piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Ferrocarriles de México (2023-08-02 01:19:57+00:00): Si se permite. Lo dice la wiki: "In the less usual case of a motorway where traffic travels in both directions along the same carriageway use a single way and tag it with oneway=no." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway

Restauro highway=motorway
mariotomo (2021-12-29 14:38:49+00:00): Hola Alvarado.  has vuelto a crear vías que no existen.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115495827
mariotomo (2021-12-29 14:53:27+00:00): you know what?  map whatever you want, however you like, I'm giving up fixing your intentional mess.
Alvarado2510 (2022-02-16 15:29:31+00:00): Buen día, no te imgnas las veces que giro a la izquierda, en esa salida, con dirección a Virginia 2, la salida existe.
mariotomo (2022-02-16 15:35:10+00:00): la salida que existe no es una carretera, es un carril.
user_5359 (2021-12-30 12:21:44+00:00): Hello! Thank you for the information on description (by the way: the content is normal set in the value of the key note). Please notice the information for the keys opening_hours_city, 
opening_hours_turning. The correct differentiation is  opening_hours:city, 
opening_hours:turning.
HikeAndMap (2022-01-02 19:46:18+00:00): yeah I know but I add this node planned for deletion anyway.

In the past I made notes but then I always forget something...

So then I figured - in Vespucci I can set my own preset so I won't forget anything.

The downside is then that any node I upload  - basically as note - is then basically a note as a node.

And at home I work down the list of nodes I added to have them properly on the map - or deleted.

I know this is a bad way - but at least I won't forget anything as regular notes don't let me use presets.

IF you know a way how I can manipulate Vespucci to have "presets" but not uploading them as a node but a note instead - I'd be really thankful as that was actually my intention in the first place but didn't find a way to do at after many failed attempts.
John Du Hart (2021-12-29 04:19:25+00:00): This has been discussed before, current consensus is that it should be called "New York" https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114929944
MxxCon (2021-12-29 04:20:08+00:00): This change is incorrect.
It should be reverted.
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114929944
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115495885
Trevor_1 (2021-12-29 14:33:06+00:00): Ok. You can revert it. I'm actually at work right now and won't be home until 5.
Trevor_1 (2021-12-29 14:36:28+00:00): Sent from my iPhone
Joseph R P (2021-12-31 23:47:11+00:00): I'm not entirely sure that Amarillo Boulevard should be trunk, since I-40 and Loop 335 provide better routing for long haul traffic passing through Amarillo (it also looks like some slip lanes and ramps were missed in the road upgrade). However, I'd say US 287, US 87, and US 60 through downtown Amarillo are trunk. Great work on upgrading other long-haul routes around Texas and Oklahoma though!
txemt (2022-01-01 00:20:36+00:00): I'm merely making Principal Arterial roads trunk roads. But then I got sidetracked in Winters.
Diacritic (2021-12-29 04:20:37+00:00): Hey Ben,

Thanks for the contributions. :)

A couple of points I wanted to raise:

You've added the name of the property to the driveways at way 1016437084 and 23895153. The name of the driveway isn't literally the name of the address https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions. These are better placed in the description tags.
On a related note, you don't need to include the state, postal code and suburb in the address fields of each address; those are inherited by the boundaries that are already defined. :)

In this edit, you've attached some land use nodes to the highways using the same nodes. While that's not necessary wrong, it can make things much harder to keep up to date if the road geometry changes. The wiki explains the contract pretty well: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Land_use#1._Mapping_the_reality_on_the_ground. The fence lines in the area are well defined enough to make it possible to adjust the land use areas to the actual boundaries.

I've made some changes in line with what I said above, but please don't be offended. If you aren't already, it would be great to see you on the mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au.

Happy mapping .:)
Ben Rooks (2021-12-29 21:04:02+00:00): Hi Diacritic,

Thanks for the tips.

I note in the link you provided that there are two methods for mapping land use areas.  

One is to map to the property boundaries as you suggest, which requires every single street to be plotted individually.  This is the preferred method.  I note that you've only changed the perimeter, not the internal streets.

The second is to plot larger areas to the highway centreline, this is not preferred, but is acceptable until a contributor is able to put in the time to plot each individual street blocks.  This is what I was doing.

From what I can tell it should be one or the other, not a hybrid of both (I think it looks silly if the 'internal' streets are marked, say, residential, all the way to the road edge, but the streets on the perimeter stop short.  I feel it's inconsistent.
akadouri (2021-12-29 03:09:04+00:00): https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/874-21/mayor-de-blasio-opening-new-nyc-ferry-landing-throgs-neck-bronx#/0

https://www.ferry.nyc/routes-and-schedules/route/soundview/
MxxCon (2021-12-29 04:50:05+00:00): Is that the correct location of the new ferry terminal? None of the satellite imagery shows any infrastructure there.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115496220
akadouri (2021-12-29 15:42:21+00:00): I copied the location from the NYC Ferry mobile app's map. It doesn't look like they have it on their website anywhere. I don't know if it's exactly that spot but based on that and some descriptions of the shuttle I can't find anymore I believe it's near there.
RoySmith649 (2022-01-01 00:21:33+00:00): Hi akadouri, thanks for adding this.  I rode the ferry this afternoon and recorded it.  You can see the trace at https://ridewithgps.com/trips/80747355.  You're a little too far north on the landing spot at the Ferry Point Park end of the route.
MxxCon (2022-01-01 00:34:11+00:00): Thanks for sharing that gps trace. 👍 I moved the stop and route to closer match your route. 🙂 changeset 115624990
akadouri (2022-01-02 03:48:34+00:00): Thank you both!
mariotomo (2021-12-29 21:18:49+00:00): are you sure of your driveway->parking_aisle edits? I think that some are in error, but you live there, you know better.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115496621
mariotomo (2022-05-19 12:51:39+00:00): más bien deberías comentar: "no entendí nada de qué son estos "turn:lanes" y las desarreglé".
ruugie (2022-09-17 21:40:12+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126309680 = The Hungarian has replaced your crap
Warin61 (2021-12-30 02:12:51+00:00): Hi,

OSM 'boundaries' are not for natural features but man's officialdom - such as National Parks, city, suburbs and villages boundaries. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary

As you look to have made several of these 'boundary=natural' may I leave you to correct the tagging? 

The relation 13477781 has a member (Way: 1006012131 "natural"="water") with the role 'inner' .. but it is outside the  relations outer ways. I have removed it from the relation.. but it possibly belongs in another relation??
VNT974 (2021-12-29 06:23:08+00:00): I will modify it later.
baumann3141 (2022-01-03 02:18:39+00:00): You deleted pathways that I just surveyed and added to the map. Please note that the aerial images are older and do not show the current situation on the ground. Please do not delete other mappers' recent edits before checking (this might require survey in the field). If you are not sure leave them alone. Thanks.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115498469
rayhem (2022-01-03 03:37:08+00:00): Sorry again! Reverted and fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115692149#map=19/42.72397/-84.47484
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115498469
user_5359 (2021-12-30 12:17:06+00:00): Hello! Please notice a hashtag (#mapathonkeralam=#Cce) is part of the change set comment not of the data.
user_5359 (2021-12-29 07:48:08+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Note that in OSM classification of the objects has the highest priority. Objects that have only name and description, have little sense. As home page for the question "How do I describe you?" I recommend the web site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
G_P_J (2022-01-03 15:47:12+00:00): Połączyłeś 2 punkty o różnych adresach w jeden. Czy mogę prosić o poprawę? Zespół Szkół ma adres Powstańców Warszawy 2.
Pozdrawiam,
Piotr
ivanbranco (2022-02-09 16:31:29+00:00): Hi Trubalu,

just a note, the correct tag is cannabis:cbd=* not cbd=*
Trubalu (2022-02-11 16:35:47+00:00): Thanks for your comment ivanbranco, fixed my mistake. Have a great weekend.
Frans S (2022-01-04 10:19:11+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not always accurate mapped and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention on these points:
A: buildings not always accurately drawn. Please pay more attention on following the outlines of a building (with extentions).
E: Rectangular Buildings not always 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/115501627
mariotomo (2021-12-29 15:13:17+00:00): hola, gracias por añadir información local, que es imposible leer en las fotos aéreas. 
Te sugiero una herramienta de validación, para evitar "islas" como el caso de la calle que aquí dejaste como "residential" (podría no aparecer aún pues la validación de los datos es calculada una vez por día). 
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=18&lat=9.066786&lon=-79.506121&item=xxxx&level=1%2C2%2C3
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-79.50567&lat=9.06744&zoom=17
(osmose te sugiere muchas más mejoras, que no tienen nada que ver con tus cambios, pero que puedes considerar, para ayudar el proyecto OSM. geofabrik tiene otro punto de vista, las validaciones son por categorías.)
Warin61 (2023-08-08 00:51:01+00:00): Hi,

Which road is this gate on? 

If it is no the 'Goodarragardar Power Line Rd' .. does the 'Stokes Hut Trail' join on the western or eastern end of the gate?
archpdx (2021-12-29 07:35:43+00:00): Hi,
Why did you change the street for the address to 'NE Broadway Street'? The street is signed as 'NE Broadway', but since we don't abbreviate street names in OpenStreetMap (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Abbreviation), it should be 'Northeast Broadway'.
DaveF (2021-12-30 20:46:31+00:00): Hi
Please stop adding unnecessary, duplicating place tags.
"Use of this tag is discouraged on relations and ways"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aplace%3Ddistrict
patelmm79 (2021-12-31 17:20:04+00:00): Hi DaveF,  to add more info to explain the reason for change.

I have found that adding the "place=district" tag to the district/borough to appropriately classify the borough in the Nominatim API.  Even with the guidance on the page you provided (setting admin_level =8 plus boundary=administrative), without the "Place=district" tag, the borough relation is classified as a "town" in Nominatim.    

That seems certainly incorrect to me; the borough can contain towns, but is not a town in itself.  So the borough is misclassified in the API, and the towns within the borough do not have available the borough information via the API.

To show you an unmodified example of this situation, see borough of Rochdale:

https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=R&osmid=146926&class=boundary

The Borough is marked as a "town" in Nominatim.  In reality, the Borough of Rochdale is separate from the town of Rochdale.   And other towns within the borough (for example, Littleborough) do not carry the borough/district information within the API response:

https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search/?format=json&addressdetails=1&limit=1&polygon_geojson=0&city=littleborough&country=gb

Contrast that with the API information for Glastonbury, within the borough of Mendip, which now has the right borough/town relationship available:
https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search/?format=json&addressdetails=1&limit=1&polygon_geojson=0&city=glastonbury&country=gb

Acknowledging that the "place=district" tag is not recommended for use, the existing documentation does not sufficiently explain the steps to make sure the district-town relationships are appropriately represented in the API.  If there are alternative steps or processes in place, I'd definitely need to understand the "correct" way of doing things.  I hope however, above explains why the change isn't necessarily introducing anything redundant.
DaveF (2021-12-31 18:52:08+00:00): Hi
You're highlighting a missing feature in Nominatim.
There are many errors in Nominatim, which is why many don't use it.
As highlighted by your Rochdale link the boundary is not misclassified in OSM.
The tail should never wag the dog.
Tagging incorrectly (which includes duplication) to suit the renderer/router/developer etc is to be avoided.
You need to contact Nominatim's developers so they can fix their errors.
Frans S (2022-01-02 10:10:04+00:00): Hello Crami. Thanks for mapping on this project.
I reviewed your validating on this changeset and found quite a number of issues (overlapping and unsquared buildings) which should be solved before the task can called validated.
Validating in iDeditor is not the best option because it don't pickup a number of basic issues.
JOSM (with plugin tools) is the tool for validating.
Please take a look to this page with infor how to validate in JOSM
https://www.missingmaps.org/validate/
Best regards
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:07:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:57:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:06:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:01:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:59:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:06:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:02:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
Allison P (2024-08-20 03:46:33+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/607160850 I don't think the postcode is correct
h551w (2024-08-22 21:57:35+00:00): Cursing my muscle memory from having lived in 83646. Fixed it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155627690
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:59:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:59:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:05:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:59:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:07:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 21:59:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:01:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:05:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:02:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:02:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:00:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:00:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 120102796 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG and discussion with Mapbox, reverting some changes by a Mapbox editor. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5868 and previous blocks.
Lee Carré (2021-12-30 19:57:38+00:00): “according_to”

Ooh, thanks for the hint. There's a disputed border near me, and I wasn't aware of these keys. Perfect.
amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ (2021-12-30 20:05:42+00:00): It's only a new tagging scheme (cf. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ClaimedBorders ). I am working on a data consumer for this scheme
Lee Carré (2021-12-30 20:19:26+00:00): 👍
kakiremora (2021-12-30 20:31:18+00:00): Interesting choice of editor fot this task.

Does this tagging schema imply that there would be multiple versions of one country in the database? Wouldn't it be better to create some kind of relation with parts that are recognised/ not recognise? Or at least, connect the two versions in one relation so they aren't alone without context?
amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ (2022-01-01 19:53:09+00:00): level0 was just the easiest do make this change.

Yes, in my scheme there would be many partially overlapping areas. Yes, this has downsides. However one big upside is the simplicity for the data model, and widespread support for this way of mapping areas in most OSM tools.
G1asshouse (2022-01-14 13:18:51+00:00): Please, please, please help me understand how your proposal is significantly different than the solidly rejected and much more flushed out Mapping disputed boundaries proposal? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries

Please, please, please walk me to the place where inserting this scheme into OSM, for the benefit of your customers and your company, is fundamentally different than corporate takeover of tagging? Maybe I have this all wrong. I see that Lyft has also just pretended to honor the proposal but ended up just doing what they wanted. [key:rideshare proposal]. I am happy to do away the proposal process, if that is the will of the community.
Unlike access tags for rideshare, disputed boarders is a very sensitive and contentious issue both internally, to the OSM community, and globally. I need to believe that a sitting OSMF member and an employee of a sitting DWG member is not running roughshod over the desires of the community, functionally exploiting their position and connections. I am desperately looking for the angle here that places your actions solidly into the well-intentioned category instead of the many less positive descriptors it presently looks to be fitting in.
amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ (2022-01-14 13:33:00+00:00): Just a quick, partial reply: This tagging that I've added has nothing to do with my work at Geofabrik (and nothing to do with any OSMF work). This is just something in my spare time that I started playing with over the christmas holiday break.

Yes, I'm aware that national borders are sensitive, and I choose to stand for the OSMF Board, which then limits me in other ways.