piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Der Bierpuncheur (2023-05-28 08:11:37+00:00): Hi, at 4 Arms, there is a cycleway drawn adjacent to N227 on the west side of the street that extends from Brusselsteenweg as it intersects N227. It is feature #1053473710. I think it should be removed. Cycles can proceed from Brusselsteenweg, staying in the bus lane for about 40m, until Tervurenlaan, where they can then join the adjacent cyclepath. Also, joining the currenlty drawn cyclepath I referenced is quite tricky due to the kerb. What are your thoughts?
bxl-forever (2023-05-28 16:42:35+00:00): Hello,

The cycleway you are talking about was not created by me (you may have seen my username on it but it’s because I split a longer way to solve an unrelated problem, and upon doing so the database generates new ways and starts numbering at version 1 even though they had been on the map before.)

So, if I understand correctly, what you are saying is that we should remove way 1053473710 entirely and remove bicycle-related tags on way 531210486 to make it only for pedestrians.  If that matches the local situation better, yes it’s definitely a good idea.  Routing will work fine along normal roads.  I can do the changes if you want.

While you are at it, there seems to be an issue with cycle routing.  Starting from the point we are talking about, how can a cyclist reach this point?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2063613677
Der Bierpuncheur (2023-05-28 16:58:15+00:00): Yes, based on my experience navigating that intersection, and knowledge of the roads and signs, your proposed fix will represent the actual infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians as it exists. I’ve gone ahead and made the changes. As for that node you’ve linked, the intersection is quite complicated for cyclists, but the path (now designated cycle & foot path) on the east side of N227 will permit a cyclist to from Brusselsteenweg and join the cycle path on the not the side of N3. Please advise if there is a routing issue I have missed. Thanks!
bxl-forever (2023-05-28 22:36:17+00:00): OK, it looks fine, well done.
alesarrett (2022-04-21 10:52:40+00:00): La source è un'immagine scgranata senza un contesto: da dove deriva e cosa descrive?
Vedi anche commento su https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119921502
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-20 21:07:08+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 (2022-05-06 01:32:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:17:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:27:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
b-jazz (2022-07-05 02:55:55+00:00): Something got very damaged with this way and I have no idea how to fix it. I'm not pointing fingers at The Moth, but maybe they know what is up. Take a look at the very long straight lines in the definition of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/387946454 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/387946352 
Is there a chance you could go back and see what got messed up and replace it back to the way it was? Thanks.
themappingmoth (2022-07-05 21:10:15+00:00): Hi b-jazz. I don't know what a "way" is.. but this is my best guess as to what happened: I had noticed that there were huge swaths of land identified as "natural wood", for example, that contained large areas of grassland. I wanted to break it up into smaller, more accurate areas. After verifying on an OpenStreetMap forum, the only way to delete a large area is to delete the nodes until it is small enough to delete the whole thing. (Unless you use a different program to edit OpenStreetMap - but I don't know how to do that.) So I would delete nodes. The problem is that people would often have neighboring areas share nodes. So if I want to delete a node of natural wood, it may also disrupt the border of neighboring "residential area", or whatever was next to it. However, this seems to be a "way" and not the edge of an area. I have sometimes noticed that some natural areas seem to have borders that aren't the direct result of making an "area." It's almost as if someone drew a line to mark the border, and then filled it in with the appropriate feature. I think this must be done using a program that is not the default OSM editor. I would not know how to undo it, and if I did, I think it would mess up the more accurate natural areas I created. If the way is not connected to anything else, maybe it could just be deleted?
themappingmoth (2022-07-05 21:12:16+00:00): Or could just the straight part be deleted?
b-jazz (2022-07-06 15:34:08+00:00): I guess the blunt answer is, if you don't know how to make changes that don't affect other existing features (deleting shared nodes), you should probably not do it until you have the tools and understanding how to make the changes safely. I wouldn't be able to just delete the straight parts since that would delete the entire way (a line segment that is potentially part of a set of lines that define a feature/area). I think the best thing to do would be for me (or someone else) to delete all of your additions and restore the original wood back to its original state. This can be difficult and potentially even possible though, which would result in the entire features (yours and theirs) being wiped off of the map and starting from scratch.
themappingmoth (2022-07-06 21:02:18+00:00): I don't understand why you would delete the features I added. If you need to do a lot of work to repair it, why can't you just fix it? I was fixing something that was done inaccurately. I also don't understand why the way cannot be modified.
themappingmoth (2022-07-06 21:13:01+00:00): I went back to look at the existing area/ways you are talking about. When comparing the area to the satellite images, it is clear that the boundary someone marked as a natural wood was inaccurate, and the meadow connected to it. I feel that people should not make such huge swaths of area, because then it makes it impossible for someone to edit it on the OSM website without deleting nodes. I don't understand why the straight line segment is a big deal. The boundary was inaccurate before, and it is inaccurate now. But I would say is it better now than it was before because I fixed some areas. Don't undo all my progress. The parts I fixed are more accurate now. If you want it improved, a) modify the way, b) find someone else to modify the way, or c) give me the information you think I'm missing. Give me a link to a website that explains it. Tell me what program you are using to edit the map and where/how I can get it. Something. I'm happy to put in the time.
b-jazz (2022-07-07 17:07:58+00:00): I spent some trying yesterday trying to unravel the changes and there are just too many. If you are willing to fix things, that would be very much appreciated. I would strongly suggest avoiding the built-in editor for changes of this magnitude. The best program to use would be JOSM. It takes a little effort to learn, but it isn't as scary as some people make it out to be. You don't need to be a master at JOSM in order to start making changes, so start small and make "small"  changes. If you have any questions about it that DuckDuckGo can't answer, feel free to reach out and I'll do what I can to help.

And back to the original problem with that straight line segment, it isn't the straightness that is the problem so much as the fact that the boundary gets crossed over by the straight line as points were deleted. There are Q/A tools out there that set of alarms when ways like this get created/modified and that is how I was made aware. Since it sounds like you will be editing this area, I'll make some slight changes to those two ways so that they don't cross over themselves and hopefully you will come around and clean them up.

Sorry if my original note scared you. I don't want to destroy anyone's work. But sometimes reverting complex changes is the best way to get the map back to some level of "correct" (and yes, I get that it wasn't perfect in the first place).

Good luck, and again, feel free to reach out.
themappingmoth (2022-07-08 23:53:31+00:00): Thank you b-jazz. I will look into JOSM and see if I can get those ways fixed up. I appreciate you taking the time to type up your comments!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:32:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:28:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
CurlingMan13 (2022-04-24 20:01:31+00:00): What do you mean you "fixed" them if you deleted most of the roads?

Can you elaborate?
pmfox (2022-04-24 20:21:17+00:00): I used the address and parcel viewer here: https://www.co.augusta.va.us/government/departments-and-offices/information-technology/geographic-information-services.

The deleted ways were many tiger imports, and did not exist. Some were surveyed, and the rest simply referenced from the GIS map.

My objective is to remove non existent roads and make sure existing roads are correctly named, and add addresses so OSM can be used for accurate navigation in this area as other maps are not reliable.

I am new to OSM, and if I have done incorrectly please tell me.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:31:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:20:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
webfil (2022-05-12 17:28:59+00:00): Bonjour. Le retrait de la propriété « ville » de Rouyn-Noranda (place=town) fait en sorte que le nom ne s'affiche plus sur la carte, notamment à des échelles plus petites. Merci de lire la documentation disponible @ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place
SherbetS (2023-01-24 02:53:07+00:00): Hi L___I,

where are you getting the data for these objects? I see you've modified many across the country, and I think it would be reasonable to assume that you are deriving the location from an external source. where are you getting the data?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:17:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
webfil (2022-05-12 17:12:44+00:00): Bonjour. Le nom de cet endroit n'est pas « Aréna Dave Keon ». L'aréna s'appelle « Aréna Iamgold », et est situé dans le « centre Dave-Keon ». J'ai rétabli la version précédente.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:24:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:18:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:25:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:24:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:27:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:27:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:23:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Josef73 (2022-05-16 17:19:38+00:00): Hello, can you check the value of the tag opening_hours?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:27:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:31:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:25:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:21:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:31:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:33:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
alesarrett (2022-04-21 10:51:06+00:00): Manca la source: da dove deriva?
Vedi anche commento su https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119921502
antpriv (2022-05-24 23:31:24+00:00): http://www.opzionezero.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/roncoduro_romea.png
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:23:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:17:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:29:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:25:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:32:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
maxerickson (2022-05-23 21:39:29+00:00): People not going to SS Marie will cut over to US 2, it's the actual trunk road.

These changes should have started with a good wholistic plan for the region, not just been thrown into the data to be fixed.
Trevor_1 (2022-05-23 21:53:07+00:00): Ok sorry. You can revert them if you want
nevw (2022-04-21 05:14:37+00:00): If these are sections are oneway for traffic, the oneway tag needs to be added but I think routing works ok without the tag in this case.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway

The direction that a way in mapped in OSM does not mean that is the traffic direction.
djerrard (2022-04-21 05:48:46+00:00): Understood. I'll add the oneway tag back again as suggested. Although the "highway=motorway" tag gives us implied oneway anyway. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway#Implied_oneway_restriction.
Also noted that geocoded direction does not equal traffic direction - but that does seem to be the overwhelming recommendation https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway#Normal_use
nevw (2022-04-21 06:06:27+00:00): I didn’t know oneway is implied and optional for motorways.
I agree that drawing the direction of way in the direction of traffic flow  is preferable.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:25:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:22:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:31:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:27:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:33:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
tastrax (2022-04-27 04:18:20+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
maxerickson (2022-05-23 20:59:17+00:00): This is silly. M 35 isn't a more important route than US 2.

Please discuss changes like this on a mailing list or whatever before carrying them out.
Trevor_1 (2022-05-23 23:56:19+00:00): You can revert it if you want
bisonprarieafternoon (2022-04-26 04:27:10+00:00): There is already a house node for that location would have been better to move and then turn that into an area.

Also putting names on houses is incorrect. "some rules are:

    Do not map where individual people live, in particular do not add the names of inhabitants to dwellings."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information