piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
FirefighterCGH (2021-12-20 23:15:43+00:00): Hallo,
wurde geändert.
Danke hattest recht
Frans S (2021-11-01 15:48:06+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this project.
A remark. 
Please use the Maxar Imagery.
You mapped from Bing imagery which is much older and not up to date.
You map buildings which are gone on Maxar and missed the recent ones.
Best regards
DaveF (2021-10-28 22:06:55+00:00): Hi
landuse=grass is not required for golf features. It is for specific areas as indicated in the wikipage's first sentence:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass

The landuse of golf features is 'golf' not grass.
To distinguish any differences the 'surface' tag should be used.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface

golf=* are a specific sport subset of leisure=pitch.
The tag to distinguish a pitch's playing finish is 'surface'
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch

Please don't assume a validator's *suggestion* is valid or correct.

I've flagged it as an error:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8748#issuecomment-940155347
jmilot (2022-02-01 18:54:34+00:00): Hi,

When adding sidewalks, would it be possible to also add 'Unmarked crossing' ways at every corners where someone can cross the street? Otherwise, this create sidewalk islands for pedestrian router that relies on OSM data.

Thanks you and have a good day
DaveF (2021-10-28 23:58:04+00:00): Hi
landuse=grass/natural=sand are not required for golf features. It is for specific areas as indicated in the wikipage's first sentence:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass

The landuse of golf features is 'golf' not grass.
To distinguish any differences the 'surface' tag should be used.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface

golf=* are a specific sport subset of leisure=pitch.
The tag to distinguish a pitch's playing finish is 'surface'
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch

Please don't assume a validator's *suggestion* is valid or correct.

I've flagged it as an error:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8748#issuecomment-940155347
habi (2021-10-28 20:55:31+00:00): Ciao tj11
Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap, schön hilfst du hier mit.

Hier würde *ich* den Parkplatz nicht als fünf einzelne Flächen, sondern als eine (oder zwei) Flächen mit der gegebenen Kapazität (capacity=...) mappen.

Die 'Zufahrtsstrasse` wäre dann ein `highway=service`, wie z.B. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dparking vorschlägt.

E Gruess aus der Schweiz,
habi
Leo Slager (2021-10-28 22:05:46+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
Leo Slager (2021-10-28 22:07:45+00:00): Dag Richie,
De restriction geldt nu voor alle verkeersdeelnemers.
Ik heb er except=bicycle;mofa aan toegevoegd.
Zie ook;
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction
5m4u9 (2021-10-29 21:48:11+00:00): este cambio esta mal, porque degrada el area de agua a un area de piedras, ambas cosas existen. se debería suporponer el area de material sobre el agua
JJIglesias (2021-10-30 05:39:45+00:00): Las Torrentereas No pueden colocarse como Riverbanks o Areas de Rios Pues NO llevan aguan constante sino circunstancialmente o por temporadas,  en los rios con caudal variable si puedes colocar todo el area del rio pues hoy estan de un ancho minimo y mañana de un ancho maximo, en las Torrenteras  NO aplica lo mismo, lo discuti con 2 cartografos precisamente antes de hacer el cambio, No es lo mismo las areas de rio (Riverbanks) de los Rios Tapacari, o Caine, o Grande o Pirai, que las areas de influencia de las torrenteras que el 95% del año son Solo Predregales. Asi q el CAMBIO NO ESTA MAL, es exactamente como los Cartografos indican en los mapas tradicionales y como Correctamente deberiamos indicarlo en OSM, No creando ARTIFICIALMENTE areas de Rios que NO existen o son solo por 1 o 2 crecidas al año, y el resto es simplemente un pedregal....
JJIglesias (2021-10-30 05:42:41+00:00): Obviamente el Rio "Madre" (como linea) debe permanenecer sea intermitente o de flujo constante, y el pedregal es parte del area de influencia del rio, Pero NO es el rio, y el River Area es presentarlo como si fuera el rio y eso NO es correcto...
JJIglesias (2021-10-30 05:48:30+00:00): Yo tambien asumia que poner los riverbanks en las torrenteras era lo correcto, pero NO lo es, aun colocandolas como Intermitentes es incorrector asumir un area q el curso de agua realmente NO ocupa, y el elemento mas prominente en tiempo y espacio es el que debe predominar, No al reves....
5m4u9 (2021-11-01 12:20:38+00:00): con la explicación me basta, adelante. Lo que creo esta mal o hay que quitar es el nombre del pedregal. El nombre hace referencia al otro elemento anterior.

sería bueno que esta explicación sencilla se pusiera en el comentario del changeset (como se sugiere en OSM), hubiese ahorrado tiempo.

gracias por explicar
DeKaN (2021-10-28 21:50:07+00:00): Советую посмотреть правила PTv2 до исправления остановок. И не стоит терять детализацию, добавленную ранее
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113096694
herivanich (2021-10-29 05:00:12+00:00): Что конкретно Вам не нравится в этой правке и какая детализация была потеряна?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113096694
DeKaN (2021-10-29 06:46:25+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996266129 и все подобные не соответсвуют PTv2. потеряны теги shelter и остальное, что было на исходных точках
herivanich (2021-10-29 10:13:22+00:00): Посмотрите , правильно ли я понял
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113096694
Leo Slager (2021-10-28 22:13:31+00:00): Dansschool DC Dance stond al op de kaart.
In NL taggen we de POI tags bij op de adres-node. Adressen en gebouwen worden rechtstreeks geïmporteerd van het Kadaster.
Alleen de eigenschappen van het gebouw komen dus op het gebouw te staan.
Ik herstel  het even.
eggie (2021-10-31 17:25:30+00:00): Beste Woutor. Svp geen adresinfo gaan toevoegen aan gebouwen. Er zijn al adresnodes.
Met die nodes mag je wel gerust schuiven.
Het adres op de gebouwomtrek  zelf zal ik verwijderen.
MVG
eggie
Gruselwolf (2022-04-22 06:46:57+00:00): Hi, MrLaaky,

Is there still a one-way one the mainroad 102 in Godovic/SLO. From the roundabout down south. 

Best regards 
Rainer
martianfreeloader (2022-04-25 19:55:49+00:00): Looks like a mapping error, thanks Rainer!

I've corrected it.
Wulf4096 (2023-02-24 21:33:40+00:00): Hi, bitte kein foot=no bzw. bicycle=no setzen wo's keine entsprechenden Schilder gibt. Ich hab das auf =use_sidepath korrigiert bzw. ganz gelöscht:
In der Dehnhaide darf man, bis auf das Kreuzungskonstrukt Barmbeker Markt, mit dem Rad auf der Fahrbahn fahren.
hauke-stieler (2023-02-25 09:57:47+00:00): Keine Ahnung, warum ich das damals so getaggt habe, use_sidepath ist hier definitiv korrekt. Danke fürs korrigieren!
Patchanka (2021-10-29 11:50:17+00:00): bonjour
je ne sais pas si c'est intentionnel mais vous avez tagué de nombreuses zones en tant que landuse=garages ce qui me semble bizarre...
landuse=garages désigne une zone avec des bâtiments de garages privés ce qui ne correspond semble-il à aucune des zones cartographiées comme telles...

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1cvI
confusedbuffalo (2021-10-29 11:58:29+00:00): Hi, you requested a review of this.
Maybe consider whether fast food is a better fit than restaurant, and/or you can add the tag "takeaway", probably with a value of "only".
Also, make sure you put spaces into postcodes, I've fixed the ones round here
woodpeck (2021-11-07 16:59:24+00:00): Hello AndreasAlltrails, in this changeset you have drawn a *new* access=private path over an already existing public access path. This does not achieve the desired result. You have to add the "access=private" to the already existing path!
woodpeck (2021-11-07 18:52:31+00:00): I have done that now for the path to the NE of this where we had a landowner complaint. For this path here, I removed your access=private variant since this path was not in the land owner's complaint.
highflyer74 (2021-10-30 12:23:12+00:00): Hello!

In this edit the tag "MX_vial_type=*" was added to a couple a roads. As this is not a common tag in OSM I guess it was added by accident. Could you re-check you edits please? Thank you!
------------------------------------------------
¡Hola!

En esta edición se ha añadido la etiqueta "MX_vial_type=*" a un par de carreteras. Como no es una etiqueta común en OSM, supongo que se añadió por accidente. ¿Podría volver a revisar sus ediciones, por favor? Gracias, y todo lo mejor para ti.
Irk_Ley (2021-10-30 12:59:31+00:00): sí. fue un error, gracias por avisarme, saludos.
HansWorschd (2021-11-11 21:10:11+00:00): Hallo, die B9 hier mit zwei Linien zu zeichnen ist falsch. Zwei Linien werden nur verwendet wenn die Fahrbahnen baulich getrennt sind. Ist in Worms-Nord aber nicht der Fall. Siehe dazu den Abschnitt im Wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attributierung_von_Stra%C3%9Fen_in_Deutschland#Getrennte_Linien Die Änderungen in dem Bereich also bitte wieder rückgängig machen.
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2021-11-05 05:27:21+00:00): شكرا جزيلا لكم Thank you very much
HansWorschd (2021-11-11 21:14:08+00:00): Bitte wieder rückgängig machen. Siehe Kommentar zu getrennten Linien im anderen Changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113097820
blackboxlogic (2021-10-31 03:20:22+00:00): FYI this address already existed (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7343668928) so now there are two elements with this address. When adding buildings and copying address details to it, please delete the address node.
blackboxlogic (2021-11-08 17:08:20+00:00): Hi, the address you added already existed as a node. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7343668928. Please consider merging the two elements so there are not two of them.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113098635
blackboxlogic (2021-11-08 17:09:59+00:00): oh... I just left the same comment twice. Too much coffee, sorry about that.
redd (2022-07-09 14:49:40+00:00): Hi, vielen Dank für die Beiträge zu OpenStreetMap. Beim Grafitti https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9208576709 scheint etwas beim covered= schief gegangen zu sein. Vermutlich wurde die URL verwesehentlich eingefügt. Bitte nochmal nachschauen und korrigieren.
Vielen Dank,
redd
Ferrocarriles de México (2023-08-01 23:18:33+00:00): Do not change road hierarchy at random. This is a motorway. It is officially designated as such and it is physically so.
rowcherryrow (2023-08-02 21:41:14+00:00): Hi Ferrocarriles de México, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I reclassified those ways to trunk and trunk links due to some service and residential roads accessing the motorway [https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/786258263, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/766106284, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/766105934], and because I couldnt identify any toll booths along the westbound and eastbound ways. The México/Etiquetado de vías page [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:México/Etiquetado_de_vías], points out that motorways are "direct highways with restricted access from adjacent roads,", and that "they usually have a toll system". With the ways not having any toll booths or restricted access on the westbound and eastbound ways, I chose trunk and trunk links for those roads. I agree with the northbound and southbound being a motorway as there is restricted access and can identify toll booths.
Ferrocarriles de México (2023-08-04 02:48:08+00:00): * "usually have a toll" does not mean "must have a toll"
* Limited right-in right-out side roads are allowed for road=motorway. A big fraction of Mexican motorways have unofficial, dirt-surface side roads. This is Mexico. Here, if you are a rancher and you live next to the highway, you cut the barrier and connect your ranch, official limitations of access notwithstanding.
Ferrocarriles de México (2023-08-04 04:42:13+00:00): Nevermind. You are right that the eastbound and westbound are not motorways per the official data: http://gaia.inegi.org.mx/

I will put them back to trunk immediately.
Ferrocarriles de México (2023-08-04 04:44:48+00:00): Done: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139421624
rowcherryrow (2023-08-04 21:23:42+00:00): Hi Ferrocarriles de México, thanks for your edits, information and updates! I think that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/913575834 should also be changed to motorway_link to match the surrounding data. Happy mapping!
JPM(Inverness) (2021-10-28 21:25:31+00:00): I need help with levels. Charity shop is part of 3 leveled building, with flat above the charity shop of levels 2 & 3 (or 1 & 2) whichever is correct. 1b King Street is only 1 level & Sharons is only one level. If you can do the edits for me - thanks.
SK53 (2021-10-29 15:42:52+00:00): Hi,

The really simple way is just to add a level tag, so level=0 for the hairdresser, level=1;2 or 1-2 for the charity. You won't see this difference unless you look with one of the visualisers which are designed for indoor mapping and therefore handle levels. Here's an example of OpenLevelUp with shop nodes in a Shopping Centre, the market is on the first floor: https://openlevelup.net/?l=1#20/52.95609/-1.14703.

A more sophisticated (& complex) way is to map the relevant things as areas within the building & also with level tags.

HTH,

Jerry aka SK53
streckenkundler (2021-10-29 16:05:55+00:00): Hei,
Danke für die Reparatur... Da bist du mir zuvorgekommen... Wir sollten überlegen, daß Grenzlinien und Gewässer separate Objekte sind... Das verhindert meiner Ansicht nach solche Fehler... Wie siehst du das?

Viele Grüße,

Sven
Map-Peter (2021-10-30 00:13:20+00:00): Hallo wsoroe, 
 
Danke für deine Hilfe.
 
Mein https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113012238 war einfach viel zu groß / langandauernd und zum Ende meines CS hin, habe ich zwar an dem einen Ende, wo der eine Flussabschnitt auch gleichzeitig die Grenze ist das selbst noch geflickt, nachdem ich es getrennt / bemerkt hatte, aber nicht mehr an das andere Ende gedacht … das hatte Garmin-User hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113023166 bereits übernommen.
 
Du und Sven haben hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/997283037 noch eine kleine Stelle gefunden. Danke
 
Es ist rechtlich so das dieser Fluss oft die Grenze bildet, aber imho muss er nirgendwo mit der Flusslinie genau übereinstimmen.
 
Gruß Peter
user_507893 (2021-11-02 07:56:32+00:00): >>>... Wie siehst du das?
Es ist wohl eher der allgemeine Relationswahnsinn, in dem viele Mapper die Orientierung verlieren.
streckenkundler (2021-11-02 17:45:03+00:00): Hei,

bei dem einen Grenzsegment sieht man das mit JOSM, daß es Mitglied einer Grenzrelation ist... Ansonsten habe ich ein paar Overpass-Turbo-Abfragen, die mir unterschiedliche Situationen aufzeigen: z.B. eben Linien vom Typ waterway die z.B. Teil einer Relation vom type=boundary ist...

Wenn du interesse hat, kann ich dir ja mal ein paar meiner Pflegeabfragen zukommen lassen...

Viele Grüße,

Sven
user_507893 (2021-11-04 07:34:12+00:00): >> Linie vom Typ waterway die Teil einer Relation vom type=boundary ist <<
Das ist mMn Wiki-konform und muss jetzt nicht zwingend geändert werden.
streckenkundler (2021-11-04 07:59:53+00:00): Hei,
Mag sein... Solche multiblen Verwendungen aber sind die Dinger, z.B. die bei Grenzen und auch ben anderen MP-Konstrukten immerwieder für Ärger sorgen (wie hier) Wenn man das trennt, hat man potentielle Fehlerquellen weniger... 
Auf der anderen Seite können sich Grenzen eh von Fließgewässern abkoppeln... Deswegen gibt es Vorschriften wie diese: https://bravors.brandenburg.de/de/verwaltungsvorschriften-216346

Solche Vorschriften müsste es für alle Bundesländer geben. 

Sven
Tomas_J (2023-08-24 06:15:13+00:00): Zdravim, lazenska stezka (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/997285075) patri do relace, ne do tagu Name.
francians (2021-10-29 04:51:22+00:00): Ciao

Grazie per i contributi.
Per indicare la frazione dovresti usare il tag addr:hamlet e omettere Fraz.
Social facility andrebbe chiarito, credo in:

social_facility=group_home

Vedi tu quale sia più corretto sulla wiki

Francesco
canfe (2022-01-09 18:33:58+00:00): Ma davvero la via si chiama Borgonuovo B con "b" finale??
bxl-forever (2021-11-20 15:41:48+00:00): Hello,
Why did you delete "network" and "operator" tags on several bus stops in this area?
We use those all over Belgium, several apps rely on this information for queries and removing them was never discussed within the community.
Any thoughts?
user_8101879 (2021-11-21 17:51:59+00:00): Hi,

because in the french version of wiki, you have =
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop

In the description for network and for operator, it is written "déconseillé" which means that you should not add these tags especially when you have a route relation with these tags.

But I understand why you add these tags : in the english version of wiki (I read it now), nothing is indicated. These 2 versions of the wiki explain our 2 points of view, sorry for my changes.
Best regards
Thierry1030 (2022-01-12 00:57:48+00:00): Hello Fred73000,
I have an other question about this same changeset:
this way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/970634134/history#map=17/50.77101/4.31042) was created 5 months ago as a highway=no making part of the PROPOSED cycle highway route relation F208 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13192255#map=16/50.7697/4.3089&layers=Y). 
You modified this highway=no into highway=cycleway. Can you confirm that this highway has become a cycleway?
Thank you for your reply.
Thierry1030 (2022-01-12 01:00:53+00:00): and the same issue with these highways:
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/970634132
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/970634131
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/970634127
Thierry1030 (2022-01-12 01:06:13+00:00): Here you can find more info about "Mapping cycle highways" in Flanders: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycle_network%3DBE-VLG:cycle_highway 
We started with this mapping project in 2021 at the request of the Flemish provinces.
Non-existing but proposed/planned (without a building permit) parts of a tuture cycle highway should be mapped as "highway=no" (look at section 4 of the wiki)
user_8101879 (2022-01-13 14:47:00+00:00): Hi,
to explain what I have done : ID showed a problem with this way : it was a member of the relation for cycle route so I fix the problem with the value cycleway.
But you are right, it is not the good value : on ggle eath, imagery is April 2020 and nothing is build here.
So the good value should be highway=proposed. 
Because this road isn't built, it can't be in the cycle route : I fix that too, on ggle earth we can see that the trail at the other side of the railway is ok for bikes.
The changeset for this is here :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116110412
Best regards
Thierry1030 (2022-01-13 15:29:13+00:00): Hello Fred,
Thanks for your reply and for your action.
One thing you write is not correct.
It's not because a road isn't built yet, that it cannot be part of a cycle route relation.
This cycle route relation 'cycle highway F208' (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13192255#map=16/50.7697/4.3089) is a proposed cycle highway by the regional government. It has the tags route=bicycle + state=proposed + note:state=has_highway_no. So in practice it's not yet a bike route where you can cycle, but it's the aim to cycle there in the future. 
And in the wiki (please do read section 4) there's an aproved consensus that ways without building permit are mapped as highway=no + note=* Thanks for your cooperation!
Best regards.
Thierry1030 (2022-01-13 15:29:35+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycle_network%3DBE-VLG:cycle_highway
vulasala (2021-10-29 06:27:13+00:00): Hi hannahce,
Trust you are doing well. I have modified the classification of way 997291672 from unclassified to residential in order to avoid classification gap.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113100551
vulasala (2021-10-29 06:06:01+00:00): Hi Sarah_Peters,
Trust you are doing well. I have modified the classification of way 997293672 and way 997293673 from unclassified to residential, as the way is not long running and not a structured path.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113100757
blackboxlogic (2021-11-08 17:07:19+00:00): Many of the roads you changed to tertiary I think would be better as service roads, parking isles, or unclassified. Check out the wiki for more info https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113100845
vulasala (2021-10-29 05:40:20+00:00): Hi Sarah_Peters,
Trust you are doing well. I have removed the way 997296554, as the way is hanging segment and no clear path.
Thank you
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113101065
cserpell (2021-10-29 13:59:49+00:00): Hola, qué tal?

Eliminé el área verde porque parece no corresponder a un elemento real en el lugar.

Saludos,
pitscheplatsch (2022-12-18 10:25:46+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130175777
vulasala (2021-11-01 09:03:21+00:00): Hi MeldeGuzman011,
Trust you are doing well. I have modified the classification of way 152425976 from service to residential, as the way giving access to multiple rooftops.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113102169
ovruni (2021-10-29 04:22:48+00:00): Hola Elsy Rivadeneyra, he notado que en sus dos ultimos conjuntos de cambios se han agregado algunos edificios ficticios, algunos que también tienen usos de suelos con greenfield, por lo que he revertido sus conjuntos de cambios.
Si tienes alguna duda sobre el mapeo de OSM en Perú, puedes hacerla por el canal de telegram https://t.me/osmpe o la lista de correos de la comunidad de OSM en Perú https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pe 
Saludos
johnarupire (2021-10-29 06:48:53+00:00): Hola Elsy Rivadeneyra, bienvenida a Openstreetmap, por favor, sigue las recomendaciones que amablemente te está indicando @ovruni. Te esperamos en el canal de telegram para charlar y resolver cualquier duda que puedas tener. Saludos!!
aharvey (2021-11-24 06:01:33+00:00): Hi Tess, I invite you to join the discussion at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-November/015349.html about using macrons in name:en.

Or if you don't want to join the mailing list if you had any comments on the discussion you wanted to voice here instead?
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:24:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
Birne93 (2021-10-29 09:03:13+00:00): Ich dachte, das würde nie passieren.
SomeoneElse (2021-10-30 11:16:02+00:00): Hello,
As can be seen from http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=248436981 this city has had the name tag changed several times in the last few months.  It'd be really helpful to understand the reasons behind this change.
Best Regards,
Andy