piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
surveyor54 (2022-03-12 16:23:34+00:00): Bei den fertig ausgebauten Straßen, sollte auch construction=residential noch entfernt werden.

Gruß
surveyor54 (2022-03-12 16:40:42+00:00): Betrifft: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/690919307

proposed=footway löschen.
Check_date aktualisieren.
foot=designated unnötig, da im highway=footway implentiert.

Es gibt noch einiges was implentiert ist und man sich den Eintrag sparen kann. 
Siehe hier: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Germany

Gruß
drivec (2022-05-11 01:00:52+00:00): Reverted and fixed based on free imagery, city GIS, and traces.
Warin61 (2022-03-13 21:59:34+00:00): 
As the school is already mapped there is no need to tag the buildings as amenity=school. 
The OSM guide is 'one feature' (school) 'one OSM entry'.
Warin61 (2022-03-20 23:39:27+00:00): Reverted owing to probable copyright issue.
EMREOYUN (2022-03-18 18:43:34+00:00): Merhaba, OpenStreetMap'a hoş geldiniz. Harita katkılarınız için öncelikle çok teşekkür ederiz ve ekleyebileceğiniz başka katkılarınız varsa eklemekten çekinmeyin :)
Warin61 (2022-03-20 23:39:36+00:00): Reverted owing to probable copyright issue.
archpdx (2022-03-12 22:32:16+00:00): Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap! In the future, please use more descriptive changeset comments - 'm' does not help other mappers understand what you are doing. In this case 'Added path' would've been sufficient.
Lee Carré (2022-03-12 00:28:35+00:00): Correction of http://www.osm.org/changeset/114150899

Joined the footpath to the highway instead of the landuse=residential boundary.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-04-20 14:20:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 150265070, 150261530, 150261385, 150261427, 150261374, 150261398, 150261463, 150262164, 150264883, 150261443, 150265293, 150265518, 150263711, 150261692, 150263544, 150263148, 150264695, 150263349, 150262918, 150264472, 150264284, 150261551, 150264090, 150262527, 150262687, 150263890, 150261413, 150261488, 150261509 where the changeset comment is: No reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15936 , so we've taken a guess at what was likely derived from Google Earth (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149290548 admits to that use)
Lee Carré (2022-03-12 00:45:15+00:00): I've previously traversed this stretch of way several times, and am somewhat familiar with the area.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-04-20 14:20:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 150265070, 150261530, 150261385, 150261427, 150261374, 150261398, 150261463, 150262164, 150264883, 150261443, 150265293, 150265518, 150263711, 150261692, 150263544, 150263148, 150264695, 150263349, 150262918, 150264472, 150264284, 150261551, 150264090, 150262527, 150262687, 150263890, 150261413, 150261488, 150261509 where the changeset comment is: No reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15936 , so we've taken a guess at what was likely derived from Google Earth (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149290548 admits to that use)
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-03-12 02:09:42+00:00): Single trees should be tagged with node
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-03-15 10:34:49+00:00): This https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6188995322 represents the place "Greater Napanee" not an office
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/118384806
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-03-12 04:53:30+00:00): Wrong comment. This changeset removes office tag
gscholz (2022-03-13 06:20:00+00:00): Hi Menir_IM_PMI,
this changeset has created an error in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=106.81498&lat=-6.60234&zoom=18&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points,single_node_in_way,duplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=118386034

Can you please fix this?
As you are using JOSM I am wondering about why this could happen as JOSM shows a warning message when you try to upload such errors.

Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2022-03-13 06:22:49+00:00): Hi,
there are other errors as well, you can see them by slightly zooming out:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=106.81463&lat=-6.60024&zoom=17&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points,single_node_in_way,duplicate_node_in_way
Guido
SomeoneElse (2022-03-12 10:00:47+00:00): Hello,
I just spotted this because it covered an area I'm in.  What does "Fixed with Osmose" mean?  What actual changes did you make here and how did you verify that they were valid?
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2022-03-12 10:05:37+00:00): For a bit more info, with a DWG hat on I recently had to revert some Osmose changesets because they had corrupted some names in a language that it did not understand (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117752030 and follow-up blocks and reverts for more details).
Lee Carré (2022-03-12 23:58:21+00:00): Although I agree that users are responsible for changesets made under their account, I think (part of) the problem is that the metadata is generated by Osmose itself (hence being nondescript), without the possibility of modifying it (which probably warrants a bug report). I see many changesets, by various users, with identical metadata (or, identical changeset tags, at least).

For andrewpmk:
▪︎much smaller changeset areas, please: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
▪︎what makes for http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Lee Carré (2022-03-13 00:02:26+00:00): Actually, if (as you said, SomeoneElse, in another changeset discussion) Osmose is not a source in its own right, and only to be used as a reference in combination with real sources (imagery, survey, whatever), then why is it even possible to submit changesets from within Osmose itself? If other sources are required, then that implies needing a non-QA editor (iD, Vespucci, JOSM, etc.).
Joel Amos (2022-03-15 15:48:34+00:00): Just a note about parking lots: general practice is to draw bounds around the entire lot, including the highway into the lot, rather than marking clumps of spots as separate lots.
Dimitar155 (2022-03-12 08:01:53+00:00): Земеделските площи съществуват. Промяната е върната в https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118388988
ottwiz (2022-03-25 21:40:26+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/15664914
If you happen to delete tiger:reviewed=no, make it sure it's aligned to the imagery :) I have to align this, I just noticed this while mapping woods
AndrewSnow (2022-03-26 02:18:24+00:00): I am very sorry to have caused you trouble, but you are the first person in many years to express value in the tag semi-mindlessly imported a decade and a half back that most US contributors consider irrelevant.  The number one thing I have worked on for more than a decade on is aligning routes with alignment errors per Ian Dees' JOSM overlay using the best available imagery I can find for an area (WV lacks good ortho imagery).  As the wiki says, there is no agreement amongst editors as to the fate of the Tiger:reviewed tags.  I am in the camp that at this point considers them "dross".  My apologies if you have found them otherwise.
ottwiz (2022-03-26 08:06:06+00:00): Oh! I see. I actually realigned entire Marshall and Raleigh Counties in the state, and I only removed the tiger:reviewed=no if I considered that the road segments are aligned, and they have ref=* tags, the street names aren't abbreviated (since even if there was an experiment to kill off the abbreviated names a while ago before I used JOSM on a high level, there are still a lot of leftovers) etc

In JOSM there is a super cool "Map Paint Style" called tiger:reviewed=no and when I'm aligning roads, I take advantage of that it displays which road segments have that tagging by yellowish color, thus I can track my progress which roads are left.
I got to learn this map style by a native WV friend who aligned Gilmer County's roads last year. (As far as I remember he showed me an extract of what is remaining of the tiger:review=no tagged roads once on either OSMUS Slack or on other chat platform)

So this is the value I can see of the tag in the US that if someone deleted that tag, I assume someone touched it and aligned that segment so I don't have to deal with it.
ottwiz (2022-03-26 08:14:57+00:00): By the way, Bing has recently updated its imageries in most of the counties in WV, so you have high quality and recent ones from 2020. Okay, the roads can't be seen by the amount of trees at certain parts, but this is why it's good for mapping wooded landcover. For aligning roads I always use a mixture of multiple imageries(NAIP;Bing;Esri;Mapbox) if I align roads, so I compare them and where I can see the road better, and which is the best aligned. But I assume you follow this technique. 

Also, you've made a lot of good work in the entire US for tidying up the notorious TIGER roads! So kudos for that. Keep doing that :)
ottwiz (2022-03-26 08:18:15+00:00): Oh, I forgot to say, I also use the TIGER Roads 2020 (or previous years) overlay, since it happens that some road segments can be barely seen from other imageries too.
Wellaholic (2022-03-12 05:00:41+00:00): Added Wellaholic (Somerset)
eggie (2022-03-12 07:33:47+00:00): Bonjour Philo,

Je l'ai changé man_made=cross en historic=wayside_cross
..compris  denomination et religion....
man_made=cross est destiné  pour les croix qui ne se trouvent pas au sommet d'une montagne.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:historic%3Dwayside_cross

Greetz,
eggie
bob3bob3 (2022-10-18 20:48:17+00:00): Hi! Regarding https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1039494686 Halfway Creek RA.

Captured Mapillary imagery 23/9/22 and the service road and RA doesn't seem to exist. I note that the old Camps database has it listed as a stop. Is this planned or does traffic us the U turn bays? Have left Fixme's and no access.
Fizzie-DWG (2022-10-18 22:45:42+00:00): Thanks, Bob. Sorry, don't remember this at all but think I may have added it from a Note? Your info is up-to-date, so yep, just scrub it!
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-03-12 05:32:49+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118386910

Sorry about the double changeset upload. I'll make sure to avoid in the future.
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-03-13 20:42:48+00:00): Hallo Bergischer,
das Kloster wird bereits durch folgende Relation, die das gesamte Kloster umfasst beschrieben: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/767317273
Nun ist das Kloster doppelt vorhanden.
Gruß Roger Wilco
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-03-13 20:43:35+00:00): Fläche... nicht Relation
Bergischer (2022-04-06 06:10:06+00:00): Aber als Fläche ist es doch falsch...
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-04-06 08:22:08+00:00): Wie kommst Du darauf?

Siehe: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity=monastery?uselang=de#Wie_mappen.3F
Bergischer (2022-04-06 09:49:34+00:00): Weil es eigentlich nirgendwo so gemacht wird.
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-04-06 09:54:55+00:00): Ähm... Es gibt fast 4.000 davon als way. Mehr als Node oder Relation zusammen.

Wie kommst Du darauf?
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-04-06 10:17:59+00:00): Im englischen Wiki steht sogar, dass dies die bevorzugte Variante ist.

Hier ein anderes Beispiel: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/632582135
ivanatora (2022-03-13 16:01:44+00:00): Околовръсното на Стара Загора не е highway=trunk. Този таг трябва да се използва за скоростни пътища с поне две ленти на посока и с пътни възли без пресичане на трафика.
giggls (2022-03-18 20:16:13+00:00): Moin,

schön erst mal dass Du dich um besseres Tagging für Campingplätze kümmern möchtest aber so ist das leider ziemlich suboptimal und kann von niemandem der die Daten auswerten will (zum Beispiel von mir bei der Opencampingmap) 

Wenn ich auf die Webseite schaue ist das ein normaler Touristikplatz und keiner für Pfadfinder.

Soll ich das Tagging reparieren oder möchtest Du dich dran versuchen?

Links:
Suboptimale Datstellung bei Opencampingmap:
https://opencampingmap.org/#17/50.43009/9.17879/1/1/bef

Hinweise von mir zum tagging von Campingplätzen:
https://blog.gegg.us/2019/01/announcing-open-camping-map/

Insbesondere bitte keinen separaten Node mit den eigentlichen Campsite-features anlegen. Die Rezeption auf keinen Fall mit tourism=camp_site taggen sondern mit amenity=reception_desk und das scout=yes tag muss IMO auch weg.
Wetterauer (2022-03-20 14:12:57+00:00): Vielen Dank für die Belehrung.

<tourism=camp_site> ist laut Wiki für Nodes zugelassen. Demnach darf man dieses auch entsprechend erfassen.
Das gleiche gilt für die Rezeption.
Und das scout=yes stammt aus dem Jahre 2012 und ist nicht neu.
...

Aber wenn Du möchtest, können wir uns gerne per PM über das Problem austauschen. Ob es etwas bringt, eine Wikidiskussion anzustoßen, kann ich nicht sagen.
giggls (2022-03-20 19:41:02+00:00): Es ist überhaupt nicht mein Punkt dass man tourism=camp_site auch für Nodes verwenden kann. Blödsinn ist es nur solche Nodes _zusätzlich_ zu einem Umrisspolygon zu erfassen denn dann kann niemand der die Daten nutzt erkennen was damit gemeint sein könnte. In dem Fall hier ist es sogar so, dass der separate Nodes unterschiedliche Tags hat. Siehe dazu auch mein Blogpost von gestern:
https://blog.geggus.net/2022/03/more-updates-on-open-camping-map/

Bezüglich des scout tags habe ich mich gewundert weil das halt so gar nicht nach einem Pfadfinderplatz aussieht auf der Webseite.

Wie auch immer. Das Tagging ist so wie es ist leider supboptimal.
Nakaner (2022-03-21 13:30:49+00:00): Hallo,

im Sinne der Transparenz bitte ich darum, die Diskussion öffentlich und nicht per Direktnachrichten zu führen.

Außerdem sei auf https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=75185 hingewiesen.

Viele Grüße

Michael
Udarian (2022-03-12 06:18:36+00:00): roads
user_5359 (2022-03-13 19:44:37+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/1039625190, http://www.osm.org/way/1039501135, http://www.osm.org/way/1039501136. What is the meaning of the tags
GEOID = 3669265
PLACENS = 02806942
ke9tv (2022-03-13 20:26:30+00:00): Tags from TIGER/Line 2021 that I missed removing after I copied/pasted them to the `nist:fips_code` and `gnis:feature_id` on the relations.  They're gone now.
archpdx (2022-03-12 22:19:36+00:00): Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap! In OSM, we map anything that is on the ground, regardless if it's open to the public or not: https://wiki.osm.org/on_the_ground_principle

For private driveways like this one, we have access tags to indicate who's allowed to use roads, paths and other features (https://wiki.osm.org/access). When selecting roads/paths in the editor, you can select their appropriate access tags under the 'Allowed access' field. I've undeleted this and added an 'access=private' tag.
J"W"H (2022-03-14 03:46:53+00:00): It's not a private driveway though, it's literally a rocked path in a yard that just happens to be big enough for a vehicle to go on.  Having it on a map as a "serice road" makes no sense since this  it would be like marking a path from a front yard to a back yard and calling it a walking path with access=private
indrora (2022-03-14 05:04:24+00:00): This changeset is valid. I've personally been to this location; It's a gravel patch. 

The following ways are more developed traffic paths that should, similarly, not be included:

* https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/904902387
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/878451027
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347011628

These ways contain paths and have far more established "roads", yet are unmapped (the local area GIS doesn't feature them, neither do Bing/Google maps).
archpdx (2022-03-14 06:38:23+00:00): @J"W"H Sorry, I misunderstood your changeset comment - I thought you removed it soley on it being private. It's getting pretty late so I'll remove it tomorrow morning.

@indrora I see what you're saying, however I do see some value in mapping the driveway found in the first example to prevent some routing issues. Some routers may route to Natalie or Samantha as those roads are closer to the house than Cornelius Pass.

Amazon has been mapping similar driveways in the area like (https://osm.org/way/703803247) to help with deliveries. The driveway in the first example likely wasn't mapped yet as drivers may not have delivered to that house.
indrora (2022-03-14 08:51:18+00:00): Re: routers and route failure: the opposite here is happening as well: on occasion, I've seen routers use private drives that are mapped regardless of their private status, leading to situations where 145 NE 75th Ave gets routed down Kalahari, for example. 

These are bugs in the router but situations not easily distinguishable. I don't have a good answer except to use a point marker for an address. 

Either way, this edit was likely made due to gravel tailings of a historic roadway that was planned but never came to fruition or during construction of another house.
indrora (2022-03-14 08:51:55+00:00): s/this edit/the original change/
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-30 18:56:14+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572217775/history has shop = plumbing that was added in this edit
shop=plumbing ? Is it seling plumbing supplies? Or is it place where plumber may be contracted? Or is it company office that cannot be visited by general public?
h551w (2025-12-01 01:36:45+00:00): I seem to recall that I was slightly unsure about the tagging on that one. From what I can tell it's a warehouse where pipes (etc.) can be purchased, but it seems their customers are likely other businesses, rather than individuals
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-07 05:46:41+00:00): shop=trade trade=plumbing_supplies ?
h551w (2025-12-09 01:16:42+00:00): Thanks! I didn't know about shop=trade. It looks like trade=plumbing_supplies doesn't have any uses yet, do you think it would be better to be the first to use that slightly more accurate tag, or if it should use the more general but already commonly used trade=building_supplies?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-09 09:22:48+00:00): given that it is subtag, I think it is quite harmless to start a new value (far less tricky than for shop= or say landuse= or highway)
h551w (2025-12-10 08:39:22+00:00): Thanks for the help! I ended up going with shop=trade and trade=plumbing, since looking at the usage it seems that's commonly used for similar wholesale plumbing stores https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175747460
el_tommo (2022-03-13 06:42:08+00:00): Moin Ortsgemeinde Bannberscheid,

platziere das Gasthaus zur Krone, das du mitten auf die Bahnhofstraße geschoben hast, bitte an die richtige Stelle.
user_14117678 (2022-03-14 21:11:16+00:00): Na jakiej podstawie zostały wykonane te zmiany?
Małgorzata W (2022-03-14 23:32:27+00:00): rspo
Dimitar155 (2022-03-12 07:58:59+00:00): Защо в тази промяна пак си изтрил вътрешни части на горските площи, които реално не са гора?
Jmapper007 (2022-03-14 19:58:28+00:00): Hi, So I noticed that the buildings you have deleted in this changeset exist, the reason you probably deleted them is that it is not on satellite imagery. Next time before you delete a building have a look at the Mapillary Street Level Imagery and see if it's there.

Happy mapping, Jmapper007
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-08-23 16:04:08+00:00): Also, when you remove buildings: please consider mentioning why you remove them (based on aerial imagery? survey? is there anything suspicious about them?)
Filip009 (2022-03-13 09:05:48+00:00): Vďaka :)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-11-07 16:03:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 128599619 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint to the DWG, reverting some changes made by osmose.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128063226 .
mueschel (2022-03-27 12:55:40+00:00): Hi,
you added several streams with a "StreamOrder=1" tag. This doesn't look like it should be in OSM. Could you check that?
OrcaDan (2022-04-03 00:17:43+00:00): Hi,

Sorry, I use the StreamOrder tag in my edit process but am supposed to remove them before uploading to OSM. Thanks for catching that, I think I have removed all of them now. Let me know if you find any more.
Nakaner (2022-03-12 08:24:56+00:00): Hallo,

dieser Änderungssatz scheint Bestandteil eines mechanischen Edits zu sein. Ich bitte dich diesen zu unterlassen.

1. Für mechanische Edits gilt der Automated Edits Code of Conduct. Gegen dessen Regeln hast du verstoßen.

2. Die Änderungen sind umstritten. Bitte beteilige dich an der Diskussion im deutschen Forum. https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=75105

Viele Grüße

Michael
ivanbranco (2022-03-12 21:19:51+00:00): Hi kof2001ignis,

you added an invalid place=* value here, could you check it out please? 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5941926540/history
DaveF (2022-03-13 15:24:22+00:00): Hi
You've duplicated objects on top each other. Could you take a look & rectify please.
Steube (2023-12-05 12:24:41+00:00): Ich verstehe nicht, warum hier der Name Falkenburg eingetragen wurde. Das kann gern als loc_name eingetragen werden, ist aber im Zusammenhang mit dem Bestattungsunternehmen als name= nicht richtig. 

Das Bestattungsunternehmen heißt definitiv "Abschied & Bestattung", siehe hier: http://www.abschiedundbestattung.de/. Operator ist demnach Gabriele Steinborn. 

Ich bitte um Korrektur.
Steube (2023-12-08 14:18:15+00:00): Changeset reverted.
zluuzki (2022-04-01 10:34:59+00:00): If you don't understand railway=abandoned, don't delete it. Reverted.
voschix (2023-08-28 13:28:16+00:00): Removed node 9572349875. This crossing node connected the motorway (!) in a tunnel at layer=-1 with a foot-cycleway at layer 0. Please be careful and pay attention to editor warnings when inserting data.
iey6Om7C (2022-03-12 09:11:27+00:00): Конный клуб уже отмечен, удалил дубль с неверным тегом.
Kovoschiz (2022-03-18 16:22:43+00:00): Please don't spam `place=suburb`.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:02:01+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.
iey6Om7C (2022-03-12 09:29:29+00:00): Исследователи утверждают, что валун не имеет отношения к Гром-камню: https://spbvedomosti.ru/news/gorod/otkuda_rodom_grom_kamen/.
Исправил положение, теги и название.
nevw (2022-03-12 11:58:28+00:00): I expect the building is not named BHO
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-23 22:06:45+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 22:07:39+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 22:04:02+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 21:58:47+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.
Grzegorz_Kujawa (2022-05-30 21:15:07+00:00): Cześć,
przedszkole było już wcześniej zmapowane i znajduje się w części dobudówki do DS Grand (wraz z placem zabaw).
syntex (2022-05-30 22:26:15+00:00): Ok, po prostu go nie było widać na mapie :/