274692240 removed as it duplicates an existing highway. Please correct existing ways not make duplicate roads.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2024-04-23 06:47:14+00:00): Duplicated section of highway removed. Please correct the existing highways not make duplicates.

Regards Bernard.
miluethi (2024-04-21 21:56:40+00:00): Hi Luis,
I noticed that some of your building shapes are far bigger than the building. The top shape included several buildings and fencing around the farmyard.
Please keep the shapes as narrow as possible, don't include several separate buildings in one shape.

Please press "Q" after drawing the shape to square out the building. 

Thank you.

PS: I corrected this changeset.
Mammi71 (2024-07-05 07:45:17+00:00): Hallo Protoxenus, nur interessenshalber: was ist denn amenity=water_level?
Protoxenus (2024-07-06 07:21:25+00:00): Danke der Nachfrage. Du hast natürlich recht, das ist nicht gebräuchlich. Ich hatte ein bisschen nach dem richtigen tagging gesucht, aber nichts auf die Schnelle gefunden. Werde es, wenn ich wieder zu Hause bin, in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:monitoring:water_level
ändern.
Gruß Protoxenus
Mammi71 (2024-07-07 07:54:38+00:00): Danke für die Erklärung. Wobei rs mich schon überrascht, mitten im Darßwald einen Pegel zu finden.
otji73 (2024-04-23 14:02:33+00:00): not a road, only a path
kornad (2024-04-22 07:48:09+00:00): Orlen nie jest sklepem ogólnospożywczym, żeby oznaczać go za pomocą "shop=convenience". 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335002063
wireguy (2024-05-06 13:15:52+00:00): hi GreyTK, this change seems to have touched and broken the relations for White Horse and Yardville.  Can you investigate and correct or revert?
hvalentim (2024-10-18 13:10:43+00:00): Porque absurda carga de água é que o nodo do telescópio - cuja cúpula se vê claramente uns 60 metros para N (no terraço onde se fazem as observações quando há eventos), foi movida para onde está atualmente?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7529678899/
Marek-M (2024-04-22 06:27:38+00:00): Cześć, jeden z przystanków poprawiłem w https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150329217 

W Twojej edycji przystanek https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/node/11835859786 został nieprawidłowo połączony z drogą.
dktue (2025-03-08 12:57:24+00:00): Hallo jengelh,

ich möchte Dich hiermit auf eine Diskussion bezüglich Herberhausen aufmerksam machen.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/herberhausen-doppelt-verpflegt/127070

Gruß
dktue
Mammi71 (2024-08-12 12:23:30+00:00): Hallo Protoxenus,
warum hast Du die access-tags am Mecklenburger Weg an der Buchorster Maase entlang entfernt?