piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2024-11-10 06:50:14+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback  De wijk heeft nu een aantal afslagbeperkingen.  Dit zorgt er wel voor dat de routering niet meer werkt. Bv voor fietsers.
Staan hier werkelijk borden met dwingende pijlen of zijn deze wegen gewoon eenrichtingsverkeer en wordt het via de oneway=yes geregeld met uitzondering van tweewielers. Of staat het wegdeel op construction en zijn er blokkades? 

Je hoeft ook geen adresgegevens toe te voegen aan woningen. We werken in OSM Nederland met adresnodes. 
Wanneer de Huiszwaluwstraat deels nog construction is..dan gewoon highway=construction taggen. Dan routeert het ook niet. 
Ik draai je wijzigingen voorlopig even terug.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-11-10 06:52:57+00:00): reverted by changeset #158956748
eggie (2024-11-10 07:04:38+00:00): Ik heb het wegdeel even op construction gezet en afslagbeperkingen verwijderd. 
Laatste situatie
https://viewer.satellietdataportaal.nl/@52.66359,4.852921,18/?datastrip=20241004_PNEO-03

Groet
eggie
gentiw (2024-11-10 07:28:51+00:00): Hoi Eggie, bedankt voor je review. Markeren als constructie kan helpen (denk ik), maar feit is dat dit pad geen autoverkeer toelaat. Als je goed kijkt naar de satellietfoto, zie je dat er grote betonnen blokken de toegang blokkeren.
eggie (2024-11-10 07:37:08+00:00): Die blokken heb ik ook toegevoegd. Wanneer het geen construction meer is kun je de weg weer van construction halen. 

De blokken zullen dan motorvoertuigen stoppen muv fietsers en voetgangers.
Voor die laatsten zal de weg dan routeren. 
Dan werkt het zonder al die afslagbeperkingen. 

Wanneer het geen woonstraat is. (residential)  is het wellicht een highway=path. 
Up to you.
Groet
eggie
eggie (2024-11-10 07:39:33+00:00): Een paar keer ctrl-f5  Dan zie je het effect zoals ik het heb aangepast. Die zwarte puntjes zijn de barrier=block
gentiw (2024-11-10 07:43:37+00:00): Top!
eggie (2024-11-10 07:46:59+00:00): Oke.. maar om het te laten routeren wel de construction weer verwijderen en de juiste wegklasse taggen. .. highway= path? cycleway? residential?
gentiw (2024-11-10 07:58:22+00:00): Sorry. Ik heb dat voor nu veranderd naar path. Zodra er andere kleuren zijn en er meer definitie is gegeven, zal ik het updaten.
eggie (2024-11-10 08:00:47+00:00): 👍
Up to you.. Jij bent de lokale mapper.
eggie (2024-11-10 08:13:53+00:00): Maar als fietsers en voetgangers er nu al doormogen dan.. highway=path en de regel construction= verwijderen.
Orblivion (2024-11-09 23:13:52+00:00): Bridge name came from a plaque on the bridge
user_21736114 (2025-02-22 09:09:06+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41232939/history
звідки ти взяв що на цьому цвинтарі поховані лише християни і не має поховано жодного єврея
або те шо всі хто тут поховані були хрещеними в православ'ї катлолицизмі чи в сектах баптизму євангелізму п'ятидесятництва 
тег religion  є абсурдом
Glassman (2024-11-10 17:55:59+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158952421
paulbrunner (2024-11-11 07:04:32+00:00): Hi yopaseopor, 
I started a discussion about this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158945542, where some of the roads added here were also mapped.
All the best and happy mapping,
Paul
Glassman (2024-11-10 17:57:58+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158952636
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-11-25 09:49:50+00:00): What you mean by "playground=flying fox" at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12327722519/history ?

(I fixed main tag already)
nevw (2024-11-25 10:53:02+00:00): Often smaller playgrounds in Australia may one main feature and a flying fox is popular.
They are also known as zip lines but when referring to playgrounds here is is called a flying fox.
nevw (2024-11-29 17:56:33+00:00): I have changed this to zipwire as this is the preferred name in osm and commonly used in Australia
Hungerburg (2024-11-13 08:59:51+00:00): Jetzt fließt das Wasser dort von unten nach oben, ditch passt auch besser, nicht?
Road–Runner (2024-11-15 18:35:16+00:00): Ich hab das ehrlich gesagt nur notdürftig ausgebessert, weil der Bach plötzlich und nicht nachvollziehbar in einen periodischen Arm floss.

Ja, der periodische Teil soll denke ich den kleinen Graben (allem im Bing Luftbild sichtbar) repräsentieren, der aber nicht mit dem Mühlbachl verbunden ist. Stimmt, die Richtung hab ich jetzt umgekehrt, und ja ditch wäre wahrscheinlich auch besser, kenne die Stelle aber nicht allzu gut.
Hungerburg (2024-11-16 00:43:04+00:00): An der Abzweigung sind zwei Sperren. Ganz genau kenn ich die Geschichte vom Mühlbachl auch nicht, ob das für Bewässerung war? Vor zwei Jahren hab ich das ganze Bachl eingepflegt, aber der Abzweig war mir zu minder ;) Jetzt ist auch der drin, no ditch left behind.
Glassman (2024-11-10 17:58:05+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158952687
0000FF berries (2024-11-10 13:09:09+00:00): Hi Okrah :) 

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for wanting to improve Greece :) 

Please note that you have added buildings which have been already mapped some years ago, and an odd way.  For example, see this gas station building and the surrounding area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.997371/23.696289&layers=D buildings have other buildings on top of them.

Have you downloaded the data of the area in JOSM before starting mapping..? I'm going to revert this changeset and a few more after some days. Maybe you would like to start mapping some of the unmapped villages outside of Athens first..?  We certainly welcome new editors, they are many things to map :) 

If you have questions, feel free to ask either at the forum for Greece  https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/gr/68 or at the Matrix channel https://matrix.to/#/#osm-gr:matrix.org or send me a message.

Welcome again and happy mapping :)
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-18 04:37:20+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165095325
Glassman (2024-11-10 17:58:12+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158952823
AndersAndersson (2024-11-10 22:36:54+00:00): Är inte det här en strand?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/812596636
pereric (2024-11-10 22:44:40+00:00): Sant, naturlig strand också, som sammanfaller med badplatsen. Det är mest sand. Enligt taggarna med EU-id är det badplats. Jag flyttar ut badplatsen med EU-ref till eget object med taggning som badplats.
AndersAndersson (2024-11-10 23:00:02+00:00): Snabbt jobbat! Tackar!
infeeeee (2024-11-10 20:09:24+00:00): Szia!

Emeletti házakról írok: https://osm.org/relation/18270040

A multipoligonos épület rajzolás ilyen esetekben nem túl hatékony. Létrehoztál 9 vonalat és 4 relációt, pedig ez csak lehetett volna egyszerűen 4 vonal is...

A legnagyobb probléma ezzel, hogy kezdőknek ezt sokkal nehezebb szerkeszteni, mint ha csak sima zárt poligonok lennének, és nagyobb valószínűséggel rontja is el, szakítja meg valaki véletlenül.

További jó térképezést!
Kiss_Karoly (2024-11-10 20:29:56+00:00): A sarokban történő csatlakozás miatt, ez most így tűnt egyszerűbbnek. Nem erőltetem feltétlenül. A validátor szerint nem hibás, remélem mást sem zavarok meg vele.
vasony (2024-11-10 20:56:27+00:00): Csatlakozom, ne erőltessük ezt. Egyébként is ha ezek különálló házak, akkor külön faluk van, még ha össze is érnek. 
Ha meg nem akkor nem indokolt  a külön building csak a building:part
Ezzel csak rontasz a kezelhetőségen, előnye nincs.
infeeeee (2024-11-10 22:21:11+00:00): Nem fog hibát dobni erre egyik validátor se, mert vannak épületek, amiket csak így lehet megrajzolni, pl. amikben luk van. Illetve landuse-ra, nagy területű dolgokra ez a fajta rajzolás a  jobban kezelhető.

Ez csak kérés volt, mert sokszor kellett elrontott ilyeneket javítgatnom már. Amit már felrajzoltál így, azt ne javítsd, csak majd az újaknál, felrajzoláskor ugyanannyi idő létrehozni.
Kiss_Karoly (2024-11-10 22:24:15+00:00): Rendben. Megértettem. Így teszek.
Glassman (2024-11-10 17:58:17+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158952948
Glassman (2024-11-10 17:58:24+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158952977
shershocked (2024-11-10 00:56:48+00:00): I live nearby so I can attest that this information is correct.
Glassman (2024-11-10 17:58:29+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158953270
Glassman (2024-11-10 17:59:09+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158953270
Glassman (2024-11-10 18:01:31+00:00): Connecting roads to landuse is not appropriate. When one changes, it means having to adjust an unrelated feature.
jtracey (2024-11-10 01:02:29+00:00): resolves https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4513656
Glassman (2024-11-10 18:01:51+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158953457
Udarian (2024-11-10 06:15:57+00:00): please in the future do not add the crossing:signals=* because it is implied the by the crossings=* value; this is because crossings=uncontrolled and crossing=unmarked both imply that the crossings isn't signalized (aka crossing:signals=no)(literally the definition of uncontrolled in this context) and crossings=traffic_signals implies crossing:signals=yes because that means that the crossings has signals.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
UrbanUnPlanner (2024-11-11 02:55:53+00:00): You'll want to take that up with bhousel (the Rapid maintainer) -- I'm following Rapid's logic re: crossing:signals these days.  (The overall intent is to deprecate the distinctions in crossings=* in favor of separate tagging for markings, signals, and other crossing properties.)
Udarian (2024-11-11 03:46:29+00:00): If we deprecate crossing we would be going against all the conventions that have already been established elsewhere in the tagging, for example we don't describe sidewalks as a set of properties added to ways with the tag highway=footway, we add footway=sidewalk to describe that something is a sidewalk. by the same logic we shouldn't describe different types of crossings with different tagging, we should just say the type of crossing through a crossing tag. in the same way as footway=* tells you the type of footway crossing=* tells you the type of crossing.
∴ if we deprecate crossing=* we should also by the same logic deprecate footway=* since they both serve the same purpose in specifying the type that they are.

I'll add a note here that there are really ony two types of crossings, uncotrolled and controlled(traffic_signals), I agree that the tagging still needs some work, I just think that we should deprecate crossing=unmarked as we did with crossing=marked since crossing=unmarked and crossings:markings=no encode the same information and since they are duplicate information one should be removed. Due to the fact that crossing=uncotroled and traffic_signals (what I'm calling controlled) do not encode the type of marking present at a crossing, crossing:markings=* is neccessary for cases were crossinga:markings is not "no" and ∴ crossings=unamrked should be deprecated. this does not apply to crossing:signals=* since if crossing=unmarked is deprecated then the two values of crossing=* would already encode the same infomation as crossings:signals=* and since crossings=* already exists we dont need a new tag and ∴ crossings:signals=* should be depredcated. essentially we either deprecate crossing:markings or crossings:signals and since it is significantly harder (it takes exponetially more tags) to encode crossings:markings fully into crossings=* it should be the one thats kept since all it takes to encode the same information as crossing:signals into crossing=* is two tags that we already have. 

Happy mapping,
Udar.
ezekielf (2024-11-11 16:54:08+00:00): Hi Udar, 
Just popping in to say that crossing:signals= is a perfectly valid in-use tag.  It's fine if you think it's redundant, but many other mappers don't so please don't delete it.  Personally, I always tag both crossing:markings= and crossing:signals= while often omitting crossing= because the values of that tag are interpreted inconsistently.
Lumikeiju (2024-11-11 18:11:01+00:00): I'll also voice my strong support for "crossing:markings=*" and "crossing:signals=*" as useful and well-documented tags (and my distaste for "crossing=*", which has 912 different values currently!)
Udarian (2024-11-11 20:27:29+00:00): so then logically we should also remove footway=* tags. that's the pattern here, you have a tag telling you what the feature is and then then a tag that starts with what it is from the previous tag telling you what type of what it is it is.
for example sidewalks, highway=footway tells you they are a footway but since sidewalks a re more specific than the nebulous "footway" you specify the type of footway with footway=sidewalk. the same logic applies for crossings. highway=footway tells you they are pedestrian navigation features, footway=crossings tells you that the feature is for crossings roads but that isn't all the information that matters about a crossings, you also have to know whether or not its signalized since that is what distinguishes crossings, not how they are marked so you need a crossings=*. 
As I clearly laid out in the above post (see it for more detail) this makes crossings:signals=* the imposter here and thus it should be deprecated.

just because the tag crossings=* has in the passed been inconsistently interpreted in the passed doesn't mean it has to now. the change is rather simple in fact, all we have to do is deprecate all crossings=* values other than uncontrolled and traffic_signals (as laid out above); and although that change would make it abundantly clear what the meaning of crossings=* is we specify in the wiki that it is purely for whether or not it is signalized. that is anyways basically the state of things now. again all we have to do is deprecate all 910 other tags apparently.

again, as to keep the tagging internally consistent either we deprecate crossing:signals or  both crossings=* and footway=*. pick your poison apparently.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Lumikeiju (2024-11-11 23:44:16+00:00): "crossing:markings=*" + "crossing:signals=*" allows for all combinations of these features (and their details, such as "crossing:markings:colour=*") to be tagged, based entirely on observable on-the-ground information, under one coherent schema. "crossing=*" does not.

Adding "crossing=*" in line with the documentation on the Wiki is fine, though I'd expect those tags to eventually be removed in the future. Removing "crossing:signals=*" is not. "footway=*" is irrelevant here.
Minh Nguyen (2024-11-12 08:53:21+00:00): The status quo with crossing=* is objectively the consequence of multiple errors over the years. [1][2] A fair number of mappers are OK with the status quo, but they don’t quite agree among themselves about what that is. Fortunately, OSM’s tagging standards do evolve over time. crossing:markings=* and crossing:signals=* are an attempt to break out of this stalemate. Additional expressiveness can compensate for any additional verbosity.

It looks like you use iD. That editor’s maintainer has also expressed interest in adopting crossing:signals=* [3], and there are multiple pending pull requests that would do so.

Although crossing:signals=* is a de facto key, there is a draft proposal to extend it with more specific values, in the same way that crossing:markings=* provides more detail than crossing=* was previously able to. [4] You’re welcome to leave some feedback on the talk page.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Crossings#Street_crossings
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Duncontrolled#Terminology
[3] https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/590#issuecomment-1308665554
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Crossing_signalization
tekim (2024-11-30 01:47:56+00:00): please don't add fords without actual knowledge of the situation.  Some of those that you added are bridges.
tekim (2024-11-30 15:48:05+00:00): You also deleted trails that really do exist!!!!
Filip009 (2024-11-28 20:59:45+00:00): Zdravím, neotagovaná cesta https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1332524398
macdale (2024-11-29 11:42:27+00:00): Cauko, dikes, opravene.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-08 04:05:19+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164659356
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-18 04:37:21+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165095325
salapatii (2024-11-10 12:46:28+00:00): Hello Hazuzu, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! In the future, please provide a description of your changes in the changeset comment, your comment "asd" does not provide any information to others about what you have changed. For more information please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
HaritaDuzenlemeHesabi (2024-11-11 11:39:30+00:00): Selam. Araç muayene istasyonunu(way/333394130) neden node/12327864374 olarak değiştirdiniz? (Bu araç muayene istasyonuna birden çok kez bizzat gittim. Eskiden eklenen de eksik. Sadece bina değil, ilgili alanın tamamı TÜVTÜRK Muayene İstasyonu.)
bxl-forever (2024-11-10 11:18:17+00:00): Hello,

The path here is inside a bus depot, it should either not be mapped at all or should have restricted access.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1332536565
IdeallyGrey (2024-11-10 17:10:27+00:00): Thank you for pointing out, removed.
wireguy (2024-11-10 12:33:29+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dresidential
skorasaurus (2024-11-10 21:32:17+00:00): HI, thanks for mapping and adding more detail to the park but what was your reasoning behind deleting the baseball field's way ? It's generally considered acceptable to map it as a entire shape.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158955792
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-18 04:37:22+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165095325
rempshaener (2024-11-10 09:02:39+00:00): Hallo,
es wäre super, wenn du die Changesets etwas kleiner machen würdest, dann sind die wesentlich besser durchzugucken.
Eine Anmerkung vorweg: OSM ist nicht überall selbsterklärend. Fehler gehören dazu.
Hinsichtlich des Umtaggens der Rettungswachen aber mal Klartext: ich muss hier fast Absicht unterstellen – Rettungswachen „heißen“ nicht „Deutsches Rotes Kreuz“.

Ich unternehme dennoch den Versuch:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/632769782: Die Gebäudeform passt noch nicht so ganz. Zum rechtwinklig machen zum Schluss einfach Q drücken. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1332559913: Das dürfte maximal eine Beschreibung sein, bitte so etwas in description packen.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/247249356, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/294746254, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1144643335: Feststehende Bezeichnungen in OSM sind selten deutsch, also hier wäre es ambulance_station

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1330893956: Feststehende Bezeichnungen in OSM sind selten deutsch, also hier wäre es ambulance_station. Und das Umtaggen eines NEF-Standortes auf DRK halte ich für falsch.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1330893957: Fehlermeldungen in iD bitte nicht ignorieren, da hilft auch kein layer=-1. Der Weg darf das Gebäude nicht kreuzen.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18270601: Hier ist was ziemlich schief gelaufen, hier benötigst du keine Relation. Melde dich bitte, wenn du Hilfe benötigst.

Viele Grüße
JanM2810 (2024-11-10 12:31:40+00:00): Hallo,
Das mit dem Deutschen Roten Kreuz wusste ich nicht. Darunter steht nämlich Rettungswache, weshalb ich dachte, dies sollte so sein, ich werde es ändern.😅

Die Bezeichnung werde ich ebenfalls auf Englisch ändern.
rempshaener (2024-11-10 09:05:54+00:00): Hallo,
das Löschen des einzelnen Punktes hätte schon gereicht.
Ich habe das jetzt mal korrigiert.
Viele Grüße
rempshaener (2024-11-10 09:11:02+00:00): Hallo,
hier habe ich nur Anmerkungen zur Qualität der Umrisse: das Luftbild ist hier sehr gut, daher erkannt man ganz gut, dass du die Gebäudeformen oft nicht ganz getroffen hast. D.h. die Umrisse sind zu groß, nicht rechtwinklig (Q drücken) oder ignorieren Erker oder Aussparungen.
Ich kann z.B. das hier empfehlen: https://www.drk.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDFs/Missing_Maps/HaeufigsteFehler_iDEditor.pdf
Viele Grüße
drolbr (2024-12-27 08:14:11+00:00): Reverted by changeset 160665191

Grund: Fehlerhafte Selektion von Relationen-Membern außerhalb der Download-Bounding-Box in JOSM.
dmich9 (2025-05-01 13:39:51+00:00): Erroneously tagging entire neighborhoods and sections of forest as parks. Also tagging houses as commercial. Reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165676908
Hugoren Martinako (2024-11-10 16:30:17+00:00): Hi there,

Regarding this way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402499411/history/8) you just switch from track to unclassified. In the spanish community we're discussing about what criteria do you use (in general, english-speakers) to consider one or another, according to the present imagery. 

The wiki definitions don't clear that up to us, at all, indeed. Could you bring us some light here, please?

Keep in mind, most of these elements are unpaved, and private cars shouldn't be routed through them (unless you wanna go on purpose, of course, to some specific place).

Thanks
BR
Kathyaus (2024-11-10 21:46:27+00:00): Hi there
Generally if the track provides some sort of connectivity between either major roads or buildings I would tag as 'unclassified'. If it is purely a track to farmlands, forestry I would tag as 'track'.
If this is incorrect, I'm happy to revert my change sets to track and use that going forward. 
Thank you for your question BR.
Kind regards
Kathy
Hugoren Martinako (2024-11-12 18:49:25+00:00): Hi again, sorry for the late response. 
Even though it's not incorrect, until we (spaniards) agree how to proceed, try to avoid the use of unclassified roads as much as you can, I hope you understard.
Cheers

PD: BR stands for Best Regards, lol
Kathyaus (2024-11-13 11:40:47+00:00): Hi
Thank you for the feedback. I will be sure avoid the use unclassified roads.
Thank you again :-)
HellMap (2024-11-11 16:34:56+00:00): Sveiki vēlreiz,

Rezervāta robeža ir definēta likumā - https://likumi.lv/ta/id/247900-gaujas-nacionala-parka-individualie-aizsardzibas-un-izmantosanas-noteikumi . Šīs izmaiņas labojums ir nobīdījis šo robežu, tāpēc es to atliku atpakaļ. Kas tieši šajā labojumā bija domāts ar "korekts attēlojums" saistībā ar šo robežu?
valdisj (2024-11-11 19:07:59+00:00): Gan Ozols.daba.gov.lv gan LVMGEO var apskatīt, ka robeža ir mainījusies. Tā iet pa to meža ceļu. Vienā pusē ir Dabas Lieguma zona, otrā - Stringrā Režīma zona (rezervāts).