piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
CAM-Gerlach (2024-08-19 08:58:05+00:00): One last tip—OSMCha is a terrific tool for viewing (and reviewing) OSM changesets, as it shows you the actual changes made on the map. You can check out my followup changeset at https://osmcha.org/changesets/155448900 (and feel free to review it, too!)
CaitlynLeagueOfLegends (2024-08-19 16:54:42+00:00): Great ty for the tips. 

Yup new to this and didnt see the notes option. The hours option confused me because I didn't see any options that matched the listed hours on their website .
Langlaeufer (2024-08-18 19:22:38+00:00): Hallo Snoiprocs
Auf Fußwegen ist Fahrradfahren und Radfahren auch nicht erlaubt, von daher sind di ganzen hinzugefügten Tags überflüssig.
Grüße Langläufer
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155344307
Snoiprocs (2024-08-18 19:43:26+00:00): n'Abend Langlaeufer,
für mich ist es wichtig, dass diese Wege bei Fahrrad ein "no" enthalten.
Ich nutze das Internet-Tool Wandrer.earth. Hier gilt es alle Straßen und Wege abzufahren, die für Fahrräder freigegeben sind. Wandrer nutzt OSM als Kartenbasisi. Wenn also dort Straßen und Wege nicht mit einem "No" oder "Privat" für Fahrradfahrer eingetragen sind, erscheinen sie rot und müssen (wenn man einen Stadtteil komplett abschließen will) gefahren werden.
Daher setze ich die Werte für Fahrräder auf Friedhofswegen auf "No".
Liebe Grüße
Dirk (Snoiprocs)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155344307
Langlaeufer (2024-08-18 19:47:30+00:00): Sorry das ist ein Fehler in der Anwendung, das nicht durch sinnlose Tags in OSM gelöst werden sollte. (Wir mappen nicht für bestimmte Anwendungen) Wenn dort wirklich footways rot auftauchen bitte bei wanderer.earth eine Fehlermeldung aufmachen.

Grüße
Langläufer
Langlaeufer (2024-08-18 19:48:54+00:00): falls einige der wege vorher als fälschlicherweise als path (Mehrzweckweg) eingetragen waren kannst du sie natürlich als footway umtaggen.
aseidel (2024-08-22 10:20:39+00:00): Liebe carlottacordes,
bitte bei den surface-Werten für einen entscheiden; Kombinationen wie "grass;ground" sind nur schwer auswertbar und sollen daher nicht getaggt werden.
Danke und herzliche Grüße
Antje Seidel
#lgmaps
carlottacordes (2024-08-30 13:22:43+00:00): Hallo Frau Seidel,
vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Ich habe das Tagging an diesem Wegabschnitt nun überarbeitet bzw. präzisiert.

Herzliche Grüße
Carlotta Cordes
CAM-Gerlach (2024-08-19 08:59:47+00:00): Looks good! The only changes I might consider are adding a few more (entirely optional) basic details from the linked website (phone number, and ideally fax and opening hours as well), addr:country since other local addresses use it, and tagging the building the POI is in appropriately (building=commercial in this case). I've implemented them in my changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155448900

But again, all those are just a bonus on top of what you've already done—what you have is great! The only other possible thing is that if the vet clinic occupies the whole building (which I cannot tell for sure from the available information as I'm not on the ground), its good to add the tags on the building itself rather than a standalone node.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155344380
Langlaeufer (2024-08-18 19:20:11+00:00): Hallo. Bist du dir sicher, dass die gesamte Von-Eichendorff-Straße rechts einen Gehweg hat?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155344589
mcliquid (2024-08-17 11:33:51+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please note for the future: changesets should be local.

In your case: Just upload more often in Organic Maps if possible.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:
• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
• keep changes within the same country
• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
CAM-Gerlach (2024-08-19 09:01:08+00:00): Good job here! Just a few suggestions and tips, with the main one being:

With recently-constructed buildings like these, its a good idea to check all available imagery to see which is the most up-to-date. Esri Clarity (which the imagery tag on your changeset indicates you used) is often some of the oldest (though some of the best quality, depending on region) and just shows a greenfield, as does the somewhat newer Bing. VBMP, while lower resolution, shows the construction site, while NAIP actually shows the building outline.

This allowed me to trace the building, and transfer your tags to it from the node. To help preserve the history, I moved your original node to be the top-left corner of the resulting building.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155344954
CAM-Gerlach (2024-08-19 10:21:04+00:00): Additionally, I suggest (and implemented) the following changes, mostly similar to the previous: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155448900

- These days, the source tag Source should generally be set on your changeset itself rather than specific objects, as it is a property of your specific changeset and not anything inherent to the object itself (for example, someone like myself might later update the object using e.g. aerial imagery, making the source out of date)
- As mentioned elsewhere, US phone numbers should follow the standard "+1 ###-###-####"
- Purely optional, but email, fax and opening hours can also be added per the website info
- Likewise, addr:country can be added to match surrounding addresses
CAM-Gerlach (2024-08-19 10:21:32+00:00): For some guidance, in the Blacksburg area I've found the following uses for the available imagery:

- VBMP for primary work (newer, moderate resolution, lower tree blockage, needs alignment)
- Bing for details and alignment (older, very high resolution, higher tree blockage, well-aligned at high zooms)
- NAIP for very recent changes and cross-checking (newest, very low resolution, higher tree blockage, aligned)
- Esri Clarity for an additional cross-reference of older imagery (oldest, moderate to higher resolution, moderate tree blockage, needs alignment)
- Esri World as another datapoint to view change over time (older, low to moderate resolution, higher tree blockage, needs alignment)
- Mapbox for double-checking objects through tree cover and as a last-resort cross-reference datapoint (older, low resolution, lowest tree blockage, needs alignment)

To align VBMP (to Bing, which closely matches GPS traces and is well-aligned at high zooms), I use the following imagery offset: -0.67;0.82
martiensch (2025-03-18 09:34:20+00:00): Waarom niet? Voor autoroutes doen wij dat wel.
A67-A67 (2025-03-21 12:58:35+00:00): Er is een fundamenteel verschil tussen wegnummers en deze nummers voor doorfietsroutes. Wegnummers zijn naast routenummers ook daadwerkelijk een eigenschap van de weg, die ook wordt gebruikt om een locatie op de weg (incl. fietspad) aan te geven. 

Deze routenummers zijn puur routenummers. Ze zijn geen eigenschap van het fietspad en zeker niet het wegnummer van straten als de Stationsstraat in Sauwerd, waar de F361 over loopt.

Daarom worden A/N/S/R-nummers zowel in de ref-tag als de routerelatie gebruikt en de doorfietsroutes-nummers alleen in de routerelatie. Eigenlijk is de ref-tagging op de wegen al een soort legacy-tagging, omdat de routerelaties veel beter de eigenschappen van de routes kunnen weergeven. Bijvoorbeeld het renderen van wegnummers in correcte kleuren is hierdoor mogelijk gemaakt.
martiensch (2025-03-24 19:33:20+00:00): Ja, helder.
Het taggen op wegen zat mij dwars. Ik had er nooit bij stilgestaan dat wegnummers via de ref-tag eigenlijk achterhaald zijn. Relaties zijn inderdaad veel beter.

Groeten,

Martien
Dawid2849 (2024-08-17 09:54:00+00:00): Dzięki za dodanie! Miałem to w planach, ale na ostatnich wycieczkach rowerowych trochę za dużo zdjęć narobiłem i nie potrafię się do tego wszystkiego zabrać. Dodałem przejazd dla rowerów przy OSP i oznaczyłem 1m pobocza w miejscu, gdzie na chwilę urywa się pas dla rowerów.
Dawid2849 (2024-08-17 09:56:04+00:00): Ciekawe czy da się jakoś oznaczyć te absurdalne progi zwalniające przy skrzyżowaniu z drogą do Ceramiki :P
magik1969 (2024-08-17 20:12:09+00:00): Dzięki za uzupełnienia. Nie mam doświadczenia w mapowaniu ścieżek rowerowych i robiłem to na wyczucie.
eggie (2024-08-17 06:29:32+00:00): Dag Guido  Kijk eens hier
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station

Ik pas even wat aan zodat het ook echt werkt in OSM.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-08-17 07:03:17+00:00): Weet jij wat de 'surface=....'  moet zijn van dat smalle paadje dat daar nu loopt langs dat zonnepark en oplaadpunt?
compacted, fine_gravel?
gr eggie
eggie (2024-08-17 08:03:54+00:00): (* Dat smalle paadje had ik nu zelf ingetekend.
Bauer33333 (2024-08-23 19:58:42+00:00): Hi, thank you for your edits.
One thing: Please don't add kerb nodes at crossings into the sidewalks itself, but separated out on their actual position instead. Adding them in the sidewalk makes everyone routing along the sidewalk route over that kerb, even if he doesn't even intend on leaving the sidewalk. I fixed a few but then relised the sheer amount of them done like that. I would really apprechiate if you could take a look at some or at least map them different in the future. 
Right now it is impossible for wheelchair routing in Phoenix to minimize the amount of kerbs on the route.
Cheers
isamah (2024-08-24 18:10:55+00:00): Oh no - I am so sorry. Totally understand and sorry I did not think of that myself. I will see if I can unlock the areas I worked on and fix them. Super sorry again and noted for moving forward.
isamah (2024-08-24 19:13:36+00:00): I am doing my best to go back and fix across the area and had two questions - are you from Phoenix? How did this come to your attention? 

It was also my understanding that there was no/very little pedestrian navigation info in this area prior to this initiative, so how was wheelchair routing done before this when no sidewalks or crossings were mapped. Would it not still have been impossible for wheelchair routing before my changesets?

Just trying to understand if I have now made it impossible for wheelchair routing or if it was never possible in the first place, and the situation is just that I have taken imperfect steps to rectify that.
Bauer33333 (2024-08-24 19:22:06+00:00): Don't worry too much. Before you added the sidewalks there was nothing you could have even routed on. Pedestrian navigation also isn't affected by this at all, this is about wheelchair and similiar routing only. 
So before your edits you couldn't route at all, now routing should work pretty well, this is just about the last steps to get it to perfect routing.
Maybe I worded it too drastic, my intend was mainly that you use a different way of mapping them on new crossings, since it is easier to do it in the flow than trying to fix it later.
Bauer33333 (2024-08-24 19:23:05+00:00): I'm not from Phoenix, I just opened the map in a random area to test an ID feature
isamah (2024-08-25 04:13:41+00:00): Okay - this made me feel a lot better thank you! Was worried I'd ruined navigation for a big community - but I really appreciate the feedback and will be working to fix it in the coming days. Thank you!
demon_box (2024-09-21 07:58:47+00:00): Ciao Mariano, hai messo su TUTTA questa strada il tag bridge=yes come se fosse interamente su ponte: ovviamente non lo è (la conosco).
Procedo con la correzione.
Albe_ (2024-08-19 21:28:56+00:00): Hola, he vist els canvis que has fet i no m'ha acabat de quedar clar. Quina era la idea que tenies? Era només que al mapa es mostrara diferent el que és el recorregut de la via verda?

Fa molt que no passe per la zona però si no ha canviat molt la cosa hi havia molts trossos que no eren exclusius per a ciclistes sinó compartits amb l'accés a cases, terrenys i camps.

Marcar un camí com a carril bici (etiqueta highway=cycleway), per defecte, fa que els motors de rutes el consideren prohibit per a vehicles a motor.

Això és un problema, per exemple, ací: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1305833063

En canviar eixe tros de carretera com a carril bici es perd la possibilitat de fer rutes en cotxe entre Estivella i Beselga. 

Gràcies!
Jordi MF (2024-08-20 11:10:14+00:00): A mi també m'estranya que tants trams de camins i carreteres s'hagen convertit en exclusius per a ciclistes. Segons les normes d'etiquetatge, el més correcte, per als trams exclusius per a vianants i ciclistes és etiquetar-ho com a highway=path + bicycle=designated + foot=designated. Si el camí també pot ser transitat per vehicles per a accedir a camps de conreu o similar, seria un highway=track (i no 'path').

A veure si ho aclarim, però tot pinta que caldrà revertir tot el changeset i afinar millor l'edició.
LFMF (2024-08-20 15:07:31+00:00): Hola. Si es verdad que hay tramos compartidos, pero la nueva ampliación de la vía verde ojos negros los ha señalizado como tal, desde Torres Torres a Sagunto está todo señalizado como tal, es todo reciente, por mi parte soy nuevo en esto y quizá los más experimentados podrían marcar esos pequeños tramos compartidos. Gracias un saludo
Jordi MF (2024-08-24 12:14:44+00:00): Ho sent, LFMF. Acabe de revetir tots els canvis que vas fer en este changeset. Hi havia vies superposades i era molt difícil de soluciona un a un tots els problemes. M'imagine que li vas dedicar molts minuts. He tornat a afegir alguns trams de via ciclista, tal i com els vas posar tu (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1310832138 i https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1310832417).

En alguns altres casos, he afegit l'etiqueta bicycle=designated en pistes (highway=track) per a indicar que son trams on entenc que hi ha alguna senyal per a ciclistes (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/437563942 i https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32036731). Te pot servir d'exemples per a que faces el mateix en els camins que tu coneixes.

Si tens algun track teu o oficial on puguem saber fins on arriben els nous trams de la via verda, els podrem afegir a la relació de la Via Verda (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1176331).
Jordi MF (2024-08-24 12:17:47+00:00): En resum, te recomane que afegisques les etiquetes bicycle=designated + foot=designated en els camins on les bicis i les persones tinguen algun tipus de preferència (per exemple, si hi ha senyals ciclistes o per als vianants).
klfb75gxiy21tjrh (2024-08-16 21:02:30+00:00): Me enteré de un fork de StreetComplete, y mientras probaba algunas funciones, olvidé desactivar la opción de subir automáticamente las respuestas. Por eso, subí algunas cosas que no debería haber subido. Lo siento
Langlaeufer (2024-08-18 19:12:29+00:00): Hi,
ich hatte den Eindruck, dass es an der Berliner Allee an des Stelle des Radwegschildes gar keine Bordsteinabsenkung und damit auch keine richtige Wechselmöglichkeit auf die Fahrbahn gibt. Oder hab ich mich da versehen?
Grüße
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155347112
OSM_RogerWilco (2024-08-19 13:03:15+00:00): Meinst Du hier? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10074910977

Nein, da gibt es keinen abgesenkten Bordstein. Alles ziemlich unüberlegt gemacht dort.
Fizzie-DWG (2024-08-18 23:13:41+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16592
rskedgell (2024-08-18 06:59:33+00:00): Hi, thanks for editing OpenStreetMap.

There's an example of a gold postbox here, which might give you some ideas of how to tag it:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4987926604
vanagaudi (2024-08-17 12:35:38+00:00): Thank you to re-add the tracks.
LockOnGuy (2024-08-17 00:22:16+00:00): Hello zhiar590,   
   
In this changeset, you mentioned in the comment, "reshaped Dyala (Sirwan) river near Qula Sutaw village." However, you actually changed the names in every language and removed the correct names without disclosing this or providing a reason. Please refrain from making similar edits in the future. You altered the names in various languages from their correct forms to incorrect ones, translating them solely from Kurdish. It’s important to respect the integrity of all languages and avoid such edits going forward.   
   
For example, every language, except Kurdish, refers to the river as 'Diyala River,' but you changed them to 'Sirwan,' which is inaccurate. You can see how each language refer to it in: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q304413   
   
I have reverted your changes.   
   
Regards.
zhiar590 (2024-08-18 17:34:04+00:00): Thank you for your feedback, LockOnGuy.

I apologize for the changes I made to the names in various languages without proper disclosure or justification. I’ve checked some sources that mentioned the river as "Sirwan," but I understand now that applying this name across all languages was incorrect. I appreciate you reverting the changes and bringing this to my attention.

I'll be more cautious in the future to ensure that my edits are accurate and respect the integrity of all languages.

Thanks again for your understanding.

Best,
Zhiar590
philippec (2024-08-17 07:53:40+00:00): Een container, is dat een tijdelijke container-hulppost ?  Of is het een kist van de redder ?  Indien het een hulppost is, is er dan geen nummer ?  Een foto met tijd- en plaatsstamp zou veel duidelijk maken.
vanagaudi (2024-08-17 12:26:42+00:00): Although tracks are often rough with unpaved surfaces, this tag is not describing the quality of a road but its use. Consequently, if you want to tag a general use road, use one of the general highway values instead of track.

Some of the way reclassified to track are actually tertiary roads as they are connecting smaller villages and settlements. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
OSMCowboy (2024-08-19 21:19:02+00:00): Hi vanagaudi, 
My intention was to indicate that while these roads connected various towns and locales, they appeared to be difficult to travel without off-roading capabilities. With that in mind, would it be worth adding surface tags to some of these instead of reclassifying? 

Thank you for your reclassifications so far, I see that there are a few main connections that haven’t been changed back to tertiary. Namely https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/988543578, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/988541976, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/988543577 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/988527837. I have changed these back, but there may be others, so I will defer to any more classification changes you make in the area.
gscholz (2024-09-25 07:07:07+00:00): Hi تغییرات ,
your recent edits have created a lot of errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=56.28488&lat=31.41313&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas

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

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
camlewwri (2024-09-03 08:53:17+00:00): I see you added a point with natural=volcano to the golf course at Uphall. I assume that this was in error so I have reverted it (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156132031). If there is a real feature here you were trying to represent with this point, reply here and we can discuss what the appropriate tagging would be.
vanagaudi (2024-08-17 12:49:22+00:00): Although tracks are often rough with unpaved surfaces, this tag is not describing the quality of a road but its use. Consequently, if you want to tag a general use road, use one of the general highway values instead of track.

See OSM-Wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
OSMCowboy (2024-08-19 21:18:38+00:00): Thank you for the information! I responded more thoroughly on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155347797
NorthCrab_upload (2024-08-16 21:40:36+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/1184738788
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7627653512
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1308339291
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/99002994

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
tyfi (2024-08-16 21:40:15+00:00): Additionally, I removed a few "is_in" tags containing strings of the format "{countyname}, MO" and some ZIP codes (?) in both postal_code and addr:postcode tags
tyfi (2024-08-16 21:56:53+00:00): This is done in an effort to help normalize nomenclature across the Missouri state highway system. As it currently stands, ways can use any number of name strings from "Route X" to "State Road X" to "Highway X" to the most common, and most TIGERish, "State Highway X".

It's important to recognize that, when a MoDOT sign indicates a road is named "Route X" or "Hwy X", that's not the canonical name string. That's a systematic designation of the road segment as belonging to the X route in the broader state route system.
tyfi (2024-08-16 22:03:02+00:00): ^ Even that has exceptions, though, such as "Business 13" in Branson West.
tyfi (2024-08-16 22:14:05+00:00): Also, I saw one instance of justification for some of these redundant way-names as making the road match with addr:street on nearby buildings. This is tricky, as it runs into the same issue I outlined two comments up: our road network is highly decentralized in the US, and many entities cooperate with loose terminology. When a county applies physical addresses to land parcels, it may do so with the form "Hwy 67" instead of "Lindbergh Boulevard", but that IMHO does not justify renaming the road to a variant of the former.
tyfi (2024-08-16 23:57:58+00:00): Continued in changeset #155350752
tyfi (2024-08-17 06:16:50+00:00): And #155354621
sw_uwu (2024-08-16 21:57:31+00:00): Hi, warum soll man die nicht mehr existenten Kühltürme nicht löschen?
Mir wurde öfters empfohlen, Dinge, die es nicht mehr gibt, einfach zu entfernen.
(Und noch eine Frage: warum ist der Name hinter den Prefixen "seamark:landmark"?)
LG
redd (2024-08-16 22:22:47+00:00): Hi,
das Löschen von Objekten ist eher untypisch in OSM. Man markiert die Objekte als entfernt/abgerissen, um zu verhindern dass die Objekte anhand von Luft/Straßenbildern fälschlicherweise wiedererfasst werden.
Daher habe ich die Werte nach Wiederherstellung als razed:*=* erfasst.

Weiterhin das landuse=brownfield um die Schuttberge zu und die Umrisse in Karten als Orientierungsmarken darstellbar zu haben.

Die seamark:*=* Eigenschaften sind Werte die für Schiffahrtskarten verwendet sind. In diesem Fall Orientierungspunkte die vom nebenanfließenden Main gesehen werden können

Grüße,
redd
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-08-16 22:07:11+00:00): 155241501 155174279 155169650 155160301 155160196 155154855 155083571 155082048 155081934 155081176 155042841 155042796 155042162 155041494 155039818 154993926 154958061 154957567 154956610 154956334 154956084 154667304 154630029 154628304 154627514
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-08-16 22:15:31+00:00): Sorry about the size. I should have reverted in groups.
self (2024-09-03 18:04:21+00:00): uh, wow, thanks. Where did those come from? Was there a discussion somewhere about the revert with more info?
PcMouse1 (2024-08-16 22:12:18+00:00): had to simplify way 59769743 due to it exceeding 2000 nodes
literan (2024-08-17 12:25:34+00:00): зачем вы тут все переломали (леса, луга, жилые зоны?) не надо делать тяп-ляп, с наскока. Правки придется откатить.
Smiledj (2024-08-17 13:09:51+00:00): Там леса и луга вырубили, и профиль их немного изменился)
literan (2024-08-17 16:21:33+00:00): но это не повод полностью ломать их мультиполигоны (а заодно и полигоны стройки и жилого квартала)
Tatfahren (2024-08-17 06:40:55+00:00): Hallo Niiepce,
vielleicht solltest du auch die wikiseite korrigieren, wo ich das damals her hatte. Da ist auch noch Kirschbaum dokumentiert. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wetter_Baum
LockOnGuy (2024-08-17 00:35:27+00:00): Source?