piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2023-04-14 07:08:12+00:00): Het fietspad heb ik op een andere manier laten aansluiten aan de Gangboord. Het gaat verder als een onverplichtfietspad. 
Er zijn nu aansluitingen. Het nieuwe wandelpad heb ik een verbinding gegeven met De Kreek.  Het was een los stuk.

Waarom zou je over de Delta niet mogen fietsen. (Geen G7 bord) Dit soort doorsteken wordt ook door fietsers gebruikt. 
Ik zet het even op highway=path

Kijk zelf even of er een bord staat Verboden te fietsen. 
Dan kun je het evt aanpassen.
Het is in ieder geval weer wat actueler geworden en daar gaat het om. 
Je edits..https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=134879872
Mocht je nog vragen hebben stel ze gerust. 
CTRL-f5 toetsen voor het effect. 

Bedankt voor je bijdrage,

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-04-14 07:25:53+00:00): Aanvulling.. Dat kleine stukje gangboord is een fietsstraat. bord NL:L51
foot=no heb ik omgezet naar foot=use_sidepath op het G13 fietspad. 
Best lastig voor een startende mapper om het goed te krijgen denk ik.
Groet
eggie
Daarbennikweer (2023-04-14 08:11:30+00:00): Dank voor je uitleg Eggie, maar fietsen in De Delta kan alleen nog met een driewieler. Ik zal nog eens zoeken naar 'slingerend voetpad tussen beplante borders door'. Dacht daarbij eerder aan 'block'.

Anyway, leuk dat het er zo snel opstaat; samen uiteraard.

groet,
Daarbennikweer
eggie (2023-04-14 08:19:49+00:00): Oke... Iets om uit te zoeken. Welk bord staat er? 
Er stond al getagd mofa en moped=yes  (voorgaande mapper) 
Staat er nog.. Zal het weghalen.
Dat triggerde me bij bicycle=no
In de regel alleen bij een fietsverbod  bicycle=no taggen ook al zal het wellicht ongewenst zijn daar te fietsen.
Het motto is Map what's on the ground. 
Borders worden vaak getagd met man_made=planter
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dplanter
Een barrier=block  bestaat ook, maar daar kun je ook omheen fietsen. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dblock

Voor auto's zal het echt niet routeren.
'k Zal die tweewielers verwijderen. Het blijft dan per default wel voor fietsers routeren. Denk niet dat dat verboden is.
Mapse
eggie
jcr83 (2023-04-14 19:46:27+00:00): Bonjour,
L'abréviation FFRP a été remplacée par FFRandonnée il y a plusieurs années ...
Donc il ne faut plus utiliser FFRP.
StC (2023-04-14 20:15:44+00:00): Bonjour,

les statuts de l'association sont toujours au nom de la Fédération Française de la Randonnée Pédestre, voir https://www.ffrandonnee.fr/Media/Default/Documents/federation/Statuts-federaux-2019.pdf.

Le Registre National des Associations  donne lui aussi des informations détaillées sur la Fédération Française de la Randonnée Pédestre, mais la formule FFRandonnée n'y apparaît pas.

En revanche, la marque FFRandonnée est bien déposée par ladite association, voir https://data.inpi.fr/marques/FR4212620?q=Fédération%20Française%20de%20la%20Randonnée%20Pédestre#FR4212620. Il s'agit donc d'une simple marque commerciale.

Il semble plus pertinent de désigner un opérateur par son nom officiel et non par une marque commerciale. L'idéal, bien sûr, serait de remplacer ou compléter le texte par une référence Wikidata mais il est peu probable que cela soit rapidement supporté par des applications

A bientôt,

St.
jcr83 (2023-04-15 06:27:47+00:00): Merci pour votre réponse. Mais par exemple sur cette relation : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1623140 , vous avez remplacé le nom officiel par FFRP. Je pense qu'il vaudrait mieux faire l'inverse, c'est-à-dire utiliser le nom officiel partout.
StC (2023-04-15 06:48:05+00:00): En effet, le choix de FFRP peut faire débat. Deux raisons ont guidé ce choix :
 - j'ai sélectionné la valeur majoritaire parmi les différentes valeurs du tag
 - on observe que le nom complet incite aux erreurs et variantes : majuscules/minuscules, différents mots de liaison.

Nous allons avoir le même type de question pour d'autres gestionnaires d'itinéraires, en particulier les communautés de communes connues par leur acronyme, telles que CCVA ou C3MA... C'est là que wikidata serait particulièrement utile.
jcr83 (2023-04-15 07:10:18+00:00): Ce n'est pas parce qu'elle correcte que l'abréviation FFRP est majoritaire, c'est pour des raisons historiques ! Apparemment, elle n'est plus utilisée sur leur site web.
StC (2023-04-15 11:10:34+00:00): Une fois qu'on a une valeur unique pour le tag, c'est facile de la changer et de mettre le nom complet de l'association. En revanche, avec sa complexité et sa collection de caractères accentués, il faudra s'attendre à de nouvelles dérives en particulier de la part de contributeurs étrangers.
emersonveenstra (2023-04-15 00:40:27+00:00): Hi,

On https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/213222769 you added 3 turn lanes, but the lanes tag has a value of 2. Could you please go back and fix either the lanes or turn:lanes value? Thanks!
BCNorwich (2023-04-15 07:03:38+00:00): Hi, You're making a lot of duplicate nodes at the end of hedges, I've removed several of them.

Regards Bernard.
TamLin (2023-04-17 09:21:32+00:00): Thanks Bernard, I will take a look at that. Am using 'Go Map!!' and do find it leaves additional nodes sometimes.
user_21736114 (2025-08-04 07:07:26+00:00): у селі Ланівці ти правильну назву Миколи Малюжинського бічна замінив на неправильну Миколи Малюжинського Зрозумій у вулицях Західної України можа зустріти слово бічна - його НЕ ТРЕБА ПРИБИРАТИ тому щоце частина назви
user_21736114 (2025-08-04 07:19:34+00:00): Ось доказ що слово Бічна є частиною офіційної назви https://lanmisto.gov.ua/2022/07/22/perejmenuvannya-vulyts-chergovyj-etap-projdeno/
darkonus (2025-08-04 18:28:17+00:00): Це була помилка, дякую що виправили!
user_5359 (2023-04-14 04:31:59+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Do you have any source that proves the difference between a valid statement and a cheap joke for your entry?
Udarian (2023-04-13 22:41:52+00:00): based on newer imagery (Miami-Dade County Orthoimagery (Latest))
phd0 (2023-08-16 12:46:51+00:00): bonjour,
les voies comme celle ci : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1162292086 doivent être raccordée au moins par un de leurs bouts à une autre voie. Sinon, cela génère des "issues" dans Osmose.
Kovoschiz (2023-04-14 04:23:14+00:00): `=village` is used for large ones with their own facilities. Use `=hamlet`, and if only a few houses `=isolated_dwelling`.
Kovoschiz (2023-04-14 04:25:03+00:00): `name=` is the most common name in existing public use. Please don't remove other names. Use `alt_name=` etc.
Kovoschiz (2023-04-14 04:16:43+00:00): Please notice that they represent different things. One is the existing community at the center. The other is a `=locality` for the reclaimed island and cape.
Kovoschiz (2023-04-14 04:26:15+00:00): `place=` is for existing concepts. Please use OpenHistoricalMap for the full history.
NorthCrab_upload (2023-04-14 00:00:12+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nieprawidłowa wartość addr:postcode. Kod pocztowy powinien być formatu XX-XXX, gdzie X oznacza cyfrę.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402538445

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
wille (2023-04-14 20:36:09+00:00): Olá,

Muito obrigado por suas contribuições ao OpenStreetMap! Revisei essa edição. A mesma ressalva que apontei sobre o nome se aplica nesse changeset.

Caso tenha alguma dúvida, pode entrar em contato comigo.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/134881896
wille (2023-04-14 19:54:55+00:00): Olá Leandro,

Bem vindo ao OSM!

No OSM apenas colocamos nomes em vias se ela tiver um nome forma, não colocamos nomes como "Passarela para tal lugar", pois isso não é oficial. Além disso, não colocamos nomes com todas as letras em maiúsculas nem abreviamos. O campo superfície deve receber o material de que é feito a via, como asfalto, concreto, metal...
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/134881924
silversurfer83 (2023-04-14 16:52:43+00:00): Hi
hier hat jemand vor 3 Jahren ein disused gesetzt. Hielt den Weg womöglich für nicht mehr nutzbar.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186797161

Falls du also sagts: klar, das geht. Dann kannst du die Zeile mit dem disused:highway=path auch wieder löschen. 

Details: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Lifecycle_prefix

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/134882058
Nüsschen (2023-04-15 11:19:31+00:00): Hi,
vor ein paar Wochen hatte ich ein paar Meter rein geschaut und das Stück war in Ordnung. Heute habe ich ihn vor Ort komplett in Augenschein genommen und muss dem zustimmen. Vom mittleren Bereich bis zur Lichtung wurde der Pfad von Schweinen auf links gedreht und ist als solcher auch nicht begehbar.

vg, Nüsschen
BCNorwich (2023-04-14 05:50:47+00:00): Hi, Surely PSV's are allowed to use these bus ways, so it should be psv=yes.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2023-04-14 05:56:38+00:00): I just glanced at another site and a sign on these busways says cycles, buses, and authorized vehicles allowed. Other signs say "Buses Only".
Circle Cars Luton (2023-04-14 08:48:49+00:00): The routing from station road takes you back up this busway heading east which is incorrect! Should take you down mill street and around the one way system which I’m trying to fix
BCNorwich (2023-04-14 11:38:13+00:00): Hi, Sorry but thats no reason to introduce incorrect mapping data. What router are you using, have you considered that that may be the problem.
balint36 (2023-04-14 09:02:38+00:00): Hasonlóan mint Százhalombattánál (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132763606), Szemeretelep megállóhelynél is töröltél pontokat (igaz, most sokkal kevesebben, mint Battánál). Megkérdezhetem, hogy mit ártott?
csimeona22 (2023-04-14 18:51:54+00:00): Correction: Source used was Maxar SecureWatch Imagery 2023-04-01.
emersonveenstra (2023-04-15 00:38:58+00:00): Hi,

I think you mistakenly tagged this as a crossing: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431477747
emersonveenstra (2023-04-15 00:35:51+00:00): Hi,

On https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1162305243 you have cycleway=lane and cycleway:both=no, could you check and fix the incorrect one? Thanks
ShadowFoxNixill (2023-07-19 18:03:33+00:00): Can you please explain the sources used for this change? I'm not aware of SMART allowing any republishing of their own data, not to mention it's not entirely accurate in the first place.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-06 05:49:05+00:00): Apparent unauthorised source (copyright)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140877497
csomerville (2023-04-14 03:53:29+00:00): Some feedback on your change:

1. I may be misunderstanding the direction tag so apologies if that is the case but I believe it is suppose to indicate the facing orientation of the feature. With traffic signs, they face against the direction of travel so if you encounter a traffic sign when traveling north then the sign is facing south. So the maxspeed sign added to Shetland Case, drivers encounter the sign as they travel northbound (confirmed via bing streetside imagery) so the orientation would be south but you have it tagged direction=N. 

2. It appears you may have duplicated traffic signs by creating standalone nodes for some stop signs that were already tagged via a node on the way. The intersection of Shetland and Pony Chase being an example. I believe this is considered undesirable per the one feature one osm element guideline.

3. I noticed that the maxspeed is not tagged on the ways themselves in some cases where you added maxspeed traffic sign. Most software that use osm data for routing or turn by turn navigation would likely not take into consideration the maxspeed information from the traffic sign when mapped as a single node like done here. For this reason, it is usually desired when mapping a speed limit sign to always add a maxspeed=* tag to the way / section of road applicable. 

4. I see in another edit you did tag maxspeed:forward on ways in this general area. However, a quick look through streetside imagery suggests that it should be just maxspeed as the speed limit affects both directions of travel on the road.

Hope you found this review helpful. If you have time, I'm looking for folks to review my changes. Let me know if you spot any potential issues in my changes or otherwise have any suggestions or tips.
mrmaxguns (2023-04-14 12:07:14+00:00): 1. I agree, I clearly misunderstood the direction tagging for signs.
2. I see. In that case I will keep the stops directly on the ways.
3. In this case, I was tagging the signs ars real-life objects. I added speed limits to roads whenever I can, but I'm this case I was unable to survey the whole road.
4. My bad, I was tagging through Vespucci and I didn't really notice that forward and backward require separate speed limits.

Thank you. I appreciate the thorough review.
skyper (2023-04-14 12:11:40+00:00): Hi b-jazz,
instead of cleaning up the mess it might more efficient to ask the user to stop the broken import and to come up with a proper workflow. See https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/134232663 and https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagless-points-and-lines-in-greenbelt-md/97992.
All the best,
skyper
JLambert93 (2023-04-14 05:48:06+00:00): This is not correct, there is court statement saying it is a service road (losweg)
RaphaelPasloin (2023-04-14 06:06:33+00:00): Hello,

OSM data model don't reflect a legal status but a reality status. 

Best regards,
JLambert93 (2023-04-14 06:09:41+00:00): Reality is that it is a 'losweg' what more prove van be given then a court order? The fb post is also really clear in this.
JLambert93 (2023-04-14 05:48:58+00:00): This is not correct revert per court decission.
RaphaelPasloin (2023-04-14 06:08:39+00:00): Hello,

A court saying there is no fence and no gate ? Reality indicate there is , and i make this to help people visualise theres is no access here. 

It's a little trivial no ? 

Have a nice sunny day.
JLambert93 (2023-04-14 06:12:31+00:00): Court statement clearly states: open grond tussen twee percelen (kuddescheiding) en verlengde van voetweg = private losweg. 

Reality also indicated activists have been cutting the wire for years. 

'OSM also clearly states you cannot do any harm.'
gscholz (2023-04-22 05:36:45+00:00): Hi Robert,
your recent activities have created a lot of errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping buildings and self intersecting lines:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-57.47297&lat=-25.31883&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Can you please fix this?

Kind regards
Guido
kartler175 (2023-05-23 11:38:49+00:00): Please fix dismembered residential multipolygon 
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-72.51212&lat=46.37183&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.95&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways
JLambert93 (2023-04-14 05:46:36+00:00): Hello Raphael,

This is not correct please revert to original.

Best regards,
RaphaelPasloin (2023-04-14 06:02:16+00:00): Hello,

What is not correct here please ? I have consulted all the history  and also CadgisWeb (public space) , IGN indicate there is a path, add a bollard to clearly indicated it's blocked by someone (using recent streetlevel imagery and also other older pictures)   add it's a desire (see wiki)  and set as private to prevent any navigation problem. The path exist and it's no more accessible, it's exactly what my changeset indicate. I have also add barrier and fence to clearly indicate the reality. 

So i will do no revert.

Have a nice day.
JLambert93 (2023-04-14 06:06:54+00:00): There is a court order clearly stating the situation: 

in between the wires is an open ground (kuddescheiding).

The road leading to the gate is a service road. 

Its not a desire if a court orders confIrms it.
user_5359 (2023-04-14 04:58:35+00:00): Welcome to OSM! If this is a church, please have a look on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dplace_of_worship.
Friendly_Ghost (2023-10-11 16:42:01+00:00): Hi. What are these areas supposed to be? They're mapped in a way that doesn't make much sense to me.
kaliphe (2023-10-13 06:24:25+00:00): look at google map' you will understand
NE2 (2026-06-12 06:37:37+00:00): How does "South Coliseum Boulevard" translate to "Avenida del Bulevar Sur"?
vicente lopez 2021 (2023-04-14 10:16:24+00:00): por lo que entiendo yo alineaste el ramal hipódromo y hospital militar sentido a barrancas en un solo ramal
AgusQui (2023-04-14 12:30:08+00:00): Si, en la práctica son lo mismo
MxxCon (2023-04-14 04:24:55+00:00): This changeset caused another issue. You used iD's extract POI feature. Unfortunately, it still doesn't understand that tag nycdoitt:bin=* should remain on the building and not moved into POI. https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8539
This tag contains each building's ID in NYC DOB's database which allows us to look up various metadata on that building...
MxxCon (2023-04-14 04:37:19+00:00): I fixed POIs from this changeset.
CurlingMan13 (2023-04-14 04:38:21+00:00): Thanks for that.  I am definitely keeping it as nodes going forwards.  Screw that headache - I don't want to do that again.

For reference, I duplicated the 'new' nodes, then deleted store info and merged it with the buildings to get that nyc node back.

Updated in:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134885099
MxxCon (2023-04-14 04:41:52+00:00): It's fine to merge POI and building if it's a single occupant, such as free-standing fastfood places or bigbox stores like Costco, etc. But if it's just a regular biz on the ground floor of 2-3 story apartment building, they should be mapped as nodes.
CurlingMan13 (2023-04-14 04:51:47+00:00): Completely understood.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-04-15 23:41:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 134958567.
user_5359 (2023-04-14 18:05:37+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10807163232.  What is the mean of the tags
currency:ARY = yes
currency:BUSD = yes
currency:USDT = yes
payment:busd = yes
payment:usdt = yes
?
Igor Bubelov (2023-04-15 11:42:47+00:00): Hi!

I don't know anything about those tags, you can try asking the author: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134854528

My only change is removing the legacy payment:bitcoin tag since the new official tag for bitcoin-enabled merchants is currency:XBT. This place had both of those tags, which is wrong, and it was flagged by our (btcmap.org) data quality control system
Glassman (2023-04-15 16:23:56+00:00): When did the Tommy Thompson Parkway bridge reopen. Last time I was there it was still closed?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/134885265
ElliottPlack (2023-04-16 02:31:37+00:00): Hi, I see you've made this a trunk, but it doesn't meet the trunk criteria as laid out in the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance wiki guidance. 

I surveyed (walking and biking) along most of the route and it operates like a primary street. it has lights and crosswalks. The trunk classification is for connecting cities of regional importance or between city centers lacking motorways. This road does neither of those things.

As a member of the Data Working Group, I'd ask that you refrain from trunk classification mapping this way, as a large majority of American mappers have settled on one particular use of trunks and as a result, data consumers are treating trunk routes differently.

If you have comments on the guidance, please direct them to the wiki or the forum.

Best,  
Elliott Plack  
OSMF Data Working Group
Baloo Uriza (2023-04-16 06:40:21+00:00): I've driven it myself and it feels a lot like an expressway to me, given the seamless flow from controlled access to limited access and back with no transition along the way, with only a couple blocks in the middle rather fitting a potential lower classification, but that seemed inconsistent with the rest of the road.

Motorway definitely isn't the right fit, but it definitely has a proto-freeway feel when taken as a whole, does it not?
Adam Franco (2023-04-16 16:48:14+00:00): As described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance , `highway=trunk` is not to be used for indicating enhanced "expressway"-type construction, but rather the regional connectivity importance of a road. If this does have mostly "expressway" character, then use "highway=primary|secondary|etc" to indicate the level of regional connectivity importance and add "expressway=yes" to indicate the enhanced level of infrastructure. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:expressway for further details on this tag.
Joseph R P (2023-04-16 16:49:55+00:00): Hello, trunk roads that are stubs and lack a connection to another motorway or trunk route at its terminus or those that are bypassed by highways that are better for long-distance traveling (such as I 40) are better fit with highway=primary and expressway=yes. The segment of OKC Boulevard between I 40 and Klein Avenue could be tagged as a motorway as it is a freeway spur, but the rest of the route is more of a business loop with some expressway sections and should not be tagged as trunk.
Baloo Uriza (2023-04-16 19:57:41+00:00): I don't think this is a surface street or a freeway, though.  It's somewhere between the two.  They literally bulldozed I 40 and replaced it with... a proto-freeway instead of something remotely sensible.
Baloo Uriza (2023-04-16 19:58:22+00:00): Also if everybody could assume good faith and dial back the hostility, that would be great and in-line with the CoC.
Joseph R P (2023-04-17 03:43:01+00:00): I, and I'm sure everyone else, am not trying to be as hostile and I apologize if it's coming off that way. It can simply get tedious to have to explain over-and-over what has been happening for the past 2 or so years regarding the OSM trunk network in the US just to be ignored or have the explanations dodged. All states need to be agreeing to and consistent with this major project and its guidelines if we want it to be completed. Hopefully you understand where I'm coming from.
ElliottPlack (2023-04-17 12:24:17+00:00): I did not detect any hostility here. I think we're all able to reach a rational conclusion. The western side meets motorway standards which is the only highway classification that is strictly based on roadway characteristics (full access control). The east side is a surface street with 6 lanes, in the right of way of a former interstate, hence the appearance of it being like a freeway. But I can assure you that on the ground, the city wants it to be a walkable normal road connecting the arena and park areas. Baloo, have you had a chance to check out the project I linked to above? It is worth reviewing... well thought out!