piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mueschel (2016-12-08 11:38:47+00:00): Hi,
there are two ways with some wrong tagging:
oneway:bicycle =no
oneway:bicycle_1 =yes

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37681882
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/458180212

Jan
nevw (2016-12-07 14:47:25+00:00): Is "Acc happened" the brand name of the fuel outlet or are you reporting an 'accident happened' here or something different?
nevw (2016-12-11 07:02:41+00:00): No response - Acc happened. deleted
Caltex service station added instead.
woodpeck (2020-07-01 11:42:39+00:00): Hi, the DWG has received a complaint saying that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/458181471 was on private ground, and tons of park visitors were parking there in Brookview Rd to access the park which annoys residents. Do you have information to the contrary, or is it possible/likely that they are right? -- Cheers, Frederik (DWG Ticket #2020062910000174)
ElliottPlack (2020-07-01 11:53:53+00:00): Hi! That is a ridiculous allegation but not surprising due to a cultural issue people have around here with public parking on public rights of way. The public road Brookview Road is on a parcel owned by the local government here, Baltimore County. That parcel directly abuts there Park property with a 40 ft wide shared boundary. The public has access across this line by definition (of it being all public land). Now, if the people want to petition the county to restrict parking or put up a wall, they could. Perhaps they even have, since this changeset. I checked it out back in 2013 or so and didn’t see any signs to the contrary. I’d add a note to the map here asking a local mapper to go check it out.
woodpeck (2020-07-01 12:50:58+00:00): Can we perhaps reach out to the county GIS department or so to have this cleared up? Property owner is adamant that any way from the street into the park would cross their private land - should be a question that can easily be settled by asking the right people. Can you help me to identify who "the right people" would be in this case?
ElliottPlack (2020-07-01 13:19:36+00:00): Sure, I am happy to help! I used to work for said GIS department so I know a few people. I'm actually taking a closer look at this on JOSM using the local parcel data and lidar overlays. When justified, I'm sensitive to private property rights too. On closer inspection I can see how someone would probably intrude upon the owner's private property (assuming it is the owner of address 1225) when using this path. The note above about a public right of way connection is true, however, people appear to be going around an embankment at the end of Brookview Rd and onto the land of 1225. I will make an adjustment in JOSM and mark the trail as access=private since in its current state it would be considered trespassing. The homeowner cannot prevent people from 'going straight' on Brookview, over the embankment, but he can prevent them from going around it. While I'm finding the right people, have a look at this link on the Baltimore County My Neighborhood GIS App. I placed a marker at the location. If you turn on the OSM basemap you can see how the connecting trail does dip down (south) into the property of 1225. https://bcgis.baltimorecountymd.gov/myneighborhood/?marker=-8522186.683%2C4781463.6462%2C102100%2CRight%20of%20Way%20of%20Brookview%20Road%2C%2C&level=19
ElliottPlack (2020-07-02 04:01:03+00:00): Update: I decided not to edit the map here just yet before we finish the discussion here. I did talk to the local GIS office but they point out that parcel data is only a representation and that a surveyor needs to be called in to very the exact positions of boundaries. Since OSM doesn't claim to be "survey grade" in that regard, we can only assume that the way the paths line up here reflect property rights.

Now, as a citizen, I did a little looking at this site and I can see where it appears the trail crosses private property. (I also see where the property owner has installed a basketball court onto the public right of way, effectively commandeering public property.) I think the best option here is to mark this little connector trail as private, but also to suggest to the homeowner to put up no-trespassing signs or a fence because I have a feeling that whether or not the path appears on the map, people know about this connection and will keep using it. And, had there been a sign saying "no trespassing" or private property, I as a responsible mapper would have marked it private from the start.
ElliottPlack (2020-07-02 04:02:09+00:00): Typo: ..." a surveyor needs to be called in to verify the exact position of boundaries"...
ElliottPlack (2020-07-02 12:38:05+00:00): Alright, this is resolved. I've updated the geometry of the connector to show how it goes on private property and marked it as private. Also added some details to the map around the area. Check it out: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/458181471#map=18/39.41570/-76.55559
nevw (2016-12-07 06:41:57+00:00): Thanks for fixing the platforms up. I always had an uneasy feeling about editing this station and couldn't put my finger on what is was. Seems so obvious now .... only one platform.   :)

A few change-set comments would be appreciated too.
mueschel (2016-12-08 11:59:09+00:00): Hi,
in this changeset you created many relations withhout any meaningful tags, only foreign ones.
Could you check & correct this?

Jan
naoliv (2016-12-08 15:16:07+00:00): @mueschel it seems to be an undiscussed import

realkaka, você está importando os dados aqui? Existe autorização para uso dessas informações?

Por favor, discuta esse processo antes com a comunidade, através da lista, forum ou outro canal. É necessário que tais procedimentos sejam documentos e analizados antes, para evitar problemas.

Muita coisa que você está inserindo está com as informações erradas.
realkaka (2016-12-08 19:06:16+00:00): @naoliv oi, estou usando a Planta de Referencia Cadastral Digital da Cidade de Cuiabá, versão 5, da Prefeitura Municipal de Cuiabá, está disponível na web e não há restrições, só há se tiver uso comercial, o que acredito não ser o uso aqui no OpenStreetMap. No mais, tem algum tópico no fórum para estar discutindo especificamente isso?
Vou estar revisando as informações erradas, seria legal aponta-las.
realkaka (2016-12-08 19:08:21+00:00): @mueschel I'll check and correct the wrong information during the week
naoliv (2017-07-25 02:58:59+00:00): realkaka, voltando nesse assunto.
Você disse que "só há se tiver uso comercial". Precisa ter cuidado com estes tipos de restrição.
Por exemplo, os dados são inseridos no OSM e depois utilizados para fins comerciais, a partir do OSM. Precisa ver se este tipo de derivação não vai contra os termos de uso dos dados da prefeitura.
Você tem a URL ou algum documento onde consta esses termos de uso?
PT-53 (2017-01-18 09:16:32+00:00): Hallo deprado63,
Du hast diese beiden Fußwege eingezeichnet ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/458184249#map=19/48.01662/9.48883&layers=D / https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/458183989 ) die nicht mit anderen Straßen/Wege verbunden sind. keep right zeigt jetzt deshalb diese Fehlermeldung an: http://keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=95&error=81134706 und http://keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=95&error=81134846
highways sollten immer mit anderen highways verbunden werden (sofern möglich). Ansonsten wird das von Qualitätssicherungs-Tools wie keep right und OSM-Inspector als Fehler gewertet.
Bitte verbinde die Fußwege auf beiden Seiten noch mit den P-Zufahrten (higway=service/service=parking_aisle).
Grüße
deprado63 (2017-01-18 15:54:35+00:00): Hallo Peter 

Das sind zwei Durchgänge von einer Parkbucht in die andere. Sollte ich die mit der Parkplatz Straße verbinden ist das auch falsch. Ich bitte um Vorschläge zur Verbesserung.
PT-53 (2017-01-18 17:02:21+00:00): Bitte mit den Straßen verbinden oder löschen.
Grüße
trigpoint (2016-12-08 12:59:22+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
The access tags you have added here seem a little odd. I would expect motor vehicle to be private, only the farmer can use it to access their field. Permissive means there is general permission to access it, but not a right and can be withdrawn.
It is a public footpath, so bikes and horses are a definite no, or at best private with the permission of the landowner.
Impassable seems unlikely too, you are saying a tractor cannot use it?
dvdhoven (2016-12-07 06:08:07+00:00): Alleen voor fietsers tag je niet met access=no en bycicle=designated en foot=no hoort er ook niet. Voetgangers hebben default het recht op fietspaden te lopen. Je geeft met seggregated=yes of no aan of er een voetpad naast het fietspad loopt en bij yes met sidewalk=right, left of both aan waar het voetpad loopt.
bycicle=designated zit al opgesloten in highway=cycleway
Ik heb de tagging hersteld naar het normale in OSM gangbare taggingschema en ook de fietsknooppuntroute hersteld
dvdhoven (2016-12-07 06:13:43+00:00): En verder is Bing verouderd en verschoven, dus die moet niet meer gebruikt worden.
Id is een slechte editor daarmee vermoord je routerelaties
JOSM is de enige goede editor voor OSM momenteel
dvdhoven (2016-12-07 06:20:45+00:00): Goed startpunt:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Kaarteigenschappen
en deze:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#The_Netherlands
SomeoneElse (2016-12-26 14:13:42+00:00): Hello,

You appear to be using Google Maps as a source on this changeset. We are not allowed to copy from Google Maps (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#What_images_and_maps_may_I_use_to_make_maps_from.3F for details) so please don't do this. 

We (OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group) will need to remove data that's been added from Google. This may take some time, but please do be aware that features that you have added from Google will disappear.

If you have any questions please email the Data Working Group on data@osmfoundation.org .

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend
(Automatische Übersetzung)

Hallo,

Sie scheinen, Google Maps als Quelle für diese Änderung zu verwenden. Wir sind nicht berechtigt, von Google Maps zu kopieren (siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#What_images_and_maps_may_I_use_to_maps_from.3F für Details), also bitte tun Sie dies nicht.

Wir (OpenStreetMap Data Working Group) müssen Daten entfernen, die von Google hinzugefügt wurden. Dies kann einige Zeit dauern, aber bitte beachten Sie, dass Funktionen, die Sie von Google hinzugefügt haben, verschwinden.

Wenn Sie irgendwelche Fragen haben, mailen Sie bitte die Daten-Arbeitsgruppe auf data@osmfoundation.org.

Freundliche Grüße,

Andy Townsend
SomeoneElse_Revert (2017-01-18 17:52:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45276509 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some Google Maps tracing usage
dvdhoven (2016-12-07 06:24:03+00:00): Je moet geen foot=no taggen op wegen met stoepen er langs. Dan moet je de stoepen expliciet intekenen. Anders hebben voetgangers gewoon toegang tot de weg.
Door foot=no verstoor je de routing voor voetgangers
foot=no heb ik verwijderd
dvdhoven (2016-12-07 06:36:04+00:00): width wordt op zijn engels weergegeven, dus met een punt ipv een komma
Math1985 (2016-12-08 20:22:58+00:00): Hartelijk dank!
mueschel (2017-01-12 10:07:27+00:00): Hi,
could you check the tagging? This tag looks weird:
31/5=Аламедин-1 микрорайон
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/391685946

Cheers, Jan
Beddhist (2018-09-29 05:07:38+00:00): If you don't mind, I'd like to give you some feedback on some of the mapping you have done around https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/458203539: The canal looks great.

Where you drew bridges, however, there is actually an earth dam, most likely with a culvert underneath. I have split the big canal here and in the other place a little further NW and removed the bridges.

In between the two you can see a bridge crossing the smaller drain running parallel to the roads. You haven't mapped that.

The pieces of road are unpaved and I have tagged them as such.

Thanks,
Peter.
mk13 (2018-11-06 13:53:34+00:00): Thanks, Peter. I will take your remarks into account.
user_5359 (2016-12-07 06:19:24+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
Warin61 (2018-08-17 04:50:33+00:00): Routes Mt Ollivier and Muller Hut are the same. 
Suggest deletion of Mt Ollivier. Possible alt_name addition to Muller Hut.
juhanjuku (2018-08-18 10:20:14+00:00): I'm agree
user_5359 (2016-12-08 21:06:51+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
user_5359 (2016-12-08 21:07:13+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
mavl (2019-01-13 17:16:40+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-13 17:16:47+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-13 17:16:54+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
user_5359 (2016-12-08 21:07:46+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
mavl (2019-01-13 17:16:59+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-13 17:17:04+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-13 17:17:09+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
user_5359 (2016-12-08 21:13:17+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
user_5359 (2016-12-08 21:18:36+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
mavl (2019-01-13 17:17:15+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
Supaplex (2016-12-07 16:05:37+00:00): Thanks for adding Taiwan admin boundary Wikidata ID and Wikipedia tag.
KKS (2016-12-10 17:08:10+00:00): доброго дня, з'єднуйте тротуари один з одним. "Острови" тротуарів то не правильно
Podoljak2015 (2016-12-13 07:41:57+00:00): Проблема в тому, що у нас не повсюдно присутні пішохідні переходи та й ті, які є, я не пам'ятав точно.
KKS (2016-12-13 17:35:24+00:00): Пішохідні переходи присутні кругом де є тротуар. Інша річ вони можуть бути непозначеними crossing=unmarked
Але їх треба позначати, тим самим злінковувати їх з іншою дорожньою мережею. Інакше ніякий роутінг по ним не пройде.
user_5359 (2017-01-04 17:45:59+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
user_5359 (2017-01-04 17:46:07+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
user_5359 (2017-01-04 17:46:13+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
user_5359 (2017-01-04 17:46:36+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
user_5359 (2017-01-04 17:46:45+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
user_5359 (2017-01-04 17:46:52+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
Commodoortje (2016-12-07 19:47:21+00:00): Allereerst welkom op OSM.
.
Lees hier hoe je OSM het beste kunt gebruiken en hoe je kunt bijdragen aan een betere kaart: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/help 
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Welkom_op_OSM

Mocht je vragen hebben, kun je altijd contact met me opnemen, ik ben bereid om je te helpen.
Commodoortje (2016-12-07 19:47:34+00:00): Ik heb een paar wijzigingen aangebracht
Gumeg (2017-11-16 07:50:15+00:00): Может тогда и name=Молочная кухня снести? Выглядит именно это словосочетание как парковка для parking.
literan (2017-11-16 15:42:30+00:00): ну, в любом случае, наверное не снести, а в description перенести... Не знаю, может в official_name? люди поиском будут искать... Предлагаю обсудить в чате :-)
mavl (2019-01-13 17:17:19+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-13 17:17:23+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
Tomas Straupis (2016-12-07 18:55:14+00:00): This change will be reverted because it is made with no local knowledge, based on incorrect microsoft/bing data and very inaccurate mapbox "calculations" etc.
BCNorwich (2016-12-07 19:24:22+00:00): Hi, thanks for the correction and thanks for not just reverting but making better adjustments.
highflyer74 (2016-12-08 07:54:21+00:00): Hallo!

Sei so nett und benutze immer aussagekräftige Kommentare zu Deinen Changesets. "Detailergänzung" sagt nicht viel aus und erschwert Leuten, die Qualitätssicherung betreiben, die Arbeit (siehe auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments).

Noch ein kleiner Tipp: eine barrier=* (wie die Schranke) muss immer mit dem Weg verbunden sein, sonst nützt sie nichts. Ich habe sie schon da platziert.

Danke!
user_5359 (2017-01-04 17:46:58+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
ToeBee (2016-12-09 16:24:13+00:00): I commented on another changeset a couple of days ago and haven't heard a response. This is another one that I'm curious as to your source of data for this Neurosurgery operation. Please explain your edits better in the changeset comments. Thanks!
Юкатан (2016-12-09 17:18:12+00:00): Слушай, чего пристал? Гугл Мапс знаешь такой сервис? Там лишнего, наверное, ничего не нанесут на карту. А если что не так, вытащи палец из задницы и сам всё поправь. Чего молчишь? А, не понимаешь по-русски? Так есть другой гугл-сервис: Гугл-Переводчик. Хев э найс дей!
ToeBee (2016-12-09 19:56:59+00:00): Your message is not entirely clear but I think you are saying that you have copied information from Google Maps into OpenStreetMap. If this is true, please stop immediately and read this wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%90%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0

Any edits you made using data from copyrighted sources will need to be removed from OpenStreetMap. I am going to contact the Data Working Group and let them handle this. (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group )
mavl (2016-12-11 08:22:23+00:00): Здравствуйте, Юкатан. Спасибо за ваш ответ. Вам задали простой вопрос об источнике данных, но вы зачем-то решили испортить участнику настроение. Портить настроение никому не нужно. Также не нужно копировать в OpenStreetMap данные из защищённых авторским правом источников.  
  
«Напоминаем участникам сообщества OSM, что добавление данных из любых защищённых авторским правом источников (например, с Google Maps или печатных карт) не должно проводиться без явного предварительного согласия правообладателей.» [http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright]  
  
Я удалил клинику, которую вы добавили. Не добавляйте больше данные из других карт. Они также будут удалены.
DaxServer (2016-12-07 09:59:39+00:00): Actually, this node can be converted to "Guntur" Mandal as it is tagged with place:county.

Another node can be created for Guntur district R:2022220

Guntur Mandal - http://www.guntur.ap.gov.in/images/guntur-tehsil-map.jpg
mueschel (2016-12-10 17:31:57+00:00): Hi,
you put a strange tag on this node, could you check it?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4542863215

Jan
EliziR (2016-12-10 17:45:25+00:00): Hi,

Fixed ;)

Thanks @mueschel
user_5359 (2017-01-04 17:47:04+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
user_5359 (2017-01-04 17:47:10+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359