piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
abub (2024-04-29 12:42:29+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis mit dem Tag, habe das hinzugefügt. Das Nest steht schon länger und ist mittlerweile bewohnt (https://www.soester-anzeiger.de/lokales/werl/der-storch-beginnt-mit-dem-nestbau-gefiederter-neubuerger-in-hilbeck-92910418.html), es soll in einer OSM basierten Karte in einer Dorfapp als POI verzeichnet werden, deshalb der name Tag, hoffe das ist so ok.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-04-12 10:11:18+00:00): Please don't change the tags of highways.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-04-10 21:50:28+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11739757680
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/310333922

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Mc Oak (2024-04-11 13:11:12+00:00): Ta jedynka to oczywiście z rozpędu. Zawsze była trójka oraz 3A i 3B. Jedynka nie występuje.
NeisBot (2024-04-10 22:04:04+00:00): Hello Ygmr01, 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.Please see https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments 

Thanks!

#HappyMapping
#ADescriptionSaysMoreThanASingleChar
erickdeoliveiraleal (2024-04-20 01:09:41+00:00): Esse nome não oficial é desnecessário "Embarque e Desembarque Sigma "
maraf24 (2024-04-11 00:32:53+00:00): Skoro sklep jest nieczynny, to nie powinno być tagu shop=supermarket na https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11708604719
Mirosław Żylewicz (2024-04-11 21:35:12+00:00): Niestety nie mogę się z tym zgodzić.

Nowo powstały budynek jest supermarketem sieci ALDI (posiada stosowne oznaczenia i banery).

Nie można w nim jeszcze robić zakupów więc jego godziny otwarcia wpisałem na nieczynny od poniedziałku do niedzieli (to się wkrótce zmieni).
maraf24 (2024-04-12 09:28:00+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trolltag
nevw (2024-04-10 22:49:39+00:00): You need to edit the shape you have added to follow the footprint of the house instead of the land plot.
nevw (2024-04-12 08:01:59+00:00): no response, fixed
Frans S (2024-05-01 09:23:10+00:00): Hallo Johan.
Je tagt hier heel smalle paden als highway=unclassified.
Daar zijn ze te smal voor. Path is een betere keus.
Hetzelfde voor de paden die je getagt hebt als track.
Kijk ook hier nog een naar.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/East_Africa_Tagging_Guidelines
Vriendelijke groeten
rskedgell (2024-04-11 07:56:49+00:00): Thanks for adding these. When you connect them with pedestrian crossings, you may find this useful:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_pedestrian_navigation
NeisBot (2024-04-16 12:34:03+00:00): Hello rafikm0h, 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.Please see https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments 

Thanks!

#HappyMapping
#ADescriptionSaysMoreThanASingleChar
eggie (2024-04-13 08:25:39+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
MxxCon (2024-04-12 02:22:56+00:00): That wikidata article is about Koi fish, not these ponds..
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149841221
IraGersh (2024-04-12 02:36:31+00:00): Agreed.  Should the tag be removed or just replaced with something like koi:wikidata?
MxxCon (2024-04-12 02:51:21+00:00): I think remove it
IraGersh (2024-04-12 02:54:59+00:00): Done.
VLD549 (2024-04-28 08:52:10+00:00): Hi, could you explain why Sint-Urbanus needs a hyphen? All the results I find with that name are written without.

Thank you!
Kogacarlo (2024-04-29 01:00:01+00:00): Hi. In the Dutch language "Sint" (Saint) is part of the name and a name should contain no spaces. One should write this name as one word and can do so by using the hyphen. However, other people might disagree or just don't care. Take a look here: https://onzetaal.nl/taalloket/sint-anna-sint-anna

Greets Carlo
VLD549 (2024-05-24 08:22:03+00:00): Okay, thanks.
maraf24 (2024-04-11 09:30:02+00:00): O ile sama zmiana jest ok, to jej uzasadnienie już nie. Co ma rozporządzenie do zasad OSM? Nie mapujemy aktów prawnych.
Szymson (2024-04-11 14:00:28+00:00): Moim skromnym zdaniem lokalsa:
- DW216 jako secondary = ok
- przeniesienie primary z Drogi Gdyńskiej (Różowej) na Aleję Zwycięstwa w Gdyni = nie ok
Droga Gdyńska ma podniesioną prędkość do 70 km/h i w większości jest bezkolizyjna, o wiele bardziej pasuje do niej primary.
theDM (2024-04-12 22:49:31+00:00): W temacie DW216 chyba była kiedyś dyskusja nt. primary na forum, imo mogłaby zostać.
theDM (2024-04-12 23:07:26+00:00): Takie zmiany warto byłoby wcześniej konsultować.
szydzio (2024-04-14 10:12:17+00:00): W przypadku konfliktów edycyjnych warto skonsultować szerzej społeczność na forum. Można założyć nowy wątek bądź skorzystać z jakiegoś już istniejącego na https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/pl/40
user_8023523 (2024-04-14 21:55:34+00:00): oczywiście, aby zachować spójność dróg , okej, sprawdziłem, policzyłem światła prędkości, przyznałem rację SZYMSON, Droga Gdyńska PRIMARY, ale droga 216 nie jest niestety PRIMARY, jest ale tylko 2 miesiące, starczy zajrzeć na TOM TOM TRAFFIC i widać od razu jaki tam jest przepust !
theDM (2024-04-14 22:16:16+00:00): Nie jest tylko 2 miesiące, bo ruch turystyczny tam jest przez większy okres, przed wakacjami też jest spory. Poza wakacjami mniejszy, ale w tej części całego województwa jest to nadal główna droga i w drodze wyjątku może być.  Następna równoległą primary jest 100 km na zachód, a i tak w tej części kraju jest mało dróg krajowych, chyba najmniejsze zagęszczenie. Za dużo primiary nie powinno być i tu ich za wielu nie ma, tylko 1 z największym natężeniem.
Ta zmiana była już wcześniej chyba w kilku miejscach omawiana i została utrzymana, więc ten 1 z 2 wyjątków jakoś się przyjął, a relatywnie jakąś hierarchię warto utrzymać.
szydzio (2024-04-15 10:43:00+00:00): Nie kojarzę żebyśmy dyskutowali tę zmianę poza samymi changesetami i kilka wzmianek na Discord.
Utworzyłem zatem wątek na forum, gdzie będzie można podyskutować w szerszym (mam nadzieję) gronie => https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kategorie-drog-w-woj-pomorskim/111839
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-03-20 12:03:43+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11808346620 - is it still there?

Or is there parking there now?
Gazer75 (2024-12-03 14:11:32+00:00): Where did you get the transformer rating for Skagerak 4 transformer? Also DC voltage does not equal AC voltage after conversion.
OSM_RogerWilco (2024-05-23 12:06:08+00:00): Moin Lohe93,

disused:shop ist richtig, aber es muss dann der shop-Tag gelöscht werden. Die anderen POI-Tags kann man dann auch löschen. name lässt man gerne stehen, falls der Name vor Ort noch zu erkennen ist.

Ich passe das jetzt an.

Viele Grüße
Roger Wilco
mikimapbuilder (2024-04-11 07:04:20+00:00): Road can't be seen on any imagery
citrula (2024-04-11 03:00:50+00:00): Welcome to OSM. If these trails are private, deleting them is not the correct solution - someone will just add them back anyways (because they assume that they are missing). Instead, we can add additional access tags which indicate that the trails are private access. I will probably do this in the next few days.

See also:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Let me know if you have any questions !
nevw (2024-04-11 01:05:01+00:00): I don't think we can use data from this site due to copyright. I expect you may need to obtain explicit permission from the site or data owners to add it to osm.
The terms of use are at the bottom of this page
https://networkmap.energy/ near the Copyright © 2017-2024 Rosetta Analytics Pty Ltd
From our wiki...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en see Copyright infringement
n_ng (2024-04-11 01:10:16+00:00): I work for Rosetta Analytics and have permission to add it to osm.
Please let me know the steps to have this included given the permission.
The data is open access at the following link: https://renewables.networkmap.energy/
nevw (2024-04-11 01:11:53+00:00): If wish to apply for explicit permission
see the link at this page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines#Step_1_-_Prerequisites which has this link to some templates
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Getting_permission
nevw (2024-04-11 01:16:04+00:00): As I am not well informed about this subject it would probably be best to ask about the correct procedure on our Oceania Community page where there are others much more qualified to help
https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/oceania/73
n_ng (2024-04-11 01:24:05+00:00): Thank you for the information. We will ask in the page although in the meantime, I will continue to contribute our open access geo coded projects to the community as this is important for the sustainability initiatives.
Frans S (2024-04-25 14:20:58+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please do not map/tag the whole task as wood, the whole area (nearly the whole project) is already mapped as wood. TM4 is not suited to map those big areas since you only see a small area ,1 task at the time.
Best regards and keep mapping.
Frans S (2024-04-29 12:45:43+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Inaccurate mapped buildings.
Buildings not squared.
Nodes of buildings connected to other buildings.
Nodes of land-use features connected to highway.
Not all highways mapped.


Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149843631
silversurfer83 (2024-04-11 20:45:09+00:00): And again you removed hundreds of POIs from the map.

Please stop that and discuss this first.
otji73 (2024-04-12 08:57:13+00:00): It is incredibly time-consuming to try to understand your changes.

It should always be the time in life to upload changes related to the local aspect.
dieterdreist (2024-04-12 13:26:29+00:00): While it saves you the hazzle, it makes other people's life harder. Please respect the rules we have set up for automated edits, you should discuss this first, then upload changesets with limited spatial extent.
Friendly_Ghost (2024-04-13 18:51:00+00:00): 1. How does it make people's lives harder? 
2. As I wrote in the CS comment this isn't an automated edit.
3. Spatial extent isn't a concern with a thematically simple edit that isn't so big in scale.
4. These are guidelines, not rules.
dieterdreist (2024-04-14 08:07:16+00:00): It makes their life harder because it gets into their way together with all the other wide spanning edits, so that it is harder to find local edits. 
Guidelines ARE rules.
gurglypipe (2024-04-14 14:41:03+00:00): Other people review edits. Review tools such as osmcha.org only allow edits to be marked as “good” or “bad” once. That means that whoever reviews your edit has to either review all 100+ POIs, spread across the world, with no local knowledge — or to review the ones they know about and then ignore the rest and mark the edit as good/bad appropriately.

Changes need to be local so that they can be reviewed by locals with local knowledge.

Added to that, the larger the bbox of an edit, the longer it takes for most review tools to load it. So you waste even more of people’s time.
ablevi202 (2024-04-14 19:35:39+00:00): I would infinitely rather look at one large changeset when reviewing than track down every single local changeset someone makes. Trying to force an interpretation of non-binding guidelines with no consensus to it because of osmcha's limitations doesn't really make sense either.
gurglypipe (2024-04-14 20:04:26+00:00): You’re saying there’s no consensus to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets?
ablevi202 (2024-04-14 20:10:00+00:00): There is no consensus to the idea that all large changeset bboxes are bad and should not be allowed. It even says there's no consensus on optimal bbox size, just that ideally changesets are local and not super big. In practice, world spanning changesets are normal and I don't know why people are now objecting to these two.
maro21 (2024-04-14 21:22:22+00:00): > 1. How does it make people's lives harder?

In most countries they see your changeset, they read this discussion, but they don't know if anything has changed in their city.
Friendly_Ghost (2024-04-14 21:57:39+00:00): @maro21 That's a tech issue, not a mapping issue
gurglypipe (2024-04-14 22:01:55+00:00): The way you do your mapping has to fit in with the capabilities of the available tools. You are knowingly creating tedious work for other people.
Friendly_Ghost (2024-04-14 23:10:37+00:00): there are other tools than just the osm.org history viewer, which are much more fit for purpose, for example https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=149843868 or custom filters on https://osmcha.org/. 

Complaining to mappers each time they make a big bbox isn't going to improve OSM in any way. You can direct those complaints to the OWG and ask them to implement better tools on the website.

That point aside, these POIs have already been reviewed locally by the mappers who tagged them as being closed. I'm just doing a simple cleanup job here.
silversurfer83 (2024-04-15 04:04:42+00:00): Most people are missing the point that a "cleanup" of this scale needs to be discussed first.

Also, disused shops can and should be mapped and should not be removed completely. This change here and the other subsequent changes in the same manner need to be reverted in my view.
dieterdreist (2024-04-15 09:38:35+00:00): @ablevi202 "I would infinitely rather look at one large changeset when reviewing than track down every single local changeset someone makes."
If I were to track all changes by a certain user, then yes, but what people do (and what makes most sense, given that everybody is an expert locally but nobody knows the whole world), is looking at changes in their local area.
dieterdreist (2024-04-15 09:39:23+00:00): @silversurfer83 "This change here and the other subsequent changes in the same manner need to be reverted in my view.", fully agree, can you write to the DWG?
Kovirii (2024-04-15 09:49:55+00:00): Hello, 
Please do not automatically remove tags such as "old_name" and "name." This removes useful information used by both mappers and the public. Additionally, how did you determine it was correct to delete "shop=vacant?"
As seen here: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/437189759

Thanks,
 - Kovirii
Kovirii (2024-04-15 09:56:40+00:00):  Hello again,
I see that you completely deleted certain ways, without local knowledge. This makes them difficult to restore, or requires other editors to recreate them. 
Please do not do this.
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=149843868#3/46.32/-103.27
 - Kovirii
Friendly_Ghost (2024-04-15 10:39:10+00:00): @Kovirii I agree with your latest update of way 437189759. That said, keeping outdated name=...(closed) on objects would be unhelpful in most cases. An exception I can think of is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/373633500, where the words "Ex Cinema" are literally on a sign on the building. 

Some ways were indeed completely deleted, because there was no valuable info left, for example a closed camp site with only a POI tag and name tag. I don't see a reason to turn OSM into OHM. 

I appreciate your feedback.

@silversurfer @dieterdreist The "cleanup of this scale" consists of 105 edits. Nobody is going to email you for a stamp of approval each time they make 105 map edits.
Kovirii (2024-04-16 00:31:57+00:00): @Friendly_Ghost

I don't see how removing sites that are currently still vacant, and have not been redeveloped is "turning OSM into OHM." If they had been redeveloped, and the way was dating back decades I would be inclined to agree. However, St. Catherine's Indian School is still vacant and has changed ownership several times. It is distinct from the National Cemetery, and has not been redeveloped. It has been deleted and no longer appears on the map. Deleting them removes the way's history, and in some cases address information. (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/732493108/history#map=4/38.65/-83.84)

Likewise, The Gizmo Store only recently closed, and has not been changed into anything else. I would understand changing these ways to a "disused:" prefix, but outright removal of all names and amenity tags makes it less clear what the site is, or that it is still vacant.

Thanks for your reply,
 - Kovirii
SomeoneElse (2024-04-16 08:30:19+00:00): I've reverted this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150071599 for two reasons:
One is that it's essentially impossible to QA deletions in a worldwide changeset as there are no coordinates for deletion in the XML.
Another is that some actions taken here (for example on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684681276/history ) are surely wrong.
I would encourage everyone to using review objects with these names in their local area with queries such as https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1K2j and decide what is best in each case.  Just taking the buildings as examples, some will obviously have been demolished and some not, and local knowledge will often be needed to know which.
dieterdreist (2024-04-16 09:29:25+00:00): Thank you, SomeoneElse!
ablevi202 (2024-04-16 15:34:16+00:00): No, strongly disagree. Reverting this was a terrible decision. Also how is that example surely wrong? I don't see what's wrong with it.
SomeoneElse (2024-04-16 21:53:17+00:00): @ablevi202 Taking https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684681276/history as an example, how is someone local to that area even supposed to know that the way was deleted in this changeset?  How do we find out what it is now?  An "amenity=school" way with a name of "Blackshear School (CLOSED)" is easy to spot as needing a check to see what it is now; a deleted way is not.  Both are of course wrong - the former school is presumably either brownfield, housing, industrial or something else, but we won't know until someone Goes And Has A Look.
ablevi202 (2024-04-16 22:01:19+00:00): If its not actually a school anymore then why go out of your way to preserve it? The map shouldn't be made worse just so local mappers can find obvious errors easier. Having no data is much better than bunk data, someone can also see there's nothing there on the map and go look for it. Local mappers can look and see that this changeset goes over their community and use QA tools like https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=149843868#7/31.445/-95.397 to see if it actually impacted them.
Kovirii (2024-04-17 12:35:18+00:00): The map is not "being made worse." It's not "turning into OHM" either. If "having no data is much better," why are life cycle prefixes in widespread use? The goal should not be to return the state of OSM back to 2006. Instead add a fixme tag, add a note, make a post. Deleting way history does not improve the map or help your fellow editors. Constantly checking for deletions in your local area is not something most editors want to devote an extensive amount of time to.
SomeoneElse (2024-04-17 13:17:01+00:00): This sort of discussion (all sides of it) would actually be a good one to have over at https://community.openstreetmap.org/ !
ablevi202 (2024-04-17 14:54:48+00:00): If there's literally nothing there anymore it should be deleted from the database. Removing things that no longer exist does make the map better. If someone is too lazy to check what's deleted that's entirely on them for choosing to not do qa work that's all on them, no one should work around that.
SomeoneElse (2024-04-17 15:12:46+00:00): In the example I quoted, we don't know whether there is "literally nothing there anymore".  The imagery available to OSM suggests that actually there IS something still there; which just don't know what.
ablevi202 (2024-04-17 15:15:48+00:00): I meant no longer whats currently on the map, sorry.
maro21 (2024-04-19 20:00:39+00:00): > Complaining to mappers each time they make a big bbox isn't going to improve OSM in any way. You can direct those complaints to the OWG and ask them to implement better tools on the website.

Friendly_Ghost: Regardless of the tools available to check the changes, the community decided that the changesets should be local and shouldn't cover the whole world or several continents.
ablevi202 (2024-04-19 21:03:09+00:00): The community has not decided that worldwide changesets are banned, let alone ones that are only several continents.
Friendly_Ghost (2024-04-19 23:41:53+00:00): @maro21, I concur with ablevi here. There's no consensus on this, and there are some very good cases for large bboxes.

But if you really think your POV is the only right one, you can plead your case over at the OWG and ask them to block all changesets with a huge bbox. I'm sure they can figure out how to configure the API that way.
silversurfer83 (2024-04-20 06:26:18+00:00): This is not about the nuisance of large bboxes. They are discouraged but not forbidden.

This is about the removal of totally information on a large scale! This goes against OTG, keep the history, mass edits, ... guidelines and therefore needs to stop.
Friendly_Ghost (2024-04-20 13:09:03+00:00): maro21 was complaining about bboxes, so that's what I was commenting on.
Frans S (2024-04-25 10:13:05+00:00): Thanks for mapping on this project.
A few remarks. Please square each building after drawing it.
Solve the issues shown by the issue triangle before uploading your mappings.
Best regards and keep mapping.
Frans S (2024-05-02 10:04:07+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. 
However, you often include the shadow of a building into your mapping, and don't connect nodes of buildings to each other.
Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149843942
Xvtn (2024-04-11 15:26:20+00:00): Hey there - Looking over this changeset, things look great overall. However, there are a couple of issues:
- The name tag should be used for the "common name" only, not to describe something. In this case, "Access Trail" isn't the actual name, so we should use other tags to describe it. (And you already did!)
- You added a "Foot Bridge" that should be tagged as a bridge foot path, not a road.
- In order for routing software to work correctly, things should be connected. In iD (the online OSM editor) that means dragging the ends of things like the foot bridge to "snap" to connect with other paths, roads, etc.

I went ahead and fixed those problems. Other than those, your other changes look super. Thanks again for your contributions!