piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
dankarran (2024-10-01 12:46:49+00:00): My geometries around here are all estimates, so feel free to improve any of them to make the pieces fit better together as the works progress
MacLondon (2024-10-01 16:27:34+00:00): A lot of geometries will have to be estimates.

I've made a guess based on how it looks that they will use some of the new Dock Rd as part of a temporary access road into the back of the Expressway car park so that they can complete the works/kerbing on the NE side of the current dead end to Dock Rd.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-09-30 23:11:06+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/2395184510
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/888740005

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
kubzon7 (2024-10-01 10:39:20+00:00): naprawione: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157332616
eggie (2024-10-01 05:05:02+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
Foxy (Stefano Volpe) (2024-10-01 08:23:36+00:00): Dank je! (Mijn Nederlands is niet goud, sorry.)
lmum (2024-10-01 12:14:10+00:00): Could you share a source for  these new classification guidelines? I'm not familiar with them and want to be tagging roads correctly.
cubbe8 (2024-10-01 13:16:47+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

These are the new guidelines. Under state specific guidelines, Massachusetts has a classification standard.

MassGIS F-Class 2 = highway=trunk
MassGIS F-Class 3 = highway=primary
MassGIS F-Class 5 = highway=secondary

Here is the page from MassGIS that provides the data:

https://gis.data.mass.gov/datasets/5088c1b6af16420e98f1165d051d60df_15/explore?location=42.359585%2C-71.086609%2C14.08
lmum (2024-10-02 14:03:18+00:00): Thank you, very helpful!
glitterbery (2024-10-05 11:38:03+00:00): What are all these changes? The relation for Labrador hollow should not have any inner members other than https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/428667279
glitterbery (2024-10-05 11:59:04+00:00): If you are trying to map wooded areas make a new relation for natural=wood or landuse=forest as appropriate and add the interior ways such as a farm or clearing to it.
citrula (2024-10-01 02:24:01+00:00): reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157319315
impiaaa (2024-10-01 17:40:29+00:00): Hi, please don't delete objects and re-add them later. It makes it harder to track changes. Instead, improve and modify the objects directly.
martien-176 (2024-10-01 17:08:51+00:00): Hi,  thanks for mapping. 

The buildings you mapped are well done as to their location. But pay attention to the squareness of the corners. Always draw buildings as square and precise as you can. Then add the Building feature type. And last, right click it and click the square icon. 

Please watch these 2 short video for more info: 
-Buildings--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o
-Roads--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBLwb2nisJQ 

Thanks so much for your contribution, Martien, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157317783
eggie (2024-10-01 05:06:08+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
ferog_v (2024-10-02 01:11:35+00:00): Revierta al conjunto de cambios 887072300
La relación ya la ha eliminado más de 3 veces y la he tenido que rehacer.
Fácilmente puedo modificar las carreteras que pasan dentro de los poblados de Hoctún y Xocchel.
Pero el resto es más complicado, en un futuro intente iniciar una discusión mencionando el error y podemos coordinarnos para hacer el mapa correctamente.
Pan (2024-10-02 02:39:33+00:00): Why did you delete acually existing ways? I have lived in this village and the two access ways exist as they were drawn. please reaore them.
Pan (2024-10-02 03:07:21+00:00): There is a physical kerbed island, I know this because I walked there many times, and the ways can therefeore be separated as per "A  dual carriageway (known as a divided highway in American English) is a road with two carriageways (roads in each direction) that are physically divided by a non-road barrier, median, or other obstacle. This is done to separate high speed traffic, allow usage of the middle of the road, or accommodate new lanes."
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-17 03:23:19+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165052160
JJIglesias (2024-10-01 22:04:21+00:00): Gracias por tu edicion al Mapa

El Valor de Poblacion de cualquier asentamiento, se refleja en un Nodo con los datos oficiales del INE u otra fuente oficial comprobable. Y no en el area residencial aproximada de tal asentamiento. Ya hicimos la correccion correspondiente.

Gracias y Saludos
JJ
Frans S (2024-10-03 09:22:48+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)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Issues found on your mappings

A: Inaccurate mapping.
B: Overlapping buildings.

C: Collecting adjacent buildings and mapped is as 1 building.
D: Connecting Nodes to other features.
E: Buildings not squared.
G: Included the shadow of the building.
High building(s) incorrect mapped. See par 20 chapter About Buildings


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
Frans S (2024-10-03 10:02:28+00:00): Hi again. 
Due to the fact that most buildings are poor mapped, most of your mappings will be removed and need to be mapped according to the mapping guidelines.
Sorry that we have to do this.
Best regards and improve your mapping skills please.
Joseph R P (2024-10-08 00:19:09+00:00): Hello,

Very short routes like this one, which only connects a motorway to a primary route, should not be classified as trunk. If there were a route as significant as a trunk route in place of MA 125, a trunk route would make sense here, but instead it should be primary since it only terminates at another primary route. We also should refrain from classifying roads based on the physical characteristics and rather based on the role they play in the road network. Physical characteristics are already implied with speed limit, lane count, and expressway tags.
streetsurvma (2024-10-08 14:41:27+00:00): Thanks for the feedback Joseph.  It does seem to fit a trunk designation, who's description includes physical characteristics, and no mention of length.  But more importantly, I'm interested to know how the classification affects the use of OSM? Does it create some issue for navigation sites using OSM?  Part of the reason for the edit is because Primary roads include pedestrian, which in this case would be dangerous, maybe illegal. While pedestrian "no" can be added, Trunk makes it quite clear by both description and color that it's not for pedestrians.  Thanks.
Joseph R P (2024-10-08 18:51:50+00:00): It depends on the OSM-based routing system, which there are many of, but I know for certain the best way to specify pedestrian access and ensure proper navigation is to map all walkways along the route and to apply tags like foot=yes, foot=no, foot=discouraged to specify pedestrian access. This is specification is even more important now since highway=trunk, which used to almost always refer to an expressway or boulevard, can now refer to any sort of segment of highway part of a major commuter or intercity route (i.e., a route as important as a motorway that may not meet motorway criteria for various reasons), including surface streets. With this change in direction for the tag, the road's color no longer solely reflects the highway's physical characteristics.
streetsurvma (2024-10-09 03:34:03+00:00): Respectfully you didn’t really answer the question as to what issues will be caused by keeping it a trunk road. I’m also curious why you care so much about road so far from VA.  Myself having local knowledge of this road, it’s a trunk road.  Again marking it any other way is not right and is going to put our residents at risk.  Thanks.
Joseph R P (2024-10-09 15:32:49+00:00): The main issue is that it is incorrect. Just because tagging it incorrectly won't cause any major navigation issues doesn't mean it's not correct. I could tag all of there warehouses here as supermarkets and they would still appear on the map and can be accessed by routing systems, but that doesn't mean they would not be incorrect. 

It should not be a trunk road because it, by US definition, does not serve as one. In a suburban area like this, a trunk road is defined by the OSM Wiki as "the most important non-motorway roads that provide main, long-haul connections between population centers of regional importance". This here is a simple connector road between an Interstate and a relatively minor arterial road. It still does not make sense to me why such a short access road should be placed higher in the hierarchy than the road it leads to.

Tagging roads as different "colors" just to specify pedestrian access rather than for how they serve in the highway network would be tagging for the renderer. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer) I explained how to properly specify pedestrian access here without changing the tags of the road itself.
Michael N (2024-10-01 17:30:19+00:00): What are the new guidelines? What changed, where can I find it? For example the wiki has a bunch of local tagging guidance for New Hampshire but none for Mass that I found. Thanks in advance.
cubbe8 (2024-10-01 17:39:10+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

These are the new guidelines. Under state specific guidelines, Massachusetts has a classification standard.

MassGIS F-Class 2 = highway=trunk
MassGIS F-Class 3 = highway=primary
MassGIS F-Class 5 = highway=secondary

Here is the page from MassGIS that provides the data:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance
cubbe8 (2024-10-01 17:40:07+00:00): https://gis.data.mass.gov/maps/5088c1b6af16420e98f1165d051d60df 

This is the MassGIS page
woodpeck (2024-10-01 09:14:13+00:00): A "disused" railway is one where "the track and infrastructure remain in place". This does not seem to be the case here; it is at best "abandoned". If not visible on the ground any more (and Wikipedia research is required to give you an idea where tracks once have been) then it does NOT belong in OpenStreetMap at all.
TMRMan (2024-10-01 09:52:15+00:00): It's visible from the ground as well. I was wondering what the disturbance was and why there was space next to the road as I drove along it.
TMRMan (2024-10-01 09:54:15+00:00): It is very visible/noticeable when I'm driving alongside it on my way to the mountains down south. One who's familiar with these sorts of things will notice it immediately, and you can walk huge chunks of it.

It would be handy to me for picking up the trail past developments. Some of it's even being turned into a proper hiking trail, to boot. (Wear your jeans if you do, this time of year for the brown snakes which are awake from hibernation, and angry. And bring a wide hat for the Maggies, as it's nesting season.)
woodpeck (2024-10-01 10:04:32+00:00): Ok. So it is definitely not "disused"; it is at best "abandoned" but that would require that someone who is not a railway buff can see: Oh, apparently there used to be a railway here. The photo on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned illustrates that quite well. If it is just "space next to the road" that leads someone with "an eye for the railways" to deduct that there must once have been a railway here, don't map it in OpenStreetMap. There is a project called "OpenHistoricalMap" that lets you map these things.
TMRMan (2024-10-01 10:06:41+00:00): Duly noted- is there a way for me to pull that so I can avoid re-tracing it all?
user_13006008 (2024-10-04 10:49:11+00:00): Kenapa Jalan Caringin diubah jadi tertiary?
nyampire (2024-10-02 05:43:11+00:00): 編集をレビューしました。
正しいタグ付けができており、問題有りません。
この調子で、他の情報も追加してみてください。

Happy Mapping！
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157320122
tastrax (2024-10-18 10:43:43+00:00): Mmmm not sure that the motorway is correct in this area. Speed drops to 80kmh before the airport turnoff (from the west)
user_13006008 (2024-10-04 10:46:05+00:00): Kenapa Jalan Raya Narogong jadi tertiary?
woodpeck (2024-10-01 09:11:56+00:00): You have used "railway=disused" for this, but you have put "abandoned" in the name. The wiki says, for "disused": "A section of railway which is no longer used but where the track and infrastructure remain in place." This is certainly not the case here, is it?
TMRMan (2024-10-01 09:56:38+00:00): No, there's no rails set down. Abutments on the bridge, ties in the asphalt, rails under the asphalt and poking up.
CoyKoi (2024-10-01 20:28:50+00:00): Hi degreesbelowzero, welcome to OpenStreetMap, thank you for your contribution, you have filled out the values well and left a useful changeset comment. As you mention in your changeset comment, this is a temporary feature only occasionally erected. It is best-practice not to map temporary features - see this wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_features

Cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157320511
ArgyleZombie (2024-11-29 22:19:07+00:00): It's good that you added houses and addresses, but I disagree with the addition of street direction suffixes in this changeset and others of your recent changesets.  

For example, you've changed "South Yorktown Avenue" to "South Yorktown Avenue East," a name which is technically correct, but only used in county land records and other official government records systems.

I am a firm believer that the primary name field in OSM should reflect the name most commonly used.   The street signs within Tulsa County do not generally use the street direction suffix, of course with the exception of the numbered east-west streets in north Tulsa.  For north-south numbered roads, the name in common use is "East Avenue" or "West Avenue," not "Avenue East" or "Avenue West."  These common names are reflected not only on the street signs within Tulsa County, but also in the preferred address of the USPS for mail delivery.  For example, in this change set, you added a house with address "419 South Xanthus Avenue East."  If you type this name into the post office tool at zip4.usps.com, it will change it to "419 S XANTHUS AVE," without the direction suffix.

You probably noticed I have been adding the direction suffix in rural areas outside of Tulsa County, but that's different because in those areas the suffixes often do appear on the street signs, and they are almost always used by the post office for mail delivery.

It would be fine with me if you put "South Yorktown Avenue East" in as an "official_name" and kept name as "South Yorktown Avenue," but I disagree with your decision to change the "name" key to a name that is only used in official government databases. I also disagree with your decision to use these names in addresses of individual buildings in areas where the post office prefers to use common names.

Do you find my arguments consistent and reasonable?
Baloo Uriza (2024-11-30 00:57:20+00:00): Kinda-sorta.  I see both as valid.


I'm local on North Yorktown myself, and have done a lot of field service work, with INCOG supplying me with the address database to conflate (open government data). The signage is highly inconsistant.  In Kendall Whittier, there's signs claming the street is North and South (fair, the dividing line is in the neighborhood), "Avenue", "East Avenue" and "Avenue East" and even a "Street West" somehow.  There's also multiple streets in the city with more than one street name posted (and in a few cases in Sapulpa and Coweta, two names, neither of which are used for the street address).  The signs on Lewis recently changed from "N LEWIS ST" to "N LEWIS E AV" on one side and "N LEWIS AV" on the other side of the same intersection up the street from me.  The signage gets outright inventive and doesn't even appear in the MUTCD the closer to the cycleway system you get here.  I'm not sure what's going on at ODOT and the City's department of streets, but sobriety testing doesn't appear to be a priority.  ;O)

As for the directional suffix/prefixes, I see it as up there with Oklahoma City and Portland.  If we were strictly going by what the locals colloquially call the streets in both cities, we'd never use the North/northwest/southwest/southeast/northeast prefixes ever.

Given a lack of consistency in the ground truth, the proprietary nature of the USPS database and INCOG's addresses being open government data, I've been using local knowledge and best judgement to put this together.

I hope this helps give you an idea where my head's at.
Baloo Uriza (2024-11-30 01:24:34+00:00): Also to stay consistent with OKC, Portland and other "directional" cities, I'm wondering if we could stay consistent on using name=* being the official name, and use loc_name=* for what locals call it and official_name=* for official but awkward names?  When I first moved here I was on East 60th Street South, but it was signed 60th Street and if I didn't include the directions the post office would end up sending my mail to the same address on 61st Street... so I'm not sure the USPS database is a consistent source iether.
ArgyleZombie (2024-11-30 01:42:08+00:00): I get what you're saying about trying to be consistent; and multiple sources aren't consistent with each other.  I go by original neighborhood plat maps, street signs, and I spot-check one or two addresses with the USPS.  Usually at least the USPS agrees with the street signs, which also agrees with what is on old paper printed maps, so that's what I generally go with.  In the one case I found recently where the plat map and street signs agreed, but differed from what the post office uses, I put the post office name as an alt_name and I made a note about it.

Often the street signs are incorrect; the problem gets worse as you get further away from the metropolitan area. Rural town and county governments can't hire the best people for making street signs.   There are plenty of signs in Wagoner County where the E and S are transposed or they use "Street" instead of "Avenue" on a north-south road in an area where it's clear they're still trying to follow the Tulsa numbering system.  So I assume what I think they meant even if it's not what they said, and therefore I'm sure I've been guilty of incorrectly changing street names.

Is there anyone else who routinely edits the Tulsa area that you know of? Maybe we could try to have a meeting of all local OSM mappers about this and come to an agreement.  I'd also like to have some agreement among all Tulsa-area mappers about what roads are primary, secondary, tertiary etc. because the existing tagging sometimes seems inconsistent.
Baloo Uriza (2024-11-30 02:19:51+00:00): Searching the USPS also isn't really an argument here because their database is proprietary so apologies for me completely ignoring a source we can't use at all.

Only other person who's edited as much locally as I have is NE2 but he's the first person banned for life from OSM (and good riddance in their case).

It's mostly just you and me on this one.  Based on other cities that also have the directional thing going on, I'd prefer to keep that information completely intact.  I'd like to move forward on having addr:* information added to streets as hints for validators, though, since this makes sense entirely too often here (case in point, in Sapulpa there's a signed "Officer Larry W. Cantrell and Mister Charles L. Cantrell Memorial Highway" where the finger signs say "New Sapulpa Road" and the USPS says "Highway 66".
ArgyleZombie (2024-12-03 19:22:47+00:00): I still strongly disagree with what you're doing with the direction suffixes, and I am continuing the conversation on the community forum:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/road-names-being-changed-to-official-names-only-used-in-government-databases/122517
user_13006008 (2024-10-04 13:56:23+00:00): Please, do not map where individual people live.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information
Gorger (2025-02-14 08:36:05+00:00): "Hello MAHMOUD ATIA
 I have created missing buildings at way 1321766219, way 1321766218.
 Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
 Happy Mapping!"
Bobropiton (2024-10-01 08:56:56+00:00): Hello. I wonder how it is possible to work in JOSM and break all the relations that pass through the streets...
winnewoerp (2024-10-03 16:53:06+00:00): Oh no, is that true? I destroyed relations? Sorry for that. I queried all highways of Petrogradsky island using overpass-turbo.eu and used JOSM to only work on this extracted data. I did this before and never destroyed any relations. I did not modify geometries, but only tags, so I wonder what happened. What has been destroyed exactly? What do I need to repair?
AgusQui (2024-10-19 08:01:21+00:00): Un elemento tan grande e impreciso como este https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1319430088 es un verdadero desproósito. Por favor tratar de agregar calidad al mapeo, tratamos de hacer el mapa lo más preciso posible.
大山かなめ (2024-10-01 04:57:29+00:00): 住所ですが、レシートには戸守383-1と表記されており、大字の下の字は不明でした
jmarchon (2024-10-02 03:27:54+00:00): Welcome to OSM and thank you for your contributions!
lyctkel (2024-10-03 19:10:15+00:00): Salut JLZIMMERMANN,
pour la poubelle https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12196380089 tu as écrit ceci : recycling:  = yes
Je suppose que tu voulais indiquer ici quel matériel doit être recyclé ici ?
Salutations cordiales
lyctkel
JLZIMMERMANN (2024-10-04 14:05:56+00:00): oui une poubelle piéton + une poubelle jaune adjacente ;-)
lyctkel (2024-10-04 19:57:39+00:00): Hi JLZIMMERMANN,
nous avons donc deux tags côte à côte.
amenity=recycling
amenity=waste_basket

Je n'habite pas en France, je dois donc deviner poubelle jaune  et j'ai trouvé la possibilité suivante sur Internet :

amenity=recycling
recycling_type=container
recycling:paper_packaging=yes
recycling:beverage_cartons=yes
recycling:newspaper=yes
recycling:magazines=yes
recycling:plastic_packaging=yes
recycling:cans=yes
recycling:aerosol_cans=yes

Suis-je dans le vrai ?

Salutations

lyctkel
tux67 (2024-10-01 06:35:45+00:00): Hallo lberges,

was ist die Quelle für diesen Änderungssatz? Wäre schön, wenn du mit angeben könntest .. das erspart die Nachfrage.

Gruß
tux67
tux67 (2024-10-01 06:47:13+00:00): ... ich nehme mal an ein Vergleich gegen die PLZ Relation?
lberges (2024-10-01 07:14:43+00:00): https://postcode.wambachers-osm.website
gibt stets frisch falsche PLZ aus, d. h. Adressen wo PLZ und PLZ-Grenzen nicht übereinstimmen.
mcliquid (2024-10-04 14:39:05+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please note for the future: 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#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!