piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Lyon-St-Clair (2023-10-17 16:44:59+00:00): Merci, tu saurais comment s'effectue le raccordement au boulevard ? Il est bien à double sens dès l'entrée du tunnel ?
Earth_Embassy (2023-10-18 06:14:16+00:00): Oui c'est bien une voie à double sens au niveau de la trémie Schloesing. Les voies se séparent en 2 au raccordement avec le tunnel Prado-Sud (qui est composé de 2 tubes superposés)
mcliquid (2023-10-08 14:54:22+00:00): Hi, wieso hast du hier die Richtungen gelöscht?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11043697954
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142274331
nurdafur (2023-10-08 16:06:32+00:00): Hallo
Beim Wanderwegweiser, der an der selben Stelle ist, ist die Richtung Balzers ausgeschildert. Beim Wanderwegweiser auf der anderen Seite der Rheindammstrasse sind die anderen Richtungen ausgeschildert.
Liebe Grüsse
mcliquid (2023-10-07 17:24:32+00:00): Hi,

Welcome to OSM and thanks for contributing :-)

One general recommendation: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:

• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)

• keep changes within the same country

• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
GorgorMith (2023-10-07 15:51:51+00:00): Ich meinte Neusser, nicht Kempener.
aixbrick (2023-10-08 12:07:46+00:00): Hwllo,
you changed Septfontainesweg from vehicle=agricultural to motor_vehicle=agricultural.
Was the sign recently be changed?
If so, you did not change the tag traffic_sign.
Regards
Martin Borsje (2023-10-08 16:17:22+00:00): vehicle includes bicycle so this blocks the road to bicycles. I guess that's not the case. If so then I will revert.
Martin Borsje (2023-10-08 16:23:17+00:00): I rode there and bicycles are allowed; there is even a bicycle route there.
aixbrick (2023-10-08 19:50:56+00:00): That means sign 250 has been replaced by sign 260 or there is an additional sign that says "Radfahrer frei"? As long as this is not the case please change it back to the original access tag.
In OSM we should tag what's on the ground, even if this is contrary to something (here: a bicycle route). Instead report the wrong sign to official people so they can replace it. After that change it in OSM.
Martin Borsje (2023-10-08 19:59:26+00:00): You can do that, assuming you are German and know the way. It is at KP 18 and directs to KP 19. The bicycle route leads you to KP 19 so effectively the road is open to them. If you close it to bicycles routers will not guide bicycles (although I would not recommend it by the very rough surface.
I cannot help inconsistent traffic signs; the bicycle route is "on the ground"
Martin Borsje (2023-10-08 20:05:28+00:00): https://www.google.com/maps/@50.7892674,6.0407906,3a,15.3y,201.01h,93.13t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smgaJVWSu1c_83ZVzbckVSg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DmgaJVWSu1c_83ZVzbckVSg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D357.6683%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu
aixbrick (2023-10-08 20:14:35+00:00): That picture is outdated (March 2022). September 2023: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.7891628&lng=6.0401205&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=179806008475091. They readjusted the sign "19". Now it directs to the left instead to Septfontainesweg. And that fits to OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13364476.
aixbrick (2023-10-09 08:21:50+00:00): Changed back to "vehicle" with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142337774.
Martin Borsje (2023-10-10 19:30:37+00:00): Dear Aachener Stein,

Having had severe doubts about the capability of my short-term memory – I was in Seffent last Saturday – I went there again on my bike today; not a too long detour from my work.
I made the following observations, which are not in line with yours.

Firstly, the road in question, the Septfontainesweg is indeed marked with a traffic sign 250, but with an undersign “Except for agricultural vehicles”. Practice shows that in these cases, unmotorised vehicles as bicycles are permitted. I have seen many instances where this kind of signed tracks and paths are used for bicycle routes.

Secondly, there is a bicycle direction sign (KP 18), which shows four different directions; the directions that matter here: one pointing NE towards Schloß Rahe and Laurensberg incl. Knotenpunkt 19 following Schurzelter Straße and one pointing East (so over the Septfontainesweg), towards Markt/Dom and AC-West Bhf.

Thirdly there is a roadmap there, which shows all regional bicycle routes and that map includes the Septfontainesweg as bicycle route.

So clearly one can and may bicycle over that road. 
In case you have sleepless nights of this discrepancy between traffic signs and practice, you can contact of course the Gemeinde Aachen and ask them to put an additional undersign that excludes bicyles as well from the general vehicle forbidden by sign 250.

I propose you reconsider your armchair-revert.

I can send you relevant pictures upon request but maybe you want to have a look yourself.

With kind regards,

Martin
aixbrick (2023-10-11 09:07:14+00:00): No, I do not have sleepless nights. But thanks for worrying about that.  :-)

I know the situation in Seffent. And I also know that there are ways (not only in Aachen) which are signaled as a bicycle route but are legally not allowed for bicycles because of a wrong signage. As you know in OSM we have the so called "ground truth". In Seffent there are two signs: a traffic sign closing the way for all vehicles except agricultural and a guidepost with a bicycle route. The stronger sign is the traffic sign because it states the legal situation. That could be important in case of an incident on that way (maybe an accident between a pedestrian and a cyclist; a lawyer could insist, that the cyclist should not have used that way because of the traffic sign even it is a signed bicycle route).

However, a solution (beside to inform the Stadt Aachen) could be to add a bicycle=yes to the way (maybe together with an explaining note). But it is not correct to change vehicle to motor_vehicle, because that does not represent the actual traffic sign.
Martin Borsje (2023-10-11 09:21:31+00:00): Thanks for your answer!

Though you claim to know the situation in S., your description in previous replies was a bit from ground truth :)

There is legal and legal: legally a child of four is not allowed to ride a bike on the pavement; actual says different. Similar would apply here, I guess. Apart from the unlikelihood of an accident as you mention, in case of a court case the persecuted cyclist could well say "there is a cycleroute direction sign! There is no "cyclist dismount sign."

But I can live with the situation that you change/add: vehicle=no, cyclist=yes. Curious to hear if you will contact Aachen on this and their reply. Fwiw: I did that climb once with my racing bike: never again! :)
Cheers!
Martin
solenoid jam (2024-11-22 09:30:58+00:00): Здравствуйте. Можно узнать, откуда название такое интересное - След?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20842024
Bienson (2023-10-07 22:26:29+00:00): OpenStreetMap ist eine internationale Datenbank. Deutsche Farbenbezeichnungen wie "Dunkelgrün" oder "Blau" sind daher keine sinnvollen Tags.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:colour

Eine Auflistung von mehreren Tags wird durch Semikolon getrennt, nicht durch Schrägstrich.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator

Die Oberfläche des Sportplatzes scheint aber auch einfach Sand zu sein, daher den "dirt"-Tag entfernt.

Bei Neueintragungen von rechteckigen Objekte, bitte diese rechtwinklig machen ("Q" im iD-Editor).
Tech_Crash_3814 (2023-10-07 23:06:32+00:00): Danke für die Tipps
Leider mache ich relativ häufig Fehler :/
Ich werde die Tipps in Zukunft berücksichtigen und ja die Oberfläche besteht nur aus Sand 
Mir wurde allerdings der Begriff dirt:sand vorgeschlagen und habe mir gedacht wird schon richtig sein und habe ihn angeklickt
LockOnGuy (2023-10-08 01:52:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by changeset 142288353 and the changeset comment is: Revert changeset 142276664, 142276356 and 142276199 when a user fiddle with the boundaries in Iraq and change them to an unofficial/wrong boundaries that are not official by the Iraqi government.
rarad74 (2023-10-07 17:30:39+00:00): Salut. Dublezi adresele inutil. Adresele sunt adaugate deja pe noduri in fata cladirilor si de multe ori chiar in dreptul portilor de acces.
mcliquid (2023-10-08 14:52:43+00:00): Hi,

Welcome to OSM and thanks for contributing :-)

One general recommendation: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:

• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)

• keep changes within the same country

• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
user_5359 (2023-10-08 15:05:49+00:00): Oops, forgot to save in JOSM. Once in Poland https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1213764454/history and corrected the typo in the note key for the Falkland Islands. Should have been two sets of changes. I will pay more attention to the number of objects when saving.
mcliquid (2023-10-08 15:07:59+00:00): Thanks! Have a nice Day
Trần Thanh Tuấn (2023-10-07 16:33:00+00:00): Source is http://dosm.gov.vn/TiengViet/Lists/VanBan/Attachments/166/06-2021-TT-BTNMT%20DiadanhKonTum%2030.6.2021.pdf.
LockOnGuy (2023-10-08 01:52:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by changeset 142288353 and the changeset comment is: Revert changeset 142276664, 142276356 and 142276199 when a user fiddle with the boundaries in Iraq and change them to an unofficial/wrong boundaries that are not official by the Iraqi government.
alexey_zakharenkov (2023-10-13 01:00:06+00:00): Простите, а что стало с торгово-развлекательным центром "Оазис"?
akadouri (2023-12-10 01:25:19+00:00): Giovanni's is moving due to a kitchen fire at this location. While the website says "across the street" I have not seen where that new location will be.
 https://www.giovannisbrooklyneats.com/
jmapb (2023-12-10 03:00:45+00:00): Aha, thanks. I've removed all the Giovanni tagging from https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2550089888 and left it as a disused restaurant.

The website says "diagonally across the street" so I'm guessing it means at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/249624759 which has been vacant as long as I can remember. I left a note there so we can keep an eye on it.
LockOnGuy (2023-10-08 01:52:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by changeset 142288353 and the changeset comment is: Revert changeset 142276664, 142276356 and 142276199 when a user fiddle with the boundaries in Iraq and change them to an unofficial/wrong boundaries that are not official by the Iraqi government.
AlaskaDave (2025-05-20 12:52:29+00:00): Hi gadjet,

Yesterday I noticed that my GPS was telling my to turn at "49" while driving north on I 90 near Buffalo. I've never before seen notation for an exit on my GPS. It should be telling me to turn to reach NY 78, Depew Lockport, or something similar.

When i tried to understand why it was reporting "49" instead of the more usual destination(s), I discovered what I believe to be a redundant ref that you added to the way following the motorway_junction node. Here are the tags for that way:

destination:ref=NY 78
destination=Depew;Lockport
highway=motorway_link
junction:ref=49
lanes=1
maxspeed:advisory=40 mph
oneway=yes
ref=49
... Etc.

The junction:ref = 49 is fine but the other ref (the last line above) is confusing my GPS and I believe it is also incorrect.

What do you think?
gadget (2025-05-21 05:33:19+00:00): One key take away is that OSM edits need to be made that reflect all aspects of a way or node, and not how any particular application needs/renders the data.

This issue is something you should take up with the Map tool. They need to be more tolerant of unexpected tags.

I did not change the name. The naming is consistent with the key=ref tag document in the wiki. Be sure to read the part about 
'It may seem redundant to tag route refs on both ways and relations, but do not remove a ref=* tag from a way just because the way is a member of corresponding route relations:'

The Exit is signed as "49" and not some mile marker which any local would be hard pressed to tell you. 
The Junction:ref=49 is also correct. 

As for the destination, there are proposed tags for that, but they are used on the exit node of the way where it meets the lower category roadway, so in this case, the last node where the junction meets NY 78. Once again those tag usages are for the Viewing application to interpret.

One final thing, you should send people internal messages about questions, not comments on the way.  I would never have seen this if I hadn't be looking for a specific email about another topic. Other than the email, this doesn't show up as a message for me in my inbox. 


NYS Thruway numbering does not match Interstate highway norms because the Thruway had been completed for 2 years before it was added to Interstate 90.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Thruway

My edit consisted of removing a stacked way for the exit which was stacked on another way that referenced the same exit. The last previous update had been 9 years prior, and did not reflect changes implemented during the removal of staffed toll barriers.
AlaskaDave (2025-05-21 12:14:48+00:00): Hello again and thanks for your reply

I'm quite aware of your point about not mapping for the renderer. The "Map tool" I'm using is a Garmin-compatible map I created myself and I've never before seen it exhibit this behavior nor have I ever seen this tagging scenario. I can adjust my compiler coding to display the actual Exit 49 destinations but I thought I'd politely check with you first. I did not intend to delete the ref tag. 

As far as I can tell, and I may be wrong about this, the ref that you applied to all the ways making up Interchange 49 is still problematical. The Wiki text you cited might or might not apply here because the ways in question, those following the junction node, are not part of any relation nor are they signed in any way. Furthermore, the exit is not "signed as 49" as you state but is signed as "Exit 49" as are most other exits I've checked.

So, to reiterate, I'm not questioning the use of the junction:ref=49 tagging which, although new to me, seems correct but your use of the ref=49 on the other ways in that interchange. None of the six or seven other I-90 interchanges that I inspected in for purposes of this discussion have any ways tagged with a ref=nn as you've done for the Exit 49 interchange.

I have written and answered many Changeset comments before and believe it is an accepted way to carry on these discussions. Sorry if that offended you.

Dave
HirschKauz (2023-11-01 12:38:11+00:00): Hi! 
So werden Bilder leider nicht angezeigt. 
Idealerweise lädt man ein Bild zu Commons hoch und verlinkt es von da: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:image und https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Photo_linking 
Grüße
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142277475
limes11 (2023-10-08 20:28:05+00:00): Moin, 

das kann ich mir nicht vorstellen. Ich bin den Weg vor ca. 3 Wochen gelaufen. 

Vielleicht hast Du an der falschen Stelle geschaut?

Er ist auch Teil einer beschilderten Wanderroute.

VG Limes
limes11 (2023-10-08 20:30:16+00:00): https://www.outdooractive.com/de/route/wanderung/ahrtal/winzerweg-mayschoss/41074570/#dm=1
KöWiMM (2023-10-09 17:08:06+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis. Ich habe den Weg irrtümlich gelöscht und nun wieder eingezeichnet. Löschen wollte ich eigentlich einen anderen Verbindungspfad ca. 500m südwestlich, der im Gestrüpp nicht mehr zu verfolgen ist.
DressyPear4 (2023-10-07 22:46:52+00:00): Construção não é praça
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142278364
willkmis (2023-10-07 22:54:18+00:00): Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap! It looks like you're quite eager to add trees to this park, which is great. However, it seems like you are attaching the trees directly to the highway=footway line, which makes it look like the trees are obstructing the path! It also looks like the tree nodes you're creating don't always correspond to actual trees, though I might be using a different satellite imagery layer than you. Can you clarify your intentions here? Did you mean for these all to be individual trees? Or were they just supposed to represent that the paths were "tree-lined" maybe?

In general, you want to make sure that each node corresponds to a real feature, and that objects only connect when they are connected in reality (like road intersections, or two buildings which touch each other).

Thanks!
Will
skorpion62 (2023-10-08 07:18:38+00:00): Hallo jmsbert,

ich habe den einen Weg korrigiert und hoffe, dass das so richtig ist.

Viele Grüße skorpion62
seattlefyi (2023-10-08 03:09:20+00:00): Hi, thanks for updating the hours at the library! It looks like there was some sort of editing typo (doubt the library is open from midnight-8) so I updated it to match the website.
bxl-forever (2023-10-08 12:23:35+00:00): Hello,

I see you requested a review.

We understand that new mappers sometimes make mistakes and we will try to help you.

I wanted to start with a few pieces of advice.

1) Make sure to check your edits correctly before uploading.  For an unknown reason, you changed "Cig2Vap Louise" into a… campsite.  You probably clicked on one of the presets.  Beware of this: when you upload something it goes straight to the database and it might have taken months before someone else would have noticed.

2) Please abstain from copying promotional texts from corporate websites into OSM.  For Cig2Vap Danco/Globe you inserted a description containing weasel words such as "votre spécialiste en vapotage", "Large choix", "dans un environnement convivial" into the description key.  Firms may brag as much as they want on their own websites, but OSM is not the place for that.

3) Please write better changeset descriptions.  "Mise à jour de la fiche merci "  La fiche, quelle fiche ?
What we want to see here is a few words, for instance saying that you updated data for a few shops after checking them yourself.

Have a nice day.
Dodko (2023-10-14 10:54:04+00:00): Prečo ste vymazali adresu Koceľova 934/2 a adresu a budovu Bratislava-Ružinov 16081?

Budovy neboli zbúrané a adresy sedia podľa katastra a registra adries
https://zbgis.skgeodesy.sk/mkzbgis/sk/kataster/detail/kataster/parcela-c/804274/15430_3?pos=48.144201,17.154599,19
tuzinsky (2023-10-14 11:28:19+00:00): Žiaľ, v mape na zbgis.skgeodesy.sk je chyba, Koceľova ulica je úplne inde, správna adresa areálu je Mlynské Nivy 70, ceduľa s adresou je aj na budove
Dodko (2023-10-14 11:34:12+00:00): 1485/70 je budova v strede, tak ste mali nechať aspoň súpisné číslo 934, a čo tá budova 16081? Prečo zmizla?
tuzinsky (2023-10-14 12:24:02+00:00): - 70 je adresa celého areálu, fyzicky je ceduľa na tej západnej budove
- Aká je pravdepodobnosť, že súpisné číslo je správne, keď meno ulice a popisné číslo je chybné?
- Neviem, prečo tá východná budova zmizla, neviem o tom, že by som ju vymazal
tuzinsky (2023-10-14 12:35:29+00:00): Našiel som tú vymazanú budovu. Nie som si istý, ako sa to stalo, nebol to úmysel. Vrátim ju naspäť
Dodko (2023-10-14 12:57:05+00:00): Mesto prideľuje adresu konkrétnej budove, alebo ak má viac vchodov môže prideliť viac adries pre každý vchod.
Koceľova 934/2 už je nahlásená v registri adries, čaká na opravu mestom.
luisforte (2023-10-07 18:36:30+00:00): Estás a sobrepôr landuses sobre outros landuses já existentes!
Antes de executar estas importações  é necessário validar o que vamos fazer para não deixar essas áreas caóticas, como ficou depois destas importações.
PedroMTG13 (2023-10-08 20:04:52+00:00): Eu tentei limpar o máximo que consegui. Precisava de cortar os polígonos uns dos outros para atingir esse objetivo
topolusitania (2023-10-09 10:52:28+00:00): Eis um caso concreto de choque entre duas politicas de edição
1 - de um lado, uma importação "profissional" que preenche o mapa com dados mais ou menos actuais
2 - Uma pequena edição local, procurando reflectir o que hoje existe...
Tema com discussão interessante, face à actividade de mapeadores profissionais de grandes companhias
seichter (2023-10-31 20:43:14+00:00): This changeset created large MPs with many inners, which tend to be very unmanageable. Furthermore they overlapped many existing areas which made the map totally confusing.
Additionally some outlines were rather coarse when judged by orthophotos of 2021. This is usually caused by machine classification of older and lower resolution imagery. Import even of official imagery should be done very cautious regarding accuracy and actuality.
Above all the licence of the data have to be compatible with OSM terms. 

If have not reverted the changeset since some boundaries and areas were more precise or did not exist before.
Frans S (2023-10-08 09:51:07+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
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve 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/142279451
Yunkers (2023-10-08 13:49:40+00:00): Hej,
Czy mogę prosić źródło tej zmiany? Była uchwała uczyniająca z tej drogi drogę powiatową
https://edziennik.malopolska.uw.gov.pl/legalact/2022/6567/
Dzięki,
Dodko (2023-10-14 13:45:18+00:00): Tu je zbytočne zduplikovaná adresa Koceľova 18714/2A na časti budove
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/837491926
ktorá už dávno existuje na celej budove
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/837491924
kstdz (2023-10-08 12:28:00+00:00): Numery dróg gminnych i powiatowych powinny znaleźć się w unsigned_ref, aby nie renderowały się na mapie - w terenie zwykle nie są one oznaczone.
jnighan (2023-10-07 18:34:30+00:00): Landuse=forest is specifically for "Managed woodland or tree plantation maintained by human to obtain forest products," which applies to almost none of the areas where it was applied in Connecticut (even if a nature reserve has the word "Forest" in the name). In almost all cases, the tags natural=wood or landuse=orchard is more appropriate. Read the Wiki documentation for more info (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforest)
Jordi MF (2023-10-07 21:42:07+00:00): Hola Sandalman!
Que bien que te hayas animado con las importaciones.
Te hago dos pequeñas correcciones.
1) Intenta definir mejor el tipo de edificio y no lo dejes simplemente como "residential". Casi siempre será un "apartment", "detached" (una casa sin otros edificios al lado) o house (una casa con otras casas o apartamentos al lado).
2) La dirección debe ponerse en un nodo en el punto de entrada del edificio (el lugar donde iría una persona o el cartero cuando quiere encontra una dirección).

Saludos!
Sandal man (import) (2023-10-08 08:26:26+00:00): Gracias Jordi, lo ajustaré.
Saludos
NorthCrab (2023-10-19 12:58:53+00:00): Witaj! Na tym skrzyżowaniu nie ma barier fizycznych, dlatego więc mapowanie oddzielne pasów do skrętu jest błędne. https://img.monicz.dev/-JQWHiVxxbE