piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
aceman444 (2021-11-18 00:13:52+00:00): Budova je viditelna na Ortofotomozaike SR z 2020 (ktoru udajne pouziva autor tejto zmeny), takze mazat ju asi nie je spravne, jedine, ze by to rozumne zdovodnil v popise sady zmien. Co ale neurobil, lebo nezmyselny popis "the end" je k nicomu. Okrem toho je tam aj plno inych budov (na ortofoto aj v katastri). Napriklad tie hotely, ktore su zakreslene bez budov. Keby radsej pridal tie chybajuce budovy namiesto odmazavania.
Dodko (2021-11-07 10:32:18+00:00): Tá zmazaná budova Veľké Kostoľany 972 na leteckej fotke existuje, prečo ste ju zmazali?
18Lub06bik92 (2021-11-11 21:02:07+00:00): budova 972 neje oznacena na google maps
aceman444 (2021-11-18 00:17:31+00:00): No neviem co znamena "oznacena", ale na snimkach Google maps je vidiet. Ale to je jedno, google maps je pre OSM nepouzitelne. Je vsak vidiet aj na Ortofotomozaike (ktoru pouziva autor) a aj v katastri (ked ma to cislo). Takze nechapem o co mu tu ide. Zaujimave, ze neodstranil napr. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303543337 co naozaj ako budova nevyzera.
Dodko (2021-11-07 10:34:04+00:00): Ten sklad kvapalných hnojív Veľké Kostoľany  955 na leteckej fotke existuje, prečo ste ho zmazali?
18Lub06bik92 (2021-11-11 21:02:53+00:00): budova 955 neje oznacena na Google Maps
aceman444 (2021-11-18 00:19:19+00:00): Neviem co to znamena, ale bezne budovy ani na Google maps nejako specialne "oznacene" nie su.
Glassman (2021-11-07 18:40:13+00:00): We usually enter street addresses with NE as Northeast. Can you fix?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113465542
Glassman (2021-11-07 18:39:17+00:00): #TIP: square buildings by selecting the outline then just type a "q"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113465553
Cassie0008 (2021-11-12 04:59:47+00:00): Mappping is great
blackboxlogic (2021-11-08 16:28:43+00:00): Hi. I see you add "source" to elements, but that's more useful as a tag on the changeset, not on the element. Also, changeset comments are very helpful. Please try to muster a few words.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113465801
EinKonstanzer (2021-11-07 07:14:45+00:00): Wurde dieser mechanische Edit irgendwo angekündigt/diskutiert?
Es gibt nämlich genügend Bolzplätze die genau so beschildert sind.
Siehe: https://www.google.de/search?q=bolzplatz+schild
EinKonstanzer (2021-11-07 07:34:18+00:00): Diskussion hier: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=74198
Friendly_Ghost (2021-11-07 11:13:31+00:00): Hi & thank you for asking. 

I hope you won't mind that I continue in English. My German isn't super good.

Every object that had more than the basic tags for pitches (leisure/sport/surface/name/lit/access=*) was manually checked for relevance and correctness. If I was unsure about an object, I excluded it from this changeset. 

"Bolzplatz" is as much a description as "Spielplatz", so tagging it with name=* is incorrect, but since it describes a football field with public access I thought it was still valuable information, so I kept the information as description=Bolzplatz. 

See also: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Best regards,

Casper
goodidea (2022-05-11 22:38:12+00:00): Hello Casper,

my opinion is that your understanding of the "Name_is_the_name_only" principle is wrong.

I also cannot find any example on the wiki page and the section you have linked (like the "Spielplatz" example).

I would agree completely to EinKonstanzer – why should a pitch NOT get the name "Bolzplatz" if there is a sign with exactly this naming? The same with playgrounds which are named "Spielplatz" on a sign.

I never understood why this should be avoided and – as you wrote "tagging it with name=* is incorrect". Why should it be a bad thing?

I think this interpretation of the naming principles is too harsh and not necessary. Even if some other users seem to like such a harsh interpretation, too.

My opinion is that names don't need to be unique. Many people are also named Peter or Peter Miller and it's not forbidden or wrong. And if there is a sign with a name, even if it's not a unique one, this should be enough to use this for the name tag (my opinion).

Therefore, I changed back one "Bolzplatz" today where I know it has a sign with this name – https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/117192566.

And I would appreciate it if this changeset would be reversed.
Friendly_Ghost (2022-05-13 08:23:51+00:00): As was mentioned on the forum, not everything on a sign is a name. "Bolzplatz", like "Spielplatz", is simply a noun. 

As we both acknowledged, other mappers also follow the "harsh" interpretation that "name is the name only", so unless the German community can form a consensus that "Bolzplatz" is a name I disagree with you about reverting this changeset.

I suggest that you share your opinion on the forum if you haven't already.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:24:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
radiotrefoil (2021-12-05 12:47:12+00:00): Hi, just wanted your opinion on way/999030026, I realise that on the wiki page for club=cadet it says not to tag the grounds as landuse=military; do you think this is accurate assuming that this lot is administered by the ADF? If you think it's inappropriate then I think this way should be deleted considering the building is already tagged with club=cadet.
Fizzie-DWG (2021-12-05 21:56:26+00:00): Thanks! Is the Cadet block of ground actually inside the Base? From overhead imagery, it would appear that RAAF Glenbrook is across the other side of Knapsack Street? Are you local to there & able to have a look at ground level to see where the fences are? Yes, we could take the area "way" out, just leaving the fence, with the main building tagged inside it.
radiotrefoil (2021-12-05 22:15:54+00:00): Hi, yes the public road separates the cadets club grounds from the RAAF base. I think I'll just delete that area way. Cheers and good work on the wiki by the way.
Fizzie-DWG (2021-12-05 23:16:25+00:00): Thanks! :-)
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:24:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
mueschel (2021-11-11 09:19:45+00:00): Hi,
please check the residential areas you added - they got some tags that look like they shouldn't be in OSM, e.g.

DesignationDetails=Medium Density Residential Districts
Zone=R3

Could you fix that?
OptikalCrow (2021-11-11 13:42:38+00:00): The error has been fixed. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113653075
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:24:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:21:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:22:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
Tomas_J (2021-11-08 07:54:54+00:00): Zdravím. Prečo si vymazal tag railway:ref zo stanice Veľké Kostolany? Pred nedávnom som ich tam pracne pridával.... A tiež prečo si označil stanicu ako monorail: yes? Jazdí snad v Kostolanoch nějaký monorail ? Môžeš opraviť?
kayle (2021-11-09 05:57:29+00:00): Pridávať, opravovať a aj mazať nesprávne údaje je cieľom snaženia OSM. Ale odstraňovať údaje, ktoré neviem načo sú do toho nepatrí. Prosím trocha viac s citom a ak neviete čo ktorý tag znamená, viď  popis na wiki.osm.org alebo sa opýtať na https://groups.google.com/g/osm_sk
18Lub06bik92 (2021-11-11 21:00:01+00:00): Je to uz opravane
Tomas_J (2021-11-12 06:56:23+00:00): Chýba ešte tag railway:ref, ktorý si vymazal.
18Lub06bik92 (2021-11-12 18:14:39+00:00): dobre to nevim dat zpatky ten tag railway:ref jako mam to zpatky?
18Lub06bik92 (2021-11-12 18:15:21+00:00): urobit
aceman444 (2021-11-18 00:07:59+00:00): Treba vratit podovne railway:ref=VeKl. Vy ste pridali nejake nove ref=120 co asi nebude dobre. Preco tam len nevratite to co tam bolo?

Ale hlavne by si to mal upratat autor tychto experimentov, lebo inak sa to nenauci ani nepochopi, ze vsetko nici. Inak tu aj upgradoval railway=halt na railway=station, co neviem ci je tu spravne.
aceman444 (2021-11-18 11:20:20+00:00): Inak adresu nikdy nedavame na bod s railway=station, je predsa na budove vedla (a presnejsia aj so supisnym cislom), cize vsetky zmeny tohto bodu od Ľubboš Krajčovič mohli byt cele revertnute.
18Lub06bik92 (2021-11-18 16:41:27+00:00): ahoj uzivatel uz neje neexistuje na OpenStreetMap
aceman444 (2021-11-18 20:14:22+00:00): Akoze nie?
SomeoneElse (2021-11-08 12:54:56+00:00): Hello and weclome to OpenStreetMap.
Are you sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/550006581/history is really no longer a road?
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-11-13 10:29:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 113725216 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits in Canada - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113466749 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-11-13 10:29:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 113725216 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits in Canada - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113466749 .
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
lefuturiste (2023-11-18 21:52:46+00:00): D'accord mais attention vous avez supprimé l'attribut wikidata= !!
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:24:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:21:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
eggie (2021-11-07 13:30:04+00:00): Dag Stijn... Je vraagt feedback
Veld 2 (zand) lijkt me als name= tag niet correct.
Heet dit veld werkelijk zo?

MVG
eggie
StijnBr (2021-11-07 16:07:15+00:00): Ja, het is veld 2, en het is een zandveld (bij hockey heb je watervelden, semi-watervelden en zandvelden)
eggie (2021-11-07 18:04:08+00:00): Je bedoeling is natuurlijk goed.. maar het is even de vraag of het extra woordje 'zand' in de naam hoort.
Maar als je zegt: ' ik speel op Veld 2 zand..' oke dan.

Mapse
Eggie
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:21:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:21:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:21:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:21:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
GinaroZ (2023-02-14 17:43:13+00:00): You've added construction=yes to this path - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45362090/history - if it is indeed under construction it should be tagged highway=construction+construction=footway so renderers and routers don't think it is open. Same for other paths in Sighthill Park.
Ossian Lore (2023-02-15 05:37:09+00:00): I added these all these paths and roads with these properties years ago when the area had been erased and was undergoing ground works. I added them all from nothing and I will get to finishing it when I get to finishing it. I can see someone is already opening paths in the area even though they are not officially open yet, and that someone is incorrectly turning my terraced paths and stairs into pedestrian malls. Feel free to fix something if you want, there's plenty of incorrectly and unmapped areas in and around the city that noone is paying any attention to.
laurent-38 (2021-11-08 08:54:26+00:00): Bonjour Test360,

oui, landuse=school est déprécié.
Mais dans ce cas, le remplacer par amenity=school n'est pas adapté. Voir commentaire https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113156154

~~
laurent
KasperSFranz (2023-11-28 21:01:38+00:00): Hi,
you have added both not:brand:wikidata and brand:wikidata which is conflicting - I am assuming the not:brand:wikidata tag is wrong so I have removed it :).
Fischkopp0815 (2021-11-09 12:27:01+00:00): Die Baustelle ist Gewerbefläche. Ich habe landuse=construction daraus gemacht. Den beschreibenden Namen habe ich nach description verschoben
Fischkopp0815 (2021-11-09 12:32:48+00:00): Ich meine natürlich:Die Baustelle ist KEINE Gewerbefläche
sudoreboot (2021-11-07 08:30:15+00:00): I just realised I failed to account for offset due to satellite position. The true ground position is difficult to make out.
skyper (2021-11-08 19:02:44+00:00): Hallo Reiner
Leider wurden mal wieder alle Relationen beschädigt, schaust Du Dir das nochmal an? Wobei, bei Schleifen ist es tricky und meist ein Teil-Revert und dann Fixen einfacher. Sag Bescheid, wenn Du Hilfe brauchst, im Detail habe ich auch noch nicht draufgeschaut.
Grüße skyper

https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/results/DE/BW/DE-BW-RVF-Analysis.html#bus_271
*abq* (2021-11-10 14:41:12+00:00): Hallo Skyper, 
ich habe, wie immer bisher, lediglich einen Way mit id geteilt. 
In dem Thread im Forum vor ein paar Monaten wurde ja schon berechtigterweise angemahnt, dass diese ÖPNV Relationen stabil und mit den üblichen Editoren kompatibel sein sollten. Offensichtlich ist das immer noch nicht der Fall, also bitte löst das doch endlich mal. Es kann doch nicht sein, dass durch eine so simple Operation dieses ganze Konstrukt zusammen bricht...

Ich kann diese Relationen leider nicht fixen, da ich mich mit denen überhaupt nicht auskenne. 
VG Reiner
skyper (2021-11-10 23:15:59+00:00): Ok, ich habe es repariert: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113629184

Wenn Du Dich beschweren willst bin ich die falsche Adresse, dafür gibt es einige Issues auf dem git von iD.

Es waren alle Routen betroffen, inklusive der für die Kreisstraße.
Noch einmal, dies ist ein Problem von iD, das Tagging-Schema ist seit Jahren akzeptiert und iD bekommt es einfach nicht gebacken, den Weg an der/den richtige/n Stelle/n einzusortieren noch über das Problem zu warnen. Immerhin würden die Relationen nicht wild durcheinander gewirbelt. Im Grunde ist es das gleiche wie bei Wanderwegen, die Reihenfolge der Wege muss stimmen und es darf keine Lücke vorhanden sein.

Grüße skyper
azakh-world (2021-11-14 21:51:43+00:00): In roundtrip routes the first station should be repeated at the end.
skyper (2021-11-07 16:45:04+00:00): Salli Georgesy
Jetzt bist Du leider dem nächsten iD-Bug aufgesessen. iD hat leider seit Jahren massive Probleme mit Relationen, vor allem beim Aufteilen von Linien. Ein weitere Grund warum iD gerade auch für ungeübte Personen problematisch sein kann.

Konkret wurden alle Routen-Relationen beschädigt, weil die neue Linie nicht an der richtige Stelle einsortiert wurde und somit die Reihenfolge der Mitglieder durcheinander kommt.
Habe es bereits repariert, aber leider ist allerhöchste Vorsicht in iD gefordert, sobald Relationen ins Spiel kommen.

Viele Grüße,
skyper

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113487537
Sandal man (2021-11-08 20:26:27+00:00): Hola, creo que olvidaste etiquetar esto:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1000122647
Xevi (2021-11-09 17:06:00+00:00): Gracias por avisar, se me paso
SherbetS (2021-12-10 16:54:45+00:00): Thank you.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
Ewen Hill (2021-11-09 20:54:37+00:00): Thanks nonscenic! You flagged the changeset for review and it looks excellent and improves the map. Enjoy OSM editing and improving the map
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113470724
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
imanshahverdi (2021-11-07 08:56:10+00:00): its ok
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:22:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
pyram (2021-11-21 22:14:25+00:00): Siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2938660
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:22:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:25:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:24:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
ElementW (2021-11-07 09:13:14+00:00): Si quieres añadir un número de casa, utiliza addr:housenumber y addr:street. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:addr
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113471339
PT-53 (2021-12-20 08:53:55+00:00): Hallo bergfrei,
Du hast diesen Straßenabschnitt
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1000188639/history
von dieser Straße
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/319896933/history
abgetrennt und mit 
access=no
voll gesperrt. Im OSM-Inspector werden jetzt für die P-Wege dort Hinweise "islands_car" angezeigt:
- http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=9.63752&lat=48.00415&zoom=18&opacity=0.34

Konsequenterweise sollten auch die P-Wege gesperrt werden. Aber ist eine Sperrung (in OSM) überhaupt erforderlich? Das ist ja keine Durchfahrtsstraße.

Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?

Frohe Weihnachten
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:24:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:23:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees