piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
JAAS (2024-03-21 00:20:31+00:00): Estimado NicaTopo,

Quisiera entender el porqué estás editando, o mejor descrito - eliminando los `ref` oficiales a las carreteras en Nicaragua, eliminándoles las letras por completo y dejando solo el número; por ejemplo: `ref=NN-109` que has cambiado a `ref=109`. Además colocar el mismo `ref` completo en lugar del nombre (hasta dónde sé) no es una buena práctica de acuerdo a los lineamientos de OSM; por ejemplo: `name=NN-109`.

He revisado las fuentes que citas en el conjunto de cambios - incluyendo las cartas topográficas creadas por el gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América, con fecha de 1989 [https://maps.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/nicaragua/managua_east-nicaragua-50k-2952ii-1989.pdf] - y aunque en éstas no aparecen las letras de los ref de las carreteras, recordemos que son solo una referencia de datos (con buena parte de ellos ya obsoletos luego de 35 años) creados por un gobierno amigo extranjero - algo que también ha cambiado desde entonces. Los datos oficiales actuales SI muestran los ref completos con sus letras y números combinados; por ejemplo: `ref=NN-109`. Y los nombres son en su mayoría la combinación de la procedencia y el destino.

Mucho te agradecería que me comentes los motivos y/o la justificación para hacer estas ediciones, eliminando o cambiando datos de utilidad a muchos. No entiendo porqué eliminar datos que otros colaboradores han ingresado, si estos han sido correctos en su gran mayoría y no han cambiado. Aquí un ejemplo de muchos que he encontrado por todo el país de Nicaragua. - [https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26347979].

Atentamente,
JAAS
JAAS (2024-04-29 23:32:42+00:00): Hi NicaTopo,

I am sad to see that my attempts to persuade you to not go on with the removal of the alpha portions of the alpha-numeric ref numbers on the Nicaraguan highways have all been in vain and simply ignored by you. 

The fact that these alpha-numeric road `ref` numbers are visibly present on the actual highway markers remains to be a true fact in Nicaragua.

Whatever other scenario which occurs in Costa Rica, Panama or Columbia should have no incidence on how these should be mapped in Nicaragua. They are all different countries, each with different rules and ways of doing things.

It is also true that in Nicaragua there are currently main roads with the `NIC` prefix, and other "not as important" roads which use the `NN` prefix which share the same identical number portion of the `ref`. For example `[NIC-5](https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14635933/history)` and `[NN-5](https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17062619)` - both already edited by you - exist as such, the first one being a main route (secondary) while the latter is now a (tertiary). Just as in this example, there are 32 different roads which share the same number with the two stated prefixes (a grand total of "now conflicting" 64 roads). Having numbered only roads will obviously create chaos within the Nicaraguan highway grid and is a misinterpretation of the reason behind the existence of the prefixes to begin with. I do understand your point of view, which could make sense under other circumstances, but cannot agree with it in this particular case - hence my insistence on the topic. 

And the fact that the local community does not currently agree with your editing these, should also carry some weight for your decision, as you no longer live there as far as I understand. Again I ask you to reconsider your editing these `ref` alpha-numeric identifications, please.

Thank you and best regards,
JAAS - Jorge Aguirre
tms13 (2024-03-04 14:54:05+00:00): Please stop breaking the continuity of North Uist.  I've repaired this twice in two days; I don't want to keep re-doing that.
ancuanatuath (2024-03-04 19:08:06+00:00): It was rebroken due to a conflict with your changeset fixing the relation, so sorry about that and thanks for fixing it. I'd appreciate if you were less accusative though - breaking the relation obviously wasn't intentional.
tms13 (2024-03-08 10:51:25+00:00): Sorry - it looked like you were deliberately ignoring the fix.  I was clearly in a bad mood that day!
As an aside, do you agree with me that Rockall and North Rona/Sula Sgeir should be removed from the "Hebrides" relation, whether or not they are administered by Comhairle nan Eilean Siar?  I've never considered these outliers to be Hebridean, and Wikipedia concurs.
ancuanatuath (2024-03-12 22:07:18+00:00): Personally I don't really have an opinion on that - I find the Hebridean relations somewhat unwieldy and mostly ignore them, but it's almost impossible to avoid editing them when dealing with Hebridean coastlines. Removing Rockall etc. would at least result in smaller changeset bounding boxes which would be nice, but I don't have an opinion on whether that would be "correct".
Anonix35 (2024-03-08 13:17:55+00:00): Are you sure there is a red slope here ? This is not indicated on the plan, nor even on site.
CjMalone (2024-03-06 19:59:01+00:00): Looks good to me, thanks.
eggie (2024-03-03 17:49:57+00:00): Dag bvS  Je vraagt feedback. 
Je hebt het zelf geconstateerd dus dat zal best goed zijn. foot en bicycle=yes is default op wegen.
Mogen hier wel motorvoertuigen komen motor_vehicle=?

MVG
eggie
bvstratum (2024-03-03 18:50:06+00:00): Dag Eggie, nee, motorvoertuigen mogen hier niet komen.
eggie (2024-03-03 18:53:22+00:00): Oke.. dan kun je motor_vehicle=no bijtaggen.
Mapse..
eggie
bvstratum (2024-03-03 18:59:07+00:00): Heb hem toegevoegd!
eggie (2024-03-03 19:19:26+00:00): Top!
woodpeck_repair (2024-03-06 22:26:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 148317686 where the changeset comment is: revert vandalism
NorthCrab_upload (2024-03-03 17:40:28+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Prusa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1151614590
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1151614591
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1151614592

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Endres Pelka (2024-03-03 17:54:23+00:00): Poprawione.
MrSledge (2024-03-17 03:20:12+00:00): Hi Stellar Astrophile.

Please correct the boundaries of element "Susta-04"(relation/16171671), since it contains a stray way, "Nepal-India Boundary"(way/406873176), which is part of a "claimed boundary", Nepal Claim - Susta Area(relation/6094953).
Additionally, if this element's(relation/16171671) boundaries include this specific way(way/406873176) then all the elements that contain this element should also have the same boundary, all the way up to the country of Nepal, which they currently do not have.

Best regards.
eggie (2024-03-03 17:46:30+00:00): Welcome to OSM I merged your info with the present addressnode.
Greetz
eggie
OrlandoLC (2024-03-03 18:25:53+00:00): 👍
Robert Whittaker (2024-03-03 18:00:52+00:00): @paceban532 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1257185613 is clearly not correct. You do realise that you are making changes to the live OpenStreetMap database don't you? You should only make changes that reflect the reality of what is on the ground. There is no such military base in Norwich, so someone will now have to take the time to undo your changes.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-04-06 07:14:59+00:00): Hello!

Note that you do not need to add description of feature type as a name.
For example when mapping tree it is enough to specify that it is a tree, no need for putting that name of this specific tree is "Tree".

So for buildings it is not needed to put building as their name.

Or do you maybe know that this specific object mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1257185762 is specifically named with such name?

And if it was mistake - can you edit map to remove this name?
    
Do not worry too much about this issue - I made way worse mistakes when I was starting. Maybe some tool or explanation is confusing? Why you added this name? Note that I am asking as maybe something can be fixed to be less confusing.
Harald Hartmann (2024-03-04 16:38:31+00:00): Darf man fragen, was dich dazu veranlasst hat, bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1261159843 aus einem "amenity=shelter, shelter_type=picnic_shelter" ein "leisure=picnic_table, tourism=picnic_site" zu machen?
CjMalone (2024-03-06 19:57:38+00:00): Looks good to me, thank you
berndw (2024-03-03 18:05:44+00:00): Hallo,

kann es sein, das bei einigen der Stolpersteine hier date_of_birth vom wirklichen Geburtsjahr(=Jg.) abweicht?

Wäre schön, wenn du das kontrollierst
GorgorMith (2024-03-04 09:18:28+00:00): Ah, völlig richtig und danke für die Aufmerksamkeit! War ein Kopierfehler, ich korrigiere das!
GorgorMith (2024-03-04 09:23:56+00:00): Korrigiert in 148196851
grzegorz75jan (2024-03-03 19:54:38+00:00): Dodano trzy hydranty aplikacją. Jeden wymaga, solidnej zmiany położenia w wyniku błędu gps-a a dwa pozostałe minimalnie plus więcej opisów. Jeszcze dziś to skoryguję.
woodpeck_repair (2024-03-06 22:26:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 148317686 where the changeset comment is: revert vandalism
Ekeefoof (2024-03-06 17:39:25+00:00): Laut wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=kindergarten#How_to_map) sollte das Gelände, nicht das Gebäude, mit amenity=kindergarten getagt werden. Ich habe das eben geändert und den Namen eingetragen.
gscholz (2024-03-06 07:15:07+00:00): 

Hi MapeoAlmeria,
your recent edit have (again) left behind several errors regarding duplicate nodes:
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-1.98994&lat=37.46082&zoom=16&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=148177101

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
Udarian (2024-03-03 20:30:37+00:00): again same question as  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146783763 why did you remove those tracks, they are on the latest imagery so that untill we get newer imagery or you physically survey the area from within yourself (or someone else does that) you cant just remove those. why did you remove them, it would be impossible to see all of those from  any of the roads since the area is covered in pine rockland impeding views into the area. you either physically went into the area and saw with your own eyes that these had been removed or those edits should be reverted since there is no way you could have figured out whether or not they still exist without a thorough survey and if I remember that land is owned by Miami Dade so private citizens wouldn't be allowed inside.

If you dont respond quickly I will have to assume you didn't survey this as mentioned above and just removed them based on small amounts of information again as mentioned above and in the linked commit message, and revert this myself since has at this point become a pattern of yours. so please respond or fix in a timely manner, I have left you so many comments over the last few months with questions over commits.
CurlingMan13 (2024-03-03 23:51:47+00:00): They never responded to their previous changeset.  Do you plan on reverting this changeset?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148177328
Udarian (2024-03-04 03:13:53+00:00): I was going to revert this and all the other ones I've tagged as bad and unresolved in OSMCha on Wednesday or Thursday (depending on my schedule) of the upcoming week since I still would like to give this individual 1 last chance to respond since I went ahead and sent them a message through OSM directly a few hours back, if you would like to do the revert earlier feel free to message me through OSM and I'll send you the list of commits I was going to revert, though some of them would need to be partial reverts.
Udarian (2024-03-04 03:19:08+00:00): actually now that I look at it this one would also likely need to be partial revert due to the fact that there are a few seemingly good access=private additions in this, what needs reverting here are the deletions of the tracks and possibly the edits to the power lines and poles
Udarian (2024-03-04 03:23:38+00:00): as a clarifying point if the13thsense reads this tracks aren't hiking trails they are mainly for of road vehicles see more at:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=track
Udarian (2024-03-07 18:54:47+00:00): I have left multiple comments asking for why you made these changes and given you allot of time to respond, I have also left follow up comments to remind you of these issues and set you a private message though OSM. you have been completely unresponsive. since these edits are substantially erroneous I am reverting them. if you feel like any of this is wrong please feel free to comment, respond the the private message I sent you or otherwise contact me.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148356016
Barroszt (2024-03-09 15:38:05+00:00): Proszę nie wandalizować OpenStreetMap!
eggie (2024-03-03 19:04:15+00:00): Dag hihi  'k Vraag me af of dit allemaal correct is.. Los van het feit dat de rails de Beethovenstraat kruist op hezelfde niveau.
warnings:crossing_ways:highway-railway
  	4
'k Zie ook nog een service	crossover die je hebt verwijderd, maar die er in werkelijkheid gewoon is.
Ook horen er ook de nodige tags op de spoorlijn.

De data van het spoorwegennet komt van prorail. 

Vriendelijk verzoek om je naam aan te passen. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-03-03 19:13:45+00:00): Beste hi   Hier is op satfoto's niets van te zien. Loopt er werkelijk een spoorlijn door dat park?

MVG
eggie
dpschep (2024-03-04 18:13:13+00:00): Hi, creator bikehero here. What do you mean by 'way too quick'? I agree that it _used_ to be way too quick (tap & it's created). But you now have to click "upload" after tapping. What did you expect to happen when you tapped upload?
habi (2024-03-04 20:29:46+00:00): Ciao dpschep

This 'way too quick' is two-sided:
- It's awesome that your app/site adds OSM data so quickly, it's really blazing fast.
- I was expecting to add a bit more details to the repair stand, a bit like https://mapcomplete.org/cyclofix.html does, that's why I was surprised that the stand is added immediately. In all honesty, I expected a confirmation dialog before the data is added to OSM.

Greetings from the neighbourhood of this POI :)
habi

PS: I think that it's great that you're monitoring what happens with the data added by bikehero!
dpschep (2024-03-04 20:57:28+00:00): Got it. Thanks for the feedback! 

maybe I'll add an extra "are you sure?" alert before uploading to OSM.

At some point I do want to add support for more tags like cyclofix has.
mcliquid (2024-03-05 08:46:39+00:00): Hallo, du hattest das traffic_sign als "AT: $52.17a" eingetragen. Korrekt ist: "AT:52.17a-a". Ich habe es bereits korrigiert.

Eine tolle Seite dafür ist: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Verkehrszeichen_in_%C3%96sterreich
jeka p (2024-03-06 20:06:53+00:00): Super - danke!
Habe diese Seite noch nicht gesehen. Praktisch.
SG
El ArquiPachuca (2024-03-05 04:36:05+00:00): Gracias por editar! Cuando la agregue me di cuenta por videos que la línea no llegaba a New's Divine pero ya no tuve interés de cambiarlo y la deje como estaba en el proyecto original
Robhubi (inaktiv) (2024-03-03 21:02:10+00:00): Im Tag „name“ soll nur der Eigenname stehen (s. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen und die Diskussion im Forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/adressen-und-namen-von-ladestationen/108364 ).
jeka p (2024-03-06 20:08:38+00:00): Hi!
Der vollständige Name ist noch zum Teil abgeklebt. Der Schild sollte in der nächsten Tagen/Wochen komplett sichtbar sein.
Robhubi (inaktiv) (2024-03-06 20:37:27+00:00): Hi, spannend, ich habe noch keine Ladesäule mit Namen gesehen. Kannst du bitte ein Foto machen? Das wäre super!
mcliquid (2024-03-07 14:41:38+00:00): @Robhubi Das gibt es immer wieder, wie hier der "Ladepark Telfs-Ost": https://www.goingelectric.de/stromtankstellen/Oesterreich/Telfs/Ladepark-Telfs-Ost-Moos-7a/82840/

Ich vermute, hier wird der Name "Porsche Charging Lounge Koblach" heißen. Siehe auch die Pressemitteilung dazu: https://vorarlberg.orf.at/stories/3198109/
Robhubi (inaktiv) (2024-03-07 19:06:35+00:00): @mcliquid: Vielen Dank für deinen Kommentar! Jetzt ist mir das Missverständnis klar.  Mir geht es um die einzelne Ladesäule (Ladepunkt), die so häufig benannt wird. Hatte nicht kapiert, dass jeka p einen Ladepark meinte. Sorry.
mcliquid (2024-03-07 19:24:57+00:00): Gerne! Ich komme dort regelmäßig vorbei und hatte mich auch schon über die Größe gewundert, das Teil wird echt groß. Mir gefällt "charging_station" für einen kompletten Ladepark mit mehreren Ladesäulen auch nicht. Aber ich glaube laut Wiki soll das so gemacht werden.
Robhubi (inaktiv) (2024-03-08 17:25:11+00:00): Das Wiki zu amenity=charging_station finde ich nicht so optimal. Statt alle Varianten offen zu lassen, sollte besser von groben zum detaillierten Erfassen gegliedert werden. Diese Diskussion ist auch interessant: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/charging-stations-sites-or-individual-chargers/96810/239
Udarian (2024-03-04 03:37:38+00:00): are you sure that https://i395-miami.com/ is an acceptable source, as in can it be used as a source. Ive known about it for a while but I'm not sure that it can be used as a source due to https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility . What I'm trying to say is that I'm uncertain as to whether or not thats website is proprietary in such a way were its license wouldn't allow us to use it as a source here on OSM.
Udarian (2024-03-04 05:18:05+00:00): also stop tagging ways as abandoned when there are only two options for those ways they become part of some other merge lane or stop existing altogether, that asphalt will not stay as is. it is not abandoned, it is simply under construction and thus should be tagged as such.
AV31 (2024-03-04 18:51:22+00:00): https://i395-miami.com/ is a webpage create by https://www.fdot.gov/. You can read it in the footer of the webpage. I'm sure it's the better source to have information on the interchange. 

For the west I-395 to north I-95 ramp on the left side of the road you notice, this ramp is definitly closed. Please keep it closed. 

I used the information to create new road from this webpage https://i395-miami.com/project-exhibits/. It's now public domain.
Udarian (2024-03-09 20:05:24+00:00): While I am aware of Microdecisions, inc. v. Skinner makes anything made by the state of Florida public domain I am not sure if that makes this public domain due to the fact that if you look at the footer it’s a project in conjunction with MDX (Miami Dade Expressway Authority) which is am not certain that the court ruling applies to so while FDOT cannot claim copyright over that website MDX might. That’s why even though I’ve been watching that website for over a year and a half now I haven’t used it as a source. There is also the fact that allot of the videos are really on YouTube which further complicates things, I am not certain that law applies to YouTube videos made by Fl. 

As for the (now 2) “abandoned” way, it is not, it is either going to be incorporated into some other part of the highway or a highway ramp or be razed and covered in grass. I have seen many highway construction projects here in Miami dade county (I’ve been living here since 2005) over the years and not once have they left a temporary highway_link there once construction finished, they always end up demolished if they haven’t been incorporated into the wider highway structure. That’s why it should be 
left as construction or removed altogether. If you want to map these for historical reasons map them on OHM. As a note, from my understanding when something is under construction it is by definition closed, so mapping the way as under construction would achieve that perfectly. 

Happy mapping 
Udar
Udarian (2024-03-09 20:07:05+00:00): Again if you don’t want the ramp to be mapped with construction then remove it, “abandoned” is incorrect for that way.
AV31 (2024-03-26 20:01:30+00:00): Long time ago, I simply erased this kind of road when it's a new configuration. The problem is some people have redesigned the old roads after my modification like you did. Since then, I prefer to "abandonned" the road for a bit. In some months, you can erase it.
Udarian (2024-03-26 20:50:54+00:00): What do you mean by “redesign”, if you mean align to latest imagery the I see no problem with that. Again "abandoned" is incorrect here since nothing has been abandoned, maybe was: but not abandoned because abandoned implies that some part of the old structure remains and is no longer being worked on. These are likely to be worked on in the future as in removed since it’s in an active construction zone so abandoned is incorrect here. Since the road is closed and in an active construction zone I feel it’s best tagged as construction but if that tagging sits so badly with you it’s better removed altogether. 

And there is still the issue of this being a project between fdot and mdx so since I am it sure that everything mdx does is public domain I am not sure that the website used as a source is compliant with OSMs license and thus might not be able to be used as a source.

Again if a bit of road is marked as under construction it is implied that it is closed and only construction workers are allowed in there so construction tagging implies the road is closed.
Mb_651 (2024-04-16 21:41:07+00:00): Hallo Kurwerai, im Knoten hast du Sandelzhausen falsch geschrieben und nur dem Punkt einen Namen gegeben und keine Eigenschaften zugewiesen. Ich korrigiere das mal
silversurfer83 (2024-03-04 07:14:38+00:00): Moin :)

in dieser Änderung hast du einen Punkt auf einer Straße erstellt und einen Penny gelöscht. Leider hast du nicht geschrieben warum, daher meine Frage: Warum?

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148180736
Marek-M (2024-03-03 21:31:25+00:00): Cześć, linie kolejowe chyba nie dostają tagu name - z tego co widzę, to numer linii kolejowej jest zawarty w kluczu ref oraz w odpowiedniej relacji. Zatem w tej edycji zamiast dodawać, powinno się usuwać nadmiarowy tag name z linii kolejowej.
geo_VRN (2024-03-04 10:07:05+00:00): Hallo,
sind diese Wege jetzt noch für Busse freigegeben? Ich sehe dass unser tag psv=yes entfernt wurde.
Es befindet sich dort eine Haltestelle, die vom Verkehrsunternehmen angefahren wird. Daher müssen wir die Strecke in unserem GIS für den BUS referenzieren können. Das funktioniert am besten immer mit psv=yes. Ist das noch sichergestellt ohne diesen Tag?
cuzi (2024-03-04 10:16:18+00:00): Dort wurde das Verkehrszeichen 250 aufgestellt, also Verbot für alle Fahrzeuge auch Busse
geo_VRN (2024-03-05 08:25:20+00:00): Ich hab mich nun extra nochmals bei den Verkehrsunternehmen und Kollegen, die die Strecke planen, rückversichert. Das Schild steht dort, damit die Busse ungestört die Haltestelle anfahren können. Es befindet sich dort eine Schule.
Wir benötigen also unser psv=yes.
cuzi (2024-03-05 15:48:35+00:00): Ok, danke, ich habe psv=yes wieder hinzugefügt.
eggie (2024-03-03 22:51:06+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback  Svp niet schuiven met de kaart in editmodus Je verplaatst ongemerkt nodes met alles dat er aan vast zit.
Zie https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=148181931


MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-03-03 22:53:45+00:00): Schade hersteld
eggie (2024-03-03 22:57:56+00:00): operator en welk lijnnummer hoeft niet op haltes...  Die staat in de relatie van de route. 
Groet
eggie
streckenkundler (2024-03-03 21:17:50+00:00): ...immernoch erstaunlich,  wie einzelne User meinen, aus einem Luftbild den Grenzverlauf einer PLZ-Grenze erkennen können... Ich hab zwar sehr viel Geodaten-Erfahrung, aber das kann ich nicht und halte es für unmöglich!
ManuelB701 (2024-04-16 16:30:01+00:00): Bei deinen Änderungssatz sind diese Haltepositionen aufgefallen, die mit keiner Straße verbunden sind:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11688489837
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11688489836

Gibt es irgendwelche Gründe, warum die da sind oder ist dies lediglich aus Versehen passiert?