piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ezekielf (2022-05-08 21:46:16+00:00): Hi, JoshBDPW113, 
Thanks for contributing to OSM in Vermont.  To connect with other Vermont mappers, please join the OSM US Slack where we have a #local-vermont channel.
https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

It appears you are adding access=private to a lot of driveways and privately maintained roads. I just wanted to give you a heads up that this is likely not correct usage of the tag in most cases.  On its own, a sign reading simply "private" or "PVT" is not enough to indicate access=private, only ownership=private. A more strongly worded sign such as "keep out", "no trespassing", or a physical gate indicates access=private as well. It's important to not overuse access=private because it is a very strong restriction and routing engines will completely avoid all roads marked as such.  It's generally not necessary to add access tags to driveways and privately maintained roads, but if you feel it's important, access=destination or access=delivery may be appropriate.  Another appropriate tag is ownership=private.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values
os-emmer (2024-02-12 12:29:21+00:00): Hello imagoiq,
you seem to have used operator:short_name=* quite a lot in this area.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Hff

Is it on pourpose that you are not using operator:short=*, as described in the wiki?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:operator#Further_details
imagoiq (2024-02-12 17:02:57+00:00): Hi os-emmer,
I'm not sure why. Maybe at the time that I used this key, the wiki was not clear or I just mixed it with the "short_name=*" key.

Anyway thanks I learned something today. I'll fix the ones that you mention.
os-emmer (2024-02-12 17:12:53+00:00): Thank you for your response. No problem. I can help you with retagging them. I just wanted to make sure that this special tagging style was not intended.
os-emmer (2024-02-12 17:53:01+00:00): I fixed them.
wkdgs (2022-04-20 11:27:44+00:00): Hi,

falls das ein Trampelpfad ist, könntest du noch "informal=yes" hinzufügen:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:informal

Bist du sicher, dass das Feld nicht bewirtschaftet ist? Falls doch, ist es wahrscheinlich nicht gerne gesehen, wenn dort Leute über das Feld laufen.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119922898
SchrieMa (2022-04-22 09:05:23+00:00): Hi,
vielen Dank für die Hilfe, informal=yes trifft es genau.

Das ist eine Wiese, die zweimal im Jahr gemäht wird und Fahrräder und Wanderer gut verträgt. Der Förster selbst führt Besuchergruppen über den Pfad. Vielen Dank aber fürs Mitdenken im Sinne des friedlichen Miteinanders.
ftrebien (2025-03-11 00:56:38+00:00): É 60 km/h nos 8 km entre Parque dos Anjos e a estrada Fazenda Alencastro em Figueira, não é 80 km/h. As placas estão em torno do cruzamento com essa estrada.
J-MUC (2022-04-19 19:44:18+00:00): CS comment should have been: Update advertising column (source: survey; Bavaria (80cm))
TG-map4 (2022-04-19 20:09:11+00:00): same thing with the parking spaces like in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119921330
AhegaHOE (2022-04-19 21:09:37+00:00): i will change that now! did see it, im sorry.
RicoElectrico (2022-07-24 14:53:10+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/616758085 - noname=yes weszło na nazwaną drogę
Messinian (2024-02-13 05:39:16+00:00): Hi unggo99, wanted to let you know that I deleted one of your ways in this changeset. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1053149075. Its labeled as grass and covers a stream bed and other features that are not grass. I generally don't delete items, however this one was not fixable without substantial modifications.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119924408
SekeRob (2022-05-01 18:22:59+00:00): Hi,

Ik heb wat role correcties op je scrub gemaakt, echter ook zoals het nu is gemapped rendered the scrub door the fairways heen.

Voor de goede orde, mocht die scrub eigenlijk rough zijn, er is de golf=rough tag. Heb nog nooit op een baan gespeelt waar scrub (bosjes areaal) direct aan fairways grenst of erover gaat. Heb vorig jaar een hele golfbaan gedaan en geen rough gemapped omdat het de defenitie van on golfbaan is buiten de fairways, maar ik ga het testen om te zien of dat een bevredigend resultaat oplevert. IIG aan de in OSM gemapte Kennemer heb je een redelijk goed voorbeedl

ciao

PS er zijn nog tenminste 4 pad secties die verbinding behoeven zoals de warnings bij de CS aangeeft.
mivelmo (2022-05-01 20:57:59+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for the comment, I didn't actually add the shrub, someone added that before and I've been going around correcting.  The Kennemer mapping I did myself as I'm making the course, not sure who originally mapped Noordwijk so might just redo from scratch.
SekeRob (2022-05-02 10:29:18+00:00): Just FYI, rough mapping does nothing in rendering terms, not in any of the 8 map render selections in Osmose, best to me carto.fe whose designer does lots of special sports pitch rendering features. Had forgotten I mapped a corner on my home course and then stopped, realising a course usually outside mown fairways is the very stuff we don't like to be in.
Have to revisit as all the tee boxes need retagging here. No ladies/men designation, just 4 coloured levels, back, middle, forward, juniors. (our course has on anything par 4 and 5 four tee boxes.)
Anyway, the scrub is no longer flagged in OSMI changing it to outer but it aint look good.
Vaguely remember having played Noordwijk for a competition + training round, but that was like 23-24 years ago. See lots of 'natural' sand traps to add from above.
BCNorwich (2022-04-20 06:49:12+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Very god first go at mapping to OSM. There's a lot to learn and some points are not easy to see/grasp. Unfortunately your new cycleway Way: 1053151247 is already mapped as a cycleway=opposite direction on the highway=unclassified, Way: Lower Marsh (626245392). So the cycleway and road are mapped as one object/feature.

Thus the new cycleway is a duplication which I've removed.

Regards Bernard.
Nielkrokodil (2022-04-23 10:34:31+00:00): Hi SekeRob,

der Kletterpark ist finde ich Teil des Waldes. Man klettert durch die Bäume. 

I believe the Kletterpark is part of the wood. You climb from tree to tree there.
SekeRob (2022-04-23 14:40:01+00:00): (In meinem besten Hackensack-Deutsch ;) Ich habe alle Waldrollen entfernt. Jetzt sollte es in Carto Standard mit Bäumen gerendert werden, aber es ist nicht korrekt. Es wäre besser, den Park durch eine Grenze und einen Knoten in der Mitte mit den Informationen zu ersetzen, jetzt ist es eine Art Mapping für den Renderer. Sehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120093086
SekeRob (2022-04-23 14:52:19+00:00): Ein anderes beispiel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/510628467

Und andere verwendete tags wie im taginfo https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=high_ropes_course

The sky is the limit. :O)))
JanFi (2022-04-20 13:22:12+00:00): De Stroomweg is af en toegankelijk voor fietsers. Waarom verander je zijn status?
Steven Bloeyaert (2022-04-20 22:20:03+00:00): De Stroomweg is "officieel" nog niet in gebruik. (mocht ik ergens een foutje gemaakt hebben..sorry!)
JanFi (2022-04-23 06:58:34+00:00): Iedereen maakt fouten, natuurlijk. Maar als een weg een expliciete note heeft dat de regeling anders is voor fietsers dan voor auto's, zou je toch wel moeten checken voor je dat verandert.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-20 21:07:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 121260282 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some implausible mapping.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5998 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6004 .
VA00 (2022-05-03 07:25:04+00:00): Bez sensu, nie ma tu drugiego krótkiego mostku, trzeba było wydłuyżyć istniejący. O ile ten ciek pod spodem w ogóle istnieje.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-20 21:07:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 121260282 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some implausible mapping.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5998 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6004 .
Glassman (2022-04-19 23:00:07+00:00): I noticed you added natural=cliff tag to Jameson Lake but from the imagery it's not clear that the entire shoreline has a cliff. Can you review this edit? Thanks
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119925622
Rotmilan1982 (2022-04-19 21:28:57+00:00): It‘s not a bank it‘s a bench
Tri_Hugger (2022-04-19 21:35:44+00:00): Correction: Source used was Maxar SecureWatch 2022-04-15
eggie (2022-04-20 05:46:08+00:00): Dag DEYB

Je bedoeling is natuurlijk goed, maar OSM is een kaart van het heden.
Zodra er een begin van de bouw is kun je een aanvraag doen op het forum van OSM in het draadje Verzoek BAG import om de import vanuit het Kadaster te bespoedigen. Normaliter worden gebouwen periodiek geïmporteerd.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12

Nu is er nog niet te zien.. Ik haal het 'gebouw van de toekomst' voorlopig weer even weg.
Zie ook https://www.satellietdataportaal.nl/?base=openstreetmap&res=0.5&datemin=20-04-2021&loc=51.17262%2C6.019349%2C18z&overlay=mos-0&marker=loc&acqdate=2022-01-30&acqid=20220130_105736_SV1-04&sensor=SuperView-1
en
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=keulsebaan%20510&resultOffset=0&objectId=0957200000020813&geometry.x=199221.98861318&geometry.y=353902.16211127&zoomlevel=6&detailsObjectId=0957010000127971

MVG
eggie
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-20 21:07:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 121260282 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some implausible mapping.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5998 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6004 .
user_5359 (2022-05-01 16:05:50+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1053158964. Which language did you mean with name:cw? (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_639-1_codes)
JeroenHoek (2022-04-20 09:07:16+00:00): Bij it Heechsân valt me op dat het kombord, in 2019 tenminste, nog "Hoogzand – Oostermeer" hanteert als name:nl. Moet die wellicht ook aangepast worden in de place-node?

Grappig dat 'Oostermeer' hier nog in het Nederlands gebruikt wordt; bij Eastermar is die naam ook in het Nederlands vervangen door Eastermar (geen dubbele naam op kombord).
AndriesWijma (2022-04-20 17:29:22+00:00): Het is inderdaad niet consistent. Het zou ook logischer zijn geweest als It Heechsân inmiddels de dorpsstatus zou hebben gekregen. Ik heb de name:nl aangepast want het lijkt me inderdaad wel goed om de naamgeving op de plaatsnaamborden te volgen.
MxxCon (2022-04-20 03:55:29+00:00): Hello.
What kind of business is this? Where is this information is coming from?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119926444
MxxCon (2022-04-20 03:57:34+00:00): Hello.
This appears to be a multi-story residential building. As such it is inappropriate to tag the whole building with a business name if that business doesn't occupy the whole building. It must be mapped as a separate poi node within the perimeter of that building.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119926503
MxxCon (2022-04-20 04:04:58+00:00): Hello.
What kind of business is this?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119926607
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-20 21:07:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 121260282 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some implausible mapping.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5998 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6004 .
MxxCon (2022-04-20 04:59:28+00:00): Hello.
Please note that unless a business occupies the whole building, it is inappropriate to tag it as such. Instead, such biz should be tagged as a separate poi node inside of that building's perimeter. 
For a example, a stand-alone McDonald's building can be tagged as such. Or Costco that occupies the whole building. But a fruits store or bodega or restaurant that's on the ground floor of an office/apartment building should be mapped as separate node.
I've seen you did similar mistake on a number of following edits too, so please note of this. 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119926796
clay_c@wonder (2022-11-22 21:16:06+00:00): Hi JBmapswestchester, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I've changed this roadway back to two-way because there are no indications that it is one-way. I apologize if this causes trouble with navigation apps, though it appears that the entrance is properly signed to encourage delivery drivers to use the other entrance.

By the way, we've been having trouble delivering to this neighborhood due to the misplaced address nodes. If you live here or regularly visit, would you be willing to help us out by moving the address nodes to the correct locations?

-Clay
user_5359 (2023-08-06 10:07:00+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9678573912. In https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139424510 you change the most nodes from power=pole to man_made=utility, but not this node. Why?
VictorIE (2023-08-06 10:26:09+00:00): Ooops!

Do you have a diagnostic tool for telecoms?
user_5359 (2023-08-06 10:56:07+00:00): No, that was "just" a random discovery when correcting your typo. But the idea is not bad.
zhik (2022-04-19 23:03:11+00:00): Cool!
Carto'Cité (2022-09-20 10:36:41+00:00): Bonjour L'Oiseau Lybre,
Je me permet de corrigé une donnée que tu as ajouté ici (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1053162976). Cette voie existait déjà et ce que tu as décrit comme une bande cyclable est en réalité un espace pour les piétons. N’hésite pas à me dire si tu as des observations.
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF Charles de Carto’Cité pour #VeloNormandie
MxxCon (2022-04-20 05:10:57+00:00): Hello.
Kindly please write changeset comments describing what you are editing, not like you are trying to convince people to approve a new pokestop.
Please see this article that describes what constitutes good changeset comments: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119927420
5m4u9 (2022-04-21 03:42:36+00:00): hola, al contrario de lo que piensas, tener mapeado los ingresos es sumamente útil. Seguramente se puede mejorar el etiquetado. Quizá en otra es mejor conversar para conocer el contexto del mapeo.

Restauraré todos los cambios borrados.
Joaquin1989 (2022-05-15 12:38:17+00:00): Por favor no cambiar los nombres de los lugares ni los nombres de la edificaciones o propiedades.
JJIglesias (2022-04-20 02:02:18+00:00): Saludos. Si bien el mapa No necesita esa informacion que borrastes. TAMPOCO la PROHIBE, por lo tanto has destruido el trabajo de otro mapeador Innecesariamente. El mapa necesita gente q aporte NO que destruya. Para proximas oportunidades te sugerimos que te concentres en Aportar elementos faltantes y NO en Borrar elementos existentes
5m4u9 (2022-04-21 04:05:39+00:00): hola, mm... no va acorde a la realidad englobar a todos los terrenos como un solo terreno, quizas podría ser el concepto de manzano pero hay que contemplar la acera. O quizá area residencial pero dado el lugar es ambos residencial/comercial.

Sugiero dedicar mapeo terreno por terreno como está pasando la avenida cívica.
ralley (2022-04-20 02:37:46+00:00): Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edit, how ever there appear to be multiple problems with this changeset:
1) It spans a huge geographic area which makes QA difficult, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
2) The changeset comment (translated) does not appear to explain the changes made, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
3) You have added a motorway that is not supported by the aerial imagery you refer to: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1053171460
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119928427
❤️‍🔥 (2022-04-22 08:07:28+00:00): Hi, based on aerial imagery the village you mapped in Colombia does not exist. Could you please confirm whether it is a real place? If not, you can map imaginary places using https://OpenGeoFiction.net, but please don't do this in OpenStreetMap. Thanks.

---

Hola, basado en imágenes aéreas, el pueblo que mapeó en Colombia no existe. ¿Podría por favor confirmar si es un lugar real? Si no, puede mapear lugares imaginarios usando https://OpenGeoFiction.net, pero por favor no hagas esto en OpenStreetMap. Gracias. (traducción automática)

---

https://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=119928427
https://osm.org/#map=17/6.92904/-74.82637
deskoft (2022-04-20 00:05:24+00:00): Corregí los estacionamientos privados pues según la wiki el formato correcto es building=parking
ovruni (2022-04-20 01:23:11+00:00): Hola, actualmente building=garage para los estacionamientos privados. Por otra parte, en JOSM existe una herramienta de validación [1] que permite revisar si existen algunos problemas antes de subirse el conjunto de cambios, de esta forma puede revisar si hay edificios o vías que se superponen.
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:building%3Dgarage
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:JOSM/Validador
deskoft (2022-04-20 01:33:53+00:00): Hola ovruni! Gracias por las correcciones como siempre y por la ayuda.

Estos estacionamientos son privados, de las casas y enrejados.
deskoft (2022-04-20 01:35:44+00:00): Salvo el del Piombino que si es publico
Gustavo22Soares (2022-11-17 18:46:22+00:00): pfvr n utilize a tag de leisure=park para escolas
Marques RJ (2022-11-17 18:49:53+00:00): ok!
Marques RJ (2022-11-17 18:50:29+00:00): Qual sugestão, então?
Gustavo22Soares (2022-11-17 21:26:59+00:00): utilize amenity=school para demarcar toda a area da escola 
ex: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11998974
Frans S (2022-05-10 12:26:53+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say that your mappings are not accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to these points:
!! Use the correct imagery. On this project Maxar Premium.
A: buildings not always accurately drawn. Please pay more attention on following the outlines of a building (with extensions)
B: Overlapping buildings drawn.
C: Multiple buildings drawn as 1 building.
D: Nodes of buildings linked to other buildings or roads.
E: Rectangular Buildings not squared. They are mostly strict rectangular.
F: Buildings partially hidden under trees not drawn correctly.



Explanation 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 !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119928639
Frans S (2022-04-30 08:48:58+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say that your mappings are not accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention on these points:
A: buildings not always accurately drawn. Please pay more attention on following the outlines of a building (with extentions)
D: nodes of buildings linked to other buildings or roads.
E: Rectangular Buildings not squared.They are mostly strickt rectangular.
F: buildings partially hidden under trees not drawn correctly.
G: The shadow of a building included in your mapping.



Explanation 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 !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119928758
martien-176 (2022-04-25 18:03:27+00:00): Hi, you requested a review here. You mapped the buildings well, many thanks for that. You used Bing here besides Maxar. Do not forget to check when you are finished if your mappings are still in accordance with the prescribed Maxar. For a few buildings that is unfortunately not the case. Keep up the mapping - many thanks! Kind regards, Martien (global validator)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119929264
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:26:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
DUGA (2022-04-23 14:56:37+00:00): Please avoid using Maxar in Pennsylvania. Everything should be handled by PEMA which releases imagery every 2 years. Maxar does not calibrate imagery for OSM.

https://imgur.com/a/JWayzPY
user_5359 (2022-04-27 13:01:43+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3798410747 (also http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5165400985). What is the meaning of the tag ra = buffer_stop? Did you mean the key railway?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-20 02:04:02+00:00): I included the name in Comox language, χʷɛmaɬku
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-20 02:04:36+00:00): see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homalco_First_Nation
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:18:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Kovoschiz (2022-04-20 06:45:09+00:00): Please don't upload your personal test data. This is vandalism.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-03-02 00:32:33+00:00): Reverted by DWG as apparent import from unauthorised source: 
changeset/133192326
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:18:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Minh Nguyen (2022-05-16 01:45:01+00:00): I reverted this change in changeset 121029361 because I saw the one-way restriction with my very eyes and mapped it the same day. It’s very recent, but you can read about it at https://bit.ly/quiet-zone-project
rakdpall (2023-02-10 09:40:09+00:00): Hello Minh Nguyen,
Thank you for reviewing our changeset and correcting the edit.Thanks once again for fixing the issue, looking forward to learn more from you.
Regards,
rakdpall
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:24:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:16:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.