piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frans S (2024-01-07 10:11:38+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. However, You did not square a single building !

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145977273
Smokin' Billy (2024-01-07 03:04:21+00:00): 森林リレーションを壊してしまったようです。
検証中。
Smokin' Billy (2024-01-07 03:39:02+00:00): 壊したのはこの変更セットではありませんでしたが、修正しました。
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145977719
iandees (2024-01-07 03:19:09+00:00): Hi! I just drove past this crossing tonight and don't remember seeing any gates here. Are you thinking of the crossing at Snelling, maybe?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145977377
MxxCon (2024-01-09 03:37:33+00:00): Hello.
You deleted shop=hardware tag from a building, but left "name=Jere's Hardware" tag in place.
Way 284485719
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145977765
rayl- (2024-01-09 08:29:11+00:00): Fixed
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146056521
MxxCon (2024-01-09 03:43:33+00:00): It'd make sense to tag alt_name and loc_name separately if they were different. But since you have the same value for both it kinda doesn't make sense to duplicate the same info twice.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145978051
IraGersh (2024-01-10 00:26:00+00:00): I noticed with the loc_name tag I could enter Jenny's Garden in the search and it would find it.  The alt_name tag didn't do it.  That's why I entered the loc_name tag.  It does seem unnecessarily duplicative.
tyfi (2024-01-07 05:12:13+00:00): For some reason, the northern terminus of Z was part of the Z relation but had no tag.
iandees (2024-01-07 05:02:06+00:00): Instead of blindly "upgrading tags", please check to make sure that the changes you're making are correct. For example, the manufacturer of the crossing bell was incorrectly moved to the "crossing:barrier" tag on this node: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/187894871 and this node is tagged as having markings when they it doesn't appear to have any: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6778483049.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145978152
Baloo Uriza (2024-01-07 14:27:40+00:00): Saving before moving to another part of the map to edit would probably be wise.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145978223
MxxCon (2024-01-09 03:47:05+00:00): Hello.
When adding bus stop names, please fully spell out their names. ie "73rd Avenue", not "73 Av".
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145978293
rayl- (2024-01-09 08:36:29+00:00): fixed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146056817#map=19/40.73998/-73.76096
Frans S (2024-01-07 10:10:13+00:00): See my comments on your other changesets. The same comments. 
Quality prevails above quantity !
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145978576
Frans S (2024-01-07 10:08:12+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.
In my other comment, I was positive about your mapping. Now it is different.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers  high quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Inaccurate mapped buildings,
Clustered buildings mapped as 1 building.
Connected nodes of buildings to each other.
Buildings not squared.
Please pay attention to next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)


Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145978639
NorthCrab_upload (2024-01-07 05:21:04+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Smagula":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11496195011
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11496195013
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11496195017

"Pasterska":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11496195048

"Na Stoku":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11496195129

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Frans S (2024-01-07 10:04:49+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. However, you squared just 1 out of 19 buildings.

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145978822
Frans S (2024-01-08 15:10:50+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please don't connect nodes of buildings to other buildings or objects.
The tag residential in highways is to be used in urban areas. Here unclassified is the correct one for minor roads.
Best regards
yawfle (2024-01-07 22:02:02+00:00): Interesting area for exploring! Just a reminder that when changing something like that bridge to (the extremely generic) "highway=path", it's nice to explicitly add appropriate access tags (foot=yes, bicycle=yes, etc). The iD interface is slightly confusing in that it shows a default list of (grayed out) assumed values, but unless you click to set them, they aren't actually added, and routing engines have to guess whether it's suitable for any given mode. Surface info is nice, too... bonus points for indicating stuff like wheelchair access or specific barrier types!
HeyRayReh (2024-01-08 17:14:08+00:00): Oh man, I definitely thought the greyed-out tags were essentially applied for most practical applications!  Oops.  The app I use that interacts with OSM uses the assumed tags in most cases and very specifically names the cases where it requires the tags to be actually set - I guess it's a little fancier than most?  Seems strange to have the different types of paths with their default tags if the default tags aren't applied!

I've been going with a lot more highway=path (especially over highway=footpath) ever since I learned that LA changed the law to allow bikes on sidewalks and other traditional footpaths.  It seems better to me to keep the delineation between a designed cycle-and-foot-path and a path where cycling is allowed but wasn't considered in building the path - and for the purposes of the app I'm using, highway=path will add it to the cycle  map whereas highway=footpath won't.  Then again, if I start taking the time to name specific permissions, I think that would probably overrule the filters for type of path.

In the case of the bridge and the path it connects to, as an example - it didn't show up for cycling in my app (or for walking, actually, due to one of the specific filters for random "highway=footpath"s), but if I'm correct it will once the map updates later this month.  (I actually will learn quite a bit about how effective my editing has been after the next update - some of my work made it into the last one but the majority will hit this next one.  Maybe the default tags don't work as I thought!)
yawfle (2024-01-08 20:06:05+00:00): Obligatory admonishment: It's important to be cautious about editing to get a certain result from a specific data consumer's product. That said, I suspect most of them do make those default assumptions about "highway=path" when they have to... it's just better if they have more specific information to work with. Historically there was a lot of debate due to all the different things any given person thinks is or isn't implied by "path" (e.g. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1698#issuecomment-134905532), so the less ambiguity, the more useful the data. In particular, "surface" is pretty hard to make valid assumptions about outside of extreme urban or rural areas... I mean, just look at the spectrum of what passes for a sidewalk around here! :D

Anyway, it's perfectly common to encounter "highway=footpath" with a "bicycle=yes" tag, so if a product isn't handling that case correctly, it's something they need to fix on their end... here's a random example if you want to check: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/734114198

For places where you're not really supposed to ride a bike, but which might still reasonably be part of a bike route (narrow pedestrian bridges, etc) there's the "bicycle=dismount" tag, as used here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222837353

Incidentally, the recent legalization of sidewalk riding was for unincorporated L.A. County, but it was already generally legal in City of L.A. (and other cities in the county all have their own laws about it - quite a can of worms: https://ehlinelaw.com/blog/bicycles-and-sidewalks).

Also incidentally, if you haven't yet, take a look at Achavi, it's a neat (but probably not mobile-friendly) way to get a visual overview of a given changeset's edits, you can hover over the features to see a diff of the tags: https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=145978856
yawfle (2024-01-08 22:22:59+00:00): Oh, and specifically regarding this:

> Seems strange to have the different types of paths with their default tags if the default tags aren't applied!

You'll notice that selecting "Footpath" as the feature type, for example, DOES apply some extra tags, and those will be shown in black rather than grayed out. Selecting "Path" just sets "highway=path", and you need to "roll your own" additional tags.

If you want to see the "red pill" list of tags actually being applied, you can expand the Tags section near the bottom of the sidebar. There's also a button to switch the list to a plain text field, which is useful if you ever need to copy'n'paste everything from one feature to another (be careful with that, though!)
HeyRayReh (2024-01-08 22:47:28+00:00): Oh that Achavi thing is super neat, thank you!  And yes, sorry, I conflated LA and LA county in my memory of when it became legal but fear not, I read all that mess about how all the different cities do it haha.

From the first link you sent it seems like if I move forward using the path tag but do my best to be specific about access tags, I should be in the clear?  Seems like they're saying there is no consensus on good assumptions - so in my mind the answer is go literal: if it's not just for foot it's not a "footpath".  Especially considering the default tags for "path" include bicycle=yes and for footpath they include bicycle=not specified.

Oh, and I'll try to do surface if it's super obvious but I haven't done much diving into the different surfaces yet so it seems daunting when I'm trying to get these paths constructed
yawfle (2024-01-09 01:01:05+00:00): Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest the path tag shouldn't be used, just be aware that changing the feature type of an existing way to Path without adding other tags is potentially a downgrade of data. If adding "bicycle=yes" to a footpath works for your purposes, it might be a better description of ground truth in some cases.

>  Especially considering the default tags for "path" include bicycle=yes and for footpath they include bicycle=not specified.

But either way it requires additional action to actually include all desired tags, so I wouldn't base *too* much on that. Ideally the goal is to get the best match between reality and the most commonly agreed upon usage of the (sometimes confusingly named) tags. 

The importance of a surface tag obviously depends on the situation, but it's a good thing to add to generic paths. The discussion I linked (it happened to be cited on the path wiki page) was about rendering, but nowadays it's probably more important to keep routing algorithms in mind, because they can't really infer things from context the way somebody looking at a map can. Another case where I might make the extra effort to add a surface tag would be where the situation is not what somebody might reasonably assume, like a "connection" from the Chandler path to a street over a loose dirt incline. There's generally no need to get fancy with surface types, in most cases just distinguishing between paved vs dirt is enough to clarify what "path" means.
pantufla (2024-10-27 10:20:12+00:00): Esto qué es y de dónde viene el nombre? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11496203669
Frans S (2024-01-07 10:02:56+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. 

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145979829
KingKratos (2024-07-22 22:01:34+00:00): Please name your lines. You do not have any tags or dispositions on the lines you are drawing.

Por favor, asigne un nombre a sus líneas. No tiene ninguna etiqueta o disposición en las líneas que está dibujando.
user_17222985 (2024-01-07 14:55:07+00:00): also https://t.me/DecolonizationUkraine/11323
gitouche (2024-01-13 09:53:23+00:00): Merci :-)
canfe (2024-01-07 14:51:40+00:00): Secondo me forse bisognerebbe specificare se le piste ciclabili che hai fatto sono segragated o no.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145980635
Max Peverada (2024-01-07 15:21:14+00:00): Marciapiede o sede con cordolo su strada a uso promiscuo
Max Peverada (2024-01-07 15:22:04+00:00): Solo i tratti in comune… qualche tratto la ciclabile viaggia su strada con sua corsia verniciata
canfe (2024-01-07 18:55:49+00:00): Non son quindi segregated = no?
Guarda OSMAND tra qualche giorno se tira fuori un errore...
olo81 (2024-01-09 11:19:28+00:00): Czy w tym miejscu zaszły jakiekolwiek zmiany w ostatnich latach? 
Przypominam, że dodane przez ciebie tagowanie oznacza, że teren jest przygotowany pod inwestycje. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:landuse=brownfield
Frans S (2024-01-07 10:01:41+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. 

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145980932
Frans S (2024-01-07 10:00:28+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks has been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 

Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Building hidden by trees. Extrapolate the rooflines.
buildings not squared
In rural areas use highway-=unclassified rather than highway=residential. The latter is to be used in urban areas.

Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145981089
fisherman89italia (2024-01-09 17:25:51+00:00): Parcheggio metà a pagamento e metà a disco orario di 1 ora
george1201 (2024-01-07 21:08:00+00:00): Bei mir funktioniert der zwei Jahre alte Link aus Version #1. Ihn finde ich auch passender als deinen. Deiner zeigt auf eine OpenStreetMap-Karte. Vielleicht mal die anderen Stadtmobil-Stationen anschauen und sich auf einen einheitlichen Link einigen.
mapzotte (2024-01-08 01:12:36+00:00): Der alte Link führt zu einer 404. Diese Webseite gibt es also nicht.
Der von mir angegebene Link zeigt auf die Buchungsseite mit der Station entsprechendem Fokus auf der Karte. (Openstreetmap via leaflet hinterlegt) 
Siehe: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dcar_sharing
"... website=* - Homepage des Betreibers (am besten direkt die Buchungsseite für diese Station angeben falls möglich)
george1201 (2024-01-09 07:07:17+00:00): Anlass meines Kommentars war eigentlich nur deine Begründung für die durchgeführte Änderung, dass der alte Link nicht erreichbar wäre. Ich kann https://karlsruhe.stadtmobil.de/privatkunden/stationen/station/breite-strasse-i/ aber aufrufen. Die Beschreibung im Wiki rechtfertigt allerdings, dass man an dieser Stelle die Buchungsseite einträgt. Somit ist es ok.
mapzotte (2024-01-09 09:18:16+00:00): Seltsam. Dann war da ein Schreibfehler im Link an der Gebhardstraße oder Stadtmobil wurschtelt an Ihrem Internetauftritt?
Die Einträge via karlsruhe.stadtmobil.de/.... funktionieren aber aus Anwendungen auf dem Smartfone wie z.B.: "OrganicMaps" ( organicmaps.app.de )  oder bei verschiedenen Browserkontelationen/Einstellungen nicht zuverlässig. 
Der Eintrag via mein.stadtmobil.de/#48.993-8.3899-19-0 entspricht aber der Standardisierung:[subdomain.domain.tld/#wert zum interpretieren]. 
Diese Links sind Barrierefrei und für sowohl angemeldete wie auch nicht angemeldete Benutzer erreichbar. Ist  nicht Grundsätzlich einen funktionalen Link besser? Werd mal Recherchieren wie das Andernorts so gehandhabt wird. Vielen Dank und grüße
george1201 (2024-01-09 09:36:20+00:00): Für einen Stadtmobilnutzer ist sicher die Buchungsseite nützlicher (aber vermutlich wird er Buchungen auf anderem Wege durchführen). Für alle anderen ist der karlsruhe.stadtmobil.de-Link interessanter. Aber wie du schon sagst, eine einheitliche Handhabung wäre wünschenswert.
mapzotte (2024-01-09 10:45:46+00:00): Sicher sollte man das Vereinheitlichen.
Aber bei der Aussage .."Für einen Stadtmobilnutzer ist sicher die Buchungsseite nützlicher..." muss ich Dir wiedersprechen. 
Die Links nach dem Schema "karlsruhe.stadtmobil.de/.... " funktionieren eben nich Immer. Weder für angemeldete Nutzer noch für Nichtnutzer. 
Das Datum "Link" im Datensatz sollte aber doch funktional sein, unabhängig davon wie und von welcher Technologie er abgerufen wird ?
Ich werd das mal bei Gelegenheit im Forum erfragen.
george1201 (2024-01-09 16:07:45+00:00): Es gibt keinen Grund warum obiger Link nicht funktionieren sollte, außer einer unterbrochenen Internetverbindung zum Server. Ich habe ihn mit verschiedenen Browsern auf verschiedenen Betriebssystemen erfolgreich geprüft.
Hadi Omid (2024-01-10 15:41:48+00:00): سلام وقت بخیر
لطفا در ویرایش نقشه دقت بفرمایید
ویرایش شما به دلیل اشتباه بودن برگردانده شد
JeroenHoek (2024-01-07 09:18:13+00:00): RVV 4.1. Geen verbodsbord, wel een gebiedende verkeersregel, net als bij het fietspad.
whb (2026-06-24 15:51:02+00:00): Guten Tag,

bist du dir sicher, dass die Umbenennung der Gustav-Nachtigal-Straße in Lettow-Vorbeck-Straße richtig ist?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32005862/history

Siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5359626

Viele Grüße
whb
opendcc (2025-02-21 04:45:16+00:00): Ist diese Brücke schon fertig?
theophrastos (2025-02-21 06:56:33+00:00): Muss ich nachschauen, ich komme heute dort vorbei.
opendcc (2025-02-21 07:54:00+00:00): Ich bin da grad am Radurlaub planen - und in OSM ist der Datenbestand in der Gegend eher mau - wenig Surface-Tags, dafür aber jede Menge sinnfreie MPs, die eine konstruktive Pflege deutlich erschweren .. aber gut, wenn Du das nachsehen kannst. Ev. auch gleich mit maxweight?
theophrastos (2025-02-21 15:06:44+00:00): Die Straße zwischen Wasserberndorf  und Sixtenberg ist derzeit noch gesperrt.
Frans S (2024-01-07 09:55:37+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. 

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145983303
wielandb (2024-02-13 12:27:19+00:00): Hey :)
Da diese Ladenfläche nur ungenutzt ist, und nicht gänzlich entfernt wurde, ist sie zu löschen nicht die korrekte Abbildung der Realität. :o
Ich habe das CS deshalb rückgängig gemacht und den Laden als geschlossen gekennzeichnet. :)
balint36 (2024-01-07 10:27:17+00:00): Szia!
A wiki nem így írja: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels
Az Example fejezet jól szemlélteti.
vasony (2024-01-07 23:00:46+00:00): Melyik példára gondolsz?
building:levels=3;2 volt a helytelen érték.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
Where a building has been split into parts, a building outline has still to be drawn of the whole building way and should have the tags building:levels=* and height=*. These values should be the **maximum** of all the building parts.
balint36 (2024-01-08 09:53:37+00:00): Ja, bocs, értem, mire gondolsz.
Én hibám, mert a 3 és a 3;2 is helytelen. Valóságban 2 szintnek kell lennie (+1 tetőtér azaz roof:levels=1), viszont valamiért még kezdetben én adtam meg rosszul a 3-at, aztán most véletlenül rosszul csináltam meg a 2-re való átjavítást.
SpinOff (2024-01-07 22:00:58+00:00): Troszkę nabroiłeś. Zamieniłeś drogę trzeciorzędną w drogę dla rowerów, przez co nie mogłyby z niej korzystać samochody. Wycofałem już tę zmianę.

Tutaj jest fajny artykuł o tym jak oznaczać scieżki i pasy rowerowe: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery
rskedgell (2024-01-07 12:34:07+00:00): Reverted.
kapazao (2024-01-25 08:47:34+00:00): Buenas, ¿el carril bici este sabes si está ya construido?
Si es un carril sin separación física del peatonal, se tendría que haber puesto en el sendero peatonal que ya había y no hacer otro, que a parte se superpone a algunas vías y tampoco está puesto como carril bici, sino sendero.
Un saludo
alex_lofi (2024-01-27 11:38:03+00:00): Hola, el tramo que añadí sí que está construido, luego le echo un vistazo pero de memoria te diría que sí está separado.
De todas formas ahora estoy en Ávila, en Semana Santa volveré y pasaré por ahí fijo.