piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
michalfabik (2017-04-17 21:44:56+00:00): Pozdrav, izgleda da je restoran već mapiran u zgradi preko puta, molim da provjerite.
BCNorwich (2017-04-22 07:33:45+00:00): Made several amendments mainly to preserve/reinstate previous mapping.
bubix (2017-07-13 15:21:31+00:00): Hello, according to the data source of http://www.divemania.it/ it would seem that the true position of the wreck of the roses island would be here https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3997091093 and therefore it would be advisable to restore At the previous state https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37097672

Let me know,
Bubix
☆Finvenkulo (2017-07-15 18:11:20+00:00): Hi,
Sorry, I really don't know the true location of that point, I only added informations based on Wikipedia. Now I restored the previous state, the tags name:eo, official_name:eo and seamark:name can also be removed (they duplicate another tags).
Best Regards,
Malvolapukulo
bubix (2017-07-18 12:23:28+00:00): Well done!
Bubix
user_3216889 (2017-04-16 21:44:00+00:00): Terechte opmerking. Naam van dit park is De Vellert (inmiddels aangepast).
Nog nodig is markering van landuse (grasvelden, bosschages) binnen het park.
eggie (2017-04-17 08:06:03+00:00): Ik heb even een begin gemaakt met de landuse in het park en zal VC een PB sturen.
Glassman (2017-04-16 22:13:26+00:00): Please only add features that can be verified. I removed the parks and water features you added. I left all of your good edits.
Carnildo (2017-04-17 07:39:33+00:00): Unless I missed something, there weren't any good edits.  The two surviving changes (which I reverted) were to turn Hallmark Apartments from "landuse=residential" to "natural=residential", and turn Walla Walla University into a park.
Glassman (2017-04-16 22:24:03+00:00): Looks like you created some self intersecting ways when adding the fence. I tried to correct, but you might want to look over my edit.
Владимир К (2017-05-30 11:17:28+00:00): Уберите описательные названия типа "столик", "парковка", "деревья"
MikeN (2017-04-16 22:55:50+00:00): Hi, thanks for your submissions!   I noticed that Orion's Bar & Grill had already been marked in the building, so the node is a duplicate.
Andreas Binder (2017-04-16 21:47:15+00:00): Falscher CS-Kommentar. Sollte: "osmose fix" lauten
AkageMuk (2017-04-18 11:08:59+00:00): Dear  Diana777 , 
please get aquainted with the comment in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47757296
M!dgard (2017-09-28 16:50:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52450499 where the changeset comment is: revert bad GRB import
DavidKewley (2017-04-17 06:40:25+00:00): This changeset deleted the outline of the Kanza Education and Science Park. Was that deliberate? If so, why? http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=47850753
Garrett2497 (2017-04-18 14:43:53+00:00): That was accidental. I hadn't even realized I had removed it until you mentioned it.
DavidKewley (2017-04-18 15:39:31+00:00): No problem, mistakes happen; I only asked because I noticed it. If you need help reverting or just undoing the delete of Kanza, I suggest you ask the Data Working Group for help -- data@osmfoundation.org.
Garrett2497 (2017-04-18 17:25:36+00:00): Thanks I will do that when I get back on from my computer.
mavl (2018-12-25 20:02:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 21:43:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 19:46:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 21:28:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 21:30:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 20:19:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 21:20:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
user_177389 (2017-04-18 06:47:00+00:00): Hallo Bob,

Du wolltest schon mehrfach die Ortsgrenze von Krumpa entfernen. Das Entfernen der Grenzlinie ist schon technisch falsch, da die Grenzen als Relationen gespeichert sind - die entsprechende Relation ist dann lediglich defekt. Die (alten) Ortsgrenzen haben durchaus ihre Berechtigung, so wie sie hier zu sehen sind: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/de:Krumpa?uselang=de-DE
Sie sind Teil der politischen Gliederung mit admin_level=10.
Die in dem Zusammenhang relevante Relation, also der Zustand den Du wohl zu erreichen versuchst, ist ebenfalls korrekt in den Daten mit admin_level=8 vorhanden: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2406073
(Anm.: niedrigerer admin_level hat höhere Bedeutung)
Ich habe keine Ahnung, warum die Grenze stört. Ist sie zu markant gezeichnet? Das ist dann Sache des Renderers bzw. des eigenen Empfindens, aber nicht der vorhandenen Daten.

Grüße
Garmin-User
mavl (2018-12-25 19:38:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 20:11:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 21:00:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 20:10:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 21:31:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 20:14:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 20:33:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
AkageMuk (2017-04-18 11:08:40+00:00): Dear  Diana777 , 
please get aquainted with the comment in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47757296
Also forest definetly should be tagged as forest, not as a park.
mavl (2018-12-25 20:19:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 20:48:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 21:44:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
Hjart (2017-04-17 10:50:29+00:00): Velkommen til vores projekt og tak for dine bidrag.
Bemærk at jeg har lavet lidt rettelser til nogle af de ting du har lavet (specielt har jeg adskilt skove og parker mm fra sti-og vej-nettet) og rettet lidt på stisystemer.
Mateusz Konieczny (2018-01-09 14:51:18+00:00): Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1262879 ?
felipeeugenio (2020-05-18 15:11:51+00:00): Estimado
Entiendo que hay Moais sumergidos. este es uno de esos o es un error que esté en la mitad del mar?
saludos
rene78 (2017-04-27 08:03:51+00:00): Is it "Mi Ba Gone Bus Station" or "Sat Pyit Kwin Bus Terminal"? Thanks!
srividya_c (2017-04-17 06:15:38+00:00): Hi Derpnator,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Thank you for your contribution. Looks like you have created duplicate park data on top of each other in this changeset. Its good to add missing data than creating duplicate work.

Hit me up if you have any questions. 

Thanks
Srividya
srividya_c (2017-04-17 06:17:10+00:00): I have fixed the park boundary in this changeset - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47857171.
SK53 (2017-04-17 12:26:42+00:00): Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets.
aharvey (2017-04-18 02:11:08+00:00): The LPI Base Map has this named "Charles Mance Reserve", is it signposted as "Memorial"?
erikgagajackson (2017-04-18 10:26:56+00:00): Yes the signpost says "Charles Mace Reserve, Centenary Memorial" https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-33.8384856,150.9898651,3a,75y,203.88h,78.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2Ur_dY_21VQYulm5yD9i-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
aharvey (2017-04-18 22:38:09+00:00): Okay, but you can't copy from Google Maps or Google Street View.

Feel free to add the name from ground survey or from the LPI Base Map (different background map option in the iD editor)
erikgagajackson (2017-04-19 08:50:17+00:00): sorry about that. i actually live next to this i have seen it at ground level i will edit the name
aharvey (2017-04-18 02:12:24+00:00): The LPI Base Map has a name for this one, is it signposted on the ground?
erikgagajackson (2017-04-18 10:24:24+00:00): yes there is it is "Merrylands Memorial Park", signpost can be seen if you are walking past on Windsor Rd
aharvey (2017-04-18 22:39:04+00:00): Thanks, please feel free to add the name to this part then if you've confirmed it on the ground.
eggie (2017-04-17 06:56:58+00:00):  "Welkom op OSM”

Lees hier hoe je OSM het beste kunt gebruiken en hoe je kunt bijdragen aan een betere kaart: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/help 
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Welkom_op_OSM

Mocht je vragen hebben, kun je altijd contact met me opnemen, ik (en medemappers zijn/) ben bereid om je te helpen.
Klik op de link om te antwoorden.
eggie (2017-04-17 07:02:31+00:00): reverted due to ignorance
eggie (2017-04-17 07:05:33+00:00): Het is echt niet de bedoeling binnen osm om landuse=grass te verwijderen en te vervangen door leisure=park.
Leisure is wat je er ddoet..defunctie. een Leisure park ligt los over de landuse forest, grass en water heen.
Verwijderen van hoe het er echt uit ziet is een verarming voor de kaart.
Doe ook niet te veel edits in in één changeset, want nu zijn ook de goede edits helaas teruggedraaid.
Wanneer je vragen hebt kun jegerust reageren.
Wat was je motief? Pokemon?
eggie (2017-04-17 07:28:24+00:00): De Molenstraat en De Gasthuisstraat heb ik weer als path getagd... met bicycle yes en moped no. Dat waren goede edits van jou.
De reconstructie van het water zal ik nog aanpassen aan de Leerdamseweg.
Verder is het gewoonte bij ingrijpende veranderingen de voorgaande maapper in te seinen. Toevallig was ik dat, maar dat is dus toeval.
Wij volgen met een team de verrichtingen van startende mappers.. ook om te helpen.
eggie (2017-04-17 07:47:07+00:00): Water aangepast en bij clubhuis VV Asperen een BAG update aangevraagd via het forum.
eggie (2017-04-17 16:46:48+00:00): Bij VV Asperen zie ik een heel nieuw honk staan op de kadaster pdok  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.88565/5.10564
Graag BAG update.

Klaar. Wegen en landuse dienen nog een beetje netjes gemaakt te worden.
Mooie taak voor nieuwe mapper :)
eggie (2017-04-17 17:09:09+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47853085#map=19/51.88557/5.10541
BharataHS (2017-04-17 09:39:40+00:00): Hello robertosigala,
Welcome and Thanks for your contribution to OpenStreetMap. In this changeset, I observed that you have a changed the tag of an `administrative boundary` to a `footway`. Can you please provide a verifiable source for this? Please map the features which exists in reality. The edit to admin boundary has been reverted. Please be careful during your further edits. 
Thank you.
Glassman (2017-04-17 05:08:58+00:00): For just practicing - nice start. Just remember, as soon as you upload, your edits are live to the world.
mavl (2018-12-25 21:28:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 20:44:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 21:36:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
chillly (2017-04-17 12:12:48+00:00): This is a controversial mass edit by a recently-joined editor. I think this needs to be discussed before such a change.  I suggest this is reverted.

Why have you made such a change? (Please reply - we need to understand what you are doing)
Derick Rethans (2017-04-17 12:13:33+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap. I see you're a new mapper (5 edits), and you've decided to change town/suburb classfications around London. This is a controversial move, and should have been discussed on the talk-gb and talk-gb-london mailinglist first.

cheers,
Derick
SK53 (2017-04-17 12:28:59+00:00): Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets.
Pyorot (2017-04-17 23:19:02+00:00): Hi, thanks for describing your policy.

I made the changes in order to make the map work with OSM's Nominatim service. This is an API that takes coordinates as input and returns addresses. Suburbs of London labelled as towns *do not get returned* by Nominatim, presumably because it trumps them with city = London. This means that a nearby suburb is given (e.g. Hanwell instead of Ealing), no info is given (Greenwich) or a non-suburb is given (Brook Green instead of Hammersmith). My changes relabelled towns as suburbs and, for a while, Nominatim was giving much more reliable info. Not anymore!

I did not believe (and still don't, really) that these decisions are based on consensus since there is no consistency between towns/suburbs and certain regions labelled as suburbs are obviously not suburbs ("West Kensington Park"?). This is what prompted me to make my bold edit. But do let me know where I can read discussions.

Anyway, please let me know how this problem shall be dealt with. I joined OSM in order to fix this problem with how Nominatim works in London, to improve the accuracy of locations returned by my geolocating bot.
SK53 (2017-04-18 09:37:32+00:00): Thank you. I know perfectly well what Nominatim is: the current maintainer is a friend.

For this sort of issue you should be filing issues on the Nominatim github pages https://github.com/openstreetmap/Nominatim/issues. I suspect that the issue is known, but we have too few developers and maintainers to resolve such problems.

Nominatim is just one of thousands of applications consuming OSM data; there is a well understood rule of editing OSM data "Don't edit for the Renderer" (and this applies to routing software, geocoders etc). For instance by changing these nodes you probably break the searches on Garmin devices which use the same data.

Lastly, "be bold" is a wikipedia policy not generally one advocated for OSM. Consensus is valued: and when thousands if not millions of people have been able to use the data without changing it that implies a very substantial consensus. Additionally your edits were discussed by a small number of experienced editors, and the view was that given the significance of the changes it was important to revert them quickly before corrections were made piecemeal. Normally we like to give the original editor a chance to discuss their edits before doing a reversion. In this case the next person to notice the accidental substitution of suburb for Ilford would have made restoring the original data rather more complex.

That is not to say that there may not be oddities: it's best to highlight these using the notes feature. See for example this note http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/547502#map=15/51.4096/-0.1310&layers=N
Pyorot (2017-04-18 14:45:51+00:00): I deduced based on the fact that Nominatim doesn't return town info in London and based on the usage info given here (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb ; http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dtown) that suburbs in Greater London should be tagged "suburb" and not "town" without exception, and that the reason there were random exceptions was that nobody had bothered to enforce the change. There is not necessarily a problem in Nominatim.

I would consider the fact that "thousands if not millions of people have been able to use the data without changing it" to be idleness, rather than consensus, particularly in light of your sentence "For instance by changing these nodes you probably break the searches on Garmin devices which use the same data.", as no other reason is given for not enforcing the change.

The fact that the edits were reverted immediately rather than being discussed is reasonable to me.

Either way, I won't bother using Nominatim if it gives low-quality information and fixing it involves submitting dubious issue reports or opening discussions on the status of every "town" in London and on every obviously-fake suburb. I don't have the patience to engage in a discussion on the town/suburb convention and will leave my point here. Thanks for reading.
Pyorot (2017-04-18 14:49:57+00:00): Actually, sorry, I forgot to mention that part of the reason I'm put off from engaging in discussions is that your note gives an example of such a discussion that took over a year to close.
SK53 (2017-04-18 16:41:27+00:00): We do have an important principle in OSM: respect for fellow contributors. You are distinctly failing to show that respect to me or others. Quite frankly I think we are better off without your arrogant attitude and unwillingness to collaborate.

The reason why the note has not been cleared is that someone has not made the journey to S. London to check if "Lonesome" is signed or otherwise visible on the ground. We value actual real surveys which can be checked by others. Contrary to your opinion this is a strength, not a weakness of OSM.

Please let me assure you that any further changes you make with respect to place nodes will be referred to the Data Working Group.
Pyorot (2017-04-18 19:54:21+00:00): You think it's arrogant to not engage in a discussion? Do you have infinite time? Or did you take my characterisation of the state of suburbs as "idleness" personally?

Either way, your accusation of disrespect and arrogance, bundled with the mischaracterisation of my opinion, use of the word "assure", and random threat, is quite ironic.

RE Lonesome: it seems that it was closed because someone cited it with an article.
AndriesWijma (2017-04-18 12:43:45+00:00): Het aangeven van stoepen kan, naar mijn mening, beter beperkt blijven tot drukke gebieden zoals in winkelcentra en voorzieningen openbaar vervoer en wanneer het echt nodig is om een verbinding te maken. Dat lijkt me hier niet het geval. Stukjes pad/stoep die aansluiting geven op een weg kunnen met die weg worden verbonden.
AndriesWijma (2017-04-18 12:32:11+00:00): Lees hier hoe je dit het beste kunt aangeven:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tunnel#tunnel.3Dbuilding_passage
Commodoortje (2017-05-01 13:52:06+00:00): Argai,
Ik heb inmiddels de tagging aangepast.
Inderdaad, een doorgan onder een gebouw door is tunnel=building_passage.
Footway is hier meer op zijn plaats. Pedestrian wordt in voetgangersgebieden gebruikt.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/490692155
http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=48308093
Commodoortje (2017-05-01 13:53:16+00:00): Oude situatie:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/axv1jbaflk3vhis/2017-05-01_15-52-27.jpg?raw=1
AndriesWijma (2017-04-18 12:38:29+00:00): Het voetpad (stoep) kruist het gebouw ter hoogte van nummer 31. Correctie nodig.
SK53 (2017-04-17 12:28:44+00:00): Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets.
SK53 (2017-04-17 12:28:32+00:00): Revision of place tags on London suburbs MUST be discussed beforehand. The current values represent a consensus of mappers and users over the past 12+ years. I have reverted this and your 4 similar changesets.
mavl (2018-12-25 19:45:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 21:42:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].
mavl (2018-12-25 20:56:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65765733, 65762676, 65758117, 65761081, 65759598, 65754732, 65764253 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage].