piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
AlwynWellington (2024-07-17 05:54:13+00:00): Thank you for providing the schema you have.

I have no issues in the principles you are addressing.

My only concern is how the structure (on the ground sequence if you like) will endure.

The structure / sequence is geographical.  If taking, say, a week going from west to east, the walker would normally pass through Tonawanada, Amherst, Lockport and possibly stop at Rochester.

An issue I can forsee is ensuring these sections stay in sequence when reviewed in, say, WayMarkedTrails (or whatever).

My interest in the Empire State Trails was as a way to arrive at a relatives home in Kinston, Ontario.  Jumping of a plane in/near New York City, getting to The Battery, ending at the border and making a way to Ottawa and walking the Rideau to her place had a great appeal, in principle.  My first issue was making sense of the various segments.  There was no sequence to the presenation, sections started and stopped it was impossible to make a plan. Sure, there was a line on the page but ...

I understand the points you have made.

Rgretably, from what I can see at a distance, the only consistent information on the ground is the Empire State Trails rondel.  

If, together, we can have stuff available in order.

A suggestion is:
I will implement the schema you have presented for Tiers 1, 2 and 3.  For tier 4, where most of the work is, I will implement for the first 8 - Buffalo State Park to Rochester.
At the end of August we review, with a focus on the west to east hiking sequence (and not alphabetical order).

In summary, I think we are both agreed in principle but have different experiences (mapping and walking/cycling) that influence the way we move ahead.

Kind regards
AlwynWellington (2024-09-03 20:13:34+00:00): Hi, just coming back to the task of completing the renaming and coding of the EST hiking routes.

I noticed two "hickeys", using Way Marked Trails.

The first was in the cycling route from Albany to Green Island.  This was showing both cycling and walking netwok codes.  I have removed the walking parts.  This change seems OK.  Would you please check.

The second was a 16 km section from Fairground to DeWitt tagged as walking.

This is part of relation headed as Empire State Trail (Super bike) and referencing empiretrail.ny.gov and the REF=EST

You will be aware of a route relation referencing www.canals.ny.gov/trails and the REF=ECT.

The route duplication is most apparent on Erie Boulvard East (Syracuse) at the eastern end of this section as it approaches Bridge Street.

The route referencing EmpireTrails.NY is on a footpath.

The route referencing Canal.NY is on the nearby cycleway.

When selecting either of these, WayMarkedTrails-cycling shows a distance over 1200 km.  

While it seems one or the other route relation is redundant, I felt unable to decide which.

It might also be helpful, for the names of relations at national (and regional) levels have "cycling" or "hiking" added as a way to add clarity.

Are you able to oblige on this wash up?
bhietsch (2024-09-04 14:26:19+00:00): I see what you're referring to on the redundant relations and agree. I didn't make any changes to the structure of the relation so I can't speak for which one is the correct one, but I trust your judgement.

As for the naming, my opinion is that "cycling" and "hiking" are descriptors that are not officially part of the name, and therefore do not belong in the name tag. route=hiking and route=cycling are already in present and function to differentiate. I would go so far as to say it's redundant to have separate hiking and cycling relations. Why not just have a single relation structure, all tagged with route=hiking;cyling? It would still render on both the hiking and cycling waymarkedtrails, and prevent users from accidentally adding members to the wrong relation should the trail be rerouted.

Of course, this is a much larger change that I would suggest discussing in the NY State slack channel at a minimum.
mavl (2024-07-08 13:06:36+00:00): Здравствуйте. Теги cycleway:surface и footway:surface рекомендуются к использованию, если тип поверхности у дорожек разный. Здесь поверхности пешеходной и велосипедной дорожки одинаковые.  
  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/131011999  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:footway:surface?uselang=en
user_20909876 (2024-07-10 05:47:29+00:00): Поправил: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153768248
mavl (2024-07-10 06:29:25+00:00): Спасибо.
Projjal (2024-10-03 15:47:31+00:00): Did you only use Google Maps as a reference for this change?  
Are you sure it got officially changed by the local government, i.e., KMC?  
Any amount of follow-up is greatly appreciated.
Projjal (2024-10-03 17:19:17+00:00): Got it sorted out. Thanks
Heinz_V (2024-10-04 14:01:44+00:00): I am a mapper since more than 14 years. I never used Google map data. I West Bengal I used the SOI map data and maybe compared to bharatmaps.
If something is not OK, feel free to make corrections.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:18:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:19:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:18:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:22:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
ZLima12 (2024-07-08 07:06:56+00:00): Sorry about the bbox on this one; I got a bit carried away. I may have been slightly heavy handed with tertiary here, but I wasn't just marking any road with a yellow line as such either. If local opinion disagrees with any of these changes, please let me know and I'll happily readjust the classification.
mcliquid (2024-07-08 07:37:34+00:00): Dankeschön für die Änderung. Ich habe eine Kleinigkeit der Reihenfolge noch optimiert.
Bregenzerwald Tourismus (2024-07-08 14:07:59+00:00): Danke für die Rückmeldung. Wann scheint die Änderung in der Radfahrerkarte auf? Bisher scheint der Radweg noch über Hof auf und nicht die ehemalige Bahntrasse.
mcliquid (2024-07-08 14:13:22+00:00): Gerne! Die Aktualisierungsintervalle der einzelnen Karten sind sehr unterschiedlich. Die "normale" Karte wird fast minütlich aktualisiert, die Radkarte (CyclOSM) wird wöchentlich aktualisiert, bei Komoot dauert es teilweise bis zu drei Monate.
marczoutendijk (2024-11-27 21:07:47+00:00): landuse=area is not correct because landuse always is an area!
What kind of landuse is it? (industrial? residential? etc).
 
Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
BCNorwich (2024-07-09 07:08:13+00:00): Hi, Please take care not to make duplicated sections of a highway as this can disrupt routing. The warnings are given above. I've removed a duplicated section.

Regards Bernard.
Reema55qq (2024-07-09 07:13:40+00:00): Thank u
okadatsuneo_import (2024-07-08 14:42:00+00:00): ikuraikukiuさん、こんにちは。
OSMにようこそ。
「地図を見ながら追加しました。」というのは「ほかの地図を見ながら追加した」ということでしょうか？
地図にはそれぞれ著作権がありますので、他の地図に載っている情報をOSMに登録することは避けてください。
よろしくお願いします。

参考：
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:%E8%91%97%E4%BD%9C%E6%A8%A9
OSM_RogerWilco (2024-07-08 10:36:30+00:00): Radfahren ist hier also tatsächlich verboten?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/64609149
Heideammer (2024-07-08 12:04:49+00:00): Das Zeichen 250 schließt m. E. das Radfahren aus. Die Relationen zu dem Weg sagen aber etwas anderes aus, deswegen ist Dein Einwand total berechtigt. 
Ich gehe dort demnächst mal auf Radwegweiser-Suche. Eine grundsätzliche Frage: Was hat Vorrang, Verkehrszeichen oder ausgeschildeter Radweg?
OSM_RogerWilco (2024-07-08 12:27:38+00:00): Bei Zeichen 250 ist das Radfahren tatsächlich verboten. Kommt leider öfters vor, dass Zeichen 250 an Radwegen aufgestellt werden. Ich habe schon einige der jeweiligen Stadt gemeldet (z.B. Walsrode oder Soltau) und diese wurden dann durch Zeichen 260 ersetzt oder durch ein Zusatzzeichen "Rad frei" ergänzt.

Für OSM gilt: access-Tags werden aus dem Verkehrszeichen abgeleitet.
mavl (2024-07-08 10:03:20+00:00): Здравствуйте. Напишите, пожалуйста, у вас есть разрешение от компании Яндекс на использование её данных для уточнения OpenStreetMap?
mavl (2024-07-12 15:28:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 153860921 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible sources - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153690113].
Mashin (2024-07-11 07:54:12+00:00): here you changed Long Islad Sound from bay to rock.
I already fixed that.
habi (2024-08-08 11:10:32+00:00): Hey!

Hier hast du unter 'diverse Fehlerbehebungen' bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11960900069 sport=bogenschiessen eingefügt.
In OpenStreetMap werden Eigenschaften in UK-Englisch erfasst, das wäre dann sport=archery gewesen.

Mittlerweilen ist das in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153702348 auch schon korrgiert worden.

Gruss aus Bern,
habi
habi (2024-08-08 11:16:55+00:00): Die Ludotheke Schänis (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12041157609) wäre besser als https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtoy_library erfasst.
Die Öffnungszeiten sollten ebenfalls in Englisch angegeben werden, da diese sonst nicht ausgewertet und angezeigt werden.

Ich habe das in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154973541 anhand der Webseite der Ludothek korriert.
Lumikeiju (2024-07-09 03:01:50+00:00): Hi! Looks like this changeset created an unnecessary multipolygon relation for this building (iD likes to do that sometimes when ways are split - it's an easy mistake to make unknowingly) so I've deleted that and recreated the building way in Changeset: 153726081. Happy mapping!
Nastassia90 (2024-07-18 10:54:08+00:00): Hi, Lumikeiju! Thank you for your fix and information. Best regards, Anastasiya
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153690471
A67-A67 (2024-07-22 00:21:59+00:00): Hoi,
Je verandert hier de brand AVIA XPress naar Avia XPress. Dit is incorrect, want AVIA wordt zowel in het logo als in tekst met hoofdletters geschreven. Het is dus vergelijkbaar met bijv. HEMA.
wvdp (2024-07-23 11:01:12+00:00): ik heb hier even naar gekeken en het komt door dat nsi het verkeerd heeft gecorigeerd.

Ik heb een correctie op gestuurd naar nsi

https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/pull/9745

ps. dat ik het daar zelf verkeerd heb toegevoegd zal ik er maar even niet bij zeggen
A67-A67 (2024-07-23 22:16:55+00:00): Bedankt dat je het hebt verbeterd in de NSI. Ik heb de 3x de foute brand=Avia XPress hersteld naar brand=AVIA XPress
mavl (2024-07-12 15:28:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 153860921 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible sources - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153690113].
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-08 08:10:24+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/node/12041202944

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
kakiremora (2024-09-05 14:00:18+00:00): I believe the tram line hasn't been reconstructed, especially with no other sources for this information. Why did you do this change?
AnnaCatarina (2024-09-11 13:24:01+00:00): Hello, I followed the wiki article in Polish, where it is written, the renovation of this track took place in 2017 between 6. May and 30. June with no other info about a closing ever since.
AnnaCatarina (2024-09-11 16:24:22+00:00): Hello again,
with my latest change (because the rails are ending at the straight part already), I added two links to Bydgoszcz city with the first info of starting reco in 2022, which is still not going on (see second source).
Sunny regards!
AnnaCatarina (2024-09-11 16:32:14+00:00): Check this: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linie_tramwajowe_w_Bydgoszczy
Line 6 was in the map of 8. January 2022!
Minh Nguyen (2024-07-08 16:21:57+00:00): Changeset 153710886 cleans up one of the bridges a bit more, but it’s quite a tangled mess overall.
habi (2024-08-08 11:22:00+00:00): Ciao 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/330684750 heisst nicht 'kürzlich abgerissenes Gebäude`, sondern sollte gemäss https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Lebenszyklus-Pr%C3%A4fix als `razed:building=detached` erfasst werden.
Die allfällige Baustelle würde ich darum herum als `landuse=construction` erfassen.

Gruss,
habi
habi (2024-08-08 11:24:23+00:00): PS: Ich habe das in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154973812 angepasst
Mashin (2024-07-11 07:03:48+00:00): Hi,
here the "Tennis Court" is a descriptive name, which we don't add to OSM.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name
spiregrain (2024-07-08 11:19:09+00:00): Have you found the Überterracer plugin for JOSM?  It can take a rectangular terrace object and convert it into an numbered set of L-shaped houses in one-or-two clicks.  Asking because I only found it this month, and it would be super-useful for what you're doing in this area.
rskedgell (2024-07-08 13:23:46+00:00): I saw you mentioned it on another changeset and meant to download it. Thanks for the reminder - I've downloaded it and will give it a go shortly.

Slightly related to this, I'm drafting a proposal to import postcodes from ONSUD, UPRNs and INSPIRE IDs.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_import_of_UK_postcodes,_UPRNs_and_INSPIRE_IDs_(England_%26_Wales)
spiregrain (2024-07-08 13:42:48+00:00): I saw the ebb and flow of your changesets with the INSPIRE IDs.  I was working up the gumption to ask about whether INSPIRE IDs properly belong to buildings or to land parcels.   In your recent changesets, you'd applied them to the buildings.   I'll add some commentary to the proposal, if that's OK.
rskedgell (2024-07-08 14:24:31+00:00): Please do add some commentary!

While INSPIRE IDs do strictly speaking apply to the whole extent of the property, the same could be said to of the UPRN and even the postal address.

Where there is only one addressable building within an INSPIRE polygon (a single freehold property) and only a single UPRN, then I feel that in those cases the building can stand as a proxy for the whole property.

I'm not committed to including INSPIRE IDs, but if there isn't strong opposition I'd be inclined to include them as the link between INSPIRE ID, UPRN and postal address is something for which HM Land Registry charges a £20k/year subscription.
BCNorwich (2024-07-09 07:08:24+00:00): Hi, Please take care not to make duplicated sections of a highway as this can disrupt routing. The warnings are given above. I've removed a duplicated section.

Regards Bernard.
Taya_S (2024-07-08 08:46:13+00:00): Layer=-1 zal hier niets doen, en aub niet taggen voor de renderer.
NieWnen (2024-07-08 19:21:15+00:00): Proszę nie dodawaj do `highway=platform` `public_transport=platform` w Warszawie i okolicach.

Wiem, że edytor iD to niestety sugeruje, ale ustaliliśmy lokalnie (na forum jest wątek), żeby tego nie robić, bo wpływa to niekorzystnie na dane OSM i jest zwyczajnie zbędne jeśli jest już na węźle przystanku.

Dzięki!
ivanbranco (2024-07-12 19:47:41+00:00): Hi Aadsh,

why did you delete this peak?

it has been restored by another user: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7590276507/history
silversurfer83 (2024-07-08 11:06:31+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OSM :)

danke, du hilfst die Karte aktuell zu halten.

den Weg hatte ich entsprechend der Beschilderung angepasst und bin mir ziemlich sicher, dass er korrekt ist. Der Wert "foot=designated" sagt aus, dass ein Weg explizit (durch Verkehrszeichen) für Fußgänger vorgesehen ist. Hier am Steg steht ein VZ239. Alternativ bedeuten auch die VZ 240, 241, 242, dass ein Weg für Fußgänger vorgesehen ist.

Hat sich an der Beschilderung des Stegs etwas geändert?

Grüße nach Marburg
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153692120
Mashin (2024-07-09 20:10:19+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM!

Thanks for the edits. I have a question here.
Was the deleted building demolished? Because it is still visible on the most recent aerial imagery.

Cheers
Major Mason (2024-07-10 17:38:16+00:00): Hello, I am new to editing this site and will make some mistakes until I get the hang of it. You are correct, the building IS still there. I was not aware that I deleted the building. I believe that I was trying to label it properly as The Inn at Mystic. I could not find the term INN and thought I was deleting a mistake. I assume that you will put the building back.
   #5 is a restaurant which is called Rocks 21 / #7 is the Inn at Mystic & #9 is The Haley Mansion, which all have websites for details. 
  BTW - I did manage to accomplish my initial goal of switching the names of the two burial grounds that UConn source had reversed.  Cheers, Marcus
Mashin (2024-07-11 06:53:19+00:00): Hi,
I added back the building and filled also the names you mentioned here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153809648
diamondarmorsteve (2025-04-23 00:09:25+00:00): Eh... they could still be permissive. Permissive is when something is privately owned, access is granted by default, but the owner has every right to deny access at will.
Mashin (2025-04-23 07:17:49+00:00): That's true, could also be permissive.
LockOnGuy (2024-07-08 12:15:18+00:00): Thanks again! Amazing work as always :)
little_maper (2024-07-08 14:03:18+00:00): Thank you for your kind words.
mavl (2024-07-12 15:28:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 153860921 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible sources - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153690113].
JeroenHoek (2024-07-09 10:52:13+00:00): Moeten de dienstperrons misschien anders getagt worden?

Bijvoorbeeld:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/792093843

Passagiers maken er namelijk geen gebruik van, wat tegen de omschrijving van public_transport=platform ingaat.

Hoe ze dan wel getagt moeten worden is niet echt duidelijk verder.
JeroenHoek (2024-07-09 16:56:19+00:00): Ik kan me trouwens vergissen, maar vanaf het viaduct lijken dit geen perrons, maar enkel (onverhoogde) ruimtes tussen het spoor voor facilitair werk. Misschien eerder railway=loading_ramp?
HeinoonieH (2024-07-09 18:45:04+00:00): Hoi Jeroen, ik heb mijn voorbeeld genomen zoals de perrons op opstelterrein de Vork liggen in Groningen. Ik zou niet weten wat hier het beste is, voel je vrij om het te veranderen.
Groet
BCNorwich (2024-07-09 07:07:58+00:00): Hi, Please take care not to make duplicated sections of a highway as this can disrupt routing. The warnings are given above. I've removed a duplicated section.

Regards Bernard.
mcliquid (2024-07-08 11:56:11+00:00): Personally I'm okay with this edit but it should not be done according to Wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk#Deprecation_of_sidewalk=none
waldyrious (2024-07-08 14:07:14+00:00): Thanks for the comment! I actually had read that section before, and the discussions linked from it, but between the actual contents of the discussions (which seem to have mostly coalesced around agreement for deprecating "none" as long as it's explicitly documented as such), and the fact that the "none" value has been explicitly marked as deprecated in the Values table for almost 3 years now, I kind of missed that the section about the deprecation still uses a more cautious language (which IMHO seems inconsistent with the discussions and the table).

In any case, I am of course open to reverting this change, but I'd rather take the opportunity to help resolve the apparent contradiction — ideally by editing the wiki to reflect the outcome of those decisions and the fact that the value is already marked as deprecated in the table. What do you think?
mcliquid (2024-07-08 14:10:35+00:00): To be honest, I'm fine with the changes. But I didn't put the paragraph in the wiki either and just wanted to point it out :)
waldyrious (2024-07-08 14:39:13+00:00): I appreciate that you did — I had read the discussions before, but didn't have their detailed contents front of mind when I made this edit (I guess I just internalized back then that there was a general consensus to drop "none").

I have now commented in two of the discussions (in GitHub and in the wiki talk page) in the hopes of pushing the needle so that we finally get to a decision :)
SomeoneElse (2024-07-13 16:52:15+00:00): Clearly everything of value is mapped in Europe so we can get on with merging synonyms (which everyone surely consumes now, and will continue to consume, in perpetuity)
:)
mavl (2024-07-12 15:28:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 153860921 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible sources - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153690113].
Michael Burgardt (2024-07-08 18:29:31+00:00): Hohensteinstrasse in 44866 Wattenscheid ist die zulässige Höchstgeschwindigkeit 50km/h und nicht 30. dasselbe gilt für die Weststraße zwischen Krayer Straße und Schulstraße
waldyrious (2024-07-08 20:49:24+00:00): Hi, Michael! Thanks for the message, but I believe there may have been a misunderstanding, as I didn't touch the maxspeed tags in this edit — I only modified the sidewalk:left and sidewalk:right tags. Feel free to make any corrections you deem necessary.
empty_child (2024-07-08 12:54:12+00:00): Good afternoon
It's an excessive addition. The amenity tag describes the type of POI
Bolt026 (2024-07-08 13:04:36+00:00): Hi empty_child,
Thank you for your comment! Will keep that in mind for the next changes.
Михаил 1995 (2024-07-08 10:15:42+00:00): ошибся в комментарии. поправил территорию
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-10 02:02:36+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164747914
Đuro Jiří (2024-10-21 07:07:15+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
qugeb (2024-12-20 21:56:24+00:00): Heisst die Quelle wirklich "Quelle" oder ist das nur eine Beschreibung?
Poco80 (2024-12-20 22:00:26+00:00): Dies ist nur ein Platzhalter. Soweit ich weiß, hat die Wasserstelle keinen Namen.
qugeb (2024-12-20 22:11:29+00:00): Danke. Ein Name sollte nur eingetragen werden, wenn tatsächlich vorhanden. Dass es eine Quelle ist, wird ja durch die entsprechenden tags erklärt.
Poco80 (2024-12-20 22:19:53+00:00): Ok, danke.
Also in Zukunft das Feld einfach frei lassen?
Tayvick (2024-07-08 10:56:07+00:00): (been a while since I made this mistake. The other source of information was through surveying)
HirschKauz (2024-07-08 13:50:48+00:00): Hi Lupo2

Hier ist schon ein Outdoor-Shop gemappt. 
Wenn der nicht mehr da ist, dann sollte man dort den Namen und sonstige Details updaten. (nicht löschen bitte - dadurch bleibt die History erhalten) 

Grüße und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen
d3mol3k (2024-09-14 21:44:17+00:00): Dlaczego zniszczono elementy buildung:part w tej edycji? budynek edytowałem by prezentował sie w bryle 3d na f4map demo - zniszczono moja pracę