piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
dannmer (2025-07-05 02:36:16+00:00): There's a note claiming that the Paul Murray Wildlife Area doesn't exist. There's little info about this area, what is the source for the name of this area?
chillly (2017-01-14 22:16:11+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OSM.

The edit you made has been saved so everyone can see it, which I'm sure you didn't mean.

I'll clean it up.
trial (2017-01-17 21:29:10+00:00): Bonjour, est-ce que le chemin n'existe vraiment plus ? vous indiquez "imagery_used=Bing aerial imagery"
Avec JOSM, tant avec MapBox que BDOrthoIGN, le chemin reste visible même s'il est vrai que sur BDOrthoIGN il semble ne plus être autant utilisé qu'un chemin nord-sud à l'ouest.
fab_seeker (2017-01-17 21:38:20+00:00): Bonsoir, je confirme que ce chemin n'existe plus, le champ est clôturé. Je passe devant de temps en temps. Désolé si les paramètres de ma modification ne sont pas les bons. J'ai juste sélectionné les noeuds et effacé. Aurais-je dû indiquer vérification sur place ou quelque chose de similaire ?
trial (2017-01-17 22:09:23+00:00): Ça semble une bonne raison pour qu'il apparaisse moins utilisé ;-).
Un "survey:2017" en commentaire (de la modification) aurait permis de savoir que c'était "vu sur place" (même si le commentaire en français le sous-entendait). Si le chemin existe mais est privatisé, on ajoute plutôt au niveau de l'entrée du champ barrier=gate.
Si vous saviez par exemple que la barrière a été mise en place en 2016, un start_date=2016 aurait eu un sens. Ou un end_date sur le chemin complet mais comme c'est un simple chemin, sans doute inutile, ça évite quand même qu'une personne en voyant une image aérienne veuille ajouter à nouveau la donnée : le chemin a existé mais n'existe plus (chose qu'il ne verra pas à partir de la carte).
N. B. : je suis tombé sur cette modification car selon un outil de contrôle qualité elle était suspecte. Je suppose parce qu'auteur récent et suppression de pas mal de données. J'ai vu aussi que vous aviez déplacé un menhir, quelle force ! ;-)
Vous verrez sans doute à l'usage que ID est limité et que JOSM est plus puissant (il permet notamment de changer de fonds d'images notamment BDOrthoIGN qui est pour la France sans doute la vue du ciel la plus précise - sauf orthophotos d'endroits particuliers). Bienvenu à la communauté des cartographes. Il est normal de faire des erreurs, tant qu'elles sont involontaires (ici en plus ce n'est pas une erreur, juste un flou à préciser).
trial (2017-01-21 16:39:06+00:00): Ça semble une bonne raison pour qu'il apparaisse moins utilisé ;-).
Un "survey:2017" en commentaire (de la modification) aurait permis de savoir que c'était "vu sur place" (même si le commentaire en français le sous-entendait). Si le chemin existe mais est privatisé, on ajoute plutôt au niveau de l'entrée du champ barrier=gate.
Si vous saviez par exemple que la barrière a été mise en place en 2016, un start_date=2016 aurait eu un sens. Ou un end_date sur le chemin complet mais comme c'est un simple chemin, sans doute inutile, ça évite quand même qu'une personne en voyant une image aérienne veuille ajouter à nouveau la donnée : le chemin a existé mais n'existe plus (chose qu'il ne verra pas à partir de la carte).
N. B. : je suis tombé sur cette modification car selon un outil de contrôle qualité elle était suspecte. Je suppose parce qu'auteur récent et suppression de pas mal de données. J'ai vu aussi que vous aviez déplacé un menhir, quelle force ! ;-)
Vous verrez sans doute à l'usage que ID est limité et que JOSM est plus puissant (il permet notamment de changer de fonds d'images notamment BDOrthoIGN qui est pour la France sans doute la vue du ciel la plus précise - sauf orthophotos d'endroits particuliers). Bienvenu à la communauté des cartographes. Il est normal de faire des erreurs, tant qu'elles sont involontaires (ici en plus ce n'est pas une erreur, juste un flou à préciser).
Commodoortje (2017-01-14 22:06:19+00:00): Welkom op OSM.
.
Lees hier hoe je OSM het beste kunt gebruiken en hoe je kunt bijdragen aan een betere kaart: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/help 
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Welkom_op_OSM

Mocht je vragen hebben, kun je altijd contact met me opnemen, ik ben bereid om je te helpen.
Commodoortje (2017-01-14 22:10:04+00:00): Probeer te voorkomen om de knooppunten van de paden samen te smelten met de knooppunten van de landuse.
Mocht je hier vragen over hebben stel deze dan gerust.
Nakaner-repair (2017-06-18 20:43:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 49643350 where the changeset comment is: Revert all changesets by Müritz-Nationalpark and changesets being in conflict with this revert. See https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=646416#p646416 and comments of this revert.
philippec (2020-05-10 09:22:50+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/380494714#map=19/51.00176/4.38284&layers=D
Waarom denk u dat hier een pad is ?
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/hEY2H6vYGUZe8kxB7WQgfQ
joost schouppe (2020-05-12 15:21:49+00:00): Hoi Philippe,
Ziet eruit dat het pad eigenlijk hier is aangemaakt:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35339803
Ik kopieer je vraag daar even.
wegspotter (2020-05-15 14:20:54+00:00): Zie reactie daar.
Omegatherion (2017-01-17 22:19:56+00:00): Ich sehe bei Taxi.de nur Google-Karten. Da haben Änderungen in OSM keinen Einfluß.
user_5359 (2017-01-15 16:20:05+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please don't mark the whole property as building. Only mark the building as building.
Commodoortje (2017-01-15 09:50:20+00:00): Welkom op OSM.
.
MAPS.ME is helaas niet de optimale editor voor OpenStreetMap. Waardoor vervuiling kan ontstaan.
.
Lees hier hoe je OSM het beste kunt gebruiken en hoe je kunt bijdragen aan een betere kaart: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/help 
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Welkom_op_OSM

Mocht je vragen hebben, kun je altijd contact met me opnemen, ik ben bereid om je te helpen.
Commodoortje (2017-01-15 09:53:39+00:00): Je hebt een ziekenhuis in het bosje gezet, maar in Diepenheim is geen ziekenhuis op deze positie. Ik heb deze dan ook verwijderd.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oromc3yk4tyb5j3/2017-01-15_10-52-02.png?raw=1
Commodoortje (2017-01-15 10:12:10+00:00): Welkom op OSM.
.
MAPS.ME is helaas niet de optimale editor voor OpenStreetMap. Waardoor vervuiling kan ontstaan.
.
Lees hier hoe je OSM het beste kunt gebruiken en hoe je kunt bijdragen aan een betere kaart: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/help 
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Welkom_op_OSM

Mocht je vragen hebben, kun je altijd contact met me opnemen, ik ben bereid om je te helpen.
Commodoortje (2017-01-15 10:12:38+00:00): Bedankt voor je nuttige bijdrage, inmiddels zijn de nieuwe gebouwen en wegen rondom ook aangevuld.
BCNorwich (2017-01-15 12:20:54+00:00): This bus-stop is mapped actually some distance from the street and there is another bus-stop close by on that street. The name=studio given to the bus_stop looks suspicious as well, especially as the close by building is Studio College. 
So it looks like your mapping is somewhat flawed. 
Please respond and ask for help in rectifying the problem, I'll wait a while before removing the stop.
Regards
SomeoneElse (2017-01-29 23:17:41+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

You may not be aware, but when you edit OpenStreetMap you're editing a map that everyone can see, not just your personal copy. I'm guessing that "Mum" here is not be a tourist attraction as such, but just a bookmark.
Please do continue editing, but please do only add things that are verifiable on the ground. If you want to add a personal bookmark to MAPS.ME you can - just select the thing that you want to bookmark and select "save" and then "bookmark".

Best Regards,
Andy
user_5359 (2017-01-15 16:09:02+00:00): Welcoem to OSM! The highway „Sherlock Street“ goes througt a building? I modified the highway looking on the aerial images.
KaruoftheStead (2017-01-14 23:56:32+00:00): Oops, forgot to change the changeset description. Might change the entirety of SUNY Potsdam's footpaths, we'll see.
user_5359 (2017-01-15 16:05:13+00:00): Welocme to OSM! Please notice: buildung=x didn’t means there exists a object x. It means the building is a typical x 

please add a amenity=hospital if there a hospital exists.
Владимир К (2017-01-24 08:33:11+00:00): Используйте документированные значения для surface
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:surface
BCNorwich (2017-06-14 06:44:03+00:00): Hello There, Just wanted to point out that the way "highway=unclassified
ref=U3064" (south section) that you've added duplicates the ways that are already mapped on that route. The duplication of highways seriously disrupts any attempt by software to route over these ways.
At the river you've added a river on-top of U3064, duplication, river over river? Is it supposed to be a ford or a bridge maybe? Again it disrupts routeing along the way.
Regards
andyfrizzle (2017-06-14 13:21:19+00:00): BCNorwich, Thanks for the feedback. I've reviewed and hopefully correctly amended the highways.
trigpoint (2017-06-15 16:58:37+00:00): Hi Andy, I have a few concerns about these edits.
You have changed this way from a track to unclassified and included the surface=unpaved, in the UK it is reasonable to expect an unclassified road to be surfaced, I believe that unless it has been surfaced it should have been left as a track.
What is the source of U3064? These are internal references for the local council and are never signed. As such they should be put into the official_ref tag to avoid giving confusing information to non-specialist map users.
Cheers Phil
andyfrizzle (2017-06-15 18:17:51+00:00): trigpoint, 
I dont want to start an argument of any sort, but it was my understanding that contributors to the OSM project should make their contributions as accurate as possible, and that has been my intention, based on facts.
The road, edited by myself, is an unclassified road, lawfully usable by all traffic. 
Your assumption that an unclassified road should be surfaced is incorrect, there being hundreds of (if not more) such unsurfaced unclassified roads in England and Wales.
If there is an established and authoritative documented convention that unsurfaced unclassified roads in England and Wales should be marked as tracks I would be grateful for a link to that information.
I believe every highway authority in England and Wales has an obligation to catalogue its Rights of Way, the local highway authority for this area has given the road the designation U3064. 
The respective local highway authority provides the reference for the C and U classification of roads. I have been previously advised/requested that this local road reference should be placed in the 'ref' tag, as I have done with this edit. 
I consider the accuracy of the record/edit the most important factor at this time.
SK53 (2017-06-16 11:51:40+00:00): This does indeed appear to be classified as an unclassified road by the county council. There will always be edge cases where the rules-of-thumb fall down, and this is one of them. I don't believe that it should be mapped as such on OSM: highway=track is much more appropriate. A couple of important principles apply: "of least surprise" and duck tagging (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging). In general the vast majority of unclassified roads in UK will be paved, and this will be the expectation of users of the maps. Someone ending up using this data finding they are on a track with an unsigned ford is likely to be rather disgruntled. A check on OS maps show this is marked with green blobs showing that OSGB have taken a similar tack. A useful rule of thumb when checking how to tag roads of this nature is to check against the OS StreetView layer: in general public roads are shown in white with a casing; tracks, service roads etc., as uncased grey lines. I would therefore recommend: a) return the tagging to highway=track; b) change the ref to admin_ref which is the agreed standard in the UK for this type of internal administrative reference (talk-gb ad nauseum); c) add access=yes, motor_vehicle=yes (& other access tags); d) possibly add a designation tag with value public_highway. There are a number of similar tracks in rural Leicestershire, and I can recall one in West Sussex too (but trying to drive any kind of vehicle along it would be madness). All are in general mapped as tracks.
Richard (2017-06-16 11:58:07+00:00): highway=unclassified, surface=unpaved is ok but slightly unidiomatic for UK mapping. There's nothing wrong with it per se - there are lots of dirt roads in the States mapped that way, for example - but it's slightly unexpected in a UK context where highway=unclassified isn't used by custom for such a road. I wouldn't die on a hill for it either way.

trigpoint's right with the ref though - this should go into official_ref or similar. Otherwise you get the situation where user-facing maps and routing apps tell people to "turn left onto the U3064" to which the obvious answer is "the what?!". It's not really practical to expect every single user-facing app to build in a long list of exceptions for each country (e.g. "never announce C or U refs in the UK").

In general, don't assume a 1:1 mapping between OSM terminology and UK legal terminology - the words are often similar but OSM terms have their own meaning through custom. "ref" doesn't mean "any road number". "unclassified" doesn't mean "any unclassified road". OSM doesn't really do "established and authoritative documented" - we're not that kind of project :) - but this has been hashed out on the talk-gb list several times over the years if you're interested.

Anyway, trivialities aside, thanks for your mapping - great to see your contributions.

cheers
Richard
SK53 (2017-06-16 12:05:46+00:00): Just thought I'd add links to the similar highways which I mentioned earlier:

Tillington, West Sussex: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/273951783

Two in Marefield, Leics:

Red Lodge Road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/198802841
Blackspinney Lane: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/195159159

I will try & document all this on the wiki because I remember my own puzzlement about these three on coming across them 2 years ago.
andyfrizzle (2017-06-16 14:03:04+00:00): Thanks for the further input, I have no problems making the amendments as suggested prior. Northumberland has a vast network of unsurfaced unclassified roads with vastly varying roads surfaces. I would not be surprised is there are more than a hundred in this county alone. I will try and work through my previous contributions and amend them accordingly. An addition to the wiki clarifying these issues will  be of great benefit to other contributors.





,
SK53 (2017-06-16 14:22:24+00:00): Thanks Andy. I've added this to the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Unpaved_Country_Roads. It's largely based on the discussion here, but I should also add some examples from Northumberland too. I think pressure of use in SE England, Peak District etc has largely led to the status of such roads being changed. Two I know in Berkshire were v. rapidly downgraded to Restricted Byways shortly after they appeared on satnavs and became rat runs.
TagaSanPedroAko (2017-04-09 07:16:41+00:00): [Batangas City] rename jeepney stops, correct name of Card SME Bank (previously named as "Cardsme Bank", but that was incorrect, as "SME" means "small/medium enterprise")
pitscheplatsch (2017-01-15 19:43:51+00:00): Hi Crystalgtx, welcome to OSM. Could you please explain your edits? IMHO they don't contain any useful information.

Furthermore, please don't add test data to the live OSM Server.  If you want a test server, perhaps http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ would work for you?
pitscheplatsch (2017-01-15 19:43:26+00:00): Hi Crystalgtx, welcome to OSM. Could you please explain your edits? IMHO they don't contain any useful information.

Furthermore, please don't add test data to the live OSM Server.  If you want a test server, perhaps http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ would work for you?
Ze0zohk1 (2020-12-25 16:08:01+00:00): Hello jagdpächter,

thanks for you edit! I noticed your edits here some time ago. I hope you are still reading your OSM mails. You have added names to e.g. landuse=meadow like "Jagdfläche". This does not sound like a name for a meadow. The name tag should be used when it is really called "Jagdfläche". The name's purpose is not to describe the usage. Also the description should be more than one word. The description tag may be shown to users. E.g. name=Hexenwiese. description:en=On this meadow witches... some interesting store...

Also I noticed you added surface=Gras_Laub to many ways. English is preferred. If there are multiple values use ; to separate them. So e.g. grass;leaves (everything in lower case). However, it is preferred to use just a single value.

Feel free to reach out to me. Cheers
pitscheplatsch (2017-01-15 19:42:33+00:00): Hi Crystalgtx, welcome to OSM. Could you please explain your edits? IMHO they don't contain any useful information.
jc86035 (2017-01-15 10:22:16+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Are you sure the footpath goes through all the buildings in a straight line?
FreedSky (2017-01-24 09:57:50+00:00): 你的修改很”爱国“ 给你个五毛
adrianojbr (2017-01-15 14:55:04+00:00): olá, prubini87. bem vindo à comunidade de mapeadores do osm. é muito importante o conhecimento local para manter os mapas atualizados. aproveito para te avisar que não é o google maps não permite que seus dados sejam copiados, por isso essa fonte não pode ser usada no osm. para florianópolis, há uma ótima ferramenta da prefeitura que pode auxiliar nos mapeamentos: http://geo.pmf.sc.gov.br/. abraço.
prubini87 (2017-01-15 15:17:37+00:00): Opa! Obrigado pelas informações. Vou atualizar com meus dados pessoais então e também com os dados da prefeitura, caso seja necessário!
Abraço,
Pedro Rubini
pitscheplatsch (2017-01-18 19:55:56+00:00): Hi Kim Vermeersch, welcome to OSM. Please don't add test data to the live OSM Server. 
If you want a test server, perhaps http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ would work for you?
AndersAndersson (2017-01-15 08:46:42+00:00): Är detta verkligen ett hotell i Borlänge?
Från hemsidan:
"Holiday Invest är välkända i både Sverige och Turkiet och är ett av det äldsta och största svenska mäklarföretagen i Södra Turkiet. Som svenskt aktiebolag med svensk fastighetsmäklare kan vi ge alla den kunskap och den trygghet som önskas och behövs för att köpa ett boende utomlands."
pitscheplatsch (2017-01-18 19:56:24+00:00): Hi Kim Vermeersch, welcome to OSM. Please don't add test data to the live OSM Server. 
If you want a test server, perhaps http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ would work for you?
muralito (2017-01-16 14:09:44+00:00): Adrian, tenes que clasificar HAMFER LTDA de otra forma, no es un department_store como podes ver aca https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=department store

Busca si alguna de estas categorias lo podes describir mejor https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/kosher
literan (2017-01-15 15:45:31+00:00): не надо вандалить и расставлять мифические объекты
Alexander-II (2017-01-15 05:52:42+00:00): На карте не отмечают стоящих на дороге полицейских. Это бесполезная информация, которая устареет уже через час. Правку откатываю.
poornibadrinath (2017-01-17 07:58:02+00:00): Hi ParsiKade, 
 I had to revert your changeset 45184038 to retrieve deleted highways. Please be more careful when you are editing next time and take enough care that you dont delete existing valuable data from the map. 

Best,
Poornima Badrinath
ParsiKade (2017-01-17 13:05:50+00:00): Hi Poornima, 

Thanks for your input. I'm not sure which parts of the highways I've deleted as I don't remember deleting any major routes. I wish I could find out exactly which part was deleted, I tried to find out by looking at the changeset you mentioned. There were some streets that I modified because they didn't have any physical dividers and as far as I've learned, these types of streets shouldn't have to separate ways. I'd be happy to know where exactly this problem occurred.
poornibadrinath (2017-01-19 05:24:51+00:00): Hi ParsiKade,
  This was the highway that was deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/394766117/history. Due to this deletion, a few other connecting roads were breaking. There is a physical separator in between this dual carriage road. I guess this happened by mistake when uploading your edits. Thanks for getting back.

Best,
Poornima Badrinath
ParsiKade (2017-01-19 06:02:19+00:00): Oh, I see. Yes I made a mistake. Sorry!
Thanks for your reply.
Mammi71 (2017-01-16 22:58:07+00:00): Was soll das für eine Standseilbahn sein?
tyr_asd (2017-01-21 10:42:34+00:00): Ich denke das ist ein Doppel-Account eines anderen Users der seit ein paar Wochen leider Probleme macht :( siehe http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1150
SomeoneElse_Revert (2017-02-19 01:25:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 46204825 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some problematical edits to skiing areas (see http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=5088068, https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1202 for more information)
user_5359 (2017-01-15 15:31:14+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please connect the footpath with the existing highways.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2017-02-19 01:25:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 46204825 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some problematical edits to skiing areas (see http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=5088068, https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1202 for more information)
nereocystis (2026-04-28 22:39:35+00:00): What is your source for official boundaries for Oakland neighborhoods?
I created the boundaries of Glenview, Oakland, using existing websites.
oba510 (2026-06-15 05:40:17+00:00): It's hard to find a source for official boundaries when there aren't any.  Neighborhoods are inherently informal, with fuzzy, overlapping, disputed boundaries. Oakland doesn't have a system of officially defined neighborhoods.  There are some business improvement districts, unofficial neighborhood associations, etc, but that's not quite the same thing. Some maps have been created in the past that divide the city into areas for specific purposes but those aren't meant to be the same as actual on-the-ground neighborhoods.
user_5359 (2017-01-15 15:26:08+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Don't add any private information from residential or owner to a residential building!
Warin61 (2017-03-26 02:51:19+00:00): Removal of way 401738944 has made relation 6026831 multipolygon public land have no outer way... making the multipolygon wrong. 

So why did you remove this way?
Warin61 (2017-03-26 05:27:48+00:00): 1) 
You can respond to this comment on your changset by; 

a) Going to the changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45185296#map=9/-37.1910/146.9916

b) loging in - use your OSM password. 

2) I don't know how you edit .. I use JOSM and there I can download any OSM feature and look at it. So Relationship 6026831 makes some sense to me .. and others. You have found it ...but the Way: State Forest (401738946) only documents what is inside that way. 


3) Looking at the Relationship 6026831  .. it does not make that much sense even if it had an outer way! As the tags it has don't really mean much to the map! May have to contact the originator and see what they say. 

I am looking at multipolygons that have errors in OZ ..and trying to fix them. This is one of a few that I have tried to 'fix' but have felt the need to contact those that have touched them previously, hence this changeset comment. Contacting me by other means ... leads me to back track and having to re-reference things .. takes time. Please try to use the changeset comments as that keeps things organized (at least for me).