piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
adreamy (2023-10-05 10:46:58+00:00): 안녕하십니까?
커뮤니티(공식 포럼 혹은 텔레그램 사랑방)에서 의견 좀 나눌 수 있을까요?
이 건물의 경우 한옥의 지붕선을 따라 그린 것 같은데, 어떤 점이 '보이는 대로 그리지 마라'는 원칙에 어긋난 것으로 보신 건지요?
rhtb0 (2023-10-05 10:59:47+00:00): 여기는 한옥이 아니라 그냥 일반 주택입니다.
adreamy (2023-10-05 16:37:17+00:00): 1. 일단 현장을 잘 아신다면 죄송합니다.
위성사진에는 한옥처럼 보여서 드린 말씀입니다.
https://imgur.com/aZD2cHM.png
2. 제 질문의 요지는 '어떤 점이 OSM 원칙, 합의와 어긋나다고 보시는지' 하는 것입니다.
3. '한옥'에 견줘 '일반 주택'은 어떤 의미로 쓰신건지 잘 이해가 되지 않습니다. ^^;
phoenixsaigon1698 (2023-10-11 09:33:56+00:00): Hi vietnam321, 
relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16405060 
with multiple restriction values
"from" member is a node undefined
"to" member is not a way undefined. Please check again
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-25 05:17:49+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143094373
ad47 (2023-10-09 09:57:15+00:00): Я конечно понимаю, что сие не суть важно, но тем не менее
https://westnordost.de/p/178691.jpg
mikedld (2023-10-03 00:21:28+00:00): Hi Ride3ree! The added intersection nodes between a footway and Avenida Dom João II highways don't seem to be valid as that footway is actually an underground one. The proper fix would be to e.g. add a `layer=-1` tag to that footway so that the editor doesn't complain that the highways intersect. In the future, please refrain from such changes unless you can confirm (e.g. via survey) that they're correct. Thanks for your contribution overwise, keep it up! ;)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141979974
Ride3ree (2023-10-04 06:33:59+00:00): Hi Mike, thanks for the correction, I hadn't realised the footpath shown was the underground one, I thought it was indicating the signalised crossing,
In future, how can I tell the difference?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141979974
mikedld (2023-10-04 09:13:52+00:00): Hi Ride3ree! In this particular case, the footway is tagged with `indoor=yes` and `level=0` which hint to the fact that it's not out on the street but somewhere inside the building. The building here is the underground part of Vasco da Gama commercial center, and the footway is inside this corridor: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14105616.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141979974
NorthCrab_upload (2023-10-01 10:20:17+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.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1118957254

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
map per (2023-10-31 12:33:47+00:00): Hallo suellxul,

das Cafe war schon eingetragen (vgl. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8750238381/history), hab den doppelten Eintrag gelöscht.

Viele Grüße
map per
gscholz (2023-10-05 06:19:53+00:00): Hi radwanbohiba,
this changeset has created a lot of errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=21.74611&lat=32.75817&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=141981702

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
jmsbert (2023-12-03 11:58:47+00:00): Hello Edwright,
thanks for contributing to the project in Brazil.
You requested to get a fewback on your edit - here you go.
You mapped quite a few objects here and assigned to all of them the building=yes property - some of the "buildings" you added are very tiny and actually not buildings at all, but cars or other objects along the street. It needs some practise and imagination to intepret the aerial imagery - so keep on practising. Also take care that the buildings you add are mapped with a rectangular shape (hit "q"-key in the editor). Here is a visualization of your edit: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141981833/
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141981833
literan (2023-10-06 18:53:41+00:00): ну и зачем вы тут дублей накидали?

все вычистил
SomeoneElse (2023-10-01 10:48:29+00:00): See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/edit-warring-over-nagorno-karabakh-region-republic/57413/14 and below
ghost_07 (2023-10-13 08:41:34+00:00): Вандализм. Если будете продолжать, будет жалоба в DWG
empty_child (2023-10-01 21:02:49+00:00): Reverted due to the bad quality (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142005143)
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-23 10:26:33+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11230795626/history has amenity = fixme that was added in this edit
What kind of object is here? Is it a shop? What kind of a shop? (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop )
twz123 (2025-08-18 08:58:22+00:00): It is the office of a mobile home care service that is open to customers, e.g. for consultations.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-10-11 03:44:48+00:00): sounds like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dsocial_facility with some extra tags would fit?

Or maybe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:office ?
A67-A67 (2023-10-01 12:22:34+00:00): Hoi,
Ik heb de niet-bestaande middenberm weer verwijderd. Ook zijn de delen van de turborotonde die op construction stonden nog steeds in aanbouw. Dat zal ik ook terugzetten.

De geplande openingsdatum is verschoven naar medio 2024.
4004 (2023-10-01 21:01:48+00:00): Добрый день, спасибо за правку.
углы можно спрямлять по правой кнопке мыши, либо кнопкой Q
Hufkratzer (2023-10-01 19:27:49+00:00): Hi,
was du hier mit leisure=horse_riding getaggt hast (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1212209854 und https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1212209855) sieht eher aus wie Reitplätze. Reitplätze werden normalerweise mit leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian + surface=* getaggt, vgl. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:leisure=horse_riding. In JOSM kann man dazu den Preset "Pferdesport" verwenden.
marcoSt (2023-10-02 18:19:37+00:00): Hallo Hufkratzer danke für den Tipp. Ich mappe nicht so oft "Pferdegeschichten" da ich mich auf Buslinien, ÖPNV und ähnlichen konzentriere.
nevw (2023-10-01 12:02:16+00:00): Hi, the building tag is expected to be used for mapping the outline of individual buildings instead of a rectangle defining the area containing a group of buildings.
nevw (2023-10-02 11:55:50+00:00): Hi, the details you added to the Long Bay Correctional Centre are mis-tagged and other parts seem to be tagged differently than is depicted by satellite imagery.
I have reverted the changeset until I hear more info from you regarding the reason it was mapped in this manner.
Dino Michelini (2024-02-07 11:12:17+00:00): Ciao ho rimosso il punto istoric=archaeological_site name=Antica Via Clodia perchè è totalmente invetato. La Via clodia non passa qui...
Claudio Tam (2024-02-07 12:30:36+00:00): Ok! Hai inserito anche la corretta via Clodia? Qual è il tuo numero di changeset?
Dino Michelini (2024-02-07 12:47:09+00:00): per tuo informazione vedi il post su https://www.incass.it/antica-via-clodia/
Dino Michelini (2024-02-08 12:20:26+00:00): changeset #147171636
Joske1020 (2026-05-01 15:00:10+00:00): this is not how you should change a relation
see my https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182078358
Geo-Tobi (2024-10-03 05:59:28+00:00): Hier wurde surface asphalt gesetzt, aber tracktype auf grade2 belassen. Absicht?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37427805
cuzi (2024-10-03 19:54:02+00:00): Nein keine Absicht, danke, habe es geändert.
cuzi (2024-10-03 19:56:52+00:00): Nein keine Absicht, danke, habe es geändert.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-25 05:16:29+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143094331
Langlaeufer (2023-10-01 20:24:49+00:00): Hallo BER319,
der rechte Weg war bereits als Fußweg mit Radverkehr frei erfasst (das wäre dann kein richtiger Radweg). Hast du die Beschilderung beachtet? 

Grüße
Langläufer
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141984812
Langlaeufer (2023-10-01 20:34:48+00:00): o.k ich hab Fotos von 2022 gefunden und daher sidewalk:right:bicycle entfernt
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141984812
BER319 (2023-10-05 04:57:06+00:00): Hallo Langlaufer,

ich habe mir das noch einmal angesehen, du hast Recht, so wie es vorher war war es richtig. SC kann diese Option (traffic_sign=DE:239,1022-10) leider noch nicht abbilden. Ich passe das wieder entsprechend an.

VG
BER319

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.7078791&lng=13.2506132&z=17&mapStyle=OpenStreetMap&pKey=1420356242124737&focus=photo&x=0.059799516696434074&y=0.4634340543528832&zoom=0.9134328358208954

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.706911366181345&lng=13.25032647376679&z=15.77476453370082&mapStyle=OpenStreetMap&pKey=3548926015353607&focus=photo&x=0.10812375848197042&y=0.4109359064587384&zoom=0.9134328358208954
Langlaeufer (2023-10-05 05:59:54+00:00): Das hatte ich übersehen. Das scheint mir das einzige DE:239,1022-10 zu sein. Vielleicht setzt auch auch gleich die beiden Verkehrsschilder als Punkte, damit man denn "Unsinn" besser nachvollziehen kan.
20180911 (2023-10-01 11:57:18+00:00): Source is https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/passengers/our-stations/london-kings-cross

source is not from lner but from networkrail.
rhtb0 (2023-10-01 14:04:25+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141774040
rhtb0 (2023-10-01 14:04:33+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ko:%EC%9D%B4%EB%A6%84
이름 칸에는 해당 지물의 명칭만 적어 넣어야 합니다. 범주, 유형, 설명, 주소, 참고 사항과 같은 부가 정보를 포함해서는 안 됩니다.
rhtb0 (2023-10-01 14:10:45+00:00): '단독주택' 이란 이름은 건물의 용도를 설명하기 위해서 적은 겁니까?
mrunner (2023-10-01 14:45:51+00:00): I'm asking myself who is vandal here...
pitscheplatsch (2023-10-01 17:31:45+00:00): Just a test?

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
Pfeiftafel (2023-10-01 17:42:36+00:00): It was just a test. Not safed.
Pfeiftafel (2023-10-01 17:42:56+00:00): saved
syntex (2023-10-01 13:05:52+00:00): Ale Biedronki w Kolonii Lesznowola w tym miejscu już nie ma, bo obok zbudowano drugą
starsep (2023-10-03 21:15:39+00:00): Dzięki! Usunąłem w https://osm.org/changeset/142118555
mrunner (2023-10-01 14:44:49+00:00): One is fantasy other is reality, unfortunately you seem to live in first one. I don't mean anything against you but I see you are really keen to support your patriotic thinking and doing whatever to destroy what you think is not right in your opinion.

I'm just trying to keep map in accordance to reality rather than fantasy.
Silva1989 (2023-10-03 10:43:47+00:00): Hello pukoo
thanks for your mapping efforts on Faial Island
mikini (2023-10-01 13:18:10+00:00): Correction of erroneous import in which OIS fixes were disregarded, see [autoAWS gitlab issue #4][1] for details.

Correction of [changeset 141937671][2].

[1]: https://gitlab.com/OSM-DK/autoAWS/-/issues/4
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141937671
HellMap (2024-02-11 14:30:25+00:00): Hello,

Please do not remove or split paths that cross a railway if they are actually used and exist. This breaks routing. An illegal crossing should be tagged with `crossing=no` to prevent routing that does not allow rail crossings outside designated locations. But nothing here physically blocks access to the crossing. There are hundreds of examples like this across Latvia.

Thanks
giggls (2024-02-11 19:59:04+00:00): While it might be common to map illegal crossings in Lithuania it is definitely not in my country.
This said if you actually *do* map such stuff which I still do not consider a good idea please tag them at least something like access=no.

Regards

Sven
richlv (2024-02-12 10:49:00+00:00): Lithuania is some 100km away, the mapping practice there might indeed differ ;)
But in general OSM is about mapping what is on the ground, with appropriate access tags. Same as roads or paths on private property - they should get correct access tags, not be removed.
giggls (2024-02-12 10:56:17+00:00): Of cource this is Latvia but nevertheless this did not look like on the ground like an existing path either.
I actually *know* a little bit about OSm as I have been contributing for 17 years now.
However as I already said: This way should be tagged access=no either way.
HellMap (2024-02-12 11:23:40+00:00): On the ground, this is a well-used path: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=255754737334209&focus=photo and https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=6393645144089678&focus=photo .

`access=no` implies that you are not able or allowed to pass through here. That is not true - this is still a crossing, just an informal one with no infrastructure. Tagging no access would stop valid routing (that understands `crossing=no`). As I mentioned, there are hundreds of these around the country. The difference is that this is not a `railway=crossing`, but a `crossing=no` (without the main tag), because there is no infrastructure and this is not legally defined as a crossing and so its use is "your own fault".

I'll bring this up with local community (again), see if we can establish more consensus or agree on additional access tagging.
giggls (2024-02-12 11:45:10+00:00): Well access tag is about what is allowed to do not about what is possible to do.

I do not know about the legal status of crossing railways in Latvia but it is completely illegal to cross a railway at spots without a corresponding traffic-signs in my country (Germany).

A very similar example would be tracks and paths ending at a motorway where it is strictly illegal to use them for the general public.

An example would be this way:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106966611

Regards

Sven
HellMap (2024-02-12 13:14:24+00:00): Very briefly - it is de facto allowed to cross here in Latvia.

To elaborate, the law talks (somewhat ambiguously) about crossing railways at designated crossings and goes into detail about what a "crossing" is and what "dangerous rail sections" are. But it's all very legalese and ambiguous and hardly enforced. So this path here is definitely not a dedicated crossing in a legal sense. But no one is going get fined or stopped for using it. In fact, it's common practice and the only reasonable location to cross in this area. In other words, it's a de-facto crossing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Mismatch_between_law_and_de_facto_status . These used to be untagged or tagged with `railway=crossing`. But we now choose to tag these as `crossing=no` rather than `railway=crossing` to follow its legal status. This already restricts routing. But we don't add `access=no`, because this significantly hinders pedestrian and cyclist routing in Latvia (this wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem in, say, Germany, where railway crossings/bridges/tunnels are common).

In contrast, here is an example of an informal crossing, but where there *is* an actual sign stating "railway crossing not allowed" 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=298472319457894&focus=photo . So here `access=no` is appropriate even though this crossing is commonly used.
giggls (2024-02-12 19:43:40+00:00): Well basically cycle-routing *did* lead us this way:
https://bikerouter.de/#map=16/56.9988/24.2664/osm-mapnik-german_style&lonlats=24.263241,56.996132;24.26624,57.003135&profile=trekking-ignore-cr

BTW only reason I went looking at the data exactly at this place afterwards because I think this was not a good idea.

In practice it was impossible for us to cross here reasonably fast with our 20kg of luggage when travelling by bike trough the baltic states by bike last year.

I will thus see if I can modify bikerouter profiles to ignore routes passing crossing=no nodes.

This said it looked completely crazy for me from my German point of view to map such a thing as any kind of "crossing".
HellMap (2024-02-12 20:31:23+00:00): Yeah, there is a pretty vast difference between German and post-Soviet infrastructure and culture. If we didn't map these places as crossings, we would be missing half the crossings in the country. I imagine if you didn't map them in Germany, no one would even notice.

And, to be fair, this wasn't mapped as a crossing - previously, it had no tags and now it's an even "stronger" `crossing=no`. And the way itself is a `path` and not a `footway`. Routers should really be accounting for these and giving them a low priority. While `crossing=no` is not a prominent tag, it's certainly not a new tag. May be some day we'll get consensus and a standard scheme for such locations. Unfortunately, there are very few mappers in countries like Latvia while countries like Germany have the most mappers and lead many discussions, so consequently a lot of it is biased towards what you would find in countries like Germany. And if there aren't any local examples, then it would be difficult to get actionable opinions for such examples due to how much background info is required (as this changeset indeed shows).

I'm still fixing many crossings like this that are tagged as full `railway=crossing`, which mappers commonly add. That's how ingrained in everyone's mind it is that crossing railways anywhere is basically the norm. I suppose it's a culture shock for many people. But it's not illegal and what little legal "guidance" is given is not enforced or treated seriously.

For this place, a road bike profile would have given you the small path along the highway https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1665375620555465&focus=photo . But this location really has no good alternatives. I cycle here myself often and short of going along roads, there really aren't any good options. Unfortunately, that's the case for a lot of infrastructure in Latvia. Routers generally have a hard time because footways and paths end abruptly, don't lead anywhere, lead through terrible locations, etc. And we don't have that many mappers to maintain it all either... but I digress.
Yunkers (2023-10-03 16:37:47+00:00): Hej, z czego wynika ta zmiana? Przywrócono ruch uliczny na tym kawałku?
silesiaer (2023-10-03 19:42:33+00:00): No od „Pod Cyckiem” do Podłopienia i dalej do Limanowej można
Yunkers (2023-10-04 04:19:21+00:00): Ale całą trasą się nie da? Osuwisko wciąż jest i znaki prowadzą objazdem? Nie przeprowadziłeś żadnych zmian w tagu access, więc nie widzę powodu dlaczego zostało przywrócone primary.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-10-05 08:21:27+00:00): zmiana wycofana, droga ta nie spełnia funkcji highway=primary
SafetyIng (2023-10-01 18:07:25+00:00): Hallo Richtkreiser, leider passt hier etwas mit deinen Daten überhaupt nicht.
Ja, die Baustelle ist fertig, aber hier ist mehr entstanden, als nur das Gebäude am Schöpfwerk... 
Vor allem der Bereich um das Schöpfwerk ist komplett frei von Bäumen; gehört also nicht in das "landuse=forest"
Würdest du das bitte anpassen? Wie passt das zusammen, wenn du vor Ort warst?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141987704
freeExec (2023-10-02 07:14:10+00:00): Тут вот мапер говорит, что нет там дороги

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141966797
Kostik (2023-10-02 08:16:09+00:00): Я только несоединённые точки графа соединил
rskedgell (2023-10-19 05:30:15+00:00): You appear to have tagged a section of Snakes Lane East as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that such a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access, not whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:foot

As real pedestrian prohibitions are quite rare in the UK, other than on roads where pedestrians are implicitly prohibited due to being tagged with highway=motorway or motorroad=yes.

As real pedestrian prohibitions on normal roads in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.
sc343 (2023-10-19 09:16:17+00:00): It looks like it's not explicitly allowed (and definitely not intended for pedestrians) but not explicitly prohibited (there was no signage). Based on your reasoning I'm happy to drop this changeset, and disable that quest.
sc343 (2023-10-19 09:23:19+00:00): Removed foot=no in changeset 142803857
rskedgell (2023-10-19 12:09:48+00:00): Many thanks - and keep up the good work!
mikini (2023-10-01 16:30:23+00:00): Correction of erroneous import in which OIS fixes were disregarded, see [autoAWS gitlab issue #4][1] for details.

Correction of [changeset 141939123][2].

[1]: https://gitlab.com/OSM-DK/autoAWS/-/issues/4
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141939123
danieldegroot2 (2023-10-01 14:24:08+00:00): Used the following articles for reference only
- https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/nov/18/buy-scottish-island
- https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/inverness/2264444/house-approved-for-tiny-west-coast-island-with-restrictions-on-future-development/
- https://www.highland.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/76683/item_61_-_applicant_mr_paul_nicoll_2000083ful_pls03420
Taya_S (2023-10-03 06:24:41+00:00): I map a random island for fun and come back 3 days later to see a dozen new changesets and many additional details mapped. Impressive.
mikini (2023-10-01 16:40:46+00:00): Correction of erroneous import in which OIS fixes were disregarded, see [autoAWS gitlab issue #4][1] for details.

Correction of [changeset 141939287][2].

[1]: https://gitlab.com/OSM-DK/autoAWS/-/issues/4
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141939287
Firefishy (2023-10-01 20:13:08+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Thank you for bringing local knowledge to OpenStreetMap. Appreciate the help in making the best map (data) possible.
Klipspringer (2023-10-01 20:26:47+00:00): thanks, I’ll keep updating whenever I find new or changed details
Firefishy (2023-10-01 20:31:06+00:00): 👍 Pro tip: a great app for adding Points of Interests while out and about is https://every-door.app/
BeaZal (2023-10-02 15:53:17+00:00): Por un lado, está el tipo de vía y por otro el tipo de acceso. En este caso el tipo de vía es privado y no de servicio (las vías de servicio son públicas), y el acceso también es privado.

La vía está cerrada con un portón, está indicado con un cartel que es propiedad privada y que está prohibido el paso a cualquier persona no autorizada.

El camino es real y observable en las imágenes aéreas, pero hasta el caserío, es decir esta vía conduce al caserío, el resto que está marcado como un vial son antepuertas del caserío por lo que la información facilitada no es correcta.

Si es verdad que este caserío tiene un camino público al lado, el cual se utilizaba antiguamente para conectar Abaltzisketa y Amezketa, pero no es el que están marcando.

Consultar en el catastro, Registro de la propiedad y en la Administración competente que es el Ayuntamiento de Abaltzisketa, ver inventario de caminos. ¿Podría añadir está documentación de alguna forma?

Por otro lado, aunque consideremos que no corresponde marcar el camino en el mapa, no entiendo por qué hay ciertos caseríos cercanos que no tienen ningún camino de entrada indicado y en nuestro caso insisten en qué debe aparecer. ¿Por algún lado tendrán que acceder al caserío no? ¿Esas no son vías de servicio? Vease los caserios Larraizpe (en Larraitz bidea),  el nº3 de Ipintza-Garmendi...