piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Maria Gavel (2024-06-15 08:58:13+00:00): Hi Lezurex,

thanks for quick response.
I used "hochwertig" for fabric description. It`s not subjective. Maybe you don`t know, but it`s really hard to find someone who will be ready to work with high-class fabrics. It`s always hard, high risk with expensive thing and so on. You need special equipment for it.
So when you said "I am ready to work with such fabric" that means nothing subjective. Just fact.
That`s like you will say: repair shop can`t write "we work with luxurious cars" (mostly they are not) or surgeon cant`s write "I work with hard accidents" cause it`s subjective.
You making bureaucracy without purpose. You must stop doing it if you want your project to grow.
Can you please try to offer a description "we can work with high-class fabrics" without such subjective? Any adjective like "hard", "expensive" or "special" will be subjective. That`s an adjective description!
Have a nice weekend.

Maria
Lezurex (2024-06-15 09:31:06+00:00): Hi Maria,

Thanks for the clarification.

The problem was that by saying "Hochwertige Schneiderei" you described your business itself as high-class and not the fabrics you're working with. Whether or not your work is perceived as high-class is up to your customers and highly subjective. That's what rating platforms like Google Maps or Trustpilot are for, but not OpenStreetMap.

Therefore, I'd suggest saying something like "Das Nähatelier Gavel ist auch dazu bereit, hochwertige Materialien zu verarbeiten und setzt dafür geeignete Werkzeuge ein.", which is neutral enough and describes your process and abilities, rather than how good your business is.

Please let me know if that matches what you intended to say.

Have a nice weekend,
Lezurex
Maria Gavel (2024-06-15 09:39:07+00:00): Dear Lezurex,

that`s not true. I never used "Hochwertige Schneiderei" in my text. I have it in saved files.
To use your example I need 150 symbols to describe process that is really 30 symbols.
It`s bad idea, but you free to act as you think will be good for you.
So lets leave it like it is.

Maria.
Lezurex (2024-06-15 15:18:55+00:00): Hi Maria,

No need to start lying here. Have a look at the history, it's all there. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11980881826/history

A bit longer text is no issue at all, as long as it's not getting too long. It can easily be 1–3 sentences. It's a description, not a name.

Please have a look at the documentation of the description key as well: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description
emersonveenstra (2024-06-15 14:14:20+00:00): Hi there,

When creating a multipolygon, the main tags should go on the relation, not on the ways. Right now consumers see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/470394359 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1292377897 as baseball fields, not parts of the actual field. Could you fix that please? Thanks!
emersonveenstra (2024-06-15 14:15:52+00:00): Also, just to keep things in one changeset discussion, could you also fix the MSU fields as well?
JeroenHoek (2024-06-14 19:40:18+00:00): Je kan de wagon en het café beter even scheiden. De tags botsen nu met de top-levels (amenity=bar en historic=railway_car).
IIVQ (2024-06-23 14:49:10+00:00): Bedankt voor de tip! Done: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153071627
whb (2024-06-15 09:32:21+00:00): Guten Tag,

ist die Position der Fahrrad-Reparaturstation hier wirklich richtig?
Denn ich hatte hier schon eine eingetragen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11874150638

Viele Grüße
whb
george1201 (2025-11-06 17:10:24+00:00): Ich habe hier keine gesehen. Die vom ADAC steht an der anderen Gebäudeecke. Ich entferne diese deshalb.
whb (2025-11-07 00:33:07+00:00): Vielen Dank!
NorthCrab_upload (2024-06-14 13:41:28+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Władysława Szeflera Włada":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11980911538
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11980911539
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11980911540
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11980911541
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11980911542

"Majora Franciszka Michała Amałowicza Tatara":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1292379241

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
syntex (2024-06-14 13:51:17+00:00): naprawione
gurglypipe (2024-06-21 16:09:47+00:00): Heya, further to discussion on other changesets: was this edit made based on an in-person survey of the access situation, or is it an attempt to get Komoot to route along this way?

If it’s the latter then would access=private foot=designated be more correct, bearing in mind the tagging guide for footpaths/etc? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_footpaths
Jarek 🚲 (2024-06-14 15:52:38+00:00): Survey note: I explicitly removed "Pearson Airport Limo Toronto" https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11978396314/history - I surveyed and found no signage for this business, instead the address given (451 Dundas W) is a UPS Store location advertising mailboxes among other services. (Added the UPS Store as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11980955328 )

I repurposed the limo node for the empty store next door (453 Dundas W) because the node was actually placed over that building.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-06-14 14:26:13+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10244730654
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1292391275

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Luz R Finley (2024-06-14 14:33:36+00:00): I reverted the changeset 152682115 because it reverted the wrong changeset

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152682297
citrula (2024-06-15 03:00:27+00:00): =designated means that they are intended for that purpose, and usually signposted. It's like =yes but indicates the primary use.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152682319
miluethi (2024-08-10 20:34:34+00:00): Hi Nakula,

Your building shapes are far bigger than the aerial imagery and some are even duplicates. Also they are not squared out.
Please narrow down your shapes to match exactly the aerial imagery and don't combine several single buildings in one shape.
Thank you.
eggie (2024-06-14 14:54:27+00:00): Dag Jacco,
Ik zie een berg schade aan de kaart.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=152682767

Dit komt omdat je schuift met de kaart in editmodus. 

warnings:crossing_ways:building-highway
  	3


  warnings:crossing_ways:highway-highway
  	14

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-06-14 15:00:17+00:00): Schade hersteld....   Info Brandweerkazerne verplaatst naar adresnode conform afspraken OSM Nederland.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-06-14 15:08:54+00:00): Tip.. Beter niet schuiven met de kaart in editmodus. 
Je neemt anders per abuis een node mee met alles wat er aan vastzit. Dus een heel wegennet als het een kruispunt betreft. 
Doe elke wijziging in een aparte upload en ga dan uit de editmodus naar een nieuwe locatie.
Het is een nare eigenschap van deze editor iD.
MVG
eggie
aceman444 (2025-02-06 22:05:36+00:00): Hi, what are you trying to add here? There is no such track road on Ortofotomozaika 2020-2022 . In newer version from 2023 there is some track, but it does not connect to the service roads in the rest area .
Madi-Red (2025-02-07 14:11:52+00:00): Hi  aceman444,  I made this change 8 months ago and at that time the imagery I used appeared to show a connection. However, looking at the latest imagery, Ortofotomozaika SR, it is clear to me that there is no connectivity present and therefore should be removed so thank you for making the corrections.
aceman444 (2025-02-08 14:20:46+00:00): I understand that. However, you claimed source "Ortofotomozaika SR 2020-2022" which we can still view today, and it shows no such road (not even the rest area). So I wonder what strange version of "Ortofotomozaika SR 2020-2022" you were seeing.
adiatmad (2024-07-10 05:44:47+00:00): Hello, I believe you meant to add landuse=residential instead of building=house/residential. Your OpenStreetMap tag currently shows a very large building. Could you please check it? Thanks!"
---
"Chào bạn, mình nghĩ bạn muốn thêm landuse=residential thay vì building=house/residential. Thẻ OpenStreetMap của bạn hiện tại hiển thị một tòa nhà rất lớn. Bạn có thể kiểm tra lại được không? Cảm ơn nhé!"
---
(https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1292409920)
(https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1292409925)
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dresidential)
eggie (2024-06-14 16:20:14+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback  Maar waarom het je het uitgegeven adres van de ligplaats verwijderd. 
Die afmeerplaats bestaat nog steeds.

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-06-14 16:24:33+00:00): De ligplaats met adres heb ik teruggezet.
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/?searchQuery=bogen+gouda&objectId=0513020000000057&theme=BRT+Achtergrond&geometry.x=108374.8155&geometry.y=446790.726&zoomlevel=12.797147953349185
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-06-14 17:33:37+00:00): Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=152685564
Frans S (2024-06-17 12:40:04+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. However, Not all rectangular buildings are squared and do not connect buildings with their nodes.

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/152687081
mmis-berg (2024-06-16 10:37:24+00:00): Bei Abschluss der Bauarbeiten wird der Radweg ab dem Ortseingang auf den Schutzstreifen der Straße geführt.
Langlaeufer (2024-06-16 17:00:16+00:00): Gut, dann wird das zum Gehweg
urbalazs (2024-06-15 11:18:31+00:00): Töröltem a regisztrációs számot, mert a megadott szám a XXII. kerület, városház térhez tartozik. Valóban az a regisztrációs szám van ezen az automatán?
utvonalfelmeresek (2024-06-16 05:26:24+00:00): Bocsi, valamit elrontottam, nem is tudom, hogy került be a rossz U szám.
Megnéztem a fotómat és javítottam!
TrickyFoxy (2024-06-16 17:21:52+00:00): Не добавляйте личные заметки в OSM. Используйте для них Метки
Hungerburg (2024-06-15 10:14:32+00:00): Hallo Andre, da wurde um /review/ gebeten:

Sieht gut aus. Allerdings, wenns ein ausgeschilderter Weg ist, dann kann informal/Trampelpfad nicht stimmen. Dass dort ein Forstweg in Bau ist kann wohl auch weg?
Andre Stollmeier (2024-06-15 11:26:56+00:00): Vom Tal aus und vom Berg oben wird ein Forstweg gebaut, wie auch schon eingezeichnet. Dazwischen ist nur ein Wanderweg. Sehr klein und schmal, also Trampelpfad? Es ist dennoch ein offizieller Wanderweg.
Hungerburg (2024-06-15 13:07:58+00:00): Hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:informal=yes die umfassende Dokumentation.

Im Editor steht nur Trampelpfad - durch Trampeln entstanden und erhalten. Wenn da ein gewarteter Wanderweg geht, dann weg damit.

Eine nützliche Ergänzung wäre https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:sac_scale
Andre Stollmeier (2024-06-15 14:58:43+00:00): Ich könnte ein Foto hochladen, wenn ich wüsste wie. Der Weg ist offiziell, aber nicht gewartet. Sehr schmal und Wald Untergrund.
Andre Stollmeier (2024-06-15 15:36:54+00:00): https://photos.app.goo.gl/zMxDZR6CseVpeZve8
Hungerburg (2024-06-15 16:15:10+00:00): Cool :) Am Schild steht ein Wegehalter angeschrieben. Der Weg wird betreut, der ist nicht informal! Der hat einen operator=TVB…

Als sac_scale würde ich mountain_hiking / Bergwandern angeben. Der rote Punkt am Wegweiser zwingt fast dazu.
CurlingMan13 (2024-06-15 08:48:26+00:00): Do not partially overlap your areas.  I have gone through and un-overlapped them.

Before making further edits, please review the below wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=golf_course#:~:text=Overlapping%20green/fairway/rough%20polygons%20(see%20graphic%20below).
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152688157
Strubbl (2024-06-14 17:45:48+00:00): Google as a source is not allowed for any change on OSM
Gfroschn (2024-06-14 20:59:41+00:00): Google isn’t the source, I have seen that it has changed. It’s also in google though can’t find another reference only besides that they had been planing to change it.
Strubbl (2024-06-14 21:08:50+00:00): Thanks for clarifying. If Google is not the source, you do not need to add it as a source to the changeset.
m@rio (2025-05-25 14:04:54+00:00): Cześć FanMentzena,
prośba o korektę tagowania studzienek, które oznaczyłeś jako man_made=water_well, a powinny być man_made=manhole.

pzdr
m@rio
Syl (2024-06-17 11:14:32+00:00): Bonjour, il a l'air d'y avoir des problèmes avec les bâtiments ici.
Celui-ci n'a plus de tag building tandis que celui d'à côté (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1276472357) en a un alors que building:part semble plus adapté.
Eric Bie (2024-08-05 20:25:46+00:00): Corrigé 2024/06/05
hewin (2024-06-14 18:13:14+00:00): Thanks
Spearfish7424 (2024-06-14 18:59:42+00:00): Np!
Lumikeiju (2024-06-14 17:30:32+00:00): Hi - the correct value of `crossing:markings` for this crossing is `zebra:paired`, not `zebra`.

Please review the tagging guidance on the Wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:markings

I have fixed this error in Changeset: 152690920
CurlingMan13 (2024-06-15 08:51:03+00:00): Do not partially overlap your areas.  I have gone through and un-overlapped them.

Before making further edits, please review the below wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=golf_course#:~:text=Overlapping%20green/fairway/rough%20polygons%20(see%20graphic%20below).
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152689367
user_18023081 (2024-06-14 17:05:33+00:00): That's not how you tag an individual house:

building = residential/house
M Garritano (2024-06-14 17:48:56+00:00): ok... what is the difference between flagging the feature as residential area=single family dwelling?  which one is more descriptive?
user_18023081 (2024-06-14 20:32:12+00:00): "residential area" is for the whole neighborhood (including backyards and driveways), not just a single house
NeisBot (2024-06-14 17:00:24+00:00): Hi Matys1313, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/51209073

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-15 13:18:11+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152721238
NeisBot (2024-06-14 17:00:25+00:00): Hi Matys1313, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1292430457

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-15 13:18:28+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152721257
NorthCrab_upload (2024-06-14 17:01:18+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/375310030
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/695842681

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
WieKo68 (2024-07-02 07:54:01+00:00): poprawiono
HellMap (2024-06-15 17:20:19+00:00): Sveiki!

Pamanīju nesenā laikā iezīmētos `highway=busway` kā piemēram https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1292431253 šajā izmaiņā. Lūgums šādi ceļus neatzīmēt - šis tegs ir domāts speciāli izbūvētai atdalītai infrastruktūrai publiskajam transportam gar un starp ceļiem, kur tas var pārvietoties ātrāk nesastopoties ar pārējo satiksmi. Latvijā šādu ceļu, cik zinu, nav ne viena (nākotnē, piemēram Rīgā plānota t.s. "metrobusa līnija", kas tad tiešām būtu busway). Sīki piebraucami ceļi un autoostu ceļi nav autobusu tranzītceļi, bet parasti sīki servisa ceļi/laukumi, kur var tad arī būt dažādi liegumi citiem transporta veidiem. Piemēram, pieturvietās drīkst apstāties jebkurš, bet busway tegs pēc būtības to liedz.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=busway#Similar_infrastructure

Un otrkārt, fiziski neatdalītas ceļa joslas kā pieturvietas noteikti nav atsevišķi ceļi, piemēram https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1286670279 vai https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1286099163 . Šādi joslas var nodalīt, ja tur ir fiziska barjera, zāles gabals, satiksmes mierinājumi, arī stabiņi vai vismaz apmale. Bet viena laida ceļi, kur ir vienkārši pieturas, netiek zīmēti šādi - te gan maršrutēšana ir nepareiza, gan pieturas piesaiste ceļam, gan maršruta ceļu norādes, gan ģeometrija, gan karšu renderēšana. Un piemēram šādi https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1291554517 zīmēt divus ceļus vienu pa virsu otram noteikti nevar - te papildus ir arī navigācijas kļūdas ar asu leņķi un pārklājošos ceļa ģeometriju.

Diemžēl pa pēdējo mēnesi ir sakrājies daudz šādu izmaiņu un šiem visiem ceļiem ir piesaistītas relācijas, tāpēc masveidā izlabot es to uzreiz nevarēšu. Atcelt izmaiņas arī noteikti negribētos. Bet šādi gadījumi ir jāizlabo, jo pašlaik tas veido nekorektus datos.

Es pieminēšu par šiem busway Zulipā, lai iespējams apspriestu kā labāk rīkoties.
Maris33 (2024-06-17 15:35:25+00:00): Sveiki! Centīšos pamazām izlabot!
Lumikeiju (2024-06-14 18:32:20+00:00): Hi - this is not an informal crossing, as it is at an intersection and there are sidewalk extensions on either end.

Please review the tagging guidance on the Wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dinformal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:informal%3Dyes

I have fixed this error in Changeset: 152693268
arkarjun (2024-06-28 19:37:37+00:00): Thank you for mapping, Corrected tag to shop=car_repair #Reviewed_Good #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152689739
CurlingMan13 (2024-06-15 08:48:10+00:00): Do not partially overlap your areas.  I have gone through and un-overlapped them.

Before making further edits, please review the below wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=golf_course#:~:text=Overlapping%20green/fairway/rough%20polygons%20(see%20graphic%20below).
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152689909
RVR015 (2024-06-17 20:02:08+00:00): I am interested in hearing what others may think of way 1231885078. The OSM wiki on crossing = unmarked gives an example of a busy 4-lane road. It states that it is reasonable to omit the crossing = unmarked tag because it would be dangerous for some to cross here (even if legally acceptable). I understand that this is technically a legal crossing, but would this be an acceptable instance where crossing = informal or informal = yes should be applied? For reference, "Some states have laws that establish an implied crossing on every side of every intersection by default[1] or wherever one is implied by a sidewalk flanking the intersection,[2] unless otherwise prohibited by a regulatory sign. This can technically result in very unsafe crossings that most people would not recognize as crossings, such as across a busy four-lane road without any pedestrian infrastructure. It would be reasonable to omit such crossings in favor of safer ones." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dunmarked
trial (2024-09-05 21:56:59+00:00): Plutôt Le Drenn !
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-01 05:39:14+00:00): Do not partially overlap areas...
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152690162
NorthCrab_upload (2024-06-14 17:31:13+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Klucz addr:place oznacza brak nazwy ulicy. Kombinacja z addr:street (który definiuje nazwę ulicy) jest błędna.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/695991204

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
WieKo68 (2024-07-02 07:47:21+00:00): poprawione
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-01 05:38:29+00:00): Again, do not partially overlap areas...  This is not the first time I have brought it up...
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152690564
akimapbuilder (2024-06-17 06:24:19+00:00): Hi! I had to revert your changeset since there is no building in sight.
Syl (2024-06-16 12:38:12+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai annulé la suppression du numéro.
Britzz (2024-06-16 16:48:32+00:00): en effet, j'ai été trop à l'emporte-pièce sur cette correction, merci
Lactone (2024-06-15 10:42:56+00:00): はじめまして。
編集いただいた箇所で少し気になった部分があったので連絡いたします。

・縁石ですが、kerb=yesのタグは縁石の高さなどの状態を表すタグで、
縁石の存在の明示にはbarrier=kerbが必要です。
barrier=kerb + kerb={yes|lowered|flush|…}などの書き方がよいと思います。
(参考: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Key:kerb)

・一時停止標識(highway=stop)は、標識や路面の標示で「止まれ」となっているところにつけるのだと思います。
MaryHiroshigeさんは信号のある交差点の停止線としてもhighway=stopを使用されている、という認識ですが、
現行の書き方だと信号の表示に関わらず停止せよ、という意味にとれてしまう気がします。
OSM Wikiのhighway=traffic_signals (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals) の記事のように、現在highway=stopとされているものをtraffic_signalsに置き換えて信号の適用方向を明示するのがよいのではないかと思われます。

とはいえ、私よりMaryHiroshigeさんのほうが編集の経験などは豊富だと思いますし、
私の認識に不備などがあるかもしれません。
なにか知見などございましたらご教授願いたいです。
MaryHiroshige (2024-06-16 00:51:03+00:00): コメントありがとうございます。
縁石については、まさしく仰る通りであると思います。歩道のマッピングをしている際にkerbの存在を見つけたのですが、その先の記述法をしっかり確認していなかったため、現在の記載になってしまったと思います。確認をしながら変更をするか、削除を検討しようと思います。
一時停止については、冒頭に「highway=stop タグは車両が停止する必要がある地点をマッピングするために使います。」（日本語版）と記載があり、それを重要視しました。
「説明」には「停止標識を示すために使います」という記載はありますが、標識を表す「Key:traffic_sign」が別で存在するため、実際に停止をするための目印がある「停止線」上に記載するのが、単純でわかりやすいと思ったため、現在のマッピングの方法にしています。
仰る通り、「traffic_signalsに置き換えて～」という方法があるのは知ってはいるのですが、そもそも、信号のない交差点でも停止線は存在、というよりも、信号がない交差点に使用されている停止線の方が多いため、信号の有無に関係なくマッピングができる、現在の方法が適していると判断をしました。
私が現在、主でマッピングを行っている、大阪市都島区は（他の地域でもそうかもしれませんが）、相当古い情報（2011年の航空写真ベースなど）のまま更新されていない箇所も多かったため、更新に合わせて、なるべく多くのタグを使用して他地域の参考になればよいと思っています。
今後も、なにか気付いた点などあれば、ご指摘やご質問をいただければうれしいです。
Lactone (2024-06-16 14:12:02+00:00): お返事ありがとうございます。
縁石のタグ付けをご対応いただいたようで非常にありがたいです。都島通りを歩いている際にいくつかはマッピングさせていただいたのですが、今後も時間を見つけて情報など記録できればと思います。
highway=stopについても承知しました。確かに「停止線」という括りなので問題なさそうですね。失礼いたしました。
traffic_sign=stopの方を知らなかったので勉強になります。これを使えば標識の存在する箇所も明示できるのですね。

昨年大阪に引っ越してきたのですが、地元に比べて都島区のマップが非常に整備されていて驚いた記憶があり、頭が下がる思いです。私はあまり頻繁にマッピングできないかと思いますが、今後も何卒よろしくお願いいたします。
私の編集などについても、お気づきの点などありましたらご指摘いただければ幸いです。