piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NieWnen (2023-04-16 22:49:01+00:00): Nie widzę sensowności w dodawaniu wyimaginowanych łączników.

Jeśli powodem jest nawigacja, to algorytmy routingowe powinny sobie radzić ze zjazdami choćby po przejściu tutaj:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1163120870

Więc ten przypadek jest dla mnie przesadzony.

Np. brouter sobie radzi bez problemu

https://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=19/52.09260/20.80472/standard&lonlats=20.80111,52.089834;20.804393,52.092334;20.8036,52.092805

Jeśli inny sobie nie radzi to już jest wina zewnętrznej aplikacji a nie danych osm.

Czasem faktycznie warto, żeby połączyć to zjazdem, ale nie fikcyjną ścieżką, a np. można to zrobić za pomocą istniejącego podjazdu do posesji. Wtedy routing poprowadzi po podjeździe (highway=service service=driveway).

To się tyczy równiez poprzedniej zmiany.
MarekZaCieniem (2023-04-16 23:26:17+00:00): Dziękuję za cenne uwagi.
Rico557 (2023-04-18 09:25:06+00:00): Почта с Малыщинской  переехала в дом напротив (вместе с ящиком).
4004 (2023-04-18 09:30:31+00:00): ого, неожиданно, там что то пристроили? раньше там было что то вроде погрузочной рампы
Rico557 (2023-04-18 11:18:47+00:00): сам вчера удивился... бегло глянул, ничего не сверяя
Allison P (2023-04-17 20:10:39+00:00): Probably not necessary to check so often.
bxl-forever (2023-04-16 23:03:05+00:00): Hello,

Designing more accurate road layout is a good idea.  But if you want to do such edits, could you please ensure not to break bus routes.

You should redistribute bus relations on the two one-way segments, depending on the direction buses are travelling.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1163122474
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1077860375

What I see in the current revision is that buses running in both directions are directed to one of the one-way roads, and no bus route on the other.
marc__marc (2023-04-17 01:41:41+00:00): ho yes, I forget to check relations. fixed
jackripper1 (2023-04-17 00:17:41+00:00): Hola. ¿Tienes otra fuente aparte de la Biobío (ahí escuché hoy sobre el cambio)?
LuchoVolke (2023-04-17 03:53:58+00:00): Diversos medios locales han replicado la información por medio de Facebook, adjuntando fotos de la nueva señalética https://web.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02sHhYm44M7zm6xsT7CGzcXcLnW1yhq77ehLqZvSUkhYv8q1RBABUuvbqJXQDQmSt8l&id=100041955501664&__cft__[0]=AZVCwuA5iD085gvVZ1OWqJ40mz-m3JAHcLoa9gNYmjwj72boz-87JCeyPOD1QUTVjUGj3e3RPlRppN3n8uiYY_zdpFbAyhytc5kBSQxoeO0ZpWI5U2cBQReT-xJMGsWqPoQ&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R y estoy a la espera de que salga en algún otro lado, como en El Llanquihue o en la página de la municipalidad.
jackripper1 (2023-04-17 04:08:22+00:00): Sí, busqué y eso fue todo lo que encontré. El tema es si el cambio es toda la calle o solo en población Lintz, por lo que yo hubiese esperado más detalles. En la página de transparencia activa de la municipalidad el decreto de denominación de calle más reciente es de enero, pero no sobre Regimiento, así que aún no está la carpeta de este mes. Saludos.
LuchoVolke (2023-04-19 16:54:44+00:00): Hoy salió en El Llanquihue el cambio, que fue conversado por el concejo en 2020. https://impresa.soy-chile.cl/Llanquihue/190423/Llanquihue/19_04_23_pag_05-1440-a65f45.jpg
jackripper1 (2023-04-19 17:08:44+00:00): Hola. Sí, vi la nota esta mañana. Ojo, que es calle y no avenida. De todas maneras me queda la duda de si el cambio de nombre es a toda la calle o solo en pob. Lintz. Revisé transparencia activa desde el 2020 hasta el presente y no encontré algún decreto sobre el cambio de nombre (si hay otros cambios que aún no se implementan en terreno, como calle Magallanes que hace unos años se cambió a Luis Espinoza Villalobos). Pretendo darme una vuelta por ex Regimiento en el corto plazo. Saludos.
eggie (2023-04-17 05:34:11+00:00): Dag Stefan...  Je vraagt feedback...  

Kleinigheidje ... 
bicycle=no heb ik van de fietsoversteek gehaald. Dat hoeft niet.
Wel heb ik nog 2x highway=crossing toegevoegd op de kruising met de hoofdrijbaan.

MVG
eggie
Bobropiton (2023-05-12 22:00:55+00:00): Приветствую. А что за остановки отмечены на строящейся дороге?
neo-plan (2023-10-17 21:11:41+00:00): Остановки были тогда построены.
jmarchon (2023-04-17 22:03:24+00:00): Hello and thank you for your contributions,
Deleting and then retracing is not the recommended way to modify objects, as the history of said objects is not preserved. I have restored the old paths history with the geometry of your new path. Let me know if you have any feedback.
goldfndr (2023-04-17 01:29:29+00:00): street lamps, street cabinets, trees, hydrant from imagery
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-04-16 23:51:04+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changeset 134806147.
CurlingMan13 (2023-04-30 04:13:44+00:00): Can you elaborate on why you readded:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97788410

Is there really evidence of a railway going through multiple buildings and down the middle of multiple roads?  There is evidence of rails on any aerial imagery that would be considered "razed" and there is no obvious RoW.  It has been completely overbuilt by new buildings, railways, and roadways.
CurlingMan13 (2023-04-30 04:18:57+00:00): Additionally, can you elaborate on why you readded a "razed" railroad that has been mostly overbuilt by a freeway, I-190?  There is definitely no crossing across the freeway.  None of the aerial imagery nor street-level imagery have any railway, razed or otherwise going across the freeway.

Since there is no trace of this on the ground since the western segment has been overbuilt and long replaced by a major roadway with NO crossings across the freeway, it really shouldn't be mapped in accordance with OSM guidelines of only mapping what is on the ground and can be verified:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what's_on_the_ground
CurlingMan13 (2023-04-30 04:19:53+00:00): Segment referenced in the second comment:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304325177

It seems very unreliable to be adding segments that don't have ground truth across a freeway.
CurlingMan13 (2023-04-19 18:39:04+00:00): Can you elaborate on what is remaining through these apartment buildings and across the freeway that would be an "abandoned railway"?   Bing streetside and aerial imagery shows no trace through the buildings and across the interstate.

Was wondering if you found rails or something that still exists on the ground across the road and through the buildings?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/134995630
RussNelson (2023-04-22 22:08:11+00:00): Can you give me a lat/lon for what you are trying to point me to?
TheSwavu (2023-06-09 02:19:58+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3725268
gpserror (2023-07-28 17:59:45+00:00): Derelict means bad condition not historical, And since the canal simply is no longer seen in imagery, it's a candidate for deletion.  Therefore it should be removed and perhaps placed on OpenHistoricalMap so people know it used to exist here.
RussNelson (2023-07-28 18:04:54+00:00): We don't rely on imagery to delete things. It can be out of date, the thing under consideration may be hidden from the imagery, the person considering deletion might simply be poor at aerial interpretation.
gpserror (2023-07-29 16:07:57+00:00): But it is still wrong.  Either it must be marked as layer=-1 if you *KNOW* it's there as a culvert, else it should be deleted as building on top of canals.  Do you know if it's now a culvert?
RussNelson (2023-07-30 14:10:55+00:00): Historical data must not be deleted unless it is incorrect. It should be moved to OpenHistoricalMap. If you aren't willing to do that, then you shouldn't delete it.
gpserror (2023-07-30 17:08:15+00:00): It's up to whoever cares about the feature to move historical features to OHM.  However there is no canal water flowing through peoples' houses right now and there sure isn't a ditch going through people's living rooms, so these canals *SHOULD* be deleted.
RussNelson (2023-07-30 22:00:08+00:00): No, it's the responsibility of the person who believes that something which is accurate (as opposed to TIGER crap left over from Dave Hansen), but no longer present to move it to OHM. Why? Because we have NO notification system which tells an editor that (as you say) cares about the feature that someone has deleted it rather than moving it to OHM.

How about this plan: rather than create the absence of something (hard to detect that something doesn't exist anymore), if you think something belongs in OHM, then tag it with OHM=yes ?

If you agree this is reasonable, then I'll start promoting it.
gpserror (2023-07-31 07:32:13+00:00): The original author of the object does not have to be the only person who cares about the object, as shown here you seem to have interest in maintaining these objects for whatever reason.  My sole concern here is that they are both causing validation errors due to improper tagging (derelict versus razed? layers?) and clearly demonstrating a conflict between objects that are currently there - and as many of us have decided, the best course of action is deletion.
As my main interest is streets, this is really of no concern to me, but I will have to put in my two cents that I fullheartedly agree with all who have deleted these objects.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-08-01 12:42:00+00:00): People deleting nonexisting objects from OSM are under no obligation whatsoever to contribute to OHM.

Deleting nonexisting objects (if they actually are no existing) is helpful and welcome.

(this is not an official statement, but I believe that it is accurate)
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-08-01 12:45:08+00:00): Also, looking for example at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89530318/history#map=19/43.18782/-77.70334 - it seems that this edit at least partially restored historic data of nonexisting objects that are out of place in OSM
RussNelson (2023-08-01 13:28:30+00:00): It also restored data of existing objects that I have verified exist, so yeah.

The problem with "delete willy-nilly" that that the people doing the deleting usually haven't actually BEEN to the location. They are relying on aerial photos, which as we well know are not reliable. They can serve well as a *hint* for field work, but they are not sufficient.

People have gotten into the habit of deleting stale bulk imported data, but that is not the same as deleting something that someone added on purpose.

We don't have a good notification for "Hey, that thing you added? Somebody deleted it." That is why deletion is a delicate subject and usually results in conflict. It's better to add things to OSM than to delete. It's not like everything that could be added has already been added!!
gpserror (2023-08-01 15:36:16+00:00): Satellite Imagery is sufficient, especially if the "historical" object that should be visible is no longer visible.

Deletion is not a problem. We have people looking at deletions and if all else fails, people re-add things that are visible in satellite imagery - hence the same thing applies for deleting private roads.  Yes they will disappear for a while, but they will come back.

In this case as it's historical, it won't come back, and it's fine because it's not coming back.
RussNelson (2023-08-01 22:04:14+00:00): You are dismissing a serious problem. In this particular case, the previous editor deleted things that I KNOW exist because I SAW them. Field work >> aerial photos. This has *always* been the case here at OSM.

Thus, I frankly couldn't be bothered to sort through his or her changeset to see what might be deleted and what should be retained because it was an unreliable edit.
RussNelson (2023-08-01 22:11:04+00:00): Here, let's pick just one part: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/594359980#map=18/43.15392/-77.60702

The rails are still there. Crappy photo, I know, but that's because it's dark.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/QULogDEpiU2hC39Z9
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-08-02 10:47:41+00:00): Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/594359980 going also under/through/over that library building?
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-08-02 10:49:30+00:00): > Satellite Imagery is sufficient, especially if the "historical" object that should be visible is no longer visible.

Well. Railway tracks are not necessarily visible on aerial imagery. Sometimes it is possible to delete based on aerials when before/after reveals that something is clearly gone, but in general it is not really possible.
gpserror (2023-08-02 12:39:32+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/88373103 if it really is still there, should be visible in imagery.  Canals are meant to be large so they conduct enough water for irrigation.  The tagging is suspicious as "derelict" as this should still be visible unless it's underground then it needs layer=-1/tunnel.

also is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/595198480 truly on surface or underground?
RussNelson (2023-08-02 21:04:44+00:00): It's not on the surface, but I don't know the extent of the remaining tunnel.

If you want to move something to OHM, I'm not going to argue against that.
RussNelson (2023-08-02 21:08:56+00:00): Mateusz: For whatever reason, yes, the library was built over the canal, which got converted into the subway.

gpserror: It should be easier to move something to OHM than delete it. Unfortunately that's not the case. I proposed a solution earlier, ("OHM=yes") which you have not commented on. Deleting items that you think are historical is not the answer. Deleting TIGER crap, well, that is. They are not the same things.
CurlingMan13 (2023-08-11 23:05:49+00:00): The feature in question, 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/87275986

Doesn't exist.  While a couple artifacts exist, the canal is long gone and was previously removed, as it no longer exists and was only mapped for "historical" reasons - even by your own admission.  The canal was originally replaced by subways, then replaced completely by the freeway.  I would argue that it ceased to exist when the water stopped flowing and rails were laid (otherwise how well did trains work in the middle of a wet canal?!?).

The canal doesn't exist under the broad street bridge.  Only thing left are some rails.  The canal was replaced by rails many decades ago and is definitely not a canal (Confirmed on foot, with my own eyes, and from reading articles, etc.)

Where I-490 and all the homes are located, yeah, it doesn't exist.  This isn't just from aerial imagery, I have lived in Rochester for years and have driven I-490 many times.  The only time there was water was when it flooded and rained heavily, but never enough to say, "hey, there is a canal here".  It was a relic of the past and no longer exists.  Railways going through houses and parking lots - they have were dug up, removed and replaced since a house needs a foundation and parking lots/roads need a good base.

As far as adding "OHM=yes" - that still does not address the issue.  The feature does not exist.  It may have at one point but does not.  The community seems to agree that things that no longer exist and are only mapped for "historical" reasons belong on OHM, not OSM.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why there is resistance to adding it to OHM where it is designed for "historical" features where it can live on, while OSM is purely for what is there *now*.  *Now* there is no canal or railway pieces down the middle of I-490.

The wiki on features that no longer exist (like some of the railways and the former canal) makes no mention that it NEEDS to be added to OHM by the person removing it.  It simply states that it should be removed.  This makes sense since the person adding non-existent and no-longer-existing features would be the one with the sources to validate it ever existed and would be able to add it to OHM.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nonexistent_features

Additionally, names should not contain "(historic)" as this is a description not the actual name.  Even this page states "No longer existing objects should be deleted."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#:~:text=apostrophe%2C%20one%20without.-,Name%20is%20the%20name%20only,-The%20names%20should
Kovoschiz (2023-04-17 02:07:40+00:00): Please pay attention that Hong Kong strictly differentiates "franchised" (ie local) and "non-franchised" bus. Only certain bus can use these.
Kovoschiz (2023-04-17 02:08:30+00:00): It is also unclear how the alternative of `tourist_bus=` and `coach=` should be used.
Kovoschiz (2023-04-17 02:10:25+00:00): However quite many "non-franchised" bus look similar to "local" buses as well, depending on definition.
CurlingMan13 (2023-06-11 06:13:38+00:00): Please use more descriptive changeset comments.  What did you do?  Why?  etc.?  "Yes" tells me nothing.

More details can be found here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments#:~:text=A%20good%20changeset%20comment%20should,have%20edited%20on%20the%20map.
Kovoschiz (2023-08-12 09:53:47+00:00): Please don't change `=mini_roundabout` points to `junction=roundabout` lines. This is misleading. It is still transversable, not raised.
adrianojbr (2023-04-17 15:25:01+00:00): Olá, Victor!

De acordo com Lei n. 3039/2015, o apelido do homenageado não faria parte do nome.

https://leismunicipais.com.br/a/sc/a/araquari/lei-ordinaria/2015/304/3039/lei-ordinaria-n-3039-2015-denomina-via-publica-rua-joao-david-ramos-no-bairro-rainha-neste-municipio-e-da-outras-providencias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/134997542
MxxCon (2023-04-18 04:15:38+00:00): Hello.
Please note that under any circumstances you can NOT use data taken from Google Maps. It is considered copyright violation. Please see this article for more detailed explanation https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_don't_you_just_use_Google_Maps/whoever_for_your_data?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/134998109
user_5359 (2023-04-17 05:26:30+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Thank you for adding the kerb. But without the street crossing and footway this entry has only reduced use for e.g. the topic of wheelchair routing.
stevea (2023-05-26 02:34:44+00:00): Bill, your redundantly-created relations have had their elements merged into already-existing (for this purpose) relation/12922709 (north) and relation/12882462 (south).

Please see our USBRS wiki, where I've updated the Pendleton-area inclusions.
maraf24 (2023-04-17 08:01:13+00:00): That's not true. Check it yourself: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin
Reverted.
maraf24 (2023-04-17 08:13:39+00:00): Btw if by "app" you meant iD editor it is notorious for giving bad advice to mappers. Claiming landuse=basin to be deprecated is a fine example of it.
Honza Mareš123657 (2023-04-17 09:18:07+00:00): ok but this proves it's not mistake and water=basin is correct but i don't mind https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:water%3Dbasin
Honza Mareš123657 (2023-04-17 09:19:10+00:00): and if you try count features landuse=basin in OSM data it's minority now comparing to water=basin
maraf24 (2023-04-17 10:26:00+00:00): Dry basin is not natural=water. Flooded basin is natural=water. Which one is this?
And if you look closely you'll notice there are already water areas mapped. For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8283320
It is a mistake to map natural=water over another natural=water.
NorthCrab_upload (2023-04-17 08:10:22+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o miejscowości.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/297770147
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/298777711
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/298919814

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9418809066
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10818929922
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1028344147

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Dimitar155 (2023-04-17 15:26:32+00:00): Hello Alexey,

Thanks for adding the street name! If possible, try to put the English name in name:en and the Bulgarian name in the name tag. You can also check the guide for street names in Bulgaria (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bg:WikiProject_Bulgaria#Имена_на_улици_и_булеварди).

Best wishes,
Dimitar
Aleksey Gorelikov (2023-04-18 04:03:55+00:00): Hi Dimitar. 

Thank you for sharing useful information, I will definitely use it next time. 

Regards Aleksey
NorthCrab_upload (2023-04-17 05:30:22+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1163289643

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
lenny32 (2023-05-27 09:10:47+00:00): When you're splitting highways, as when entering a roundabout with public transport, you need to use the right relation types: it's the “route” relation that has highways, platforms and stops as members, not the “route_master” relation, whose members of this relation are all route variant/direction.
By adding entrances/exits to the roundabout, you've broken two bus routes, because you've added “route_master” relations to these entrances instead of “route” relations.
You have added the way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1163290069  to version 38 of “route_master” https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3299931/history (so the “route” relation is broken https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3258051#map=19/43.61863/1.30373)
And you've added the way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1163290070 to version 3 of “route_master” https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14514367/history (so the “route” relation is broken https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3258050#map=19/43.61867/1.30397
lenny32 (2023-05-27 09:27:59+00:00): https://osm.virtuelle-loipe.de/history/?type=relation&ref=11984170
https://osm.virtuelle-loipe.de/history/?type=relation&ref=11984170
Yana Lauryk (2023-05-27 09:38:22+00:00): Hello! Thank you for your answer! I checked these parts of routes and fixed them. Thank you! I'l be more carefully with route relations.
ivanbranco (2023-04-26 07:50:33+00:00): Ciao Elapsus, perché avevi cancellato natural=coastline da Île Cavallo, Isola di Lipari e Panarea? Ho ripristinato il tag.
Elapsus (2023-04-26 09:37:20+00:00): Mi serve perché così non riesco a visualizzare le isole su wikivoyage tramite wikidata.
ivanbranco (2023-04-26 10:07:57+00:00): Non capisco. Ad esempio l'Isola di Vulcano ha natural=coastline+place=island eppure la visualizzo sulla pagina di wikivoyage: https://it.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Isola_di_Vulcano

a cosa ti riferisci?
Elapsus (2023-04-26 12:03:04+00:00): Guarda qui: https://it.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Isole_Eolie se noti cliccando col cursore nella mappa noterai come Vulcano e Stromboli sono cliccabili ma soprattutto hanno una superficie colorata legata ai colori della didascalia. Le altre isole no. Spesso non compaiono su WV per questa configurazione su OSM.
ivanbranco (2023-04-26 12:26:07+00:00): Questo tagging è indicato nella Wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Disland

se c'è un problema di rendering lato Wikimedia Maps, va sistemato lì, non su OpenStreetMap, vedi: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Lying_to_the_renderer

buon mapping
PlaneMad (2023-11-16 16:32:21+00:00): Hi Brij11, many thanks for all the local mapping around Siolim. Have been adding a lot of details inspired by your micro mapping :)
Brij11 (2023-11-16 16:51:58+00:00): No worries 🙂
irma atus (2023-07-04 04:47:05+00:00): Hallo tacpahdza,
Selamat Siang! Terimakasih atas kontribusinya di OSM.
Kami dari POI sedang mengerjakan perbaikan toponimi desa dari maproullete di jawa tengah https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/39454

Saya menemukan beberapa multiple nodes berisikan informasi desa pagedangan yang sama di lokasi yang berdekatan.
-7.3329045, 109.341086 
-7.3357982, 109.3406514

apakah kamu bisa bantu croscek lokasi diatas, dan memberikan informasi lebih lanjut terkait informasi titik yang tepat ? 
Sedangkan berdasarkan informasi BIG yang ada, lokasi desa pagedangan hanya berada di satu titik.

terimakasih
user_5359 (2023-04-28 07:14:00+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/368597287.
is_in:country = Romania
is_in:country_1  = Buzău
Can you help me with this contradiction, which country is it?
Is it possible that the author meant county?
is_in:county  = Buzău