piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
pitfire (2022-01-12 15:34:28+00:00): Hallo emil_05,
willkommen bei OSM!

"keiin Kommentar" ist zur Überprüfung nicht besonders aussagekräftig.

Gibt es den Weg: 1020092454 und Weg: 1020092455 in der Realität neben den vorhandenen. Das Luftbild sagt da etwas anderes.

Hier noch etwas Lesestoff:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice
berndw (2022-01-16 10:00:59+00:00): Ich habe mir erlaubt, den unnötigen Fahrradstand in Stieldorf und zwei doppelt erfasste Wege zu löschen.

Falls diese Änderungen im Rahmen eines Schulprojekts erfasst wurden, viele Grüße an Deinen Lehrer ;-)
SomeoneElse (2022-01-10 20:52:22+00:00): Near Fylingdales, not near Filey
Dardy (2025-01-19 14:21:02+00:00): Ciao, la way 1020100111 non esiste, attraversa una collina scoscesa in modo insensato, con che criterio è stata aggiunta (così come i tag MTB che sono stati aggiunti)? Ho verificato sia l'accesso da est che da ovest. Puoi rivedere la modifica? Altrimenti la toglierò io.
Jrachi (2025-01-19 14:36:26+00:00): Risulta di mia creazione, ma mi sono limitato a tagliare un esistente.
Ho provveduto a cancellare.
Ciao
Ivo
Dardy (2025-01-19 14:57:10+00:00): ok grazie
Lee Carré (2022-01-11 01:58:24+00:00): Much smaller changeset areas, please: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
Lee Carré (2022-01-11 01:59:04+00:00): Also, what makes for http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Tomas Straupis (2022-01-11 07:59:49+00:00): Per kilometrą sujungti landuse į vieną geometriją irgi labai blogai: jie neturi tarpusavyje nieko bendro, grąžina žiauriai didelės apimties geometriją visiškai be reikalo iššaukdami papildomų krūvos elemetų analizavimą. Reikėtų žymėti tvarkingai taip, kaip OSM yra nuo seno nuspręsta žymėti multipoligonus, nei daugiau, nei mažiau.
aweech (2022-01-11 15:00:46+00:00): Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your contributions! Just so you know, features like industrial areas aren't supposed to match up with any property lines, but are supposed to show the developed portion of the property. It looks like you matched it to the perimeter fence, which is a totally fine thing to do.
BCNorwich (2022-01-11 08:07:10+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Well done, I've changed the car park to a private garden and just tweaked the outlines a bit.

Need Any help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.
do not bring quebec into this (2022-06-19 15:41:46+00:00): I don't think way  1020109586 exists in real life! these are the steps that exist from the macbab rail tunnel. I do not believe there are steps that travel west out from the tunnel, only east.
Tri_Hugger (2022-01-12 17:30:45+00:00): Correction: Source used was Esri World Imagery (Clarity), KartaView
pio2_122 (2022-01-11 12:11:21+00:00): Nie jest to aż tak jednoznaczna kwestia.

"highway=residential: Zazwyczaj drogi w miastach oraz ogólnie dostępne drogi w terenie zabudowanym służące za lokalny dojazd do posesji lub małych osiedli. Często mają nazwę, nie muszą być utwardzone, np. drogi gruntowe na nowych osiedlach domków jednorodzinnych."

"highway=service: Drogi dojazdowe – np. do parkingów, budynków na osiedlu; drogi serwisowe, transport wewnątrzzakładowy, podjazdy do posesji itp. Często łączone z tagiem service=*."

Źródło: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Znakowanie_dr%C3%B3g_w_Polsce#Drogi_samochodowe

Według mojej interpretacji tych zasad highway=service używam dla ślepych (zazwyczaj) dróg dojazdowych do pojedynczych budynków. W przypadku podjazdu do konkretnego budynku na prywatnej posesji (za bramą) highway=service + service=driveway + access=private. Natomiast tag highway=residential w przypadku "przelotowych" (najczęściej) dróg prowadzących do większej ilości budynków (~4 i więcej).
Florek89 (2022-01-11 15:50:37+00:00): Szczerze to miałem to dzisiaj sam poprawić :).
Po szybkim przemyśleniu doszedłem do tego samego wniosku i nawet  sam nie wiem czemu tutaj dałem residential. Dzisiaj po pracy chciałem zmienić na service. Ta edycja była podyktowana innym przypadkiem, który także tak poprawiałem, ale tam droga prowadziła do wielu działek budowlanych.
Już poprawiam
pio2_122 (2022-01-11 16:08:25+00:00): Jasne :) Dzięki za poprawkę.
maraf24 (2022-01-11 19:36:12+00:00): Są takie sytuacje, gdzie nie da się wyznaczyć granicy między service a residential i oba tagi pasują. 
Ja sobie pamagam przebiegiem działek, wychodząc z założenia, że gdy jest brak wydzielonego pasa drogowego to zapewne jest to service.
Florek89 (2022-01-11 20:15:41+00:00): Ja robiąc landuse nawet sugeruję się przebiegiem działek.
Famlam (2022-01-11 20:14:54+00:00): Bronnen vergeten:
1. Survey
2. PDOK luchtfoto's
3. BGT
4. BAG
4004 (2022-01-24 01:07:06+00:00): hi, could I confirm how do you determine access for these?
Goatosm (2022-01-31 19:10:25+00:00): Hi, I added access values per my understanding of local editing standards, as seen with several gates nearby which have been tagged private or permissive. I apologize if this understanding was incorrect.
4004 (2022-01-31 19:21:54+00:00): thanks for clarifying. yes, sadly I'd say it is not possible to extrapolate access values from one gate to another (without understanding the local language and signs at least). I assume you did not refer to any street level imagery, so could you please revert the changes you made to access values?
Mashin (2022-01-12 01:17:07+00:00): Hi and thanks for editing.

Just a few comments from what I noticed. golf=green should not be overlapping with golf=fairway. This can be done by making fairway a multipolygon. There is a picture here that explains is a bit better: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls
Also you don't need to add hole number as a name for golf=gole, since it is already recorded in ref=* tag.
Cheers
PT-53 (2022-02-18 11:03:47+00:00): Hallo rene78,
einen Hundekottütenspender (mit Sammenbehälter für die vollen Tüten) sollte man so eintragen:
- amenity=vending_machine
- vending=excrement_bags
- waste_basket:excrement_bags=yes  bzw.
- bin=yes

Wiki:
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity=vending%20machine?uselang=de

Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?
Fragende Grüße
rene78 (2022-03-10 06:54:11+00:00): Ooops, vergessen zu aktualisieren. Danke!
eggie (2022-09-30 16:27:11+00:00): Buiten Nederland begonnen  met mappen, daarom nog geen welkomstmail ontvangen.. Bij deze alsnog ... 
Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback.. Geen adresinfo op de gebouwomtrekken en svp de adresnodes intact laten. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
Falsernet (2022-01-10 23:21:48+00:00): Legally you can push a bike along a pavement. Even a motorbike. Legal precedent.
Falsernet (2022-01-10 23:31:05+00:00): ^^ tagging dismount allows routing only in the case that it's somehow faster to walk while pushing the bike. I feel like you may be tagging just for the CyclOSM renderer. Also note that this isn't even something agreed upon in the OSM community. Needs more discussion in general. In Australia they use statewide tags depending on cycling's legality on pavements (tagged on the boundary relation).
Pete Owens (2022-01-11 18:06:58+00:00): The tag Bicycles=no is used to express that cycling is not allowed - as is the case on footways in under UK law. Not that possession of a bicycle is prohibited. 

Once a cyclist dismounts they become a pedestrian thus access is specified by Foot=*. In the same way, if they strap the bike to the back of a car they can then use motorways.
SomeoneElse (2022-01-14 22:53:20+00:00): Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here.  Looking at e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1019867805/history I don't think that there's any need to tag "bicycle=no" or "bicycle=dismount" on something that's tagged as "highway=footway; footway=sidewalk"; it's implicit (because it's a footway) that you're not allowed to cycle there unless there's an explicit tag such as bicycle=yes.
There normal use of "bicycle=dismount" is, as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle says, on short sections of signposted cycle routes.
Best Regards,
Andy
Pete Owens (2022-01-15 01:23:29+00:00): Unfortunately the default tag is "Bicycle=Not Specified" (exactly the same as for trunk roads where cycling is allowed). This causes problems for cycle routing algorithms which tend to include any ways where cycling in not explicitly forbidden  and often actively prefer off-road options. For example this illegal route recommended by cyclosm:
http://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=19/51.51009/-0.13457/standard&lonlats=-0.134282,51.510237;-0.133601,51.510078&profile=safety.
SomeoneElse (2022-01-15 01:28:24+00:00): if a router thinks you can cycle on a footway in the UK with no bicycle tag it is broken and needs to he fixed.
Pete Owens (2022-01-15 02:07:52+00:00): If a way does not state whether cycling is allowed or not then it is the underlying data that is ambiguous.

However, whether or not you think cycle routing algorithms ought to be able understand that normally riding on the pavement is illegal in the UK, the fact remains that those algorithms exist and are widely used. While I have no control over cycle routing algorithms I can fix the illegal routing problems by the correct the tagging of pavements. 

Fortunately, mapping of pavements as separate ways is rare so the confusion does not often arise. It would be helpful if the OSM default was changed to Bicycle=no (and for trunk roads to bicycle=yes)
SomeoneElse (2022-01-15 10:49:05+00:00): The "OSM default" for highway=footway is "whatever the law is" locally (and that often varies at a lower level than a country).  Sometimes it's useful to add "bicycle=yes" (where it really is allowed) or "bicycle-no" (you you would otherwise think it might be allowed - I suspect https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/886555770 is one of those).
Generally speaking, it's not needed.  For example, in central Birmingham (see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1f4N ) 149 of 3.4k "highway=footway" ways have "bicycle" tags.
Falsernet (2022-01-16 15:34:29+00:00): ^^ This is how it's supposed to work afaik.

Also, I'd like to bring up the changing of crossings in which cycling isn't specifically made illegal to bicycle=no doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Maybe there's debate to be had. But they're definitely not pavements, so "no cycling on the pavement" as a changeset comment comes off a bit disingenuous. Unless there's a legal text you can point to? Sure, the law as I am aware namedrops pelicans, puffins and zebras, but not uncontrolled and unmarked crossings and such.
SomeoneElse (2022-01-16 15:43:39+00:00): To be fair, the Highway Code's pretty clear about not cycling on the pavement :)
Falsernet (2022-01-16 20:29:24+00:00): Not that most people in Warrington care, or ever get in any trouble for not caring. But regardless of that, I'm just making clear I additionally disagree with Pete's tagging practice of covering ALL crossings with bicycle=no.
SomeoneElse (2022-02-04 00:06:28+00:00): (on cycling across pedestrian crossings) the Highway Code's very clear that you shouldn't: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 .  That also means that it's not normally necessary to explicitly tag bicycle=no on every pedestrian or equestrian crossing (not that you likely have many of the latter in Warrington)
Regards,
Andy
Pete Owens (2022-02-04 10:59:59+00:00): I really cannot understand why it is considered in any way controversial or worthy of debate to tag ways where cycling is not allowed as bicycle=no. Certainly having tagged them as such there can be no justification for someone to subsequently go round deleting or changing that tag to anything else.

OSM is a map of the world. A cycle route application designer, possibly based on a different continent, cannot be expected to know the precise rules of who is and who isn't allowed to use any of the menagerie  of colloquial  names for different crossing types on a small island off the coast of Europe. As with footways "whatever the law is locally" really isn't a very helpful description.
SomeoneElse (2022-02-04 12:36:50+00:00): Where it isn't clear, I'd agree - I certainly tag foot and horse access as explicitly "yes" on public bridleways because an app developer in Germany or the US isn't going to understand the "designation=public_bridleway" tag. However, I think I actually tag such specific access more than most people do.
SomeoneElse (2022-02-04 13:34:39+00:00): However, while it isn't "wrong" to tag bicycle=no on foot-only infrastructure such as highway=footway it's generally been thought to be unnecessary.
I suspect - and I'd like to be proved wrong on this - is that someone's adding "bicycle=yes" (and "highway=cycleway") to things that really aren't, because they want to cycle there.
Dodko (2022-01-13 07:48:21+00:00): Vašou zmenou ste odstránili značky na wikipédiu, pridajte ich naspäť.
wikidata=Q11746786	
wikipedia=sk:Bazilika svätého Jakuba (Levoča)
b-jazz (2022-01-20 17:52:55+00:00): Hi Greg,
Can you tell me where you got the building data to import? I want to chase down some errors in it. thanks.
user_10666051 (2022-02-04 19:21:58+00:00): ok
Allison P (2022-08-13 07:58:38+00:00): It's all manual, it's just really low quality.
BubbaJuice (2022-08-13 16:30:48+00:00): Yep. Greg can't keep data quality consistent. He doesn't really care about data quality.
MarcoR (2022-01-11 20:35:18+00:00): Ciao!
Ho controllato il gruppo di modifiche e non ho trovato errori evidenti. Il sentiero non è visibile dalle foto aeree ma questo talvolta succede.

A presto,
Marco.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116002431
Jrachi (2022-02-02 07:29:23+00:00): Il name di un sentiero è il suo nome, se non esiste un nome (ed in questo caso ancora di più se non esiste) non si deve usare la descrizione!
Infine ti segnalo che nomi e descrizioni si scrtivono sempre senza abbreviazioni ed iniziando con la lettera maiuscola, come si deve fare usando la lingua italiana.
ScantLeopard336 (2022-01-11 01:44:39+00:00): Hey there. I noticed this changeset seems to be for the San Diego area, but you accidentally removed the highway tags from a road in New Jersey. I hope you don't mind that I quickly fixed that for you.

Best Regards,
ScantLeopard336
plumb bob (2022-01-13 03:09:19+00:00): I am unsure how I managed to that. Thank you for correcting my error.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-02-08 15:12:12+00:00): Please do not tag cart paths as walking paths
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116002499
guerda (2022-01-11 14:48:20+00:00): Dear iWowik, your changeset is pretty large (bounding box) and big (many changes). This makes it hard to track changes on a local level. Please consider if you can split up your changesets in the future, so that it's not spanning almost the whole world :) Thanks!
Lee Carré (2022-01-12 23:38:16+00:00): +1 for guerda. Though, don't expect a response from iWowik, he ignores such requests due to (as he's stated in a previous discussion) feeling justified in using enormous (in both bbox area & element-count) changesets.
DressyPear4 (2022-01-11 11:48:09+00:00): Olá, não crie edições fictíceas
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116002598
DressyPear4 (2022-01-11 11:52:59+00:00): Se a intenção é criar uma rota de ônibus, deve ser feito uma relação nas vias existentes, veja mais aqui
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbus
assanges (2022-01-11 01:04:05+00:00): Sauce? Any proofs of disputed boundaries? Such a claim is rather confusing, didn't find any justification yet.
Jeff Underwood (2022-01-11 01:18:33+00:00): Hello, sorry I forgot to update the source. These edits are based on disputed borders contained in the Natural Earth dataset. Province level admin level viewpoints are part of the admin 1 dataset here. 

https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-cultural-vectors/10m-admin-1-states-provinces/

Nvk's diary posts here help explain the tagging and rationale behind the edits. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/nvk/diary

Essentially, these tags are to allow downstream users to display borders in different ways depending on the localities being served in OSM based maps.

I totally understand that these are sensitive edits and am happy to discuss them further.

-Jeff
Supaplex (2022-01-11 04:08:36+00:00): Could you have any conversation at Taiwan community's channels like Facebook Group, Telegram, Mailing list, Slack. No discussion with the locals or interested parties is not a good practice
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116003292
user_5359 (2022-01-13 07:47:16+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=%5Bout%3Ajson%5D%3B(node%5B%22dual_carraigeway%22%5D%3Bway%5B%22dual_carraigeway%22%5D%3B%3E%3Brel%5B%22dual_carraigeway%22%5D%3B)%3Bout%20meta%3B&C=18.0832;99.6666;9.
Notice your typo dual_carraigeway instead of dual_carriageway
Russ McD (2022-01-13 10:38:39+00:00): Argh .... thanks for picking that up.  I'll change in the next 24 hrs.
Cheers.
Russ McD (2022-01-13 15:09:04+00:00): Done.
3ngineer (2022-05-20 23:41:07+00:00): Are you sure this clock tower is 'the' Ladner clocktower? I thought the one in Trenant park sq was called that?
3ngineer (2022-05-20 23:41:50+00:00): way/699281581
julcnx (2022-01-14 06:34:03+00:00): In the future, please kindly split your changes into smaller geographical changesets. For more info: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116003727
matheusgomesms (2022-01-13 18:42:24+00:00): Hi islami_m

Thank you for all edits (yours and anybody else at Maxim) in Fortaleza!

I would like to give you some tips while editing in Fortaleza:

Please use Fortaleza municipality imagery for alignment. They are available both at iD and JOSM. Also use the Fortaleza Nomes de Ruas (Street names) overlay to check exact alignment of streets and also street names.

Also, we saw that some of your additions are quite suspect (such as these Lã Plata lane, José lane and José Maria lane). While 'lane' word doesn't exist in Portuguese, we didn't find these streets and street names anywhere, except on Google. Are you copying from them? If yes, please don't, it is extremely prohibited to use their data.

I also checked these roads on street-level imagery, and they don't exist anymore (they are now private), so I deleted them.

If you need any guidance or any tips to edit in Fortaleza, please let us know. We have a strong community in Fortaleza, and we are always available to help in such projects!

Best,
Matheus
MxxCon (2022-01-11 21:02:35+00:00): Hello.
Please note that changeset commend "variations of edits" doesn't really help other mappers understand what exactly you edited. Please see this article for a good explanation on what makes a good comment: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Additionally, please try to keep your changes grouped into smaller geographic areas, such as a neighborhood or a city or a county. The way OSM works your current edit stretches over 4 states and needlessly alerts people in unrelated areas about this edit. Keeping changes grouped to smaller areas prevents that. 👍
Finally, when drawing right-angle forms, such as tennis courts, you can right-click on it and select "make square" or use shortcut key Q. That makes your edits look neater and more accurate to the real world.🙂
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116004604
wolfgang8741 (2022-08-19 14:01:01+00:00): Where did the name "Community Commons" come from for the park? The city website states the park is named Partners Park - https://marysvilleohio.org/Facilities/Facility/Details/Partners-Park-21 is it a local name or does a sign on site state this?
kubahahaha (2022-01-11 03:08:15+00:00): Zły opis. Zakończenie budowy, droga tymczasowa rozebrana.
Źródło - uwaga
Warin61 (2022-01-12 22:40:41+00:00): Error: see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=134.10336&lat=-28.17220&zoom=18

If it is all one thing then why divided it into 3? 

I have left this for you to fix.
TomPar (2022-01-11 04:58:21+00:00): Hello.  Thanks for the contribution.  Please consider in the future creating multiple changesets over a smaller geographic area.  It makes it easier to review and provide feedback if needed.  Happy mapping...
TomPar (2022-01-11 05:00:22+00:00): Hello.  Thanks for the contribution.  In the future, please consider creating multiple changesets over a much smaller geographic area.  It makes it easier to review and provide feedback if needed.  Happy mapping...
tastrax (2022-01-29 22:35:26+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
MikeN (2022-01-11 03:45:09+00:00): Hi, why were the address nodes removed?   They are actually located in this building.
MikeN (2022-01-11 12:43:43+00:00): Hi, why were address nodes removed?  In OSM, it is not necessary to remove all nodes and convert them to areas, especially if a building contains multiple POIs.
CurlingMan13 (2024-01-10 02:11:03+00:00): Features should not have descriptive names when there are better tags that can be used.
ameziol (2022-01-11 08:16:23+00:00): A czyli w taki sposób, dzięki!! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996084891 - jedna linia została bez living street, otagować ją highway=living street i service=parking_aisle  czy tak specjalnie zostawiona?
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-10-25 08:25:58+00:00): highway=living street i service=parking_aisle byłoby poprawniejsze jak tam też jest ta strefa

ewentualnie dać living_street=yes (dość niestandardowe rozwiązanie, szkoda że nie jest podstawowym)
MikeN (2022-01-11 12:41:21+00:00): Hi, why was this building removed?   Hint: node information can be placed on multi-polygons instead of having to convert everything to a polygon.  (If there aren't other POI nodes in the same building)
BubbaJuice (2022-08-03 21:12:25+00:00): Hello mycota,

It seems like you added incorrect intermittent values around https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353557530. Please change the intermittent back to how they were when introduced in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103745899.

Thank you,
BubbaJuice
mycota (2022-08-03 21:39:46+00:00): I removed intermittent tags from the segment you linked to and a few others. I didn't remove them from portions that are dry in the imagery. Let me know if there are others that still need the tag removed.
habi (2022-01-11 09:50:58+00:00): Ciao compact105

You wouldn't need to remove these parking lots, even if they are residential (or private access).
If they are 'on the ground' [1], they can be mapped.
Me personally I would have added an `access=private` tag to them, so data consumers know that they are not publicly accessible parking spaces.

Greetings from Switzerland
habi

PS: I came here because of https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious


[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground
user_14815547 (2022-01-11 12:23:03+00:00): Hi Habi,

Thanks for the advice.

After I added the parking lots, I was concerned because they appeared visually like public car parks and couldn't find a feature or area type that seemed to fit private residential parking.

I will add these once again and the many other parking areas nearby that I didn't add in that change with your advice.

Thanks for guiding my learning!
compact105