piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
pitscheplatsch (2020-12-12 13:27:49+00:00): Hi Aaron Denney, welcome to OSM.

May we know the reason behind deleting several mapped trails? Thanks.

Full changeset information see: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=95705440#15/37.0777/-84.7079
---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
opendcc (2022-03-21 02:57:31+00:00): Hallo, da bei Röthenbach durch: ist das komplett privat oder nur für Kfz gesperrt?
Acid941 (2022-03-22 16:12:17+00:00): Komplett Privat
Geo-Tobi (2024-12-21 10:49:49+00:00): Da möchte ich gerne nochmal nachfassen. Steht da explizit: "Durchgang verboten?" Falls nein, bin ich mit access=private nicht einverstanden.
geow (2024-12-22 13:05:53+00:00): siehe meinen Beitrag in https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4558855
neoLithos (2025-07-25 12:52:52+00:00): Hi Luuuddooo.

I'm on mapping vacation in Collombier-le-Jeune and I'm unable to find the housenumber 140.
The building, where the housenumber 140 is attached to is a shed. The other house has the number 150 - as mapped.

Do you aggree to delete the housenumber 140?

Greetings from Collombier, neo.
neoLithos (2025-07-25 12:57:46+00:00): Sorry my fault - i forgot to add the housenumber :|
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8220956570
Luuuddooo (2025-07-25 15:22:32+00:00): Hi, according to the French national address database the house number 140 exists, but it is not localised on the shed:

https://adresse.data.gouv.fr/carte-base-adresse-nationale?id=07068_0050_00140

But if you don't find it, it's OK for me if you delete it
BeJotEl (2020-12-20 12:08:34+00:00): Wieso wurden hier Gärten/Grünflächen in Garagen "verwandelt"?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95705635
Carnildo (2020-12-12 06:57:02+00:00): Is there a reason why you deleted the roads "CR5067" and "CR5069"?
deven_smith_ (2020-12-12 07:27:43+00:00): Yes, the houses on those roads are linked to Rail Canyon Road according to the Stevens County Property map. I plan to come back and fix all the roads around here
Gallizenae (2020-12-23 16:14:58+00:00): If buildings are rectangular in reality please straighten them by pressing "Q" before upload.
pio2_122 (2020-12-12 10:32:42+00:00): Wycofane: budynek jest otagowany w schemacie 3D -  akurat ten fragment reprezentuje piwnice i stąd ma building:levels=0. Budynek ma też dwa adresy, które są już oznaczone jako punkty.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95706857
ninhos de andorinha (2020-12-17 18:48:44+00:00): Your building footprints were replaced by an expert: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=95992214
flohoff (2020-12-13 13:43:16+00:00): Aeh - Ist das wirklich ein Deich - Hochwasserschutz und so? Das sieht eher nach Lärmschutz aus oder? Dann wäre vielleicht ein man_made=embankment richtiger oder?

Flo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95708113
mariotomo (2020-12-12 17:16:14+00:00): I support 1T-money in this revert.  the addition of an already disappeared building, and the deletion of Mueblería Charlie are minor errors, compared to not attempting correct so many other "Kaart Buildings", and not addressing so many other split buildings, and doing cosmetics on older mistakes, keeping the mistake.
let's hope we can talk about this in the group, and help each other becoming better at interpreting aerial photography.
rickmastfan67 (2023-07-06 06:06:36+00:00): I'm curious, but why did you undo the new US-19 bridge in Shinnston in this changeset that I had previously added back in 2017?
rickmastfan67 (2023-07-06 06:26:18+00:00): Anyways, I've gone ahead and just re-added it (visible on Bing imagery).
ssterling_ (2023-07-06 13:27:08+00:00): I think I mistook the old bridge for the new one on imagery.  I should’ve checked history before I changed it.
rickmastfan67 (2023-07-08 08:26:39+00:00): All good.  At least I spotted it (was working on another project that made me look at this area), as was able to restore it without much issue. :)
mariotomo (2020-12-12 17:02:17+00:00): quite right: the mapping was based on good quality but outdated Bing photography.  most buildings had in the meanwhile disappeared.
Silva1989 (2021-03-11 01:22:34+00:00): Obrigado pela tua contribuição, bem vind@ ao openstreetmap e parabéns pela primeira edição. Fiz uma revisão à mesma conforme o pedido neste changeset, apenas uns pequenos ajustes, foi uma ótima contribuição. Relativamente às áreas de repouso para autocarros, são parques de estacionamento de acesso público onde é permitido estacionar para autocarros? Ou são parques de estacionamento em terreno privado onde os mesmos estão autorizados a estacionar? A etiqueta highway=rest_area embora compatível com lugares onde é permitido estacionar é mais vocacionada para áreas onde eventualmente haja interesse para parar e gastar algum tempo.
mariotomo (2020-12-12 17:37:09+00:00): my impression that the most of the reverted changeset focuses on abandoned stuff, cluttering up a derelict building.  the northern part of the edit might be an improvement, maybe, or maybe not.  without a plan to check the area in person, it's difficult to say.
mariotomo (2020-12-12 17:10:16+00:00): hi 1T-money, I'm not so sure about this one. one of the buildings Karen mapped does not exist, and another looks more like ruins than a building, but I would not have reverted the whole changeset.  food for discussion I suggest.
user_5359 (2020-12-12 04:27:56+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please use addr:housenumber instead of addr:number.
Gazer75 (2020-12-20 21:04:35+00:00): You are breaking several land cover relations with your edits. Suggest using JOSM editor that is better at dealing with these. Also try reducing the areas you edit in the beginning.
BCNorwich (2020-12-12 07:52:36+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

May I please point out that when amending or correcting objects in OSM it is usual practice to amend/correct the existing objects. Thus you keep all the previous mapping history of the object, all data dates and contributors.

In deleting and redrawing objects you remove all the present and previous history of the object. Folk can't then see how the map has evolved.

I've reverted this changeset in order to reinstate the deleted history, then amended the features to try and replicate your changes. This is in Changeset: 95714002

Regards Bernard.
blackboxlogic (2020-12-16 02:58:16+00:00): Hi Garrett, I imported all of these addresses and the government datasource sometimes had city keys which were... questionable. Since you corrected this, I'm assuming you are confident in the change. But if this one was wrong, then there will be many more nearby. If you'd be interested in working together, I'd like to fix all of the "south china"s which should be "china village"s. Are you interested? -Alex
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95709033
Garrett GB (2020-12-16 03:05:10+00:00): Hi Alex,

I am confident that the name was incorrect.  I would be interested in this being fixed. If you look at the map, anywhere from the Albion, and Palermo borders to 1/4 of the way down the lake (around Lakeview Lumber) is considered China Village. South China starts around 3/4 of the way down the lake (near cross rd).

Thanks
Garrett
blackboxlogic (2020-12-16 03:46:01+00:00): Thanks. I have some tools which will make it easy for me to update this in bulk, but not tonight. I might ask you for clarification if I have any trouble.
Happy mapping.
-Alex
Garrett GB (2020-12-16 04:37:33+00:00): Hi Alex,

Sorry I just saw these. I am a new mapper and I may have mis-labeled some of the driveways. Please feel free to change any of these. Thank you so much for your help! If you have any questions I would be happy to answer, as I am pretty familiar with the area. Thanks!

Garrett
blackboxlogic (2020-12-19 15:33:15+00:00): Hey!
Thanks for being receptive to feedback. I'm not worried about the few things you've done so far. I thought you might find some free time and do A LOT more, I wanted to do some gentle guiding before that.
I've been trying to find an official outline of "China Village". The wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Village%2C_Maine) describes an area smaller than you described. It also mentions a correlation with the zip code "04926". Would you agree with that? From previous research, I've found that villages don't necessarily have an official administrative boundary because villages aren't administrative entities. And even though anyone you ask will say they live in "China Villiage" they are governed by the municipality of "The Town of China". This was a major challenge during the address import.
Garrett GB (2020-12-19 16:08:29+00:00): Yes, that would be the correct zip code. The village area somewhat depends on who you ask. Some people would consider it just Causeway Rd, Main St, Canton St, Peking St, Spruce Ln, the very beginning of Neck Rd and Fire Rd 1. Some consiter it going farther down the lake. I believe that some people who get their mail from the China Village Post office, instead of the China Post office live a little bit farther down the lake, but I would agree that there is not an official area. If you would rather, you can mark houses on roads that I did not previously mention as "China", but they are certainly not part of South China. Thanks!
Garrett
blackboxlogic (2020-12-19 17:47:29+00:00): Ok, so... I've adjusted city names and zip codes based on the 2010 Census Zip Code Tabulation Area for zip 04926 from https://tigerweb.geo.census.gov/tigerweb/. See my changes here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96116988
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95709033
gscholz (2021-01-23 08:53:03+00:00): Hi Orózco,
your recents changesets have added several errors to the OSM database regarding wrongly named relation roles (inner/outer):

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-74.81644&lat=10.89929&zoom=14

Please read the documentation to understand what this is about:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Can you please fix your errors?
Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2021-01-29 05:45:03+00:00): Hi Orózco, 
these errors still exists. Can you please give an update here?
Guido
Orozcu (2021-01-30 14:43:46+00:00): estoy trabajando en ello
n76 (2020-12-12 01:39:06+00:00): Edit should have been made on non-import ID of n76.
aweech (2020-12-12 19:33:30+00:00): Hello,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I see in this edit you removed a building. Please notice that OpenStreetMap, like many other geographic datasets, included buildings. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buildings for more information. If this building was destroyed in the last few months, I recommend tagging it as `demolished:building=yes` to indicate that.
thmon (2020-12-14 21:57:15+00:00): Hello,
Thanks for the comment. Please advise why only this building is placed and none in the neighborhood?
aweech (2020-12-14 23:00:12+00:00): Simply because OSM is a volunteer effort no one has gotten around to it yet. Feel free to start adding them :)
BCNorwich (2020-12-12 08:02:54+00:00): Hi, in this and the previous changeset you've deleted 55 features thus removing all the history associated with those features, the data lines tags chronology and contributors.

Would you consider reverting these deletions in order to reinstate the history. Then you could make your amendments to the existing features. 

Need any help please just ask. Regards Bernard.
Matt Hays (2020-12-14 08:55:27+00:00): the existing detail was so bad it would have taken me too long to correct it - deleting and replacing seemed the sensible way!
BCNorwich (2020-12-14 10:22:04+00:00): Hi, If you leave it as is, make no more changes to amend or correct anything I'll try to revert everything later today. I'll comment here to say how I get on. 

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2020-12-14 17:24:19+00:00): Hi Matt, 
All changesets have been reverted to the original state in my changesets numbers  #95818983 #95818312 #95818280 #95818253 #95818234 #95818201 #95818175 #95818132 #95818084 

You can now make corrections/amendments to the original mapping without deleting features, thus you'll keep all history. 

Regards Bernard.
Øukasz (2021-03-24 13:32:38+00:00): 您好，欢迎使用OpenStreetMap。 我很高兴您以新用户身份加入我们。

您所做的编辑似乎是错误的。 如果您希望继续使用OSM并为地图做贡献，请花一点时间来了解如何正确进行。 您可以从这里开始：https://learnosm.org/zh_CN/

谢谢
Lukasz (for Data Working Group)
n76 (2020-12-12 01:40:09+00:00): Edit should have been made on non-import ID of n76
mapper377 (2020-12-12 02:17:12+00:00): The changeset comment should say that the site is near highway M 6, not M 5.
pitscheplatsch (2020-12-12 13:24:39+00:00): Hi Matt Hays, welcome to OSM.

May we know the reason behind deleting some parts of this golf course which have been mapped by a different contributor just a few months ago? Thanks.

Full changeset information see: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=95710000#16/52.1633/0.1776

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
Matt Hays (2020-12-14 08:57:08+00:00): The previous detail was in accurate and lazy. 

I wanted to improve this so the data can be imported into a Golf Simulator. 

Did i do something I shouldn't have?
BCNorwich (2020-12-14 10:22:30+00:00): Hi, If you leave it as is, make no more changes to amend or correct anything I'll try to revert everything later today. I'll comment here to say how I get on. 

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2020-12-14 17:23:48+00:00): Hi Matt, 
All changesets have been reverted to the original state in my changesets numbers  #95818983 #95818312 #95818280 #95818253 #95818234 #95818201 #95818175 #95818132 #95818084 

You can now make corrections/amendments to the original mapping without deleting features, thus you'll keep all history. 

Regards Bernard.
mueschel (2020-12-13 09:04:04+00:00): Hallo,
du hast hier sehr viele "recycling:" Tags verwendet die es sonst nirgends gibt. Bitte verwende nur die Tags, die auch im Wiki aufgeführt sind:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling
tarta (2020-12-12 21:24:37+00:00): revisado e ampliado
eduardoaddad (2020-12-12 21:41:09+00:00): obrigado
Marcos_Itba_Kaart (2021-05-07 12:29:43+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007007

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007008

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007009

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007010

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007011

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007012

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007013

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007014

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007015

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007016

(Proibido retornar na mesma via / no_u_turn) são restrições sinalizadas (possuem uma placa no "mundo real" correspondente)? 

Restrições do tipo proibido retornar na mesma via são desnecessárias, a menos que estejam sinalizadas em campo.

Restrições desnecessárias criam diversos problemas, como dificuldades de edição dos membros e renderização incorreta de nomes no mapa devido à microsegmentações, entre outros.

Para entender melhor, veja essa discussão sobre o tema:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2527

E os alertas logo no inicío da Wiki de restrições de conversão:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction

Você poderia avaliar e, sendo o caso, excluir essas relações?
Marcos_Itba_Kaart (2021-05-07 12:30:14+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007007

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007008

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007009

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007010

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007011

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007012

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007013

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007014

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007015

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007016

(Proibido retornar na mesma via / no_u_turn) são restrições sinalizadas (possuem uma placa no "mundo real" correspondente)? 

Restrições do tipo proibido retornar na mesma via são desnecessárias, a menos que estejam sinalizadas em campo.

Restrições desnecessárias criam diversos problemas, como dificuldades de edição dos membros e renderização incorreta de nomes no mapa devido à microsegmentações, entre outros.

Para entender melhor, veja essa discussão sobre o tema:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2527

E os alertas logo no inicío da Wiki de restrições de conversão:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction

Você poderia avaliar e, sendo o caso, excluir essas relações?
Marcos_Itba_Kaart (2021-05-07 12:30:44+00:00): Olá,

as restrições de conversão:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007007

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007008

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007009

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007010

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007011

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007012

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007013

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007014

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007015

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12007016

(Proibido retornar na mesma via / no_u_turn) são restrições sinalizadas (possuem uma placa no "mundo real" correspondente)? 

Restrições do tipo proibido retornar na mesma via são desnecessárias, a menos que estejam sinalizadas em campo.

Restrições desnecessárias criam diversos problemas, como dificuldades de edição dos membros e renderização incorreta de nomes no mapa devido à microsegmentações, entre outros.

Para entender melhor, veja essa discussão sobre o tema:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2527

E os alertas logo no inicío da Wiki de restrições de conversão:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction

Você poderia avaliar e, sendo o caso, excluir essas relações?
aharvey (2020-12-22 22:32:16+00:00): Most of these I couldn't consider leisure=park based on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park. If they are council reserves, I'm not sure the best tag to use, in the past I've used some combination of natural=wood, boundary=protected_area, leisure=nature_reserve, or even just untagged with a note.
Warin61 (2020-12-22 23:41:56+00:00): natural=wood is for a tree area, Some bits of these may not have trees. So I would not use this. 

I'll retag them as leisure=nature_reserve, not certain of their protection status. They are clearly shown on the LPI/DCS base map. I would like them identified as being 'public land' so that anyone trying to deny use of it is know to be wrong.
TheSwavu (2020-12-23 02:58:36+00:00): the problem is that the DCS Base Map has "green areas" for any Crown Reserve but it is not possible to get any data as to what purpose they have been reserved. For example the area around Wynnes Lookout has been reserved for "Trigonometrical Purposes". 

this document https://www.nswlrs.com.au/getattachment/99aaebb8-d53d-40b1-a18c-2d2fff6c3c2f/attachment.aspx has a list on p.31 of everything that appears as a green area on the base map.
Warin61 (2020-12-23 23:16:08+00:00): The choices are ?

Not to map them in OSM at all ... despite knowing they are public lands.

Map them, but without the full technically correct detail that is not shown on our source. 

------------------------------------
I take the second option, rather like mapping a building=yes where the kind of building is unknown.  Any other ideas?
aharvey (2020-12-24 03:59:11+00:00): I think it's a good idea to map them in OSM, but agree we don't have a good tag for public land reserve. But I don't agree with blanket tagging these leisure=park, as a kid rocking up with his soccer ball or a family with their picnic rug expecting a local park might be dissapointed.
Warin61 (2020-12-24 07:42:28+00:00): As stated in the second comment .. "I'll retag them as leisure=nature_reserve", and I have done that. 

I note that one of them is named a 'park', whatever that means locally. Those that have other names carry as part of their name 'reserve'.
ZeLonewolf (2020-12-13 22:22:10+00:00): Hi there - looks like this change messed up the border of Brooklyn.  There is a way dangling off of it.
ZeLonewolf (2020-12-13 22:22:48+00:00): It has also broken the boundary of Sydney.
aharvey (2020-12-22 04:43:00+00:00): Also previously you had both the place name of Dangar Island for place=island and the administrative suburb boundary boundary=administrative also named Dangar Island. So I'll restore this but you've made some other changes mixed in here which are good like the bay name, amenities around the ferry terminal and the landcover, so I'll try to fix this by hand without reverting anything....
aharvey (2020-12-22 04:51:22+00:00): Island name restored in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96228931
aharvey (2020-12-22 22:28:25+00:00): I checked the boundaries and they seem okay, @ZeLonewolf can you point out specifically where it's broken?
ZeLonewolf (2020-12-22 22:37:58+00:00): It's good now, changeset 95774732 fixed the problem.
Glassman (2020-12-13 18:17:02+00:00): You mentioned a bridge but there doesn't appear to be one. Do you need help adding it?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95710951
thegazelle (2020-12-25 06:38:56+00:00): Glassman
The path had a error cause it went over Peabody creek.
The trail has a Log bridge about 10 feet long
dalip123 (2020-12-22 21:22:54+00:00): Is it tracing bypass road? Curious to know more about bypass trace. I only see rectangle here.
PlaneMad (2020-12-23 02:44:45+00:00): Should be visible if you zoom in since its under construction https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/15.0740/77.6228
Glassman (2020-12-13 18:18:14+00:00): Do you need help adding the culvert?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95710968
pitscheplatsch (2020-12-12 13:20:07+00:00): Hi TAMAITIORE Tauhere, welcome to OSM.

Did you see the existing building which now overlaps/crosses your mapped building?

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
blackboxlogic (2020-12-16 03:17:55+00:00): Thank you for your edits. I noticed you used the name tag for service roads (driveways) around the schools and a local businesses, which seems unusual. I looked on MS street view for a street sign, and I looked at the Maine Government dataset but I didn't find it named by either of those. Just a reminder that not everything needs a name, and if you have to "come up" with a name for something, then it probably doesn't have a name. As an example, you have WAY/884006201 named "China Primary School".
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95711354
user_5359 (2020-12-12 04:36:31+00:00): Welcome to OSM! You added a bigger number of unknown tags in this change set. 
DECK	1
Edit_type	R
LOT	10
Source	L
Please explain the source of this information and the meaning of the keys.
Please use also mix case character for the add:street value.
impiaaa (2020-12-12 20:01:54+00:00): Hi, thanks for your contribution! I'm working on an import of all San Jose buildings. It may be faster than tracing them yourself, so let me know if you'd like to help with that!
pedronav (2020-12-13 09:08:35+00:00): Thanks for reaching out! Absolutely! I've noticed that all other buildings in the area I've been working om have many tags (like height) that looked to me like imported from some dataset. How can I help?
impiaaa (2020-12-14 01:50:43+00:00): The tasking manager project with instructions is here: https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/175 We organize OSM editing in the South bay as part of the Code for San Jose meetup at https://www.meetup.com/code-for-san-jose . The next meeting isn't until January, but we also have a Slack workspace at https://bit.ly/3f78NML where I and others would be happy to answer any questions.