piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
DaveTO (2024-10-07 20:58:37+00:00): I have re-read your comments as well as the note you left about the MUP as it approaches Weston at Finch. I had no idea that there would be a tunnel underneath the rail crossing. Cool!

As for the MPU, it seems likely that the MPU hasn't changed significantly since last year -- there was some construction and the path was often protected from traffic via plastic construction barriers, just as you describe.

What changes do you propose? We could downgrade some sections from MPU to footpath (i.e. set "highway=footway" rather than the current "highway=cycleway"). Disabling or deleting the segments seems excessive given that they are actually used by cyclists and pedestrians, as evidenced by the Strava global heatmap.
vertovian (2024-10-07 21:01:59+00:00): Your suggestion seems good! Again, I am recent here, and I only came to over a while back to delete a totally different bike route that got me into a lot of trouble north of Toronto. Can you make that change? I can but I'll need to figure it out! :)
DaveTO (2024-10-07 21:16:39+00:00): Sure, I can make the change, but I am uncertain of which segments were inadequate for cycling. You left a note close to the intersection of Weston at Finch, and commented on the rail underpass. Anything else?
Jarek 🚲 (2026-04-20 17:20:01+00:00): Hello! As a follow-up, there's recently been a group ride with blog reports that this stretch of Finch West between Weston and Arrow is still not really good for riding, and City's aerial imagery is currently from spring 2025 and it also shows poor conditions, so I downgraded the stretch to footway in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181594094  - links to those blogs are there
vertovian (2026-04-20 17:41:55+00:00): I don't really know if I agree with this change, especially as it wasn't made after an in person visit (by the changer). I read the blogs in question and it's only mentioned in one of them that the group took the lane due to a "gap" in the bikeway there. It is basically a sidewalk, but I believe has the city's designation as a bike route. I just worry that removing the bikeway designation here will change routing on apps which use OM like RWGPS and others, pushing riders into the busy roadway or calculating long detours. Maybe my worries as unfounded. It's definitely not a very good or acceptable bike route.
Jarek 🚲 (2026-04-20 17:48:20+00:00): If it's "basically a sidewalk" then in OSM we should map it as a sidewalk and let apps using our data figure out how to best route for different rider preferences.

Confident group rides can bypass it by taking the lane. Less confident riders can either walk this stretch or detour somewhere calmer.

No one will benefit from OSM having a "cycleway" where there isn't one
DaveTO (2026-04-20 18:01:40+00:00): I marked it as a path after actually riding it on my bicycle. It is paved throughout, as far as I remember. Not pretty, but it gets the job done. More importantly, if you look at the Strava Global Heat map, you can see that cyclists use it a lot.

So while we can debate that it is not in ideal condition, or that the powers that be need to complete it, it is today de facto used as a bicycle route by lots of people. And since many navigation apps won't route cyclists through ways that are tagged as footways, O would prefer to see it left as a path, not a footway.
vertovian (2026-04-21 14:47:58+00:00): I agree with DaveTO. Though initially a few years ago I also wanted to see it removed as a bikeway for similar reasons as Jarek. Currently the bike lanes have improved in the area, and while not fully complete this is going forwad and I would rather see cyclists encouraged to use the trail as intended. We should not design infrastructure or maps with "confident group riders" in mind, as they are the minority of cyclists by far. I would be much more worried about a cyclist getting into traffic they are not expecting or accustomed to.
Jarek 🚲 (2026-04-21 15:27:45+00:00): Hi,

The foremost principle I want to mention here is that OpenStreetMap documents what is physically there. So we document a narrow path that is not built as well as other MUPs in the region.

The fact that a path is busy with riders can't really be tagged in OSM, because we don't have widely-accepted tags for that. (On a road this could be done with secondary/primary etc, but we don't have importance grades for cycleways.) The fact that it's an important connection is evident from the rest of the map -- there are no other cycle paths mapped in the area (because they don't exist), and this narrow path connects two better stretches of cycleway, so naturally it's the important connection. The fact that the roadway is unsafe for cyclists is evident from tags maxspeed=60, oneway=yes, lanes=2, shoulder=no (some of which I just added). And then we tag cycleway:right=separate on the roadway to tell routers that there is a separately mapped cycleway that they really should consider using instead.

Please please please if you are mapping bicycle infrastructure, add tags with these details whenever you can! This is the best way we can consistently get good data and get good results out of that data. Routers and renderers can do better the more objective data we can add!

Then the question is how do we tag this narrow, poorly-built path. It's clearly not a full-blown MUP. It's not on City's cycle map at all (none of the new Finch West MUP currently is... https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/cycling-in-toronto/cycling-network-map/#location=&lat=43.759185&lng=-79.526496&zoom=14 ). Is it a sidewalk where cycling is de facto tolerated, as both of you were thinking in October 2024? Is it a highway=path, which kind of means everything and nothing in OSM? Or should we actually tag it as a highway=cycleway because that's the best description out of tags we have?

As you might be aware, purposefully tagging something in a demonstrably _wrong_ way to get a desired result out of a data consumer (like a renderer or a router) is a bad practice called https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer . An example would be tagging something that is explicitly a sidewalk where cycling is explicitly disallowed as a "cycleway" to avoid cyclists being routed on a dangerous road. This doesn't seem to be the case here, but please keep it in mind.

I don't really have a super strong feeling here, so I set it back to highway=cycleway in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181633062, having also added properties width=2 m, segregated=no, oneway=no. But I really encourage you to add additional verifiable physical properties rather than wondering how Ride With GPS interprets footways.
DaveTO (2026-04-21 16:29:58+00:00): Re. the city's cycle map, I agree that it has not been updated to reflect the reality on the ground, probably because this MUP is still not finalized, even if it is demonstrably rideable. The city's various cycling network plan maps over the years do show a MUP has been approved for construction right there where it's under construction and people are riding.

I fully agree with tagging the reality on the ground the best we can, including but not limited to how they are actually being used. And the current status on the ground is neither de jure nor de facto a footway or a sidewalk.

I could see somebody downgrading it from cycleway to paved path if they feel strongly that it's not good enough; but downgrading it two a footpath based only on some third party blog post that does not even show a photo of the reality on the ground was not constructive. All that was visible in the blog post was a group of people riding on the adjacent road and some physical barriers that, if anything, proved that the MUP exists in some form and is protected.
Jarek 🚲 (2026-04-21 16:35:28+00:00): For the record, I primarily based my change on https://jnyyz.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/img_5781.jpeg , which fairly clearly shows the path in question as very much not a decent MUP -- and also shows that the path still looks like it does on City's aerial imagery from July 2025, which I then mapped off of.

Happy riding, and hope for everyone's sake we get a proper MUP here soon!
eggie (2023-12-28 21:38:13+00:00): Lijkt me oke
Groet
eggie
canfe (2023-12-27 17:35:15+00:00): Personalmente non son d'accordo sull'intermittent per dei torrenti.
Intermittente è il faro oppure un canale irriguo che è aperto e chiuso a tempi stabiliti.
Tutti i torrenti per loro definizione sono "variabili"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145507943
Marco Caparello (2023-12-27 17:44:02+00:00): Sì, ragionandoci su effettivamente hai ragione. La mia interpretazione di intermittent era tuttavia molto diversa, molti di quei rami sono in effetti attivi solo ed esclusivamente dopo forti piogge. Ad ogni modo ora modifico i tag. Grazie, ciao
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145507943
Marco Caparello (2023-12-27 17:52:22+00:00): Anche se... leggendo bene wiki osm non è che sia così errato...

Usage
intermittent=yes is used

to indicate that a waterway=* (river, stream, etc.) does not have a permanent flow

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:intermittent#Intermittent_vs._seasonal
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145507943
canfe (2023-12-27 17:54:24+00:00): Esiste seasonal...
Però lo è quasi tutto l'arco alpino.
Una soluzione precisa non la so nemmeno io.
canfe (2023-12-27 17:56:18+00:00): Comunque guardati la discussione

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:intermittent
ChillyDL (2024-01-01 20:41:58+00:00): Hallo ma-rt-in,
ich sehe, du hast hier bei mehreren Hamburger Hügelgräbern die Referenznummer aus der Denkmalliste der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg entfernt. 
Das sind doch wertvolle Informationen, um die Objekte zu identifizieren - was war dein Gedanke dabei?
ma-rt-in (2024-01-02 11:25:33+00:00): Hallo,
die verwendeten Nummern sind nicht teil der Hamburger Denkmalliste.
Siehe gerne hier mal rein https://www.hamburg.de/bkm/denkmalliste/

vg
NeisBot (2023-12-28 21:18:47+00:00): Hello, thank you very much for your contribution to the OSM project.

It would be great if you could use the comment field to describe your changes. This makes it easier for others to understand and follow your adjustments on the map more quickly.

Thanks!
#HappyMapping
#ADescriptionSaysMoreThanASingleChar
gymko (2023-12-30 09:46:38+00:00): Dobrý deň, naozaj sa tu nachádza stanica profesionálnych hasičov? Ak áno prosím doplňte názov typu (HaZZ Giraltovce)
gymko (2023-12-30 09:53:56+00:00): Nejedná sa náhodou o dobrovoľných hasičov (DHZ Giraltovce) ?
MC79 (2023-12-30 17:50:24+00:00): Zdravím, zřejmě máte pravdu. Bral jsem to podle označení co mají na budově z pohledu od Radomky.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=49.112854699998&lng=21.517772700002&z=17&pKey=1099196864851751&focus=photo

Při editaci jsem chtěl jen hasičskou zbrojnici a cvaknul jsem profíky z SK.
Opravím pouze na zbrojnici ostatní detaily nechám na místní průvodce.
gymko (2024-01-01 14:20:35+00:00): Zdravím, ďakujem za pochopenie.
eggie (2023-12-28 21:37:03+00:00): Feedback.. Lijkt me oke. Keurig het adres behouden.
MVG
eggie
Hufkratzer (2023-12-26 22:13:38+00:00): Hi,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1234122646 looks like a riding arena and not like a riding centre (leisure=horse_riding). Riding arenas are usually tagged leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian. In JOSM you can use the preset for sport=equestrian to do that. Compare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aleisure%3Dhorse_riding
NorthCrab_upload (2023-12-25 20:10:24+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. 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/node/11453672476

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Dawid2849 (2023-12-25 21:47:15+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11453672476

Ktoś chyba się walnął w urzędzie, raczej powinno być Irena 67B (szczególnie, że obok jest adres Irena 67A)
NorthCrab (2023-12-26 00:44:05+00:00): Zgadzam się z Dawidem, usunąłem addr:street
map per (2023-12-29 20:19:17+00:00): Hallo The_Nickname,

ich hab eine kurze Frage zum Heizkraftwerk der TUM (1). Stimmt plant:output:electricity=yes da wirklich oder war das ein komischer Vorschlag von ID?

Danke und viele Grüße
map per

(1) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24013692/history
The_Nickname (2023-12-29 21:03:07+00:00): Danke map per,
nein, also ja das war ein komischer iD vorschlag, ein Heizkraftwerk wird wohl eher keinen electricity output haben(?) bzw. ich weiß es nicht.
The_Nickname (2023-12-29 21:06:45+00:00): Erstmal entfernt mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145677388
map per (2023-12-29 22:26:49+00:00): Ok, danke
AlexTriloba (2023-12-25 20:23:19+00:00): Removed tiger:tlid 145486380 which there is no evidence of on the ground, on aerial photos or street views.
Filip009 (2024-01-01 13:23:53+00:00): Najprv ste v tejto sade zmien odstránil, že sa jedná o vodnú plochu https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145510587 a potom ste tu nakreslil novú vodnú plochu s nedokonalým názvom https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1235857692
mboeringa (2023-12-27 08:56:01+00:00): Hi dmich9,

I have noticed you have been importing new tiles from CANVEC. It is nice to see someone picking up CANVEC import again in an attempt to enhance the landscape rendering of Canada and reduce the current patchwork. However, I have noticed, and this was already visible and a problem in old > 10 year ago imported CANVEC data in OpenStreetMap, that many of the new tiles you added seem to get the Multipolygon representation of forest wrong, where the areas that should be forested are blank, and the majority of the tile's area displays green, even though these high latitude tiles only contain a minority of truly forested area due to mostly sparse tree vegetation. This leads to a false and severe over-representation of forest in the tiles that have this wrong. This is currently clearly visible in the patchwork of green and whitish tiles where the "whitish" tiles with minority green patches seem to represent properly defined forest polygons, and the almost entirely green tiles seem to have it wrong. Are you aware of this major issue in your current workflow, and do you plan to fix this is in a second edit round? (it would be preferable to get it wright the first time, so a not to confront data consumers with problematic data).

Regards,

Marco
dmich9 (2023-12-27 13:58:06+00:00): Hey Marco, I have no problem going back with an automated edit to fix this issue. However, when reading up on canvec to learn the import process, I never saw a mention of this forest issue? I believe you; I’d just love to see some more information so I can properly understand the issue. I’ve done my best to keep data quality good, so I’d hate for this to mess that up. Thanks

- Dylan
mboeringa (2023-12-27 14:16:30+00:00): Hi Dylan,

I am not a Canadian, and only slightly familiar with the CANVEC data, and not at all with the actual import processes available and used in the past.

My remarks are solely based on the current rendering of the data you added and comparison against aerial imagery in e.g. iD / JOSM, and what I see happening at the boundary lines between what are apparently CANVEC 'tiles', where in many cases there is a mismatch between one and the other tile related to the forest polygons.

I would recommend to try to discuss this with some fellow Canadians before continuing to add data, e.g. in the Canadian subforum of the OpenStreetMap Community Forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/ca/95

It would be a shame to see your work go to waist because you haven't yet completely figured out the correct workflow for getting this data into OpenStreetMap.

Marco
mboeringa (2023-12-27 14:40:48+00:00): Hi Dylan,

At least part of the issue is likely related to this page, and the translation between CANVEC data to the OSM node,way,relation model, which isn't 100% clear cut solution:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec:_Geometric_Model

By the way, looking at some of the CANVEC data, I do wonder how exactly this data was generated?

This other page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec:_Vegetation_(VE)

already suggests that some, or most, maybe not surprisingly given the immense size of Canada and the task to manually digitize such data from aerial imagery, is fully automatically derived from e.g. satellite imagery. I do see strange mismatches between actual imagery forest e.g. along streams and rivers, and the data in CANVEC. The data related to forests seems pretty coarse and generalized, and doesn't match imagery very well.

But alas, there is not a lot you can do about that if Natural Resources Canada doesn't deliver better data...

Marco
mboeringa (2023-12-28 10:14:30+00:00): Hi Dylan,

I have now downloaded official CanVec data from the "Government of Canada"  website and its "Geospatial Extraction Tool" at 1:50k scale from one of the areas you recently added to OSM, to be able to compare the imported data with the official data.

I then loaded it in ArcGIS to have a look at the data. I learned two important things from this:

- CanVec data uses a classification for the density of the forest with four classes: 'Forest','Dense','Open' and 'Sparse'. You are undoubtedly already aware of this, but it definitely seems anything classified as 'Open' or 'Sparse' should not be imported as woodland in OpenStreetMap. Such often waterlogged and bog type acidic environments with sparse trees because few can survive, would not qualify.

- There is definitely an issue with your current workflow. The 'whitish' tiles with few forest polygons, seem to properly match 'Forest' and 'Dense' classifications, and seem OK. The almost entirely green tiles, where the entire tile was imported as woodland, seem wrong, they don't match.

I wrapped up a direct comparison in a screenshot of exactly the same area in OSM and ArcGIS, including a quick legend for the official CanVec data in ArcGIS, that shows the different classifications and issues, see the below DropBox link where you can download it:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3tekmykdwwp7vdxlj0xxu/Canvec_issue.png?rlkey=z6x7p3h6hgtbrya6iwtkg5bnx&dl=0

There is now also a tough decision to make. It may be hard to fix this in any (semi-)automated manner. Maybe you need to revert the entire import of all of these tiles, and start from scratch after you've corrected your workflow and are absolutely sure it will now produce proper results.
laznik (2024-04-19 11:02:06+00:00): hmm, "Pliesovske sedlo" :-) Je to sice pri Pliesovciach, ale v tom mieste sedlo nie je. Mozno je ten POI posunuty smerom na vychod do doliny Krupinice (povodie Ipla), od hrebienka ktory tvori rozvodie s Neresnicou (povodie Hrona). Zaujimalo by ma odkial maju ten nazov, pretoze som to nikdy nepocul.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11453832124/history#map=18/48.40556/19.17115
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-27 03:21:41+00:00): Hello IJANU3LW7H & welcome to OSM. Question we have to ask though. What is the "geojson data file" that you refer to using? Thanks.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-27 03:22:55+00:00): Olá IJANU3LW7H e seja bem-vindo ao OSM. Mas temos que fazer uma pergunta. O que é o "arquivo de dados geojson" que você se refere a usar? Obrigado.
NorthCrab_upload (2023-12-25 21:30:22+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/way/395793181
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1234146191

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-24 09:27:44+00:00): why you added 6FWHW94V+P9PF plus code to so many objects?
citrula (2023-12-26 01:34:15+00:00): You marked "Houston Garden Center" as amenity=childcare. I think amenity=nursery is probably what you meant :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145512517
citrula (2023-12-26 01:35:30+00:00): Sorry!! shop=garden_centre is the tag that should be used. See the wiki : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dgarden_centre
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145512517
MappingEd (2023-12-28 17:53:40+00:00): Thanks for the heads-up. Couldn't figure out which one was it. Was new to OSM.
mysticacupido (2024-01-03 10:31:09+00:00): Danke, ich denke da war ich etwas zu übereifrig mit der Auftrennung.
Filip009 (2024-01-09 20:20:21+00:00): Zdravím, nahral ste asi 15 ciest bez tagov, dávajte si na to pozor.
citrula (2023-12-26 01:32:42+00:00): Does this trail have an official name?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145513106
Carl Z (2023-12-26 02:17:12+00:00): Yes. "Trainspotting" on both Strava and Trailforks
silversurfer83 (2023-12-27 14:23:29+00:00): Hello there :)

you asked for someone to review your change set. I'll give you some feedback:

Looks pretty good already. I took the liberty of making some minor corrections you can review here
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4921713441
What I did: removed the phone number and the "shop=florist" since you already set "disused:shop=yes". 

Happy mapping and in case of questions please reach out

silversurfer83
aharvey (2025-07-18 03:46:22+00:00): hi why was the "Kangaroo Creek Track" name removed?
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-27 03:21:22+00:00): Hello 71Z5YO13JJ & welcome to OSM. Question we have to ask though. What is the "geojson data file" that you refer to using? Thanks.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-27 03:23:22+00:00): Olá 71Z5YO13JJ e bem-vindo ao OSM. Mas temos que fazer uma pergunta. O que é o "arquivo de dados geojson" que você se refere a usar? Obrigado.
blackboxlogic (2023-12-30 19:59:44+00:00): Did you delete it solely because it's private?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145513815
rustymorr (2024-01-29 00:21:17+00:00): it's not a road, it is a driveway.
NeisBot (2024-01-01 14:54:11+00:00): Hey 71Z5YO13JJ 👋

Just a heads up, your recent changeset has been marked as the last one in a series. 

If you have any questions or if there's anything you'd like to discuss regarding the mapping, feel free to reach out! We're here to help. 

Best regards, 🤖

Details https://osm.org/user_blocks/15537
#ContributorHasBeenBlocked
NeisBot (2024-01-01 14:47:29+00:00): Hey 71Z5YO13JJ 👋

Just a heads up, your recent changeset has been marked as the last one in a series. 

If you have any questions or if there's anything you'd like to discuss regarding the mapping, feel free to reach out! We're here to help. 

Best regards, 🤖

Details https://osm.org/user_blocks/15537
#ContributorHasBeenBlocked
GeoAndi (2023-12-26 11:03:14+00:00): hab einen kleinen Rechtschreibfehler korrigiert, sonst wird die Fläche nicht gerendert (siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145528336)
HAmap (2023-12-26 14:12:04+00:00): ah - kleinschreibung statt GROSSBUCHSTABEN, Danke!
NorthCrab_upload (2023-12-25 23:41:01+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Żwirki i Wigury":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11454003898
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11454003899

"Grzybowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11454003920

"Słoneczna":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11454003932
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11454003933

Pozdrawiam! 🦀