piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
commented by stevea (2019-04-30 00:53:12+00:00): Good luck with that.  Map.  Map well.  Talk less.

"Go a few rounds" shows all who are watching how combative you are.  This is a map, not a boxing ring.
closed by stevea (2019-09-30 23:05:06+00:00): Every reason to resolve this, resolving.
opened by Ivan Ivienen (2019-04-20 12:21:09+00:00): "Barrio gay"
POI name: Davie Street
POI types: hwtag-lit psurface-paved_good highway-secondary
OSM data version: 2019-03-28T14:13:02Z
 #mapsme
opened by  (2019-04-20 12:22:03+00:00): hier ist eine neue Packstation
closed by !i! (2019-04-21 05:46:06+00:00): Ich habs bei paket.de bestätigt und an der Stelle eingetragen. Es soll für die Einsteinstraße 29 sein, von daher hätte ich vermutet, dass sie da noch etwas dichter dran liegt? Aber das kann man auch später mal anpassen!
opened by usr1 (2019-04-20 12:22:29+00:00): "Снесено"
The place has gone or never existed. This is an auto-generated note from MAPS.ME application: a user reports a POI that is visible on a map (which can be outdated), but cannot be found on the ground.
POI name: Тут нету замка
POI types: historic-castle
OSM data version: 2019-03-28T14:13:02Z
 #mapsme
opened by Adamant1 (2019-04-20 12:22:34+00:00): This isn't a park. It's just a meadow behind some houses. There's zero evidence it's anything else. It also crosses a driveway and is partly mapped in someone's backyard.
commented by  (2019-04-25 20:54:34+00:00): Nope, there is not "zero evidence:"  if you actually read our County wiki (as you say you have), Landuse section, downloaded either SCCGIS (now v5) or CPAD (now v2) data, and superimpose either layer (in JOSM or QGIS, you could also open them in Google Earth, though I don't recommend that for technical and legal/ODbL reasons), you'd see evidence in either or both of those datasets.

What ISN'T (presently) clear is whether there is public access or whether these are is access=permissive, I'm still trying to determine that, as I'm not sure if Camino Lane and Victoria Lane are part of a homeowner's association.

So, you are mistaken.  Please resolve the note, or, better, update the data with newer, local knowledge as I endeavor to do.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-25 21:26:00+00:00): "Nope, there is not "zero evidence:"

I meant zero evidence as far as "evidence its a park by OSM's standards of what makes a park a park. I.E. path's, benches, restrooms, places people can partake of leisure activities etc etc. Even having those things don't automatically make things park either. There's plenty of grassy areas where I live and all over California where there's paths, sometimes put there by cities, that aren't parks. Mostly to allow people "pass through's" of the area if need be or access to power polls. So it's more nuanced then that. There's zero evidence its a park in that respect. I'm also pretty sure that the house and water tower to the north that's clearly visible and is someones yard, isn't a park. Neither is the a few other residential areas the park is mapped over south west of here. 

Given the already inaccurate mapping of this meadow as a park over those things, and the fact that you ignored them your equation of this and saying I was about it not being a park, my tendency is to think this probably isn't a park in the first and is just mapped wrong. 

As I've said before, county GIS places do make mistakes sometimes and they also don't classify things based on the same principles OSM does. You can look all over California for the many mistakes government mappers make. It's pretty obvious.  So again, it's more nuanced then "it's on some obscure government GIS site. So it's correct."  As I've also said before, I have no problem going with them to double check something that is already confirmed through other more reliable means like a web search, government parks department website (which can still be wrong like that one park by the ocean), Street View, or even better satellite photos. If something is a park it should be pretty obvious in the satellite photos in my opinion. But government GIS data should never be primary or the only metric. That's why OSM regulates imports so much.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-25 21:36:13+00:00): Also note that there is an actual park about a block from here. With the aforementioned paths etc. Whereas, this area doesn't even have paths. My guess is that they had planned to make this a park like the other is and just never did it do to lack of funds or something, but it stayed in the GIS data or it could be because it was historically a park, like in the 1800's or something, but isn't now. There's a bunch of times that happens. A lot of the bad TIGER data is due to that. Either roads they where planning on building and never did, but left the data for them, or roads that existed in the fifties that are completely gone now but got left in. That's why you can't go solely off government data.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-25 21:37:35+00:00): That's also why I think the house and water tower is mapped as part of the park. Because the city had been planning to build it there, but ended up selling the land off because they changed their mind on the park and just never updated the data.
commented by stevea (2019-04-27 14:53:33+00:00): There is no city around here, pilgrim.  This is unincorporated Aptos.

I see no "actual park about a block from here."

Have you never experienced a private park like this, owned by a homeowner's association?  (Similar to Hidden Glen in Scotts Valley, https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/37.03518/-122.03618 , though that's a bit more "shoehorn-shaped" than this/these are.  But similar to the "wraps around people's backyards."  It's a park.  A private park, but a park.  Ask the people who live there.
commented by stevea (2019-04-27 14:54:33+00:00): Horseshoe, not shoehorn.
commented by  (2019-04-29 09:01:00+00:00): Don't speculate and guess, map what you actually know.
closed by stevea (2019-04-29 09:02:57+00:00): Adamant1 doesn't really know about this, he's guessing.  Read his Comments here to confirm.  Resolving as baloney.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-30 00:22:17+00:00): As you that its not. Read your own comments. Don't close notes that we disagree on and aren'r resloved. Leave them open for people that actully there to comment. It happens all the time.
commented by stevea (2019-04-30 00:26:20+00:00): Map what you know, do so well.  Period.
closed by stevea (2019-09-30 23:06:43+00:00): Resolvable, resolving.
opened by Adamant1 (2019-04-20 12:24:17+00:00): Names need to be gotten rid of. As they violate the naming rules.
commented by  (2019-04-21 03:17:02+00:00): They look like proper names (ie, not just generic descriptions like "Soccer Field"), and match what the park website calls the fields. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35261952 looks wrong, though - at best it should be landuse=recreation_ground or just grass. The parking lots need some attention, too. Also the dog park outline doesn't match the fences visible in the aerial imagery.  There are some speed bumps missing. The park outline is slightly misaligned with everything surrounding it, too. Most of the paths are missing, and one of the two that have been partially mapped is mistagged as a track...
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-26 07:41:31+00:00): "They look like proper names (ie, not just generic descriptions like "Soccer Field"), and match what the park website calls the fields."

Your probably right. As know one in real life calls baseball fields "ball fields." I was mainly going off the soccer fields. I agree with you about the pitch. It should just be something else like grass or a sports centre maybe, but that doesn't seem right since it's already in a park. The other stuff should be fixed also. I'll do it when I get some free time if know one else does by then.
commented by  (2019-04-29 09:18:10+00:00): So, map things better already.
closed by fudsnottica (2020-12-14 01:28:53+00:00): These are the names as used by the County of Santa Cruz: http://www.scparks.com/Home/Parks/ListofAllCountyParks/PoloGroundsPark.aspx. I've added the name for Soccer Field C and removed the generic "Dog Park" and Bike Park" names also, as those aren't mentioned in the official map.
opened by Adamant1 (2019-04-20 12:25:30+00:00): Not a park. Just a wood behind some houses.
commented by  (2019-04-25 21:08:23+00:00): Nope, it's a park, according to SCCGIS v5 data, CPAD v5 data and me.  There is pedestrian access specifically "grant deeded in" a couple of houses east of the cannabis shop on Soquel Drive (I've driven past it numerous times).
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-25 23:27:30+00:00): "There is pedestrian access specifically "grant deeded in" a couple of houses east of the cannabis shop on Soquel Drive"

So, then the people in the "couple of houses it's deeded in" can access the creek from their back yard essentially? That's what it sounds like your saying and anywhere that might be accessible by the public there's a big giant brown fence. I'm pretty sure a path going from someone's back yard to somewhere else doesn't make that "somewhere" else a park and it's clear from the fence huge they don't want people going down to the creek. If there's even a way to. There's no path where you mapped it going into the woods from anything either. Let alone a sidewalk. It likes where you did map the path there's a drop off that goes into a creek or something and the back of the house. It's also clear from the ESRI World imagery, which I'm pretty sure is fairly recent that mapped the curve of the path over the peoples fence and partly through their back yard. So....

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it might look like there's a path at the spot where you drive by. If you haven't been down the path or into the actual area your saying is a park though (as you haven't. Since as you said, you just drive by there), than you can't really say if it continues into the wood or not, if it's even a path for the general public, let alone if that means the place is actually a park. It might just be a path the city had built on the side of the peoples house in case they needed to access the woods or the ditch. As I've said before, just having a path somewhere doesn't make the place a park. As I've also said before to, county GIS data can't be the only source to go off of. As it's often inaccurate. They often map things they are planning on doing and then don't remove them if it never happens (as is clear with a couple of the parks around here) and they also don't classify things the same way OSM does (I.E. landuse versus activity). So there should be more.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-25 23:28:49+00:00): It could be that they are planning on building the park in the future to and that the path is the start of construction in that direction (which there's no evidence for) but if that's the case it shouldn't be mapped as a park until the place is actually one.
commented by  (2019-04-27 14:45:36+00:00): No.  Face the cannabis shop from Soquel Drive.  Walk east on the sidewalk a couple of houses.  There is a footpath northward from that point.  It is surrounded by green on the map because the polygon has grant deeded that path into the public land managed by County Parks.

You simply can't say "county GIS data is often inaccurate" while comparing my data in the map sourced from it UNLESS you have something better with which to compare.  And you don't.  If your reasoning/logic were true, anybody could say about any data anywhere "that might be wrong."  Maybe, but not just with that assertion, you'll have to offer more (better) than that.

This IS a "path for the general public" as it's a  path and it's on public land.  Wow.  Do you just make stuff up?!
closed by stevea (2019-04-29 09:16:20+00:00): Argumentative and deliberately provocative.  No reason to keep this open; resolving.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-30 02:29:20+00:00): "No. Face the cannabis shop from Soquel Drive. Walk east on the sidewalk a couple of houses. "

Which you yourself said you have haven't done. I never said there wasn't a path there anyway. I said there has to be more to qualify something as a park then a path on the side of a fence that know one editing this map has ever walked down. Go walk down it with mappilary. It shouldn't be that hard. 

"You simply can't say "county GIS data is often inaccurate" while comparing my data in the map sourced from it UNLESS you have something better with which to compare."

1. Things can be inaccurate on their own. For instance, someone can color a page really badly in a coloring book. We don't need another color book to compare theirs to before we can say it's inaccurately colored though. 

2. The source doesn't have to be "better." It can also be equal. Although, OSM luckily OSM provides multiple sources to confirm things that's are better then GIS department imports and people are using them all to clean up horrible GIS department jobs. Those are the facts. I'm not even sure how you think they are comparably or how you think "A single GIS import is better then everything else" is even an argument for something. I never said they were better anyway. That's not how science works.


"that might be wrong." Maybe, but not just with that assertion"

No, it's not just my assertion. It's based on looking at the images that OSM provides. Again, everyone uses them. If they were completely crap and useless like you insinuate then they wouldn't. If you don't like me using the tools OSM provides to confirm things, take that up with them. It's not my problem. This isn't your local GIS departments map. 

"you'll have to offer more (better) than that."

Your the one with the weak argument that it's a public path that leads to a park when you've only driven by it.
commented by Adamant1 (2019-04-30 02:34:30+00:00): ""This IS a "path for the general public" as it's a path and it's on public land.""

Your the one that said you haven't been there. So how do you know? prove it by going there and mapping with mappilary. If your  so right, you should be willing to. 

"Argumentative and deliberately provocative. No reason to keep this open; resolving."

Citing the OSM images isn't a weak argument. Everyone uses them for a source including you. It's also not argumentative to ask you to go map it with mappilary. People do it all the time. I've helped people map things by doing it and visa versa. If anything your being argumentative by constantly bringing up someone else arguing and by closing notes simply because you don't like them. 

Leave the note open and let someone that's actually been there comment. Maybe someone else would be willing to go map it with mappiliry or at least GPS tracks so we know how back the path goes. Since your not.
commented by stevea (2019-04-30 02:37:18+00:00): YOU are the one who assert this note is true, so YOU "walk down the path with Mapillary" (to ostensibly prove/disprove what I assert to be true and is confirmed by both various layers of visual imagery, public data which assert the polygon, and baloney-sandwich noise like "things can be inaccurate."  Damn it, man, SHOW US how what is accurately mapped is inaccurate, don't say "could be," that's a pile of horseflop.

1)  The data in OSM are asserted by their author to be true and meet ODbL and all that.

2)  To challenge these data, you'd need an "equal or better source" which shows something different.  OK, but you haven't.  You use weasel words like "can be inaccurate" and "OSM provides..." without citing WHICH source we DO provide.  It's like you're trying to publish a scholarly academic paper and you repeatedly can't get past simple peer review.  Go back to square one and assert some truth (somewhere) without weasel words or insults.

MAP WELL!
commented by stevea (2019-04-30 02:43:20+00:00): And you know, I've enjoyed many a sandwich after a bike ride at Palm Deli, and from their driveway across the parking lot where the little office park is (W of Valencia) this really looks like a "creek park."  I own and live on property like this and sometimes cities around here and the county say "that's a park, now."  If you think it's better tagged a nature_reserve instead (oooo, we got the value on leisure wrong by a hair), then change it.  But you don't, you merely appear to want to litter as many "this looks poopy," "that looks poopy" tags as many places as you can.  While that can incrementally make the map better, you're like a mouse against an elephant:  little, weak, poorly constructed, don't-hold-up-to-peer-review arguments that seem petty and ill-constructed.  Make your damn argument!
closed by stevea (2019-09-30 23:07:08+00:00): No action in five months; resolving.
opened by  (2019-04-20 12:27:31+00:00): Il percorso ciclabile è a Villazzano (TN), ma il suo nome proprio non è “Trento”.
closed by JuaFritz (2019-04-20 17:34:40+00:00): Corretto
opened by tux4711 (2019-04-20 12:37:24+00:00): Gedenkstein Johanna Westphal (siehe Bild)

via StreetComplete 11.0

Attached photo(s):
https://westnordost.de/p/2602.jpg
https://westnordost.de/p/2603.jpg
closed by Arnaldur (2020-02-05 07:25:33+00:00): Ist bereits in der Karte eigetragen
opened by paulchen-panther (2019-04-20 12:38:11+00:00): No right turn
opened by tux4711 (2019-04-20 12:39:22+00:00): Waldhütte

via StreetComplete 11.0

Attached photo(s):
(error: upload failed)
closed by Arnaldur (2020-02-05 07:25:07+00:00): Wurde ergänzt
opened by erickdeoliveiraleal (2019-04-20 12:45:02+00:00): novas ruas
opened by Androyd00 (2019-04-20 12:46:14+00:00): "Здесь уже больше года находится Декатлон - товары для спорта и активного отдыха"
POI name: Декатлон
POI types: shop-electronics
OSM data version: 2019-03-28T14:13:02Z
 #mapsme
closed by NeginA (2019-05-05 17:41:41+00:00): Уже есть
opened by FrankyW (2019-04-20 12:46:48+00:00): Bunkeranlage
commented by MrWebber (2021-02-18 12:03:59+00:00): added: abandoned?
opened by gobelgobel (2019-04-20 12:51:00+00:00): Playground found.
opened by Ntsou (2019-04-20 12:52:36+00:00): Vente de charbon
opened by Androyd00 (2019-04-20 12:53:43+00:00): "Здесь сейчас идёт стройка многоэтажного дома"
The place has gone or never existed. This is an auto-generated note from MAPS.ME application: a user reports a POI that is visible on a map (which can be outdated), but cannot be found on the ground.
POI name: Винтрест
POI types: shop-wine
OSM data version: 2019-03-28T14:13:02Z
 #mapsme
closed by NeginA (2019-05-05 17:41:31+00:00): Замапил стройплощадку и строящиеся дома
opened by R3tt3r (2019-04-20 12:55:56+00:00): Ist geschlossen / closed down
closed by Edelsalami (2019-08-22 14:03:02+00:00): Stimmt, POI wird gelöscht
opened by as4tik (2019-04-20 12:59:00+00:00): Спортплощадка
closed by андриано (2021-02-06 11:19:36+00:00): добавил
opened by as4tik (2019-04-20 12:59:01+00:00): Съезд с асфальта на полевую дорогу. Не точно в этой точке.
opened by tux4711 (2019-04-20 13:01:28+00:00): Naturbelassener Weg. Laub auf dem Boden, Bäume liegen quer.

via StreetComplete 11.0

Attached photo(s):
(error: upload failed)
closed by user_12887748 (2021-12-18 18:52:25+00:00): done
opened by  (2019-04-20 13:02:01+00:00):  - This was note was submitted via https://www.chicagocityscape.com
closed by freebeer (2019-05-01 17:33:21+00:00): no info
opened by erickdeoliveiraleal (2019-04-20 13:05:13+00:00): mapear
opened by erickdeoliveiraleal (2019-04-20 13:05:14+00:00): mapear
opened by erickdeoliveiraleal (2019-04-20 13:05:16+00:00): mapear
opened by erickdeoliveiraleal (2019-04-20 13:06:19+00:00): novas vias
opened by erickdeoliveiraleal (2019-04-20 13:06:20+00:00): novas vias
opened by shivangvarshney (2019-04-20 13:07:18+00:00): Here is a very famous place which is very well know in the city that is ‘Hari Sweets & caterers
closed by shivangvarshney (2019-06-14 09:35:38+00:00): The place should be added to snapmap
closed by indigomc (2022-07-19 18:24:54+00:00): This is not Snapchat.
opened by Echo78 (2019-04-20 13:07:57+00:00): toilets:disposal=flush, доступно для инвалидов
commented by Echo78 (2019-04-20 13:08:57+00:00): +7(495)676-78-41
commented by Echo78 (2019-04-20 13:09:44+00:00): Mo-Su 08:00-20:00
commented by Echo78 (2019-04-20 13:10:54+00:00): Бесплатный общественный туалет, Доринвест
opened by GR50 (2019-04-20 13:10:21+00:00): "Maintenance track links power towers up to Jasar's Peak. You can walk the whole way up this track from the power station to the peak. At present only half the track is shown "
POI has no name
POI types: power-tower
OSM data version: 2019-03-14T00:11:02Z
 #mapsme
opened by GR50 (2019-04-20 13:10:21+00:00): "This mini track does not exist! Trail 10 and the maintenance track do not connect up until the peak "
POI name: Ridge to Trail Connection
POI types: hwtag-nobicycle psurface-unpaved_good highway-path-mountain_hiking
OSM data version: 2019-03-14T00:11:02Z
 #mapsme
opened by GR50 (2019-04-20 13:10:22+00:00): "This section of the road is closed "
POI has no name
POI types: landuse-forest
OSM data version: 2019-03-14T00:11:02Z
 #mapsme
closed by freebeer (2020-04-04 12:43:01+00:00): useless as it is the maps.me centre of the forest polygon
opened by tux4711 (2019-04-20 13:10:50+00:00): Weg ist naturbelassen. Nicht wirklich zum wandern geeignet. Für Fahrzeuge gar nicht.

via StreetComplete 11.0

Attached photo(s):
https://westnordost.de/p/2604.jpg
closed by _torsten_ (2021-10-29 06:22:50+00:00): Aber es ist ein Weg, wie auf dem Foto gut zu erkennen ist.
opened by Echo78 (2019-04-20 13:11:08+00:00): М
opened by Echo78 (2019-04-20 13:11:19+00:00): Ж
opened by  (2019-04-20 13:13:29+00:00): Trail does not cross the river here.
closed by Jarek 🚲 (2019-04-22 22:14:07+00:00): It is not mapped as crossing it. Thanks for the confirmation.
opened by sophietheopossum (2019-04-20 13:16:40+00:00): Gap is smaller than this
opened by  (2019-04-20 13:17:39+00:00): A (Ch00)
closed by confusedbuffalo (2022-03-12 11:59:17+00:00): Not clear what this refers to
opened by  (2019-04-20 13:18:45+00:00): CSI SCHOOL
commented by indigomc (2020-04-12 19:28:23+00:00): Please reopen with full name and an addcress please.
opened by Paputx (2019-04-20 13:19:14+00:00): parque infantil con fuente

via StreetComplete 10.0

Attached photo(s):
https://westnordost.de/p/2605.jpg
closed by Note Control (2021-09-24 20:30:15+00:00): mapeado
opened by  (2019-04-20 13:19:27+00:00): onosm.org submitted note from a business:
name: Saina Technology
phone: 09149944412
website: www.qli.ir
twitter: undefined
hours: saturday-wednesday 9am-21pm
category: ,Electronics Stores,Electronics
address:
opened by Сергей Гриневич (2019-04-20 13:21:34+00:00): Юридическая компания «АГК-СевероЗапад»
commented by parukhin (2019-05-02 15:24:37+00:00): Сергей, добавьте контакты и время работы.
opened by  (2019-04-20 13:23:39+00:00): Rue Vandervelde
closed by Jakka (2019-04-24 19:54:03+00:00): Vous etes certain ? Rue Émile Vandervelde etait changer dans OSM avec note ....new streetnames.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/66550159#map=15/50.3855/4.3850
closed by Jakka (2019-04-24 19:57:18+00:00): https://montsurmarchienne.blogs.sudinfo.be/archive/2016/12/01/mont-sur-marchienne-rue-jules-ruhl-209237.html
opened by erickdeoliveiraleal (2019-04-20 13:23:48+00:00): novas vias
opened by erickdeoliveiraleal (2019-04-20 13:23:49+00:00): novas vias
opened by erickdeoliveiraleal (2019-04-20 13:23:50+00:00): novas vias
opened by erickdeoliveiraleal (2019-04-20 13:23:51+00:00): novas vias
opened by erickdeoliveiraleal (2019-04-20 13:23:52+00:00): novas vias
opened by erickdeoliveiraleal (2019-04-20 13:23:53+00:00): novas vias
opened by  (2019-04-20 13:24:38+00:00): Ticketautomaten auf jeden Bahnsteig
closed by FrankXF (2019-04-20 20:25:14+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis. Selbst eingetragen
opened by LeNak Muay (2019-04-20 13:25:22+00:00): "randonnée"
POI has no name
POI types: amenity-bench
OSM data version: 2018-09-11T19:10:03Z
 #mapsme
closed by BaboucheVerte (2022-08-21 11:57:52+00:00): banc déjà présent4
closed by Syl (2022-08-21 12:52:27+00:00): Il n'a pas l'air d'y avoir de banc ici.
Cela ressemble à une erreur classique faite avec l'éditeur de Maps.me : créer un objet dont le type ne correspond pas et laisser une note pour préciser ce que c'est réellement.
Je viens de supprimer le banc.
opened by DressyPear4 (2019-04-20 13:27:30+00:00): Novas restrições aqui
opened by Adamant1 (2019-04-20 13:29:33+00:00): Query