piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
kornad (2024-04-15 11:30:54+00:00): Wikipedia to raczej nie jest najpewniejsze źródło. A co do uchwały rady miasta (pomijając fakt, że nie podałeś do niej żadnego odnośnika ani jej nr, więc nie wiadomo o co chodzi) to nie miasto decyduje, w którym miejscu przebiega droga wojewódzka. 
Ponadto - zacznij proszę w końcu poprawnie opisywać swoje zmiany, bo to zaczyna się robić nudne. Nagminnie w nazwie zestawu zmian wrzucasz źródła, z których korzystasz nie tłumacząc przy tym w żaden sposób co zmieniasz. Zacznij korzystać z pola "źródło/source" przed opublikowaniem swoich edycji. I wyraź to w sposób dokładny i wyczerpujący, a nie po prostu "uchwała rady miasta". Uchwał są tysiące, skąd społeczność ma wiedzieć o jaką dokładnie chodzi.
theDM (2024-04-15 15:10:11+00:00): Update: ZDW potwierdził, że aktualnie DW 216 kończy się na wysokości Polo Marketu. W przeszłości szła do tego ronda przy Kuracyjnej, ale jej przebieg został jakiś czas temu skrócony.
theDM (2024-04-15 15:17:18+00:00): Niestety, nie mam aktualnego źródła na wklejenie, bo na stronie ZDW w mapkach dalej jest stary przebieg do Kuracyjnej. Jedynie w wykazie dróg zarządzanych przez ZDW jest pikietaż, który się pokrywa ze stanem faktycznym. 
Secondary ze względu na dojazd do portu mogło zostać i też jako główna droga omijająca Wiejską, ale tu zdania będa podzielone.
Dawid2849 (2024-04-16 17:28:32+00:00): > Wikipedia to raczej nie jest najpewniejsze źródło. 

Wikipedia to przede wszystkim nie jest źródło, z którego możemy korzystać z OSM. Ale racja, do dokładniejszych nie należy
kornad (2024-04-17 08:21:39+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150115600
W związku z wyjaśnieniem się kwestii gdzie faktycznie kończy się DW216 pozwoliłem sobie wyczyścić na "kontrowersyjnym" odcinku tag "highway:category:pl=2" i wprowadzić tag "old_ref=216". Dyskusja dotycząca możliwości pociągnięcia drogi secondary dalej w kierunku portu pozostaje nadal otwarta i najlepiej, aby była kontynuowana tutaj: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kategorie-drog-w-woj-pomorskim/111839
MxxCon (2024-04-18 02:14:32+00:00): Hello.
Please note that it is inappropriate to tag the whole building as a specific business when that business occupies only a part of the building. In this case this restaurant is only on the ground floor of a 5-story apartment building.
In situations like these a business must be mapped as a separate point within the perimeter of the building.
I corrected this edit, but in the future please make sure to map such features accurately.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150011611
Robin Zyx (2024-04-15 19:13:33+00:00): Cannabis is probably the correct tag for it, but I expect that like 90+% of the weed shops in the city it is operating without a license. I laugh whenever I walk by here at night and there is a police car parked outside.
IraGersh (2024-04-15 19:20:17+00:00): I heard at a community meeting that these shops bring fast cars and a nasty element to the area.  Couple this with federal regs that require them to be a cash business.  The result is that they are a prime target for burglaries with guns.  The police presence is not surprising.  There was a big discussion on the proper tagging of these shops on the US Slack group.
MxxCon (2024-04-18 02:29:49+00:00): Hello.
Please consider updating your verison of OSMAnd app. The current version is 4.7.9
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150011760
santamariense (2024-04-22 01:13:49+00:00): Olá @Stephanie,

Tudo bem? Estive olhando suas edições. 

No campo "name" deve ir apenas nomes próprios e não nomes descritivos como "casa", "loja", "residência" etc.

Existe algum motivo em especial para estar mapeando desta forma?

Agradeço desde já a resposta a este comentário.

Bons mapeamentos!
Aleksandar Matejevic (2024-04-15 10:09:47+00:00): Hi BerserkRaul,

You have deleted boundary within this changeset. Can you fix it?
dankarran (2024-04-15 10:01:57+00:00): No I'm sorry, but I think you're just wrong with some of these, and I think the edits should be reverted unless there is evidence of signage on the ground that explicitly states cyclists should dismount.

A Tower Hamlets document on cycling strategy  ("Tower Hamlets – A Cycling Borough") - https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Documents/Transport-and-infrastructure/TH%20Cycling%20Strategy.pdf - includes a map of existing cycle routes that shows the stretch of the Leaway along Silvocea Way as a canal and riverside path, implying it's a shared use path.

The parts that skirt around City Island and Goodluck Hope are another matter, but given the amount of cycle parking along them, I suspect they are also intended to be shared use paths.
mrgeolikesmaps (2024-04-15 10:35:32+00:00): Do you actually have any local knowledge, because this document supports none of your assumptions. Even the councils own cycle route maps doesn't include these riverside walkways. These were proposed routes, but they haven't been implemented. As clearly stated in the document. Bike parking doesn't mean it's a cycling route, so not sure how that conflicts with a dismount label?
Unless you have a cycling route map from Tower Hamlets I'm not sure how you can argue my on the ground assessment is in error?
mrgeolikesmaps (2024-04-15 12:03:59+00:00): I've take pictures that have signs and barriers which clearly state walkway. Save your time, and listen to community editors. We're not here to make the map a political service.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/a6ndlysryvmk036nyaraa/APt7w8qo8LDAYo4pSnfsCRs?rlkey=6vb3sx0atpx5c5ohv7oy0lrbl&dl=0
dankarran (2024-04-15 12:10:27+00:00): Yes, I live in Canning Town, and I've just been out to re-survey what's on the ground.

I don't want this to turn into a tagging war, so:

- I'm not re-instating cycleways unless they're clearly signed either on the ground or on an official map (I won't rely on planning docs, as I agree they don't necessarily confirm the reality, sadly)

- I've re-instated Silvocea Way as a shared cyclepath as it's signed as such at the northern end (the sign is like 90% faded!), and ends at a toucan crossing. I don't know about the eastern connection to LCI and there is no shared cyclepath sign at that end, so I'm leaving that for now.

- I've re-walked all the paths around Goodluck Hope today, and there are no "dismount" signs on any of the paths on the City Island / Goodluck Hope estate (with the exception of a "no e-scooters" sign at the northern end of LCI). But there are also no signs inviting bikes, so I'm leaving those as footpaths for now.

My changeset reflecting these changes:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150034406
dankarran (2024-04-15 12:12:10+00:00): (hah, we probably just passed each other going out to take photos :)
mrgeolikesmaps (2024-04-16 05:04:29+00:00): 1) Do you have any photo evidence? 

2) It sounds like we agree there isn't a cycle path or shared cycle route sign anywhere on these pedestrian walkways?

3) If that's the case, and we've provided legal guidance from the highway code, which explicitly states, "bicycles should dismount on pedestrian walkways", then unless there is such permission it sounds like it's an over reach to suggest bikes can share these walkways. No?

What am I missing?
dankarran (2024-04-16 09:01:39+00:00): Hi again!

1) what do you want photographic evidence of? the sign at the top of Silvocea Way ( https://ibb.co/WK6SR0z ) or the toucan crossing at the southern end ( https://ibb.co/MC5Ww6v )? a lack of dismount signs on the vast majority of these paths (your own survey showed that)?

2) we agree that there is a lack of signage on most of these paths

3) that behaviour is implied by the highway=footway tag which is already in place, and a bicycle=dismount tag shouldn't be added unless it's explicitly signed on the ground (and the only sign I'm aware of is at the southern end to the pathway through London City Island, but literally none of the other entrances to that area, at least none that I saw yesterday)
mrgeolikesmaps (2024-04-16 09:33:47+00:00): Few comments:

1) The images you've shared clearly show signs following the designated cycle route / way from East India Dock Road to Leamouth Road, across Lower Lea Crossing and towards Aspen Way.

2) The signs along Lea Valley Walk clearly show a pedestrian sign, which by default means no cycling based on the highway code. You don't need a dismount sign, that's the law.

3) You appear to be mixing up Silvocea Way with Lea Valley Walk, these aren't the same. 

4) Lea Valley Walk is not a share cycle path, nor are there any signs, maps or markings to suggest it is. This is a misinterpretation.
dankarran (2024-04-16 09:58:33+00:00): Dude I'm not going to argue. Have a good day, and please don't destroy any more cycle tagging beyond your own backyard.
rskedgell (2024-04-16 10:51:28+00:00): None of the objects edited in this changeset are footways in the legal sense, so Highway Code Rule 64 and s. 72 Highway Act 1835 are entirely irrelevant here.
mrgeolikesmaps (2024-04-16 22:14:59+00:00): Hello Dan, 

I'm not sure why you're being aggressive. If you're not comfortable being challenged about the facts that you're debating, then I'd kindly suggest meeting up and discussing in person. We live on a busy island, where many of the cyclist, motorbikes and pedestrians are unaware of what the rules are, so providing this on OSM to ensure apps relying on this data improve the safety of the community isn't a political debate. Many cyclist come speeding down the Lea Valley Walkway into LCI/GLH, so it's paramount they're aware of the actual rules to avoid accidents.

@rskedgell, I think you'll find the Highway code does apply to walkways or shared spaces. See link below. Given this isn't a shared walkway, it's clearly illegal and if involved in a serious accident liability would fall on the cyclist.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-to-know-from-29-january-2022
dankarran (2024-04-16 23:25:19+00:00): I'm not being aggressive, but I'm ducking out of this now. Bye.
rskedgell (2024-04-17 08:54:42+00:00): I've reverted your vandalism of the shared cycle and foot path between the A13/C3 and Lower Lea Crossing for the following reasons:

1) This is not a pavement/sidewalk, so a spurious justification based on quoting Highway Code Rule 64 without reading or understanding s. 72 Highway Act 1835 fails.

2) The North end of the path has a TSRGD diagram 956 sign (shared cycle and foot path). This is badly faded and possibly vandalised, however this does not revoke the explicit authorisation of cycling here. There is also a fingerpost for pedestrians and cyclists toward East India Dock Basin. Photographs linked in note #4202439

2) At the Southern end, the crossings over the carriageways of Lower Lea Crossing are toucan crossings, not pelican crossings. They are explicitly for both cyclists and pedestrians. If cycling were prohibited along the West side of Bow Creek, this would not be the case.

3) Fingerposts for pedestrians do not convey any implicit prohibition for cycling, they are purely informational.

This will also be referred to DWG.
SomeoneElse (2024-04-21 11:00:27+00:00): Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here.  I can see a pile of discussions at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=2856851 , and I gather there are a bunch of comments on notes as well.  
In order that discussions and pictures are more widely visible, it's probably worth moving the discussion out of changeset comments.  Historically the GB community has used the talk-gb mailing list, but the forum c.osm.org might make more sense here as you can drag and drop pictures easily.  Use a united-kingdom tag along with any others.
I'm not familiar with the infrastructure here, but as a UK cyclist I'm absolutely familiar with poor cycle signage, and as a UK pedestrian I'm also familiar with the problems caused by cyclists using infrastructure they shouldn't.
Let's get all the discussion (and the photos) somewhere more public so that more people than those currently commenting can get involved.
Best Regards,
Andy
dankarran (2024-04-22 13:01:33+00:00): Thanks for the suggestion Andy. I think it's at an equilibrium at the moment, with the part of the path that's almost certainly a shared cycle path now being marked as such again, and other parts closer to the London City Island and Goodluck Hope estates tagged as pedestrian footways based on the knowledge of the local resident.

Without clearer signage or confirmation from the landowner/council (both sought, but nothing back yet), that's probably the best we can do for now. If anything more happens, I'll start up a thread on the forum.
tastrax (2024-04-15 00:34:33+00:00): Please be aware we dont have permission to trace from the hillshade layer - only LIST Topographic
Albatross_au (2024-04-15 09:43:37+00:00): No worries. I'll note that for future edits. It would be worth seeing if access to the hillshade layer is possible.
sbre (2024-04-14 22:57:10+00:00): I see you have replaced tags like whitewater:rapid_grade= with rapids=, which seems to be a much less used tag for rapid grades. Can you point me to where this was discussed?
quincylvania (2024-04-14 23:23:01+00:00): Hi sbre! Changes were not discussed, happy to revert if needed. I'm trying to standardize whitewater tagging—it's so fragmented and archaic to the point of being unusable. The whitewater wikiproject appears to be abandoned. Trying to kickstart canoe mapping.
sbre (2024-04-14 23:36:04+00:00): I created a forum thread, as that's easier to use than changeset comments. Maybe it is indeed time to revisit the whitewater related features. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-tagging-scheme-for-portages-and-rapids/111814
AgusQui (2024-05-04 02:52:00+00:00): Quedó mal el elemento que indica al estadio:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1272613137
AgusQui (2024-05-04 02:53:46+00:00): Aca está con el historial:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23242895
AndersAndersson (2024-04-15 16:43:50+00:00): Is replacing a way (which describes the geometry of the feature) with a node an upgrade? I would call that a downgrade since it contains less information.

How long can I assume that this rapid is now? 1 meter or 10000 meters?
quincylvania (2024-04-15 17:33:28+00:00): Hi AndersAndersson, sorry to change you edits but no info was lost here. Mapping rapids as linear ways in the direction of flow has some issues. It's redundant to putting rapids attributes on `waterway=river` segments (where you can easily calculate length). Boat routers are the ones needing this info anyway. In some cases mappers have made `waterway=rapids` colinear with rivers, which is hard to maintain. In other cases mappers use `waterway=rapids` instead of `waterway=river`, which is unexpected (a river with rapids is still a river). The pattern is also ambiguous since many mappers use `waterway=rapids` to tag individual rapids parallel to the flow, akin to `waterway=weir` (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/511163824), thus we couldn't be sure if measuring a rapids way gives us width or length. Having a POI with a `name` tag is still useful for rendering and geocoding, so I left a point. Future work could convert this to an area matching the bounds of the section of named rapids.
AndersAndersson (2024-04-15 19:50:27+00:00): Hello
I have no problem with improvements of my edits.
I agree that taging rapids can and probably should be improved.

But I fail to follow why this downgrade had to be made while the community finds a better way to describe this rapid. Can you please tell me who or revert this (and other similiar changesets you have done).

The wiki states that we shall "Draw a linear way along the centre line."
So that rapid mapped as a weir is not hard to tell it's wrong.
quincylvania (2024-04-15 20:14:43+00:00): Anyone can write anything on the wiki, it's not necessarily good advice. The sentence "draw a linear way along the centre line" doesn't specify if the axis is with the flow or tangential to the flow, which apparently has led to different interpretations. Please let me know if there are any applications expecting the data to be mapped in the manner it was before. If I inadvertently broke something then I am happy to fix it.
AndersAndersson (2024-04-15 21:58:20+00:00): Of course, anyone can write, but since this "along" has been on the wiki for four years it is quite common that people follow that.

I'm not a native English speaker, but I'm quite sure "along" would be interpreted by most people as parallell or following a line along its long direction. Along it's width would be silly.

I'm not aware of anything requiring it as it was mapped by me. But I know that the length and position of the rapid was stored with my version. Do you intend to restore that data representing the size after the new tagging scheme is in place?
Maybe it is best that you restore it now, because I doubt that you will manually readd everything that you now have removed in a lot of changesets.
quincylvania (2024-04-15 22:28:41+00:00): Thanks, I don't intend to revert my changes because I did not remove any information, and because no one appears to be relying on the prior pattern. As I've already said, the length and position are still available on the river segment, which avoids redundancy and the other issues I mentioned.

Feel free to revert this changeset if you're not convinced by my arguments. I don't live in Sweden and will defer to local mappers there. Alternatively I can map this rapid as an area if that would resolve the geometry issue for you.

Btw, there are thousands of `waterway=rapids` ways mapped along the width of the river in OSM, the example I sent is not an outlier. Check out Canada.
AndersAndersson (2024-04-16 20:38:36+00:00): I must appologise. Apparently I looked too quick on the changes you made at first and only saw the node named Bergaforsen. I missed that you've added rapid-information to the waterway-tagged way.

The node with a name might be maping for the renderer, but the information "amount" is the same as before, so I don't see this changeset as problematic any more.

I wish you luck with a better tagging scheme, both for canoeing and rapids.
quincylvania (2024-04-16 20:43:12+00:00): No worries at all! I am sorry for the confusion. Thanks for talking this through with me.
euroPathfinder (2024-04-17 16:02:38+00:00): You requested a review of your changeset. I have checked it and it looks good.

This is an automated message. You can reply to it and I will come back to you.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150012547
Enock4seth (2024-04-14 23:33:08+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for mapping. 

The name field (tag) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name is reserved for the actual name of a feature on the ground not for descriptive names. There's also a tag for descriptions that can used. Also use title case instead ALL CAPITALS

In order to tell that a building is residential, the "building=residential" tag is what should be used. See more possible values for building at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building

In the search box for iD editor you can search for the primary class of a feature e.g. instead of typing "Mosque" in the name field, search of mosque, school, church, etc. first. 

Here is one useful resource to get you started https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/

Happy to guide if you need any further help.
I will try to fix some your contribution to help your further contributions. 

Happy Mapping!

Best,
Enock
Enock4seth (2024-04-14 23:47:17+00:00): You can see the difference at https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1272615404

Let the outline match what's on the imagery, you can right click and select "Square" to make building orthogonal
Gregory Peony (2024-06-07 05:43:21+00:00): This is not the correct way to use the crossing key. The key is intended to mark the crossing of ways with varying traffic e.g. a train and a motor vehicle. Different values of highway sharing a node do not count, intersecting ways intended for the same transport mode do not count: these are junctions. Reference https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Crossings.
Gregory Peony (2024-06-07 05:48:22+00:00): The highway-highway crossing warning simply means that highways are intersecting and do not share a common node.
Gregory Peony (2024-06-07 05:55:38+00:00): a significant portion of way 531395324 is a waterway. you added a highway across it but not the bridge/culvert. other crossings should be marked as ford=yes. The waterway is intermittent
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150012776
hendrik-17 (2024-09-07 17:20:44+00:00): Moin camske_2805 und Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap!

Du hast hier gleich in deinem ersten Änderungssatz umfangreiche Änderungen an der Eisenbahninfrastruktur vorgenommen.

OSM bildet in der Regel den vor Ort erkennbaren Ist-Zustand ab.

Deshalb habe ich deine Änderungen zurückgesetzt (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156321816).

Wenn du dazu Fragen hast, hinterlasse hier gerne einen Kommentar.

Beste Grüße
hendrik-17
Enock4seth (2024-04-14 23:48:41+00:00): Hi,
Kindly read my previous changeset comments. 

It also best to map a couple of buildings per changeset i.e. before saving
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-04-16 04:01:18+00:00): Reviewed
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150013393
une abeille (2024-04-15 23:50:59+00:00): By chance did this remove the ones that no longer exist? I've wondered in the past if there was any easy way to keep these updated, given that they move them so often.
Spearfish7424 (2024-04-16 18:00:01+00:00): Hey,

There are about 20 stations which could not be matched to a station in the GBFS file (within 40 m). When I can, I'll mark them as potentially no longer existing or delete them if I can confirm.

Caution is necessary when deleting a station based solely on the GBFS file, since it makes a few disclaimers about some stations not being included.
une abeille (2024-04-17 12:13:12+00:00): If you put a note on each of them, I can try to confirm the ones in my area while I'm out. :)
Spearfish7424 (2024-04-22 17:42:12+00:00): Just a heads up, after some consideration, I decided to go ahead with the update (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150358221 ). 

The source page states that their location is subject to change throughout the season. The season only began on the 15th, so the risk of the source file containing errors is relatively low right now. 

Let me know if ever you spot any issues though! It's always possible to undo some or all of the changes using the JOSM Reverter plugin.
Ewrt1 (2024-04-15 00:27:40+00:00): it's --> its. Sorry for having to correcting you!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150013536
Ewrt1 (2024-04-15 00:28:09+00:00): and locaiton --> location
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150013536
Airfall (2024-04-15 02:04:42+00:00): You always keep me humble Ewrt1. Thanks for the correction!
pantufla (2024-10-20 21:20:39+00:00): Muchas gracias por colaborar.
PostaMap_Infinite (2025-01-18 22:39:00+00:00): Hey, Jaggylore97! I was a bit confused when I saw a parking space named "Ray's Parking Lot." Could you please elaborate what this is? Is this a reserved parking spot for a patron?
Gregory Peony (2024-07-12 21:54:15+00:00): If you want to show that a feature (in this case a park) abutts a highway, then please map the highway area and have the feature and area share common nodes. That makes it easier for others to edit highways because the highways aren't hidden by other features, and it doesn't result in the oversizing of features. In this case the park is oversized because its boundary envelopes half the width of the highway. 

Generally areas don't need to share common nodes with highways, the exceptions are for barriers.
stillhart (2026-03-31 20:10:29+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11817666681/history
👀
kgf (2026-03-31 20:17:50+00:00): Got a message a comment but cant see the comment?