piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
silversurfer83 (2024-08-16 18:44:53+00:00): Hi :)

guck dir mal bitte folgenden Artikel an:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:colour

happy mapping

silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155338778
tobikabla (2024-09-13 08:11:42+00:00): Hi le_geo_urb,
could you tell me why you deleted our coworking space and probably La filature, le tier lieu?
tobikabla (2024-09-13 08:11:53+00:00): Amabla
tobikabla (2024-09-13 08:47:00+00:00): I added the the coworking again because I don't know how to revert specific changes. Please check next time before you delete something.
Dawid2849 (2024-08-16 18:25:01+00:00): Tutaj jest jeszcze dojazd do OUA, który w dodatku nie jest oznaczony jako autostrada
kpv8 (2024-08-16 20:32:18+00:00): Po raz kolejny ci tłumaczę nie możesz sobie od tak zmieniać tagu ze wsi na przysiółek bez odpowiedniej ustawy MSWiA nic nie zmienia kategorii wsi.
pavvv (2024-08-16 20:38:07+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:place%3Dvillage
Villages usually have a population of over a thousand but not always. To know whether a place is a village or a hamlet you should check the TERYT database as the OSM tag is based on the official classification.
conifermapper (2024-08-16 20:45:11+00:00): The tagging of place=village or place=hamlet has nothing to do with the original data source, in this case the TERYT records. The official legal definition of a village is any settlement with a population greater than 100, in some cases 150. The upper limit for place=village is 1000 residents. This is the settlement hierachy used worldwide for classification.
kpv8 (2024-08-16 20:53:58+00:00): But in Poland we have different hierachy, place=hamlet is used for Przysiółek which is in described in TERYT, place=village is for wieś in TERYT. You are changing villages to hamlets which even are "Sołectwo", hamlet (Przysiółek) is a part of a Village in our country. Przysiółek cannot be counted as Sołectwo.
conifermapper (2024-08-16 20:55:32+00:00): Tagging of places such as villages or hamlets is based exclusively on the settlements population, as the population changes over time and depopulation can cause places once recorded in the TERYT database as villages to become hamlets once they have less than 100 residents. OpenStreetMap is a map that is intended to change as places change in reality, tagging can change over time.
conifermapper (2024-08-16 20:57:29+00:00): Certain places may be referred to as 'villages', but for the purpose of map accuracy and correct tagging in line with OpenStreetMap wiki, a village is any settlement with more than 100 residents. A hamlet is any settlement with less than 100 residents.
kpv8 (2024-08-16 21:02:10+00:00): No in Poland it's not, we have different terms for this, if something is Wieś in TERYT it is a Wieś/Village, if something is Przysiółek/Hamlet then it is it. TERYT is maintained by GUS (Główny Urząd Statystyczny) which updates the classification there when rada gminy abolishes the village and it then goes to Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration and they change the status of village.
conifermapper (2024-08-16 21:11:15+00:00): I understand that, but the tagging of village or hamlet is determined by the OpenStreetMap wiki guidelines, and TERYT data does not have to be copied exactly to OpenStreetMap. If it is a hamlet according to OpenStreetMap wiki then that is the correct tagging. I would believe that the OSM wiki takes precedence over the source of data, as the official advice for how to tag map features. Perhaps to avoid conflicting tagging methods we could keep the tagging of the villages already changed to hamlets and leave other villages with their original tagging.
kpv8 (2024-08-16 21:23:01+00:00): In Poland we don't split into Village for larger and Hamlet for smaller, Hamlet tag is used for Przysiółek which is a part of Village, village can have one of it or several, there is not population limit for village, there are even villages with for example: 5 persons living there, are are still refered as wieś (village) not hamlet because it's used for Przysiółek.
conifermapper (2024-08-16 21:27:33+00:00): To avoid conflicting tagging methods perhaps we can keep the tagging of the villages I have already changed to hamlets and I will leave all other villages with their original tagging in future.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-08-17 07:02:28+00:00): "if something is Wieś in TERYT it is a Wieś/Village, if something is Przysiółek/Hamlet then it is it."

well, it is not a really correct mapping

"place=" (like "highway"=) should describe reality, not legal situation.

Maybe we should have new tag for TERYT classification? hamlet with 2 people living there is not town=* even if it would receive city rights
Dawid2849 (2024-08-19 15:27:52+00:00): I also often don't agree with the official classification of various objects and so I don't agree with using it to classify thing it OSM. But doing such edits on a large scale without local knowledge and without consulting them with local community isn't the brightest idea
Dawid2849 (2024-08-19 15:30:01+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/360265898

and this is definitely NOT a town (and never been a town). It's a classic Polish village. We have a lot of villages with 1k+ population. Some even have 12k or 14k
conifermapper (2024-08-19 18:22:15+00:00): These edits are not done without local knowledge. I have done surveys in the area many times and the village>hamlet changes are done using proper OpenStreetMap guidelines that record reality better than legal situations. There is no need to 'consult the local mapping community' as these changes are in line with OpenStreetMap tagging. Changing villages to hamlets is not a major change to the map, I am doing it manually, not over a large area, and only where I have enough information to prove it is in fact a place=hamlet.
Jabłoń can be changed back to a village, as I understand the place=town tag is less generalised, in the same way places the size of towns in other countries can have city status granted to them. It was only changed under the standard settlement hierarchy of "Hamlet- 0-100 residents, Village- 100-1,000 residents, and Town 1,000-100,000 residents.
kpv8 (2024-08-19 20:33:50+00:00): "Hamlet- 0-100 residents, Village- 100-1,000 residents, and Town 1,000-100,000 residents" This is not OSM Standard tagging, there is not mention of this on wiki, Town is "an important urban centre that is larger than a place=village, smaller than a place=city, and not a place=suburb. Towns normally have a good range of shops and facilities which are used by people from nearby villages." Towns in Poland must have town rights to be tagged with this.
conifermapper (2024-08-20 06:58:43+00:00): Jabłoń has been reverted to place=village. As for 'no mention of this in the wiki', place=town and place=city classifications may have a broader meaning, but hamlets have a clear description of fewer than 1000-100 inhabitants
"place = hamlet
Description
A smaller rural community, typically with fewer than 100-1000 inhabitants, and little infrastructure."
The majority of these 'villages' are linear settlements with minimal infrastructure and typically one main road, occasionally with small shops or small chapels.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-08-23 02:14:06+00:00): > The majority of these 'villages' are linear settlements with minimal infrastructure and typically one main road

See https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulic%C3%B3wka / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_settlement
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-08-23 02:14:45+00:00): And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_settlement#/media/File:Wie%C5%9B_ulic%C3%B3wka.svg

No idea why this applying would indicate that it is not a village
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-08-23 02:16:12+00:00): > Towns in Poland must have town rights to be tagged with this. 

Not really. If actual town would somehow have no town rights, it still would be taggable as town.

And if hamlet of 10 people would get town rights it would not be a town. Just hamlet with town rights.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-08-23 03:35:14+00:00): > 

I also often don't agree with the official classification of various objects and so I don't agree with using it to classify thing it OSM. But doing such edits on a large scale without local knowledge and without consulting them with local community isn't the brightest idea

+1
conifermapper (2024-08-23 07:57:41+00:00): There is no need to repeat that same statement. These edits are not done without local knowledge. I have done surveys in the area many times and have in fact been to all of the 'villages' in question. There is no need to 'consult the local mapping community' as these changes are in line with OpenStreetMap tagging. 'Doing these edits on a large scale' would be edits like using import accounts, or editing villages across the entire country. If I ever do edit villages to hamlets in future, it will only be over a small area, in Parczew County.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-08-23 09:33:49+00:00): "There is no need to 'consult the local mapping community' as these changes are in line with OpenStreetMap tagging."

Can you link place from which 

""Hamlet- 0-100 residents, Village- 100-1,000 residents, and Town 1,000-100,000 residents" This is not OSM Standard tagging"

claim comes?
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-08-23 09:36:07+00:00): Specifically: why you think that every single place with population 99 will be place=hamlet?

Why you thing that place with zero population will be place=hamlet?

Why you think that place with population of 1 person will be always hamlet?
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-08-23 09:36:39+00:00): And why you think that any place with population of 1001 is town?
TranslatorPS (2024-08-23 09:42:39+00:00): Frankly I think this entire discussion suffers from trying to cookie-cutter force the British classification upon the Polish system, coupled with the fact that Poland's administrative division and village styles both suffer from having developed from three different 19th century systems. The second aspect is that linear villages are extremely common in Poland, especially the further south you get, compared to the British Isles (I say this having lived long enough in Ireland), but you appear to dismiss them as possibly being villages. In other areas of Poland the hamlet tag is used for tagging names of parts of continuous villages and the distinction of a hamlet being part of a village is clear there – I hope you're aware of this. (Lastly I think the OSM Wiki is written horribly: there is no clear continuity from article to article as to what delimits one from the other.)
conifermapper (2024-08-23 15:47:05+00:00): "Can you link place from which

""Hamlet- 0-100 residents, Village- 100-1,000 residents, and Town 1,000-100,000 residents" This is not OSM Standard tagging"

claim comes?"

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dhamlet
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-08-23 17:06:48+00:00): do you mean that "typically with less than 100-1000 inhabitants, although this may vary by country." part?

Which makes clear it is not hard edge (and does not give other numbers you claimed)
eggie (2024-08-16 19:25:40+00:00): Dag B Snijders, Waarom zou dit een fietspad zijn waar bicycle=designated en foot=designated (overigens hoeven die tags niet) is getagd, maar access=no daarbij?
De specifieke tags overrulen de access= no  Maar wat geldt hier nu echt? 

MVG
eggie
B Snijders (2024-08-17 07:33:10+00:00): Hallo Eggie,

Ik doe dit nog maar kort dus als je mij hier mee kunt helpen dan graag.

Ik ben afgelopen week op deze plek geweest. Op deze oude 2021 Street View foto is te zien hoe het er uit zag. 

https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.3324239,4.1841238,3a,15y,339.87h,87.46t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1Yx92E-hsPKhLDhBb03CWA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D2.535360857537597%26panoid%3D1Yx92E-hsPKhLDhBb03CWA%26yaw%3D339.8694730007424!7i16384!8i8192?hl=nl&coh=205410&entry=ttu 

Als je inzoomt op deze Street View foto uit 2024 is te zien dat het verboden toegang is, het hek is afgesloten met een ketting.  

https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.3324461,4.1842736,3a,69.5y,11.64h,86.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPflicr1OthFjeV6b8BR3sg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D3.9550778136081846%26panoid%3DPflicr1OthFjeV6b8BR3sg%26yaw%3D11.63627577444765!7i16384!8i8192?hl=nl&coh=205410&entry=ttu

Ik had via routeyou.com een GPX gemaakt en kan met de fiets achter het hek fietsen, wat dus niet kan, vandaar dat ik het wilde wijzigen. Ik ben niet bekend in dit gebied en wilde alleen de afgesloten poort toevoegen en ervoor zorgen dat het pad achter het hek niet routeerbaar is maar er moet meer gewijzigd worden. Dat had ik in eerste instantie ook gedaan maar liep vast omdat ik geen kennis heb van het gedeelte achter het hek en heb het daarom beperkt tot de poort zodat de routering klopt.

Wat ik nog wel zou kunnen doen is een tweede afgesloten poort toevoegen zoals te zien in Street View. 

https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.3326275,4.1849743,3a,48.9y,288.34h,83.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spgLDh4ZqxUVrKMhl3zGhlg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.494632158835955%26panoid%3DpgLDh4ZqxUVrKMhl3zGhlg%26yaw%3D288.3351935430576!7i16384!8i8192?hl=nl&coh=205410&entry=ttu 

Zoals gezegd ben ik erg nieuw in het wijzigen van kaarten en dus nog zoekende wat de juiste werkwijze is en ik kan het dus helemaal verkeerd hebben aangepakt. Mocht je tips hebben hoe je dit oplost, dan hoor ik dat graag.  

Gr. Bart
eggie (2024-08-17 07:51:34+00:00): Best lastig voor mij vanuit Verweggistan. Dat wordt koffiedik kijken.
Google mogen we niet als bron gebruiken.
Ik zie dat je er nu een track van hebt gemaakt, maar wellciht krijgt dat later een andere status?
Die track lijkt me oke. Dat is geen fietspad.

Aan de binnenzijde van de dijk loopt eek nog een weg.
Blijkbaar is het gebied op de foto nog niet opengesteld?  Of heeft het met het broedseizoen te maken.
Ik zie nu een bordje art 461 wvs. Dat geldt ook voor wandelaars.
Maar voorlopig staat het op access=no en is de openstelling voor fiets en wandelaar geblokkeerd en dat je bedoeling.
Wellicht dat een lokale mapper hier verder mapt. Er staan ook notes op de kaart.
Ik heb nog even embankment=yes toegevoegd op de track op de dijk.
De weg aan de binnendijk zou je ook kunnen intekenen. Voorlopig als highway=track
tracktype=grade1
en access=no ivm verboden toegang.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype
Een hek kun je ook intekenen. 
Er staan wel infoborden voor publiek. Wanneer wandelen zou zijn toegestaan zou je foot=permissive kunnen bijtaggen.
Gewoon beginnen met intekenen, want iedereen was ooit een  beginner . 
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-08-17 08:02:02+00:00): ..en er staan notes op de kaart.
Iemand pikt het vast wel op.
Wanneer de binnendijkseweg nog zo loopt kun je die intekenen. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4307419
sw_uwu (2024-08-16 19:24:38+00:00): Hi, wieso hast du den Namen zum Streichelzoo wieder hinzugefügt? Normalerweise sind Namen, die anhand der getaggten Werte klar herleitbar sind, überflüssig
Waldmeister_86 (2024-08-17 06:03:41+00:00): Hi, danke für den Hinweis. Werd es wieder Rückgängig machen. Die Tags waren mir im OsmAnd nicht eindeutig ersichtlich. Werd deinen Hinweis zukünftig berücksichtigen :)
olo81 (2024-08-20 03:07:24+00:00): zestaw zmian wycofany w całości, 
prawne ograniczenia prędkości wymagają odpowiedniego tagowania:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:maxspeed
proszę o stosowanie się do dokumentacji. Twoje edycje powodują tylko zamieszanie.
olo81 (2024-08-20 03:21:03+00:00): zestaw zmian wycofany, Dostęp dodajemy do dróg czy usług a nie obszarów zielonych :/  Jeśli jest płot i nie ma dostępu to po prostu dodaj płot i na drogach wewnętrznych daj odpowiednie tagi
olo81 (2024-08-20 03:21:30+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:access
gurglypipe (2024-08-16 18:43:07+00:00): Hi, just to check: are you aligning the aerial imagery to the Cadastral Parcels before modifying geometry? Because this edit looks like it’s making the alignment worse.

The current offset for Bing compared to Cadastral Parcels for this area of Lancaster is about -0.52,-2.16.
JayTurnr (2024-08-16 19:33:52+00:00): Usually, yes, but it's possible I might have forgotten to in this instance. The imagery quality wasn't great.
gurglypipe (2024-08-16 19:36:30+00:00): 👍 I’ve improved it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155343229
JayTurnr (2024-08-16 20:58:21+00:00): Thank you, I appreciate that!
NorthCrab_upload (2024-08-16 18:10:22+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3185462080
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/463233922

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
mavl (2024-11-13 06:01:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 159076867, 159076813, 159076848 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible sources - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16857].
emersonveenstra (2024-08-16 20:23:04+00:00): Hi there,

This changeset broke the route relation for the A-2 here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13816397/history#map=17/42.65342/-86.18958

Could you please fix it? Thanks!
Langlaeufer (2024-08-18 19:24:01+00:00): Danke dir
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155341574
marczoutendijk (2024-08-16 18:31:37+00:00): Can you use better changeset comments than just a "."?
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments


Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
mavl (2024-11-13 06:01:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 159076867, 159076813, 159076848 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible sources - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16857].
flohoff (2024-08-17 20:32:36+00:00): Moin,
du hast hier die Bäume gelöscht - sind die gefällt ?

Flo
RL100 (2024-08-17 21:58:05+00:00): Moin,
die Bäume sind noch da. Es ging mir darum, dass es ausreicht, wenn der Spielplatz mit eben diesen Bäumen (und vielen weiteren Bäumen am Rande des Spielplatzes) als Wald/Baumfläche gemappt ist. Daher die Löschung der von mir einzeln gemappten Bäume.
flohoff (2024-08-18 20:02:17+00:00): Aeh naja - ich halte das landuse=forest für falsch. Denn defakto wird das ja nicht als "Gewerblicher Nutzwald" genutzt.

Flo
biit (2024-08-16 18:39:34+00:00): Brunnen
NorthCrab_upload (2024-08-16 19:00:32+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera nadmiarowe informacje. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Paczkomat nie powinien mieć nazwy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12115536271
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12115536274
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12115536275
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12115536276
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12115536277

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
YomanNH (2024-08-16 19:50:48+00:00): Dzięki za zmiany! Normalnie sam dodaję suszarki na pranie, ale chwilowo mam ograniczone możliwości mapowania :)
Gerlcad (2024-08-17 01:30:11+00:00): 🫡
Emilius123 (2024-08-25 14:34:56+00:00): Danke!
LockOnGuy (2024-08-18 00:58:09+00:00): Hello Abdullah Abbas, Please do use good changeset comment. "تصحيح المعلومات" which translate to "correct info" do not explain what did you edit or why. Please next time specify the edit so other mappers can understand what did you edit and why without wasting time investigating your edits.     
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Regards.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-08-16 19:20:18+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1226652754
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1308316788

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Nathan_A_RF (2024-08-30 20:42:04+00:00): Please remember to change maxspeed:type tags when changing maxspeed tags
CAM-Gerlach (2024-08-19 08:50:35+00:00): Hi Caitlyn, and welcome to OSM! Thanks for your contribution, and for requesting feedback on your changeset. Seeing as your edits are in or near two of the three areas I regularly map, I figured I'd step up and review them!

Just to make sure (since it can be pretty unclear for new users), requesting a review just adds a flag to your changeset asking your fellow mappers to give you feedback on it; otherwise your changeset goes live on the map immediately as normal.

Overall, looks like a great change! You added a POI with an appropriate type, address and some useful contact details. Thanks!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155344197
CAM-Gerlach (2024-08-19 08:53:05+00:00): Here are some suggestions to level up your OSM-fu further! I've implemented all of these in the followup changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155448900

- If you've confirmed "on the ground" that this store currently exists at this location, which is the considered the "gold standard" of OSM contributions, make sure to include "Survey" under the Sources field of the changeset (right under the changeset comment in iD), and/or any other sources you've used.
- It can be easy to miss, but its a good idea to check if a POI was previously located nearby and moved to the new location you're mapping. If so, per the OSM "Keep the history" guideline, make sure to move and update the existing node rather than making a new one. There's actually an existing Kibbles POI across the street from this one; a check of the object history strongly indicates it presumably moved to this new location you've mapped. Therefore, I merged your new node with the existing one to keep the history while updating the latter's outdated location and details with your changes.
- Make sure to check for OSM Notes near where you're mapping, and close them if your change will resolve them. In this case, there was a note for both the old and new location of Kibbles mentioning it was here, so you can resolve both since you've added it to the map! Since iD inexplicably doesn't show Notes by default, unlike basically every other editor, make sure to enable them at the start of every mapping session under Map Data > OSM Notes.
CAM-Gerlach (2024-08-19 08:56:07+00:00): Also, a few more specific tips on the details, which I've also implemented in my followup:

- Make sure the name of the POI is accurate :) In this case, the name of this POI (per its website that you linked), is Kibbles on Main (plural)
- Since OSM is a global map, phone numbers should always include the country code, i.e. "+1 <number>". Also, the standard format for US numbers is "+1 ###-###-####", i.e. "+1 540-961-5410"
- Less critical, but its a good idea to check nearby POIs to see what other tags are commonly included. For example, `addr:country` is common for Blacksburg POIs and other addresses including those nearby, so nice (though by no means required) to include it here. You could optionally also add, for example, this POI's Facebook page and opening hours (as I have), though I don't always go into that level of detail—you've included the most important bits here already.
- Similarly, by no means necessary, but I like to make sure the building the POI is contained in is at least aligned and has the appropriate building type, e.g. `building=retail` in this case.