piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Ewen Hill (2024-03-01 09:36:16+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM - This a appears to be a private road and the road should be set to access=private if you could do this please.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146977737
Ewen Hill (2024-03-01 09:36:36+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM - This a appears to be a private road and the road should be set to access=private if you could do this please.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146977737
Ewen Hill (2024-03-01 09:35:54+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM - This a appears to be a private road and the road should be set to access=private if you could do this please.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146977752
Ewen Hill (2024-03-01 09:35:25+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM - This a appears to be a private road and the road should be set to access=private if you could do this please.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146977768
Ewen Hill (2024-03-01 09:35:08+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM - This a appears to be a private road and the road should be set to access=private if you could do this please. #biosecurity
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146977779
Ewen Hill (2024-03-01 09:34:39+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM - This a appears to be a private road and the road should be set to access=private if you could do this please.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146977794
Ewen Hill (2024-03-01 09:34:22+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM - This a appears to be a private road and the road should be set to access=private if you could do this please.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146977806
Ewen Hill (2024-03-01 09:34:23+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM - This a appears to be a private road and the road should be set to access=private if you could do this please.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146977806
Kovoschiz (2024-02-02 10:38:03+00:00): Please don't upload personal test data to a public database. This is vandalism.
W49KERS (2024-02-02 10:22:23+00:00): You're a noddy! Clear path, go get laid
Ewen Hill (2024-03-01 09:33:43+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM - This a appears to be a private road and the road should be set to access=private if you could do this please.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146977918
Ewen Hill (2024-03-01 09:33:19+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM - This a appears to be a private road and the road should be set to access=private if you could do this please.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146978190
SpitfireOnline (2024-02-02 11:30:11+00:00): Beaucoup de changements, notamment :
- ajout de plusieurs bâtiments neufs a l'ouest du gymnase et Stade
- 33 chemin du Calquet : Une villa a été détruite et remplacée par des immeubles
- 2 chemin du carrelot : une maison avec piscine a disparue, remplacée par de nouvelles maisons, plus de piscine
- 48 Pierre Molette : d'anciennes maisons de ville remplacées par une série d'immeubles neufs
Pieter Vander Vennet (2024-02-12 15:22:55+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11577197608

This door is marked as being 37cm wide. Isn't that _very_ small?
Thibaultmol (2024-02-12 15:54:49+00:00): ... yeah actually of course. Not sure what happened here. i'll just remove the value for now
Map-Peter (2024-02-02 17:15:28+00:00): Hallo Xaver,
 
diese Dinge zu mappen hättest du dir sparen können, da das alles sehr bald abgerissen wird. ;-)  
Die Baumfällgenehmigung ist nun auch schon mehr als ein halbes Jahr alt: https://www.nordkurier.de/regional/neubrandenburg/doch-keine-rettung-fuer-linden-in-neubrandenburg-1707340 .
 
Gruß Peter
Map-Peter (2024-02-06 22:17:14+00:00): https://www.nordkurier.de/regional/neubrandenburg/gedicht-gedenkt-gefaellter-linden-in-neubrandenburg-2249183
woodpeck (2024-02-02 18:45:45+00:00): Hallo lberges, ich finde die Benennung von Bauernhöfen mit den Betreibernamen problematisch. Ich plane, die von Dir eingetragenen Namen zu entfernen. In https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/beratungsresistente-user-und-deren-verbotene-quellen/97142/160 habe ich das zur Diskussion gestellt.
-=|MisterY|=- (2024-03-16 11:37:38+00:00): Moze li neko na terenu potvrditi da ove staze stvarno vise ne postoje?
Pjesacke staze na Trebevic su oznacene i odrzavane. Cudi me da ih vise nema.
woodpeck (2024-10-16 11:16:37+00:00): I have reverted this edit in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157959663 because there was no sufficient explanation for the deletion even after the question above. The information board shown on https://imgur.com/wrJ50Pu seems to indicate these paths do indeed exist.
tux67 (2024-02-02 13:08:41+00:00): Hallo Daniel,
ich weiß - als Streetcomplete User sieht man nicht, was das Tool auf Datenebene macht - aber mal exeplarisch an diesem Changeset. In der Beichsstraße ist jetzt die gesamte Straße mit einem cycleway:right gemappt - der fängt aber erst im nördlichen Teil an, so wie ich das sehe.
Die Bushaltestelle in der gleichen Straße ... da haben wir jetzt bench, bin, shelter etc. 2x eingetragen - 1x an der Platform und ein mal am bus_stop.
Es ist zu mühsam alle SC Chagesets immer im Detail zu checken .. aber vielleicht kannst du selbst ja mal ein paar Stichproben machen, ob das immer alles so korrekt und sinnvoll ist.

Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146978957
DanielSiepmann (2024-02-05 07:34:41+00:00): Hey, danke fürs Feedback.
Ich hatte am Anfang mal irgendwo gefragt wie Bushaltestellen gemappt werden. Da wurde mir gesagt das man sowohl die Haltestelle als auch den Bereich gleich mappen sollte, was die Features angeht. Hintergrund war wohl das unterschiedliche Apps die Features mal nur aus einem der beiden Infos beziehen. Daher habe ich dies bisher immer einheitlich gemappt. Das kann ich gerne in Zukunft anders machen. Gibt es da irgendwo einen zentralen Punkt wo ich finde wie sowas erwartet wird?

Danke auch für die Info mit dem Radweg. Da werde ich in Zukunft verstärkt drauf achten und den Weg dann entsprechend aufteilen, um dies korrekt einzutragen.
DanielSiepmann (2024-02-05 07:44:49+00:00): Das Problem mit dem Radweg wollte ich gerade per Online Editor korrigieren. Aber dort kann ich die Straße nicht aufteilen. Die Begründung ist das dies Teil einer Relation ist. Daher hab ich den Radweg dort erstmal wieder entfernt.
tux67 (2024-02-05 10:25:17+00:00): Den Way habe ich jetzt (nach Herunterladen aller Relationen) geteilt und die Radweg Attribute wieder hinzugefügt. Bei der Bushaltestelle haben wir den Unterstand zu allem Überfluss auch als separates building=roof gemappt. Die Haltestellen in MG sind auch nach einem für mich recht unüblichen Schema gemappt. Ein way für die platform und ein node am Ende des gleichen ways für den bus_stop. Beide elemente bieten laut wiki das mappen der attribute wie bin, bench und shelter an. Das immer zu machen ergibt für mich in diesem Kontext keinen Sinn. 
Was irgendwelche Programme daraus machen sollte uns dabei nicht beeinflussen:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Taggen_f%C3%BCr_den_Renderer
Aber da ständig jemand mit Streetcomplete diese Änderungen macht - deswegen lasse ich das so - da hinterher zuarbeiten ist ein Sisyphus Job.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146978957
streckenkundler (2024-02-02 14:06:15+00:00): Jein, nicht ganz richtig... Das NSG hat eine Totalreservatsfläche: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5927458

Üblicherweise verfahren wir bei NSG's in solchen Fällen wie bei Admin-Grenzen: an das Grenzsegment kommt die niedrigste Zahl:  Das NSG selbst ist protect_class=4, die Teilfläche: protect_class=1 also bekommt das Grenzsegment, das für beides gilt, protect_class=1
user_17585027 (2024-02-02 15:45:27+00:00): Also die Fläche bekommt die richtige Zahl (4) und die Grenze die niedrigste? Allerdings war die im Süd-Westen liegende Grenze bereits mit 4 markiert. Alle beiden weiteren hatten die 1.
user_17585027 (2024-02-02 15:45:54+00:00): Wobei deine verlinkte Relation auch nur Klasse 1 hat..?
streckenkundler (2024-02-02 16:02:21+00:00): Das zu dieser Totalreservatsfläche zugehörige NSG ist jenes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5874542

Ich selbst bin nich nicht ganz so richt glücklich mit der Art und Weise wie solche NSG's mit Teilflächen die Toralreservat sind, in OSM abgebildet werden, aber das doktern wir in OSM schom lange rum und der engere Kreis der entsprechenden Mapper ist klein, verwendbare Datenlage mäßig...
streckenkundler (2024-02-02 16:08:59+00:00): Mal im Detail:

NSG (pc=4): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5874542
Teilfläche Totalreservat (kurz: TR; pc=1): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5927458

Gemeinsame Grenze TR und NSG: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/394968726
Grenze nur TR: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/391960533
Grenze nur NSG: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389245054

Ach übrigens: bei Relationsbearbeitung solltes du mit iD extremst vorsichtig sein... iD kann damit nicht wirklich gut umgehen, das macht gerne mal Dinge, die der User nicht will... Ich hab da meine langjährigen Erfahrungen...
user_17585027 (2024-02-02 16:44:52+00:00): Ah, okay. Hab's verstanden! Ändere die Schutzklasse wieder auf 1 zurück. Werde mir sicher auch bald JOSM holen.
MapTheWalk (2024-05-04 10:06:35+00:00): Hi DrunkParisian, greetings! Thanks for mapping the different cemeteries within Bukit Brown.
I noticed that you have used several lines as part of the multipolygon relations, instead of simply creating closed areas for the different areas. Is there a reason for this? Would you be okay if I modify the relations to convert these into areas?
Cheers
DrunkParisian (2024-05-05 03:54:20+00:00): Hi MapTheWalk, that would be great. Better to use areas instead. Thanks!
fortera_au (2024-02-02 21:22:05+00:00): Hey there, pressing W in both of and JOSM will square off buildings, it’s a good idea to do this where possible.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146979571
Ewen Hill (2024-02-03 00:58:45+00:00): It's pressing Q to square buildings , not W however a very sensible idea.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146979571
fortera_au (2024-02-03 01:32:07+00:00): Whoops, thanks for catching the typo!
Random Gaming Stuff (2024-02-05 21:17:48+00:00): Yeah I have been pressing Q as much as possible. Is there a specific location where this is missing?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146979571
fortera_au (2024-02-05 21:36:12+00:00): There's a few houses near Peerless/Stebonheath Road in Munno Para West that have some bits that aren't 90 degrees and didn't look like it matched up with imagery.
mcliquid (2024-02-02 17:27:30+00:00): Hi,

please note: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:

• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)

• keep changes within the same country

• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

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

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
mavl (2024-02-02 14:19:18+00:00): Здравствуйте. Это пакет правок сдвигает здания и делает их непрямоугольными. Фрагмент карты стал выглядеть неаккуратно. Одно здание сдвинуто очень близко к дороге. Возможно, вы не выравниваете спутниковые снимки по GPS-трекам.  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B0%D1%8D%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2
mavl (2024-02-02 14:20:02+00:00): Здравствуйте. Здание добавлено прямо на дорогу. Так не бывает.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-02-02 11:00:23+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1200355252
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/101760675

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
5775 (2024-02-02 12:22:27+00:00): poprawione
runiq (2024-02-02 16:07:24+00:00): Footway oder Path an dieser Stelle? (Bei deinem anderen Changeset hast du path gesetzt, weil das vermutlich auch von Radfahrern frequentiert wird, oder?)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146979956
maraf24 (2024-04-06 11:41:35+00:00): Nazwy ulic nie pochodzą od adresów.
5775 (2024-04-29 12:44:51+00:00): skorygowane w późniejszych zmianach
richlv (2024-02-02 21:37:58+00:00): Sveiki, paldies par OSM uzlabošanu.
Mazliet palaboju tagus, tai saitā nodzēsu website tagu - tam bija nepareizs SSL sertifikāts, kurš pāradresēja uz kādu Lietuvas domēna lapu, kura savukārt pāradresēja uz kādu Instagram lapu, kura nestrādāja.

Iezīmēju arī dažas ēkas šeit, lai gan no ortofoto grūti saprast izkārtojumu.
Arī piebraucamos ceļus neriskēju iezīmēt pagaidām.

Ja ir vēlme turpināt ar kartes papildināšanu, laipni lūgti OSM Latvijas kopienas čatā https://osmlatvija.zulipchat.com .
maraf24 (2024-04-06 11:40:28+00:00): A dlaczego podniosłeś kategorię drogi?
5775 (2024-04-29 12:44:11+00:00): kategoria ustawiona zgodnie z pozostałymi na obszarze, jeśli to błąd prośba o korektę
MxxCon (2024-02-16 04:27:52+00:00): Since in US there’s no official regulatory body managing hotel star ratings and each hotel can rate themselves however many stars they want, it serves no purpose other than promotional/advertisement for the hotels.

As such, the use of stars=* tag for hotels should be deprecated.
bxl-forever (2024-02-02 15:07:54+00:00): Hello,

Thanks for this but there is some confusion about spelling rules.

Your description note uses "Batar" whereas you typed "batar" (all in lower case) for the name tag.

Could you please clarify which of the two spellings should be used here?
Frans S (2024-02-02 17:22:16+00:00): Hallo Klaas
Een opmerking. Map ronde hutten als een rond gebouw. regelmatig heb je die als een rechthoekig gebouw gemapt.
Check ook de offset en corrigeer die  aub.
Vriendelijke groeten
woodpeck_repair (2024-02-16 11:44:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 147528659 where the changeset comment is: revert edits by user who believed to be editing a private map, DWG Ticket#2024021410000255
SomeoneElse (2024-02-02 11:35:47+00:00): Thanks!
Andrea Musuruane (2024-02-02 13:31:58+00:00): Ciao. In questo modo hai cancellato anche il numero 31 di Viale della Rimembranza :-( Considerando che uno si fa un mazzo tanto per inserire i civici, questo non e' piacevole :-( Ciao, Andrea
Comix (2024-02-04 12:29:12+00:00): Ciao Andrea, mi spiace tanto... ero convinto di aver modificato solo il POI. Cosa ho sbagliato?
Andrea Musuruane (2024-02-04 12:33:25+00:00): Ciao. Guarda la history: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10873132218/history Hai cancellato il nodo e quindi anche tutte le informazioni associate, compreso l'indirizzo. Però solo quelle relative al POI non erano più valide. ivanbranco ha ripristinato. Ciao, Andrea
Comix (2024-02-04 12:36:17+00:00): Ora ho capito. Grazie per la pazienza! A presto!
felipeeugenio (2024-02-02 11:55:03+00:00): Hola. Esto no es un mapa para notas personales. Gracias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146981200
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-02-02 11:35:00+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 146974000, 146974169, 146974238, 146974274, 146978711.
Frans S (2024-02-02 17:28:04+00:00): Hallo koos.
Hier snap ik iets niet.
Esri is de leidende Imagery.
Er waren eerder veel ronde hutten gemapt zonder onderliggende footprints of met een rechthoekige footprint.
Op Bing (veel ouder) zie je inderdaad  ronde hutten.
Ik heb de meeste verwijderd.
Vriendelijke groeten
Warin61 (2024-02-03 00:00:19+00:00): Out of sequence bus stops without roles removed from relation 3766951. Ways have been re-sequenced.
citrula (2024-02-02 16:53:25+00:00): Can you explain what "bump check date" means? Where is the information for when it is last checked coming from?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146982053
Igor Bubelov (2024-02-03 12:12:22+00:00): Sure,

check_date is one of the tags used to assess data reliability. It's usually set to the current date when re-verifying all the tags, but setting it to the past date helps to highlight the fact that the information may not be up-to-date. It prevents frustrated visitors and it also makes it easier for locals to find and re-verify the most problematic places, since those efforts add more value in terms of overall data quality improvement).

This particular place seems to be a lawyer office which was added by a currently inactive user back in 2014. The follow-up change sets are minor fixes and bot edits which can't justify bumping check_date any further.  This user seems to be interested in mapping Bitcoin-accepting places, and I'm pretty sure that this place is either doesn't exist or no longer accept bitcoins, which means that at least some tags are unreliable and this place needs to be re-verified on the ground by the locals. check_date makes it slightly easier for them to keep the data up-to-date.
citrula (2024-02-03 17:51:16+00:00): Thanks for your response. I'm familiar with the check_date tag, I just haven't seen it being used in such a way (adding an older date). Are you using this for BTCMap in some way? I'm curious how you determine whether the user actually surveyed its existence or not? For example, on this POI https://osm.org/node/7056211216 , check_date was set to 2023-03-17, and the changeset from that date was someone doing tag cleanup with Osmose - almost certainly not a survey.
citrula (2024-02-03 17:53:18+00:00): That isn't meant to be a gotcha or anything, I really hope that this sort of work "surfacing" older/outdated data will help with getting POIs updated. There's a bot on mastodon which does something similar: https://botsin.space/@restobot
Igor Bubelov (2024-02-04 03:46:59+00:00): > I just haven't seen it being used in such a way (adding an older date)

Yea, it's not a common practice, as far as I'm aware. I see it as a little experiment on a small data set which can be extended to the broader range of places, if successful. I remember someone forking our infra and pointing it to the tourist attractions data set or something =)

> Are you using this for BTCMap in some way?

Not yet. I maintain an Android app and it does display timestamps (max(survey:date, check_date, check_date:currency:XBT)), but it doesn't warn the users of obsolete locations. It only shows warnings for the places without any timestamps (~800 places, about 8% of the data set). I think it might help to warn the users about the obsolete or unreliable timestamps, but the current quality baseline is not high enough to raise the bar yet.

There are three numbers we're watching when evaluating our impact:

1. Total places (about 10k now)
2. Up-to-date places (checked less than a year ago, ~65% currently)
3. Average days since verified (~400, if I remember correctly)

In my view, the third number is the most important one. If it starts to flatten or go higher, it means we're failing at maintenance and we should think harder on solving the maintainability issues.
Igor Bubelov (2024-02-04 03:55:38+00:00): > I'm curious how you determine whether the user actually surveyed its existence or not? For example, on this POI https://osm.org/node/7056211216 , check_date was set to 2023-03-17, and the changeset from that date was someone doing tag cleanup with Osmose - almost certainly not a survey.

Yea, it's a mistake, I'll fix it. Determining this date is not an exact science, but I usually take into the account the name of the editor. Let's say it matches with a place name, or it's a well-known person who does the maintenance. I think that any edit from a business owner is safe to be timestamped as up to date, since he's basically acting as a maintainer of his own data and he's the highest quality source. He would have changed more tags if he felt that they need fixing. HubMiner sounded like one of the maintainers I had a few conversations with, and I know that he checks everything but often forgets to add timestamps. This is not him, so I'll revert that change.
Igor Bubelov (2024-02-04 04:09:31+00:00): > That isn't meant to be a gotcha or anything, I really hope that this sort of work "surfacing" older/outdated data will help with getting POIs updated. There's a bot on mastodon which does something similar: https://botsin.space/@restobot

This bot looks interesting, it looks like the authors also ended up with tracking "days since verified" of some sort. I personally have a few ideas, but nothing proven, so I can't say it will help:

1. Any app knows the user location, even if it doesn't have a precise location permission. People still open the map and check certain areas, maybe those aren't related to user location but we can say they are the areas of interest to that particular user.

2. We don't track users, all of the above happens strictly locally, otherwise we would be kicked out of F-Droid =) Still, it doesn't prevent us from sending local app notifications to the users, such as "there is a new place in your area", or "this place is is getting our-of-date and needs to be re-verified".

3. I'd say some of those notifications can be an opt-in, just for the power users who want to contribute. 

There are also other ideas, based on gamification and even nationalism, but it's hard to say if they'll work. We have a non-OSM entiry called area, which covers both communities and countries, so we can easily shame communities who don't maintain their data or show some "best counties" widget or something, but I'm not that involved in those discussions.
aceman444 (2024-12-11 19:56:59+00:00): To ako z Ortofoto vidite povrchy ciest?
Tak dufam, ze ste tam vsade boli a este ked ste to v 2/2024 kreslili https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38241482 tak tam naozaj bol strk, lebo dnes uz je tam asfalt. Lebo tu vodnu stavbu tam robili v roku 2021 tak by sa dalo predpokladat, ze cestu vylepsili vtedy a nie az tento rok. Tak dufam, ze na tie zmeny mate dobre dokazy a dovody. Lebo permanentne robite pochybne zmeny a ak prideme na to, ze si to vymyslate...
Xvtn (2024-02-05 23:33:10+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Here are a couple suggestions:
- It's best to keep each changeset confined to a small area, and to contain related changes. That means clicking "save" in the online iD editor before moving on to a new area.
- Looks like you deleted an administrative tag from the Park County feature. I'm guessing this was accidental. For big items like this it's good to be careful as they affect lots of people.
- For the parking lot at your apartments, it shouldn't have a name tag unless the parking lot itself is called that. Instead, in this case you should put an outer area around the complex with landuse=residential and residential=apartments.

I went ahead and fixed those issues. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your contributions and again welcome!
Tomas Straupis (2024-02-02 16:36:55+00:00): Kas čia buvo? Gatvių pavadinimai ne tokie. Jie teisingai buvo įvesti.