piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
zstadler (2022-06-23 17:49:50+00:00): Thanks Jeff for the elaborated answer.

It seems that the justification for mapping the DMZ line is for historic and/or future purposes, as you wrote:
>   For the DMZ, none of the main parties currently claim it as their border, but it is one possible border with some historical precedent.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dhistoric says:
> Note that though solely historic objects should not be mapped as it is outside of scope of OSM (unlike projects like Open Historical Map), it makes sense to keep for some time old boundaries after administrative division change as form of note to make clear that there was a recent change of borders in a given location.

Since this line does not have, AFAIK, any on-the -ground presence for more than 50 years, I suggest this relation to be removed from OSM. You may choose to copy it to Open Historical Map.

You also wrote:
> So for rendering here, the intent is for uninvolved viewpoints to see it as a dashed line showing it as one of several possible borders.

I believe that OSM is not the appropriate platform for rendering potential political solutions for this decades-old conflict.
Jeff Underwood (2022-06-23 19:03:22+00:00): Hi zstadler,

Forgive me if I’m mistaken as I’m not an expert on the conflict, but the DMZ line seems to correspond to the 1923 border which appears to be the last mutually agreed border while everything since has been enforced or de facto borders. So while this may not be an active claim by the disputants, in my opinion there is still validity to keeping it until a newer agreement supersedes it. Most other mapping platforms out there still render this DMZ line which at least adds some credibility to the claim that it is still relevant.

I totally appreciate that OSM is not the place to legislate conflicts and that is not the purpose of any of this mapping. This is a politically neutral project to map disputes as completely as possible in order to allow OSM administrative borders to be more flexible for downstream users where “on the ground” borders may not be desirable or even legal to display within a locality.

-Jeff
zstadler (2022-06-24 11:09:53+00:00): Hi Jeff,

It seems like we agree that OSM is not about capturing potential future political agreements.

Could you summarize why, in your opinion, this relation should be part of OSM despite the fact that it does not fall under the definition of a disputed border, since no nation is calming it.

- zstadler
Jeff Underwood (2022-06-27 21:10:02+00:00): Hi zstadler,

In the interest of avoiding conflict I'll just pull out that relation for now. 

-Jeff
zstadler (2022-06-28 12:52:16+00:00): Thank you, Jeff!
Frans S (2021-12-21 12:41:43+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not always accurate mapped 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).
E: Rectangular Buildings not squared.They are mostly strickt rectangular


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
More help information:
View this video's about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
More info can be found on https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115187621
Arlo James Barnes (2022-01-31 15:18:10+00:00): Hi! It's better to mark the trail as private so that nobody accidentally recreates it. For more, see https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Trails_Working_Group and linked pages.
MxxCon (2021-12-21 07:32:06+00:00): Hello.
Please note that it's inappropriate to "test" on a live, production server.
If you want to experiment with something, please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sandbox_for_editing
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115190289
Colin Smale (2021-12-25 11:41:23+00:00): Are you sure about this? There are several relations for Rochefort, as a settlement and as an administrative entity. I think you may have made a mistake here. Do you have personal knowledge of Rochefort? By the way, it is expected in OSM that you respond to changeset comments, and take them seriously. Thanks!
patelmm79 (2021-12-25 20:06:09+00:00): To explain rationale for change:
First breaking down the specific decision to be made: 
* Based on the Wikipedia articles, 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochefort,_Belgium
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochefort_(Belgique)
Rochefort is a commune (municipality) and a "ville belge" which also indicates a commune /municipality level.  
* As you pointed out, there are multiple preexisting entities for both--nodes, relations etc.
* The question is, does this node pertain to the municipality / commune, or the town? 

I made the decision to add a "municipality" tag based on following information:

* Based on administrative level documentation on Nominatim wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#admin_level.3D.2A_Country_specific_values)  
the admin level 8 for belgium corresponds to "municipality"
* all preexisting tags on the node correspond to the commune / municipality , including the wikidata code and the INS code 91114 , which is the national statistics agency code for the commune (https://statbel.fgov.be/sites/default/files/Over_Statbel_FR/Nomenclaturen/REFNIS.xls) .  
* The population number also seems to correspond to a commune/municipality level based on government info (https://statbel.fgov.be/fr/commune/rochefort#dashboard1)

* Also noting that there is a separate wikidata entry for Rochefort as a town.    Q66312004, already tagged on the Rochefort- town  entry

https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=R&osmid=3715354&class=boundary

* This change also allows for the proper classification of the other villages within the Rochefort municipality; for example, previously  Han-sur-lesse (https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=R&osmid=3715236&class=boundary) was marked as a village within the town of Rochefort. Now, it is marked appropriately as a village within the municipality of Rochefort (which is the appropriate relationship according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han-sur-Lesse and 


Apologies for not responding in a timely manner, I am now seeing the changeset comments that you sent and am responding to them.
Frans S (2021-12-21 12:40:05+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and mapped. Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115191521
Joseph R P (2022-01-02 03:24:33+00:00): Hello, please don't delete RIROs like this. Motorways should be fully-grade separated from other roads and the links you deleted acted as the proper slip lanes to enter the freeway.
kmarkish_lyft (2022-01-03 16:54:55+00:00): Response
Hi, Joseph R P! 
My name is Kate, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Many thanks for paying attention to this and reverting my edits. I will be more careful with motorway edits further. Thank you again and I apologize for any inconvenience these changes may have caused.  
Best regards, Kate
Joseph R P (2022-01-03 17:10:14+00:00): No worries! Note for future reference that most, if not all motorways should have some sort of grade-separation from other roads.
Frans S (2021-12-21 12:38:49+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and mapped. Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115192576
pantufla (2021-12-21 15:06:09+00:00): Nice, thank you for improving Venezuela :)
vojtechzaboril (2022-11-23 08:42:05+00:00): Dobrý den,
mohl bych vás poprosit o zdroj? Proč by to mělo být secondary_link s ref a nikoliv primary_link?
Díky
janvarmuza (2022-11-23 08:59:05+00:00): Dobrý den, moje úvaha byla že se jedná o jednosměrný sjezd na komunikaci II. třídy, tudíž se nejedná o nájezd na komunikaci I. třídy v pravém smyslu ale koukal jsem se do pravidel a "The link should always be tagged with the "higher" link road class." takže máte pravdu, měl by to být primary_link. Pokud máte chvilku, změňte klasifikaci prosím.
Děkuji
JV
vojtechzaboril (2022-11-23 09:03:48+00:00): Nevěděl jsem, jestli to není třeba oficiálně silnice druhé třídy nebo tak něco. Změnil jsem tedy na primary_link.
V
sinrarch (2021-12-22 15:06:41+00:00): Hi,
I have made the edits in this changeset :  115193958 based on Driver feedback.

Regards,
sinrarch.
JensTyller (2022-01-21 15:08:39+00:00): Hej, du har rettet på detaljer om kirken.
Detaljerne var rigtige, om skrevet ved det forkerte felt.

 f.eks. er navnet Gethsemane Kirke ikke det "rigtige" navn på kirken, men det rigtige navn på bygningen.

Jeg har ændret det igen, før jeg så dit ændringssæt. I mit nye ændringssæt: 116435245. har jeg skevet samme kommentar.
Kan vi fortsætte samtalen der?
sinrarch (2021-12-22 15:08:06+00:00): Hi,
I have made the edits in this changeset : 115194373 based on Driver feedback.

Regards,
sinrarch.
sinrarch (2021-12-22 15:08:54+00:00): Hi,
I have made the edits in this changeset :  115194540 based on Driver feedback.

Regards,
sinrarch.
sinrarch (2021-12-22 15:10:21+00:00): Hi,
I have made the edits in this changeset :  115194741 based on Driver feedback.

Regards,
sinrarch.
Frans S (2021-12-21 12:37:36+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not always accurate mapped 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)
You also map several buildings as an "arrow" These are in fact rectangular. What you see is a part of the roof under an angel. Just map them as a rectangular building (4 nodes)

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
More help information:
View this video's about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
More info can be found on https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115194795
surveyor54 (2022-01-28 21:03:06+00:00): Hi,
Geoportal Hessen ist z. Zt. noch nicht als Quelle erlaubt.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1013977869
abakus_uploader (2021-12-21 23:30:57+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
Frans S (2021-12-21 12:23:55+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not always accurate mapped 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
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
More help information:
View this video's about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
More info can be found on https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115194878
Frans S (2021-12-21 12:33:55+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not always accurate mapped 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
B: overlapping buildings drawn.

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
More help information:
View this video's about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
More info can be found on https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115194878
Frans S (2021-12-21 12:20:42+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator as requested. 
Your mappings are to inaccurate and removed.
It cost more time to correct your mappings rather than map them from scratch
Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115195055
user_5359 (2021-12-25 18:55:22+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1013980751 which overlaps https://www.osm.org/way/179377876. What is the meaning of the booth tags
revetement=bicouche
tuype=route secondaire
?
Frans S (2021-12-21 12:11:09+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and mapped. Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key and don't collect multiple buildings into 1 mapping.
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115195259
Cristoffs (2021-12-21 17:26:21+00:00): Proszę zapoznaj się z zasadami oznaczania dróg w OSM. Ta droga nie ma nazwy, "droga gruntowa" nie jest nazwą.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115195733
Cristoffs (2021-12-21 17:40:41+00:00): Już poprawiłem.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115195733
vulasala (2021-12-22 07:35:05+00:00): Hi Springhunk,
Trust you are doing well. I have deleted the ways which are not leading to any rooftop.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115195896
Frans S (2021-12-21 12:09:15+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Your mappings are not always accurate mapped 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).
B: overlapping buildings drawn.
C: multiple buildings drawn as 1 building.
D: nodes of buildings linked to other buildings or roads.please 
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/115195897
Frans S (2021-12-21 12:09:54+00:00): See my previous comments
More help information:
View this video's about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
More info can be found on https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/

Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115195897
BCNorwich (2021-12-22 10:17:35+00:00): Hello, All these footpaths that you've recently drawn do not really look like footpaths. They do however look like field outlines. Could you please verify that they are actually footpaths?

If they are footpaths then you have duplicated many of them. Please see here:- http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=86.67224&lat=20.52866&zoom=17

Also, much of the unclassified highway looks like a canal with tracks on either side of it. Is this really all a highway?

I await your response, Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2022-01-06 10:55:49+00:00): No response but anyway I'd like to say thank you for removing these features. I still don't think they were footpaths.

What about the second problem, the ways tagged unclassified highway, that look like they are on a canal course? If you zoom in you can see the canal line with a trackway on either side. You can even make out bridges.

I await your response, Regards Bernard.
Athira14 (2022-01-06 11:07:41+00:00): Hello,
Apologies for responding late. Since I am new to this, I was figuring out how do I set the farm border features as field outlines. I couldn't figure that out hence deleted those after you mentioned about the duplicate edges which I didn't realize that osm considers. Also I will look into the second problem and do the necessary changes. Sorry for the inconvenience.
vng_me (2021-12-22 11:32:39+00:00): Coastlines failed. Way 1013989008 should have coastline type?
DENelson83 (2021-12-22 17:57:26+00:00): Fixed in changeset #115255053.
MarcoR (2021-12-23 10:49:10+00:00): Hi!
Housenumbers in Italy are associated to entrances and generally, should not be added to buildings. You should add a node where the housenumber plaque is located. Exceptions are the contact information of shops that take place on an entire building.

Happy mapping,
Marco.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115196662
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-10-14 14:16:08+00:00): Hallo Step1971,

Du hast hier in Nienburg einige Gehwege als separate Linie eingetragen. Ich gehöre nicht zu denen, die meinen, dass das nur "erlaubt" ist, wenn eine bauliche Trennung vorhanden ist. Separat gemappte Gehwege haben eindeutig Vorteile.

Nur müssen diese Gehwege dann auch gut miteinander (und dem Straßennetz) vernetzt/verbunden sein. Sonst funktioniert das Routing nicht richtig.

Beispiel: Man möchte von Lendenberg 26 zu Lendenberg 31: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=52.66092%2C9.22638%3B52.66122%2C9.22646

Vielleicht hast Du die Zeit, die Verbindungen zu mappen. Ansonsten würde ich die Gehwege erst einmal wieder löschen, auch wenn es ärgerlich ist.

Viele Grüße
Roger Wilco
Frans S (2021-12-21 12:05:33+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not always accurate mapped 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)
E: Rectangular Buildings not always squared.They are mostly strickt rectangular




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
More help information:
View this video's about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
More info can be found on https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115197311
rthik007 (2021-12-22 11:39:54+00:00): "HI Arvin Mabutas,
I have removed unnecessary roads 
way 1013993571
Kindly check with
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115251485.
Thank you"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115197436
cedaros (2022-01-16 09:50:32+00:00): Dodawanie abstrakcyjnych obiektów nie jest sposobem na sprawdzanie częstotliwości aktualizacji map. Podważasz w ten sposób wiarygodność OSM. Jeżeli interesują Cię te zagadnienia to zachęcam do skorzystania z przeznaczonych do tego celu serwisów np.: osmcha.org.
Frans S (2021-12-21 12:02:09+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not always accurate mapped 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)
C: multiple buildings drawn as 1 building.
E: Rectangular Buildings not always squared.
D: nodes of buildings linked to other buildings or roads.


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
More help information:
View this video's about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
More info can be found on https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115197834