piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
FeuerwehrFlorstadt (2025-03-11 12:00:32+00:00): Gude EKi0410,

es ist zwar schon eine Weile her, aber du hattest auf dem Gelände vom Hof mit der Hausnummer 6a an der L 3187 in Richtung Dorn-Assenheim drei Wasserbehälter eingetragen.

Zwei davon befinden sich auf Grünflächen. Existieren diese wirklich? 

Außerdem hast du die Wassermengen vermutlich in Litern angegeben, nicht in Kubikmetern, oder?

Es würde mich freuen, wenn du hierzu eine kurze Rückmeldung geben könntest, aktuell befinden sich in der Hydrantenkarte für die Feuerwehr Florstadt links unten in der Ecke nämlich drei Wasserbehälter mit bis zu 50.000 m3 Wasser :)

Viele Grüße
Sebastian
GUFSZ (2025-03-13 05:21:42+00:00): Weil es eine Note gibt, habe ich mir das auch angesehen. Dass ein Becken Schwimmbecken heißt, ist wohl ziemlich falsch.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4660483#map=14/50.30162/8.83927&layers=N

Das Luftbild Hessen DOP20 gibt keine Becken oder Tanks her. Am Wohnhaus gibt es einen privaten Swimmingpool.
user_2066394 (2022-04-19 12:47:53+00:00): Die Gebäude könnten noch orthogonalisieren vertragen.
gt3400 (2022-04-19 12:54:46+00:00): Rechte Winkel werden überbewertet;-) Done.
user_2066394 (2022-04-19 13:05:58+00:00): :-) Einwandfrei
Tri_Hugger (2022-04-18 20:09:51+00:00): Correction: Source used was Maxar SecureWatch 2022-03-24
rohieb (2022-04-25 14:29:40+00:00): Moin! Ich möchte dich bitten, aussagekräftige Changeset-Kommentare zu benutzen: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:28:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:33:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:25:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:26:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Palolo (2022-04-22 15:59:50+00:00): Thank you for your contributions. Please add more descriptions to your changeset. OSM is more than one day challenges. #YouthMappers
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:32:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:23:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
user_1257620 (2022-11-12 12:25:54+00:00): Ciao,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1052825072

è stata tolta la relazione route "stoneman-trail" su questo tratto di statale carnica da Candide a Dosoledo nonostante lo stoneman trail esista ancora.

https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/414461369

visibile meglio sulla mappa ciclabile OSM 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/46.59833/12.49570&layers=C
micheleOSM3 (2022-11-12 12:57:36+00:00): Ciao, come dice il commento sul changeset, ho corretto le ways come membri della relazione:https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5944160
Non ho fatto altro su altre relazioni, nè ho creato o eliminato ways.
user_1257620 (2022-11-12 13:27:40+00:00): dalle modifiche risulta la creazione della way 1052825072
probabilmente prima era un pezzo unico con la strada ora adiacente che è stato suddiviso per inserire il cammino delle dolomiti

lo puoi verificare anche da qui, andando manualmente nella zona: dosoledo, via roma

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=119877315

spostando il cursore sul tratto verde a sinistra appare "modify:" con 2 modifiche di cui l'ultima è la tua
https://jirafeau.devol.it/f.php?h=3g9TmMo1

mentre sul tratto giallo a destra appare "create"
https://jirafeau.devol.it/f.php?h=16mOPdsN

il fatto che sia una strada inserita come "nuova" lo vedi anche dalla cronologia osm

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1052825072/history
micheleOSM3 (2022-11-12 13:58:24+00:00): Come hai ipotizzato tu, probabilmente ho fatto uno split di una way per correggere la relazione "cammino delle dolomiti".
Qual'è il problema?
user_1257620 (2022-11-12 14:16:53+00:00): Come scritto in precedenza, è stata rimossa la relazione ciclabile della route stoneman trail nel tratto

visibile meglio sulla mappa ciclabile OSM

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/46.59833/12.49570&layers=C
micheleOSM3 (2022-11-12 14:21:54+00:00): Lo split di una way non elimina relazioni, non credo sia causa mia.
user_1257620 (2022-11-12 14:34:05+00:00): Infatti dividere una strada non cancella le relazioni, ma è stato fatto manualmente.

I due tratti che ti ho segnalato prima, con overpass achavi e schermate allegate, sono stati editati nello stesso momento, uno ha la relazione dello stoneman mentre l'altra no (quello nuovo).

Stasera sistemo io,
Ciao
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:17:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:16:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:18:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:17:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-03-26 06:17:59+00:00): surface=não_pavimentado ? have you meant surface=unpaved ?
PheMS (2025-03-26 14:16:54+00:00): Hello, Mateusz. Thank you for asking. Unpaved means "não pavimentado" in Portuguese. The meaning is the same, so this is an unpaved road.
eggie (2022-04-19 05:31:13+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback.. Eigenlijk worden gebouwen niet zelf ingetekend, maar periodiek geïmporteerd. Ik heb nu even de BAG gegevens erop gezet en het dubbele adres verwijderd.
Het Kadaster loopt nog achter met inmeten. 
Via het OSM forum kun je om officiële import vragen in het draadje Verzoek BAG import.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12

Wanneer iets niet klopt dan doorgeven aan het Kadster via https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=ambachtsheerenlaan%2012&resultOffset=0&objectId=1963100002249494&geometry.x=84631.707002564&geometry.y=418225.68900042&zoomlevel=7&detailsObjectId=1963010002125718

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
Jasper van den Broek (2022-04-19 07:38:13+00:00): Hi Eggie,
dank voor je reactie en aanpassing. Ik ga er mee aan de slag.
Groet,
Jasper
Jasper van den Broek (2022-04-19 07:45:34+00:00): Ah super zie zojuist dat nr 12 er bij is gezet. Top!!
eggie (2022-04-19 07:58:31+00:00): Hoi.. De molens van het Kadaster malen langzaam in de Hoekse Waard. 
Er klopt in het begin niet veel van.
Terugmeldingen halen ook niets uit.. maar nee heb je.
Meestal pas ik het dan voorlopig zelf aan.
Ook kun je gebruik maken van de transparant van de BGT omtrekgericht. Die klopt dan vaak weer wel.
Veel plezier met mappen
Eggie
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:25:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
abakus_uploader (2022-04-18 22:30:59+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!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:21:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
surveyor54 (2022-04-20 20:53:39+00:00): Lieber Kollege,
hier ist dir wahrscheinlich ein Fehler unterlaufen.
Siehe hier:

https://ibb.co/7VSLCTX

Gruß
surveyor54
CurlingMan13 (2023-02-16 02:13:47+00:00): This feature doesn't exist and has been removed.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:33:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
haukep (2022-04-19 10:31:56+00:00): Hallo Martin! Danke für deine Änderung. Der Way "Anschluss Marienthal" (ID 23723919) hatte bereits railway=razed. Der von dir hinzugefügte Zusatz "description=außer Betrieb" führt also zu einer Informationsdoppelung.

Zudem hattest du hier die Node 9675603022 hinzugefügt - aber der Weg scheint sich dadurch nicht verändert zu haben.

Wärst du daher mit einem Revert dieses Changesets einverstanden?
Martin_2008 (2022-04-19 11:17:01+00:00): Hallo Haukep,
der Node 9675603022 war von mir versehentlich erzeugt worden. War mir beim Speichern nicht aufgefallen.
Den Eintrag railway=razed hatte ich nicht gesehen.

Dieser Eintrag kann also rückgängig gemacht werden.

Viele Grüße
Martin
haukep (2022-04-19 11:45:22+00:00): Danke für die schnelle Rückmeldung. Mit Changeset 119903200 erledigt.
Glassman (2022-04-19 18:39:04+00:00): #TIP: square the house by selecting the outline then just type a "q" - it will look much nicer. Also try to follow the roof outline.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119878571
SekeRob (2022-04-19 09:54:19+00:00): Hi,

sorry but your cleanup failed, in the example a forest should not have a outline or inner relation on a scree area when the scree area is not 360 degrees INSIDE the forest. I've removed several duplicate lines and used single line for the correct adjacent forest relations and added a shingle area as inner to the correct forest.

ciao
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:28:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Sandal man (2022-04-20 09:15:57+00:00): Bedankt voor de aanpassing in OSM maar wil je er nog eens opnieuw naar kijken, er zijn paden dubbel getekend en anderen zijn niet verbonden.
Route planners werken dus niet goed.
Gr Jan

ps. Met josm werkt je veel nauwkeuriger/gemakkelijker.
Sandal man (2022-05-18 22:41:12+00:00): Zelf aangepast.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:33:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Jordi MF (2022-04-26 21:08:09+00:00): Hola mon plaisir 2,
Gràcies per millorar les dades d'OSM. He vist algunes edicions i voldria fer-te algun comentari per a no cometre errors en les etiquetes.
En esta edició he vist que has afegit el nom "casita" a un edifici. Això no és correcte ja que en l'etiqeuta "name" han d'anar els noms oficials dels elements o que realment estiguen a la vista (en un cartell, per exemple). A més, "casita" és un nom descriptiu innecessari perquè la casa ja està mapejada.
En segon lloc, he vist que també estàs afegint el nom de "SL-CV" i similars directament en les sendes. Això tampoc no és correcte. Si hi ha un Sender Local o un PR, s'ha de crear una relació dels camins, pistes i carreteres per on transcorre el Sender Local i, en eixa relació, sí que es pot afegir el nom del SL o del PR.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:route%3Dhiking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Espa%C3%B1a/Senderismo/Senderos_homologados_de_peque%C3%B1o_recorrido#Comunidad_Valenciana

Si tens dubtes, podem discutir-o. Mentrestant, corregiré alguns d'estos errors. Salutacions,
Jordi
Glassman (2022-04-19 18:38:11+00:00): #TIP: I think you want amenity=letter_box. parcel_lockers is for package drop off and delivery.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119878803
EMREOYUN (2022-04-18 21:32:37+00:00): Details: http://revert.osmz.ru/6341
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:18:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
infeeeee (2022-04-19 14:10:03+00:00): Szia!
Ezzel a szerkesztéseddel nagyon sok kapcsolatot elrontottál. A böngészőben futó iD szerkesztőnek a hibája ez leginkább, nem a tied. Amit te tudsz tenni, hogy amikor egy olyan vonalat szerkesztesz aminél listázza az iD, hogy kapcsolatoknak a része, akkor óvatosan változtatod meg őket, esetleg bejelölöd, hogy valaki nézze át a szerkesztésed. Hosszú távon megéri átállni a JOSM nevű szerkesztőre, ami tudja rendesen kezelni ezeket az elemeket. További jó térképezést!
Koltai András (2022-04-19 19:08:13+00:00): Elnézést kérek. Sejtettem, hogy itt lehetnek kapcsolatok, de nem vettem észre őket. Köszönöm a tanácsot a JOSM tekintetében.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:18:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:30:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:26:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Ian Ho (2022-10-10 07:41:05+00:00): Hi, I was there a month ago and found that there is no such footway.
Ian Ho (2022-10-10 07:43:06+00:00): Specifically the footway 1052837546
Started from northeast and its dead end after 50m. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1052837546
Carto_Ferret (2022-10-12 00:03:41+00:00): Hello Ian Ho, thank you for reaching out. Considering your on the ground observation, and a review of available aerial imagery, I can see that the southwest portion of the way in question does not have sufficient support, and should be removed. That portion of the way will be deleted.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:24:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:16:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-04-18 22:54:30+00:00): Hola, gracias por mapear tanto. Pero creo que los carriles en este punto https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9675745553 deberían ser track or path.ya que son muy informales.
risturiz (2022-04-25 00:57:18+00:00): Creo que logré corregirlo... Gracias por el feedback :-)
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-04-19 01:08:15+00:00): neste changeset voce removeu uma via que iniciava aqui e contornava a praça https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9675678946 e se chama Maria Rodrigues, por que fez isto?
GustavoRPS (2022-04-20 15:41:39+00:00): @erickdeoliveiraleal
Obrigado por notar e notificar meu error. Aqui está minha primeira tentativa de correção: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119960350#map=17/-20.22040/-40.28123
Frans S (2022-04-28 12:40:38+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
PLease map from the Maxar Premium Imagery which is the standard imagery for this project.
I am sorry to say that your mappings are not accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention on these points:
Please focus on mapping of buildings. See the instructions.
A: buildings not always accurately drawn. Please pay more attention on following the outlines of a building (with extentions)
E: Rectangular Buildings not squared.They are mostly strickt rectangular.






Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119879522
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:21:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SekeRob (2022-04-19 11:00:48+00:00): Hi,

You mapped a school with the same name as the adjacent building. Suggest you remove the names from the buildings and add it to the schoolgrounds as this will surely be flagged by QA.

Also, somewhere in you changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119880291 you mapped a way that crosses another way without connecting them resulting in a warning. Connection is important as else routing will not function. Please fix.

Ciao
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:29:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:21:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Glassman (2022-04-19 18:47:03+00:00): I see that the trees in the orchard are gone but the other are still on the bing imagery. Are they really gone?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119879942
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:25:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Firefishy (2022-04-21 16:49:17+00:00): Awesome first set of edits. Happy mapping ;-)
nickjohnston (2022-06-27 16:23:19+00:00): Hi,

I'm a bit confused about why you've tagged several sections of road as service roads. Can you please explain why you've tagged Winchcombe Street, part of the High Street, Rodney Road, and Regent Street as service roads?

I'm happy to provide to help if necessary.

Thanks,
Nick
karlchick (2022-06-27 20:35:41+00:00): Hi Nick, I think your setting of residential is probably better than service. Thanks for highlighting this, I will keep this in mind in future.  Karl.
nickjohnston (2022-06-28 17:22:39+00:00): Hi Karl,

Thanks for your reply.

I'm curious: what motivated you to change these roads/streets in the first place?

These streets in the town centre have been largely untouched for 13 years or so. When changing data in OpenStreetMap, especially as a relatively new mapper, it's worth considering why things are tagged as they are, and whether you have new information that others might have overlooked.

Thanks,
Nick