piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
swampstump (2023-01-30 15:27:55+00:00): Wydaje mi się, że w Polsce teren prywatny implikuje "sio mi stąd smrodzie". Jakby ktoś chciał, żeby mu tam chodzili to by dał "droga wewnętrzna". Patrząc od praktycznej perspektywy - ją bym nie chciał, żeby nawigacja mnie kierowała przez taka drogę, a tubylcy patrzyli wrogim wzrokiem ;)

Zapytam jeszcze kwrzosok.
swampstump (2023-01-30 19:17:31+00:00): Tak się zastanawiam - w sumie co chcesz zrobić? Zmienić access=private? Na co?
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-01-31 12:26:46+00:00): > Wydaje mi się, że w Polsce teren prywatny implikuje "sio mi stąd smrodzie". 

Och to prawda. Ale coraz częściej używane jest to tam gdzie ktoś chce się pozbyć ludzi a nie ma do tego prawa (inny przebój to wieszanie tabliczek tak że udają że odnoszą się do drogi a ktoś jest tylko właścicielem działki po jednej lub obu stronach)
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-01-31 12:45:34+00:00): > Tak się zastanawiam - w sumie co chcesz zrobić? Zmienić access=private? Na co?

Jak każdy ma tam wstęp a to tylko teren jest prywatny - to na ownership=private ( https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/ownership=private )
Leo Slager (2023-01-30 10:40:23+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
user_5359 (2023-01-31 07:20:03+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/1136146090. What is the meaning of the tags
Access_Src = FWS - GAP
Src_Date = 2021/01/28
?
loftytoffee (2023-02-01 20:39:55+00:00): Ah, I think this was leftover tags from when I imported some information about the Refuge. We can delete them if they are extraneous, especially since there's already a source URL
Scout Jens (2023-01-30 07:24:39+00:00): So macht das mehr Sinn. Danke für die Änderung. Viele Grüße, Jens
george1201 (2023-01-30 09:23:51+00:00): Ich bin mir aber nicht sicher ob folgendes vielleicht richtiger wäre:
access=yes
vehicle=destination
Und hier ohne foot=yes. Der Zugang wäre hier erst mal für alle erlaubt, für Fahrzeuge aber nur mit der angegebenen Einschränkung.
george1201 (2023-01-30 09:26:47+00:00): So hätte man auch die Pferde mit berücksichtigt, die hier Zutritt hätten :-). So wie es jetzt eingetragen ist, wird über Pferde keine Aussage gemacht (also undefiniert).
Scout Jens (2023-01-30 15:40:16+00:00): Ich finde es so, wie Du es gemacht hast perfekt. Als ich dort war, hatte ich es so verstanden, als dass nur Gartenbesitzer Zugang haben (also auch Fußgänger). Aber so macht es richtig Sinn. Grüße
george1201 (2023-01-30 21:23:56+00:00): Den Vorschlag in meinem letzten Kommentar findest du also nicht besser?
Scout Jens (2023-01-31 07:18:38+00:00): Ich finde, dass es manchmal mehrere Möglichkeiten gibt. Vermutlich hätte ich, wenn ich das so verstanden hätte wie Du, den Weg nur für Autos auf privat gesetzt. Weil Gartenbesitzer eine private Gruppe sind, der man nicht so leicht beitreten kann. Man also nicht so leicht die Benutzungsberechtigung erhält. Besucher der Gärten sollen ja dort auch nicht fahren. Gegen Fahrradfahrer hat vermutlich keiner was dort. Aber so, wie Du es gemacht hat, finde ich es gut. Man kann sich vor Ort auch nicht vollkommen auf die Karte verlassen, sondern muss die Schilder lesen.
george1201 (2023-01-31 21:43:16+00:00): Du hast recht. Das muss nicht "destination" sondern "private" sein. Es steht ja dort nicht "Anlieger frei", sondern Fahrzeugdurchfahrt nur für eine bestimmte (=private) Gruppe, die Gartenbesitzer. (Wenngleich ich auch glaube, dass deren Besucher auch rein fahren, verbotenerweise). Ich ändere es nochmal.
G_P_J (2023-01-29 22:50:45+00:00): Cześć, jedna uwaga - serwis grudziadz.e-mapa.net nie jest już aktualizowany przez Gminę Grudziądz. Przy zgłaszaniu różnic między tym portalem a geoportal.gov.pl dostaję takie odpowiedzi: "gmina Grudziądz nie korzysta już z naszego portalu mapowego, w związku z tym prezentujemy bazę adresową bez bieżącej aktualizacji. Adresy widoczne w Geoportalu krajowym pochodzą z Państwowego Rejestru Granic, zasilanego bezpośrednio przez gminę - powinny więc być aktualne.

Z poważaniem
Zespół e-mapa.net"

Pozdrawiam
GPJ
m@rio (2023-02-06 23:24:52+00:00): Cześć GPJ,
jasne, dzięki za info! :)

pzdr
m@rio
Map-Peter (2023-01-31 00:12:50+00:00): Hallo Xre90,
 
bitte beachte: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen#name_ist_nur_der_Name .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-04-20 14:20:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 150265070, 150261530, 150261385, 150261427, 150261374, 150261398, 150261463, 150262164, 150264883, 150261443, 150265293, 150265518, 150263711, 150261692, 150263544, 150263148, 150264695, 150263349, 150262918, 150264472, 150264284, 150261551, 150264090, 150262527, 150262687, 150263890, 150261413, 150261488, 150261509 where the changeset comment is: No reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15936 , so we've taken a guess at what was likely derived from Google Earth (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149290548 admits to that use)
IIVQ (2023-03-10 14:52:23+00:00): Thanks!
user_5359 (2023-01-31 07:21:24+00:00): Hello again! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/1136313009. What is the meaning of the tags
Access_Src = GreenInfo Network
Src_Date = 2021/02/01
?
loftytoffee (2023-02-04 04:52:02+00:00): Mentioned on my other edit, but this was extra data tags from imports. Other tags should cover this information, so we can remove them
frosm (2024-10-11 07:36:29+00:00): Bonjour,
c'est une piste ou une bande ?
il faudrait aussi la connecter à tous les passages piétons traversé
frosm (2024-10-11 07:39:15+00:00): et aussi aux routes latérales vers la gauche sinon le routage va nous dire d'aller jusqu'au bout puis faire demi tour sur la voie dans l'autre sens et revenir jusqu'au branchement
josmougn (2024-10-15 21:52:35+00:00): Bonsoir.
bande et piste. Connections faites, il n'en manquait que 2.
frosm (2024-10-16 06:45:43+00:00): merci pour l'amélioration.
Cependant une bande cyclable ne se renseigne pas avec un objet séparé mais avec cycleway:right=lane
josmougn (2024-12-26 00:36:35+00:00): Oui, et ? 
Dans cette rue il y a les 2, pistes et bandes.
nico-32 (2023-05-06 21:31:50+00:00): Way 1136326326 seems to have been dismantled in 2020.
I think you assumed there to be a gantry when it was actually only the remaining pillar with its shadow.

Mapillary photos:
944075369751647 (notice tree behind pillar and box to the right, behind the blue car)
(somewhere between these photos, the signs must have been removed)
526043298388658 (same tree)
1142834272850991 (also has pillar and the box but inaccurate location)
ratrun (2024-09-22 04:35:06+00:00): Hi,

I'm analyzing unrealistic long ferry duration's. For https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1136330536 you entered 15 hours. Did you mean 15 minutes, which is still even long for these 1150 meters? Please note that the duration tag does not include any waiting time.
Thanks
CharliePlett (2024-10-04 11:19:35+00:00): Hi, I guess I meant 15 minutes. I'm not even sure where I got that from. So, either put 15 minutes or erase the tag.
ratrun (2024-10-04 12:52:11+00:00): Thank you, fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1136330536
DressyPear4 (2023-01-30 09:12:23+00:00): Olá, reverti essa edição.
Considere ler o comentário do changeset anterior
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131858940
❤️‍🔥 (2023-01-30 00:27:43+00:00): oops, wrong account
GeoDave5280 (2023-01-30 03:36:06+00:00): JesseFTW:  Looks like you took care of that erroneous Wikipedia tag.  I have no idea how that got there--perhaps an accidental paste or typo.  Thanks, Dave.
JesseFTW (2023-01-30 14:30:42+00:00): It happens! Mostly just wanted to alert you in case it was a more wide-spread problem.
Quentin Golsteyn (2023-01-30 22:09:23+00:00): Hello, I verified this edit. Instead of removing the paths, we should instead mark them as private.

Reference: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

I can do that change if you want.
Arminal (2023-01-30 23:29:23+00:00): Hello, The owners of the properties do not wish to have the private pathways displayed. I think that's fair?
Thanks for contacting me about these changes.
James
WoodWoseWulf (2023-02-01 01:28:00+00:00): Hello, welcome back to OSM!

I'm not sure why, but you removed some tagging from Berridale here.  Please be more careful with your changes.

Also, please be provide more detail in your changeset comments so others know what you are doing.
CurlingMan13 (2023-01-30 22:35:34+00:00): Add of the country tag looks correct!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131861381
mavl (2023-04-25 09:11:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
mavl (2023-04-25 09:09:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
mavl (2023-04-25 09:10:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
kirma (2023-01-30 05:46:30+00:00): Siis Itätuulenkujan, ei Itätuulentien.
mavl (2023-04-25 09:05:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
mavl (2023-04-25 08:59:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
DP24PH (2023-01-30 05:04:37+00:00): Yikes! You may have one node edit outside the PH-1/AH26/Pan-Philippine Highway/Maharlika Highway. Kindly separate the changeset for further roadway/highway edits to avoid localized quality issues.


DP24
PoconoMountains (2023-01-31 04:09:46+00:00): Hello DP24, I aim to keep the edits in my changesets to the same area, but it seems I uploaded these edits in the same changeset by mistake. Thank you for catching this and bringing it to my attention.
Warin61 (2023-02-02 23:10:34+00:00): Hi
This one changeset has heath and bear rock in the one location, it cannot be both ... see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1136351103#map=19/-35.60373/149.11648
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1136351104

In another changeset that is also another conflict see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1136351105
mavl (2023-04-25 09:10:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
adiatmad (2023-01-31 14:09:27+00:00): Good work on your edits! However, it would be preferable to avoid adding a generic name, such as name=House (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1136366638). You might want to take a look at this page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions). Happy mapping!
CurlingMan13 (2023-01-30 22:36:49+00:00): This isn't a tunnel the entire length of the way.  Please correct to only have it tagged as a tunnel for the sections that are actually a tunnel.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131864326
willkmis (2023-01-30 07:09:05+00:00): Hi,
I was wondering what criteria you use to upgrade roads from residential to tertiary. Some of the roads you've upgraded here don't seem very "important" to me from a network perspective. As in, they just have normal residences and don't actually do any "collecting" as described in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtertiary.
Best,
Will
Dion Dock (2023-01-31 06:05:44+00:00): Great question.  I think tertiary roads in the US are the most basic roads with a center line and only one lane in each direction.  The wiki talks about "and main connector roads through neighborhoods" in the US.

Looking at the classification from the bottom, we have residential, unclassified, tertiary and secondary.  Unclassified is kind of weird; it feels like a thing for the UK but not so much for the rest of the world, kind of like asking who is the prime minister of the US.
willkmis (2023-02-01 20:30:36+00:00): I think center lines are a useful gauge, but in my opinion not every road with a center line deserves to be highway=tertiary. Some roads get center lines because they have high traffic, but others get them just because they're particularly wide or curvy, despite not providing much connectivity. You can see the standards CA uses here to decide if you're interested, see section 3B.01: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ca-mutcd/rev6/camutcd2014-part3-rev6.pdf.

Some of the roads you've upgraded in Venice look like examples of the latter in my opinion. To me, Rialto, Market, Riviera, and Cabrillo all seem like residential roads: Abbot Kinney, Main, and Venice Way are more important through roads in the immediate area, whereas these roads don't really connect much and wouldn't be used except to get to the immediate abutting residences. They just all have center lines because they're particularly wide. There can be lots of weird reasons roads are wide despite getting little traffic; in this case I happen to know that it's because many of these roads are paved-over canals, and so the modern roads are the same width as those were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Canal_Historic_District.
Dion Dock (2023-02-07 06:19:38+00:00): Agreed, every bit of road with a center line isn't tertiary, given that it might just last a few feet around a bend and is there for safety.  There is some human discretion involved.  Does it look right when viewed at 1km resolution?  I'm not sure the wiki really captures the idea of a "through street", since it can simply be the suggested way to get around a neighborhood with one entrance (e.g. can a loop be a tertiary road by definition?).

Yes, a road like Rialto doesn't really look like much of a "major" street, but I didn't put the center stripe on it.  ;)  I wonder if the powers that be record why they chose to do what they did for every individual road?  Anyway, I'm not going to lose any sleep if it is re-tagged as residential.

I had no idea that Venice was actually modeled on Venice Italy with man-made canals.  Wild.
willkmis (2023-02-10 05:02:49+00:00): Heh, my hunch would be that no one is keeping very close track regarding the reasoning behind the striping, but I'd love to be wrong. At least in LA, I think the city has a website with the traffic count database, but I found it pretty hard to use.

Yeah Venice has a very strange history. The canals were apparently pretty run down for a while, which is why they paved some over, but the remaining ones have since been spruced up and are quite nice areas now.

The general rationale you said on how you look at tertiary roads sounds about right to me. I might go in and change a couple of the road classes in the area, but these sorts of subjective classifications are always going to be in the eye of the beholder in the end. I tried to write up my opinions on road classification in a diary post a while back, in case you might find it useful (at least, to see what someone else's interior diatribe on it might look like): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/willkmis/diary/399345
Dion Dock (2023-02-22 02:23:06+00:00): I'm going to guess that Manhattan Beach was not an attempt to bring a little bit of New York to the west coast though.  ;)

One more thought about tertiary roads: I always leave service roads as-is, striped or not.  Shopping malls often have roads like that.  
 
I'll take a look at your opinions on road types.  Looks like you've given it quite a bit of thought.
Aleksandar Matejevic (2023-01-30 08:22:48+00:00): Hi, I saw that you have reverted the Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan border, but the current state is also not correct. On the changeset that you commented on before doing this, you mentioned that you should be informed if someone is trying to fix the issue. I would like to make changes to their relations as they were before the first vandalism happened. Is this OK with DWG or do we need some more ground truth? Currently, we have self-crossing boundaries https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/809037412
Supaplex (2023-01-31 09:58:01+00:00): 這東60鄉道吧?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131864817
CoyKoi (2023-08-15 04:04:54+00:00): Hey Kyle,
I think the no-cycling signs are specifically referring to footpath cycling, even if not all the signs are as explicit as this one: https://goo.gl/maps/xBbSsEykN4q7ox1a8

The signs are stupid and unnecessary (as cycling is technically banned from all footpaths anyway), but I think it's overkill to set bicycle=no on the roads around here
❤️‍🔥 (2023-08-15 04:25:59+00:00): oh cool let's remove the tags then. AT actually installed bike stands a few months ago in the middle of the 🚳 area which also suggests these signs aren't particularly relevant
❤️‍🔥 (2023-08-15 05:52:34+00:00): here's the photo that wouldn't upload earlier - its certainly a bit weird: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/assets/16009897/f8fe5d90-11b9-47e8-bb07-d1d875b5c02f
CoyKoi (2023-08-15 21:10:25+00:00): OK I will remove the tags on the roads. And I've raised awareness of the signs with colleagues at AT.
SekeRob (2023-02-02 06:29:36+00:00): Hi

Note that the tag of virtual=yea is "supplemental" to the key of highway=footway to indicate it's for routing purposes only. A way with just this virtual=yes does not tell what the reason of existance is.

Ciao
silversurfer83 (2023-01-30 16:25:28+00:00): Hello there,

I have a request: please read this article in our wiki and act accordingly as a sign of courtesy to your fellow mappers. Thank you

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
bxl-forever (2023-01-30 23:54:01+00:00): The huge bounding box is because, in addition to changes in Belarus, the user added a crossing with traffic signals in the middle of a forest in France.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/403024776/history
Streifenschmerle (2023-02-06 11:31:48+00:00): Die Änderung der Einbahnstraßenrichtung war falsch - sei ca. Herbst 2022 wurde deren Richtung umgekehrt. Ich habe dies jetzt wieder korrigiert.
user_14591104 (2023-02-10 08:40:54+00:00): Hello Streifenschmerle,
Thank you for highlighting the issue and modifying the edit as per latest evidence. I edited based on the available resources. Thank You again for your insights, looking forward to learn more from you.
Regards,
nagalvad
willkmis (2023-01-30 07:19:35+00:00): Hi,
Is there a reason you deleted all the golf cart paths I added at Hillcrest Country Club? It doesn't really impact much but they did take some time to trace properly.
Thanks,
Will
CurlingMan13 (2023-01-30 07:30:13+00:00): Yes, actually, good point.  The current imagery does not have paths there.  It appears that the paths are aligned to older imagery.

The latest imagery does not have paths here.  Bing provides the latest imagery here.

Rather than try to sort out correct alignment, it is easier to delete and remap.
willkmis (2023-01-30 15:58:16+00:00): OK, it looks like you restored essentially the same paths that I had drawn in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131867158, am I interpreting that right?

Yes, as a local to the area I can confirm that this golf course was recently remodeled. I traced off of the Bing imagery, which when I drew these paths, and still from what I can see, is the current alignment. I know this because I noticed when Bing imagery updated from the under construction course to the current paths.
julcnx (2023-01-30 09:19:42+00:00): thank you!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131867002
Shaun das Schaf (2023-01-31 17:41:57+00:00): Hallo Powerfuzzy,

ich denke dieser Weg heißt gar nicht wirklich "Westweg", sondern er ist einfach nur Teil der Wanderroute "Westweg", die hier entlangführt.
Siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/62897

Somit gehört "Westweg" eigentlich auch nicht in den Namen.

Viele Grüße
Shaun das Schaf
cEvLGWiQ (2023-01-30 08:00:30+00:00): Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-FL according to the international notation of E.123
cEvLGWiQ (2023-01-30 08:01:09+00:00): Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-DR according to the international notation of E.123
cEvLGWiQ (2023-01-30 08:00:15+00:00): Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-FR according to the international notation of E.123
cEvLGWiQ (2023-01-30 08:01:33+00:00): Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-FL according to the international notation of E.123
cEvLGWiQ (2023-01-30 07:59:57+00:00): Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-GE according to the international notation of E.123
cEvLGWiQ (2023-01-30 08:02:26+00:00): Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-FR according to the international notation of E.123
cEvLGWiQ (2023-01-30 07:59:44+00:00): Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-GR according to the international notation of E.123
cEvLGWiQ (2023-01-30 08:02:49+00:00): Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-GE according to the international notation of E.123
cEvLGWiQ (2023-01-30 07:59:25+00:00): Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-LI according to the international notation of E.123
cEvLGWiQ (2023-01-30 08:03:12+00:00): Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-GR according to the international notation of E.123
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2023-02-27 06:40:16+00:00): What happened here? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791631416
CurlingMan13 (2023-02-27 07:10:22+00:00): Good catch, I must have mis-clicked while trying to select all the cartpaths.
LockOnGuy (2023-02-03 23:37:07+00:00): Why did you remove the checkpoint and add another one in changeset 10593545433 ? also add the name of the check point to the node "سيطرة شرطة الاتحادية" not just "سيطرة"
Bravo Mapper (2023-02-05 15:34:51+00:00): I think this is a mistake .
I rushed .
I shouldnt have done it.
skyper (2023-03-23 16:26:13+00:00): Hello  khajurun,
please, take a closer look at the images. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/168141076 is not oneway but the exist from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121752656 to Handelstraße is prohibited.
Regards skyper