piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mapman44 (2019-06-27 15:40:51+00:00): What is the meaning and intention of your comment?
mavl (2019-06-26 17:08:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 71645298 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: nonexistent objects].
mavl (2019-06-26 17:08:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 71645298 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: nonexistent objects].
mavl (2019-06-26 17:10:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 71645298 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: nonexistent objects].
Nakaner (2019-12-20 17:46:31+00:00): Hallo,

im Rahmen dieses und weiterer Änderungssätze im Laufe der letzten Monate hast du eine Reihe an VzG-Strecken im mitteldeutschen Raum von route=tracks auf route=railway geändert. Das ist falsch. route=railway ist für Kursbuchstrecken, nicht für die Streckennummern des Infrastrukturbetreibers. Ich habe das soeben in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78693952 korrigiert.

Viele Grüße

Michael
flierfy (2019-12-22 20:26:01+00:00): Ich weiss nicht, wie darauf kommst, dass ich das war. Es stimmt jedenfalls nicht. Route=railway verwende ich seit Jahren nicht. Und ich bestehe darauf, dass du deine Änderungssätze nicht mit solchen Unterstellungen kommentierst.

Stephan
Nakaner (2019-12-23 10:38:38+00:00): Hallo Stephan,

ich habe noch einmal nachgeschaut und komme erneut zu der Beobachtung, dass du in diesem Änderungssatz bei der Relation 9210667 (5919 Eltersdorf - Leipzig Hbf) route=tracks durch route=railway ersetzt hast. Du kannst es dir selbst unter https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/9210667 anschauen oder direkt die XML-Exporte der API der Version 3 (die Version vor der kritisierten) und 4 (deine) vergleichen. https://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/9210667/3 https://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/9210667/4

Bei 5385442 (L-Wahren–L-Engelsdorf) ist es übrigens genauso. In ein paar anderen Änderungssätzen in den letzten Monaten hast du ähnliche Änderungen gemacht. Abzüglich der Relationen, die anderen vielleicht schon korrigiert haben, habe ich 11 Relationen gefunden, die falsch getaggt waren.

Viele Grüße

Michael
Carto'Cité (2019-06-28 15:31:59+00:00): Bonjour les amis.
Il sembler que le way osm.org/way/229303010 ait perdu son tag highway, et il se retrouve en cul-de-sac. Est-ce normal ?
Antoine.
simon_geovelo (2019-07-16 14:10:24+00:00): Merci pour le signalement.
C'est corrigé

Simon
trigpoint (2019-06-23 15:55:59+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71535519
opendcc (2022-07-27 20:04:29+00:00): Hi Toni,
in https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3286409 frägt Tobi wegen der Ortschilder. Da sind zwei - meines ist älter ;-)
ToniE (2022-07-27 20:44:24+00:00): Servus, 2019 war das. Die Fotos müsste ich noch haben. Ich prüfe das morgen mal. VG Toni
iWowik (2019-06-24 06:01:37+00:00): День добрый!
Соблюдайте, пожалуйста, соглашение о наименовании дорог.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1_%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3

Не вынуждайте других участников проекта ваши правки исправлять или откатывать. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/168893848/history
Myazyk (2019-09-18 10:29:59+00:00): Магазин lifecell нанесено у неправильному місці. 
Нащо наносити некоректні дані на карту?
b-jazz (2019-09-18 18:13:27+00:00): I didn't place it there. I just changed a tag after the fact. You might want to ask the original mapper (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71534748) the question instead. It looks like you corrected the location in the latest update. Thanks.
abakus_uploader (2019-06-23 22:33:17+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!
Constable (2019-06-24 07:57:02+00:00): Ciao, tutte le ultime tu emodifiche hanno come commento "Resurvey of Sentiero Italia CAI 2019". Riesci per favore ad inserire ogni volta un breve commento riguardante la modifica che stai salvando?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
grazie
AlfredoSP (2019-07-29 11:52:52+00:00): Ciao, vedo solo ora il tuo commento. Capisco le esigenze ma la quantita' di lavoro che devo fare non mi consente di andare troppo per il sottile ed aggiungere un commento ogni volta. Trattasi in tutti i casi di modifiche di tracciati e di ricomposizione delle relazione sulla base di nuovi rilievi. Non c'e' molto da dire, se hai una frase generica che vorresti che aggiungessi lo faro' senz'altro ma di base altro non e' che rististemazione da nuovi rilievi. Ciao Alfredo
szydzio (2019-12-02 07:23:13+00:00): Dodając adres firmy proszę nie nadpisywać oficjalnych adresów z ewidencji EMUiA. Usunięty adres Bukowa 12b przywracam.
gpserror (2024-11-02 19:26:56+00:00): Hi I know this is 5 years ago but wanted to mention that the snowmobile routes you added are not quite right and are not useful as-is.  These snowmobile routes that appear to share roads used by cars and possibly pedestrian paths need to be added as roads or pedestrian paths, and then marked as snowmobile usable or added as a snowmobile route relation.  Now I'm not entirely sure which of the ways you drew were existing road/hiking-pedestrian paths or dedicated to snowmobiles so I'd prefer not to touch them, but they need work as it is now.
maraf24 (2019-06-27 11:01:09+00:00): Naprawdę na tych drogach na pole stoją znaki z ograniczeniami prędkości do 50 i 90?
A może to nie są drogi na pole?
dbaron (2019-07-01 17:28:29+00:00): This changeset broke the Lake Erie relation, and Lake Erie is no longer rendering.

What was this changeset *trying* to do?  I see seemingly-good edits to add Jack's Superette and the parking next to it, but then there's a ton of other stuff, with no comment to help understand what was supposed to be happening here.
abakus_uploader (2019-06-23 22:33:18+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!
mavl (2019-06-26 17:06:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 71645298 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: nonexistent objects].
aquarix (2019-06-23 20:48:51+00:00): Hallo Nikolas von Randow,
aus welcher Quelle hast du die Information, dass die Tankstelle in Antholing Mitglied im "Bundesverband freier Tankstellen" ist?
Soweit ich weiß ist nicht jede Tankstelle, die zu keiner der großen Marken gehört automatisch dort Mitglied.
Außerdem wäre es schön, wenn du im Änderungssatz noch einen kurzen Kommentar hinterlegen würdest, damit andere Leute eine Idee davon haben was du geändert hast und nicht erst jedes Element einzeln anschauen müssen. Danke
Gruß aquarix
Nikolas von Randow (2019-07-09 16:22:20+00:00): Hallo aquarix,
ich hatte tatsächlich angenommen alle Freien seien Mitglied im Bundesverband; habe also keine Quelle.
Zu Kommentaren: bis vor Kurzem war mir nicht klar wie bescheiden hier die Möglichkeiten zur Changeset-Visualisierung sind (Es gab ja wohl mal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:OSM_History_Viewer). Deshalb dachte ich es wäre selbsterklärend.
Gruß Nikolas
Diógenes de Sinope (2019-06-25 14:16:40+00:00): Hi stevenLAD, so cutting up ways is what might be causeing routing errors, although to be honest, I have done the same thing multiple times for roads that underpass structures, as these portions of the road impose a maximum height limit, I usually cut segments in ways at both ends where an overpassing structure is located so that I can add the 'maxheight-' tag to that specific segement of way rather than designating the entire road with the same tag, if you browse to the following address [ http://overpass-turbo.eu/ ] > click the search field in the upper left-hand corner of the map and type 'Luanda, Angola', it will take you to that region of the map > then click the 'wizard' button located in the bar in the upper left-hand corner of the page > insert the following tag 'maxheight=*' into the field that appears in the window, it should show you all the locations where I have done the same, going back to the edit you made in this changeset, I just removed the 'covered=yes' tags from the ways of 'Estrada de Catete' that pass underneath 'Avenida Comandante Fidel Castro, so that a consistant look is maintain with the rest of road, the tag serves more of an asthetic purpose, it is not intergral
stevenLAD (2019-06-25 21:11:36+00:00): Hi Diogenes. I am not sure that cutting up into multiple ways causes errors, but it does make the map slower to load IF there is no good reason - hence I join like segments whenever possible. If the tags do not agree, they cannot be joined and I think that what you are doing with max height is good!

As regards covered, I looked at this tag for a section of road at the new airport (!!!) and it is specially said not to use under bridges, but you had already changed this so not a problem
stevenLAD (2019-06-25 21:13:01+00:00): Oh, and as a side note, I think that 5.5m max height covers the whole of this road.
Diógenes de Sinope (2019-11-14 22:48:21+00:00): '5 months ago', you will have to excuse me, I have had a tab openned to this hyperlink for months now, I only just managed to get things together to address it

regarding the 'maxheight' tag, an exerpt from an OpenStreetMap wiki article about it says - "For a bridge, the maxheight tag should be set on the way going under the bridge. Only tag the section of the way where the maxheight road signs apply. If there are none, only the approximate section of the way which is under the bridge should be tagged with maxheight" - [ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxheight ]

regarding the covered=yes tags, thank you for pointing that out, I read the wiki article about it and removed all of the tags from the ways where the tag does not apply
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-07-16 15:24:06+00:00): Note that such relations are not needed. Any data in OSM is geocoded, relations such as "Cities in Russia" or "Motorways in China" or "Trees in Poland" should not be created.

It is enough to map borders or country (or other regions) and map objects at their correct locations.

See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
Kozuch (2020-07-16 17:40:19+00:00): I now about this rule. But I disagree with it. So I will continue using the relations in this way, because it makes my contributing easier (relation members are easily accessible on the web - which is a huge plus).
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-07-17 11:19:17+00:00): Such lists are typically created at OSM Wiki. 

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Germany/Autobahn or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Poland/Sie%C4%87_drogowa

Would it be sufficient for your needs?
Kozuch (2021-05-25 20:48:05+00:00): > Would it be sufficient for your needs?

No, it wouldnt. These master relations help me with editing, I can easily list their members here on osm.org or load their members into JOSM for further editing. I am going to undelete any of such my master relation that you delete...
TravGW (2019-06-23 18:58:17+00:00): When it is just one building it should be an apartment building. An apartment complex is for when there are multiple apartment buildings in one location.
sqeezer (2019-06-23 19:16:33+00:00): Got it. Updated to Aparment Building. Thanks!
Borbus (2019-07-23 19:30:15+00:00): Access=no on the A20 to channel tunnel link is surely wrong? It looks like a normal public highway. The fact that it only goes to the channel tunnel doesn't make it access=no. Routing algorithms won't use this link to get to the channel tunnel now.
Hawaiianblue (2019-07-23 22:14:11+00:00): It's set to permissive for motor vehicles. It's a privately owned road only accessible to motor vehicles, it's not a public highway. Pedestrians, horses, bicycles etc can't use it. I would think if one were to plan a route for a car it would work, but if one were to plan a route on foot or by pedal cycle it wouldn't route you that way - as it should be.
Borbus (2019-07-25 21:47:27+00:00): Do you have more information about this? Who owns this section of road? Could we add that information to the operator tag?

motor_vehicle=permissive is OK, I think. Maybe I misread it earlier but I thought it was motor_vehicle=destination.
Hawaiianblue (2019-07-26 10:05:40+00:00): It was definitely permissive for motor vehicles. The section of road is owned by Eurotunnel. I've now added this to the operator tag.
trigpoint (2019-07-26 12:50:23+00:00): Access tags are about legal access rather than ownership. This is for all practical purposes a public highway, with a toll.
What are you trying to achieve with this change?
Cheers Phil
Hawaiianblue (2019-07-26 15:33:02+00:00): Well that was my point, It should only have access for motor vehicles. it was originally set to 'all', however this wasn't accurate. As there is no legal access for anything other than a motor vehicle, because the roads owner doesn't permit access by any other means, doing so would render one liable to be stopped by security or quite possibly the onsite police. If someone where to try planning a route via say bicycle or on foot, then the routing program would have routed them this way when it shouldn't have done.
Borbus (2019-07-26 18:59:08+00:00): I think given what you've said and having reread the Wiki page on the access key that this is tagged correctly then.
Borbus (2019-07-26 18:59:40+00:00): Thanks for the clarification.
Hawaiianblue (2019-07-26 19:39:47+00:00): You're welcome. It's basically like a motorway slip road, but unlike a motorway slip it wouldn't need a public notice to close it, whereas Eurotunnel can close this access when ever they like without warning. The equivalent access in France is closed at night for security purposes for example.
ACarlotti (2020-01-02 01:37:51+00:00): I don't think this is the right set of tags to use here. While it might be technically correct (I'm not sure whether that is the case), it is inconsistent with the tagging used on every other road in the terminal (as well as every other port I've looked at). It currently misleads people looking at the rendered, who will likely be led to believe (as I was) that the link from the A20 is closed (perhaps due to some need to manage queues).
I think it would be better to remove the current access tags, and instead add bicycle=no, foot=no and horse=no. (Are any of these explicitly signposted?)
Hawaiianblue (2020-01-02 07:26:32+00:00): Motorways aren’t explicitly signposted prohibiting horses, bicycles or pedestrians but it’s clear they’re prohibited. Going by the notes the road is correctly tagged, it’s not closed but it can be at any moment at the owners discretion - which is the definition of permissive. The rest of the terminal roads haven’t yet been set to the correct access permissions, the reason most ports aren’t set to the same is that public is the default setting for everything  and no one has yet bothered to correct them. I think if you tried wandering around on foot inside most ports you’d soon find yourself picked up by security.
yos`ko (2019-06-23 18:46:07+00:00): !
Frans S (2019-06-24 10:09:47+00:00): Hi Ambior.  This a the way I used to follow to react on a mappers work.
I cannot see on which task you have worked here. First of all. Maxar Premium has a very good view. Free of Clouds. So I took that to proceed,
This is a mapping job I guess (no validation job) since there are so many buildings not mapped.  
You did a pretty good job with only 1 not squared building (out of 394 buildings) precise mapped and well aligned. 
I ran the validation tool and solved some issues. (crossings waterway and highways) squared, shifted and mapped buildings (not visible on DG and Bing
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=71554990 On his page I noticed also that you did move lots of buildings to align them with the imagery. When I see this work I think you were validating this task. Any idea which task this is? There is still a lot of work to do on this place ( Use MAXAR P)
Am I right that you deleted a number of buildings (wrong place and bad mapped)  and remapped the building on the correct place? If you did so, please use the "replace geometry" tool rather than delete and remap that building.
( move the building to another place, map the building again, select them both and 'ctr-shift G'
The history of that building will be kept.) 
Best regards
isidor (2019-06-24 14:04:09+00:00): Ahoj, tento "chodník" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/699268524 je zbytočný a nesprávny, alebo tam snáď existuje vyasfaltovaná ohraničená plocha *medzi* námestím a vchodom do budovy? Fakt nemusí a nemá byť každá budova napojená na líniu highway/footway
kayle (2019-06-25 09:55:19+00:00): No... dovolil by som si úplne nesúhlasiť. Je dobré keď je chodník vedený až k entrance=yes (alebo starému building=entrance)
Totiž dáta používajú aj niektoré app pre nevidiacich a preto je dobré ak sú spojené.
Možno takto tu na námestí na tých budovách, to nie je také zásadné, ale nákupné stredisko, alebo vchody pre paneláky (či iné verejne prístupné objekty) je dobré pripojiť.
isidor (2019-06-25 10:53:45+00:00): Ja myslím, že základnou funkciou každej navigačnej appky je zo zadaného bodu (adresa, POI, vchod budovy..) nájsť najbližší bod na cestnej/chodníkovej sieti a navigovať odtiaľ... Chodník kresliť a napojovať primárne ak tam naozaj je (pás asfaltu dedikovaný pre prístup k vchodu do budovy, napr.: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/sckesk1/R_EiomeXScI/AAAAAAAAG9s/nofhvykiK8I/s1600/IMG_0811.JPG.jpg )
kayle (2019-06-26 06:22:25+00:00): No tie paneláky neboli asi dobrý príklad, tam sú skoro vždy také chodníčky.
Ale napr. takého čosi http://www.betpres.sk/imgcache/e-img-141.jpg?v=1548589978 zvyknem pripojiť.
Silur (2019-11-27 20:39:30+00:00): Moin Reinhold! Das von Dir angegebene Bing-Luftbild zeigt die Situation am Johannisbollwerk noch vor dem Umbau, ist dort also sehr alt. Zumindest Weg 688734717 geht da auch nicht über die Straße, ich kürz den mal wieder...
Anakil (2019-12-04 21:30:21+00:00): Bonjour Tbj,

Je viens de découvrir par pur hasard que tu avais supprimé une relation d'un itinéraire de grande randonnée (celle du "GRP 127 Tour du Brabant Wallon") dans ce changeset, et je l'ai restaurée car elle existe toujours bien. J'imagine que c'était par erreur mais fais toujours attention au cas ou ! ahah

Happy mapping, 
Anakil
eggie (2021-02-15 16:00:43+00:00): reverted by changeset  #99320992
eggie (2021-02-15 15:58:53+00:00): reverted by changeset  #99320895
aquarix (2019-06-23 21:09:13+00:00): Hello badenk,
it would be nice if you would edit only in one country per changeset. Recently you have created three changesets that span from Canada to China. That makes it difficult to review what you have actually changed and it's not very polite to other mappers. So please have that in mind in the future.
Best regards aquarix
badenk (2019-06-24 02:27:15+00:00): Hello Mr. aquarix:

This is interesting.  I could not see anywhere in the change set where china is involved.  I also know I occasionally have problems in Go Map!!, as the last entry is defaulted.  If management were concerned about this, rectifying the locale would be easy, and it would probably be automated.

Besides this, I cannot see a problem for anyone else, unless they are self appointed "OSM Policia".  Unless someone had nothing better to do than follow me around to see what I had done, it would not be an issue.  Politeness for those folks would be an absolute zero priority

thanks
Baden
user_5173844 (2019-06-24 02:47:30+00:00): I tried to review this changeset but neither achavi nor osmcha can handle it, presumably due to the span. Changes in Canada look legitimate.

Can you describe what else have been changed and where?

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=71539517
https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/71539517
badenk (2019-06-24 03:01:29+00:00): Read what I wrote, it applies to you!
Hjart (2019-06-24 07:16:13+00:00): @badenk The changeset box covers 3 continents which means that quite a lot of mappers see your changeset. A lot of those mappers will check out your changeset to try and determine wether any of your changes applies to their area. It probably doesn't, but it's really not all that easy.
Hjart (2019-06-24 08:47:06+00:00): Also please note that a lot of those "self appointed OSM Policia" are mappers who care about their local areas. They are what makes OSM really succeed.
SomeoneElse (2019-06-24 13:21:20+00:00): Re the large bbox, I'm guessing that Go-Map is perhaps confused and is using some information from a previous changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71538703 ?  If that's the case, it's probably worth mentioning to the author in github - it would probably help if you could reproduce the problem too.
aquarix (2019-06-24 15:56:50+00:00): I didn't mean no offence with my comment.
I have looked at the changes in Canada a little bit and found nothing conspicuous about it. I'm just surprised that according to OSM something was changed in China but I didn't find the element.
Would it be conceivable that there is a bug in "Go Map"or in OSM backend that leads to such effects? I once accidentally uploaded an element from which I deleted my change before uploading. In OSM this was still displayed as changed.
Regards aquarix
BCNorwich (2019-06-24 06:55:52+00:00): Hello, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Just a few points, I've amended the dead end road to show the new layout. 

You added the Garden House restaurant info to a bus stop and removed the bus stop tag. I've reversed this change.

The node: Broadland (6566470540) leisure=park you've placed on a driveway, obviously wrong, please see the Maxar imagery. There is a playground mapped nearby so I've removed this node.

I've also added a few details to some other POI. The iD editor doesn't have all available tags so sometimes it's best to research OSM tags to find the best descriptive tags, i.e. shop=car_repair instead of shop=yes.

Regards Bernard.
Jolesh (2021-04-17 16:13:57+00:00): Hi, do you know when they put the solartainer up? I can't see it on  the Maxar(/Mapbox/Esri) and Bing imagery.
Carnildo (2019-06-24 17:55:55+00:00): I think "Wastewater basin" would be a better tag than "pond" for the settling ponds in a waste-treatment plant.