piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
vng_me (2023-03-31 16:11:43+00:00): Hm, seems like I realized why there was a dedicated route=shuttle_train way.

Because it has only start/end points connected with entrance/exit highway ways. Now railway=rail way has a lot of common nodes with other highways and routing engines (without any specific processing) interpret these nodes as possible enter/exit, which is not correct.
ToniE (2023-03-31 17:20:36+00:00): > Hm, seems like I realized why there was a dedicated route=shuttle_train way.

Yeah, another reason - but still not valid reason.

I've discussed this topic with the maintainer of osm2po and I've come to the conclusion that valid transfer points from highway=* to railway=rail should be - and are - defined explicitly:

- for motor_vehicles, ...: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Car_shuttle also tagged as public_transport=stop_position

 - for bicycles and others : public_transport=stop_position on the rail, public_transport=platform next to it for the bicycles

So to have a positive (and not a never exhaustive negative) list of transfer points
vng_me (2023-03-31 18:40:10+00:00): Ok, but now what is the difference with this node (actual car entrance) https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4278583112

and this node (some intermediate stop) https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4592378548
ToniE (2023-03-31 22:21:43+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4592378548 represents the stop position of trains for public transport relations mapped according to the so called PTv2 (public transport version 2 = https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Public_Transport&oldid=625726 )

The node is part of a stop_area and a route relation of the RE6, both with role 'stop'. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4278583112 is, from the PTv2 perspective the same, a stop position for trains

according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Car_shuttle it shouldn't be mapped as railway=halt but rather as railway=car_shuttle a transfer point

But many mappers are not familiar with the details of railway= mapping - me included.
vng_me (2023-03-31 23:12:28+00:00): I understand, my point was that now the routing engine can't distinguish car shuttle stop vs bicycle/pedestrian stop.
ToniE (2023-04-01 09:09:03+00:00): The major difference is

- railway=car_shuttle for transfer point

- railway=stop or railway=halt for all normal traffic
trigpoint (2024-02-06 20:42:03+00:00): If we use the railway rather than the dedicated shuttle route how do we then ensure that routing doesn't then continue around the circle to leave at the boarding station?
trigpoint (2024-02-06 20:46:21+00:00): Also routing no longer seems to work.
ToniE (2024-02-07 13:11:50+00:00): I did not changed a bit since 10 month ago, so I don't know why routing is broken now.

> how do we then ensure that routing doesn't then continue around the circle to leave at the boarding station?

I do not get the context here, also the automated translations aren't helpful. Could you rephrase the question, please?
vng_me (2024-02-07 13:30:05+00:00): OSRM, Graphhopper and Valhalla are not working here for almost a year since this particular changeset where we are writing comments :)
ToniE (2024-02-07 14:10:56+00:00): As I wrote 11 months ago

> Seems that my edit has been reverted ... for the time being hopefully.

So, I did not investigate, did also not insist further and did not try to start an edit war. From my point of view, I assumed all is in the state as before my edit.
trigpoint (2024-02-07 14:20:18+00:00): Still deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/123801601/history
ToniE (2024-02-07 16:14:01+00:00): Oops. So let's revert this/my CS. There is only one conflict with CS https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6377345 where chris66 reverted part of my CS.
vng_me (2024-02-08 02:38:45+00:00): Well, I took the liberty of reverting it: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147198870

Wait until routing engines will update their data.
adrianojbr (2023-03-18 22:50:08+00:00): Olá, paauanli!

Para mapear mata nativa basta adicionar a etiqueta natural=wood. Não é necessário adicionar area=yes aquilo que já é normalmente uma área (veja mais sobre isso na wiki).

Além disso, preencher nome somente se houver.

Por fim, a mata deve cobrir onde há árvores e não onde há outros tipos de coberturas de solo, tal como edifícios.

Abraço!
aTarom (2023-03-19 07:23:24+00:00): Hola Achiper,
gracias por editar,
una duda,
el tag
"passing"="closed"
del parking
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1117025223/history
no queda ya definido por el
"access"="no"?
Es la primera vez que lo veo y es para tenerlo en cuenta para futuras revisiones.
De nuevo gracias por participar.

Canales de la comunidad Española
https://t.me/OSMes
ó
https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/es/51
Achiper (2023-03-19 10:51:24+00:00): Hola  aTarom, pues si toda razón. En realidad las dos etiquetas dicen lo mismo, no me di cuenta.
Muchas gracias amigo por tu comentario y corrección.
aTarom (2023-03-19 11:59:43+00:00): Muchas gracias a ti por contestar y por corregirlo, un placer.
user_5359 (2023-03-24 15:48:20+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/node/10744085272. What is the meaning of the tag sourceref = yes ?
Yurii Pylypenko (2023-03-24 16:07:29+00:00): dunno, maybe typo
Fizzie-DWG (2023-03-18 23:51:40+00:00): Hello Purevasts. Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6963. Graeme Fitzpatrick, OSMF Data Working Group
fndoder (2023-03-18 21:18:41+00:00): source должно быть в поле comment
wkdgs (2023-03-21 11:51:47+00:00): Hi,

"maxspeed=walk" ist zwar nicht falsch, in Deutschland ist das aber der implizierte Standardwert und wird üblicherweise nicht eingetragen.

s. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dliving_street
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133838787
Jakob48 (2023-03-18 21:50:50+00:00): For any follow-up questions:

Sorry for my very large, global changeset. i just noticed that my JOSM changesets were open. now fixed.

Cheers
os-emmer (2024-03-10 12:34:05+00:00): Hi MarcoR,
you mapped here something using emergency=disaster_response before the proposal for this tag got approved. Can you confirm that this object fits to the current definition in the wiki?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10032946071
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency=disaster_response
MarcoR (2024-03-10 18:13:08+00:00): Hi os-emmer,
I can't say for sure because the object cannot be visited by unauthorized persons but according to the sign outside the area, this is the site of both a "Centro situazioni" office (which AFAIK "only" monitors and alerts others about disaster events using sensors/cameras/telephones/etc.) and a "Sala Operativa Provinciale" office which I think should be fitting for the tag emergency=disaster_response.

Thanks for asking and happy mapping!

Marco
os-emmer (2024-03-10 18:21:07+00:00): Thanks a lot for you detailed answer. That sounds like two seperate real world objects. Is that the case? Maybe we could create one "Centro situazioni" that could possibly be an office=government and one "Sala Operativa Provinziale" tagged with emergency=disaster_response?
MarcoR (2024-03-10 18:59:43+00:00): I agree with you; the only problem I see is that they both share the same contact info and we cannot say where they are placed relative to each other. Apart from that, I am OK with your solution. Feel free to improve the map or If you prefer, I can try to do it myself in the next few days.

Happy mapping,

Marco.
os-emmer (2024-03-10 19:21:56+00:00): I just split the single object into two different ones:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148476602
I added a fixme for the unclear exact positioning. Do you know what the emergency=disaster_response one is called? Is it just "Sala Operativa"?

Feel free to further improve the tagging. My limited knowlege prevents me from adding more details.
MarcoR (2024-03-10 20:00:29+00:00): The place's full name could reasonably be "Sala operativa della Protezione civile della provincia di Livorno" but I think "Sala operativa" with a proper operator tag should suffice.

I will re-survey the external area around that place and try to add some details.

Thanks  and happy mapping,

Marco.
os-emmer (2024-03-10 20:44:06+00:00): Ok, that seems like the plan for upading the area is in good hands with you. Thanks for that support.
rskedgell (2023-03-19 14:30:14+00:00): Surely fixing the tag would have been removing the double colon, rather than simply deleting an otherwise correct tag with a lifestyle prefix?

proposed::highway=unclassified -> proposed:highway=unclassified

The mapper who added the tag is probably more familiar with ongoing changes within the London Legacy Development Corporation's area than you.
AntV (2023-03-26 21:10:26+00:00): Hi Yorvik. I hope you don't mind but can I revert this postbox back to a post_box:type lamp box as I'd say it's definitely a lamp box mounted in a wall similar to image fourth row down second from right (https://lbsg.org/photographs/lamp-boxes/)? I remember mulling over the post_box:mounting when I cycled past there last year and reckoned they'd built a pillar to mount it in, but on reflection would probably just call it an extension of the wall unlike the LBSG example which is definitely a brick pillar built against a stone wall.
Yorvik Prestigitator (2023-03-26 23:24:46+00:00): I would call it a wall box as it is clearly mounted flush into the wall - I don't know why the LBSG call it a lamp box, maybe they have inside knowledge why Royal Mail would mount 1000s of boxes designed to be mounted onto a pole into walls.
Whether it is pillar next to a wall or a wall extension doesn't really matter.
But for the average map user, knowing they would be looking for a post box built into the wall is the important information.
AntV (2023-03-27 08:54:20+00:00): I guess it's down to interpretation. From an LBSG post of view it's lamp box design, squatter than a wall box and with slightly curved corners on front face. There are lots of mostly rural lamp boxes that have been embedded into walls and wall mounted lamp boxes are mentioned in the guidance at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:post_box:type. They're presumably cheaper to make than wall boxes and if they're in rural location don't need the capacity of even the modestly larger type c wall box. There are quite a few examples at https://www.flickr.com/groups/1074749@N21/pool/ including my favourite at Durgan. I then follow guidance at post_box:mounting to state if the box is embedded in a wall or not. But there are also a few wall boxes that aren't embedded into walls (e.g.  Cowley Bridge, Exeter EX4 251 near me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Exeter_post_mounted_wall_box.jpg) which is definitely a type b wall box) which I must get around to adding to OSM. I'll happily go either way but at present follow https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:post_box:type
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-03-19 13:40:42+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1155324415 - skąd ten building=outbuilding?

Jak to wiesz na podstawie zdjęć lotniczych?
habi (2023-03-21 08:49:12+00:00): Ciao Laci

Woher hast du die Informationen zu den Gasleitungen hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1153598726/ ?
Diese sind nämlich nicht auf Mapillary oder den swisstopo Bildern zu sehen.

Gruss aus Bern,
Habi
Laci (2023-03-21 17:02:41+00:00): Hallo Habi, die hat der Benutzer https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Beat%20Kaeser eingetragen. Keine Ahnung woher er die Info hat...
habi (2023-03-21 19:16:16+00:00): Ah, falsch geschaut.
Danke für die Info.
jmarchon (2023-03-19 05:03:44+00:00): Hello,
May I ask why you moved the Amazon tags from the landuse to the building?

Thank you and happy mapping,
jmarchon
orthocircular (2023-03-19 05:52:50+00:00): Sure, just that naming industrial landuses doesn't seem like a very high priority or useful thing. It's unlikely to show up anywhere, and there's only one building on the property with a duplicate address to the landuse, and the most visible sign is on the building not the land, so if we mapped like this we'd be practically mapping property lines instead of buildings which isn't how OSM works. (It's just a building surrounded by parking lots, it's not like a campus or strip mall)
jmarchon (2023-03-19 15:07:12+00:00): I see. Thank you!
gscholz (2023-03-20 08:06:04+00:00): Hi nava_KE,
this chageset has created errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=38.27531&lat=-0.31282&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas%2Cunconnected_open_ends_1

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=133841300

As you may know, this kind of error irritates routing software and looks ugly on the maps.
Can you please fix this?

You may also like to educate yourself about meaningful changeset comments:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Kind regards
Guido
VanishedUser (2023-03-19 07:03:56+00:00): Bu yaptığınız değişiklikler hatalıdır, hepsi eski hâline getirilmiştir.
c_ogzhn61 (2023-03-19 20:14:34+00:00): ?
tttnnn24 (2023-03-19 09:45:13+00:00): Leo, *hoe* loste je die kluwen op? Zodat ik ervan leer?
opendcc (2024-02-18 20:38:54+00:00): Ja hui, da hat einer ziemliches Gekrakel gemacht. Das braucht noch ein paar Runden ...
Rainero (2024-02-19 22:13:23+00:00): Ja leider ziemlich schlampig gemacht. Ich hab heute mal wieder ein bißchen was nordöstlich bei Hörgertshausen verbessert. Auch da ist noch viel zu tun.
user_5359 (2023-03-27 06:38:49+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/126399936/history. What is the meaning of the tag yes=lane ?
tyfi (2023-03-18 23:53:03+00:00): All of these came from GNIS. The first three I listed went untouched as hamlets for 15 years, but Lakeside was just imported from GNIS. I set them to suburbs earlier, but now I think neighbourhood is a better fit.
Langlaeufer (2023-03-19 10:08:25+00:00): Hallo Udo,
Asphalt und grade 1 aber smoothness=very Bad (Nicht versiegelte / unbefestigte Straßen mit Schlaglöchern und Spurrillen, die aber mit einem durchschnittlichen Geländewagen mit einer Bodenfreiheit von mindestens 18 cm befahrbar sind.) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/220118066
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133842059
ubrede (2023-03-19 15:47:41+00:00): Hi, ja.. stimmt auch. Ist eine Asphaltstraße mit tiefen Fahrspuren, die teils schon mit Schotter aufgefüllt worden sind. Man könnte ab der Stallung runterstufen. Ich bin in der Samtgemeinde für die Straßenunterhaltung zuständig und kenne jeden Meter. Grüße Udo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133842059
underclockd (2023-05-19 20:31:25+00:00): Other than the fictional tree names fixed by another editor, the building and pitch names should not be set as they are, see:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

If you were still active I'd encourage you to take a look and fix them yourself, but given this was your most recent edit, I'll go ahead and revert some of the changes.
Arlo James Barnes (2026-04-25 01:22:12+00:00): nifty-looking garden!
JustSomeMapper (2026-04-25 01:24:32+00:00): thank you! it took a long time. a couple hours i think
NieWnen (2023-03-19 10:12:04+00:00): Kolejne wandalizmy i ponownie na starym orto...
ivanbranco (2024-09-02 13:07:46+00:00): Hi Moldovan Merkator,

seems like you added the circumference in centimeters instead of meters in these imported trees. E.g. circumference=62 should probably be circumference=0.62. Could you double-check that? Let me know if you can fix it, or if you'd like some help with it.
Moldovan_Merkator (2024-09-02 21:02:46+00:00): Hi, yeah you're right, I fixed that, thanks!
adrianojbr (2023-03-19 21:29:30+00:00): Olá, Marcos!

Já havia um ponto (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2682324664/) para essa localidade.

Atente-se que um mesmo objeto no mundo real não deve ser mapeado de forma repetida, conforme https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature,_one_OSM_element.

Além disso, como você mapeou uma área comportando um edifício, significando que a localidade se restringe a essa área.

Se não souber os limites, é melhor deixar o ponto.

Caso tenha os limites, se tratando de uma reserva indígena, é interessante mapear seguindo essas instruções: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brazil/Terras_ind%C3%ADgenas

Abraço!
gscholz (2023-03-20 08:07:06+00:00): Hi nava_KE,
this chageset has created errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=38.27531&lat=-0.31282&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas%2Cunconnected_open_ends_1

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=133842672

As you may know, this kind of error irritates routing software and looks ugly on the maps.
Can you please fix this?

You may also like to educate yourself about meaningful changeset comments:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2023-03-20 08:06:34+00:00): Hi nava_KE,
this chageset has created errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=38.27531&lat=-0.31282&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas%2Cunconnected_open_ends_1

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=133842931

As you may know, this kind of error irritates routing software and looks ugly on the maps.
Can you please fix this?

You may also like to educate yourself about meaningful changeset comments:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Kind regards
Guido
jtracey (2023-03-19 01:35:56+00:00): I just did a ground survey of the area in Kitchener, and I saw no evidence of any ongoing highway construction. For planned highways, we have a tag for that: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=proposed
A tag I suspect you're aware of, since you actively removed it. As is, the existence of the highway isn't verifiable on the ground, so even the highway=proposed version is subject to deletion anyway; mapping it as active construction is unambiguously incorrect, as the first sentence of the highway=construction tag description would indicate.

I'm also curious why you decided to map it as construction at all, since every online source I've found says that construction is no closer to starting than it was 15 years ago, with no contracts approved or even currently being sought. You should always fill out the source field when making edits, so that other mappers can tell if you have some insight they don't.

I'm going to revert all the edits you've made around Kitchener. With the above in mind, are there other edits you would like me to revert as well?
Jarek 🚲 (2023-03-26 13:05:23+00:00): User was previously blocked by DWG and deleted their previous account: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5327

I have re-reported to DWG, hopefully this can be reverted wholesale.
jtracey (2023-03-26 15:49:25+00:00): Ah, thanks. I told them in a DM I was going to report them to the DWG if they didn't respond, I guess I should have just done so.
jtracey (2023-04-02 16:58:10+00:00): I reverted all the changesets around Waterloo and Guelph in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134422424 (I waited far too long to do so, was a bit of a mess but I think it worked out okay.) If anyone wants me to revert any of the other changesets in other areas the DWG didn't handle, let me know.
jtracey (2023-03-19 01:39:10+00:00): Please stop making edits and see my comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133843021
Udarian (2023-03-19 04:16:40+00:00): We cannot use google data for our commits due to that data being proprietary to google and OSM not having the right to use it. Googles data is proprietary and OSM's data is ODBL which are not compatible.
Udarian (2023-04-06 04:27:04+00:00): Since you said you used google data for this this commit needs to be reverted, if you have local knowledge of the area then please feel free to use that for future commits but since you indicated that you used google maps data this commit cannot remain in OSM due to the above mentioned difference in license between OSM and Google.
Udarian (2023-04-23 05:18:49+00:00): please clarify weather or not you used google data because if you did then the contributions made in this commit must be reverted since as mentioned before googles data is proprietary and since they haven't given us the right to use it we cannot especially since OSM is ODBL (https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright)(https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence). If you do not respond soon, I will have to take this to the Data Working Group since this from the commit message implying the use of google data we cannot allow this to stay in the database. I feel I have tried to contact you as to solve this several times already.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133843205
Udarian (2023-08-01 02:19:42+00:00): I have left multiple messages trying to clarify that google data cannot be used due to its proprietary nature with osm not having the right to importing it to any capacity. you have been unresponsive, since osm license non compliant sources cannot remain in osm this commit has to be reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139277612
jtracey (2023-03-19 01:58:58+00:00): This train station isn't listed on GOs website, do you have any sources for its existence?
user_18721354 (2023-03-19 02:07:13+00:00): Sorry that was a mistake
user_18721354 (2023-03-19 02:07:29+00:00): Should be Confederation GO in Hamilton ON
jtracey (2023-03-19 02:10:42+00:00): I see, it sounds like it's not operating yet though? Should it be tagged as construction?
Jarek 🚲 (2023-03-26 13:04:56+00:00): This railway station is not yet built. User was previously blocked by DWG and deleted their previous account: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5327

I have re-reported to DWG, hopefully this can be reverted wholesale.
Glassman (2023-03-20 18:51:56+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133843348
os-emmer (2024-03-07 18:13:28+00:00): Hi sulriograndense,
I have some questions about an object you added. Can you maybe have a look?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4143352
tyfi (2023-03-19 02:03:24+00:00): Note to self: JOSM search type:way & highway=* & name~".*Pl$" with case sensitive
Fizzie-DWG (2023-03-19 03:24:41+00:00): Hello swimdb. Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6964. Graeme Fitzpatrick, OSMF Data Working Group
gscholz (2023-03-20 08:04:09+00:00): Hi nava_KE,
this chageset has created errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=38.27531&lat=-0.31282&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas%2Cunconnected_open_ends_1

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=133843705

As you may know, this kind of error irritates routing software and looks ugly on the maps.
Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
Baloo Uriza (2023-03-19 22:50:47+00:00): Hmm, this probably could be better classified, which tribe runs this route?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133844000
Miner The Miner (2023-03-19 22:56:17+00:00): It's the Choctaw Nation. I can change it tomorrow probably.
Baloo Uriza (2023-03-20 01:11:58+00:00): Wondering how BIA networks are handled or if we need to work this one out...since I presume we're talking about something signed with the BIA's arrowhead shields.  Probably something like US:BIA:Choctaw for the relation?

I'd have to look elsewhere to see for sure but I think the abbreviation for indian routes is BIA on ref=* when tagging ways.