piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NieWnen (2021-10-27 22:08:51+00:00): Nie tak się używa construction.

Do poprawy.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:construction
RaccoonFederation (2021-10-28 00:13:01+00:00): Thanks for resolving so many of my Notes :)
confusedbuffalo (2021-10-29 12:19:03+00:00): You're welcome. There are still some to fix though which I couldn't easily do remotely
jaap de vries (2022-02-11 13:03:48+00:00): Ik zie dat je als laatste het hertenkamp hebt aangepast. Nu is deze een stuk groter in de linker punt. Het bankje wat er nu staat, staat nu dus binnen het hertenkamp, dat klopt dus niet. Ik kom hier vaak en pas het even aan.
danieldegroot2 (2022-02-12 17:19:28+00:00): Beste jaap, in mijn wijzigingsset heb ik slechts een tag verandert, geen geometrie.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=113056311

De geometrie heb je zelf een jaar geleden erin gezet.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=91987269

Omdat er deels bomen voor zitten is het moeilijk voor mij om dit direct te verbeteren.

Groet,

Daniel
Frans S (2021-11-01 15:02:44+00:00): Bonjour. Merci d'avoir participé à ce projet.
Pourriez-vous accorder plus d'attention à la cartographie précise des bâtiments complexes, au lieu de les dessiner comme un simple bâtiment rectangulaire.
Merci
Frans S (2021-11-01 15:13:32+00:00): un autre commentaire.
les mappings sont souvent surdimensionnés. veuillez travailler plus précisément. Cela évite au validateur un travail supplémentaire pour les afficher correctement.
meilleures salutations
Glassman (2021-10-28 19:24:27+00:00): #TIP: Square buildings by selecting the outline then just type a "q"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113057066
Glassman (2021-10-31 00:31:52+00:00): #TIP: Also watch out from dragged nodes. you accidentally dragged a crossing node about a block. I fixed it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113057066
opendcc (2023-08-13 07:16:24+00:00): Besucht und Nummer korrigiert.
Diacritic (2021-10-29 22:47:35+00:00): This edit looks really good! Good work. :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113057679
gscholz (2021-10-31 08:52:31+00:00): Hi Carlos,
your recent edits have created  some broken boundary relations in the OSM database:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-55.23357&lat=-27.04058&zoom=14

Can you please fix ths?
Kind regards
Guido
Správce (2021-10-27 22:44:04+00:00): Pokusil jsem se připojit KÚ 790036 Třešně u Záhoří k obci Záhoří ZUJ 550027, avšak definování relace se mi evidentně nepovedlo. Prosím, zda by někdo to opravil. Omlouvám se.
keebguy (2021-10-27 22:50:21+00:00): I used Mapbox Satellite for this edit, not Maxar Premium Imagery
gqgx (2021-10-27 22:57:35+00:00): Actually it is accessible for 10 Sycamore Street, so this proposal is probably incorrect. Please close.
Kinsio (2024-08-04 04:05:52+00:00): I reverted this undiscussed mass import with my changeset 154794340.
Kinsio (2024-08-04 04:06:46+00:00): Sorry, had the wrong thing selected when I was checking the number. Changeset 154780652 actually.
skquinn (2024-08-04 04:37:05+00:00): This was an edit using MapWithAI, not an import. If there is something specifically wrong with the data I added, tell me and I can make sure it gets fixed.
Allison P (2024-08-04 22:20:18+00:00): Kinsio, it is only considered an automated edit if the AI data is not manually reviewed before upload. For example, if I were to download all MapWithAI buildings in an area, select the entire layer, and press "add", that would not be adequate review. If, however, I look at each building to confirm good alignment with aerial photo, then that is sufficient oversight. However, we are not perfect, so it is possible that we accidentally accept a building that we meant to reject, or we allow a poorly digitized building by mistake. Why do you believe that this changeset is in violation of the Automated Edits Code of Conduct?
Kinsio (2024-08-05 01:12:07+00:00): Allison: I've explained a bit more in my comments on changeset #113064020. I selected this changeset and the others I'm reverting because I compared the building outlines to the original dataset from Microsoft and the vast majority, if not all, of them are an exact match. Selecting the entire layer and pressing "add" is in fact what seems to have been done here.
Allison P (2024-08-05 02:07:01+00:00): Thank you, I did not see the discussion over there. It provides useful additional context. I don't think that just because the AI building is unchanged that it means it is an import, unless the building would be caught during manual review. I have seen areas where the AI detections are at least as good as a first pass by most mappers.

Unless you have evidence of a high error rate that suggests some of the buildings were not manually reviewed, skquinn has indicated to the contrary that his editing process is more than just selecting a bunch of buildings and pressing "add".
martianfreeloader (2026-06-03 21:39:01+00:00): Hi, can you help with this report?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5303451
ivanbranco (2021-12-01 09:43:34+00:00): Hi Seichter,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996216855/history

what's the meaning of the loc_id=* tag?
seichter (2021-12-01 10:55:23+00:00): There is no special meaning of this tag.

The whole route has been imported as ways in several chunks from a source containing probably GPS tracks. There were two and very often three ways on top of each other containing identical nodes but different endpoints. The only difference were the ids.
All tags come from the imported data and do not conform to OSM tagging. I copied part of the tags - especially the descriptio(n) - to the hiking route relation.
In general I am very restrained in deleting information. Later on with more experience with that import I deleted obsolete tags on the ways but kept the ids with just retagging to loc_id because id is a too short tag in OSM. I kept them provisionally because they showed which segments fit together.

I think these tags can all be deleted after some waiting time but this is at the moment not highest priority for me.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
SomeoneElse (2022-02-08 10:22:01+00:00): Hello (and a belated welcome to OpenStreetMap!),
I just noticed that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/832601082 has an "office=yes" tag on it, which seems a bit odd - what sort of office is it?
Best Regards,
Andy
walk_Rich001 (2022-02-08 17:58:27+00:00): Hi Andy, the structure is a rain shelter.
Regards
Rich
SomeoneElse (2022-02-08 18:10:40+00:00): Thanks - any idea what prompted the "office" tag?
walk_Rich001 (2022-02-08 20:09:56+00:00): To help with importing into golf course designer program.
SomeoneElse (2022-02-08 20:34:45+00:00): Can you give any more details - I've seen a few people doing it, so I presume there are some instructions somewhere?  I'm aware of https://chadrockey.github.io/TGC-Designer-Tools/TUTORIAL but I guess that's not it because I can't see a mention of "office" there.
walk_Rich001 (2022-02-08 21:45:16+00:00): I think I saw it mentioned in The Lidar King video (16 min 30secs).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYa4ODgo-Bc
SomeoneElse (2022-02-08 22:18:13+00:00): Excellent - thanks!
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
BCNorwich (2021-10-30 06:46:17+00:00): Hi, I wonder if the large car park area should be mapped as it actually duplicates the parking spaces mapping.  Also, the large car park area extends over where there is no parking, even mapped over three building areas.

My attention was drawn here because of a self-intersection on the parking area. 
Regards Bernard.
SK53 (2021-10-30 09:13:52+00:00): Hi Bernard,

I think this pretty regular tagging for people who wish to map car parks in detail (obviously a bit prone to overlaps etc). Probably rare in the UK, but I think increasingly popular elsewhere.

It's also pretty much required to adequately map disabled parking (whether in a car park or isolated places) for actual use. By extension, I'd say that therefore valid for all parking spaces (including other categories such as "mother & child" ones).

Jerry aka SK53
mariotomo (2022-06-04 19:17:58+00:00): hola. qué son estos datos? hay manera de mejorarlos? se trata de arbolado urbano? son números de accesión? y los "césped", qué son?
iWowik (2021-11-07 07:54:08+00:00): Вовсе и не на правильный.
Микрорайон не улица
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:21:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
Diacritic (2023-01-27 02:16:14+00:00): Hi Supt,

I stumbled across this edit when making some updates.

The boundary of the suburb Belgrave+Belgrave Heights follows the boundary as imported by the PSMA import. I have reverted your change: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131754155
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113061683
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
janolezab (2021-10-28 10:48:40+00:00): Moin!

Was genau bedeutet die Nummer in "name:mg=Berlin 62422"? Und was bedeutet die Änderungsbeschreibung?
janolezab (2021-10-28 10:50:04+00:00): Hi! Sorry I texted you in German.

What is the meaning of this changeset's description and of "Berlin 62422"?
xd wang (2021-10-28 11:34:03+00:00): Hi, There are too many names in Berlin and no difference with nodes and boundary. When you want boundary but got a node with use Berlin names. So add berlin 62422, You can got boundary only.  Keep the rest names remain there own founction.
kartonage (2021-10-28 11:55:59+00:00): You can easily differentiate between node and relation by exactly these types (node and relation).  There are also other differences that make it easy to differentiate between the place node and the administrative boundary.

Please leave names as they are and don't add ID-numbers to names where they should not be. 
Names are the name only.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:24:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
GITNE (2023-02-06 11:25:34+00:00): You have broken `destination:*` tag values. Please follow the guidelines laid out in the [OpenStreetMap Wiki](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination "Key:destination"). For example, you have garbled every type of destination information into one value. Furthermore, you have not payed attention to the syntax adopted by the community for specifying route references.
```
destination=CR-46;William Floyd Parkway SOUTH;To NY-25;I-495;NY-27;Brookhaven Lab;Shirley;Smith Point Park
```
Since you seem to have a problem with your navigation app, unfortunately you have taken the wrong course of action to mitigate your app’s problem.
Generally speaking, we do not map for a particular navigation app nor a particular map rendering of the OSM database. If you have an issue with your navigation app or a map rendering then please contact your app’s or map’s developers respectively. DO NOT *fix* the OSM database in order to get some desired behavior in your app or some desired map rendering. Thus, please revert your changes. Otherwise, I should be forced to refer this incident to the OSM database admins and ask them to revert your changesets.
user_12470424 (2023-02-06 13:12:47+00:00): Good morning Jake,

I'm currently reviewing these edits I made from awhile back that you've mentioned, especially with the "destination garble". I've learned over time that isn't the correct OSM action, but I haven't gone back to my edits on Long Island since I moved. So this is probably one I've missed.
The main reason for the edits over time were mostly roadway edits (roads that either did not exist or connect to others) and speed limits. Those affect navigation as a whole, regardless of whatever organization that I was a part of at the time.
If you feel a need to fix the "destination garble" that I have missed, please feel free to do so, I have no qualms about that. 
I have no issue if someone has to fix something I made a mistake on, we work together on this platform to make navigation as a whole better for all of us.
GITNE (2023-02-06 15:33:23+00:00): We all make mistakes. However, because you have made so breaking many edits it would be too much of a burden to others to fix them. We usually expect these to be fixed by those responsible.
user_12470424 (2023-02-06 16:14:41+00:00): I understand. I will try to get to as many as I can to fix. I know New York State, from other states' editors that I've talked to, is known as the "Wild West", but when I started doing some edits in Connecticut, I got taught the correct way to do so. If there are any other fixes that you find, don't hesitate to let me know, I can find the time to go through them myself.
GITNE (2023-02-06 17:40:43+00:00): Great! 👍 You can use the history function to see what the `destination:*` tags looked like before. Thank you!
karson_ (2021-10-28 15:17:53+00:00): Please ensure buildings are squared like they are in real life. In iD, you can select a feature and then press 'q'.

Also make sure to use more meaningful description comments. I have no idea what those hashtags are supposed to mean. It would be better to say something like "added house"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113062995
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:21:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
felipeeugenio (2021-10-28 10:52:38+00:00): Estimado. Esto no es para hacer pruebas personales. Es un mapa en explotación usado por entidades públicas y privadas en todo el mundo. Siéntase libre de hacer ediciones que sean un aporte y no un laboratorio personal.
Saludos
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:22:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:24:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
jeslop (2021-10-28 15:02:43+00:00): Hola lazarillo. OSM no está para realizar pruebas. Antes de continuar con estas ediciones puede leer esta guía para principiantes:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Gu%C3%ADa_de_principiantes

Gracias por colaborar con OSM.

Jesús López
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group
B4rtC (2024-01-01 22:32:12+00:00): Linia: 289118237 nie jest drogą dla pieszych i rowerzystów, tylko odseparowaną drogą rowerową przylegającą do drogi dla pieszych i jest tak na całym przebiegu DDR po północnej stronie Waszyngtona. Oznakowanie C-13/16 z kreską PIONOWĄ
Marek-M (2024-01-02 07:05:49+00:00): Ta edycja dotyczyła tylko uzupełnienia nawierzchni, więc nie jest to autor tej linii CPR ale pomimo tego droga 289118237 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/289118237 jest zmapowana zgodnie z zasadami OSM - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery#Wspólna_ścieżka_rowerowa_i_chodnik,_z_osobną_nawierzchnią

Brak tutaj fizycznego rozdziału, który przynajmniej utrudnia w minimalnym stopniu przejście z ciągu pieszego na ciąg rowerowy to jeden z powodów, żeby taki CPR był narysowany 1 linią.
Marek-M (2024-01-02 07:47:54+00:00): Poprawka linku do strony wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery#Drogi_dla_pieszych_i_rowerów
abakus_uploader (2021-10-28 22:33:31+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!
ToniE (2021-10-29 10:06:39+00:00): Servus,

die 18 Busrelationen werde ich in den nächsten Tagen anpassen.

https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/results/DE/BY/DE-BY-MVV-Analysis.html#bus_263

Gruß
Toni
maxbe (2021-10-29 14:19:26+00:00): Das ist nett, danke. Ich hab noch keinen Bus verfolgt. Laut https://www.autobahn.de/fileadmin/Autobahn_GmbH/Suedbayern/Projekte/A_99_Autobahnring/achtstreifiger_Aschheim-Kirchheim/Flyer_Schueler_Versand.pdf
fahren alle von Aschheim über Ostspange und St2082 und Moosweg nach Kirchheim und der 263 hat eine Haltestelle mehr an der Uhlandstr. (die gabs schon vorher für den 234).
Grüße, Max
ToniE (2021-10-29 15:19:49+00:00): Prima, das mit der Uhlandstraße macht Sinn, hatte ich nicht auf dem Radar.

Gruß,
Toni
Kinsio (2024-08-04 04:07:33+00:00): I reverted this undiscussed mass import with my changeset 154791445.
skquinn (2024-08-04 04:37:39+00:00): Again, look at the source, this was a MapWithAI edit not an import.
skquinn (2024-08-04 04:43:37+00:00): Also, this changeset was almost three years old. Why are you just now deciding to revert it out of the blue?
Kinsio (2024-08-04 06:24:35+00:00): Hi, sorry, I should have been a bit more diplomatic about how I started reaching out here and explained a bit more about what I'm doing and my rationale. To answer the second question, because I just recently got involved with OSM :) As for them not being an import because you used MapWithAI, not necessarily. I've verified that the buildings added in the changesets I'm examining for reverting were entirely or almost entirely directly copied from, not based on and then adjusted from, the Microsoft building footprint data release of June 2018. This constitutes an import and is therefore subject to the usual import guidelines. I'm leaving the fixme tags (which I did notice you've started working on, thank you) on buildings that aren't suitable for outright deletion because they have had meaningful information added to them, and anything that comes up when I'm going through the changesets that I can see there was some attempt to adjust the geometry on I'm leaving alone. I appreciate the intent to improve the building coverage around here but this is not the way to do it. If you want to improve building coverage in the area by directly adding the Microsoft building footprints as a starting point, it needs to be carried out as a proper import. And for what it's worth, I live in Beaumont, thank you for the work you've done mapping around here, I do appreciate it!
Kinsio (2024-08-04 06:32:04+00:00): And to explain a bit more on why I decided to revert, it's because I keep running into these buildings when I'm editing in the area and I personally hate adjusting these things. I'd rather just draw them by hand to begin with and not have to worry about rotating. That was my motivation to start investigating how they got here.
skquinn (2024-08-04 06:44:57+00:00): Yes, MapWithAI does throw an occasional "bum steer" out there but the vast majority of times it's good data that only needs relatively minor adjustments.

I think blowing away hundreds of buildings that were added almost three years ago without even trying to contact the original mapper (me) was a rather poor way to handle this. If you see specific buildings that are bad, by all means delete/redraw. Also, since it has been a couple of years, it's possible that the data has gone stale just like any other addition to the map, and that's why you are seeing buildings that no longer match what is on the imagery.
Kinsio (2024-08-04 12:56:46+00:00): > Yes, MapWithAI does throw an occasional "bum steer" out there but the vast majority of times it's good data that only needs relatively minor adjustments.
An excellent argument to make in a proper import discussion.

And yeah, I should've tried to contact you earlier, you're right, but this is still a violation of the import guidelines, which I'm perfectly within my rights to revert. I encourage you to compare the more recent addition of buildings by nitemoon: while they also used MapWithAI to add a lot of buildings, every single building has at least some kind of adjustment so it's clear that they inspected each one individually. That's allowed without discussion because it's ultimately no different than having drawn the building yourself, but just hitting "add" over and over without checking the buildings is not. That's a data import, which requires an import plan and discussion.
ovruni (2021-10-28 06:19:03+00:00): Hola, he notado que en este conjunto de cambios se han agregado dos segmentos residenciales y un segmento de vía de peatones. Ha indicado que la imagen utilizada es Bing, sin embargo aquí no se observa segmentos diferentes. ¿Cual es la fuente para este conjunto de cambios?
Saludos
ovruni (2021-10-28 06:33:44+00:00): Me corrijo, la imagen aérea que había visto es la de Maxar, la cual es la mas actual para varias partes rurales del Perú,  en este caso ya no existe dicha separación, debido a que se ha retirado la construcción que estaba ocupando parte del parque
Saludos
abrensch (2021-11-09 08:13:01+00:00): Hallo rodeostar,

so hat das Gate keine Wirkung, weil es wird im Routing umfahren:

http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=18/48.69970/9.02713/standard&lonlats=9.027908,48.699844;9.025955,48.699445&profile=car-eco

was ist denn da der Sachverhalt?

Danke und Gruss, Arndt
Zismac (2021-11-09 23:49:44+00:00): Hello, do you have a source for this name change? If you look at the image linked by the source:name tag on the node there are clearly macrons in the signage.
user_14364612 (2021-11-10 02:10:50+00:00): Oops, my mistake.  I was assuming NZTA signage for this suburb - but in this case it appears that it doesn't have any.
chnuessli (2021-11-04 10:24:57+00:00): Cool, haben sie mir beim RDZ soeben auch gesagt, dass das noch falsch sei :)
mavl (2021-10-29 15:58:39+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок добавляет здание с необычным названием "Котельная 16кв. ж/д". Вероятно, это ошибка, так как в России у зданий обычно нет название. Если вы хотели обозначить котельную, то нужно использовать специальный тег power=plant  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:power%3Dplant
mgpx (2021-10-29 20:59:10+00:00): Az "abandoned:amenity=hunting_stand" megszűnt/tönkrement/elbontott vadászlest, míg az "amenity=hunting_stand" aktív vadászlest jelöl. Ugyanaz az objektum nem lehet egyszerre aktív és megszűnt is. Ha az adott helyen láttad a vadászlest, és rendben levőnek tűnt, akkor az abandoned: részt le kell róla szedni.