piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Stereo_repair (2017-02-07 03:18:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45872554 where the changeset comment is: Reverted mechanical edit of species tag to trees after complaints to DWG, see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=628958
Stereo_repair (2017-02-06 12:08:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45853882 where the changeset comment is: Reverted mechanical edit of species tag to trees after complaints to DWG, see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=628958
Verdy_p (2017-02-04 00:46:16+00:00): nyuriks says "there is no boundary tag - seems like the community is still deciding on how to clasify these objects)". This is known: these had boundary tags that were converted to "disused:" but kept in OSM due to the number of open data sets depending on them for their visualisation and because there are still lot of legal documents refering to former boundaries even if they are no longer administrated this way.
the new "cantons" created in 2015 effectively replaced all the former "cantons" but their role is completely different: new ones are electoral only, (for departmental elections) where the former ones were administrative units and are still used for territorial management and planning (not necessarily at the departmental level, it could be at lowert or upper levels) and supported by many local actors and still referenced in "Code Rural" and by insurance companies or public and private security services.
boundary ways however no longer need to be tagged for these former units, the tags are kepts in boundary relations only (with the "disused:" prefix).
Verdy_p (2017-02-04 00:48:09+00:00): Note: all this is discussed on the French OSM mailing list and summarized on the OSM wiki ! So how to classify these is already "decided" since long.
nyuriks (2017-02-04 01:10:04+00:00): @verdy_p, thanks for a thorough answer!  I was simply referring to the JOSM complaining that there is no boundary tag for the type=boundary relation. We should either change the validation rules and update wiki, or add some boundary=... tag, or change type= tag to something else.
Verdy_p (2017-02-04 14:06:57+00:00): JOSM does not complain, you just don't have the correct sect of presets loaded; and the default presets aren't enough to conclude, JOSM just sends a warning about what it currently does not know with its default basic preset.
See also the other tags and in doubt look at history of objects
DD1GJ (2017-02-01 08:59:46+00:00): Hallo freesy, willkommen bei OpenStreetMap. Durch Deine Änderungen hast Du leider ziemlich viel von der bereits vorhandenen Landnutzung und Wegklassifikation zerstört. Daher habe ich alle Deine Änderungen rückgängig gemacht, aber die Kennzeichnung als Park erhalten, wenn diese wie bei den größeren Waldflächen und Wiesen zweifelsfrei war. Ein Vorgarten ist definitiv kein Park.

Vergiss bitte alles, was Du aus Pokémon-Kreisen über OSM erfahren hast und lies bitte die Original-OSM-Dokumente:

http://blog.openstreetmap.de/blog/2017/01/achtung-pokemon-alarm/

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf
mbethke (2017-02-02 05:25:40+00:00): Thanks for adding Plan International! The tagging is fine, but take care of the POI type: "place of worship" is note quite it, I changed it to "NGO Office"
TheSwavu (2017-02-01 01:49:57+00:00): Should learn to spell. Obviously changing the source:geometry tag.
Stereo_repair (2017-02-06 12:08:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45853882 where the changeset comment is: Reverted mechanical edit of species tag to trees after complaints to DWG, see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=628958
neuhausr (2017-04-11 19:50:18+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Wondering why you split the park into two pieces when they are overlapping? Appears it could just be one big area.
Glassman (2017-02-01 03:30:36+00:00): Again - please send a picture to convince me that this building is actually a lake.
Glassman (2017-02-01 03:28:22+00:00): Can you send a picture to show that this is really a square pond?
Stereo_repair (2017-02-06 04:30:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45838308 where the changeset comment is: Reverted mechanical edit of species tag to trees after complaints to DWG, see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=628958
Stereo_repair (2017-02-06 11:04:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45852519 where the changeset comment is: Reverted mechanical edit of species tag to trees after complaints to DWG, see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=628958
Stereo_repair (2017-02-06 12:08:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45853882 where the changeset comment is: Reverted mechanical edit of species tag to trees after complaints to DWG, see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=628958
Stereo_repair (2017-02-04 09:53:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45798879 where the changeset comment is: Reverted mechanical edit of species tag to trees after complaints to DWG, see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=628958
Stereo_repair (2017-02-07 02:16:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45854666 where the changeset comment is: Reverted mechanical edit of species tag to trees after complaints to DWG, see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=628958
Stereo_repair (2017-02-04 10:08:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45800694 where the changeset comment is: Reverted mechanical edit of species tag to trees after complaints to DWG, see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=628958
pitscheplatsch (2017-02-01 18:12:45+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45708033

@Glassman thanks again!
Stereo_repair (2017-02-04 09:53:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45798879 where the changeset comment is: Reverted mechanical edit of species tag to trees after complaints to DWG, see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=628958
pawelkowalski (2017-02-01 08:57:44+00:00): Proszę o przywrócenie informacji o istnieniu trawiastego pasa startowego.
Stereo_repair (2017-02-06 12:08:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45853882 where the changeset comment is: Reverted mechanical edit of species tag to trees after complaints to DWG, see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=628958
Stereo_repair (2017-02-06 11:04:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45852519 where the changeset comment is: Reverted mechanical edit of species tag to trees after complaints to DWG, see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=628958
Glassman (2017-02-01 06:36:47+00:00): please do not vandalise OSM. You are hurting a lot of people.
pitscheplatsch (2017-02-01 18:05:57+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45708112

@Glassman thanks!
Warin61 (2018-10-10 09:36:25+00:00): Hi,
You have 'landuse=yes' on Way: 470882539

??? ummm what does that mean?
WoodWoseWulf (2018-10-13 04:29:38+00:00): Doh! Thanks, I changed the tag.
k_zoar (2017-02-01 04:10:54+00:00): 編集ソース(source)に Bing を入れ忘れました。
Bing で駐車場の存在を確認しています。
Warin61 (2017-02-02 07:26:32+00:00): What discussion has taken place for this change? None? Then I suggest you start one on the talk au group before you do more.
Spanholz (2017-02-01 08:51:31+00:00): Hi, 
openstreetmap.org is no playground, the data is used by many users and your changes are immediately visible for all of them. 
Your changesets have been reverted. 
Please refrain from doing such changes if future. Helpfull changes are always welcome! Thanks
starystary!! (2017-02-01 04:25:58+00:00): good
bpowell1 (2017-02-07 16:16:08+00:00): Please do not delete name=* from ground verified data including gas stations.

According to the wiki "Where a well-known brand is trading under their own name, then name=* is expected by most data users, and should be used by contributors."

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:brand

Even in Germany the name=* field is used to specify the COMMON name known to most data users. Examples: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/634145071 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/34985232

The name of the gas station below is Petrobras because the brand is trading under their own name.

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/-EQqectxh2pNZuuHeKf2qg
muralito (2017-02-08 16:56:17+00:00): Please go read the convention https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Wikiproyecto_Argentina, and stop deleting long time existing nodes from other collaborators and adding your "source"

Also all the KG group lack of local knowledge are adding lots of errors to OSM and have not
muralito (2017-02-08 16:57:35+00:00): have not improved in all this months. The data your group are adding is bad quality data.
bpowell1 (2017-02-08 17:48:07+00:00): Paraphrasing the link you provided, if there is a clearly visible name then it should be labeled accordingly. In the example I provided before, Petrobras is the visible name of the gas station.
To compromise we can start labeling these stations with both the brand=* and name=* the same unless the name is clearly different than the brand. For example the gas station below would be labeled name=Loco brand=Conoco.
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/_t-17dBLXSKyD80b9UgA0Q
vespax (2017-02-09 02:40:35+00:00): The compromise on this issue would be to use both the name=* and the brand=* tags.  Most of these would be the same however there may be some differences.  As per the wiki, "...name=* is expected by most data users, and should be used by contributors."  It seems Muralito has a specific need for the names to be in the brand=* tag, however most users and contributors would need it in name=* tag.  e.g. name=Petrobras  brand=*Petrobras  Both can be tagged in the feature.
muralito (2017-02-09 15:35:52+00:00): I don't have a specific need. There is no need for a compromise. The brand is the brand. Having the data duplicate in both tags is bad.

Why do anyone need a brand in name? Just check or preprocess brand if needed.

The data consumers, as any renderer are free to use the data as they like. 

Putting the brand as name is a bad confussion, and a mistake that should ve avoided and corrected.
vespax (2017-02-10 18:40:20+00:00): As bpowell1 mentioned, the brand and the name can be used together.  It may be redundant in some features but name is the most commonly used tag for full stations.  Globally, 62.57% of fuel stations use the name tag, 26.34% use the brand tag.  

Also, in the wiki it states "Where a well-known brand is trading under their own name, then name=* is expected by most data users, and should be used by contributors. This situation is typical of large fast-food chains, where the outlet and the goods share the same name. Here there is usually little value in adding brand=* as well as name=*, but this is for the data contributor to decide."

The compromise in our discussion would be to use both so that the data is most complete.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:brand#Distinguishing_between_Brand.2C_Name.2C_Operator.2C_etc.

Map what's on the ground.  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground
vespax (2017-02-10 19:19:27+00:00): http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=fuel#combinations
muralito (2017-02-13 21:05:58+00:00): No. Read and respect the local convention.

You and your group also disrepect the work and collaboration of previous mappers, deleting nodes and changing them for polygons wich is not precision data.

The brand is the brand, the name is the name, And please dont destroy good data anymore. If you need something to put in a label, just check for brand.

Maybe is better to go find other place to "collaborate", because a lot of your KG group 2016 changesets have lkot of mistakes and most of you have failed to correct them in the several months. Have a total lack of understinding of local context and knowledge. Maping with video like you are doing is not adding good data.
vespax (2017-02-13 21:32:30+00:00): Muralito,  We are following both the local and global conventions for this issue, as explained in links in this changeset.  We are also updating a lot of new construction and previous errors in the data to current conditions.  In most cases we try follow the OSM guidance of "one feature, one OSM element" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

If you notice errors in edits, the place to comment on them is within the feature itself or the changeset.  OSM users are happy to coordinate with others to make the most accurate edits.  We all learn together as we work together.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2017-02-19 01:26:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 46204825 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some problematical edits to skiing areas (see http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=5088068, https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1202 for more information)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2017-02-19 01:25:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 46204825 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some problematical edits to skiing areas (see http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=5088068, https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1202 for more information)
letihu (2017-02-03 09:39:22+00:00): Das taggen der Fusswege finde ich nicht sehr glücklich.
1. wäre es besser die Infos an die Hauptstraße zu hängen. Ein Routen ist dann einfacher.
2. An diesen https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4650644269/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4650644276/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4650643864/history
losen Enden gehts nicht weiter. Sie sind nicht mit der Straße verbunden.
Hier
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4281128/history
kannst ein Beispiel sehen.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4652386907/history#map=19/51.22665/9.31159&layers=N
und
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4650626300/history
waren nicht miteinander verbunden. Das hab ich schon mal gefixt.
Ich wünsche dir noch viel Spaß bei OSM, und lass dich bitte von meinem Hinweis nicht entmutigen - wir alle machen am Anfang nicht so ganz optimale Sachen.
Aleks-Berlin (2017-06-08 14:05:18+00:00): Hi inflightpilottraining, please do not introduce strange tags. Keys have seldom capital-letters, should not have white-space, and should not be similar to existing tags. E.g. google_plus is often used and legal. You could read the OSM wiki or use taginfo-statistic to see existing tags. Thanks, Alex
Supaplex (2017-02-01 06:45:58+00:00): 如果知道範圍可以圈出範圍
keithonearth (2017-02-01 18:50:29+00:00): Thanks for answering my note (http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/835213), your knowledge on the Mackenzie river crossing, and the ice_road tag, I didn't know about that one. 

I did do a minor edit to following yours, as you had applied the ice_road tag to a large length of road, that was both on the river and on the land. 

If you want to apply a tag to a section of a road, you first need to cut the way. In iD this is done by clicking on the node where you want to cut it (make a new node at this location if necessary), and then clicking on the scissors icon. 

I've done this for the road in question, and removed the ice_road tag from the inappropriate section. But I thought you might be interested in the process.

If I'm not being clear please let me know, and feel free to ask any questions if you have them, I'll do my best to answer.
Greg_Rose (2017-02-01 19:18:18+00:00): Hey Keith - No worries, you were completely clear, and I understand completely. I actually left the ice-road designation there on purpose, as those roads are impassible once snowmelt happens: they turn into pure mud. Even though most of the road isn't on lake or river ice, the roadbed depends on compacted snow to remain driveable.
Northerners refer to the entire seasonal road as an "ice road" - but I suppose we can mark the parts on land as "seasonal" instead.
Here's the easiest way to determine if a road is an ice-road (besides research and in-person observation). Satellite imagery is almost always from the thaw months - less cloud cover - so if the roadway appears to be extensively green and grown over, it's an ice-road. If the roadway appears to be cleared of vegetation for most of its length, it's a yearly road. Most roads above the 60th parallel are actually ice-roads.
All in all though, not a big deal. No need to change it back.
Greg_Rose (2017-02-01 19:29:22+00:00): Another dead giveaway: Staging areas next to rivers on the lower/down side (side of the river that goods are coming in from). On the south bank of the McKenzie where that ice-road comes ashore, you can see in the satellite imagery a couple of cleared out staging areas. When Fall comes, there eventually is enough snowpack to traverse the ice-road on land, but not enough ice on the bigger rivers to support a semi and its load. So goods are brought in and dropped on the shore, and then brought across the river when the ice is sufficiently thick. Sometimes the goods will sit there for a few days, sometimes weeks if the weather doesn't cooperate.
Greg_Rose (2017-02-01 20:00:21+00:00): Well.... Just saw a source that argued that when they go over land, locals call them "snow-roads". So... whatever.
"Seasonal" it is.
keithonearth (2017-02-02 10:21:00+00:00): I think seasonal is the best choice too. Especially after looking at the OSM wiki entry on ice_roads (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ice_road). 

Keep in mind that OSM tags may have different meaning that in common usage. So whether or not locals call the roads that are only passible when the mud is frozen "ice roads" isn't relevant, it's just a question of how the tag is used on OSM. (The OSM wiki is usually useful in this regard, but may lack information, or even not reflect actual usage accurately).

In any case we seem to be in agreement. Thanks for your work on Northern Canada, it's good to see someone editing in this area.
GerdP (2017-09-07 13:11:16+00:00): Hi!
Please review unusual tag highway=service_link near this circular way that looks like a junction=roundabout
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/470898893
See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout
Sasha_SH (2017-09-08 02:10:24+00:00): Hello, GerdP! 
Thanks you for information, I fixed.
JinKing (2017-02-01 06:01:46+00:00): i live here.
mavl (2019-01-02 16:39:44+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
Supaplex (2017-02-01 07:29:33+00:00): According to the previous editor, this area is redevelopment area. There are just roads but no building, so he used construction tag. If you think labeled as construction is not properly, please add the road in this area, otherwise I will add back to brownfield tag.
Supaplex (2017-02-01 07:33:02+00:00): 根據上一位編輯者的意見，這邊是重劃區。目前這邊只有新鋪設重劃區內的道路，還沒有建築。因此先前的編者用建設中標籤。如果你覺得先前的標籤不恰當，請加上重劃區內的道路，不然我會會回退你的編輯，加上brownfield標籤。
Supaplex (2017-02-01 15:53:08+00:00): 補充新聞
http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/1043591
還在施工狀況
witheverylight (2017-02-01 16:04:18+00:00): Have you actually walked there and be there in person? Most of the area is NOT under-construction. 

Again, this is a redevelopment area and the outlined area is OUT OF DATE and not current.
witheverylight (2017-02-01 16:06:00+00:00): I dont care what article you use. If you go there in person. Its NOT under construction. The outlined area is OUT OF DATE. 

If you want it to be in construction then outline it properly by walking there IN PERSON.
Littlebtc (2017-02-01 18:40:51+00:00): I had been there for several times. (Now living in Taichung.)
As far as I know, the current status in there is still under construction (as roads are still not opened publicly), and the several part of construction is STALLED and not expected to complete until 2018.

The construction of this redevelopment zone, or the 13th land readjustment project, is stalled in some region due to the discovery of several archaeological sites.

But I believe marking the whole region as a construction site is very reasonable as the region is STILL CLOSED FOR PUBLIC.
Littlebtc (2017-02-01 18:47:04+00:00): To prove I had been there, here are some Mapillary street views I had taken 4 months ago:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/9nQ8t3HUhS2ygbqCquWxRQ
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FV2Fsv4c2nGI71_Y2Tssmw
Fences are around the whole redevelopment zone, so marking it construction is very much reasonable.
Littlebtc (2017-02-01 18:48:41+00:00): Ouch, fence the eastern side of the redevelopment zone had been tear down, but you can see clearly it is UNDER CONSTRUCTION in any aspects.
Littlebtc (2017-02-01 18:52:05+00:00): And the region can be verified using the imagery from NLSC, taken in 2014: (unfortunately we cannot trace these)
http://i.imgur.com/PfQmWeu.png
mavl (2017-10-13 18:23:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52901900 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted (an incompatible source) [http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45647969].
mavl (2017-10-13 18:23:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52901900 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted (an incompatible source) [http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45647969].
mavl (2017-10-13 18:23:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52901900 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted (an incompatible source) [http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45647969].
mavl (2017-10-13 16:52:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52897463 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted (an incompatible source) [http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45707709].
pitscheplatsch (2017-02-01 18:03:46+00:00): Hi ivanxx. May I know the reason behind deleting all your mapped objects? You already wrote that this area is private, but you could use several tags e.g. access=private. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate
Mateusz Konieczny (2017-12-14 15:55:52+00:00): set_season? Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/470929190 supposed to be maybe tagged as seasonal=wet_season?
mavl (2017-10-13 16:52:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52897463 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted (an incompatible source) [http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45707709].
mavl (2017-10-13 16:52:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52897463 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted (an incompatible source) [http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45707709].
pnorman (2017-02-26 03:11:44+00:00): Hello,

In OpenStreetMap you can't copy from copyrighted maps without permission. This includes vworld, which you did here. Continuing to copy like this could lead to a permanent block. Unfortunately I have to remove this copied data.

Paul Norman
For the OpenStreetMap Data Working Group


안녕하세요.

오픈스트리트맵(OpenStreetMap)에서는 저작권이 있는 지도를 여러분이 허락없이 복사하여 사용할 수는 없습니다. 이 해당 범위에는 여러분이 사용한 Vworld도 포함됩니다. 이와 같은 복사작업을 지속적으로 하게 된다면, 접속이 영구적으로 차단하게 될수도 있습니다. 안타깝지만, 저는 복사된 데이터는 삭제할 수 밖에 없다는 것을 알려 드립니다. 

오픈스트리트맵 데이터 워킹 그룹을 대신하여
폴 노먼 (Paul Norman) 드림
mavl (2017-10-13 16:52:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52897463 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted (an incompatible source) [http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45707709].
mavl (2017-10-13 16:52:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52897463 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted (an incompatible source) [http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45707709].
mavl (2017-10-13 16:52:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52897463 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted (an incompatible source) [http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45707709].
mavl (2019-01-14 16:38:32+00:00): This changeset was redacted.