piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
user_2066394 (2022-08-02 20:21:33+00:00): Eher sinnfrei. E-Mail-Adresse findet sich ja auch auf der Homepage. Was als nächstes? E-Mail-Adressen aus allen Gewerbeeinträgen entfernen? :-)
user_12500175 (2022-08-03 06:23:11+00:00): Hallo, auf  Homepages sind diese aber meistens für automatische Abfragen (bots) gesperrt was ja aber bei OSM nicht der Fall ist. 
Lasse bestehende Mailadressen aber in Zukunft drinnen, trage aber selber keine mehr ein da diese ja auf der Homepage zufinden sind
user_2066394 (2022-08-03 08:50:36+00:00): Einwandfrei. Im konkreten Fall gerne auf der Homepage der Hausverwaltung vorbeischauen, die E-Mail-Adresse steht absolut exponiert.
Tilia_J (2022-08-02 21:40:28+00:00): Beste Ankeric,

Je splitst wegen zónder de door jou voorgestelde missende tags toe te voegen.

Alles dient enkel nog je eigen rigide opvattingen.

De voorgeschiedenis van jou binnen OSM leert dat je je zelf steeds meer in afzondering plaatst en eigenlijk niet voor overleg vatbaar bent. 

Punt is dat ik rond Rijnstate net een boel losse wegelementen met identieke tags samengevoegd heb.

Zonder constructieve houding van jouw zijde voel ik me niet genegen jouw opsplitsingen  - die werkelijjk waar niets toevoegen aan de kaart en editen lastiger maakt - te respecteren en in stand te houden.
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-08-02 20:13:52+00:00): Kannst Du Dir das bitte nochmal ansehen? Hier hast Du aus einem Wohngebiet von Oerbke ein Truppenübungsplatz gemacht! ;-)
sakudo (2022-08-02 20:45:06+00:00): Da gab es eine Relation, die hatte nur eine area als Mitglied, und ich habe lediglich die keys von der Relation auf die Area verschoben und die Relation gelöscht.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13583337/history#map=16/52.8518/9.72190

Aber ich frage mich gerade, was da vorher passiert ist: Denn vor der letzten Änderung (vor einem Tag!) hatte die Relation noch zwei Mitglieder, und die area war hier war "inner".

Ebenfalls gibt es ebenfalls seit gestern offenbar eine area für den ganzen Truppenübungsplatz.

Es war eigentlich vor den Änderungen von gestern korrekt):
Truppenübungsplatz als key für eine Relation mit Mitglieder:
1.) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4649684 als outer
2.) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116794505 als inner und als landuse=residential.

Sehe ich das richtig?
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-08-03 07:27:33+00:00): Da bin ich mir auch nicht sicher, wie es richtig gemappt wird. Oerbke liegt im Gebiet des Truppenübungsplatzes und ist Teil von dem Gebiet. Daher dürfte diese residential-Fläche nicht als inner von der Fläche ausgeschlossen werden. So wie die anderen residential-Flächen von Oerbke auch.
Andererseits ist das ein Wohngebiet und öffentlich zugänglich, also kein militärischer Sicherheitsbereich. Es gibt noch weitere Flächen im Truppenübungsplatz, die bewohnt sind und dem Bund gehören (z.B. Ostenholz, etwas weiter südlich von hier). Daher wäre es wohl am sinnvollsten zwei Flächen für den Truppenübungsplatz anzulegen. Einmal die Gesamtfläche und dann für die Fläche des gesperrten militärischen Sicherheitsbereiches. Letzteres sollte dann nur mit landuse=militäry gemappt werden.

Ich ändere das Wohngebiet erstmal wieder in landuse=residential. Das ist jedenfalls eindeutig.

Viele Grüße
sakudo (2022-08-03 07:43:47+00:00): Okay, macht Sinn.
Jedoch wenn das öffentlich zugänglich ist, dann hätten wir hier eine doppelte Belegung des landuse, das Truppenübungsplatz viel größer ist.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4649684#map=11/52.8244/9.8031

Was spricht dagegen, die residential Fläche vom Truppenübungsplatz ganz auszunehmen? Am besten vielleicht ohne relation, sondern einfach indem man dien Truppenübungsplatz verkleinert und "anbeißt"? Das zeigt dann auch an, dass man zu den Wohngebieten gelangt ohne Durchquerung des Sicherheitsbereiches.

An "unserem" Gebiet würde man die Häuser N entlang Fallingbosteler Str. wohl auch ausnehmen.
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-08-03 08:04:17+00:00): Ich bin auch absolut gegen eine doppelte landuse-Erfassung. Vielleicht das gesamte Gebiet (das aktuelle landuse=military) in ein boundary ändern und dann eine neue landuse=military-Fläche des Sperrgebietes erstellen. Da kenne ich aber den genauen Grenzverlauf nur stellenweise.

Ich hatte das irgendwann auch mal im OSM-Forum angesprochen. Ich schau mal nach...
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-08-03 08:14:11+00:00): Das war hier: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=72563

Ich sehe das wie Galbinus. Diese Flächen sind kein landuse=military sondern landuse=residential. Aber wie taggt man dann das gesamte Gebiet?
sakudo (2022-08-03 08:50:45+00:00): Okok, da gab's offenbar auch schon längere Diskussionen.

Also könnte man es so lassen. (Ich habe geschaut: Bei anderen Plätzen ist das wohl auch so gehandhabt bzw. angrenzende Felder, Wälder sind ja auch hier mit doppeltem landuse.)

Das Problem ist halt, dass landuse bei landuse=military doppelt belegt sein will, sprich, ein zweifaches tagging fast schon impliziert: landuse=military ist bürokratisch bedingt
landuse=residential,wood etc. ist durch die Topografie bedingt.
Also insofern könnte man es nun einfach so lassen.

landuse=military erscheint als Sperrgebiet, aber davon kann man dann eigentlich nicht zwingend ableiten, dass es tatsächlich ein Sperrgebiet ist.

Ich lass' dann die Finger davon. Danke!
eliabecampos1 (2022-08-02 18:38:04+00:00): https://wsgeo.manaus.am.gov.br/ConsultaPreviaCidadaoPortal/
Glassman (2022-08-07 15:22:36+00:00): Unfortunately the track is visible from background imagery so it's likely to just be added back. A better solution is to mark the track as access=no or access=private. That prevents routers from using the segment. 

Also, the is an abandoned railway bed that should be preserved. Abandoned railway beds have  been used for other projects. For example, near me they are using it for a new water pipeline. 

Can you review your edits and if you agree, add the track and abandoned railway back? Let me know if you have any questions. I'll send you more info in a message.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124405130
hyakfree (2022-08-07 19:45:55+00:00): Thanks for the reply.  This road was abandoned over 50 years ago and re-routed.  The access that was used on this forest service road was recreated about 1/2 mile away.  This is private property and the forest service removed their easement to it, which has also been recorded with the county.  Technically the space on the ski hill is no private, just the space on the north side, across our lot at 1041 snoqualmie DR.  The only way I saw to remove my portion was to remove the entire section across the forest service land.  I would prefer that the trail that crosses my lot be totally removed, but beyond that is not up to me.  Can you advise how this happens?  Thanks for the reply
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124405130
Glassman (2022-08-07 22:42:00+00:00): Take a look at the changes I made. I added back in the abandoned railway, removed the track to the south which doesn't appear on the imagery and removed some non-existent bldgs.
hyakfree (2022-08-12 18:13:28+00:00): Sorry, I haven't had my computer and I couldn't get the chat feature to work on my phone.  My area of concern us the portion on the north side of the ski hill, just across my property at 1041 Snoquaulmie Dr, Snoqualmie, Pass.  What I'm seeing on the map, is that this section of the rail is still represented on the map.   There is actually still an active easement for the forest service on the south side of the Hyak Ski area.  I am unsure the constraints to it and don't want to speak to their interests, but I don't have any input on that area.  Will it be possible to remove the track portion over our property?
The other interesting this in all of this, is that about 1/4 mile to the north is the Palouse to Cascade rails to trails, as the rail way that is of discussion was replaced and built upas a new rail system almost 100 years ago and even the newer upgrade Palouse to Cascade trail that was the more recently active rail, does not have the abandoned railway maker.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124405130
Glassman (2022-08-12 23:48:31+00:00): This is what it looks like after I removed the track from your property. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/47.39070/-121.40086. While the abandoned railway is still mapped, it doesn't appear on the map. While it is visible from imagery, it isn't routable for traffic. I would suggest adding no trespassing signs to both ends of the old rail bed.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124405130
hyakfree (2022-08-13 00:50:51+00:00): this is helpful, thanks.  Why is it that the rail road tracks to the north and to the south of what you're saying can't be removed from the base record,  have been able to be removed?  the tracks used to connect to something, but now there's just the segment left?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124405130
hyakfree (2022-08-13 00:50:52+00:00): this is helpful, thanks.  Why is it that the rail road tracks to the north and to the south of what you're saying can't be removed from the base record,  have been able to be removed?  the tracks used to connect to something, but now there's just the segment left?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124405130
Glassman (2022-08-13 01:35:06+00:00): At some point i suspect the abandoned railways will be moved to OpenHistoricalMap.org . But they can be useful for planners for new trails. Right now in Skagit County the PUD is using them for a new 16" water pipeline and soon a new segment of the Centennial Trails. Obviously if they wanted to use the land on your property they would have to negotiate with you. Or just take it as counties can do. Let's hope that don't happen
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124405130
jmapb (2023-02-24 18:52:11+00:00): Howdy... I surveyed https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9927736652 and there's nothing of the sort there. (An unlikely place for it, to boot.)

I'm not sure what your data source is for these, but maybe check if this place still exists. If so, maybe the correct location should be in this building in Manhattan, which has other medical practitioners in it:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/249847709
jmapb (2023-03-11 22:45:12+00:00): Hi, it's been two weeks & I haven't heard back, so I've deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9927736652
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-11 00:56:19+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9920443131/history has brand:wikidata = Q3751637 that was added in this edit
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3751637 from brand:wikidata=Q3751637 (brand:wikipedia=en:CajaSur) link company that does not exist anymore

brand:wikidata=Q20013689 and brand:wikipedia=es:CajaSur Banco
 may be more fitting
they are linking https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/CajaSur_Banco and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20013689
alex_lofi (2025-12-16 13:00:56+00:00): Hello! Thank you for your comment. You're probably right, and Cajasur will surely change its name to Kutxabank, but since I no longer live nearby, I don't feel confortable changing it until I can verify it personally. After each merger, some branches simply close; in any case, I'll keep an eye out to see if I can find more up-to-date information or if anyone makes a massive name update.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-17 06:59:10+00:00): created https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5094528 then

thanks for a reply!
mmd (2022-09-04 09:05:25+00:00): Just wanted to make you aware of the discussion in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2022-September/087752.html

I believe the large scale change in Russia should be related to this changeset. Maybe you could briefly comment if this change is ok, so that the coastline generation can continue as usual.
marc__marc (2022-09-04 15:12:37+00:00): Hello,
it's seems it's the previous change that alter the coastline
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1082985311 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14411097/history
Regards,
Marc
voiden (2022-08-04 07:50:12+00:00): hahahah, tenkte på å gjøre det samme. streisandeffekten på sitt beste!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124407937
berland (2022-08-04 08:02:40+00:00): :D
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124407937
t_ja (2022-08-03 17:13:29+00:00): Ahoj,

odmazanie chodníkov, ktoré boli obkreslené z Ofmozaiky SR nie je zrovna "spresnenie mapy". Nemám nič proti, keď niekto zakreslí novú cestu so sidewalk=left/right, keďže nie každému sa chce kresliť aj chodník popri nej. Ale keď si už dá niekto tú námahu a obkreslí chodník z Ofmozaiky SR, tak mazanie jeho práce je vandalizmus!

Ak by si nespresnil aj ostatné cesty v okolí, bol by tento changeset už revertnutý.
Bilykralik16 (2022-08-03 17:36:56+00:00): Zdravím,
mým cílem není mapu poškozovat, pouze jsem tuto úpravu provedl z toho důvodu, že je to dle mého přehlednější řešení v situaci, kdy je chodník přímo v ulici a není od ní nijak oddělen.
dafadllyn (2022-08-02 20:21:39+00:00): source: swisstopo SWISSIMAGE
GinaroZ (2022-08-03 13:16:59+00:00): Hi, this will probably need to be reverted as you've dragged a couple of nodes - but could you please explain what you were trying to fix on the map? Is Bain Street only complete up to a certain point?
CatSt (2022-08-03 16:30:05+00:00): Bain Street is still under construction. The final three nodes to the north west will not be built and open for at least another year. However I couldn't work out how to isolate those nodes and mark that part as under construction. Can you help please?
GinaroZ (2022-08-03 17:57:46+00:00): Do you mean north from this node? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8355860962 
I can fix it, or in the editor if you right click on a node you can use the split function to split the road and then add highway=construction to one section.
CatSt (2022-08-04 09:19:59+00:00): North from the node after the one you highlighted. If you could fix it that would be great as I haven't, obviously, developed my editing skills to the required level. Your help would be most appreciated. Thank you.
GinaroZ (2022-08-04 14:24:47+00:00): No worries, I've split it here https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8355860961
If you don't want to edit you can use the "add a note to the map" feature to let other mappers know something that needs fixed https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/new
CatSt (2022-08-04 15:00:11+00:00): Thanks so much for your help. That's perfect. I will look at adding a note to the map for any future changes.
Tilia_J (2022-08-03 09:10:23+00:00): Gute morgen,

Wollen Sie bitte ihrer changesets in kleinere teile speichern? Arnheim - Münster ist ein zu grosse oberflache.

Weiter: In Huissen haben Sie an den Gochsestraat zwei  amenity=fastfood  hinzufügt. In die Niederlände ist es Konsens solche sachen auf existierten adresnodes zu platzen.

Danke!
snakeplants (2022-08-03 21:25:22+00:00): Correction: Source used was Mapillary
EP_Repair (2022-08-11 14:18:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124778627 where the changeset comment is: revert organized attempts to subvert trail networks see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6216
EP_Repair (2022-08-11 14:42:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124778923 where the changeset comment is: revert organized attempts to subvert trail networks see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6216
EP_Repair (2022-08-11 15:17:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124780086 where the changeset comment is: revert organized attempts to subvert trail networks see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6216
eerib (2022-08-02 23:51:14+00:00): Hello bookwus65,

I noticed you deleted the features in the area again over a few different changesets. Perhaps you may not have seen previous changeset discussions regarding this trail.

I'm going to go into detail on why the trail should stay in case you're unfamiliar with OpenStreetMap. OpenStreetMap has a "Ground truth" policy, which means features are mapped as they are on the ground, even if an outside group does not want them mapped. There are a few noted exceptions to this policy, including indigenous sacred sites, specific endangered species locations, and specific areas of safety concern. This trail is heavily used by multiple groups. In addition, none of the exceptions apply. That is why the trail should stay on the map but we can add details, such as access, description, and other tags to provide context. I have already added these tags but perhaps you may have some further recommendations?

Further, the OSM US Trails Working Group recommends that "Unofficial, unmaintained trails, renegade trails, and social trails" should be kept on the map for emergency service groups, junction navigation, and because the trail will just be added later by someone else but possibly with less information.

The relevant links for the information I've talked about is here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information#Other_Reasons_not_to_Map
https://www.openstreetmap.us/2021/12/osmus-trails-working-group
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Trails_Working_Group
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

You can also read previous changeset discussions starting in this changeset.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120006279

Cheers, eerib
bookwus65 (2022-08-04 16:41:38+00:00): The trail was an illegal trail that has just seen a massive decommissioning/restoration project as it ran through park lands.

Having it listed on OSM continues to bring people to hike/run it, which subverts this recent expense/effort. I'm sure you understand this and agree that it is no longer relevant up-to-date data.

Regards,

Mark
eerib (2022-08-04 18:18:47+00:00): Hello Mark,

I have surveyed this trail and others in the area quite recently and extensively. I did not see any decommission works and in fact saw new trail building works occurring in the form of blowdown removal, brushing, and trailblazing.

Here are some photographs documenting the trail's condition and some of the trail building works:
https://imgur.com/a/PzxxgVR

I believe I have accurately described the trail with the correct OSM tags. For the few areas where route finding is required I have set the trail_visibility tag to "bad" and in other areas where the path is unambiguous and equivalent to an official trail I have set it to "excellent". I have also added the tags informal=yes and access=discouraged, which should make the trail show up less prominent than official trails in the area in most hiking apps (currently GaiaGPS but soon to include AllTrails).

It's possible the trail has been decommissioned since my most recent survey but I do not believe that to be the case. I have checked private mobility data that I have access to and can see the trail is still be accessed regularly. Further, your edits are near identical to past vandalism of this trail, which makes it hard to believe without further verification that decommission works have occurred.

If you can provide more information about the recent decommission works, such as letters from the District of West Vancouver/BC Parks or photographs of works then I would be ok with updating the trail's visibility, access, description, and lifecycle tags, which would be best practice in a case like this.

Cheers, eerib
bookwus65 (2022-08-04 21:07:50+00:00): I'm sorry, but those photos could have been taken at any point during the trails existence, and some of them from completely different trails.

The same could be said for any of the photos I were to provide.

Decommissioning took place this Summer, but there have been issues with people trying to re-activate the trail (partly due to the fact that it is listed here, so they believe it to be legitimate).

If you want official verification, place contact BC Parks yourself, and provide their response here.

I'm not sure if you're wanting to keep this here from some sort of historical view or to "boost" the number of edits that you have, but it is causing issues for the Parks staff.
eerib (2022-08-04 22:11:42+00:00): Hello Mark,

I have reached out to colleagues of mine and, although it's not exhaustive, none have any knowledge of the deactivation works you're describing. If you can, please provide verification that deactivation works have occurred, it would be extremely helpful in resolving this situation.

I do not believe the trail being listed on OpenStreetMap has resulted in users attempting to "re-activate" the trail. The trail has not been listed on OpenStreetMap since Apr. 21 2022 and hasn't shown up on other platforms that use OSM data (AllTrails, GaiaGPS, CalTopo, Strava, ...) since April due to how they cache OSM data.

The trail was visible on OpenStreetMap from: 
- Feb. 02 2022 to Mar. 25 2022,
- Apr. 12 2022 to Apr. 16 2022,
- Apr. 20 2022 to Apr. 21 2022,
- Jul. 28 2022 to Jul. 30 2022,
- Aug. 02 2022 to current

I have surveyed the trail since the deletion in April, once in early May and once in late June. You can find GPS recordings in my GPS traces. I did not see any deactivation works during either visit. This would leave only July for deactivation works to have occurred and the trail wasn't on OSM during that time.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/eerib/traces

Cheers, eerib
bookwus65 (2022-08-05 04:35:44+00:00): That was a very quick response from multiple colleagues! Whom did you contact? What exactly did they say? Do any of them actually work for BC Parks?

Also, claiming to have surveyed the trail recently and providing GPSs that can be easily fabricated is not concrete evidence that a trail is still open.

I'm sorry, but you're incorrect, you're insistence is very tiresome, and for what, being a hobbyist mapper and wanting to categorize historical trail!?!
eerib (2022-08-05 04:45:49+00:00): Hello Mark,

I prefer to keep my work life separate from my personal endeavors. I am going to end this conversation as it's not going anywhere.

If you still want the trail altered then please contact then Data Working Group with your request.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group

If you delete the trail without contacting the Data Working Group or providing verification of the deactivation works then I will revert your edits and report your account to the Data Working Group again.

Regards, eerib
bookwus65 (2022-08-05 13:38:19+00:00): So you're not to able to provide any sort of verification that you spoke to anyone. A private DM with names and positions would suffice, so that I may follow up.

What would be more beneficial is you you were able to monitor to state of this trail and then contact either myself or BC Parks so that any reactivation of it can be dealt with.

I have not yet deleted the trail as I am trying to resolve this appropriately!
eerib (2022-08-05 15:51:46+00:00): Hello Mark,

I'm going to reiterate my previous comment:

If you still want the trail altered then please contact then Data Working Group with your request.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group

If you delete the trail without contacting the Data Working Group or providing verification of the deactivation works then I will revert your edits and report your account to the Data Working Group again.

Regards, eerib
bookwus65 (2022-08-05 16:39:41+00:00): So you're unwilling to provide any follow-up information from your side, but instead threaten me with the deactivation of my account?