piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Adhil@123 (2022-10-18 06:19:34+00:00): sorry for multiple comments..
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127635609
lostmike (2022-10-17 09:39:56+00:00): I assume you are going to put the pontoon back in April when it's re-installed for the summer?
BlaeX (2022-10-17 12:30:56+00:00): Hey, I noticed, that it was missing and assumed, that it was a mistake; which i corrected (falsely). Sorry and thanks for the heads up.
lostmike (2022-10-17 14:05:26+00:00): :)
WoodWoseWulf (2022-10-16 23:21:14+00:00): Hi!

There is already a park mapped here as "James Park" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/79146400/

Is John James Park the correct name for this larger area?
RA210 (2022-10-22 11:23:08+00:00): Hello, With a little research I have found the full name to be,"John James Park," But it can be found either way as is, so a change is not required. Thanks for your part in this project and the reply.
WoodWoseWulf (2022-10-22 21:12:27+00:00): Thanks for the reply!

If the full name is "John James Park" then it should be moved on to the area (along with any other tags that aren't there yet) and the informal name should either be added as an alt_name or loc_name. After that's done, the node duplicating the park should be removed.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element.
Glitch-Hunter (2022-10-22 14:04:19+00:00): schön, nur das du 2mal Wege entfernt hast (hab das wider korregiert)
GeraldoW (2022-10-22 15:56:43+00:00): Ich meinte, alles korrekt hinterlassen zu haben ... aber hmm?
Problem ist: ist alles Privat, haben eine frei laufende Dackelzucht, die gerne mal aggressiv Wanderer anbellen ...
DeFra85 (2024-07-10 08:34:05+00:00): Ahoi. Wie ist es denn genau vor Ort ausgeschildert?
Und was ist mit dem X18, der hier entlang laufen soll?
GeraldoW (2024-07-10 09:01:56+00:00): Ahoi, an beiden Enden sind Schilder aufgestellt, dass es sich um einen Privatweg handelt. Den genauen Wortlaut weiß ich nicht mehr. Von einem X18 weiß ich nichts. In dem Buch "Wanderungen für die Seele" von Jutta Jüdde war dieser Weg Teil einer Wanderung, die in späterer Auflage entfernt und daher auf eine andere Wegführung umgelegt wurde.
eggie (2022-10-16 21:39:41+00:00): Hi Gruenfuss,

Welcome to OSM . 
On de PDOK aerial imagery you may see the path. BING is outdated. 

If ther is no path and it's not to allowed to walk there it's better to tag such an not official path 
as disuse:highway=path

That will prevent an other mapper draw the path again on the map. 

Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2022-10-16 21:47:38+00:00): Anyway.. I removed the white space..
I asked the former mapper about these informal footways.
gruenfuss (2022-10-16 21:57:38+00:00): Thanks =) Happy to contribute. It appears there used to be a path but is is heavily blocked by a gate and inpassable growth.
eggie (2022-10-16 22:02:28+00:00): Okay.. a couple a times ctrl-f5 and you will see no path anymore.
Gr eggie
streckenkundler (2022-10-17 17:01:22+00:00): Hei,

eine Frage: habt man da das Knotennetz auch angepasst? Denn die Route 2-15 ist nun unterbrochen: https://www.knooppuntnet.nl/en/analysis/route/12892441

Auf den Bildern von Mai 2022 ist noch nichts zu  sehen... vgl. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=704019534266969

Danke für die Hilfe,

Sven
streckenkundler (2022-10-24 15:26:27+00:00): Hei,

eine Nachfrage... ist der neue Radweg so schlecht? Er hat es heute in die Lausitzer Rundschau geschafft... Ist zwar Bezahlschranke, aber, daß, was ich lesen kann, reicht mir schon: https://www.lr-online.de/lausitz/elsterwerda/grossthiemig-kritik-von-radlern-schlechte-note-fuer-nagelneuen-radweg-im-sueden-von-elbe-elster-67207893.html

Sven
Glassman (2022-10-18 02:33:27+00:00): when adding cross walks, they should be connected to the road. That tells routing engines that you are about to cross a crosswalk. Can you review your edit? Let me know if you need help.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127638462
طائر الجنوب (2022-12-22 17:46:57+00:00): احسنت
Nawfal85 (2022-12-23 18:03:59+00:00): شكرا استاذ
WoodWoseWulf (2022-10-16 22:33:03+00:00): Thank you! I was just about to get this one.
Kovoschiz (2022-10-17 10:04:00+00:00): 1. `place=town` is an abstract concept that shouldn't have a defined area 
2. New Town or OZP is for planning purpose only, and is copyrighted. 
3. It is debatable whether they are `boundary=administartive`. Postal address is a different matter.
Kovoschiz (2022-10-17 10:08:13+00:00): 3. eg is south of Tin Shui Wai station TIn Sui Wai? Can be no, because they are covered in Hung Shui Kiu and Ping Shan OZP respectively.  But postal address and common use might be yes. Same for Fung Ka Wai east of Tin Tsz Road.
Kovoschiz (2022-10-17 10:09:15+00:00): 4. `addr:region=Hong Kong` is not correct either.
Pendulun (2022-10-17 11:52:14+00:00): Thank you for your explanations.
Kovoschiz (2022-10-17 10:05:02+00:00): This is obviously wrong when TKO is more than that.
Lake_e (2024-05-13 15:42:20+00:00): No bicycle parking appears to have ever existed at this location. Was this a mistake?
Glassman (2022-10-18 02:34:22+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good. It looks like you connected the crosswalk to the road.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127639283
whammo (2022-10-17 00:41:53+00:00): Hi Joseph, is there a reason you downgraded all the crossings to 'marked'? They are all controlled by pedestrian signals in sync with the traffic light at the intersection.
Joseph R P (2022-10-17 01:24:23+00:00): I retagged them from sidewalks to marked crossing because these are not concrete sidewalks but rather asphalt crosswalks, and the pedestrian signals are already indicated with the node at the intersection with the road. Having pedestrian signal tags added to them indicates that the crosswalks also double as pedestrian signals (which are separate things), so they should be mapped separately.
whammo (2022-10-20 01:29:40+00:00): I understand changing the way to a crossing, that was my mistake, I guess I'm confused of the need to change the crossing tag from "traffic_signals" to "marked." I get that traffic_signals is potentially redundant because of the node in the middle, but marked also seems redundant to me, and potentially misleading, in part because I don't think I've ever come across a signaled pedestrian crossing that is unmarked. Food for thought. Thanks for correcting though.
Joseph R P (2022-10-20 01:38:02+00:00): It appears there's actually a tagging preset for the crossing with signals and I was mistaken (I only looked at the tags at the bottom). Maybe it should be tagged as that with marked tags?
OldManCelli (2022-12-09 16:03:11+00:00): Balam11 - it looks like you are changing the 'name' tag for Seguin road to FM 78. It seems that the road is marked as FM 78 on the street signs and this is why the 'ref' tag is set to 'FM 78', but many of the businesses have an address of Seguin road on this street so I think it might be possible that the road's name is actually Seguin Rd. Generally - in either case, we don't put the street number (like FM 78) in the name field. It should be just left blank if the road has a number, but no name. Also, I noticed that you neglected to rename all the segments of that street. Was this intentional?
balchen (2023-04-21 06:44:04+00:00): Så på 822420067 at den står med tunnel=yes. Men dette er jo en bro.
5m4u9 (2022-10-17 17:28:41+00:00): Hola, gracias por las ediciones de los nombres de calles.

Tengo una duda, ¿En las calles con número tienen realmente el caracter numeral (#) en el nombre? en general en Bolivia solo vi y establecemos en el mapa con Calle 60, o Pasaje 1 sin el caracter.
user_5359 (2022-10-30 18:27:41+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please have look on http://www.osm.org/way/296114215 one of sixty four objects). What is the meaning of the tag 城中村 = 新泾村?
ElliottPlack (2022-11-15 02:06:07+00:00): Hello again, some trouble with this edit, similar to the comment over on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127644478

Have a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/535792738 for instance. This should not be restricted. It would appear you'd selected all of the roads around the BW Parkway with a lasso tool and JOSM and forgot to remove these. That is a simple mistake but this would drastically alter bicycle routing along Laurel Bowie Road.

Thank you,

Elliott Plack  
OSMF Data Working Group
nyampire (2022-10-19 08:19:08+00:00): OSMへようこそ！　編集をレビューしました。

とてもよく描けていると思います。
これからもぜひ、いろいろな対象をマッピングしてみてください。

Happy Mapping！
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127642086
Colin Smale (2022-10-17 06:55:02+00:00): Hi Mateusz... This change is not right. The previous wikidata link, Q23939248, reference the correct area (including the City of London), but this one is wrong as it excludes the City of London. There are about a million interpretations of "London" and it's a confusing mess, sorry about that...
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-10-17 07:59:02+00:00): Wait, so there is "Greater London" that excludes City of London and "Greater London" that does not exclude it?

Note that I changed wikidata link to fit already placed wikipedia link

Maybe just short description at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23306 is incorrect?
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-10-17 08:00:16+00:00): https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q23306&diff=1167850110&oldid=1163797031 is a Wikidata edit that changed their description
Glassman (2022-10-18 02:39:48+00:00): Most Circle K shops are tagged as shop=convenience. Can you review this edit?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127643834
Glassman (2022-10-18 02:36:31+00:00): #TIP: when removing a business, leave the address tag it can most likely be reused by a new business.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127643869
andi9876 (2022-10-25 07:05:24+00:00): Hi.

I see you added lots of ref numbers of streets in Phnom Penh. The rule says:

'When a road has no number, leave this key unused; this makes sure that routing programs do not try to describe the road by a number.'

In Phnom Penh all the streets have numbers, but I guess dont need a ref. Just for connecting road outside the town ok.

Andi.
GeoMechain (2022-11-01 02:36:57+00:00): Hi,

I added some refs to facilitate the routing, but yes the number can be parsed in the name tag.

I don' really understand 'do not try to describe the road by a number.' however. Ways are not only described by their references.

Lucas.
5m4u9 (2022-10-17 17:47:30+00:00): Hola, gracias por incluir el texto del reglamento como justificación.

Por lo general en OpenStreetMap para mapear velocidades se basan en la señalética de las carreteras, pero en Bolivia eso es medio precario o inexistente.

Un debate que nos falta en la comunidad es si utilizamos este artículo del reglamento como fuente para las vías que no tengan señalética de velocidad, yo pienso que si sería beneficioso.
Glassman (2022-10-18 02:41:23+00:00): #TIP: square buildings by selecting the outline then just type a "q"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127644083
Glassman (2022-10-18 02:44:07+00:00): #TIP: nurseries are usually tagged as shop=garden_centre. Instead of drawing an outline of the area of the building, just add a node near the entrance of the building.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127644182
skquinn (2022-10-17 02:24:05+00:00): Oops, duplicate *crossing* nodes
mrpulley (2024-07-10 13:08:11+00:00): Maxspeed of ways 438234295 and 1104548802 is correct, but location of change of maxspeed from 80 to 100 was not in the correct location - I've fixed this at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153204765
ElliottPlack (2022-11-15 01:52:52+00:00): Hi there, which "MD bicycle route network map" specifically was this edit in reference to? MDOT SHA has been adjusting their restrictions lately and there is some out of date information online. Also, it would appear that a few of the routes marked as prohibited are either, not prohibited, or not necessary. Motorways are bicycle=no by default so it may not be necessary to add these tags to them.

Did you happen to check any of these on the ground? On OSM we have a policy of not copying from other maps, and in this edit you're claiming to have copied from another map. I see more bike/ped access changes by you around Maryland that may also be out of date.

Please let us know how you came across the information used to update these roads.

Thank you,

Elliott Plack  
Data Working Group
ellehan (2023-08-26 02:18:54+00:00): These changes were from a list that was labeled as all of the MDOT roads with limited access. The list was in an inset in the map document but not from the map itself, which I guess I just assumed to be meaningfully different. I labeled bicycle=no explicitly since, according to the information I could find, there appeared to be many more motorways that are not actually restricted access.
mavl (2023-04-25 09:07:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
mavl (2023-04-25 09:01:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
eggie (2022-10-17 06:37:33+00:00): Beste Usi
Je bedoeling was natuurlijk goed. 
Een fietsroute inleggen kan niet met editor iD..  
Wel met editor JOSM... en een heleboel ervaring. 
Het fietsroutenetwerk wordt 'bewaakt 'met een speciale tool.
https://knooppuntnet.nl/en/

De poging is inmiddels hersteld door Dick vd Hoven 

Zie.. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1246149#map=15/52.3331/6.5673

Het beste kun je in het vervolg Dick een berichtje sturen als er iets aangepast 'moet' worden. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dvdhoven

De ervaring om fietsroutes te bewerken komt van zelf als je veel mapt en dan ga je in het begin nog op je neus.
Schakel in ieder geval vast over naar de betere editor JOSM.

Mapse
eggie
eggie (2022-10-17 06:43:43+00:00): Nog een draadje op het 'oude forum'

editor josm stap voor stap 

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710       

Probeer editor JOSM onder de knie te krijgen en dan vinden de meeste mappers het nog lastig.   :)
dvdhoven (2022-10-17 07:08:18+00:00): Ik zie nu ook wat je bedoeling was, je wilde 81-93 omleggen.  Ik zie dat routedatabank nog de oude route heeft, maar de planner van Twente heeft een kleine omleiding via de Enterweg.
Geef mij aub in zulke gevallen even een seintje dan leg ik het om en ik kan dan het gelijk bij de Fietsersbond aanpassen.
Ik probeer Fietsersbond en OSM zoveel mogelijk gelijk te houden.

Vriendelijke groeten,
Dick van den Hoven
dvdhoven (2022-10-17 07:09:37+00:00): En ik weet niet of je deze link kent:https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=16.0/52.337/6.5867

Hier kun je zien hoe de routes in OSM lopen
usifusie (2022-10-17 13:10:56+00:00): Dick,
Bedankt voor je reactie.
Ik had niet verwacht dat het aanpassen van een knooppunt fietsroute zoveel impact zou hebben.
Als ik een wijziging in het fietsnetwerk constateer zal ik je in het vervolg een bericht sturen, zodat de aanpassing professioneel kan geschieden.
MVG Usifusie
mavl (2023-04-25 09:04:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
eggie (2022-10-17 07:11:58+00:00): Hier heb ik nog even tracktype=grade2 / surface=fine_gravel toegevoegd tot dat het zand begint. Het eerste stuk is half verhard 
Nu routeert het ook beter voor fietsers.
Tja.. en een fietsroute toevoegen is een speciale  klus voor specialisten. 
Gr eggie
eggie (2022-10-17 06:55:55+00:00): Zodra je gaat knippen/bewerken in wegen waar fiets/wandelroutes lopen gaat het met iD fout. De routevolgorde gaat verloren... zeker als er meerder mtb, fiets en wandelroutes lopen. 
Ik kan niet goed zien wat je hier hebt gedaan, maar de schade is inmiddels hersteld.
Welke fietsroute heb je hier willen verwijderen?
Knoopppunt route 81-93 is gefixed door DvdHoven, maar die loopt dan kennelijk niet hier?
Maar niet de moed verliezen en gewoon doormappen... (op de fietsroutes bewerken na dan) 
Geef even een seintje als je iets met routes wilt doen. 

Groet
eggie
dvdhoven (2022-10-17 10:41:42+00:00): De route 81-93 liep - sinds jaren - via de zijweg van de 1e Nieuwstadsweg langs nr 7 over een slechte track naar de Kippershoekweg en dan verder langs die weg oostwaards.
Nu is de route omgelegd 1e Nieuwstadsweg naar de Enterweg en dan de Kippershoekweg noordwaarts.
Dus het stukje Kippershoekweg van deze changeset is nu niet meer in de route.
De ontwerper van de knooppuntroutes in Overijssel is een fanatiek MTB'er en dat is in de routes terug te zien. Hij ziet kennelijk niet in, dat waar een MTB kan rijden, oma met de e-bike, piet met de gewone fiets, etc beslist niet kan rijden. Ik heb nu al vele keren gezien dat er routes worden ingelegd over paden van zeer dubieuze kwaliteit tot graspaden aan toe. Later wordt dat weer gewijzigd, waarschijnlijk als het aantal klachten te groot wordt.
Recent is een route bij Dalfsen over een laan gelegd met het bekende groene landgoedbordje, dus waar een fiets niet mag komen en nu net is dat weer terug gedraaid.

Vriendelijke groeten,
Dick van den Hoven
gscholz (2022-10-20 07:10:12+00:00): Hi Lewatoto,
this changeset has created several errors in the OSM database regarding not connected ways (red markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-89.10810&lat=15.25157&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas%2Cunconnected_open_ends_1

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=127646116

As you may know, those ways cannot properly be used by routing software. Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
Lewatoto (2022-10-20 18:57:25+00:00): hello, according to jsom this set of changes should not be uploaded because it had conflicts with a previous edition well maybe my mistake when handling all this, what I did was eliminate all the extra nodes.

I think that with the edition that I made, the problems have already been solved, at least the id editor tells me that there is no conflict, in case I will not see what remains to be fixed.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127851312#map=13/15.2750/-89.1289
mavl (2023-04-25 09:04:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
mavl (2023-04-25 08:59:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
MxxCon (2022-10-18 04:19:40+00:00): Hello.
You tagged big chunks of highways as not lit. That seems kinda unusual..Is that accurate?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127646244
CurlingMan13 (2022-10-18 06:21:05+00:00): It is correct, unsurprisingly.  In New Jersey, most highway and freeways are unlit.  Only place they are lit are generally intersections and/or "in town".
CurlingMan13 (2022-10-18 06:21:33+00:00): *It is correct, surprisingly.*
mavl (2023-04-25 08:59:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
impiaaa (2022-10-17 20:31:30+00:00): Please remember to save your changes in one area before moving on to another.
amarajz (2022-10-18 14:37:41+00:00): Hello, 

Thank you for your support, we always confine our edits to small geographical location. This is an honest mistake from my end, thanks for highlighting this issue, I'll ensure to not repeat such errors again. Thank you again, always happy to learn from community. 

Regards, 
amarajz
Arun Madhavan (2022-10-18 10:48:11+00:00): may be they should be classified as service road. not sure still worth checking
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127646591
Marc_ch (2024-08-02 22:54:14+00:00): Bonjour,
avez-vous vu pu voir un panneau expliquant ce que c'est ?
j'ai l'impression que c'est le chauffage à distance de GESA mais je n'en suis pas certain car il y a un autre batiment appartement à GESA pas très loin
Salutations,
Marc
RaiJjet (2024-08-03 06:55:53+00:00): Je suis désolé, après deux ans, je ne me souviens plus des détails de mon observation. 
Salutations
Marc_ch (2024-08-04 23:43:36+00:00): Merci pour votre retour.
Supaplex (2022-10-18 02:45:34+00:00): payment:easycard->payment:ep_easycard in TW
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127647094
user_5359 (2022-10-17 07:06:40+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please notice we use the 24h notation for the opening_hours.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-11-07 16:03:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 128599619 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint to the DWG, reverting some changes made by osmose.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128063226 .
adiatmad (2022-10-20 05:13:04+00:00): Good day! Your edit looks awesome. But these objects have a crossing issue (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1104569896) and (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1104344097). Allow me to suggest you double-check before uploading to OSM. Happy mapping!
Gaurav Parajuli (2022-10-20 05:31:50+00:00): Thank you @adiatmad for your comment. Since these two edits were from two tasks in the tasking manager on two different days. This error wasn't seen while uploading. I want to make sure that I always remove all the errors before uploading. This was an error that got unnoticed while uploading. Thank you for catching me up on this. I will never make such a mistake in the coming days.
Thank you.
adiatmad (2022-10-20 05:45:27+00:00): Thank you for your quick response. 
I got it. Sometimes I have the same issue as you. I usually re-download the nearby area after uploading to OSM then click Validate (Shift+V) in JOSM, just to make sure my edit is not causing more problems. Maybe you want to try that trick OR please let me know if you have another one. I'm happy to learn from OSM folks.  
Happy mapping!
charles chilufya (2022-10-29 06:55:25+00:00): hi @Steward i have failed to very this work here due to mass deletion of the previously works.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127648922
STEWARD PETER ERNEST (2022-10-29 14:14:27+00:00): What can i do to help you verifying the work
charles chilufya (2022-10-29 14:26:51+00:00): Hi, i have managed to verify everything. It has a lot of deleting, thus why and i had seen only one link to your works at first with 5hrs + time frame of working. But i found other works in the OSMcha
charles chilufya (2022-10-29 14:27:05+00:00): Thank you,