piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
MOHAMMED07 (2025-01-13 12:19:02+00:00): مرحبا عزيزي
لايوجد لدي اي مشاكل في الحدود ولكن يبدو لي ان هناك شيء خطأ او قديم في هذا الموضوع والدليل القاطع على ذلك يظهر في الحدود المرسومه  اكثر من موقع غير صحيح  على سبيل المثال مركز حكومي باسم مركز الجوين يتبع لمحافظه هروب اماره منطقه جازان وسوف يتم ارفاق مقطع لزياره وكاله الانباء السعودية واس لمعلم سياحي يتبع لمركز الجوين محافظه هروب وفي رسمكم للخريطه المفتوحه تم وضعه في محافظة الريث الموضوع ليس فيه اي من المشاكل انا اقوم فقط بالمساعده والبناء للخرائط المفتوحه وتم التطرق لهذا الموضوع نظرا للحدود المرسومه فتعديلها يساعد في تحديث وتصحيح الاخطاء والبناء للجيومكانيه والمواقع الجغرافيه بالاضافه الى ان جميع برامج ومواقع وتطبيقات الويب والتواصل الاجتماعي تستخدم مثل هذه الخرائط وهناك العديد من المشاكل في توصيل جميع الطلبات والطرود الحكوميه من ابشر والطلبات الالكترونيه والادويه الطبيه والعلاجيه تصل الى المحافظه الاخرى ويتم الذهاب بطرق ابعد وطرق غير معبده ومسافات اطول وانا احاول على تعديل وبناء الخرائط المفتوحه وماشابه ذلك وسوف يتم ارفاق الصفحه للتاكد ونرجوا التعاون منكم في البناء الدقيق وشكرا جزيلا ولك اطيب تحياتي

https://www.spa.gov.sa/N2191639
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2025-01-14 17:43:59+00:00): يا أستاذي الكريم قلت سابقاً لو عندك مصدر لغير هذه الحدود زودنا به ولكن زيارة وموقع أخبار ما فيه رسم للحدود ولا هي واضحه فمعليش ما نقدر نغير حسب رأيك الشخصي، الحدود هذي مستوردة من مصدر حكومي ولو عندك اعتراض قدمه لامارة المنطقة عندك وليس عندنا في الخريطة!
Baloo Uriza (2025-01-07 15:55:22+00:00): There's no houses for miles, and that's hardly a track.  Please don't just blindly import RapID detections, edit them as appropriate.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161095414
Leo Slager (2025-01-08 10:37:55+00:00): De gebroken routes van lijn 12 zijn weer gerepareerd.
mcliquid (2025-01-07 14:32:21+00:00): Grüß dich! Danke für die Änderungen.
Meines Wissens nach dürfen nach wie vor Kunden des Restaurants Fischteich dort parkieren. Hat sich daran nachweislich etwas geändert?
Kookykooky (2025-01-08 05:23:30+00:00): Hi, thanks for the clarification, we received a message from a user who visited the place: "There is no parking here in the winter season. There is no public parking in the whole of Zug." Based on it, we adjusted the access, I fixed the access to the parking back.
Have a nice day
ssummoner1 (2025-01-07 14:18:31+00:00): Szia! De jó! Nem tudtam, hogy létezik ilyen. Köszi!
infeeeee (2025-01-07 14:23:48+00:00): Milyen?
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2025-01-07 20:21:14+00:00): Hi, there is nothing in the data which would help consumers (apps and maps) to understand what it is. It will be ignored.

Consider adding relevant tags (at the bottom when you select the node), like 

amenity=lounge

and more

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dlounge
woodpeck (2025-01-10 10:35:51+00:00): Da ist an einigen Stücken noch ein maxwidth:lanes-Tag dran - Überbleibsel von der Baustelle oder gehört das so? Bin selber nicht ortskundig, hab das nur zufällig gesehen, weil sich ein Allianz-Bonus-Drive-App-Kunde beim FOSSGIS beschwert hat, dass hier noch 80 ist, dem konnte ich dann sagen, wir haben das schon LÄNGST gefixt ;)
taxi301 (2025-06-17 07:26:27+00:00): zmieniłeś na kostkę a tu jest asfalt
dpolovinkin (2026-01-07 09:47:39+00:00): hi, how is this building is on level -1? it's def not underground https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47808686/history#map=19/25.080668/55.138007
rene78 (2026-01-07 10:06:31+00:00): Hi dpolovinkin,

I think this layer tag is used to describe the relative position of elements to others. In this case "layer=-1" means: "The steps and footpaths are on top (i.e. above) of the building". At least that is my understanding of the layer tag.
dpolovinkin (2026-01-10 09:15:16+00:00): ah I see, hm.. will remember, was kinda thinking it means the real layering based on the ground being layer=0 or something.. :)
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-11 16:39:51+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/778526554/history has tracktype = unknown that was added in this edit
Maybe it would be fine to remove it and keep tracktype= empty? That is fine for missing value
Hufkratzer (2025-01-09 22:14:17+00:00): Hi,
carrières équestres like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1349220878 should be tagged differently, like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1244652067
rhhs (2025-01-28 14:54:43+00:00): Hi Mitko, why did you add this shop? I didn't see anything looking like a shop there, only a garage. There might be a shop in the garage, but the doors were closed this afternoon
Dimitar155 (2025-01-29 13:21:53+00:00): Hi Richard. It does have garage doors on the outside. When I went past it, they were open and there was a glass storefront with a person and a sewing machine. It should be craft=tailor or similar. I can't remember if there was any name or opening hours.
rhhs (2025-01-29 16:43:08+00:00): Ah yes, maybe a шивачка. I've only seen it with the doors closed, and then there's nothing to see.
SomeoneElse (2025-01-08 10:43:24+00:00): Hello,
I think this edit might have caused some problems with relations.
If you have a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11060057 you can see that it now has a gap in it, but a few days ago it didn't https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1WNb .
Other affected relations might include
11044388 | Diocese of Cork
10909313 | Diocese of Cloyne
5688364 | Carhoo
6514527 | Whitechurch
Are you OK to add these back, or would you like any help?
Best Regards,
Andy
ViriatoLusitano (2025-01-08 12:34:49+00:00): Thank you for the heads up Andy, I will fix these now.
SomeoneElse (2025-01-09 09:42:54+00:00): Thanks - "Whitechurch Parish" et al have popped back into the database this morning.
Supaplex (2025-02-04 01:52:44+00:00): Hi

如果還沒有施工中狀況，請使用 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dproposed
來標示

雖然八德交流道相關的規劃有出來，並且核定要建靠並預計在 2030 年完工 ，但 OpenStreetMap 是依據實際狀況標示的，可以更細膩標示，隨著實際進度修改。
已經有其他圖客修正為規劃中了，再請留意了

高工局規劃：https://www.freeway.gov.tw/Publish.aspx?cnid=95&p=22542
新聞：https://udn.com/news/story/7266/8106347
中文維基百科條目：https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/八德交流道
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161097612
richlv (2025-01-07 15:30:15+00:00): Šis gan laikam graffiti, ne? :)
Colbertson (2025-01-07 15:59:31+00:00): hmm, tuvāk paskatījos bildes un jā
Pan (2025-01-08 05:58:25+00:00): Hi. Why did you delete all the rood details? They were accurately mapped.
wies1 (2025-01-08 07:05:49+00:00): Hallo. Was fehlt denn? Mir war nichts aufgefallen. Das Gebäude war als Multipolygon gemacht gewesen, nur das wollte ich auflösen, da man beide Teile als eigenständige Gebäude mappen kann. Wenn da weitere Informationen zum Gebäude verloren gegangen sind, war dies nicht meine Absicht 
Gruss
wies1
wies1 (2025-01-08 07:07:57+00:00): Hallo nochmal,
ich glaube, ich sehe gerade, was ich übersehen hatte wieder anzubringen. Wie gesagt, war keine Absicht gewesen. Wie ich auch sehe, hast du es bereits wieder hergestellt.
Gruss
wies1
Pan (2025-01-08 07:37:22+00:00): Kein Problem. Bonne année! :-)
wies1 (2025-01-08 13:25:24+00:00): Hallo, dir auch ein gutes Neues Jahr.
Doch mal gefragt: Weswegen hast Du bei diesem Gebaeude 6a ein Multipolygon gemacht? Gibt es da bestimmte Gruende? Wie ich schon sagte, wuerde ich die einzelnen Gebaeudeteile vollkommen separat mappen. Selbst wenn man die Gebaeudeteile zu einem Gesamtgebaeude zusammen fassen moechte, braucht man dafuer kein Multipolygon. Es ist moeglich einfach den Umriss des Gesamtgebaeudes als building zu machen.
Gruss
wies1
Pan (2025-01-08 13:41:23+00:00): Sure. In general, I try to avoid overlapping areas as it makes editing more difficult.
dadavid (2025-01-23 13:02:06+00:00): Hallo Michael, 
vielen Dank für deine Bearbeitung. Du hattest um Feedback dazu gebeten; das sieht alles super aus. Klasse, dass du den Fehler korrigiert hast, die Schreibweise war in OpenStreetMap schon seit 5 Jahren falsch und es ist nur dir aufgefallen. 

Weiterhin viel Spass bei OpenStreetMap :) 

VG
Langlaeufer (2025-01-10 09:28:00+00:00): Bitte auf Schnittpunkten von Fußweg mit Ausfahrten keine highway=crossing setzen. (das macht ID leider automatisch - aber alle Kreuzungsatttribute sind hier sinnlos weil bei normalen Ausfahrten haben die Fußgänger Vorrang, es gibt keinen Bordstein, keine Signale und keine taktile Pflasterung für Fußgänger.  Die Ausfahrt kreuzt hier quasi den Fußweg und nicht der Fußweg die Ausfahrt.
MikeN (2025-01-08 15:04:34+00:00): The comment implies bicycles permitted, but this change sets bicycle=no ?
pitscheplatsch (2025-01-07 16:01:36+00:00): Hi 1.

Please have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks!
IvicaBanovac (2025-01-09 18:07:30+00:00): Reverted because of a wrong tag #OptimoRoute

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161179967
NorthCrab_upload (2025-01-07 15:21:17+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/12480661797
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/458328370

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2025-01-07 15:31:17+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/12480674146
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12480674143
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12480674125
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12480586900
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12480586899
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12480586897
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12480586896
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353817481
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353817485
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353816895
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353816899
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/254733511
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/454384077

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
pitfire (2025-01-08 06:13:16+00:00): Hi PinguDEV,
der Knoten: 11616233627 ist kein Poller=fixed und somit ohne verkehrslenkende Eigenschaft. Es handelt sich um eine private Vorrichtung (Schließanlage) zum öffne der Garageneinfahrt, die von beiden Seiten umfahrbar ist. Ist eine reine access= private Einfahrt.
VG pitfire
JeroenHoek (2025-01-08 12:30:15+00:00): Let je even op dat de stukken tot aan het hek niet private zijn? Je kruist op sommige plaatsen nu paden die wel toegankelijk zijn met een access=private:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/990176567
Xyberion (2025-01-12 13:06:07+00:00): Ik heb bij de stukken van de doorgaande weg tot aan het hek de access=private tag verwijderd.
gscholz (2025-01-08 09:13:57+00:00): Hi Pfad-Finder,
this changeset has created several errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=20.46030&lat=40.12943&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=161100499

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2025-01-13 08:23:44+00:00): Hi Pfad-Finder, 
this error still exists, can I get your feedback here?
Guido
gscholz (2025-01-17 09:12:22+00:00): Hi Pfad-Finder, 
I have now reverted this changeset to fix those issues.
Guido
mavl (2025-02-05 14:02:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162167075 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted. Reason: wrong values for name:en - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161608012].
confusedbuffalo (2026-05-28 17:04:51+00:00): Traducción automática:
Hola, tanto aquí como en otros lugares veo que has importado un gran número de escuelas.

En primer lugar, no estoy seguro de la calidad de los datos de origen. Por ejemplo, aquí hay dos escuelas en la misma ubicación, pero en las imágenes aéreas no se ve nada allí:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12480716906

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12480717553

Además, varias de las etiquetas están completamente en mayúsculas, lo cual no parece muy adecuado para OSM.

En segundo lugar, me he dado cuenta de esto porque estoy analizando números de teléfono, y los valores que has añadido en la etiqueta phone no parecen ser números válidos. ¿Quizás se trate de una referencia o algo similar?

Original:
Hello, here and in other places I see that you have imported a lot of schools.

Firstly, I am not sure about the quality of the source data, for example, here are two schools at the same location, but on aerial nothing is visible there:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12480716906

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12480717553

Additionally, a number of the tags are in all capital letters, which does not seem quite right for OSM.

Secondly, the reason I have noticed is because I am analysing phone numbers, and the values you have added in the phone tag do not appear to be valid phone numbers, maybe they are a reference or something instead?
pitscheplatsch (2025-01-07 16:02:17+00:00): Hi 475538.

Please have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks!
BCNorwich (2025-01-08 13:08:52+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Sorry but your landuse=residential area covers a lot of other different types of areas. Thus I've removed it. The tag landuse=residential is used when mapping land areas used only as residential.

The boundary line for Marlborough is here:- https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3411516.

If you could explain what you hoped to achieve maybe I could help.

Regards Bernard.
mueschel (2025-01-08 14:47:32+00:00): Hi,
please don't add parking tags that apply to different sections of a way with "_1" - these can't be used by any software as long as it's not known in which part of the way which restriction applies.
The only viable way is to split the way as necessary, even if this results in many short segments.
citrula (2025-01-09 08:24:35+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please don't delete existing ways, even if they are on private property - it's better to add the appropriate access=private tags, that way nobody else will accidentally readd them without the important local knowledge you have.
Zoidburger (2025-01-09 15:10:07+00:00): Whoops...sorry.  They were getting too many people coming through if the gate was open.
citrula (2025-01-09 23:56:35+00:00): No worries - last night I readded the ways and made sure they were all tagged as private. Hope this helps solve your problem.
literan (2025-01-07 17:31:34+00:00): обычно тротуары вдоль дворовых проездов отдельно не отрисовывают. Т.к. по дворовым проездам пешеходы имеют преимущество в любых направлениях. А так роутер будет тащить к ближайшему соединению с дорогой
rlalbert (2025-01-07 22:35:13+00:00): Спасибо! Я так и понял, просто стало интересно, как будет смотреться. Впредь, наверное, нет смысла таким заниматься
James Derrick (2025-01-13 11:22:43+00:00): Hi ashleyneilmartin,

Welcome to OSM, and thanks for adding detail to the new phase release of West Meadows.

I cycled across to make a ground survey, and uploaded my GPSr track to improve the geometry of Wisteria Place:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick/traces/11718628

I've also added scale building outlines by eye (no aerial imagery available yet) but unfortunately couldn't see any door numbers so have had to guess which was #14.

Would you mind taking another look and updating where #14 is in relation to the other homes please?

Where it is hard to estimate the shape of buildings, you can just add an address point which will still help deliveries e.g.:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12409927329/

Thanks and Happy Mapping,

James
ashleyneilmartin (2025-01-16 15:00:04+00:00): Hi James,
I think we saw you cycle past actually and thought it looked like someone on a serious mission. 

I just updated the house numbers I know!
NorthCrab_upload (2025-01-07 16:20:49+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, dodaj ją w addr:street. Jeśli nie, zamień addr:city na addr:place - tak oznaczamy adresy bez ulic.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12480772604
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1349246321

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
JeroenHoek (2025-01-07 17:19:57+00:00): https://www.q-park.nl/nl-nl/parkeren/leeuwarden/p-r-wijnhornsterstraat/ lijkt me eerder?
Tatti Barletta (2025-01-08 08:27:23+00:00): Occhio che "name" sulle rotatorie significa il nome della rotatoria, non il nome di una delle vie ad essa connesse
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout#:~:text=Name%20tag%3A
H_S (2025-01-29 20:37:35+00:00): Buenas, este institucion no existe en este lugar en Paramo Santander.
Saludos Heinz
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-08 04:57:01+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164660202
ygcgjp5 (2025-03-02 15:28:18+00:00): sveiki, ar tikrai naujos įvažos taip stipriai atskirtos nuo kelio (t.y. reikia ilgų lygiagrečių segmentų keliui, o ne tiesiog prijungti taške kuriame įvaža atsiskiria nuo gatvės)?
eggie (2025-01-07 16:56:26+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback Een flat kan een naam hebben.. Dat is correct, maar geen adresgegevens. 
Er zijn adresnodes en daar nr 61 ook tussen.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2025-01-07 17:03:56+00:00): Het adres heb ik weer verwijderd van de gebouwomtrek.
MVG
eggie
5m4u9 (2025-01-08 13:19:15+00:00): Hi,

You and other adt team mappers added foot=no on some roads, and I want to understand why. Is it because there are crossings near those roads?
bellaroo (2025-01-08 23:33:22+00:00): Hi 5m4u9,
Thank you for your question.

Members of our team are working on pedestrian connectivity and focused right now on Bolivia. 

For [way 619269358](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/619269358), I added foot=no since the [Mapillary](https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&lat=-16.5117328&lng=-68.153459799972&z=17&pKey=929661531465122&x=0.5111354500390765&y=0.5059285779486546&zoom=0) confirmed that the way had no sidewalk pedestrian feature, and there was already modeled footway geometry to the north. I extended that footway connectivity to the secondary [way 619269362](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/619269362).

For [way 846845617](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/846845617), I added foot=no since there was already modeled footway geometry on the traffic_calming island and then extended the footway crossing geometry per this [Mapillary](https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-16.511605899972&lng=-68.1538031&z=18.528822848307087&x=0.32945511856782106&y=0.5286270790780735&zoom=0&pKey=2233558723700544&focus=photo) image.

For [way 1349250499](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1349250499), I left this without foot=no since [Mapillary](https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-16.511605899972&lng=-68.1538031&z=18.528822848307087&x=0.5472726080104197&y=0.5006069905933833&zoom=1.0777514372745451&pKey=600907198831867&focus=photo) confirms that there is sidewalk adjacent to the road. 

In cases such as this, we are adding foot=no to segments of highway that are not for pedestrian use and we are ensuring that existing footways are modeled and adding footways when missing. 

Let us know if you have any further questions on this.

Happy Mapping! :)
eggie (2025-01-07 16:59:01+00:00): Er zijn hier geen vier bushaltes gemapt. Dat zijn de stop positions
MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-01-07 17:02:45+00:00): reverted by changeset #161103668
eggie (2025-01-07 17:00:57+00:00): operator en buslijn hoort niet op een bushalte maar staat al op de relatie. Ik draai deze changesets terug.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-01-07 17:01:56+00:00): reverted by changeset #161103635
eggie (2025-01-07 17:21:06+00:00): Wees even voorzichtig met het aanbrengen van nieuwe edits. 
Mocht je op deze manier doorgaan zal er overwogen worden een (tijdelijke) stop op je account te plaatsen. 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group
Leo Slager (2025-01-07 18:08:30+00:00): Lijn 80 rijdt daar niet (meer) !
Đuro Jiří (2025-02-02 08:09:43+00:00): Scusa Francesco,
però per quelle motivo hai cancellato direction=forward?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/747029082/history
ivanbranco (2025-02-02 08:32:32+00:00): Presumo perché è un valore implicito sulle oneway.
Francesco Zanaboni (2025-02-02 12:42:05+00:00): Ciao, sì esatto, sulle oneway di per sé è implicita la direzione.
Non vado in giro apposta a togliere il tag, a volte capita di magari muovere un nodo o modificare la way e se mi capita per mano lo tolgo.
Principalmente a volte magari si girano i sensi unici e rimangono le direzioni sbagliate (mi è capitato più volte di incontrare errori di questo tipo).
DD1GJ (2025-01-07 19:42:47+00:00): Hallo  HannesGE,
warum hast Du Die Gebäude entfernt? Der Umfang der Löschungen erscheint mir sehr merkwürdig, weshalb ich sicherheitshalber zunächst alles rückgängig gemacht habe.
HannesGE (2025-01-07 19:50:39+00:00): Hi, das war nicht gewollt, ich wollte die Gebäude rausnehmen für ein Studienprojekt, um damit zu arbeiten, sorry, habe davor noch nie mit OpenStreetMap gearbeitet. 
Gruß Hannes
DD1GJ (2025-01-07 19:58:51+00:00): Hallo Hannes, nicht passiert dank Versionskontrolle und QS-Tools. Einen Überblick erhälst Du z.B. mit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf 
Du arbeitest hier direkt an den Originaldaten, mit denen die Karte erstellt wird.

Grüße, Joachim
Jrachi (2025-09-11 06:41:37+00:00): Ciao.
Hai assegnato a dei sentieri quelli che presumo siano il nome dato dai biker.
Non conosci il tag mtb:name?

Ivo
Микита000 (2025-01-07 17:18:31+00:00): "visicom" в "imagery_used" є через те що я дивився як його використовувати, але потім дізнався що його не можна
bxl-forever (2025-01-08 00:17:51+00:00): Hello,

"source=aerial imagery" seems very unlikely when adding details like the capacity of several dozens bicycle parkings at once.

It looks like you are importing a database into OSM.

Would you please tell us where this data comes from.  We may not import *any* data on the internet, only data with an ODbL-compatible licence is allowed here.  We would be very grateful if you could share information about the source of this data.

Thanks in advance.
Tolhuis (2025-01-08 12:34:38+00:00): Hi, It's true that the capacity was not checked with aerial images, but with street view images. The parkings come from a list of bicycle parkings from NMBS. I only add those parkings that can be seen on aerial images.
SIG Echirolles (2025-01-08 14:14:57+00:00): @syl désolé pour cet autre artefact.
Je pensais qu'un test sur MapComplete supprimait l'objet, mais je constate qu'il crée tout de même l'objet avec le tag `fixme` :-/
gurglypipe (2025-01-08 10:46:40+00:00): Hi again, and thanks again for trying to make sure the map around your area is correct :)

Can you please confirm what kind of way this is? Is it possible to drive a vehicle up it (with permission)? If so, it should remain mapped as highway=service. highway=path is only for footpaths (i.e. not physically possible to drive a vehicle up them). From the aerial imagery it looks like this is a driveway, not a footpath.

The access tagging (access=private) already looks correct for this way to mark it as private (to all: vehicles, pedestrians, bikes, horses, etc.).

If that’s all the case, it sounds like All Trails may have given you incorrect advice. Would you be able to summarise the conversation you had with them and what advice was given?

What’s mapped in OpenStreetMap needs to reflect what’s on the ground in reality. Changing something which is mapped as a driveway to being mapped as a path might fix routing issues on some clients for now, but if it represents a driveway in reality, someone is going to come along and change it (in good faith) back to being a driveway on the map in future. We need to get to the bottom of the routing issues.

Do you know what map software is routing people incorrectly along this way?

Thanks, and happy new year :)