piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
julcnx (2022-04-13 13:41:15+00:00): hey, I appreciate your work fixing routing issues but you are not helping if the previous mapper disconnected both road segments because maybe there is a wall in between, and you come and put them back together remotely  without any local knowledge. I have suggested the user use noexit=yes because most mappers do not know about this. It would help to double-check the history first. Or do you have any other suggestions to avoid running into this issue again ? thanks, Julien
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119627416
ratrun (2022-04-13 15:53:46+00:00): Yes, in case that nodes comes close to a way it is the correct way to enter noexit=yes at the node if someone knows the situation. From remote it is sometimes hard to detect if there is a barrier in between or not, so sometimes I cannot avoid errors by detecting from the image. Sorry for this.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
Hasib Chaldal (2022-04-13 01:06:25+00:00): A tui ato beyadob kno vaya
itineris (2022-04-15 15:48:06+00:00): Szia!

Ez a csomagod nem sikerült túl jól. Egyrészt kb. Hódmezővásárhely-Kaposvár-Győr a kiterjedése, ami a bőbeszédű "Szolnok 220406" megjegyzéshez képest meglehetősen nagy.

A nagyobbik gond, hogy Budapesten, a köztársasági elnöki rezidencia területének szerkesztése során elrontottad az észak-budai lakott terület multipolygont.

Javítottam.

Ákos
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
demon_box (2022-04-27 17:34:41+00:00): ok!! ;-)))
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-11-16 11:22:06+00:00): note: you added some image tags linking to image from StreetComplete notes (for example in this changeset)

Sadly this images are not permanent and are scheduled to be deleted shortly after note is closed, and were never intended for long-term archiving.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/StreetComplete/FAQ#Are_the_pictures_taken_with_StreetComplete_permanent%3F for details.

You can use http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1nOD to find remaining links in image tag, including what you added to OSM objects.

If you want to do something with them some may be still retrievable.

All such links are scheduled for removal (broken ones were already removed)
Jakka (2022-11-16 11:38:07+00:00): OK thx
5m4u9 (2022-04-13 03:38:18+00:00): Hola GAMC! Se olvidaron de seleccionar la categoría de oficinas.
tastrax (2022-04-27 04:13:58+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
demon_box (2022-04-27 17:33:26+00:00): Ennio, ma si kiama "Büs dei Baurs" oppure "Bùs dei Bauss"??
4004 (2022-04-18 01:22:04+00:00): а остальные без изменений? там пересекаются номера квартир в 1 и 2
Larmax (2022-04-13 08:09:33+00:00): Hei, palautin tekemäsi muutokset, koska muokkauksi tarkoituksena oli selkeästi vain sotkea ja tuhlata muiden aikaa. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119654493
eggie (2022-04-12 17:23:37+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
Rhodez (2022-04-12 16:02:12+00:00): Please do not remove private driveways/roads, just remove the name and set it as private.
Allison P (2022-04-12 22:56:26+00:00): Looks more like a track anyway.
demon_box (2022-04-27 17:31:03+00:00): aggiunto loc_name
eggie (2022-04-12 17:34:54+00:00): Het is zoals het is...   :)
eggie (2022-04-12 17:30:13+00:00): Nu is het even een dingetje hoe die twee wandelroutes lopen
Pelgrimspad 1 - 02 en wandelknooppuntroute 74-73

foot=permissive heb ik verwijderd van het privegedeelte..

Gr eggie

Staan er nog iets van richtingbordjes?

eggie
FrankkieNL (2022-04-12 18:02:26+00:00): Nee, heb geen richtingsbordjes zien staan.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-04-15 09:25:29+00:00): Please provide source for such edits
4004 (2022-04-18 01:24:33+00:00): опять по два 3 подьезда в доме. вы вообще откуда эти данные берете?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:11:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
user_5359 (2022-04-12 18:24:04+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please be careful when editing the map data. You moved the node https://www.osm.org/node/5227317480 over 100 meters, so there were problems with the corresponding way. I have moved the point back to its original position.
Kovoschiz (2022-04-13 07:46:24+00:00): Please don't delete other features that still exist. If the name is wrong, remove it.
Kovoschiz (2022-04-13 10:34:09+00:00): I have difficulty believing the shorter one is named. There is also the possibility of different ones sharing the same name.
Kovoschiz (2022-04-13 07:47:27+00:00): No idea why you would move the `power=line` here either.
Kovoschiz (2022-04-13 10:26:28+00:00): 2. Connecting to a fence doesn't make sense either.
Kovoschiz (2022-04-13 10:22:19+00:00): Please draw a new line. It obviously can't go over a hilltop and connect another one.
user_5359 (2022-04-12 18:21:10+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Don't add any private information from residential or owner to a residential building!

 Please don't mark the whole property as building. Only mark the building as building.
ovruni (2022-04-13 00:55:21+00:00): Hola rosebqbe, te escribo nuevamente debido a que los textos en tus conjuntos de cambios no brindan suficiente información sobre los cambios ingresados, solamente se menciona #osmpe-unmsm-comaru . Por favor revise la documentación sobre buenos comentarios en conjuntos de cambios. [0]
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Good_changeset_comments
LucGommans (2022-06-17 00:08:46+00:00): Hi! I see you named this forest "forest". However, the 'name' field is meant for names. Setting the name of this forest to "forest" is a bit like calling a person like me 'human' instead of 'Luc' :D
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
Poreb123 (2022-04-12 17:22:48+00:00): Proszę o uszanowanie własności prywatnej rolników
syntex (2022-04-13 11:26:10+00:00): W porządku, ja np. nie wiedziałem, że jest nielegalna
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
gscholz (2022-04-16 06:46:54+00:00): Hi Qualhano,
your recent changesets have created several errors in the OSM database regarding not connected ways (red dots):

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-43.23434&lat=-16.69631&zoom=8&overlays=duplicated_edges,duplicated_edges,duplicated_edges_areas,islands,islands_car,islands_bicycle,islands_all,unconnected_open_ends_1

As you may know, not connected way cannot be used by routing software.
Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
MxxCon (2022-04-13 06:49:31+00:00): Hello.
You tagged one set of sidewalks with "layer=-1". Layer "0" is considered to be at the ground level. Does it mean these sidewalks are underground? 🤨
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119630956
Mex (2022-04-13 08:06:41+00:00): Thanks for you addition, just to let you know I have swapped your node with an area but there was nothing wrong with the way you mapped.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119631097
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
balint36 (2022-06-28 12:43:58+00:00): Szia!
Habár azt írtad, hogy ezzel a változtatással Nagymaros állomáson módosítottál, mégis elvégeztél olyan változtatásokat is más vasútállomásokon, amik nem voltak éppen helyesek/megfelelőek. Az ilyen téves címkézésekbe folyamatosan bukkanok bele.
Például a KöKi metróállomáson az épületet (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/325416405) te "M3 METRO végállomás"-nak nevezted el. Ez így teljesen magyartalan, mert a metró nem mozaikszó, így semmi nem indokolja a csupa nagybetűt, a szó végi o pedig hosszú ó.
Vagy pedig számos állomáson névként (name címke) adtad meg a vágány számát. Vágányok esetén (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109379850) nem a name címke, hanem a railway:track_ref tartalmazza a vágány számát. A vágányzáró bakoknak (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/272864935) is adtál ilyen elnevezést, de ezeket nem nevezzük el. Továbbá random pontokat (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2897328978) és átjárókat (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3141596678) is elneveztél, pedig semmi sem indokolja, hogy ezeket így el kéne nevezni.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:24:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
gscholz (2022-04-16 06:46:50+00:00): Hi Qualhano,
your recent changesets have created several errors in the OSM database regarding not connected ways (red dots):

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-43.23434&lat=-16.69631&zoom=8&overlays=duplicated_edges,duplicated_edges,duplicated_edges_areas,islands,islands_car,islands_bicycle,islands_all,unconnected_open_ends_1

As you may know, not connected way cannot be used by routing software.
Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
Dimitar155 (2022-04-12 18:34:33+00:00): Здравейте и добре дошли в OpenStreetMap,

Благодаря ви за добавянето на тези сгради, но не забравяйте да натиснете Q, за да направите ъглите им прави. Ако имате някакви въпроси, не се колебайте да ги зададете.

Поздрави,
Митко
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
legofahrrad (2022-04-15 16:52:00+00:00): Hallo,
surface=compacted und tracktype=grade5 schließt sich wohl aus. Ist der Weg aus einer verdichteten Oberfläche oder ganz weich, z. B. aus Gras und Erdboden?
Olli72 (2022-04-17 19:03:09+00:00): Hallo und danke für den Review; es ist eine verdichtete Fahrspur mit mittigem Grasbewuchs
4004 (2022-04-18 01:45:11+00:00): ref=2
frasty (2022-04-12 20:12:56+00:00): complimenti, questa è una finezza
NicolaMW (2022-04-13 08:59:57+00:00): grazie maestro!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
eggie (2022-04-12 17:56:22+00:00): Dag invalidCard

'k Vraag me af of je wijziging juist is.
Zie https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107247217

 borishag  is beroepsmatig bezig met het onderhouden van winkels uit hun keten.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-04-12 17:58:37+00:00): Je wijziging zal overigens wel kloppen, want dat ging over de Prijsmepper.
Groet,
eggie
invalidCards (2022-04-12 18:01:42+00:00): In deze staat sowieso hetzelfde als comment https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113080525 :P

-iC
eggie (2022-04-12 18:07:19+00:00): Up to the local mapper 
😀
Ivush (2022-04-12 17:42:17+00:00): Изменил названия улиц на верные. неправильно названа часть солнечной и дома на ней.  То же по сосновой. Тоже по Мира.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
limes11 (2022-05-22 17:33:12+00:00): Hi, 

kannst Du mal hier schauen? 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3190292

Stimmt das oneway=yes?

Danke, Limes
skyper (2022-08-03 23:51:00+00:00): Hey,
soviel ich weiß, ist das eine reine Fahrradstraße.
Die Breite wird mit `width=*` eingetragen. `oneway=yes` ist ein access Tag und sollte nur bei vorhandener Beschilderung verwendet werden. Ist dies wirklich vorhanden?
Fragende Grüße,
skyper
redweizn (2022-08-04 16:15:56+00:00): Hallo Skype, ich habe das vor Monaten so gesehen, aber jetzt keine Gewähr. Bin grad im Urlaub, deshalb schau ich nicht jeden Tag ins Internet.
Viele Grüße Daniel
skyper (2022-08-08 09:13:04+00:00): Hallo Daniel,
dann wünsche ich Dir eine ehrholsame Zeit.
Schade, dass Du jetzt erst auf die Kommentare (erster vor drei Monaten) reagierst.

Solange die Hagelstauden eine reine Fahrradstraße (`(motor_)vehicle=no`) ist macht `oneway=yes` keinen Sinn. Entweder fehlen da noch Zugangsberechtigungen oder es ist keine Einbahnstraße.
Kannst Du das nach Deinem Urlaub bitte nochmal vor Ort und/oder Deinen Aufzeichnungen überprüfen.
Danke und Grüße,
skyper
redweizn (2022-08-08 11:15:26+00:00): Hallo Skyper.schau ich dann nach. Viele Grüße aus dem Norden
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
Lokai (2022-04-18 13:21:07+00:00): Hallo Interteutones,

bei der Beschreibung stimmt was nicht. Für aufgelassene Schützengräben benutze bitte die prefixe korrekt. Die Anwendung der prefixe sollte dir bekannt sein, das wurde dir hinlänglich erklärt. Sonst lese bitte im wiki nochmals nach.

Bei mehreren CS wurdest du auf deine Art des kartierens angesprochen. Welchen Grund hast du deine Arbeit nicht zu überdenken?

Gruß

L.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
MxxCon (2022-04-13 06:52:58+00:00): Hello.
What is significance of this house?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119632941
TheFactFinder (2022-04-13 06:57:17+00:00): Hi MxxCon,
This is Jazz Musician Dizzy Gillespie’s house from 1921-1922, a tourist attraction in Queens.
https://6tocelebrate.org/site/john-birks-dizzy-gillespie-home-louis-armstrong-house/

Kind Regards,
TheFactFinder
MxxCon (2022-04-13 07:08:34+00:00): Would be nice to add more informational tags rather than just broad tourism=attraction..
TheFactFinder (2022-04-13 07:10:32+00:00): Ok I’ll swap it to a property tag then :)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-20 21:07:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 121260282 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some implausible mapping.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5998 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6004 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:24:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
MxxCon (2022-04-13 06:58:32+00:00): Hello.
If you are mapping sidewalks and crosswalks as separate ways, it is important that each is correctly tagged. In this edit I see that many crosswalks you mapped as sidewalks.
Additionally, almost every road along which you mapped sidewalks has "sidewalk=left/right/both" tags. If you are mapping sidewalks as separate paths it is important to update relevant road's tag to "sidewalk=separate" as documented in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119633395
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-04-23 22:16:18+00:00): Mais cuidado em suas edições, estava olhando o mapa e vi que você removeu a via e a ponte sobre o Rio Ubá, Rua Elias Antônio Laud, tive que recoloca-lo e desfazer sua edição desastrosa que apagou a rua do mapa
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.