piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
user_5359 (2022-09-20 09:01:11+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1095764030 (one of two hundred thirty seven objects). What is the meaning of the tag  deleteme=yes (with version #1)?
MxxCon (2022-09-21 05:38:35+00:00): Hello.
Could you please explain why did you add building:part=yes here?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126348749
Friendly_Ghost (2022-10-09 23:59:00+00:00): Hi Wilmer,

I removed your enormous landuse in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127272826 because it included so many areas that were definitely not residential landuse. This was just lazy work on your part, really.
pkoby (2022-09-22 12:21:41+00:00): Hey, welcome to OSM! I saw that you've made a bunch of good changes around JHU, and no real notes. Everything looks good. I see that you're using the MD Latest Imagery for editing, which is the one I'd recommend. On this changeset, though, I'd point out that the imagery is a few years old (older than Nov 2020 based on Street View), and the sidewalk/grass boundary has changed, so the addition you made actually no longer exists... Bing and Maxar imageries tend to be more up-to-date, but are inaccurate in offset.
mariotomo (2022-09-19 14:03:08+00:00): hola. me alegro que sigas mapeando. "pista de lazo"? sería esa cosa de "cow-boy", como para hacer rodeos? si es eso, no parece "horse_racing" la etiqueta correcta, pero cuál sería no sé. yo que tú pondría la cuestión en el community.osm.org (que substituye el help.osm.org).
mariotomo (2022-09-28 16:36:48+00:00): bueno, la pregunta la he puesta (https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-to-tag-a-lazo-court/3208/), otro italiano me sugirió una corrección que me pareció razonable, y la acabo de hacer.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126747953
revisa, y de ser necesario me mejoras, gracias.
skquinn (2022-09-19 17:50:19+00:00): Just now noticed Every Door is making a few of these empty changesets. Not sure what's going on.
BubbaJuice (2022-09-22 03:12:11+00:00): Hello chrysrobyn,

Please write appropriate changeset comments. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments. Not writing changeset comments can land consequences for your account.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-21 20:38:11+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/554370259/history has maxheight = 2.8956 that was added in this edit
this value is unexpectedly long and detailed - is it really correct?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-21 20:39:11+00:00): It looks like conversion from 9’ 6”, mismatching edit description
KB-01 (2025-07-24 15:55:52+00:00): Yes, the original value was formatted incorrectly and at the time I think was under the impression that all measurements on OSM should be in metric units. I've reverted it back to the proper value.
Mxdanger (2022-12-01 01:11:01+00:00): Hi, just to let you know, you deleted several parts of a relation (8319625), which ended up breaking it. It's going to be tricky to fix so I may have to revert your changeset entirely.
brianm0000 (2022-12-01 01:25:22+00:00): Hi, don't wrestle too much with correcting my mangling... feel free to back out my change set entirely if that's simpler. Thanks for letting me know.
Mxdanger (2022-12-01 00:53:49+00:00): Hi, just to let you know, you deleted several parts of a relation (8319625), which ended up breaking it. It's going to be tricky to fix so I may have to revert your changeset entirely.
stevea (2022-09-19 02:27:52+00:00): Our community does have standards for what we map:  these include what we can touch and feel in the real world.  In the case of boundaries, which are "less of that," but still important data to be in a map, we have all sorts of sub-classes of boundaries.  These have emerged over time and with consensus.

If you want to "build a case" for these (fire district boundaries) to be in OSM, you might be able to do that.  However, choosing to simply "assert them into the map" wasn't the best way to do so.

Seek others in the map (read wiki, ask others...) about our proposal process.  Look at what we've done with boundaries (and the data structures we use) and see if a / your / the community's "scheme" (no judgement there, more of a nickname) for fire district boundaries can be better formalized into something where heads nod and it widely looks like a good idea.

Simply slapping those in (and the community in the face a bit) as you did so was unwelcome.  I do thank you for your gracious redact of your data, that's correct.

Contact me off this more-public venue if you like and we might further discuss.
stevea (2022-09-19 02:47:24+00:00): I mean, you could coin boundary=state_fire or something like that, but it's both messy and a tall hill to climb (in my opinion).

The "trick" is to get the tags right.  It may be that "the community" thinks these are a good idea, if you tag them not boundary=administrative (because they are not), they become sort of like a school district boundary (in OSM):  these exist (as both boundary=school and boundary=School) but last time I looked there were barely 20 of these (and millions of other boundary tags).

Check taginfo and how these are used, built and understood to convey data to others.  Things like census and other boundaries have largely fallen out of favor.  Things like COGs and MetroMPO stuff, read our wiki (US admin_level):  these are "mostly not" mapped, but you might find some places (in New England) where they are.

I'm "in the space" and I don't see a lot of fire district boundaries.  However, I did enter a fire=perimeter tag on the (large) polygon for the CZU Lightning Complex fire.  That's likely not a purely "Kosher" way to use that tag, but the polygon has "stuck around" as apparently useful.  (Thousands of structures burned and who knows how many trees).  It's a "fire" (not its district of fire management professionals), but I can see arguments for how both such things are important enough to tag and enter into a mapping database like OSM.
Minh Nguyen (2022-09-20 03:09:56+00:00): If I understand correctly, these are essentially divisions of a single government agency (CAL FIRE). It’s much more common to indicate this kind of detail in operator tags of relevant features. For example, each CAL FIRE station within the CZU unit would be tagged:

operator=CAL FIRE San Mateo–Santa Cruz Unit
operator:wikidata=Q99306333

It’s possible that some CAL FIRE stations don’t even have any indication on them that they’re operated by CAL FIRE yet, so this would be a clear improvement.

The operator:wikidata tag would allow someone to easily query for all the stations operated by the unit without worrying about exactly how the name is spelled. Wikidata items have only been created for a few of the units so far, but more can be created using https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q99306333 as a model.
stevea (2022-09-20 03:19:55+00:00): Thanks, Minh.  Yes, "divisions of a single government agency," CALFire, the California Department of Forestry.

Stations have been known to have less-than-clear signage id-ing them ask CALFire (or however it's styled).

I'm all for "green lights ahead for Wikidata approaches," and I am all for "let's make it clear and easy for people to put these 'in a box' (categorize them sensibly)," too.

An operator tag can work, even if as a temporary crutch before this might get "even more formalized (again)," which does seem to happen.  But this iterative process does make our data better, especially over the longer term.

The original poster agreed (with me) to take some time to chin-stroke on this and give it a good think to make good sense going forward.
Adamant1 (2022-10-25 17:12:41+00:00): Personally I probably would have been fine with this, at least north of Sacramento, depending on the tags and I'm the main or only mapper in the area. But unfortunately no one consulted me about it.

I wouldn't say "the community" was against it though. At least not the local community. And once again the "you should consult the local community" crowd fails to do exactly that. I guess the "rule" only applies to people who are doing mapping in the Santa Cruz area. North of SF though, screw em (I'm mainly referring to SteveA here. Since he has a history of making an issue of out things like this when they happen around where he maps and was the one who appears to have "discussed" it with Gus2001. Although I do wonder why Minh Nguyen didn't at least suggest consulting with locals either as part of the process to this eventually being deleted either). Maybe next time huh?
Adamant1 (2022-10-25 17:14:45+00:00): Anyway, just to add my two sense, I don't see why Cal Fire administrative boundaries can't or shouldn't be mapped. Personally, I think they would add some value to  the map at least north of Sac and I know they use OpenStreetMap for some of their fire mapping. I actually know someone who works for Cal Fire doing GIS related stuff  and I'm sure they would benefit from it. I've actually tried to find that information myself a couple of times when there's been fires up here. I'm sure other's have to. Although I agree that the specific tagging could clarified, but I don't think just tagging Cal Fire stations would be a good middle ground though. As it doesn't show where they would deploy for a fire and where they wouldn't. Which again, I think is useful information. 

It's not like there aren't similar things out there currently being mapped or that people can't just map what they want to either, regardless of it is something "mainstream."  Both SteveA and Minh Nguyen do exactly that themselves all the time.
Minh Nguyen (2022-10-25 17:17:16+00:00): I was just making an observation about an alternative that’s currently in use, not laying down the law. 🤷‍♂️
Adamant1 (2022-10-25 17:28:49+00:00): "I was just making an observation about an alternative that’s currently in use, not laying down the law."

Oh I know. I wasn't claiming you where doing anything else. I was just kind of surprised that you didn't add "maybe consult with the locals" while doing it. That's all :thumbsup: SteveA is the main one I have a problem with in regards to that though since it's something he's been pretty adamant about in the past when it comes to people mapping in "his area", but then regularly disregards in other instance. That said, It's not a super big deal either way and I'm not acting like it is. Just something that would have been nice to happen since it is a "rule" and I would have liked to see these added to the map, at least in my area.
Minh Nguyen (2022-10-25 17:40:07+00:00): If I remember correctly, it was actually another mapper who asked Gus to remove these boundaries; it came up in Slack and Discord at some point.

In any case, if anyone does decide to restore the CAL FIRE units as boundaries, they would need to be tagged as something other than county boundaries. For example, one mapper has experimented with mapping the Fort Bragg Unified School District as a boundary=school relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9992727
Adamant1 (2022-10-25 17:42:18+00:00): Although, that said it seems like Gus2001 thought "laying down the law" was exactly what both of you were doing since they ultimately deleted the relations and left the changeset comment of "the community" doesn't map these." You can say your "making an observation about an alternative" all you want, but it's a distinction without a purpose if the person your talking to ultimately thinks your speaking for "the community." and revert their edits based on  what you told them.
Adamant1 (2022-10-25 17:51:52+00:00): "If I remember correctly, it was actually another mapper who asked Gus to remove these boundaries; it came up in Slack and Discord at some point."

That's fine. But it's not like your and SteveA comments had zero effect on their decision either and your the person I'm discussing it with. If the person who original brought it up in Slack was the one making the changeset comments I'd be totally fine discussing it with them though. 

"n any case, if anyone does decide to restore the CAL FIRE units as boundaries, they would need to be tagged as something other than county boundaries." 

I agree. Which is why I said I think the specific tagging needs to be worked out before it's re-mapped. Although I don't see why that warranted the boundaries being deleted in the meantime either. It's not like the tags couldn't have just been changed without the whole being deleted.
Minh Nguyen (2022-10-25 17:52:23+00:00): I only chimed in later, after the deletion. (It isn’t possible to comment on a changeset before it gets uploaded.) Gus later reached out to me privately, but I haven’t had the time to explore options with them.

These boundaries were added systematically across California, so it isn’t surprising that it garnered the attention of mappers across the state. If it had been an addition of just the unit covering your part of California, I think it would’ve been a longer time before anyone would’ve flagged it as an issue that Shasta College was now located in CAL Fire Shasta Trinity Unit, California, instead of in Shasta County.
Adamant1 (2022-10-25 17:52:40+00:00): *Whole thing being deleted.
Adamant1 (2022-10-25 18:01:26+00:00): " only chimed in later, after the deletion. (It isn’t possible to comment on a changeset before it gets uploaded.) Gus later reached out to me privately, but I haven’t had the time to explore options with them."

That's fine. 

"These boundaries were added systematically across California, so it isn’t surprising that it garnered the attention of mappers across the state."

That does complicate things a lot. One of the issues I've always had with relations is that there is no easy way to deal with one part of them without it screwing up the whole thing in the process. That said, I don't think the normal processes of discussing something with the locals should have been disregarded just because the relation encompassed multiple parts of California either. There might have been a way for it to remain on the map north of Sacramento where I was fine with it but be deleted south of that if people south of there didn't want it mapped in their area. In the meantime there's a much higher bar for it to be added back to the map now that's it been reverted. It would have taken what like half a day and a couple of clicks to just change the tags and send a few locals some messages asking their opinions?
Minh Nguyen (2022-10-25 18:08:54+00:00): That’s fair. If the local(s) in Redding would like just the SHU boundary restored – tagged correctly – I don’t think there would be much of a fuss about it. It’d be a different story if someone wanted the whole dataset reimported or wanted to add organizational unit boundaries for many other state agencies.

It reminds me of how there was such a kerfluffle when someone imported the whole nationwide EPA contamination site dataset and it had to get reverted, but I convinced the importer to keep them in my area (Cincinnati) so I could use it as a starting point for mapping industrial sites. The data is still in OSM many years later in an improved state, harming no one.
stevea (2022-10-25 22:48:36+00:00): As I said a month ago:  the original author/poster (OP) and I had a cordial discussion about this, he agreed to redact his import and "think about it" as he might re-enter these data (or portions of them), and that's where it remains, correctly.  It's fine, the OP appears to be doing just that.  If other discussion about these data continues here, I think that fine, too.  But rock-throwing insults and specious allegations will be (and are) called out.

I hesitate to reiterate his sordid, inflammatory, fight-picking, insulting, well-documented highly negative history in OSM, so I'll simply repeat here that I have as little or nothing to do with Adamant1 as possible.  Nearly everything he says about me isn't true and I can't stop him from slandering me and others, so I don't.  I will call him out just as publicly as he does, though.  Any interaction with him needlessly becomes contentious, and not just with me, but with many (most?) others.  My solution is to disengage as much as possible with him:  "No Contact" with people who exhibit this behavior.  He tries to bait me here, he'll almost certainly try to bait me again:  watch.

OSM:  how many repeat incidents does it take to recognize and apply a final remedy to this abuse?
Adamant1 (2022-10-25 23:12:49+00:00): <As I said a month ago: the original author/poster (OP) and I had a cordial discussion about this, he agreed to redact his import and "think about it" as he might re-enter these data (or portions of them), and that's where it remains, correctly.

That's fine. It doesn't mean I'm not allowed to voice my opinion about it in the meantime though does it? The last time I checked this is a public discussion forum and the changeset directly affected areas that I regularly map. Otherwise I can guarantee you I would have stayed out of it. 

<I hesitate to reiterate his sordid, inflammatory, fight-picking, insulting, well-documented highly negative history in OSM, so I'll simply repeat here that I have as little or nothing to do with Adamant1 as possible.

You say that now, but then you also have an established of taking insulting pot shots at me in random discussions that had nothing to do with you. For instance the recent diary entry where completely unprovoked you called me a sociopathic troll. There's plenty of other examples where you've instigated things with me in discussions that had absolutely nothing to do with you. So spare me the sanctimony. At least in this it directly related to edits that where made in Shasta County and nothing I said about you was insulting either. Literally everything I said is your actual position about things. It's not an insult to repeat what someone tells you.
Adamant1 (2022-10-25 23:12:54+00:00): <how many repeat incidents does it take to recognize and apply a final remedy to this abuse?
 
You know, I've asked that myself a ton of times, both to you and Woodpeck, but yet neither one of you seem to want back off and stop coming at me. So this is just where we are. I've done more then enough to "remedy" things on my side though. Your the one that is unwilling to drop the stick and Wookpeck seems more then willing to allow to keep beating me with it. Otherwise, I could really care less. Again, I would have had nothing to do with this conversation if  it didn't  directly have to do with Shasta County. I wouldn't expect you to just stay out of something that had to do with Santa Cruz just because I happen to comment on it, but then I'm clearly more fair about things then you seem to be. Let's not turn this into a petty bickering match though. I think me and Minh Nguyen have found a good compromise. I'm perfectly willing to let it sit where it is for now and see if Gus2001 can add back the parts in Shasta/Tehama County that were deleted once the tagging is figured out.
stevea (2022-10-25 23:15:54+00:00): See?
Adamant1 (2022-10-25 23:28:11+00:00): <If the local(s) in Redding would like just the SHU boundary restored – tagged correctly – I don’t think there would be much of a fuss about it.

Cool. Like I said to SteveA, I'm fine waiting until the particulars of the tagging can be figured and then seeing if Gus2001 can re-map it North of Sacramento. It still would have been nice if the locals were consulted first, but what's done is done. No harm no foul. Thanks for being understanding about things ::thumbsup::
Adamant1 (2022-10-25 23:29:08+00:00): (As a side to that I'd be interested to know how you got the shrug emoji to display since I can't seem to get them to work for some reason)
tastrax (2022-09-30 07:20:48+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code 
+61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX
as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features  - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
Strubbl (2022-09-19 10:10:50+00:00): Hi, thanks for you contribution. The bar Olympiapark Biergarten did exist already. Is your map data up-to-date?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9823174797

I am removing that one duplicate node now.
nevw (2022-09-19 02:36:35+00:00): also updated geometry using source 	Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries - 2022
FJili (2022-09-21 02:18:51+00:00): 您好，您的一个变更集范围实在是太大了，我看你是使用rapid，推测不会有什么全局的改动，应该不会这么大才是，并且可以请您下次标注一下更改了什么吗?
nevw (2022-09-19 02:41:01+00:00): also updated geometry using Protected areas of Queensland - boundaries - 2022
i2004 (2022-09-19 10:10:41+00:00): hola en el caso del 168 sentido a san isidro esta desordenada la parada de libertador y lopez y planes del lado de vicente lopez sentido a san isidro
i2004 (2022-09-19 10:22:31+00:00): me refiero al orden de las paradas
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:52:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:50:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:47:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:38:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:49:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:43:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:48:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:44:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:41:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:43:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-14 19:50:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127540575, 127538516 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undiscussed import of buildings with low quality. Also this user has circumvented a block by creating new accounts.