piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Hidoo00 (2025-03-12 18:03:45+00:00): Hi,

The omission of surfaces and access tags on small segments is sloppy editing on my part, which I apologise for.
As for the separation, if it's just a line of cobblestone (although I'd imagine it's sett, as I've never seen cobblestone used in such cases), it's easily traversable and thus not physical separation. The path should therefore be combined into one linear way, with tags describing the different surfaces. 
One way is almost always nonsensical for foot traffic (except on footways in e.g. airports). [The community is pretty aligned on this.](https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/poll-interpreting-oneway-yes/123638). Furthermore, exceedingly few bike paths are actuelly one-way, legally speaking, but that's another issue. 

Would you be okay with me fixing my slip-ups and leaving it at that?

Best regards and happy mapping,
Hidoo
Tómas Ingi (2025-03-16 08:43:09+00:00): Hi,

I see your point that the oneway tag does not cause confusion in these cases, and I agree with you and the community.

I would be interested in seeing what community discussions exist around mapping paths as one or more ways. Is there a general consensus on where the exact boundaries between mapping one and two ways lie, and is it generally accepted that merging separately mapped ways improves the quality of the database?

The point "easily traversible" especially stuck with me - a kerb is easily traversible on foot (even on wheels, if it's low enough), and so is a meter of grass; but I imagine such a large separation would almost always be mapped as two paths. I feel there must be some other criterion that is used in practice. What are your criteria when judging this, and what criteria has the community found works well?

Best regards,
Tómas Ingi
Hidoo00 (2025-03-16 14:55:44+00:00): Thanks for your answer.

As usual, there can be no exact boundries drawn. There are however a few aspects to weight together to decide whether a path should be drawn separately or tagged on the main road. I can't seem to find a wiki page dedicated to where to draw the line, so the following are my mapping practices, and judgments after lots of community consultation on several edge-cases I've stumbled upon over the years.

One aspect is distance. If there is so much space that grass is grown as separation, how would you map the grass if the ways were not separately mapped? Here, the mapping aspect decides for us. If people usually cross the grass at a certain point, an "informal path" can be drawn over the grass, but usually, people walk along the footway and don't cross the grass if it's not in the way.

Another aspect is physical barriers, and a high kerb is often considered too much of a barrier for the ways not to be mapped separately. It's impossible to traverse with a wheelchair, scooter, sportscar etc. Possible with a bike or a normal car with great care, but not advisable, and sometimes illegal. You would not connect a road or a bike path over a high kerb, but a non-wheelchair friendly "footway link" could cross such a kerb.

For separation between a parallel footway and cycleway:
- A high kerb with street light posts inbetween makes the footway more of a "sidewalk" to the cycleway, so separated ways felt natural there, but some considered it too detailed, although an acceptable way of mapping. 
- Just a painted line obviously doesn't warrant separated mapping, as there is no physical separation at all. 
- A slanted kerb is an edgecase, where I believe a majority of people would lean to mapping as a combined cycle- and foot path, as you can easily traverse it with a bike, and with some difficulty probably also with a wheelchair. 
- Having no height difference at all, and only a change of surfaces, as is the case we're discussing here, is considered no physical separation. You wouldn't map sidewalks on a pedestrian street where the middle section is sett and the edges paving stones, and you wouldn't map separated paths here either, where the cycleway and footway run parallel to each other with no obstacles in between. 

If there are planters, bike parking or benches etc, as is the case on the corner of Thulegatan and Råsundavägen, for example, separated paths should be drawn (and I missed those). But here it's also up to the mapper to judge how many crossing ways are needed between two separate paths (since they inhibit routing between them if there are no connecting paths). If there is no navigational need to cross between say two benches placed a few metres apart, even though physically possible, a separate footway would be unnecessary clutter. But if there is an entrance at that point, a crossing footway would be beneficial, to facilitate routing up to the entrance from the bike path.

I hope this gives you insight into my reasoning and makes sense!
Tómas Ingi (2025-03-24 19:19:45+00:00): Hi,

Thank you for sharing the criteria you use. I agree with you for the most part, and think they're very reasonable and well-presented.

I do still have some thoughts on this exact case:

I agree that I wouldn't map a pedestrian street with kerb-less sidewalks as more than one separate way. On the other hand, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with doing so, and if someone else had mapped out the sidewalks separately, I would hesitate to remove them. Same goes for segregated pedestrian and bicycle paths, even if there's no physical barrier between them.

Looking around on OSM there are several instances where this is the case. Some examples around Stockholm include e.g. Barkarbyvägen and nearby streets, Birger Jarlsgatan, and Sankt Eriksgatan north of Kungsholmen. In Iceland, the standard has been to always map separate ways, even when there is only a painted line (assuming that the bicycle part of path has two distinct lanes).

Taking Sankt Eriksgatan as an example, there are some sections where the paths are separated by a kerb, but large sections only have different surfaces. That being said, it could be argued that the nature of the path doesn't change - kerb or no kerb, there is still one distinct bicycle path and one distinct pedestrian path. Whether or not it "is" one path or two is more of a subjective question in this case, and I don't think either way of mapping is necessarily more or less correct than the other. In such a case, I would perhaps not map them out separately myself, but I would always leave separately mapped paths in place if they show more detail than can be captured by a single way. These details could include marked crossings (as you mentioned with oneways, these might not be stricly "real" in a legal sense, but are followed by many bicyclists and pedestrians), slightly different geometries, sparse obstacles between the paths, etc. I can see the appeal of reducing the complexity of the mapped paths and agree that there is a balance to be struck between mapping in full detail on one hand and having a reasonable and maintainable database and end product on the other hand; in this case, I would see the separate mapping as providing useful detail, rather than being just clutter.

Seeing as the surrounding streets around Tulegatan all have the paths mapped separately, I would suggest keeping them so for now. If there is a consensus in the future to map all of these sorts of paths consistently as a single way, I would welcome that change.

Does this sound reasonable?
John Kastner (2025-01-31 12:56:15+00:00): This crossing looks suspicious. There's no pedestrian infrastructure on either side of the road here. Are you sure it's a crossing and not lines on the road for some other purpose?
rempshaener (2025-02-01 07:50:42+00:00): Hallo,
warum lässt du hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/266449833 nicht die Adresse am Gebäude stehen? Die zwei zusätzlichen Nodes kämen entweder ohne Adresse aus oder dürfen in solchen Fällen auch gerne die Adresse des sie umgebenden Gebäudes tragen.
Ziehen die Werkstätten aus, muss der nächste Mapper die Adresse wieder zurück auf das Gebäude ziehen.
Viele Grüße
rempshaener (2025-02-01 07:57:18+00:00): Hallo,

zu www.openstreetmap.org/way/37799212: Das ist meines Wissens eine normale öffentliche Straße. Wieso taggst du sie auf service um? Siehe z.B. auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway=service?uselang=de, „Da highway=service nicht teil des öffentlichen Straßennetzes sind sind diese häufig nicht gewidmet und tragen damit keinen offiziellen namen.“ Allein das kollidiert schon.
Ähnliches auch hier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/375203132

Viele Grüße
ZLima12 (2025-04-01 22:47:00+00:00): Hi,

Generally, access=yes is assumed if there is no tag. While it's not wrong to add, it's probably best to only add it in borderline situations where someone might wonder if there is no public access.
ZLima12 (2025-04-02 06:24:54+00:00): Also, looking at Bing Streetside, there are signs that say "PRIVATE - KEEP OUT". The imagery date is fairly old, so can you verify that you've surveyed this and confirmed that it's now public?
mKwiatek (2025-02-04 13:06:16+00:00): Cześć. Dzięki, że dodałeś ścieżki w lesie. Czy nie powinny być oznaczone jako higway=path a nie highway=footway ?  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1355505370
Wiewiór81 (2025-02-06 00:19:14+00:00): Tak jest, dzięki za naprostowanie - jestem tu dość początkujący. Dopiero zauważyłem, że według obowiązującej notacji https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:footway zdecydowanie powinny to być pathes.
Taya_S (2025-01-31 05:51:47+00:00): Full or partial revert of changesets: 161962985, 161962434, 161961471, 161960217, 161959060, 161957737

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161964434
clay_c (2025-02-09 21:54:23+00:00): Hi Whitney,

I saw that park-and-ride attributes were removed from the Fifth Ward / Denver Harbor Transit Center last year in this changeset [1], but re-added in this changeset. Houston METRO's website lists it as a park-and-ride [2], with a measly 24 uncovered spaces. It looks like this refers to the parking lot one block north of the bus station.

What is METRO's stance on this parking lot? Do they intend to have this bus station show up as a park-and-ride in their trip planner?

Clay

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143746621

[2] https://www.ridemetro.org/riding-metro/accessing-metro/by-car
clay_c (2025-02-01 03:12:57+00:00): Hi WhitneyS_Arcadis,

It looks like the Missouri City Park & Ride and the Maxey Road Park & Ride have both been changed to parking lots here. Are they no longer active as bus stations?

In the future, please use more descriptive changeset comments so that other mappers know what you are doing: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Are you editing on behalf of an organization? If so, please read the Organized Editing Guidelines and document what you're doing and why: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

Clay
wshavers3D (2025-02-03 17:29:11+00:00): Hi Clay,

Thank you for reaching out.

I am working on behalf of a few organizations, which include Houston METRO. These particular changes were requested by Houston to allow the Park & Ride destinations to show on their implementation of OpenTripPlanner.

The Missouri City Park & Ride and the Maxey Road Park & Ride are indeed bus stations. I have reached out to the METRO team to correct this.

I appreciate your feedback on using more descriptive changeset comments. I will ensure to follow this practice in the future.

Best regards,
WhitneyS
clay_c (2025-02-03 18:42:30+00:00): Thank you for the timely response.

What is the name of the organization you are working for? Please make sure that your activities are documented on the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities
wshavers3D (2025-02-03 19:01:28+00:00): I work for Arcadis and collaborate with various U.S. transit agencies. The requested changes aren't at the organizational level described in the wiki and aren't coordinated. Typically, the agency would handle these changes, but I offered my assistance as a courtesy. For Houston METRO, the Park & Ride locations needed updated tagging and naming conventions to reflect them accurately in their trip planner.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-02-04 09:33:12+00:00): if "I am working on behalf of a few organizations" applies then it is an Organised Edit.

"I work for Arcadis" is making edits like this a part of your job (=done at work hours, and you are allowed/expected to do this)?
clay_c (2025-02-04 17:58:58+00:00): Sorry for the confusion. I admit that the guidelines are unclear about solitary mappers working on behalf of an organization. As someone who falls into this category more or less, I'm not obligated to follow them, but I still feel like the guidelines are intended for people like me, so I follow them in good faith. In the interest of transparency, I would recommend you follow them as well, or at the very least, share some details in your account bio about who you're working for and why.

I've started a forum discussion about the ambiguity in the guidelines here: 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/organised-editing-guidelines-are-unclear-about-lone-organizational-mappers/125272
wshavers3D (2025-02-11 15:07:00+00:00): @Mateusz - My company, requested that I remove any direct affiliation. I’m not premitted to have a page specific to them. Houston provided this URL for the remaining facility edits; is this sufficient: https://www.ridemetro.org/riding-metro/transit-facility-addresses

@Clay - as my edits would not be specific to Houston after I update the Park & Ride locations that are missing names in OSM I will request the agencies create their own pages/updates and delete my account. 

Thank you!
eggie (2025-01-31 07:22:38+00:00): Als building =construction getagd.
Die adresnode beter niet in een relatie afvangen.
Het geeft dan een foutmelding, want een node kan geen building=yes zijn.
eggie (2025-01-31 07:17:46+00:00): Dag Wereldkaart.

De buildingtag heb ik verwijderd van de adresnode.
Dat hoort alleen op een gebouwomtrek.

Wanneer het stadhuis nog niet in functie is dan denk ik beter proposed: amenity=  gebruiken.
De name=Stadhuis (in aanbouw) is niet correct.
Geen nametag gebruiken bij beschrijvingen beschrijvingen.
Ik pas het aan naar description... note=  zou je ook kunnen gebruiken. 
MVG
eggie
Wereldkaart123 (2025-01-31 14:39:49+00:00): Goeie tip wanneer iets nog niet in gebruik is, dank je! Situatie nog niet eerder meegemaakt
eggie (2025-01-31 14:53:39+00:00): Hoi.. ik heb de smenity nog niet aangepast naar proposed:amenity dacht ik. Kijk even op mn mobiel nu.

Je kunt het zelf aanpsssen.
Mvg

eggie
user_22610917 (2025-03-29 07:34:03+00:00): Amenity=townhall is nog niet aangepast, nu lijkt het op de kaart alsof er twee stadhuizen in Amersfoort zijn.
eggie (2025-03-29 08:22:56+00:00): Ik heb voor nu proposed toegevoegd aan de tagging van het stadhuis.
Dat gaat nog wel even duren. 
gr eggie
user_22610917 (2025-03-29 13:37:19+00:00): Dank, eggie
SunnyIsland10 (2025-01-31 19:27:20+00:00): Correction: Source used was Maxar SecureWatch Imagery 2024-10-27
Pontius (2025-01-31 19:26:47+00:00): Is there anything actually preventing the general public from accessing these streets? Would access=permissive be more appropriate?
Pontius (2025-01-31 19:30:00+00:00): There is a separate key ownership=private (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ownership) to denote private ownership. ownership=private doesn't necessarily imply access=private
crankynetman (2025-02-03 15:16:08+00:00): The signage on these streets is marked as private, so I *think* that private is correct? The implication is that the public should not be allowed and that seems to line up with the wiki definision for access=private:

"Public access is not allowed. Access is granted with individual permission only."

And I don't think that it should be access=destination as the wiki says "Note that "access only for residents" is private."

But to your direct question, there are no barriers or physical mechanisms to prevent access other than signage.
eggie (2025-01-31 07:11:52+00:00): Dag Weredkaart..
Svp alleen de adresnode gebruiken om het restaurant te duiden.
Info van gebouwomtrek verwijderd.
MVG
eggie
Wereldkaart123 (2025-01-31 14:37:38+00:00): Hallo eggie,

Bedankt voor het meedenken. 

K moet nog even kijken wat lokale praktijk is, ik doe m'n best en zal voortaan alleen de node gebruiken voor restaurants. 

Nu op het gebouw echter building=house blijft staan, snap ik 't even niet meer. Dit gebouw is evident niet een gebouw dat bedoeld is voor bewoning door en huishouden (zie definitie https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building=house?uselang=en-GB )

Op https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drestaurant 
lees ik dat deze tag voor zowel nodes als areas gebruikt kan/mag worden. 

Is het - vanwege de kennelijke lokale praktijk - niet beter building=house helemaal weg te laten op het gebouw, zodat dit alleen nog op de node staat? 

Mvg
eggie (2025-01-31 15:18:25+00:00): 
OSM Nederland heeft consensus om in principe alles op de adresnode te zetten.
Die adresnodes zijn in Nederland import.
.. 


Kerken ..gebouw rendert dan anders..en scholen ..vaak het schoolterrein.. dan weer de uitzondering op de regel. 

Een amenity=restaurant op de gebouwomtrek is niet fout.. maar gaat tegen de consensus in.
De wiki is natuurlijk wereldwijd.

.. building=house of wat anders moet wel blijven staan voor de rendering.
De amenity dus op de node.
De node is overigens niet een gebouw.
Osm is veel abacadabra in het begin.
Mapse
eggie

Mvg..
eggie
muralito (2025-01-31 17:07:20+00:00): Hola. Por mi no hay problema en que importes datos de IMM, pero hay dos cosas a hacer previo a seguir ampliando esto, en lineas generales seguir los pasos necesarios https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines y validar que sea lo adecuado, que no son temas tan drectos estos etiquetados. Ver https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:area:highway%3Dpedestrian y https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:area:highway%3Dpedestrian y https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian
NeisBot (2025-01-30 23:50:38+00:00): Hi rewqty, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 11 landuse(')

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

PS: I have also sent this message through the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=161959227
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-01-31 00:48:08+00:00): reverted please don't replace multipolygons with polygons.
see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161960222
pitscheplatsch (2025-01-31 06:47:29+00:00): Thanks for your private message and confirming that your deletions were intentional. 

However, most of your removed data is still visible in the satellite imagery. May we know the source of your mapping activity? Thanks.
rewqty (2025-01-31 06:57:14+00:00): Needed to replace multipolygon lines with area edits for use in 3d modeling software
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-01-31 08:55:49+00:00): Please fix the software instead of vandalizing.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
sanchi (2025-02-08 22:16:25+00:00): Hola
La vía que has borrado no hay que borrarla ya que es real. Como indicas es privada, por ello está marcada como tal con access=private 
Ya la he recuperado.
Un saludo.
pavvv (2025-01-31 15:54:26+00:00): Proszę nie spamować w tagu description. To nie jest mapa historyczna. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:description
pavvv (2025-01-31 16:23:35+00:00): Kilka e-maili w jednym tagu oddzielamy średnikiem (;), nie przecinkiem (,). Tak samo jest z wszystkimi innymi tagami.
SekeRob (2025-02-02 09:43:44+00:00): Hi,

You're the third person to revert cycleways/roads this same mapper has imported from GPX top of existing ways. Wrote him a note, got a reply back seemingly not understanding. This looks an awful lot like he did the same tracks again.

cheers
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-21 20:39:16+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12438483173/history has shop = eco that was added in this edit
shop=eco ? What is the meaning of that shop value? What kind of services or products are sold here? Is anything from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_for_key_%22shop%22 fitting? Maybe new value needs to be invented? Maybe this data is wrong and there is no shop here? Maybe it is not a shop but something else?
somehundred (2025-07-22 05:08:37+00:00): Hello. This shop sells ecological products. Not only food but also cosmetics and other stuff. Not much else to explain.

Here's shop's website: https://www.livin.lv/
HellMap (2025-07-22 08:57:51+00:00): It sounds like organic=* fits here. So it can be shop=* + organic=only. It's probably shop=convenience because they seem to sell several categories of goods?
somehundred (2025-07-22 09:02:34+00:00): @HellMap Yes, nice idea!
richlv (2025-07-22 20:54:26+00:00): NSI?
There seem to be at least 4 of these in Latvia.
Aleksandar Matejevic (2025-01-31 09:28:26+00:00): In the document you have provided it clearly states that José Antonio Páez, exists. The tags you have removed are restored, and official_name=Municipio José Antonio Páez represent the official name. Per my conversation with the Venezuela community, name is not always official one, but the one people commonly use for some feature.
Taya_S (2025-01-31 05:51:48+00:00): Full or partial revert of changesets: 161962985, 161962434, 161961471, 161960217, 161959060, 161957737

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161964434
eggie (2025-02-06 09:20:44+00:00): Dag Tomas,
We mogen natuurlijk intekenen wat we willen, maarrrr...
probeer wat behoudend te zijn met het intekenen van paadjes in tuinen.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4613760#map=16/51.96146/5.82975&layers=N

MVG
eggie
Tomas09 (2025-02-06 10:41:57+00:00): Ik heb ook in de discord al het erover gehad (eergisteren geloof ik) en daarbij was mij ook verteld om het niet aan 1 willekeurig huis te doen maar liever een rij zodat het niet persoonlijk lijkt.
eggie (2025-02-06 10:47:10+00:00): 👍
wolfy1339 (2025-02-07 15:54:48+00:00): Bonjour Pierre,

Il semble que plusieurs erreurs se sont glissées dan ton changeset. Notamment le rajout de `network:wikipedia=fr:Exo (réseau de transport)` sur plusieurs éléments, dont des relations de route et aiguillages qui ne devrait pas en avoir.

Taguer les opérateurs dans le champ `name=*` va à l’encontre de Name est juste le nom [1], des directives de tagging ferroviaire nord-américaines [2], et est considéré comme taguer pour le rendu [3].

Bien que vous puissiez voir le nom de l’opérateur sur les panneaux, cela ne fait pas partie du nom de la voie.

Quant au champ `operator=*`, il doit contenir une liste délimitée par des points-virgules de tous les opérateurs, entièrement épelés, en commençant par l’opérateur/propriétaire principal. Les marques de rapport ne doivent pas être incluses dans ce champ. [4]

Voir aussi https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/pull/10468
Voir aussi, le wiki des chemins de fer canadiens où nous avons commencé à documenter tous les chemins de fer au Canada [5].

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America#Ways
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America#Tagging_for_the_renderer
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America#Operator_and_Owner
[5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/Canada/Railways