piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ChromeLotus (2024-08-22 22:17:28+00:00): Hello Greg91, 

I hope you are doing well. I wanted to reach out and thank you for doing ground survey in Yerevan. I also wanted to ask about a series of highway classification choices in Yerevan. Some highways have been reclassified to links (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135437282, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23635109, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1487544263). However, the OSM Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link) details that links are slip roads or ramps that direct traffic flow. Typically they are channelized and physically separated from the rest of the road. The ways mentioned above appear to be better classified as residential or service instead. 

In addition, there are residential neighborhoods where highway features were updated to service from living_street and residential (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155114296 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155114296). Service classification is usually applied to highways that provide access to buildings or business parks and are typically not intended for general public travel (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice). Based on this, the roads I listed may be better classified as residential since they appear to be more public. 

How would you feel about updating some of these classifications based on this information?

Автоматический перевод
Привет, Greg91,

Надеюсь, у вас все хорошо. Я хотел бы связаться с вами и поблагодарить вас за проведение наземного обследования в Ереване. Я также хотел бы спросить о серии вариантов классификации автомагистралей в Ереване. Некоторые автомагистрали были переклассифицированы в ссылки (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135437282, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23635109 и https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1487544263). Однако в OSM Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link) указано, что ссылки — это съезды или съезды, которые направляют поток транспорта. Обычно они канализируются и физически отделены от остальной части дороги. Упомянутые выше пути, по-видимому, лучше классифицировать как жилые или служебные.

Кроме того, есть жилые кварталы, где характеристики шоссе были обновлены до обслуживания с living_street иresident (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155114296 и https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155114296). Классификация обслуживания обычно применяется к шоссе, которые обеспечивают доступ к зданиям или бизнес-паркам и, как правило, не предназначены для общественного транспорта (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice). Исходя из этого, перечисленные мной дороги, возможно, лучше классифицировать как жилые, поскольку они кажутся более общественными.

Как бы вы отнеслись к обновлению некоторых из этих классификаций на основе этой информации?
Greg91 (2024-08-23 13:28:57+00:00): Hello ChromeLotus!

- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135437282 - plays a role of a link, but, yes, not physically separated as a link; corrected to tertiary
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23635109 - my not intentional blunder. It is definitely a tertiary road.
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/ - also, not physically separated, but has a lot of "through" traffic, so corrected to tertiary road (+ simplified the roads around because they are definitely "recorded" from GPS with too many dots without meaningful turns)

Regarding "highway features were updated to service from living_street and residential".
*) There are two links, but they are the same changeset. Did you have another changeset to highlight?
1) There are definitely no "living_street"s in Armenia, so changing from this type to "residential" or "service" is an improvement
2) I, once, casted most of the streets in those neighbourhoods from "service" to "residential" but (if I remember it correctly) that change was rolled back to "service" by some logic (in the talks with local mappers).

E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203936144/history - I mapped it as residential in V9, but in V8 and V10 it was typed as "service".

I use the principle that "residential road" should lead to some other, residential or service or driveways (and, thus, usually, not a dead-end, but branches into service roads).

So, I, personally, agree with your suggestion to cast "service->residential" but do not know where/why this difference is important to "fight" others.

@Vasak87 - why do you prefer these neighbourhool roads to be service type rather than residential type?
ChromeLotus (2024-08-26 21:14:48+00:00): Thank you for the quick response and modification of some of the link roads to base class. I did not know living streets do not exist in Armenia, thank you for sharing that information.

In your example (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203936144/history), there are apartment buildings concentrated in that specific part of Nor Norq and some of them are likely not intended for general public traffic. That would explain the community preference of service here. However, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/207894129 and surrounding roads in the neighborhood are used to access housing and therefore would be better suited to residential. There are examples or service ways in other changesets, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/540433576 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/984414071, which are likely accessible to the public (https://yandex.com/maps/10262/yerevan/?l=stv%2Csta&ll=44.523250%2C40.155119&panorama%5Bdirection%5D=338.099208%2C-4.421084&panorama%5Bfull%5D=true&panorama%5Bpoint%5D=44.523224%2C40.155042&panorama%5Bspan%5D=53.235945%2C33.264883&z=19.75) and look similar to nearby residential highways.

Thank you for making the changes from tertiary_link to tertiary. I did notice that there were some parts of Yerevan (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302423824, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/133000335, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1267353434, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49735127, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303598193) that still retain link classification as opposed to base classification. I can help adjust these classifications if needed.

I greatly appreciate your time and such collaboration helps foster a more accurate map in OSM, and please let me know if I can assist in making any classification updates.
Greg91 (2024-08-27 11:54:59+00:00): 1) Regarding "tertiary links" you are absolutely right. Corrected those to "roads" in this changset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15582734

2) I agree with you about service->residential. So, I cast types of streets in the settlements around this way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/207894129 ) -- in this changset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15582725). Let's see if there will be a backlash or not.
=> If there is no backlash, then can try to cast other examples you found to "residential" (I have no objections myself)

PS: "living street", by wiki is something with "A general feature of living streets is that the legislation grants pedestrians higher or equal right of way over other road users." Unfortunately, so far no one from the community ever seen a street with "legally protected" pedestrians. "Pedestrian street" sign is non-existent here. => Imo, one can safely cast all "living streets" to "service roads" without loss of information (but with a loss of misleading information)
ChromeLotus (2024-08-28 14:21:56+00:00): I appreciate your time looking into this matter. Have a great day!
gnlpfth (2024-07-25 18:26:46+00:00): Hi,

von Linie 595 sind noch eine Fahrtrichtung und der Route-Master stehen geblieben. Wars ein Versehen oder wird da doch noch was angeboten? Gibt in dem Zusammenhang noch diesen Note: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4311761#map=15/48.2202/16.4956&layers=TN

LG
emergency99 (2024-07-26 04:37:02+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, war ein Versehen. Ist nun auch gelöscht.
eggie (2024-07-19 07:42:08+00:00): Hoi...
Tip..
 Wanneer er een verbodsbord is voor voetgangers dan foot=no.

Geen bord dan foot=use_sidepath
Groet
eggie
marczoutendijk (2024-07-25 07:29:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 154379345 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert version 2: vandalism on highways
jorgeyp (2025-10-03 07:44:01+00:00): Hola jqngarcia. He visto que has estado cambiando múltiples nodos de highway=bus_stop a highway=platform. Creo que es un error, según el wiki y se deberían revertir estos cambios.

La etiqueta que introduce PTv2 es public_transport=platform, que ya estaba en algunos nodos. 
highway=platform es anterior a PTv2, y según el wiki no se debe aplicar en nodos, sólo en vías y áreas para representar la plataforma de la parada. Para los nodos debe utilizarse highway=bus_stop, que se mantiene por compatibilidad aunque public_transport=platform venga a reemplazarla. 

Fuentes:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dplatform
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Buses
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buses#Adding_a_bus_route_to_OpenStreetMap
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154128624
jqngarcia (2025-10-04 06:47:46+00:00): Buenos Dias, Jorge:

Efectivamente modifiqué esa línea hace más de un año, y muchas otras que reviso mediante OSM Inspector.

Estoy revisando la wiki y tienes toda la razón la etiqueta highway=platform solo se debe usarse, según indica la wiki, en vías, curiosamente uso dos validadores, es de OSM Inspector y el propio de JOSM. Ninguno incide en este error.
Mi creencia en este caso es que se convive el formato anterior con el de PTV2.
Erróneamente asocié que el nodo en la parada de la vía era highway=bus_stop y public_transport=stop_position y en la acera highway=platform y public_transport=platform. Con esta combinación como te digo ningún validador me ha indicado que estaba mal.

En las próximas validaciones que hago para corregir rutas que el validador de OSM Inspector detecta como erróneas por toda España, intentaré corregir del modo que dices.

Gracias por la advertencia.

Salut i Mapes, JQN
jorgeyp (2025-10-06 07:51:58+00:00): Yo tampoco sabía lo que comentas del validador. Estoy creando rutas de bus por esta zona así que lo tendre en cuenta, y de paso corregiré las que vea mal.  

Gracias a ti por tantas contribuciones!
bxl-forever (2024-07-19 07:47:44+00:00): Hello,

I guess you are pushing uploads through a third-party app, but would you please consider handling "contact:website" when it exists.

If "contact:website" is set and you want to change the URL, please use that tag.  Otherwise, we will end up with two tags, having "contact:website" and "website" providing different information.

FYI, there is a wide consensus within our local community that the contact:* namespace is a superior tagging scheme and should be preferred anyway.
votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale (2024-07-19 07:58:47+00:00): Hello,

Thank you for your alert.
We have removed the mention of the website

Best regards
gscholz (2024-07-20 05:58:48+00:00): HI MS$,
your recent changesets have create several errors regarding duplicate nodes:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=72.98238&lat=33.17268&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=single_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Since you have been working here there also some section of this motorway have vanished. May be you like to check this as well.
Kind regards
Guido
ratrun (2024-07-20 14:00:00+00:00): It seems this user is a vandal. I asked the DWG for a complete revert of all changes made
marczoutendijk (2024-07-20 18:54:03+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16479
Light Egg (2024-10-29 20:28:32+00:00): You seem to have turned this building into a demolished building, but left a it as a Subway. Is Subway still operating out of the demolished building? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/388573949#map=19/32.930555/-112.673761
YuliyaShustava_lyft (2024-10-30 15:23:21+00:00): Hi, Light Egg! 

My name is Yuliya, and I am the Quality Control Lead on the OSM team at Lyft. 

Оur best practices suggest only appling the "demolished" tag to non-existed buildings that are still visible on outdated OSM aerial imagery. We appreciate your feedback and will revise our policy based on your comment to ensure such icons do not remain on the map. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused and have removed the icon-related tags in this changeset: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158541272.


Best regards, Yuliya
Frans S (2024-08-09 10:58:19+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
A: Inaccurate mapping.
B: Overlapping buildings.
E: Buildings not squared.


Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154129753
eggie (2024-07-19 07:38:05+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-19 07:42:16+00:00): Hi Max Adventures!

Couldn't such a changeset be split into two meaningful parts next time? 

One for New Zealand and one for Nigeria ...

Thanks.
KingKratos (2024-08-05 16:55:13+00:00): Okay
Frans S (2024-08-09 09:47:52+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Issues found on your mappings

A: Inaccurate mapping.
E: Buildings not squared.
G: Included the shadow of the building.
H: Included a yard of clearing.


Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154130210
eggie (2024-07-19 07:43:33+00:00): Dag jax   Alleen een naam doet niets in OSM. Voeg de aard van het bedrijf toe. Bv office=company of iets meer passends.

MVG
eggie
Frans S (2024-07-30 10:09:36+00:00): Hi. See my comment on changest 154130998
Idendical issues.
A: Inaccurate mapping.
E: Buildings not squared.
High building(s) incorrect mapped. See par 20 chapter About Buildings
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154130578
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-08 03:04:28+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164658497
Frans S (2024-08-08 12:07:57+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
A: Inaccurate mapping.
C: Collecting adjacent buildings and mapped is as 1 building.
E: Buildings not squared.
G: Included the shadow of the building.



Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154130732
Frans S (2024-08-09 11:46:19+00:00): Hello. A remark. You added layers -1 to some buildings. Why. These buildings are normally located on the ground. If it is to hide an error, just adjust the mapping till the error disappears.
Best regards
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154130861
Frans S (2024-07-30 10:05:58+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------

A: Inaccurate mapping.

C: Collecting adjacent buildings and mapped is as 1 building.
E: Buildings not squared.
High building(s) incorrect mapped. See par 20 chapter About Buildings


Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154130998
Frans S (2024-07-30 10:06:12+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------

A: Inaccurate mapping.

C: Collecting adjacent buildings and mapped is as 1 building.
E: Buildings not squared.
High building(s) incorrect mapped. See par 20 chapter About Buildings


Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154130998
nevw (2024-07-23 02:44:23+00:00): Hi, there is an error in how you mapped the streams in this area.
https://waterwaymap.org/loops#map=18.08/-26.773139/152.8872
Waterways need to be mapped in the direction of the water flow. You have part of one waterway flowing into a water body then along the edge and then out of the water body back to where it started from?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Waterways
David Jumaa (2024-07-24 02:46:11+00:00): Got it thank you
Frans S (2024-07-19 10:46:00+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
A: Buildings (High building) not accurate drawn.
D: Connected building nodes to a road.
E: Buildings not always squared.

Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154131104
Frans S (2024-07-19 10:48:44+00:00): Hello. I reviewed several changesets. 
See my comment on another changeset 
These comments are valid for all your mappings.
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154131104
Frans S (2024-07-30 10:03:35+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
High building(s) incorrect mapped. See par 20 chapter About Buildings on attached document

Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154131122
Frans S (2024-07-30 09:34:01+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------

A: Inaccurate mapping.

E: Buildings not squared.
High building(s) incorrect mapped. See par 20 chapter About Buildings


Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154131123
Frans S (2024-07-30 09:36:34+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------

A: Inaccurate mapping.

D: Connecting Nodes to other features.
E: Buildings not squared.


Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154131124