piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
DiogoBaptista98 (2022-04-20 23:04:18+00:00): Olá, porque apagaste conteudo de outros membros sem sequer o comentares? O OSM é um projecto comunitário e todo o trabalho deve ser respeitado. A extensão da sede da EDP em construção que estava marcada como Boavista II foi apagada sem razão aparente e mapeadas estruturas que já não existem. Peço que justifique a sua atitude e que reponha a situação ou terei que reverter a sua edição. Cumprimentos
CurlingMan13 (2023-03-02 15:37:15+00:00): Removed fictitious walking paths:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133217062
user_5359 (2022-01-07 19:55:55+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4264052549: Did you mean addr:palace or addr:place?
LB_Manzano (2022-01-07 21:53:29+00:00): Typo error!
Thanks for checking.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-15 17:54:05+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118211760/history has roof = hipped that was added in this edit
Maybe roof:shape=hipped was intended here?

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:roof:shape and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:roof
yamanq (2022-01-06 23:17:10+00:00): source: survey
osmviborg (2022-01-07 06:59:03+00:00): Please  use 'SDFE aerial imagery' when mapping in DK
jbraggs (2022-01-10 23:06:59+00:00): Thanks for the reminder. I referenced SDFE Skråfoto for this changeset, because I used the different angles to be able to see the road to build it in OSM, but I will additionally use the standard aerial imagery in the future.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-01-07 22:16:34+00:00): edição revertida, usuário deletou vias que existem, se é porque são privadas devem ser marcadas como tal e nao deletadas!
felipeeugenio (2022-05-02 12:55:06+00:00): Hola Rudy
Es una ciclovía dedicada o pueden circular peatones también?
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115857297
Lee Carré (2022-01-08 01:13:47+00:00): Since when did Spain extend that far north?
MacLondon (2022-01-10 01:41:26+00:00): Since https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115290764 the extent of the relation for "EV1 in Spain" also included the Ireland section of the EV1 route.

This was due to a circular reference within the https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2763798 parent relation, with this relation wrongly being included as a submember of one of its child subrelation (Spain's EV1 superrelation).
Lee Carré (2022-01-12 23:46:11+00:00): Ah, which this changeset corrects?
Lachgast (2022-01-07 12:21:32+00:00): Hi Teek,

Great to see other people working on landuse around Utrecht & Nieuwegein. Funnily enough, only yesterday I noticed some missing landuse around the tram tracks nearby Accordeonlaan. In other words: here you can almost feel like a pioneer :)

Welcome back on OSM!
tastrax (2022-01-29 22:36:37+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
blohod (2022-02-03 03:17:15+00:00): Thanks tastrax, I just put them in as they were on the front of the shops, I will make sure to use the correct format in future.
tastrax (2022-02-03 04:30:36+00:00): No worries - thanks for adding the data.
Robert Whittaker (2022-01-19 19:32:22+00:00): You seem to have changed brand:wikidata=Q152096 to not:brand:wikidata=Q152096 on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61845189/history in this changeset. Can I check if this was deliberate? Or perhaps it was an unintended consequence of clicking the "tag as not the same" option in iD?
GinaroZ (2022-01-19 20:01:07+00:00): It would've been the latter - it only had the brand wikidata and not the wikipedia so iD offered to add it.
highflyer74 (2022-01-08 14:29:20+00:00): Hi Trevor!

I came across your blog post concerning the start of your JOSM usage. Good choice, I have to say.

A little hint here:

- I noticed some of the split homes are not rectangular. I did not check the source of that but just in case you come across such buildings: the keyboard shortcut "q" is your friend and appreciated by the community

- also if you come across split buildings or split them yourself, make sure they are tagged building=house instead of =terrace. The latter is only used for blocks of not yet split buildings and is easy to read over in the wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building)

All the best from across the pond!
TrevorPumpkin (2022-01-08 18:47:43+00:00): Hey highflyer, thanks for the tips. I will start updating them!
maxerickson (2022-01-12 01:52:34+00:00): There's 2 sensible definitions for trunk. For one of them, US 2 is a trunk from Saint Ignace until at least Duluth.

In the other one, an 8 mile section with a small village on one end is not a trunk.

Every 8 months someone sees that it is divided and makes it a trunk. But there's stop light and grade intersections and it isn't connecting significant populations.
ChrisBessert (2022-01-12 16:51:02+00:00): Likely one of the biggest determining factors to excerpt this segment of the highway from the surrounding segments and classify it as a "Trunk" route is that it's a limited-access highway, or "expressway" in technical terms. (See http://www.michiganhighways.org/indepth/controlled_access.html from my website for a complete discussion.) Thus, this portion is clearly built and operates at a higher  level than the surrounding segments, which are clearly "Primary" in nature. It's unfortunate that MDOT decided to end the limited-access portion of the route at Rapid River, but that's the reality of the situation. If the intersecting roadways and traffic signals were removed, it would therefore be a controlled-access highway ("freeway"), or "Motorway" in OSM parlance. I've seen many a North American OSM editor use "Trunk" as a reasonable step in between the average "Primary" highway and full freeway... basically the "expressway" level, of which this segment of US-2/US-41 is. I hope that helps!
maxerickson (2022-01-12 21:11:18+00:00): There are more than 'few or no intersecting roadways' (like quite a few per mile...) and there are multiple traffic control devices and there is no restriction on non-motorized traffic. By your own definition it doesn't qualify as an expressway.

And then there is the part where length and actual importance should be given more consideration than being divided. A short stretch connecting nothing is just overbuilt, it isn't more important or different than the adjacent portions of US 2.
ZeLonewolf (2022-01-31 21:43:10+00:00): Expressways should be tagged expressway=yes. Trunk roads should be classified consistently with  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance
ZeLonewolf (2022-02-19 03:17:56+00:00): I disagree that a change in physical construction style should change a highway's classification value.  Highway classifications for trunk and below are based on the road's connectivity value in the road network.  A road should not toggle back and forth between classification values, it should have one consistent value through its entire length.

This road might be primary, consistent with the surrounding road network, or it might be trunk, part of a much longer trunk routing through the UP.  However, it cannot be trunk while the surrounding roads are primary.

This is described in more detail in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance

I'd encourage you to join the OSM US Slack, slack.openstreetmap.us, where these topics are discussed in great detail in the channel #local-michigan and #highway-classification.
ChrisBessert (2022-02-19 04:48:54+00:00): ZeLonewolf – One more thing: A highway's physical characteristics are *often* directly related to its classification—either the characteristics are cause of its classification or the the classification is the reason it is constructed with those characteristics. I'm not saying it's 100% of the time, but it's a very close correlation.
maxerickson (2022-02-19 10:41:33+00:00): The MDOT classification is useful information, but there's not a fixed, objective mapping between MDOT classifications and OSM highway tag values, so it's just information.

In OSM, the physical characteristics can be encoded directly, the "highway" tag does not necessarily need to account for them. So we can do things like evaluate whether short stretches of road are truly different in kind from adjoining longer stretches, or if they are just overbuilt for no apparent reason.

The MDOT classification could also be recorded in an additional tag, it doesn't need to be mapped in some absolute fashion to the value chosen for the highway tag.

As a collaborative project, instead of each mapper flipping the classification to their preferred estimation the second they see something they don't like, there can be some discussion and consensus, and things will work out fine.
compdude (2022-02-19 23:04:29+00:00): The wiki has stated for years that only the motorway tag implies anything about the physical attributes of a road, and all the other highway=* tags (trunk, primary, secondary, etc.) indicate the importance of the road in the road network. Just because a road is built as a divided highway doesn't always mean that it's more important than a two-lane road.
MikeN (2022-01-12 04:33:19+00:00): Hi,  In this case, Bing had very old imagery.   The entire site has been through construction for a year or so.   In ID, the Maxar Premium imagery layer is often newer than Bing.

I have restored it to the new parking lot layout.
CurlingMan13 (2023-03-02 15:38:25+00:00): reverted non-existent walkways:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133217107
CurlingMan13 (2023-03-02 15:39:39+00:00): Reverted partially in:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133217172

Do not add non-existent walkways to the map.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-06-23 23:19:51+00:00): Blackforce13
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-06-23 23:20:06+00:00): please dont add personal info
clay_c (2022-02-07 02:10:22+00:00): Hi there - how come you removed TX 17 from the ref value of I-10 east of Balmorhea?  I-10 and SH 17 overlap between exit 209 and 212. Is SH 17 unsigned along this segment?
txemt (2022-02-07 02:12:35+00:00): That may have been an accidental oversight.
clay_c (2022-02-07 20:21:32+00:00): No worries, I'll fix it.
ivanbranco (2022-01-10 21:48:19+00:00): Hi Jeff, just curious, what's the difference between the node you created and this one? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1696874354

Don't they represent the same thing?
Jeff Underwood (2022-01-10 21:53:36+00:00): Hey ivanbranco,

You are totally right. I missed it somehow when I was looking for an existing feature to attach to the relation. I removed my duplicate and add the existing one to the relation instead.

Thanks for the heads up
Jeff
highflyer74 (2022-01-11 15:53:08+00:00): Moin und danke für Deine Beiträge!

Ein paar Tipps:

Könntest Du darauf achten, dass die POIs innerhalb des Gebäudeumrisses liegen und nicht auf dem Umriss? Das ist im Prinzip der Standard, nach dem wir POIs erfassen.

Versuche auch, darauf zu achten, dass als name=* nur der Name gesetzt wird und keine Beschreibung (z.B. "Hundefriseur"). Mehr dazu hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Names.

Wichtig ist die richtige Formatierung:

level=Erdgeschoss ist nicht auswertbar. Hier wäre level=0 korrekt. Im Zweifel hilft hier das Wiki.

Ansonsten habe ich auch noch ein bisschen Lesestoff, falls Du den noch nicht kennst:

- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments

- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice

Schau auch gern mal auf unserem Bremer Mappertreffen vorbei:

- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bremen/Community

Viele Grüße!
Erdbeerschorsch (2022-01-11 19:38:03+00:00): Moin :-)

Vielen Dank für deine konstruktiven Hinweise, für die ich sehr dankbar bin. Merci ^^ 

Ich werde mir die Ressourcen zu Gemüte führen und dadurch mein Mapping verbessern.

Nochmals Danke :-)

Bis bald mal ^^
Joseph R P (2022-01-07 03:12:52+00:00): Hello, may I ask what changes you made on Kramer Estate Drive? I'm mapping this neighborhood currently and something you've done to the road caused an edit conflict.
KB-01 (2022-01-07 13:29:01+00:00): I linked up some loose driveway ends with the main road- nothing major. It’s probably safe to override any changes I made with your own.
Joseph R P (2022-01-10 22:22:52+00:00): I don't think this change was necessary, as I intentionally divided this road to clean up things like bus route relations, lane counts, the administrative boundaries, etc. If you're going to do something like this, please remember to correct the relations and lane counts and re-add the highway features.
Glassman (2022-01-07 18:06:01+00:00): #TIP: Instead of removing then adding back, just modify the existing building outline. That save the history and would have saved the address.

Can you add the address back. The old building was 12060 Northeast 100th Street, Kirkland 98033?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115859755
Justinycting (2022-01-07 19:45:59+00:00): Thanks for the tip! Will do it the next time! 

The old address was wrong, adding the correct address back in.
blackboxlogic (2022-01-29 18:32:04+00:00): I see you deleted 11 addresses, drew buildings, but did not put the address details on the buildings. The result is that vehicles will no longer be able to get driving directions to these addresses. Please fix this by putting the deleted address details on the buildings or ask if you need help.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115859804
user_13980615 (2022-01-19 05:56:58+00:00): 已在以下变更集中依照景区门票上的地图将“南通园艺博览园”合并入“狼山风景区”范围：
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116028200
jaywhyenecks (2022-01-07 06:25:35+00:00): ive been doing the same...still waiting for LiDar so ive been doing little by little
nmombo12 (2022-01-07 19:17:42+00:00): Hello Venom, thanks for your contribution. Fairways with "cutouts" for bunkers, mounds, etc. should be mapped as multipolygons. Here are some references with examples.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon_Examples
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Golf.png
Thanks!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115860105
blackboxlogic (2022-01-29 18:33:38+00:00): Hi again. I see you've deleted more addresses. This makes OSM less useful for vehicle navigation etc. Please do not delete addresses, or if you do, move those address details to the buildings they are associated with.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115860260
yeti_legs9000 (2022-01-29 19:08:57+00:00): Hey, I'm so sorry about all this. I'm still pretty new to OSM, so I probably should have been asking more questions. I appreciate the feedback, and will make sure to avoid doing this in the future. Thanks for the guidance.
blackboxlogic (2022-01-29 19:41:57+00:00): After I left this comment I came across your more recent changes and they look great. Mistakes are normal and thanks for taking the time to contribute OSM. I've un-deleted the few addresses you removed (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116757423). I didn't adjust them at all, which means they are probably mis-aligned, which I can't reliably fix because I'm far away. But if you're local, you're in a good position to align/merge them with the correct buildings or to delete them if the address really doesn't exist.
-Alex
nmombo12 (2022-01-07 19:12:06+00:00): Hello jaywhyenecks, thank you for your contributions to OSM. My assumption for this changeset is that you are making this edit for use with the TGC-Designer-Tools utility for the PGA Tour 2K video games. If so, it is not accepted to intentionally map features that do not exist in the real world for this purpose. It is just like "mapping for the renderer", in this case the renderer is TGC-Designer-Tools utility. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
Previous discussions on the OSM US slack have had consensus that even a temporary change is considered vandalism. Any temporary change you wish to make for personal download should be done offline and not pushed to the live OSM database. Please let me know if I can assist with offline edits when downloading for TGC-Designer-Tools. Please refrain from deliberately adding temporary features like these houses in the future.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115861881
jaywhyenecks (2022-03-29 20:32:59+00:00): i was told to follow these steps by the person who hired me. I apologize if this is a mistake and would like to know the correct protocol
vimacs_hacks (2022-01-07 05:18:05+00:00): 好像不应该按照公交站切割道路，我原本是想在公交路线的站点之间添加路径，但是后来发现公交路线不需要这样分节添加。
fndoder (2022-01-07 20:10:07+00:00): Дорога https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/999844105/history в этом пакете правок удалена совершенно зря. Она существует на местности.
fndoder (2022-01-07 22:04:23+00:00): Откатил пакет правок частично. Дорогу вернул.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115893784
aixbrick (2022-01-07 09:01:04+00:00): Danke
Luzandro (2022-01-19 18:12:21+00:00): Adr. war schon vorhanden: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/112558564

siehe auch https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=852784#p852784
thopf (2022-01-07 10:40:33+00:00): Hallo!

Während sich andere User die Mühe machen, die einzelnen Gebäudeteile für das 3D-Gebäudemapping zu kartieren, löscht du einfach die Gebäudeteile hier und z.B. beim Uhrturm wieder heraus. Warum? Was nun übrigbleibt, ist eine Relation ohne, für das 3D-Mapping, beschreibende Eigenschaften. 

LG.
CartoJan (2022-11-03 13:39:59+00:00): Het Theaterschip is geen Theater waar publiek naartoe kan gaan om een voorstelling te bezoeken, maar een bedrijf dat actief is in de theaterwereld.
Dus verwijderen als theater.
dvdhoven (2022-11-03 14:10:43+00:00): Ik ben opgevoed met de zegswijze "Commandeer je hondje en blaf zelf"
Ik aanvaard geen commando's van welke mapper dan ook. Zo gaan we niet met elkaar om binnen OSM.
We vragen vriendelijk aan een ander of iets kan.
En als je het Theaterschip zo graag weg wilt hebben, dan verwijder je het zelf.
Ik kan niet garanderen dat ik de POI daarna terug zal zetten. Ik ben het niet met je eens.
CartoJan (2022-11-03 14:38:10+00:00): Excuses, zo bedoelde ik het niet, maar ik dacht dat je misschien wel blij zou zijn met mijn feedback.
Ik heb het theater nu zelf verwijderd.
gscscnd (2022-01-07 09:04:39+00:00): <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1019000969> — to chyba powinno być building:part=*?
gebux (2022-01-07 13:51:08+00:00): height als Tag war korrekt, der Wert war aber falsch (130 statt 1.3)
Piet128 (2022-01-07 16:09:33+00:00): Hallo,
Danke für den Hinweis. Sorry, war mein Fehler.
feket (2022-01-07 12:40:02+00:00): Üdv! Nem vagyok biztos, hogy helyes a Kodály köröndöt szervizútnak minősíteni, hiszen bizonyos kanyarodási viszonylatok csak azon valósulhatnak meg (pl.: Szinyei M. utcáról kanyarodás az Andrássyra, vagy az Andrássyn befelé haladva csak "körbehajtva" lehet bejutni a Felsőerdősor utcába)
airdace (2022-01-07 12:55:18+00:00): Jogos. Csak azt az anomáliát próbáltam kezelni, hogy az Andrássy út szervizútjai az Oktogon-Körönd között lakóút, a Körönd és a Hősök tere között szervizút kategóriába voltak sorolva. De a Körönd maradhat lakóút tőlem.
user_7130359 (2022-01-07 13:00:59+00:00): 您好，欢迎使用OpenStreetMap。您的编辑有误，我已为您改正。如果您希望继续使用OSM并为地图做贡献，请花一点时间来了解如何正确进行。 您可以从这里开始：https://learnosm.org/zh_CN/。
此致，祝好
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:43:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
user_5359 (2022-01-08 17:16:39+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please use the key highway for every type of path instead ROAD
Jrachi (2022-01-07 20:34:33+00:00): Ciao.
Usando iD devi fare molta attenzione a spezzare le relazioni!
Ivo
dooley (2022-07-19 08:18:29+00:00): Wow. Didn't know we're allowed to drive in France that lightning fast (5030 kmh)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1019020916
k127 (2022-01-07 15:56:39+00:00): Hallo seppdepp,

habe gerade gesehen, dass du den Hydranten [1] verändert hast.
Das Tag „survey:date“ mit Wert „Heute“ wurde gelöscht.

Ich erlaube mir eine kleine Anmerkung dazu: das Motiv war lt. Änderungssatz-Kommentar „fixed_warnings“ bestimmt ein gutes — wenngleich die Angabe „Heute“ nicht korrekt war, verstehe ich die Änderung als Desinformation, welche vermeidbar ist: es ist ja bekannt, wann der zuvor Bearbeitende dieses „Heute“ eingetragen hat (siehe „Verlauf anzeigen“ vom Hydranten-Knoten [1]), es ließe sich also der Wert zu „2017-07-04“ korrigieren – was meinst du dazu?

Beste Grüße
k127

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4895285051
bxl-forever (2022-04-15 12:02:31+00:00): Hello,

You seem to have inadvertently erased about one third of the building, I restored it.  These things happen on first edits, I understand.

Just two things:
1) We should *never* draw buildings on top of aerial imagery, because it is not accurate enough and aerial images are always distorted.  We have very accurate numerical imagery for Brussels through UrbIS.
2) Could you please elaborate a bit about the "intégrer cette modification": what change exactly, is that the property limits, renumbering of the house…?  It is important because if changes are not properly documented, other mappers will probably restore the former situation.

Reply in any language you feel comfortable with.  Thanks in advance.
tonyf1 (2022-01-29 04:02:47+00:00): Hi Sebastian. I understand that you have already given your reasoning for similar changes. I have picked this one out for two reasons. Firstly because it has the feel of a cycleway or shared path in the absence of any signage that I can see, it runs between factories and a creek. Secondly the history of way/860898496. philam48 1 year ago tagged it as a cycleway. You changed it to a footway, then a cycleway then a footway. On October 4 2021, the DWG ruled that it would "proceed to roll back your changes because it's evident it goes against the community wishes here and the bulk changes have brought in these errors".  I, acting for the DWG reverted it back to philam48's original cycleway refering back to the DWG decision  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-October/015093.html
Please stop undoing the reversions of your work. Please comply with community tagging standards. Thanks, Tony
HighRouleur (2022-01-29 05:35:52+00:00): Tony,
First of all mapping is based on what’s on the ground as you insisted rather than what it “feels” like based on its location and/or proximity to other features. 

Last year the DWG, made a decision, albeit an incorrect one in relation to foothpaths where I had set bicycle=no. I have abided by their decision and now use footpaths with the default value as this does not permit bicycles. Inn the end this yields the same result that I wanted. 
I have verified numerous footpaths which are incorrectly tagged in OSM as shared paths and have reverted them to footpaths.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-05 17:39:59+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/766906814/history has access:motor_vehicle that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
Would using motor_vehicle access tag (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motor_vehicle ) be fitting at least equally well?
Dave Venables (2022-01-07 09:43:01+00:00): due to permanently close on 24 March 2022