piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
DD1GJ (2024-06-29 16:04:44+00:00): Hallo Manuel,

ich habe einen Teil Deiner Änderungen zurückgesetzt, da an 16 Wegweiserstandorten die Wanderwegweiser gelöscht wurden und ihre Daten mit danebenstehenden MTB-Wegweisern gemischt wurden. Erschwerend kam hinzu, dass davon über 40 Relationen von Wander- und MTB-Knotenpunktnetzwerken betroffen waren. Dies hatte vor allen wegen geänderten Namen und Referenznummern verheerende Auswirkungen auf deren Qualitätskontrollen.

Ich vermute, dass der von Dir verwendete Editor iD dies (halb)automatisch gemacht hat. Wurdest Du während des Editierens oder Abspeicherns gefragt, ob "identische" Punkte zusammengefasst werden sollen bzw. ist Dir irgendetwas verdächtiges aufgefallen?

Was war das eigentliche Ziel dieses Edits und was hatte iD Dir noch zusätzlich vorgeschlagen?

Viele Grüße, Joachim
Manuel H (2024-06-30 07:46:27+00:00): Danke.

Ja, iD stellt das als Datenproblem dar, weil zwei Punkte nicht an einem Ort sein sollten.
Was iD sonst noch reklamiert, kannst du ja anschauen.

In wiefern das "verheerende" Auswirkungen auf die Relationen haben will, kann ich nicht nachvollziehen. Die Relationen bleiben erhalten beim Kombinieren.  
Und meinem Verständnis nach ist ein Wegweiser halt 1 Wegweiser, auch wenn er mehrere Schilder hat. So zeigt es auch das Wiki und so besagt es die OSM-Grundregel "Ein Objekt, ein OSM-Element". 
Man macht ja auch keine doppelte Wege, weil da eine MTB- und eine Wanderroute drüber führen. 
Diese Art des Mappings von Wegweisern ist mir noch in keiner anderen Gegend aufgefallen.

Beim Nachvollziehen der Edits ist mir gleich ein Fall untergekommen, wo zwei Wegweiser am identischen Ort einen eingetragenen Höhenunterschied von 39 m hatten. Dieses Doppelmapping führt halt auch zu Inkonsistenzen.  

Aber ich will mich als Tourist nicht in lokale Besoonderheiten einmischen. 
Hauptsache, du hast die Geometrieänderungen nicht zurückgesetzt.
Belle Haven Mapper (2024-06-30 16:55:12+00:00): Posted limit here is 55 mph, not 70 mph. All of the changes in this changeset should be reverted.

This verifiable from the Virginia DOT Speed Limits Map (all data is available under an open data license).

https://www.virginiaroads.org/maps/VDOT::vdot-speed-limits-map/about
whammo (2024-07-01 10:26:48+00:00): FYI I have reverted all of this user's changes around the Capital Beltway
EP_Repair (2024-09-19 16:12:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 156828449 where the changeset comment is: Reverting speed limit changes that were not field verified and have never been posted on the beltways
LockOnGuy (2024-06-28 04:25:26+00:00): Hello desertivy,  
Previously I asked you to use good changeset comment multiple times, and still, you did not achieve that unfortunately. I have explained the importance of the changeset comment to be clear to you in very detailed way before, like in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152541931  
So please do use meaningful changeset comments, “updated a building” does not help other mappers understand what you are doing.  
  
Regards.  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
desertivy (2024-06-29 15:19:41+00:00): It's impressive how you have so much to yap about on my slightest changes, but not say a word with users who use something like "fixes and corrections" for all their changesets:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lukh%C9%91v/history#map=7/33.642/45.461
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/saturn%20ginearr/history#map=7/33.358/44.791

or go as far as defending a vandal changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152826465#map=7/33.468/45.648
Two reasons, you either a hypocrite, or those accounts belong to you. both possible.
Belle Haven Mapper (2024-06-30 17:04:47+00:00): fieldlogix 10, you indicate you are using local knowledge, can you elaborate on that?

The signs here all indicate 55 mph (on the non-express lanes) and for non-local users this is verifiable through independent sources such as the Virginia Department of Transportation's Speed Limits Maps.
EP_Repair (2024-09-19 16:12:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 156828449 where the changeset comment is: Reverting speed limit changes that were not field verified and have never been posted on the beltways
Tomas_J (2024-07-08 05:30:45+00:00): Ahoj.  Všeobecné názvy (Alpaky, poníky, minikoníky, prasiatko a pávy) sa v name nepoužívajú. Na to slúži tag description.
Strubbl (2024-07-02 14:56:29+00:00): Hi geo-d, bzgl. der Lebscheestraße wäre es doch eigentlich besser, wenn die Stadt ihre Daten korrigiert? Oder was steht auf dem Straßenschild?
Lebschéestraße oder Lebscheestraße? Korrekter wäre Lebschéestraße, wenn es nach dem namensgebenden Maler ginge und dann wäre es gut, wenn wir das hier rückgängig machen würden.
Viele Grüße
geo-d (2024-07-02 15:24:27+00:00): Hallo Strubbl,
auf den Straßenschildern steht "Lebschee", auf den Hausnummernschildern "Lebschée", ich habe mich daher für die Straßenschild-Version entschieden.
Viele Grüße
NorthCrab_upload (2024-06-27 22:50:13+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Klucz addr:place oznacza brak nazwy ulicy. Kombinacja z addr:street (który definiuje nazwę ulicy) jest błędna. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, zamień addr:place na addr:city. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1296665381

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.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6961441485

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Violaine_Do (2024-11-26 22:14:25+00:00): Hi, buildings should not be displaced but so should be imagery, prior to mapping, thks in advance for taking it into account next times and sharing the word inside adt. I did the correction for this time
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153269131
cats_pajamas (2024-11-27 20:05:22+00:00): Thank you!
Violaine_Do (2024-11-26 22:12:00+00:00): Hi, The proper name is "Route de ceinture ouest". "Route Ceinture l'Ouest" means nothing... If possible next time, it would be appreciated if you could check for official sources. Could you please correct this? Thks
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153269236
SpaceTracer (2024-12-02 22:49:10+00:00): Hello, thank you for pointing this out. I made this update in the hope of improving the syntax of the name, based on guidance from a native French speaker. If you believe this is incorrect, I will defer to your knowledge and welcome any updates you would like to make to the name.
Violaine_Do (2024-12-02 22:59:08+00:00): Hi, thk for the answer. I can tell you Route Ceinture is wrong, it should be Route de Ceinture. then Ouest and Est indicates chich side. Those are not official names but usual names. I am not sure we should have them on the name tag (but I am ok with it). For references with official sources you could check on tefenua.data.gov.pf
Violaine_Do (2024-12-02 23:00:22+00:00): (because name should be used with real item on site and not oral informations.. : but still i am ok with this approximation)
SpaceTracer (2024-12-03 23:03:44+00:00): Thanks for the additional context for these names. It sounds like it may be more appropriate to move these to the loc_name tag (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Local_names_(loc_name)) since they are not official. I will also defer to your suggestion about name syntax - Route de Ceinture Ouest and Route de Ceinture Est. I used this layer (https://www.tefenua.data.gov.pf/datasets/08de13d5a8e94dcea4f15bb9c5280877_0/explore) to check for road names but did not see anything attributed in this dataset. If there is a different open resource you use for these types of verifications I would be happy to utilize that. I can make those changes if you agree with this proposal.
Violaine_Do (2024-12-03 23:36:03+00:00): Yes this is perfect for me, thanks!Here is an other data source for roads : https://www.tefenua.data.gov.pf/datasets/dbe0c5c924e348bc8af063c98e42c7a0_8/ Both are interesting ... (one was a fork of the other and never get merged into one referential..)
EP_Repair (2024-09-19 16:12:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 156828449 where the changeset comment is: Reverting speed limit changes that were not field verified and have never been posted on the beltways
EP_Repair (2024-09-19 16:12:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 156828449 where the changeset comment is: Reverting speed limit changes that were not field verified and have never been posted on the beltways
EP_Repair (2024-09-19 16:12:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 156828449 where the changeset comment is: Reverting speed limit changes that were not field verified and have never been posted on the beltways
EP_Repair (2024-09-19 16:12:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 156828449 where the changeset comment is: Reverting speed limit changes that were not field verified and have never been posted on the beltways
limes11 (2025-08-28 22:50:32+00:00): Hi

hat deine Änderung diesen Hinweis gelöst ?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3980370

Falls ja, dann bitte den Hinweis schließen. 

Danke !
PerpetualHiker (2024-06-28 00:01:18+00:00): Correction: Source used was Esri World Imagery; Bing Streetside.
HirschKauz (2024-06-28 08:45:04+00:00): PLEASE be kind to your co-mappers!!! Write some descriptive text what you did in the Changeset
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153270048
silversurfer83 (2024-06-29 05:46:25+00:00): Hi
since there hasn't been any public reaction yet I left a DM in their inbox. Maybe that'll help

cheers
silversurfer83
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153270048
NeisBot (2024-06-28 00:08:24+00:00): Hi Gribellsauce, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/12015983067

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-01 12:31:40+00:00): Thank you for your mapped beach.
Looks good!

#HappyMapping
dcskobuffs (2024-07-01 21:42:48+00:00): Hello filipmanso11,

I noticed a few recent classification changes that caught my attention.  Small residential streets such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/411835239 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/411835237 were classified as trunks which the OSM wiki reserves for "high-performance or high-importance roads” (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk). These roads linked above that were classified as trunk only serve local traffic and a classification such as residential or service appears to be more fitting since they match that definition of "roads that provide access to, or within, residential areas but which are not normally used as through routes"(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dresidential) 

In addition, I noticed some secondary highways (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1235600831, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1294614519) that may be too high of classification due to this class of roads being “used to tag major arterial roads” (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=secondary) and typically do not dead-end, as these currently do.

Given this, how would you feel about restoring these roads to their previous, lower classifications? For future edits I encourage you to refer to the good practice page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature,_one_OSM_element).

I look forward to hearing from you!

Olá filipmanso11,

Notei algumas mudanças recentes na classificação que chamaram minha atenção. Pequenas ruas residenciais como https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/411835239 e https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/411835237 foram classificadas como troncos que o wiki OSM reserva para "alto desempenho ou alta importância estradas” (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk). Essas estradas vinculadas acima que foram classificadas como troncais servem apenas ao tráfego local e uma classificação como residencial ou de serviço parece ser mais adequada, uma vez que são mais adequadas. correspondem a essa definição de "estradas que fornecem acesso a ou dentro de áreas residenciais, mas que normalmente não são usadas como rotas de passagem"(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dresidential)

Além disso, notei algumas rodovias secundárias (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1235600831, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1294614519) que podem ter classificação muito alta devido a esta classe de estradas sendo “usados ​​para marcar as principais estradas arteriais” (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=secondary) e normalmente não terminam em becos sem saída, como acontece atualmente.

Diante disso, como você se sentiria ao restaurar essas estradas às suas classificações anteriores e inferiores? Para edições futuras, recomendo que você consulte a página de boas práticas (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature,_one_OSM_element).

Estou ansioso para ouvir de você!
emersonveenstra (2024-06-28 10:46:09+00:00): Hi there,

Thanks for the edit! The "abandoned:" actually goes in the tag key, not the value, so it should be "abandoned:highway=track" (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix for more details). Hope this helps!
Sieva (2024-10-26 20:21:30+00:00): Hi, could you please explain why you marked Grey Gum Trail with bicycle=no? This tag requires local rules to prohibit cycling on the path, but as far as I'm aware this is not the case.
meark (2024-10-26 22:14:05+00:00): My understanding of all the trails in Champlain Heights is that they're pedestrian only- they're sidewalks with extremely limited visibility at times.  

Given that whenever cycling is permitted on sidewalks in this city there is signage, the same logic applies here. 

Also- this seems to confirm that-
"In Vancouver, you can ride your bicycle on roads, in protected bike lanes, and, when signs permit, on the Seawall and park paths."
 https://vancouver.ca/guides/cycling.aspx#:~:text=In%20Vancouver%2C%20you%20can%20ride,allowed%20in%20protected%20bike%20lanes.

Part of the issue here is that the city would just rather not deal with the area, which means it's ambiguous what the rules are.
Sieva (2024-10-28 17:01:45+00:00): This is the reply that I got from CoV Transportation Planning of :

Hi Sieva,

Thank you for reaching out about Grey Gum Trail. I looked into this, and unfortunately it seems like a bit of a grey area.

The trail itself appears to be no wider than a typical sidewalk, but it is not part of our sidewalk network. Additionally, it is not part of our cycling network either. Also, as the trail is in both Burnaby and Vancouver, different rules may apply depending on where you are.

That said, it doesn’t seem like bikes are explicitly prohibited. Given that it is a tight and shared space, my advice is to ride through the area respectfully and give pedestrians the priority. Yield if pedestrians are approaching from the front and allow them to pass, or dismount if you are approaching someone from behind.

Sorry I do not have a more definitive answer.

Take care, and let us know if you have any more questions.

Trey

Transportation Planning | City of Vancouver
Sieva (2024-10-28 17:06:45+00:00): I would translate this as tagging it with highway=path and foot=designated, omitting the bicycle tag.
emersonveenstra (2024-06-28 15:04:30+00:00): Hi there,

Did you mean to leave this section of road as secondary from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/504792354 to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/504792356?
erickdeoliveiraleal (2024-07-17 14:23:19+00:00): deleted.
TrickyFoxy (2024-07-03 10:17:49+00:00): Уже отмечен же
archie (2024-06-28 07:24:02+00:00): Hej, vad är meningen med denna cs? Du har dubblerat byggnaderna här.
i2004 (2024-06-28 15:21:16+00:00): yo te hice la linea 176
AgusQui (2024-06-28 18:17:16+00:00): Si, pero están todos los ramales juntos, fijate si los podés separar porque no conozco y no tengo tiempo de investigar
stillhart (2026-05-25 20:00:34+00:00): Hoi. Das ist doch ziemlich sicher ein Tesla destination charger und kein Tesla Supercharger? Supercharger sind schnellladestationen.

Auf der Tesla website lässt sich nichts dazu finden, und die ist in der Regel top aktuell.
https://www.tesla.com/findus?bounds=47.63653157198967%2C10.751385453124986%2C46.833711633494694%2C8.444256546874986&location=52606&functionType=destination_charger
stillhart (2026-05-25 20:01:23+00:00): zu https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11202616436/history#map=19/47.104597/9.739817&layers=N

Hoi. Das ist doch ziemlich sicher ein Tesla destination charger und kein Tesla Supercharger? Supercharger sind schnellladestationen.

Auf der Tesla website lässt sich nichts dazu finden, und die ist in der Regel top aktuell. 

so ähnlich wie hier.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153275440
based_kronberger (2024-07-03 16:46:33+00:00): Moin,
Bei der Ausfahrt 1 von der B 455 zur Lahnstraße sowie von der B 456 zur B 455 ist eine Autobahnausfahrt siehe Autobahnschilder und Hesse WebAtlas.
ManuelB701 (2024-07-04 12:00:19+00:00): Das Problem ist hier, dass es zwar legal eine Autobahnauffahrt sei, funktionell aber eine Auffahrt zu einer Schnellstraße ist, was somit wie ein Fehler aussieht (sowohl von der Karte aus als auch von Qualitätskontrollen — zudem die eine Außfahrt weiter östlich tatsächlich ein Fehler war).
Einfach umändern hätte ich dies jedenfalls nicht gemacht, sondern wäre stattdessen in den Foren mal nachfragen, wie man das richtig handhaben soll, oder zumindest einen Notitz an den Wegen hinterlassen, dass es sich um einen Sonderfall handelt (es hilft nicht, dass es an der Strecke keine Mappilary-Bilder gibt, damit ich es selber überprüfen kann und eine Reise nach Oberursel ist schon ein Tagesausflug für mich).
based_kronberger (2024-07-14 21:56:35+00:00): Hi,
ja das ding ist halt, dass zumindest bei der 1, Ausfahrt Richtung Oberursel-Nord, die Ausfahrt durch ein Autobahnschild angezeigt wird. Wenn man jetzt in Navigatoren, die OSM basiert sind, gehen würde, würde das Ausfahrtsschild orange angezeigt wird (Bundesstraße), jedoch ist dieses Schild Blau (Autobahn). Deshalb würde ich zumindest die erste Ausfahrt (Fahrtrichtung Frankfurt) als Autobahnausfahrt kennzeichnen.

Gute Nacht
ManuelB701 (2024-07-19 11:42:26+00:00): Da es mir schon zu komplex wurde: Ich habe mich vor Ort nachgeschaut und die Einfahrt ist definitiv eine Schnellstraße (sowohl vom Nutzen als auch in der Beschilderung), die Ausfahrt ist da schon komplex und habe hierzu einen Thread erstellt: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/autobahn-schnellstrassenausfahrt-oberursel-nord/116263
mcliquid (2024-06-28 06:52:05+00:00): Revert of Changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153276796

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153277325
oruk09 (2024-10-03 10:01:50+00:00): 싸이흠뻑쇼는 고정적으로 하는 행사가 아니고 해당 태그와 관계가 없으므로 지우는게 맞다고 봅니다
user_11609320 (2024-06-28 07:00:31+00:00): I was looking at other valid transit routes. it is weird to me that stop means something different from  The wiki is a tad confusing. took a while to find what it meant in version 2. I always assumed stop meant where you wait to be picked up. apparently not. That is why I haven't added the rest of the stops on the route.
LanxtotVLN (2024-06-28 10:02:44+00:00): Netiesa. Tai stotelė be pavadinimo, naudojama atstovai. Keleiviai neįlaipinami/neišlaipinami.
LanxtotVLN (2024-06-28 10:03:18+00:00): Atkeičiau.
editor88 (2024-07-01 12:30:03+00:00): @ LanxtotVLN ačiū už komentarą.

Sutinku, jog stotelės pavadinimas vietoje neužrašytas. Vis dėl to, pagal Vilniaus viešojo transporto duomenis, stotelė vadinasi "Europos aikštė" ir yra naudojama klientų išlaipinimui/įlaipinimui. Ar šiuos duomenis reikėtų kitaip interpretuoti?

https://m.stops.lt/vilnius/index.html#bus/88/b-a
empty_child (2024-06-28 09:47:19+00:00): Reverted (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153284105). Low quality of edits
OT0J87K3UT (2024-06-28 07:07:44+00:00): URUN ELEKTRONİK
empty_child (2024-06-28 09:40:18+00:00): Добрый день
Вы когда домики рисуете, нажимайте клавишу Q, чтобы редактор сделал углы в 90 градусов у здания
empty_child (2024-06-28 09:43:50+00:00): И не используйте Бинг в этом регионе, у них устаревшие снимки. Эсри свежее будут
Jamie43 (2025-05-23 17:12:36+00:00): Makes sense to have "canoe" part of this superrelation. But then should we not have all the possible modes of transport? Snowmobile, Nordic, Hiking, Cycling, MTB...  Thinking out loud here
GEO ECLA (2024-07-05 08:35:04+00:00): Pas convaincu qu'il faille rajouter une géométrie pour la traversée vélo, d'autant qu'elle n'est pas exactement à cet endroit mais plutôt de l'autre côté du carrefour : https://api.panoramax.xyz/#focus=pic&map=21.85/46.6745103/5.5330367&pic=808eeea6-e27d-42e7-8bd4-5e8540542f23&speed=250&xyz=269.67/2.33/32
Le calcul d'itinéraire fonctionne bien sans matérialiser la traversée :
http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=17/46.67534/5.53368/cyclosm&lonlats=5.531841,46.674869;5.536262,46.675318
Pour aller plus loin dans la micro-cartographie, il faudrait séparer les voies Rue Aristide Briand (terre-plein central) et à cette occasion rajouter le tourne à gauche vélo.
Julien39 (2024-07-05 09:57:03+00:00): Tu as raison, j'ai fait vite et me suis trompé de côté !
J'ai vu le logo peint sur la chaussée, j'ai pensé qu'il serait bien de le tracer, pour y revenir ensuite, effectivement.
Mais on peut aussi le supprimer en attendant, je corrige.
emersonveenstra (2024-06-28 10:56:27+00:00): Hi again! Thanks for adding the surface tags. "surface=paved/unpaved" are meant more for aerial mapping when you can't tell exactly what it is from the imagery. Since you surveyed this, can you look through https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface#Paved and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface#Unpaved and pick a more specific one?
Andrea Musuruane (2024-06-30 15:24:44+00:00): Ciao. Per favore, non usare la barra per separare la parte numerica e quella letterale del numero civico: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Addresses#Regole_specifiche_per_l'Italia Ciao, Andrea
Geopartner (2024-07-01 07:52:28+00:00): Grazie mille per il suggerimento! Procedo a sistemare anche gli altri civici inseriti...
ivanbranco (2024-07-16 08:44:04+00:00): Hi Ozdemirtahaa

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12016515259/

the mapillary=* value is a OSM link, not a mapillary id
wikimedia_commons=* values have a syntax to be followed as wiki
wikipedia=* as well

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8282319807/
here you connected a wood and a highway to a boundary, please don't. Otherwise if someone moves the wood/highway they would move the boundary as well
Ruslan Fatih (2025-01-26 13:04:12+00:00): Почему остановка «Север» ?