piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
dypa (2025-12-04 13:15:41+00:00): По РГИС (https://rgis.spb.ru/mapui/) здание 179 располагается в совешенно другом месте (напротив АЗС у пересечения московского шоссе с ленсоветовской дорогой)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175493372
Ozon OSM7 (2025-12-04 13:34:57+00:00): спасибо за пояснение, буду внимательнее
rempshaener (2025-12-03 21:01:13+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.
Du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.

Ich habe zwei Hinweise:

Geometrie:
Einige Objekte sind nicht rechtwinklig. Für den Fall, dass sie es in der Realität sind, hilft dir der Editor: Umriss auswählen und „Q“ drücken – schon passen die Winkel.

access-Wert Straße:
Wenn zu https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/196798794 das hier https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=861139835702659&focus=photo noch stimmt, passt das access=destination nicht richtig. Passend wäre motor_vehicle=destination.
Es gibt dafür Hilfsmittel; hier https://trafficsigns.osm-verkehrswende.org/DE z. B. kann man die Beschilderung „zusammenklicken“ und erhält die richtigen Werte zum Kopieren.

Vielen Dank für deinen Beitrag und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen.
Viele Grüße
Frans S (2025-12-20 11:37:08+00:00): 
Welcome to the tasking manager and thanks for mapping buildings in this task.
* Please map individual buildings without collecting multiple nearby buildings into a single object.
Keep on mapping!
Frans S (2025-12-03 14:17:27+00:00): Hello. 
Welcome to the tasking manager and thanks for looking at this task.
Please solve the issues shown by the issue triangle before uploading your work.

More work is required to complete this task and ensure that it is well mapped:
 * Please accurately outline all buildings.
* Buildings should not overlap other buildings and features.
 * Buildings should be mapped without snapping their corners to other buildings and features such as roads and paths.
 * Buildings should have their corners squared.

Check the task instructions for more details.

Keep on mapping!
NorthCrab_upload (2025-12-04 00:22:11+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.

"Górka Pabianicka":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1210083804
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1455710461
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1455710462
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1455710463

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2025-12-04 00:22:05+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.

"Górka Pabianicka":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/979985899
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1210084341
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1455710863

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
kingkingHK (2025-12-03 12:22:34+00:00): 1. I feel like "荃灣行人天橋網絡 Footbridge Network in Tsuen Wan" is more of `description` than `name`

2. Is the crossing on Sha Tsui Road really before the traffic signal?
Kovoschiz (2025-12-03 17:11:32+00:00): 1. Please don't add Something "In" Something as the `name=` , which is obviously not a proper name
Kovoschiz (2025-12-03 17:13:09+00:00): 3. This seems to be a `network=` , not a `=route`
Kovoschiz (2025-12-03 17:14:21+00:00): 4. Don't create `relation` based on Wikipedia articles and lists https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories
seewhyso (2025-12-04 03:24:11+00:00): 2&4. The article you cited rebutted exactly your points - "A good example for a valid and useful grouping is the "route" relation, where multiple ways are connected to form ... a walking route..."
Kovoschiz (2025-12-04 15:35:42+00:00): Did you try to understand it? How is this a "route"? Footpaths being interconnected in an area doesn't make they are a "route". At least this is not one, but many. In any case, this `name=` is unacceptable, suggesting problem in this structuring.
vectorial8192 (2025-12-06 08:10:36+00:00): Afaik the whole "footbridges in Tsuen Wan" network itself *is* a construction project that the district council pushed for in the past decade. imo it deserves a relation of some sort.
Kovoschiz (2025-12-06 20:00:41+00:00): 1. It's not "a" project, but many 
2. The project, individual projects would include the improvements only, not the pre-existing and unchanged sections 
3. OSM doesn't track construction project management either. That belongs to OHM.
seewhyso (2025-12-18 04:36:45+00:00): i. "key:name" considers official usage as one of the usual sources of primary names. This gives "Footbridge Network in Tsuen Wan" legitimacy to be inserted as a name. Generally speaking and as indicated in OSM wiki, "key:name" is designed to "expect data consumers to expose in a label", while "key:description" is intended to provide additional information, not as a mere alternative to "key:name". This issue has been raised more than once and I am sure Kovoschiz is aware of such views, whether it is from me or not.

ii. The strictest interpretation of "Relations are not categories" guideline would seemingly not apply in this case. The footbridge network has warranted its own notability as a Wikipedia article (regardless as a walking system or as a construction project for the community). The examples the page quoted (Footways in East Anglia and Scottish Lochs) are not apples to apples comparing to this case.

iii. That gives way to the second issue in question - whether there should be a relation created for the purpose of the footbridges. The page you and I cited confirmed that "[relations] are meant to model a close (and usually local) relation between objects", which I see suitable to describe the footbridge network itself.

iv. The third case in question would be whether it should be categorised into "relation:network" or "relation:route". The prime intention of tagging it a "route" is because it runs (crucially) north to south and (as branches) east to west at both near Tsuen Wan station and near Tseung Wan West station. Indeed it could be divided up into several "routes", but alternatively, it had been grouped into one "relation:route" that, in my view, does no harm and does not deviate from the good use of "relation:route". Had it been otherwise it could be contained in one "relation:network" named as "Footbridge System in Tsuen Wan". It is clear that "relation:network" is used in some places to tag relations, but whether it could contain ways instead of relations is not mentioned. The tagging decision is taken with prudence and I am open to any dissenting considerations that would improve the OSM data and align it even better with the intended usage.
Kovoschiz (2025-12-18 17:09:20+00:00): 1. What's the logic of ""key:name" considers official usage as one of the usual sources of primary names. This gives "Footbridge Network in Tsuen Wan" legitimacy to be inserted as a name. " ? You didn't explain anything. 
2. Can you please try harder? It's referring "List of" and "Category:" pages.
Kovoschiz (2025-12-18 17:22:17+00:00): 1. I don't know how you understanding and reasoning works. `name=` is not a "label" itself. It's for proper names. This is not one. Applications can choose to combine it with other attributes to form labels, and even not use it, or no labels.
seewhyso (2025-12-19 02:08:36+00:00): i. I am a bit surprised that I would need to have the wiki page link pasted here, but here you are (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name), at the third bullet point in the "Values" section; and one of the many names appearing on various government website (https://www.hyd.gov.hk/en/our_projects/road_projects/6145tb/index.html)

ia. I am well aware that there shouldn't be "descriptive name" (e.g. "public toilet", "small temple") or names that should be descriptions but as I wrote this is not the case.

ii. Exactly, thank you. The guideline is referring to "Category:" / "List of" pages which this is not.
Kovoschiz (2025-12-19 07:22:57+00:00): 1. "I am a bit surprised" you didn't get I'm asking about your reasoning, and lack of elaboration. Do you know what's a project "name"? It's a title, and is a descriptive label. The uppercase is used as title case. It's described as "the footbridge network in the western part of Tsuen Wan town centre". This can also be "footbridge system along Tai Chung Road and Hoi Shing Road", which is obviously not proper. It can be lowercase "Extension of footbridge network in Tsuen Wan". https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr06-07/english/fc/pwsc/papers/pi07-06e.pdf#page=12
Kovoschiz (2025-12-19 07:24:00+00:00): 2. Again you are ignoring your problems here. "Something" in "Somewhere" is obviously in the same league as them.
Kovoschiz (2025-12-19 07:24:45+00:00): 2. Would it be any different "Footways in East Anglia" had an article?
seewhyso (2025-12-22 07:14:42+00:00): i. I am well aware that this relation is *not* for the extension project but rather the existing structures erected and serving. Indeed "Footbridge Network in Tsuen Wan" in the gov website did not specify the extent of it, but through media reports and the local knowledge, the meaning of the network had been established to cover elevated walkways & indoor corridors that are interconnected in the area; and that the name of footbridge network here in the osm is intended as the translation for "荃灣行人天橋網絡" which is by its own a common name and official name. However, there is not a widely recognised English name and therefore the official use of it has been adopted.

With your concerns expressed and detailed, I am changing the English name of it to the synonymous "Tsuen Wan footbridge network" and moving the current one into an alternative name. My concerns remain in designating "Footbridge network in Tsuen Wan" as a description - because by plainest evaluation it would have meant that a footbridge at, say for instance, J/O Yeung Uk Road & Texaco Road a member of this relation, which is not what intended.

ii. At least I think we should not categorically consider "x in y" a descriptive naming. In doing so, won't that rule out all "x in/at/on/of y" terms as generic names? I agree we have to be more careful when inserting such terms, but some of them have established their own meaning and interpretation on their own and perhaps should take them in case by case. 

The connotation of "x in y" cited in the guideline points to the consensus/idea that they should not be "a loose group of somewhat related items", which is not in the same league - it is not loose nor only "somewhat related" in this case. The editor has cited the example of "Scottish Lochs" to prove his case and that "x in y" is not the exhaustive example.

Hypothetically, it would have made a difference if an article on Wikipedia is created dedicated to it, because it would have meant that subject has its own notability. Also hypothetically, there could be an article of "Ancient Roads in East Anglia" that somewhat relates to historical walk in the region, which could perhaps be recorded in OSM. If it is just ordinary, then likely there would be an article of "List of footways in East Anglia" - and that would have been a case that could be rejected by OSM. But ofc, a hypothetical example is not worthy to be dwelled into over here.

Hope it helps. Cheers.
Kovoschiz (2025-12-22 11:52:52+00:00): 1. If there's not a signposted or official extent, it should not be added
2. I don't understand what your "x in/at/on/of y" is referring to
seewhyso (2025-12-29 02:31:05+00:00): i. I am sure we could at least accept names that perhaps are not falling into either category and are established as common names, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/151396680. 

ii. I am referring to your rejection of names in the form of "x in y" and by that standard all "x in/at/on/of y" would have been rejected as well for being synonymous with what you considered to be a descriptive name (would "Footbridge System of Tsuen Wan" have been accepted in place of "Footbridge System in Tsuen Wan"?).
Kovoschiz (2025-12-29 18:48:30+00:00): 1. This is a `route=` , which has higher expectations and standards 
2. Do you have other examples? Such prepositions are almost never correct.
seewhyso (2025-12-30 01:52:09+00:00): i. Thank you for letting us know your personal preference on this matter and that "If there's not a signposted or official extent, it should not be added" is not a strict rule applicable everywhere

ii. I would welcome your enlightenment on this - why is "x in y" categorically not accepted and "x of y" the opposite?
Kovoschiz (2025-12-30 17:34:49+00:00): 1.  This is not my "personal preference".   I'm explaining to you on the `route=` , not other `highway=` roads. Wuhu St Underpass is used on traffic notices, and Schedule of Routes, to refer to the road. "Footbridge System" is a specific set of interconnected footbridges, but is at least not a `route=` , and not rigorously a `network=` either.
2. Seems I didn't make it clear both are unacceptable
seewhyso (2025-12-31 06:41:50+00:00): Thank you for making it clear to me and others. Wuhu St. underpass (whether capitalised or not) appears not officially demarcated by a Government Notice. If I was not mistaken it also seems not to be the sole, authoritative name for that covered segment of the Chatham Rd. N. when there is alternative name found on government websites. In any case, I am not trying to challenge if it is right to have Wuhu St. underpass or other street names in the area that got into the same situation (the fact is in my view they are done appropriately). Rather, this could disprove a hard-and-fast golden rule that a name should appear on the OSM map only if it is signposted or with an official extent. Similarly, if "x of y" is rejected without exceptions, wouldn't there be many names removed across OSM database?

And to general consumers of OSM data such as me, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway is more recognisable than this walking route (whether it is  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:route) as it would be visible from more rendering applications. I'd also like to put it to you that I am not trying to hold out against reclassifying the type of relation of the footbridge system, and I welcome your comments on this. It is just my limited experience on OSM that guides me to the decision that "route" is the most applicable option.
Kovoschiz (2026-01-01 09:34:42+00:00): 1.1. No, the ground truth principle can't be disproved. As I said, the standard and expectation for `route=` is higher. Even if you want to argue it's commonly used by people, it's unable to be distinguished whether it's proper, or a descriptor as a category.    
1.2. So as I said, can you give other examples of such "x of y" for you arguement? You seem to be assuming they are used, but they aren't the norm. 
2. Then what's the purpose of creating this? On the contrary, `highway=footway` + `network=` would be more widely and easily visible, supported, and used.
seewhyso (2026-01-02 02:30:16+00:00): i. In my last comment I am once again stressing that there should not be a stringent rule to determine if a name should be included. I am not questioning https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth in any sense, please. In this case, both the footbridges and the underpass per se are mapped rightfully under the rule. But as said, if we need a direct observation of a signpost, then the name of Wuhu St. Underpass would not exist.

ii. There are names of sovereignty states appearing on OSM that fulfill the form of "x of y". But yes, thank you for pointing out that they are not the norm, but it doesn't mean they are unreservedly excluded.

iii. As said, it is a walking route that runs crucially from north to south and had gained its notability for the increased accessibility. I don't see this is something that contradicts the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth or other guidelines on OSM.
seewhyso (2026-01-02 03:08:41+00:00): On ii., let's just say that "x in y" and "x of y" are generally accepted as names if they are marked and denoted in real life. If not, it should have been given careful consideration because it reassembles some "descriptive names". But it should not have been outright rejected conclusively and completely.
Kovoschiz (2026-01-02 05:24:57+00:00): 3. No, it can contradict the Categories rule, even for what's in fact 3 corridors with 2 east-west. You should not use `route=` simply for this. It's not a transport planning policy tool. It's for reflecting a signposted, official, or numbered one.
seewhyso (2026-01-05 02:02:54+00:00): I have changed it to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:network as a compromise. Again, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking dictates that so as long it is a "shared common knowledge" then it could be marked on a map as a walking route. This is in addition to the signage currently present and visible in the malls and on the footbridges. Furthermore, I believe quoting https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories is only weakening your argument because this is not the case, which I have stated already.
Kovoschiz (2026-01-05 15:17:35+00:00): Again, the problem is you are mixing different domains together. Urban is not the same as hiking. That's an exception. It's not the intention, and would not work for every urban walking corridor that's "shared common knowledge" to be a `=route` , which would simply be arbitary.
Kovoschiz (2026-01-05 15:21:21+00:00): I believe the signs are insufficient. They are simply commonplace wayfinding signs found everywhere else. I don't remember if there are any maps.
vectorial8192 (2026-01-05 17:44:01+00:00): I might be beating a dead horse, but afaik a route should have a clear start/end point (and therefore clear concept of direction) while a network need not have direction.

In this case while the vibe is that the "thing" connects between Tsuen Wan station and TWW station, the exact start/end points are unclear, and the "things" itself branches off to different places, which means this "thing" cannot be a route. It therefore has to be a network.
seewhyso (2026-01-07 06:43:31+00:00): i. The feature of walking route (the right link should be this instead: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes) covers both roads or trails. If there is a consensus among the community that there should be a narrow definition of urban routes, then it would be another case.

ii. Yes directions are encouraged in route feature, but as far as I am aware it is currently mostly found in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbus and the major highways. If for perfection branches in the footbridge system would have been divided up into several routes, but as said, for simplicity without compromising validity, they have been combined into one relation without a https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route_master.
Kovoschiz (2026-01-07 10:41:37+00:00): 1. Can you please improve your comprehension and argument. The sentence is "routes, which may go along roads or trails or combinations of these", referring to (mostly rural) routes along roads and paths. Urban routes are proper ones, eg history trails.
seewhyso (2026-01-07 10:54:21+00:00): A random search lands me at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1623950, an urban walking route tagged with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=hiking. "Mostly rural" I imagine is not exclusive?
Kovoschiz (2026-01-07 11:46:34+00:00): 1. First of all regardless, do you understand the word "Mostly"? What's the relevance and comparison of this example? It must have to do with consistency of the `superroute=` , where the left side is much longer and hilly. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18343170
The right side passes the Prince William Forest Park towards the southern end. It could also be incomplete, or wrongly `=hiking=` on its own. 
2. I don't understand where you get directionality is "mostly found" in `=bus` and `=road` either. Different roles still follow a general `main` direction. `excursion` should be short, and a lower status.
seewhyso (2026-01-08 06:49:37+00:00): i. We would have been able to comprehend your interpretation better had you underpinned that "most" of the walking routes in OSM is located in rural area, or that walking routes should comprise "mostly" rural sections. 

Assuming that you have meant the latter one (otherwise my example still stands valid), it would have been the best if the unspoken rules are codified into tagging guidelines/conventions as what other OSM communities have done upon reaching a consensus (say, differences compared to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=hiking). By such, experienced editors such as you and newbies like me could follow better. I am sure some of the discussions in this thread, also seemingly not explicitly detailed in the guidelines such as the naming convention, are also worthy of being listed in the respective guidelines.

ii. for example, two bicycle routes https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10553685 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10619470 are both grouped region-wise without a clear main direction. Strictly speaking, some of the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=ferry do not contain separate forward & backward relations as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=bus and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=road does. If there has to be a clear to-fro mark for all relations, then we will have to take care for all of these as well.
Kovoschiz (2026-01-08 09:50:51+00:00): 1. It was you who brought up " osm.wiki/Hiking dictates", "covers both roads or trails", and  relation/1623950 first. I'm respond to your comparison of these urban ones with rural. 
2.1. The `=rcn` are controversial. Them existing now doesn't mean they must be correct, discussed, or recognized. 2.2. For `route=ferry` again you have misunderstood what "direction" means here. They have a direction, only that both directions are stored in the same object. This is actually the most common in `route=road` , unlike HK.
seewhyso (2026-01-09 04:47:46+00:00): All in all a networked route (with multiple interconnected https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=cycleway connected into one https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aroute%3Dbicycle) may not be the norm outside Asia but it happens for reasons (one of which I think is for saving server resources). It is not breaching the guidelines and the flexibility is there for region-specific situations so as long it is conforming the major guidance applicable across OSM. If we are able to reach a consensus in the mapping community that this should be transformed into a Relation:route_master instead then we could do so.

(For your 2.2, I am well aware of it and thus I have raised in a "strictly speaking" matter should we decide to dwell into such precision on directionality)
Kovoschiz (2026-01-09 07:45:35+00:00): Nothing should be done for "saving server resources", and it usually saves little to negligible amounts. Again they are `network` , not `route` per the parent definition. `route_master` shouldn't be used as they aren't `route` , and it's used for different variations, while `superroute` is used to split a `route` for OSM data reasons.
seewhyso (2026-01-09 08:06:43+00:00): It should be done if the relation is too large and a super-relation is a replacement, at least that is what the guidelines are saying. Again anyhow, it is just a guess. You have edited the two cycling relations before so perhaps you'd know why they are tagged as they are now.
Geim (2025-12-11 16:54:56+00:00): Hoi Eggie, zit hier werkelijk een oneway=yes op?