piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
dgmapping (2023-11-27 17:00:06+00:00): Pikse, thank you for your feedback!

Based on my understanding, Kitsarööpa tee does have proper "jalgratta- ja jalgtee" signs at every major intersection with motorized traffic. Additionally, there are numerous small footways and (informal) paths that allow entry and exit onto Kitsarööpa tee. Does qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq genuinely believe that there should be extra signage after each such intersection?

This changeset should be reverted because it may adversely affect routing. Considering the popularity of this cycling infrastructure, I believe it's irresponsible to remove the designated tag for this ~100m section.

PS: I acknowledge that there are places where cycling infrastructure signs and markings are inadequate and confusing. In such instances, different individuals may interpret them differently. However, I don't think Kitsarööpa tee falls into this category.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-27 17:44:46+00:00): It doesn't prohibit routing through it. I don't see it as a problem. Actually, it's an advantage that for routers this will have a higher cost, because it reflects the truth of this part being harder. No normal router prohibits cycling on paths.

I don't believe every intersection with a path requires signage, but this place is special as I've already pointed out.

>However, I don't think Kitsarööpa tee falls into this category.

It does fall into this category since I'm an individual.
dgmapping (2023-11-27 18:01:09+00:00): qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq, let's consider a scenario where the Tallinna linnavalitsus intends to improve the signs and markings along Kitsarööpa tee to clearly indicate that the entire road is designated for cyclists and pedestrians. There are no actual changes made to the surface, width, or other physical aspects. Where precisely should these signs and markings be placed?
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-27 18:24:39+00:00): I don't believe this is a plausible scenario. Incompetent decision is as they do now - cycleway on paper, bad path in reality.

More plausible is that this path is improved and there is no controversy here anymore.

You can keep ignoring my arguments made from practical point of view. But if you trust Tallinn transport dept. that much, then remove cycling possibility from Vana-Kalamaja in North direction - no way those smart people could have put a cycleway markings and a 331 sign together by mistake on a new street. Mark all pedestrian ways around Kristiine junction as designated - they are so blue on Tallinn's map. Oh, and don't forget to personally remove pedestrian sign from Kase street in Maarjamäe - it's not vandalism if it's on Tallinn's map!

We aren't getting anywhere and only useful feedback was from Pikse so far. Maybe this discussion entertains you, but I'm done with it. 

@Pikse (or anyone else), if you could invest a bit of your time in this problem, consider arguments, maybe check out the path in question and give a final "vote" at some point, it would be very appreciated as we have a 1 vs 1 stalemate here.
dgmapping (2023-11-27 19:03:38+00:00): qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq, I apologize if my responses have come across as offensive in any way. I am genuinely puzzled by the existence of a 6km old railway, repurposed as a "jalgratta- ja jalgtee" without any motorized traffic, and yet, in the middle, there is a ~100m section that is somehow not designated for bikes. This seems illogical to me. 

I don't really care what is in the Tallinn map, I just used it as an additional reference. My only arguments are:

Kitsarööpa tee is clearly defined in the teeregister: https://teeregister.mnt.ee/reet/map?featureOid=8308002

The entire Kitsarööpa tee appears to be well-marked (although this is based on my subjective opinion). According to the Liiklusseadus, the entire road should be classified as "jalgratta- ja jalgtee."

I believe that safety and usability concerns are subjective and may not be entirely helpful in determining whether Kitsarööpa tee, as a whole, qualifies as a "jalgratta- ja jalgtee" or not.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-27 19:15:13+00:00): It's ok. Please don't accept my attacks personally too, they are more directed at Tallinn's road dept. constantly messing up and creating such a sitiuation. I just want to make something better than they have.

What genuinely is unsettling, is us repeating the same things over and over. Doesn't look like our opinions will change. 

Let's wait for a different opinion.
Pikse (2023-11-28 08:19:55+00:00): I don't feel strongly about what kind of cycleways OSM should include, whether it's designated cycleways, or cycleways that are considered true cycleways by some universal criteria, or both. 

This tag though, I reiterate my understanding, is only about designation. As long as the rest of this designated object is tagged as such it seems inconsistent not to tag this part too, and so I would also rather keep given tag here.

I don't think that designation can be wrong or inadequate really. Designation as an official act just is what it is. The city probably could also designate some long dirt path as a cycleway. Understandably this may not be what you expect a cycleway to be in a city but I guess then it is about managing your expectations. :)

If in some other location a cycleway (designated on official city map) is explicitly signed as a footway, then probably it can be considered that official map and signs just complement one another, unless signs or some general law provision explicitly prohibit biking of course. In the latter case it'd be unclear if path is really a designated cycleway, and we probably shouldn't tag it as such.

As for the condition or difficulty of passage of a cycleway, I'm not well-aware what tags there are for this purpose. Maybe smoothness=* (or cycleway:smoothness=*) would be useful in this location?
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-28 18:07:23+00:00): Thanks. While I don't completely agree, I've added bicycle and foot designated. 

Smoothness could be added, but I don't remember it well enough to add it from memory right now. If I remember correctly, there is a problem of the path being very different depending on going on the right or left side.

Maybe mtb:scale=0 is also applicable.
Stalker61 (2023-11-25 16:23:50+00:00): Добрый вечер.
Что за дичь вы творите?
С таким подходом будет массовый откат всех ваших изменений и блокировка аккаунта, пока не поумнеете.
Stalker61 (2023-11-25 16:32:20+00:00): Заодно поделитесь с форумчанами своими достижениями и знаниями
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/topic/47931/5350
b-holdet (2023-12-05 16:43:38+00:00): Foreslog en ændring i Stednavneregisteret om navnet ikke skulle staves med 'h' som Rørth. Alle andre veje i området har jo det navn.

Svaret var følgende:
"Den officielle skrivemåde af navnet er Rørt, hvilket er autoriseret af Kulturministeriet via Stednavneudvalget. Sidstnævnte må kontaktes, hvis man ønsker at ansøge om en ændring af skrivemåden. Se evt. https://www.stednavneudvalget.ku.dk/"

Så byen hedder officielt "Rørt"
Andrea Musuruane (2023-11-25 17:13:57+00:00): Ciao. Non usare il tag source sugli oggetti. E' una pratica obsoleta perché gli oggetti possono avere diverse sorgenti. Meglio sempre specificarlo nel changeset. Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144442529
nick1993 (2023-11-26 11:15:48+00:00): Ciao Andrea, interessante , lo aggiungevo perche' guardando da osmose, in questo caso con tag Aggiorna stazione di rifornimento mi dava in suggerimento di inserirlo. Per ora l'avevo pero' solo visto che per stazione di rifornimento. Dimmi tu che ne sai di piu'. Ciao Nicolo'
Andrea Musuruane (2023-11-26 13:33:28+00:00): Ciao Nicolo'. Osmose non lo fa solo per le stazioni di rifornimento ma un po' per tutto. Secondo me è una pratica scorretta. Ti faccio un esempio. Il mapper A inserisce una feature usando Bing, poi arriva il mapper B che integra con una survey, poi arriva il mapper C che prende un dato da mapillary e infine arriva il mapper D che prende un dato dal mise. Qual è il valore del source? Impossibile capirlo. Meglio metterlo sul singolo changeset. Ciao, Andrea
aTarom (2023-11-25 18:47:40+00:00): Hola, el elemento que aparece en ICGC "Punta del Beneïdor" no es correcto y por ello se elimina?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6987669659/history
Saludos y gracias por editar
Yherisson (2023-12-16 08:28:17+00:00): Bonjour

Dans ce changeset, pourquoi avoir réintroduit les tags suivants sur le node Gomu ?

brand:wikidata=Q2925606
website=https://www.briochedoree.fr/restaurants/1060-nantes-commerce-rue-de-gorges

le node n'est plus un magasin la brioche dorée

un outil d'édition vous a induit en erreur ?
Lisapple (2023-12-18 11:49:31+00:00): Bonjour Yherisson,
Merci d'avoir repéré mon erreur. J'ai donc retiré "brand:wikidata" et "website" pour la corriger.
Très certainement que mes données dans JOSM n'étaient pas à jour lors de cette modification, et donc que cette erreur s'est glissée sans que je m'en rende compte.
Cordialement.
Sandal man (2023-11-25 23:30:15+00:00): warnings:crossing_ways:highway-waterway
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:ford
cserpell (2023-11-25 23:43:39+00:00): Estimado, Barcaza Maipo es la calle hacia el nororiente. Hacia el sur oriente es Pasaje Chacabuco.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144443322
Fizzie-DWG (2023-11-26 05:51:22+00:00): Hi & welcome to OSM. Please don't add personal comments or information.
HubMiner (2023-11-26 05:21:08+00:00): Hi, I fixed many opening_hours fields in this area: the OH value should not end with a semicolon.

Here is a good tool to check OH value: https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/

Thanks!
Dave Nadolsky (2023-11-26 19:03:26+00:00): Thx for comment. Yeah, with no error prompts from OSM editor, I've been in habit of ending OH entries with ";" in cases where field contains multiple days worth of hrs. For ex., "Mo-Fr 08:00-17:00; Tue 08:00-12:00;" instead of "Mo-Fr 08:00-17:00; Sa 08:00-12:00" Maybe an occasional ";" ending on single day entries too. Will follow proper syntax in future.
HubMiner (2023-11-26 19:47:01+00:00): It would be great if ID integrated some validation for the hours...  

And I get it, the programming habbits are hard to change! lol

Best wishes!
tom_yorados (2023-11-25 16:06:55+00:00): review: sieht ok aus
aTarom (2023-11-25 19:06:12+00:00): Hola gràcies per editar, normalment a catalunya els name i name:ca coincideixen, en aquest element
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/232655289/history
quin dels dos es el correcte?
"Camí de Ca l'Ermengol"
o
"Camí de La Vila"
si te mes d'un nom tenim alt_name, loc_name...
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names
Salutacions
Magick93 (2023-11-26 03:17:59+00:00): GET! 144444444th changeset!
stevea (2023-11-26 00:22:25+00:00): Looking nicer and nicer; thanks for your improvements.
balint36 (2023-12-04 20:11:17+00:00): Attól még, hogy egy kis szakasz burkolva van az átjáróban, attól még nem lesz más kategória. Lásd még sárrázó.
Faller Gyula (2023-12-05 06:01:48+00:00): Ez egy fura átjáró, mert az a kis darab út tüköraszfaltból van, nem igyekszik a sárt lerázni.
De elfogadom, hogy jobb sárrázónak jelölni. Sajnos azt nem tudom, hogyan kell ilyet jelölni.
Faller Gyula (2023-12-05 06:02:45+00:00): Ja, már át is állítottad! Rendben! :)
moje_konto (2023-11-25 18:30:16+00:00): Tak jak wcześniej już pisałem, powinno się oznaczać standardowo jak na Wiki, wtedy jest jasne jakiego typu to ścieżka.

Ścieżka rowerowa i chodnik:
bicycle = designated
foot = designated
highway = path
segregated = yes / no

Ścieżka rowerowa:
highway = cycleway

Chodnik:
highway = footway
footway = sidewalk

Chodnik z dopuszczonym ruchem rowerowym:
bicycle = yes
highway = footway
footway = sidewalk
eggie (2023-11-25 17:31:41+00:00): Dag Coco..

Actueel maken is prima, maar nu is addr:city	Eindhoven	Eindhoven
addr:housenumber	150	49
addr:postcode	5621HT	5621BN
addr:street	Edisonstraat verdwenen. en het nieuwe nummer zal wel als adresnode 2x voorkomen op de kaart. Beter is om alleen de winkelinfo te kopieren en het oude adres intact te laten.

Kijk je nog even https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=144445485
MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-11-25 18:23:59+00:00): Het klopt weer.
MVG
eggie
emersonveenstra (2023-11-25 22:35:01+00:00): Removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144455452, please do not use the map for personal things
habi (2023-11-25 17:24:08+00:00): Ich habe die Löschung der in der Realität bestehenden Dinge rückgängig gemacht.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144448252
jaap de vries (2024-07-30 08:21:18+00:00): je geeft aan pad maar is voetpad niet beter in deze woonwijk?
habi (2023-11-25 17:24:09+00:00): Ich habe die Löschung der in der Realität bestehenden Dinge rückgängig gemacht.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144448252
DressyPear4 (2023-11-28 03:29:29+00:00): A etiqueta adicionada não corresponde ao tipo de estabelecimento, não crie ninhos pokemon
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144446753
eggie (2023-11-25 16:55:57+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback  Je hebt er later een path van gemaakt en dat lijkt me correct. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
NorthCrab_upload (2023-11-25 16:50:50+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/1226738512

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
joost schouppe (2023-11-28 10:47:27+00:00): Hi Arflha,
What exactly was started in 1986? For example, I'm pretty sure the roundabout wasn't built yet in 1986. On the other hand, the course of the N7 was already here long before 1986...
Arflha (2023-11-29 07:06:20+00:00): Hi,
The start_date corresponds to the date when the feature/road exists as it is, here the start date of the N7 with its current route. As for the date of construction, it probably dates back to the 18th century under the Austrian era.

We can draw a parallel with the Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague church in Monceau-sur-Sambre, the construction dates would be 1838-10-08 for the main part of the building (building:part), 1914 for the bell tower ( building:part) and something like "from 1838-10-08" or "1838-10-08 onward" for the complete building (building=yes) but the start_date for the latter would be 2000 as the church is deconsecrated and that corresponds to the date when the feature exists as it is today, i.e. a simple building with the tag building=yes.

As for the roundabouts, you are right, I am finishing compiling the routes of the N7 made from aerial and PICC/GRB imageries for another project and I am going to improve some of the the roads while also correcting those dates. It will be done within a few days.
joost schouppe (2023-11-29 11:40:53+00:00): There's a certain logic to that. Still leaves up to the data user to decide what exactly is the significant change that made a mapper decided on the start_date. I would personally try something like start_date:highway for when the first ever highway=* was built, and perhaps start_date:highway:primary=*  (or some similar tag indicating a crucial change) for the start date of when it began to function as a primary road.
CjMalone (2023-11-26 00:37:26+00:00): I was showing friends how to edit with Go Map :)
Clearly not my usual editor.
oleinap (2023-11-25 17:00:30+00:00): прошу посмотрите, куда деть точку развязки на съезд 5 - удалить или переместить куда?
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-11-26 14:17:42+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11375565010/history - what kind of shop is here? What it is selling?
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-11-27 16:08:51+00:00): got reply in PM, edited object based on it
arjunaraoc (2024-01-02 14:10:38+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  India page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India) and  join OSM India Telegram channel (https://t.me/OSMIndia).

Check my update to fix issues resulting from you and from other warnings in the neighborhood. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145799917

Happy mapping!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144447834
ZeLonewolf (2023-11-26 00:00:13+00:00): Hi,

For edits like this, try using the EveryDoor app!
abester (2023-11-26 01:04:22+00:00): Ok will do ty
NorthCrab_upload (2023-11-25 17:30:22+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/573113406

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
pantufla (2023-11-27 13:03:49+00:00): Hey, remember to keep uploads independent when possible. So that you don't cover such a bounding box area over the whole world :)
mcliquid (2023-11-27 13:46:42+00:00): Hi, you have removed the building-tag - why?
Walter Frehner (2023-11-27 17:10:01+00:00): Hi McLiquid
I didn't want remove the building. It's still there, but it has an other usage. It's now an office for heritage affairs of the village of Triesen.
Does it help your question?
mcliquid (2023-11-27 17:46:33+00:00): Hi, you have removed the "building=school" completly in your changeset, I've readded it now.
See Deep History, your changeset was number 6: https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/284115462
NorthCrab_upload (2023-11-25 17:40:34+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3679608181
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/153335009

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11375654212
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11375654213

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Helium314 (2024-04-10 17:59:05+00:00): If you add sidewalks as separate ways, please adjust the roads accordingly.
E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/428801731 should now have sidewalk separate instead of both (and you could transfer the surface values to the now separate sidwalks)
jmarchon (2023-11-28 06:07:20+00:00): Looks good to me!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144448717
NorthCrab_upload (2023-11-25 18:00:23+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3679608132
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791016802

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Piotr Strębski (2024-08-08 09:57:38+00:00): Dlaczego jest tu tak posiekany landuse=farmland, gdy jego poszczególne części niczym się nie różnią w znacznikach?
Przecież nie siekamy na kawałki (np. w oparciu o ewidencję działek) landuse=residential
Pozdrawiam
syntex (2024-08-08 19:40:19+00:00): Nie ma żadnych zalet takiego "łączenia". Przy tak rozdrobnionej strukturze własnościowej pól jak w polsce de facto na co drugim polu może być co innego, poza tym w przypadku, gdy dane pole przestanie być używane łatwiej zamienić pojedynczy pasek np. na grassland lub scrub.
Piotr Strębski (2024-08-09 07:52:18+00:00): Brzmi rozsądnie. Jednakże czy w takim razie powinniśmy - Twoim zdaniem - mapować pola uprawne z wykorzystaniem podkładu granic działek? I co z przyrostem ilościowym (bo nie jakościowym, gdy te obszary są identyczne) wielkości bazy danych, którą potem muszą obsłużyć aplikacje i jakieś hardwary? I - przez analogię - czy nie otwiera to drogi do parcelacji innych, podobnych polom uprawnym, obszarów, jak sady czy lasy? Intencję rozumiem, i mógłbym się z nią zgodzić, jednakże obawiam się wspomnianych negatywnych konsekwencji takiego podejścia. Pozdrawiam.
citrula (2023-11-25 21:07:53+00:00): Welcome to OSM! By convention, the "unit designator" is not included in addr:unit, see the explanation on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:*

Happy mapping!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144449119
bxl-forever (2023-11-25 20:04:48+00:00): Hello,

I had to revert part of your "no comment edit" about the school, because it is already on the map.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11375701237/history

Please make sure your app uses the latest map data, we regularly have this problem about people adding "missing stuff" when they use an app with old data.
VV_alexcyclo (2023-11-26 08:58:07+00:00): Ah ok. Sorry I'm using OSM Go and was expecting up-to-date data.
VV_alexcyclo (2023-11-26 08:59:01+00:00): It's really strange. The building isn't appearing there.
bxl-forever (2023-11-26 20:02:19+00:00): I don’t use that app but had a look at the web version and lots of OSM data are missing there, it does not seem to handle multipolygons correctly.

Also, please try to inspect how your app works and make sure to find the option where you can write a proper description when you push changes to the database.  Closing changesets before editing in another part of the city is also appreciated, because seeing many giant changesets with "no comment" as a title is a real nuisance for those who are reviewing the map.

Have a nice day.
VV_alexcyclo (2023-11-26 20:42:12+00:00): Ok. I'm not familiar with the reviewing process.
What type of comments are helping?

Thks,
RaphaelPasloin (2023-11-27 01:11:53+00:00): For the building that don't appear , OsmGo hide by default polygons larger than 5000 m² if you uncheck this it will show on map (i recomand you to uncheck also the other default hiding) and check Make polygons selectable.

For changeset comments see : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
VV_alexcyclo (2023-11-27 06:18:15+00:00): Thks for the OSM Go parameters.

For the changeset, since I'm mostly adding stuffs  "on the way" with different theme (bicycle infrastructure, trees, mobile furnitures, shop, curb accessibilitu) should i focus on one theme in a single changeset? Or it's mainly the geographical dispersion of the changeset that is annoying?
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-05-22 17:38:12+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435971218/history has building:name = Edificio Carlos Zavala Loayza that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
Is building:name for building name? In such case it would be much better to put it into name tag. If this object merges builing and POI inside such as museum or shop, then having separate objects for point of interest and building would be better idea, museum may have own area or node (see also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element ).

If it is an inscription then it should use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:inscription

If that is not a building name - what you wanted express by this tagging?
TuAmigoElEditor (2024-05-22 18:41:49+00:00): Hi.
I don't quite remember why i used only one feature to represent the building and the courthouse.
It would be better (as you said) to separate this into two features since both of them have name.
I would make sure to do this modification myself.
Thanks for letting me know of this.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-05-26 05:16:49+00:00): Thanks for a fix!
mapper377 (2023-11-25 18:54:41+00:00): The first two words of the changeset comment should say "Map sidewalks".
Udarian (2023-11-26 05:51:24+00:00): sorry typo "public storage"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144449963
Timur Rossolov (2023-11-27 09:33:35+00:00): У меня вопрос - вы бы не могли вернуть проектируемый объект на карту, но серым цветом и не отображаемую на основной? Это всегда есть для проектируемых дорог.
Александр Синявский (2023-12-05 20:23:08+00:00): Отрисовал проектируемую трассировку IV этапа улицы строителей
Timur Rossolov (2023-12-05 20:38:18+00:00): Спасибо!