piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ftrebien (2024-03-06 21:55:41+00:00): Caindo de pára-quedas, só queria deixar uma sugestão. Em geral, no OSM nós mapeamos o que existe na superfície, em alguns casos há previsão para mapear alguns elementos subterrâneos. No caso de uma mina subterrânea, o que está na superfície são as entradas da mina. Então, acho que existe uma representação possível pras minas de sal-gema (man_made=adit ou man_made=mineshaft, qualquer uma dessas duas junto com resource=salt), o que talvez esteja faltando é a informação sobre a localização exata dessas entradas, o que talvez possa ser obtido com alguma investigação.
Raquel Dezidério Souto (2024-03-08 02:18:37+00:00): Grata, ftrebien, eu cheguei a encontrar uma etiqueta para indicar que era em subsuperfície (surface=no), mas, infelizmente, era uma etiqueta que correspondia apenas a uma proposta que tinha sido rejeitada.

Esta questão é interessante... vejo, por vezes, boas sugestões de novas etiquetas, mas meia dúzia decide por rejeitá-las, entre os tantos que são mapeadores ativos do OSM... 
Neste caso específico (surface=no), deve ter a sua razão nesta mesma condição de mapear apenas o que está na superfície...

Tendo apenas o arquivo dos limites do DNPM ou olhando a área pelas imagens de satélite, fica difícil identificar onde ficariam estas entradas, seria bom contar com alguém de Maceió, que pudesse informar sobre isso...

Por outro lado, mapeando apenas as entradas, perde-se a informação sobre a área autorizada para exploração da lavra, o que seria interessante existir na base cartográfica, em certos casos, como este do desastre de Maceió. Mostraria os cinco bairros que existem sobre uma área enorme de mineração autorizada...

Enfim... Grata pelas sugestões...
ftrebien (2024-03-13 18:46:17+00:00): Muitas etiquetas no OSM surgiram espontaneamente. O que definiu se elas ficam foi o status quo mesmo: muitos mapeadores adotaram, então, foi considerada aprovada. Algumas inclusive tiveram oposição tardia, conforme outras pessoas foram entendendo os problemas gerados.

Às vezes acontece que o mapeador inventa coisas que não podem ser adequadamente consumidas nas aplicações. Então há um certo atrito entre o mapeador e o desenvolvedor. Outras vezes o mapeador inventa coisas que outros mapeadores não estão dispostos a manter, geralmente porque deixa o mapa mais confuso ou difícil de editar. Esse é talvez o caso dos elementos subterrâneos: eles são difíceis de verificar a não ser que alguém de fato entre debaixo da terra. Mesmo assim, alguns elementos subterrâneos são permitidos para comporem "redes" com elementos de superfície, como tubulações de água conectadas a rios, e os metrôs. Esses casos geralmente foram introduzidos por importações de dados, até porque é difícil alguém verificar (impossível entrar nas tubulações, e nos metrôs não há sinal de GPS). Importações costumam ter bastante discussão.

Acho interessante o mapa ter essa informação das minas considerando os riscos bem conhecidos dessa atividade para a população local. Talvez as tags usadas nesse caso não sejam as ideais. Sugiro trazer esse assunto no fórum propondo uma forma de mapear, talvez propondo etiquetas próprias (que poderiam ser selecionadas no Overpass Turbo) ou futuramente mostradas em alguma renderização específica, como se pretende com o OpenHazardMap (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenHazardMap). Só aviso que o OpenHazardMap é um projeto em curso há anos e ainda não tem visualização própria (há várias etiquetas no OSM nessa situação).
Henry572 (2023-12-06 20:01:04+00:00): Hallo SuperMad2023,
Danke für Deinen Beitrag zu OSM! An der Bearbeitung sieht grundsätzlich alles gut aus.
Für die Öffnungszeiten gibt es ein spezielles Format (siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:opening_hours), das wurde auch schon entsprechend formatiert.
Da shop=tennis weltweit nur viermal verwendet wird (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/shop#values), werde ich es durch shop=sports und sport=tennis ersetzen. So wird es dann von mehr Anwendungen verstanden.
Gruß, Hendrik
SuperMad2023 (2023-12-06 20:12:38+00:00): Super, Danke!
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-13 10:49:29+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great and also the changeset comment. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144800037
Dodko (2023-12-05 21:33:33+00:00): Ak kreslíš dom zarovnaj ho do pravého uhla, klávesová skratka Q aby nebol deformovaný.
Opravil som to https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=144807470
Aleks-Berlin (2023-12-07 09:59:59+00:00): Hi TheDutchMan13,
please read this (about wikimedia_commons tag)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons#Examples
Thanks, Alex
TheDutchMan13 (2023-12-08 00:28:46+00:00): Didn't know that, thank you for letting me know.
KKS (2023-12-06 10:07:43+00:00): Щоб вона була primary - треба зв'язаність мережі. На яку primary ця дорога виходить? нінаяку! тому ця дорога secondary поки не буде тунелю і виходу на таку ж primary
Hliban (2023-12-06 10:26:09+00:00): Окей, тоді зрозуміло, дякую за пояснення
Baloo Uriza (2023-12-05 18:58:26+00:00): Refs and old refs are not names, also please stop bulk modifications without discussing them.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144800473
Baloo Uriza (2023-12-05 18:59:28+00:00): Refs don't belong in names, abbreviations don't belong in refs
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144800737
Baloo Uriza (2023-12-05 19:00:43+00:00): Inaccurate ref changes, also please stop stomping on properly expanded words by abbreviating them in key values.  If people need the abbreviation, they'll shorten it algorithmically at time of consumption, not in the source data.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144800951
MxxCon (2023-12-07 21:07:23+00:00): Hello.
As documented on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:website it explicitly asks to remove tracking url parameters.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144800970
user_20367126 (2023-12-07 21:14:30+00:00): Tracking parameters removed. Item fixed.
MxxCon (2023-12-07 21:08:41+00:00): Hello.
What is the source of this information?
Also please do write meaningful changeset comments. Just writing location name is useless and doesn't help others understand what you are editing.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144801144
user_20367126 (2023-12-07 21:15:42+00:00): Source: https://www.linkedin.com/company/dataminr/
user_20367126 (2023-12-07 21:15:51+00:00): Address section
MxxCon (2023-12-07 21:21:35+00:00): You can NOT under any circumstances use copyrighted sources of data unless there's an explicit permission to use it with OSM! That is copyright violation and violation of YOUR terms of services with OSM and LinkedIn!
ALL data sourced from LinkedIn MUST BE DELETED.
Frans S (2024-01-20 08:57:13+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Yes, you mapped this 2 months ago, but just now I see these mappings from you.
Your mappings are fine. However, they all show an offset of more than 5 meters against the footprint of most  buildings.
I use Bing as well.
Any idea what happened? Did you correct the offset?
Please be keen on that.
Best regards.
Frans S (2024-01-20 09:01:37+00:00): Hi. Back again. Forget my message. It was on my program the offset occurred.
Sorry, Best regards and keep mapping.
MxxCon (2023-12-07 21:08:56+00:00): Hello.
What is the source of this information?
Also please do write meaningful changeset comments. Just writing location name is useless and doesn't help others understand what you are editing.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144801287
user_20367126 (2023-12-07 21:17:14+00:00): Source is LinkedIn in Locations tab: https://www.linkedin.com/company/dataminr/
Metzor (2023-12-06 13:09:48+00:00): Hallo Fabian!

Super, dass du ein Enddatum getaggt hast. DANKE!

Bei so kurzen Sperrungen dennoch bitte access:conditional verwenden :-) Es ist ja auch gar keine Baustelle...

motor_vehicle:conditional=no @ (2018 May 22-2018 Oct 7)

gesperrter Straßenabschnitt für "motor_vehicle" (z.B. wegen einer Baustelle) für einige Monate. Die Navigation sollte ab dem Tag der Baustellenfreigabe wieder funktionieren und zwar auch für Karten die während des Bauphase erstellt wurden
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Conditional_restrictions
source:motor_vehicle:conditional

Aus Neugierde: Ist das hier ein weitere Account von dir?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Fabian%20B%C3%BCcheler

Viele Grüße
Metzor
Fabian007 (2023-12-08 15:37:20+00:00): Sehr geehrte Metzor, vielen Dank, für ihre Informationen! I h werde ihre Nachricht für das Nächste Mal abspeichern, damit ich es auch richtig eintragen kann. Sorry, ich habe leider hier ein 2. Account offen, und ich weiß leider nicht, wie ich meinen 2. Account löschen kann, sodass ich einen habe. Können sie mir damit weiterhelfen? Danke, und einen wunderschönen Abend ihnen noch!

MFG Fabianbuecheler!
Fabian007 (2023-12-08 15:39:50+00:00): Sehr geehrte Metzor, vielen Dank, für ihre Informationen! Ich werde ihre Nachricht für das Nächste Mal abspeichern, damit ich es auch richtig eintragen kann. Sorry, ich habe leider hier ein 2. Account offen, und ich weiß leider nicht, wie ich meinen 2. Account löschen kann, sodass ich nur einen davon habe. Können sie mir bitte damit weiterhelfen, falls sie das wissen? Danke, und einen wunderschönen Abend ihnen noch!

MFG Fabianbuecheler
Metzor (2023-12-09 06:50:03+00:00): Hallo Fabian,

Es ist ok zwei Accounts zu haben. Kein Problem!

Bitte schaue dir aber die Kommentare in den Änderungssätzen von deinem 2. Account an, insbesondere:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142282472

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128089802

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118014440
(Das sollte "bitte nur Tags ändern" heißen)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116471883

Insbesondere beim ersten und letzten Link wäre ich dir dankbar, wenn du es gründlich durchliest und die Verbesserungen machst. Wenn du Fragen hast, einfach melden!

Mit welchen Account du die Fragen in den obigen Änderungssätzen beantwortest ist egal. Ich werde auf jeden Fall benachrichtigt.

Dir ein schönes Wochenende!
Metzor
Metzor (2023-12-14 04:58:49+00:00): Hallo Fabian!

Ist die Straße wieder befahrbar?

Gruß
Metzor
Fabian007 (2023-12-23 12:25:34+00:00): Sehr geehrte Metzor,
Ja, die Straßen sind wieder befahrbar.

MFG Fabianbuecheler
rarad74 (2023-12-05 18:47:05+00:00): Las-o balta ca ai facut harta praf de cand te-ai bagat sa editezi. Ai lasat Soseaua Pantelimon si strada Ziduri Mosi neconectate cu strazile laterale si cu Soseaua Colentina, fara intersectii cu liniile de tramvai. Era foarte bine si un singur way cu  2 benzi pe sens cum era inainte. Totul functiona perfect pe harta Bucurestiului pana sa te bagi tu. E pentru ultima data cand iti atrag atentia!
GinaroZ (2023-12-05 19:04:50+00:00): Assume Tolbooth Wynd is now two way?
Scotman100 (2023-12-07 08:28:59+00:00): Correct
damianeue (2023-12-06 10:05:23+00:00): Good job! I'm watching that video right now and I was curious if someone had mapped the village.
eggie (2023-12-05 19:30:20+00:00): Dag Mark..

Dit lijkt me geen openbare gelegenheid.

Mvg
eggie
jpennycook (2023-12-05 22:08:48+00:00): Hi!

I see you've been adding plenty of pavements and parking areas to OpenStreetMap in Winchester.  

For on-street parking or parking at the side of the road, tagging on the way for the road might be better - have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Street_parking

When you add pavements, could you adjust the sidewalk tag on the road that it relates to, please? For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448703207 - now you've added the pavements as separate ways, the road should change from sidewalk=both to sidewalk=separate or sidewalk:both=separate - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk?uselang=en-GB#Separately_mapped_sidewalks

Jon
liammday (2023-12-06 08:50:52+00:00): Hi Jon. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction with pavements and parking. I will dig a little deeper in to the documentation and correct my contributions as required.
jpennycook (2023-12-06 20:06:10+00:00): Hello again.

Thanks for replying so quickly. 
 Whilst adding ordinary pavements as separate ways isn't wrong, it can be a lot of work to get right, especially managing all the links to crossings and side roads.  Unless there's something special about a particular pavement (e.g. it's separated from the road by a fence, or it's a shared use path with cycling allowed), it's usually easier just to add the tags to the road itself.

If you're interested, you might like to look at the mobile app StreetComplete which makes adding tags to existing roads and paths simple.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/StreetComplete
https://streetcomplete.app/

Jon
santon (2023-12-27 08:22:01+00:00): Hallo Sandweg, ich habe einen neuen Eintrag bei der Nikodemuskirche erstellt. Viele Grüße santon
jpennycook (2023-12-05 22:13:23+00:00): Hello!

The pavement for Alresford Road where it crosses the motorway should be tagged as bridge=yes and layer=1 (to match the adjacent road) - it should not be joined to the motorway itself (there's no way a pedestrian could get from the pavement to the motorway).  If you are going to map pavements separately from the roads, which isn't commonly done, could you also split the crossings and tag those as footway=crossing, please? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dcrossing

Jon

Jon
liammday (2023-12-06 08:51:04+00:00): Hi Jon. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction with pavements and parking. I will dig a little deeper in to the documentation and correct my contributions as required.
arjunaraoc (2023-12-29 02:19:04+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  India page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India) and  join OSM India Telegram channel (https://t.me/OSMIndia).
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144803871
CjMalone (2024-01-07 23:08:26+00:00): Are you sure there is an M&Co here? https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3748211
suchAnight (2023-12-13 23:38:17+00:00): Hello Romano Bebber, I noticed that you made updates to the ref and name tag values in this changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144804439.  You stated in your comment that “Nomenclature has been changed recently. Now it’s all highway BR 163”, was there a resource that you used that lead to this resolution?  In your comment it says that this should all be the  BR-163 but I have observed the  BR-467 still exists along this highway between these features https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/663366921,  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/825863975.  In addition I noticed the old tags still remain (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/685755318, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/301416955) in gaps along the highway, was this intentional? 

The ref tag value in Brazil is formatted BR-### and the community resource for ref tagging IBGE(https://portaldemapas.ibge.gov.br/portal.php#mapa207401) confirms that format, what do you think about the ref tag value of BR-163 along this route? Perhaps the values you added could be kept as a loc_ref tag?(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:loc_ref). Thank you for your time and clarification have a nice day. 


Olá Romano Bebber, notei que você fez atualizações nos valores ref E nome tag neste conjunto de alterações https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144804439. o Senhor afirmou no seu comentário que " a nomenclatura foi alterada recentemente. Agora é tudo rodovia BR 163", houve um recurso que você usou que levou a esta resolução? Em seu comentário, diz que tudo isso deveria ser a BR-163, mas observei que a BR-467 ainda existe ao longo desta rodovia entre esses recursos https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/663366921, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/825863975. Além disso, notei que as tags antigas ainda permanecem (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/685755318, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/301416955) nas lacunas ao longo da auto-estrada, isso foi intencional? 

O valor da etiqueta ref no Brasil é formatado BR-### e o recurso comunitário para a marcação ref IBGE(https://portaldemapas.ibge.gov.br/portal.php#mapa207401) confirma esse formato, o que você acha do valor da etiqueta ref da BR-163 ao longo desta rota? Talvez os valores que você adicionou possam ser mantidos como uma tag loc_ref? (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:loc_ref). Obrigado pelo seu tempo e esclarecimento tenha um bom dia.
jhonatabf (2023-12-15 01:00:33+00:00): Olá Romano Bebber, notei que você fez estas alterações no nome da rodovia, dizendo que "Agora é tudo RODOVIA BR 163". Na verdade ela sempre foi a rodovia com numeração (ref) BR-163 e BR-467, elas possuíam traçado compartilhado, a única coisa que foi alterada foi o número da rodovia dominante, que antes era a BR-467 e agora é BR-163. Sobre o nome, não foi publicada nenhuma alteração da lei do governo do estado (https://www.legislacao.pr.gov.br/legislacao/listarAtosAno.do?action=exibir&codAto=1393&indice=4&anoSpan=0&anoSelecionado=0&isPaginado=true) que deu nomenclatura na época (em que a numeração era PRT-163 e o estado administrava), sendo que ainda consta no site oficial do governo do estado (https://www.der.pr.gov.br/Pagina/Denominacoes-de-Rodovias-Estaduais) com a nomenclatura "Rodovia Dr. Ernesto Dall'Óglio". Não houve a publicação de nenhuma lei alterando o nome, nem por parte do governo federal ou estadual, só houve a alteração do número dominante da rodovia.
-Utiashvili (2024-01-20 17:13:05+00:00): რატომ შეცვალეთ გზები ბილიკებად? გაიარეთ ეგ გზა და აღარაა სამანქანო?
-Utiashvili (2024-02-28 10:29:47+00:00): ??
user_5359 (2023-12-07 07:41:13+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/node/11396762087 (one of five hundred twenty five objects). What is the mean of the foreign keys? Please reduce the number of digits of ele value. Please use corr3ct values for layer and name (did you mean ref). Delete local information (path) and GPX keys).
If you need help, You are welcome.
user_5359 (2023-12-12 06:49:52+00:00): Olá! Dê uma olhada em http://www.osm.org/node/11396762087 (um dos quinhentos e vinte e cinco objetos). Qual é a média das chaves estrangeiras? Reduza o número de dígitos do valor de ele. Use os valores corretos para camada e nome (você quis dizer ref). Exclua as informações locais (caminho) e as chaves GPX).
Se precisar de ajuda, será bem-vindo.
MxxCon (2023-12-07 20:46:26+00:00): 'Geocaching doesn'"'"'t belong on OSM. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Geocaching
Edit reverted in full.'

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144880237
MxxCon (2023-12-07 21:09:07+00:00): Hello.
What is the source of this information?
Also please do write meaningful changeset comments. Just writing location name is useless and doesn't help others understand what you are editing.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144805674
MxxCon (2023-12-07 21:09:28+00:00): Hello.
What is the source of this information?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144805714
Cebderby (2023-12-05 22:15:39+00:00): Node dragged, and blocks vehicle access to about 6 properties, cannot be correct, reverted.
Mike_Snell (2023-12-05 22:27:45+00:00): Hello Cebderby, I'm was not trying to change vehicle access. I only made a change to show that it is a footpath. The Gwynedd definitive map shows that this is a public footpath. Are you happy for me to change it to a footpath?
Cebderby (2023-12-05 22:34:51+00:00): If it's a road that also carries a public footpath (presumably using the bridge bit not the ford in the middle?) then leave the highway types as they are, and set the additional tag designation=public_footpath and change to foot=designated on the relevant ways.
Mike_Snell (2023-12-05 22:51:12+00:00): Hello Cabderby, It's barely a road, more of a foot path, that uses the bridge. I was there today and there is no ford. I'll change the tags as you recommend
trigpoint (2023-12-06 16:44:26+00:00): https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/371992 and https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/372001 looks like a track and a ford to me
Mike_Snell (2023-12-08 17:10:18+00:00): Hello Trigpoint, yes it does look like a ford in these pictures, however these images are 17 years old. I have been there again and the reason I didn't notice the ford is because it's so overgrown. It's completely impassable by anything other than a bulldozer. When I get a chance I'll try to upload the photos I took today
Mike_Snell (2023-12-08 17:30:07+00:00): https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/7665921
Here is how it looks today
trigpoint (2023-12-08 18:51:48+00:00): Thank you Mike, although now I am more confused as the road/bridge shown in your photo is not mapped?
Cebderby (2023-12-08 19:00:11+00:00): I did add the designation=public_footpath + foot=designated through here, and drew in the bridged private driveway (it was just visible in the aerial images and on one of the old ford pictures) from what was discussed + shared before.  So probably the only thing to choose is what to do with the short bit of (ex-)track through the ford - it can probably be changed to disused:highway=track.
Mike_Snell (2023-12-08 21:27:39+00:00): Hi Cebdery, I'd be reluctant to change the ford, as, while it's unpassable, the council definitive map still shows it as a ford.
Hi Trigpoint, don't understand, the road/bridge is clearly mapped?
All, anyway, the only reason I got involved is because I'm organising an orienteering event in this area. Both the definitive map and the council street signs in the area clearly show this as a footpath and I just wanted to show that the route was a public foothpath.
I'm a newbie here, so thank you all for being gentle with me and thanks for your help!
Cebderby (2023-12-08 21:46:40+00:00): One other thought Mike, you've added some nice paths through the (mostly) trees area to the south and west.   They show as very pale grey on the standard map as they've got access=no which is actually not at all necessary for paths as all motor vehicles are automatically disallowed anyway.  Without this tag they'll show as clearer (dashed red) paths.  And where you can enter/exit them from the roads, they can (should) actually join to the road so they can be routed along, which you may find useful for race route planning. Looks like there are 3? places on the main road and one on the W side which may connect and currently don't quite.
Mike_Snell (2023-12-08 21:59:41+00:00): Hello Cebderby, Thanks for your help. I've changed the access to permissioned. As luck would have it, on the day I walked the paths, I bumped into a working party from the Woodland Trust. In the working party was the local manager and I spoke to her about the event I was planning and she told me that the paths were permissive.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-02 13:33:08+00:00): Hello!

You used
sport=tennis;q
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262219203/history

Have you maybe meant
sport=tennis
?

I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).

Or have you used this value deliberately? In such case, what was the intended meaning?
eggie (2023-12-05 21:52:23+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback  auto19.nl is not a valid website format.. use  http://.......

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
ZeLonewolf (2023-12-05 21:43:42+00:00): Hello,

Your recent edits along Route 66 are being discussed on the OSM Community Forum:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kevinajames95-currently-mangling-route-66

Please review that thread before editing further.