piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Cisneros1992 (2023-06-15 08:26:55+00:00): Gracias nuevamente, un saludo.
b-unicycling (2024-03-05 22:01:37+00:00): The "inscription" for the glacial erratic sounds a lot like a "description". Key should be changed, if that is the case.
silversurfer83 (2023-06-15 06:13:26+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap :)

I would like to give you some information / help to make future contribiutions by your hand even more valuable to the project:

- please write a change set (CS) comment based on what you actually did in the CS at hand. All your 5 changes yesterday have basically the same comment while you actually did very different things. For details please see this article: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

- in this CS you worked in Paderborn and in/around Dresden. Please save your changes before changing places like that. For reasons, please see here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

- this parking space (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1182077401) looked very much like it was already mapped so I took the liberty of removing it.

- this building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id&way=289857347 please choose a different background image. For NRW please use "NRW Orthophoto" which is the best available aerial image in that region. You can then fix the building and add the small one to the west of it. When tracing buildings, remember that most buildings are actually square. You can fix your angles by clicking the button "Q" after selecting an object. Try it.

Here are some more helpful articles in the wiki which I really recommend reading when starting out with OSM:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact_channels#Chats.2Fmessengers
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:How_to_map_a
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Beginners%27_guide

Please reach out with any question you might have

cheers
silversurfer83
adiatmad (2023-06-15 04:04:03+00:00): Hello, you added a large building (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/relation/15979247). I have modified that. Thanks!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137339532
limes11 (2023-06-15 20:14:23+00:00): Hi, 

bitte ausgezeichnete Fußwege mit highway=footway kennzeichnen, dann braucht es auch das foot=designated nicht. Und hier sind zum Teil noch VZ 240 an die Wege gemappt. Die müssten dann auch weg. 

Viele Grüße, Limes
chris66 (2023-08-20 12:51:30+00:00): Betrifft Weg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/908223673 :

Ich glaube, hier hast Du StreetsComplete nicht richtig bedient oder die App hat nen Fehler. Der Radweg ist nur auf EINER Seite, nicht auf both. ;-)

Grüße aus NRW
P Kanzler (2023-08-20 14:18:44+00:00): Danke für Hinweis und Korrektur! :)
Leo Slager (2023-06-14 22:36:05+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
willkmis (2023-06-14 18:24:44+00:00): Hello!
Thanks for adding additional tagging to the map around here. One question: it looks like in this and some other of your recent edits, you've changed a number of ways from a 'sidewalk' (highway=footway + footway=sidewalk) to a 'bicycle path' (highway=cycleway + foot=designated + bicycle=designated). What was your reasoning for this, and how did you choose which to upgrade? They mostly look like pretty typical sidewalks to me, without any specific bike infrastructure I'd expect on a cycleway.
Best,
Will
ericrw_ (2023-07-10 19:26:14+00:00): Agreed, these should be reverted from cycleways back to sidewalks.
willkmis (2023-07-31 00:33:36+00:00): I went ahead and changed these back to sidewalks in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139230161
Bauer33333 (2024-03-15 22:48:59+00:00): Hi, 
it would be nice if you could not move the kerb nodes onto the sidwalk itself in the future. This means every wheelchair routing along the sidewalk will be stopped by it, but it doesn't even cross the kerb in the reality since it is only needed for crossing. 
Thank you for your consideration, these are really a pain to untagle. 
Happy Mapping,
Bauer33333
MapMagics (2023-06-14 18:56:39+00:00): Correction: Source used was Maxar Premium Imagery, Mapillary
NunoCapeloCaldeira (2023-06-14 21:43:54+00:00): Boa noite,

Obrigado pelas contribuições. Contudo tenha em atenção às boas práticas da comunidade e não elimine elementos do mapa, mas os edite. Neste caso eliminou um prédio que estava no OSM desde 2017 e ao eliminá-lo perdemos não só o elemento, mas o seu histórico.

Cumprimentos,

Nuno Caldeira
silversurfer83 (2023-06-15 05:53:36+00:00): Hello again and thank you for contributing :)
I'd like to ask you again to take a bit better care when tracing building outlines. This for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1182083171 The buildings are crossing each other and the angles are all over the place. To square your angles use the button "Q" or right click on a selected object and choose "square", thank you.

When commenting on your changes, please include the sources for your information. Thank you.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice

happy mapping
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137340202
VLD549 (2023-07-12 10:57:27+00:00): Hi could you indicate the source that was used? It looks like it should be Rue de la Broche de Fer - Broche de Ferstraat

Thank you!
VLD549 (2023-07-16 13:15:14+00:00): Hi, could you indicate what source was used? I can't verify the name change.
Carrière Desmettre - Carrière Desmettre weg

Thank you.
VLD549 (2024-03-08 17:26:25+00:00): Hi, can you explain what the name change Brasserie de l'Ours to Brasserie de l'Ours - Beerbrouwerij is based on?

According to the FB, it doesn't exist anymore since 02.01.23

Thank you. 

https://www.facebook.com/p/La-Brasserie-de-lours-100063830971879/
ika-chan! UK-USA (2023-06-14 18:40:13+00:00): Dang it, forgot to close the changeset before moving to another area.
Poretsew (2023-06-14 18:29:42+00:00): + source: PDOK luchtfoto
Frans S (2023-06-15 09:13:06+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator. 
I am sorry to say, but your mappings do not meet the requirements. This is a 'mapping highways' project. Please focus on that.


Additional information 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/137340693
jmarchon (2023-06-15 05:46:52+00:00): Welcome back and happy mapping!
Zachary SL Foster (2023-06-15 17:55:46+00:00): Thank you!
pintoch (2023-07-09 10:14:06+00:00): thanks a lot for this change (and the rest of your work around Wurzen)!
Because there is now a separate node for the free shop, I'd rather keep the opening hours only there (since the rest of Kanthaus is not more accessible during those hours)
gscholz (2023-06-17 06:08:10+00:00): Hi padvinder,
your edits tend to leave behind errors in the OSM database regarding duplicate nodes:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=4.68168&lat=52.62313&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Can you please fix this? You may want to think about how to avoid this type of error, as it seems to be systematic for your work.
Kind regards
Guido
Jarek 🚲 (2023-06-17 01:13:47+00:00): Hi Matt, I would also be interested in name of this lane. Is "Jesus St" an official name or reference used by the City?
Jarek 🚲 (2023-06-17 01:07:09+00:00): Hi Matt, for this lane specifically, what is the source of this lane being named "Orthodox St"? I have only seen this "name" in Google, but not in any official City document. As you may know, we are not allowed to copy Google's data due to Google's licensing.
Hamdon (2023-06-15 08:14:06+00:00): Hello Eerib,

I noticed that my OpenStreetMap listing for my junk removal business was deleted. I kindly request you to consider the following information before labeling it as spam. We have a legitimate presence in the city of Surrey and are registered with the appropriate authorities. In fact, we receive regular visits from satisfied clients who come to our location to provide payment for completed projects. Our business operates from a residential building, but that does not make it spam.

I genuinely believe that this situation is a misunderstanding, and I would greatly appreciate your assistance in restoring our listing.

Thank you for your understanding and consideration.
eerib (2023-06-15 08:56:04+00:00): Hello Hamden,

My understanding is that a personal residential apartment that is not open to the general public does not constitute a business location for addition to OpenStreetMap. Just because you ask clients to come to your personal apartment to pay for junk removal, a seemingly far fetched contrived example, does not mean you actually have a business location in the apartment.

If you disagree with my understanding then please take up the issue with the Data Working Group.

data@openstreetmap.org https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group

Thank you, eerib
Hamdon (2023-06-16 01:25:57+00:00): Hello Eerib,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your perspective on the matter. I understand that you have concerns regarding the classification of a personal residential apartment as a business location in OpenStreetMap. While I respect your viewpoint, I would like to provide further clarification to address any misconceptions.

Although our business operates from a residential building, we have established it as a legitimate junk removal service specializing in large construction projects. We regularly engage with prominent clients in the industry, handling substantial demolition and waste removal tasks. These projects often require a high level of expertise and tailored solutions.

We maintain active client interactions and have a registered presence with the city of Surrey, ensuring compliance with all relevant regulations. It's worth noting that even in the corporate world, certain businesses primarily deal with big construction projects and operate by appointment only. This allows us to provide focused attention and exceptional service to our clients.

Our intention is to accurately represent our business on OpenStreetMap and provide a valuable service to the community. We believe that including our location can greatly assist those seeking our specialized services while adhering to the necessary protocols and guidelines.

In light of your suggestion, I will consider reaching out to the Data Working Group at data@openstreetmap.org to discuss this matter further. It would be helpful if you could share any specific guidelines or policies that can assist in determining the eligibility of our business location.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Best regards,
eerib (2023-06-16 02:00:27+00:00): Thank you for the reply.

I think it would be best to contact the Data Working Group for more information as I previously mentioned.
impiaaa (2023-06-15 18:17:34+00:00): Please see the guidelines here for naming objects: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names Names in OSM should refer to the actual proper name to which the items are commonly referred, and should not include any plain descriptions or internal reference units.
Frans S (2023-06-15 09:20:54+00:00): Hello again. 
This is a building only project. Please focus on that.
Buildings should be tagged as building=yes.
When you add highways as well, not requested, use the correct tag.  A track as wide as 3 meter is not a path. See this wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa

You did not map buildings accurate and not squared.
Please improve your mapping skills
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137341396
MarinoBM (2023-06-14 22:50:36+00:00): Hola guiigdks.
Recuerda utilizar adecuadamente los comentarios en los conjuntos de cambios:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Buenos_comentarios_en_conjuntos_de_cambios
qaz789 (2023-08-09 18:28:00+00:00): Dodałem  2 przystanki autobusowe na ul. Kojazara w Ustroniu, ale nie grzebałem w relacji.
Natomiast na mapie jest naniesione miejsce zatrzymania autobusu które nia należy do relacji a chyba powinno:
node/2497146003
Taya_S (2023-06-17 07:30:05+00:00): Hallo Boefjim,

Je vraagt om feedback.

Het ziet er goed uit. Maar er zijn nog een paar kleine puntjes op de i. Ik heb wel de wate_basket node die aan de parkeerplaats vast zat los gemaakt. ook heb ik de oneway=no en fee=no tags verwijderd. Deze zijn default, dus het is niet nodig om deze toe te voegen. Hetzelfde geld eigenlijk ook voor de access=yes tags, maar deze heb ik laten staan.

Groeten,
Taya
Taya_S (2023-06-16 06:37:07+00:00): Hello Pikachu25,

Do you have a source where I could find more information about this trail? I can only find a trail thats just in Ireland and a few seperate ones that are along the US east coast. But I cant find any information about a trail that spans multiple continents

Sincerely,
Taya
Taya_S (2023-07-15 06:28:21+00:00): Hello again. After no response for a month and asking others for their thoughts I have deleted this trail as it does not exist.
cserpell (2023-06-16 01:08:15+00:00): Hi, there is a problem with this relation you just added. When someone comes from the north from Lo Gamboa, he/she can continue south to Las Rosas. With this restriction, it would not be possible. How can it be solved?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137343361
LakeTana (2023-06-16 20:02:03+00:00): Hello Cserpell, this does appear to be a turn restriction only for buses. Another person has already removed this restriction. This maneuver should no longer be blocked. Thank you and happy mapping!
tenzul (2023-06-15 10:56:10+00:00): Hallo Mivo,

ein kleiner Hinweis zum Access-Tagging: Ich denke, weil die Tags access=forestry bisher nicht ganz sauber gesetzt waren, willst du den Zugang nun für Fußgänger mit foot=yes korrigieren. Das löst das Problem für Fußgägner, aber horse und inline_skates wären immer noch falsch.
Ich würde vorschlagen du setzt einfach nur vehicle=forestry und löscht alle anderen Tags. Dass Restriktionen auf einem zu hohem Level angewandt werden, wird auch im Wiki als häufiger Fehler genannt [1].
Kennst du das Verkehrszeichen-Tool [2] ?

Viele Grüße
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Transport_mode_restrictions
[2] https://osmtools.de/traffic_signs/
Mivo (2023-06-15 17:31:32+00:00): Vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Ich schau mir die Hierarchien nochmal an. In der Tat war mein Ziel, das Problem für Fußgäger zu lösen. Pferde sind möglicherweise erlaubt (zumindest nicht per Schild verboten). Inliner machen hier keinen Sinn wegen Untergrund.
Mivo (2023-06-18 17:09:24+00:00): Hallo tenzul,
ich würde einige der Pfade folgendermaßen ändern:

access=yes
highway=path
motor_vehicle=forestry
surface=ground
tracktype=grade5

erscheint das sinnvoll?
tenzul (2023-06-18 18:42:07+00:00): Hey, finde ich sehr gut, dass du dir das nochmal angeschaut hast. Würde es genauso machen, nur ohne access=yes, denn das ist (inoffiziell) schon der Standardwert für tracks. Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Germany
NorthCrab_upload (2023-06-14 20:10:13+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10977639433

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Trevor_1 (2023-06-14 20:20:31+00:00): sorry for the large changeset box, my mistake,
wambacher (2023-06-17 09:32:36+00:00): und nochmals 86 dazu :(
https://wambachers-osm.website/Postcodes_1_4_4.html?map=15/52.462364/13.759367&base=OSM&data=PCBDE,WPCDE

Gruß
walter
hfs (2023-06-17 13:28:24+00:00): Ups, ich schau es mir demnächst an.
hfs (2023-06-18 19:43:05+00:00): lberges war so gut und hat die PLZ in der Zwischenzeit in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/137435424 korrigiert.

Tut mir sehr leid, es war nur ein Tippfehler, den ich dank JOSM-Adressvorlage viele Male kopiert habe.
SomeoneElse (2023-07-18 12:34:50+00:00): Hello,
I'm guessing that the guideposts still part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9579 should also be moved to whatever relation the ways have now moved to?
20180911 (2023-07-19 10:21:19+00:00): Thank you for pointing this out. I moved the guideposts to the new relations now and deleted this relation.
https://osm.org/changeset/138709161
I think my restructuring of NCN1 is now completed.
SomeoneElse (2023-07-19 12:16:19+00:00): OK - thanks!
I'll update my "check list" https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/database_qa_scripts/blob/main/osm_ldp3#L119 based on the current contents of the superroute https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1992599 .
I'm pretty sure that there is more work to do around Hull - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2452530 is the new route of NCN1 (and is incomplete) and the bit that goes to Hull and back at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15975674#map=12/53.7664/-0.4168 is incorrect, though those are part of other routes.  chillly, who is local to Hull and the author of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2452530 , may be able to advise further.
M!dgard (2024-01-08 18:39:06+00:00): Beste Stef,

In de Langestraat heeft u de oneway:bicycle=no tags verwijderd. Deze nodig zijn voor fietsroutering, dus heb ik ze teruggezet.

Groeten, M!dgard
eerib (2023-06-14 22:13:26+00:00): I understand you do not want unauthorized or "secret" trails to be shown on OpenStreetMap, however it is not OpenStreetMap's policy to remove unauthorized or "secret" trails. This policy is for several reasons but foremost is because it presents a number of serious safety issues. OpenStreetMap is not just used by recreational users but also emergency responders (Fire & Rescue, BC Ambulance, BC Wildfire Service, Search & Rescue, and others).

The correct approach to dealing with unauthorized trails is to use the informal tag with the value yes. This will result in apps such as AllTrails and Gaia displaying the trail with less emphasis compared to trails without the informal tag or with a value of no.
eerib (2023-06-14 21:58:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully by changeset #137346415. The current tags already deal with the path being unauthorized and leading to a structure and cliff.
Shinsplints (2023-06-14 23:51:51+00:00): Please let NSR know that you insist on keeping this dangerous access public.
eerib (2023-06-15 00:05:16+00:00): The path exists and therefore will remain on OSM as per the ground truth policy. I have added the tags informal=yes and trail_visibility=horrible to reduce the path's emphasis in apps used by the general public such as AllTrails and Gaia GPS.

If you're worried about the cabin, I recommend reaching out to Metro Vancouver's Water Department (LSCR@metrovancouver.org) to have it removed and have warning signage added near the embankment.
SomeoneElse (2023-08-09 18:57:47+00:00): Er, this certainly isn't an "amenity" yet!  It's still a building site.
VLD302 (2023-08-25 17:39:06+00:00): Hello SomeoneElse,

Thank you for reaching out about this feature. I've gone ahead and reverted the changes back to the previous version. My apologies for incorrectly tagging the feature. Thank you again for reaching out, please feel free to reach out again if you have any comments, questions, or other concerns. Have a great day!
ma-rt-in (2023-07-02 13:23:09+00:00): Moin,

warum sollte die Wege im Park als servvice-Wege  gemappt sein?
Ich denke hw=path sollte reichen.

vg
Jörg Roßdeutscher (2023-07-04 08:05:01+00:00): Moin! Ich würde an der Stelle unterscheiden zwischen den Fusswegen und -pfaden, die wirklich nur zum drauf laufen gedacht sind, und den auch „logistisch genutzten“ etwas breiteren, auf denen die Gärtner mit ihren Unimogs fahren. Was schlägst Du vor?
ma-rt-in (2023-07-04 13:58:46+00:00): Ich würde diese tatsächlich auf hw=path ändern. Auch wenn die Wege durch das Parkmanagement genutzt werden, sind es doch nur normale Wege. DieseWege werden ja auch von sonst keinem anderen "normalen" Verkehr genutzt.
Jörg Roßdeutscher (2023-07-13 19:45:21+00:00): Sorry für' liegen lassen, war krank.

Ich habe in den letzten Monaten sehr viele Parks und Friedhöfe gemappt. Dabei fällt doch sehr deutlich auf, dass es immer drei klar unterscheidbare Wegetypen gibt: 
- Die "Autobahnen" für weite Strecken, auf denen auch möglichst die Logistik stattfindet (immer ein Ring oder eine Acht um's Gelände)
- dann die „normalen Wege“
- und schliesslich die „kleinen Pfade“
 
Diese unterschiedlichen Kategorien sind auf den selbstgemalten Karten vor Ort auch so hervorgehoben und mit Sicherheit im Wegeleitsystem funktional unterschiedlich „gedacht“. 

Ich bin da offen für das „wie“, aber mir wäre wichtig, diese Kategorien auch in den Daten klar getrennt abzubilden. Einfach nur „2m breit“ vs. “2,20m breit“ bringt's nicht rüber. Man würde ja auch eine Bundestrasse und eine Autobahn nicht gleich taggen, nur weil sie vielleicht erst mal ähnlich aussehen.

Würde man eine „Park Navi“ programmieren, hätte sie eine Option „Wegetyp 1 vermeiden“, ähnlich dem „Autobahn vermeiden“ in der Auto-Navi, weil, das sind die Wege für Rollatoren und Gärtner, aber nicht die schönen Spazierwege.
Taya_S (2023-06-15 06:49:43+00:00): Hallo Rfaro,

Je hebt nu een tourism=attraction node middenop de weg geplaatst. 

Ik heb dit veranderd naar 	leisure=horse_riding en ik heb de node naar de manege verplaatst

Groeten,
Taya
Allison P (2024-12-13 18:57:37+00:00): Names should be in common use.

Maxspeed is inappropriate if no signed restriction exists.
Marc_ch (2023-06-14 21:52:22+00:00): erreur dans le descriptif : ajout landuse de la ferme, prairie manquante, champs
Marc_ch (2024-08-30 01:02:23+00:00): test d'un bug osm-discussion-comments, commentaire à ignorer :)
adas (2023-06-29 21:56:24+00:00): Skąd informacja o jednym kierunku? Przejeżdżałem ostatnio i nadal jest dwukierunkowa.
acz (2023-06-30 08:08:57+00:00): Masz rację, dziś sprawdziłem i rzeczywiście jest dwukierunkowy.
Oparłem się na artykule zarządu dróg w Bydgoszczy https://zdmikp.bydgoszcz.pl/pl/drogi-miejskie/7543-rozszerzenie-strefy-platnego-parkowania-zmiany-dla-kierowcow
w związku ze zmianami wprowadzonymi od początku czerwca.
Zmiana do cofnięcia.
silversurfer83 (2023-06-15 06:23:03+00:00): Moin :)

das Gebäude sieht relativ groß aus und es ist tatsächlich nicht unüblich einen POI (wie ein Geschäft) an die Stelle eines Gebäudes zu setzen, wo sich der Eingang zu dem Geschäft befindet. Alle Informationen zu einem POI auf das Gebäude zu legen ist eher ungünstig, da es dann schwieriger ist auseinander zu halten, welche Information ist spezifisch für das Gebäude und welche für den POI.
Wenn nun in diesem Gebäude eine zusätzliche Firma ihr Büro hat, wird es schon wieder uneinheitlich. Eine Firma hat die Infos am Gebäude und die andere? Deshalb für jeden POI einen Punkt. Ist in der Regel besser.

Weiter viel Spaß
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137346864
Xvtn (2023-06-14 22:30:50+00:00): Oops, sorry for the huge bbox!! I normally put a lot of thought into preventing that from happening.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-06-16 14:07:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 137413707 where the changeset comment is: Incompletely discussed mechanical edits - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7215 and links from there.