piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
EA Whittaker (2022-06-30 14:22:52+00:00): Hi 
(sorry, I'm new to all this)
Yes, the boundary runs alongside the access road. The first site (with the one-way arrows on the road) is the Caravan And Motorhome Club club touring site, offically called Meathop Fell. The one a bit further up is a private static holiday home site called Westmorland Caravans (Meathop) Ltd. I didn't put it as residential as strictly, it isn't because you can't stay there full time, it closes over the winter for 3 months. Missing from the map is the Woodlands Hotel and Pine Lodges, which is at the end of the the dead-end spur of the main access road. See Google Maps (am I allowed to say that here??) which shows all three locations.
gurglypipe (2022-07-01 15:22:24+00:00): No worries, you seem to be going about things the right way in marking edits as needing review, and being open to discussion :)

The restriction about not being able to stay year-round at Westmorland Caravans is an interesting one. I think it’s probably still best to tag the area as landuse=residential, since I’m assuming people’s use/ownership of a static caravan/plot there is typically measured in years, rather than a single weekend as it is in the Caravan Club site. But the note you’ve added about it not being open year-round is a good addition for clarifying things. I’ll edit the land back to landuse=residential.

If you want to edit the map to add Woodlands Hotel and Pine Lodges, please do go ahead :) But bear in mind that you cannot use Google Maps as a source of information — only use information from your own in-person surveys or freely-licensed sources. The problem with using Google Maps information is that Google then has a copyright claim (essentially, part ownership) over part of the OpenStreetMap database, and they could use that copyright claim to restrict distribution of OSM.

There’s some more information about licensing here, if it’s a topic you’d like to read more about: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_don't_you_just_use_Google_Maps/whoever_for_your_data?
gurglypipe (2022-07-01 15:31:09+00:00): I’ve made some changes in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123091294, see what you think
LockOnGuy (2022-06-30 21:17:01+00:00): Hello Again Renas Azad,     
Please when you map consider mapping with the local language as it is on the ground to follow the on-ground rule.       
For example, in this node, you added the 'name' tag in Kurdish not in Arabic which is the local language and the language the hotel uses in its signs, ads and social media. see: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100078694374752      
I know you're a kurd and you want this city to look kurdish by kurdification the city but this will lead to huge problems.      
Regards.
Piskvor (2022-06-30 13:16:35+00:00): Reverted armchair mapping in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123031708 - please check the sub/super relations.
Piskvor (2022-06-30 13:20:37+00:00): Note also the wikidata links in each of the relations: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q105773657
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q105773905
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1734032

All the three names are currently in use, even though the town is a single administrative entity.
zidel (2022-07-01 19:40:45+00:00): Hei, og velkommen til OSM. Siden veiene krysser over/under hverandre burde minst en beholdt en layer tag så man vet hvilken som er øverst. I dette tilfellet ville jeg valgt å la broen ha layer=1, så kan Mosseveien få en implisitt layer=0 siden den går på bakkenivå.
MxxCon (2022-07-01 03:19:59+00:00): Thank you for fixing this. 👍🙂
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123046439
opendcc (2022-08-02 06:05:22+00:00): Doch, ist er. Ich war da gestern ...
ToniE (2022-08-02 08:00:55+00:00): Hmm, dann sind die blauen Schilder neu. Ich war am 30.06. dort (oben links in dieser bounding-box und beim Forstwirt), da gab's noch keine blauen Schilder auf der Strecke "links oben bis Forstwirt". Lediglich ein kleines weißes Schild mit 'nem Rad und dass der Weg kein oneway ist (zwei kleine Pfeile).

Oder gilt das nur für das von dir neu gemappte kurze stStück SO vom Kreisel bis Otto-Geräumt?
opendcc (2022-08-02 08:27:43+00:00): Ich bin von Putzbrunn oben rein und dann mit meinem Sauser doch auf dem Radweg gefahren.
ToniE (2022-08-02 08:39:51+00:00): Danke, dann passt deine Änderung. Hatte mich damals auch gewundert, warum man den Weg parallel zur St mit maxpeed 100 nicht als "benutzungspflichtig" ausgeschildert hatte.
aceman444 (2022-08-23 22:01:11+00:00): Zdravim, k comu sluzia tie komentare ako "odbočení z I/116 od Prahy na III/11619" ? Co je potrebne tam dokoncit?
Leo Slager (2022-06-30 22:16:16+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
sjakobi (2022-06-30 14:01:07+00:00): Sorry, wrong commit message. Should be


typo: smoothness="very bad" -> very_bad
vojtechzaboril (2022-07-13 21:47:21+00:00): Covered has another meaning (or just a mistake?): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/906075892
vojtechzaboril (2022-07-13 21:49:25+00:00): Oh, you just edited whole way instead of its part.
emersonveenstra (2022-06-30 15:29:20+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for contributing to OSM! Please note the phone number has a very specific format (like +1-888-888-8888), see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone#Usage for details. Could you please go back and fix the phone numbers in your changesets?
WoodWoseWulf (2022-06-30 23:35:06+00:00): Hi!

This park seems awfully small and strangely placed. do you have any information about it? Searching for The Oasis Park at Commonwealth Avenue doesn't seem to bring up any information online.
Mannivu (2022-06-30 14:41:10+00:00): Sarebbe stato più utile un commento più esplicativo. Comunque, vedo che hai eliminato anche delle strade di servizio, perché?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123047681
mtt30 (2022-06-30 14:47:56+00:00): Modifiche alla viabilita'. In via Rossini non c'e' piu' nessuna strada di servizio da settembre scorso, mentre recentemente sono stati cambiati i sensi di marcia delle vie Rossini e Donizetti
Mannivu (2022-06-30 14:49:41+00:00): Ecco, questo era un'ottimo commento al changeset :D Grazie per aver spiegato.
SHARCRASH (2022-06-30 14:22:35+00:00): + forest/grass updated
Mashin (2022-06-30 16:04:08+00:00): For this purpose we have tags `access=no` and `access=private` that indicate that such trail is not to be used.

You can find more information here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project
eggie (2022-07-05 22:30:28+00:00): Beste wrt Alle gebouwen zijn directe import vanuit het Kadaster en dus precies ingemeten. . Je kunt niet naar de daklijsten kijken en dan een gebouw aanpassen. De woningen heb ik hersteld naar BGT data.
MVG
eggie
Peter Muret (2024-02-22 17:51:23+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1074833668#map=19/47.57519/10.56982 Dieser Weg ist für Fahrräder und Fußgänger frei nur für Autos beschränkt auf Anlieger.
InfosReseaux (2022-10-16 21:18:29+00:00): Hello

operator=EDF is the documented value
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:operator%3DEDF

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q22073

We should keep it as this

Best regards
Oriol Raventós (2022-10-20 12:41:32+00:00): Agree. Thank you!
Владимир К (2022-07-31 09:11:55+00:00): не следовало удалять точки, ведь там есть пешеходная дорожка. надо было разрезать линию и поменять тот кусок на пешеходную, который вы удалили.
user_8101879 (2022-09-02 16:05:17+00:00): Salut,

le chemin 1074838818 semble à sens unique vu le raccordement à droite.
Ne connaissant pas les lieux, je préfère te demander.
Tu corriges si besoin ?
A+
Voirie_3M (2022-09-07 07:44:08+00:00): Bonjour,
bien vu, effectivement, c'est corrigé.
Merci pour le retour et bonne journée.
Bruno
danieldegroot2 (2023-03-11 17:06:40+00:00): At least one way created in this changeset has been removed, due to it not existing -at least on compatible aerial imagery-;
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133557689
following user feedback from
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3261130

See this wiki page to learn more
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability

-

(is: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=8739140 )
user_8101879 (2022-07-02 12:04:27+00:00): Hi,

the relation 12653650 and 12653651 are empty (no member) so useless : do you know how to fix this ?

Best regards
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-11-01 14:01:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 174063813, 174063778, 174063039, 174063675, 174063839, 174063864, 174063733, 174063852, 174063722, 174063049, 174063081, 174063378, 174063746, 174063119, 174063802, 174063878 where the changeset comment is: Following a DWG complaint, reverting a dubious import.  See e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1311170850 https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18848
Scalarik (2022-06-30 15:21:07+00:00): Hello,

These conventions go against the conventions of how Finland and Helsinki specifically is mapped.

Please post to https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=15 first to consult the local mappers, before changing everything at a large scale
Scalarik (2022-06-30 15:23:07+00:00): Also check https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Finland, it says paths with both bicycles and foot traffic (kevyen liikenteen väylä) are marked with highway=cycleway + foot=designated, NOT with highway=path
DaveF (2022-07-01 13:21:33+00:00): Hi
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1074843285
Please don't attached polygon ways to highways. Highways represent the infinitesimally narrow centreline of the road. Always set the polygons back to their boundary at the side of the road.  

Imagine you wanted to add a gate to the meadow, it would mean you mapped it on the actual road, which of course isn't how it is in the real world.
eggie (2022-07-05 22:43:32+00:00): Dag wrt.. Dit lijkt me niet correct. 
Dit is toch gewoon een openbaar zwembad. 
https://www.sportpapendrecht.nl/

MVG
eggie
MxxCon (2022-07-01 03:23:58+00:00): Hello.
Could you please elaborate what are you trying to do with this edit?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123049923
mikeagarza (2022-07-01 14:27:00+00:00): So the location comes up when searching for "29 City Place" which is correct however people seem to search for it using "29 The Promenade".  Both Apple and Google maps are able to find it by using "29 The Promenade" but OSM could not.  Adding this change seemed to fix that.  Please let me know if there is a better tag for this sort of thing.  Thanks.
MxxCon (2022-07-01 14:34:52+00:00): Where are you searching this on OSM?

When you tagged "loc_name=The Promenade" you made it so that this Verizon store's *name* is "The Promenade", not its address. This is obviously wrong.
MxxCon (2022-07-01 14:35:38+00:00): What is the definition of "The Promenade" in this context?
mikeagarza (2022-07-01 15:03:08+00:00): yes, that would be incorrect.  Looking at Google and Apple Maps again it does seem like the street name in incorrect in OSM.  Part of the road is City Place while the other part should be The Promenade.
MxxCon (2022-07-01 21:21:53+00:00): Which "other part" is that? What area defines The Promenade? Is it just the City Place street along the shop or the whole apartment complex or even larger area?
mikeagarza (2022-07-05 20:26:57+00:00): So yes the street that goes W to E along the shops is "The Promenade" and "City Place" seems to be the road south of the middle roundabout.  I think the complex on the pier is also referred to as "The Promenade".
Herrieman (2022-06-30 20:24:51+00:00): I don't think this place exists. Do you have a source for it?
multimodaal (2022-07-01 17:01:33+00:00): I agree with Herrieman, please specify your source. 
Thanks for replying.
==
This seems to be a incorrect addition:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9858427942/history 

-This item is not visible op Mapillary (which mentioned in he changeset comment:  see https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.3031689177748&lng=4.6934640269005286&z=17&pKey=583312355971106&focus=map 

-This shop seems to be permanently closed based on information by the chamber of commerce: 
https://www.kvk.nl/orderstraat/product-kiezen/?kvknummer=341935300001

- Their internet domain is also abandoned, only old versions available on internet archive : 
https://web.archive.org/web/20100313160547/www.chicagopizzahoofddorp.nl/
sbelemey (2022-07-04 11:24:07+00:00): Hello, Herrieman and multimodaal!
thanks for your comments. We trust your feedback and therefore have removed this POI
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123186020

Best regards, 
Sergey
multimodaal (2022-07-04 11:39:47+00:00): Hey Sergey, thanks for your reply and for removing this POI. 

This is fine for this one POI, however the fundamental issues remain for other cases: 

- Are enough checks being done _before_ adding a POI in the Mapbox workflow?  
(it seems not, checks by other mappers were necessary here) ?

-Please specify the sources that were actually used in the mapbox work for the edit at hand

-both in adding and removing this POI sources where mentioned that were NOT used 
-such as Mapillary for adding the POI 
-And with deleting the POI the sources were incorrect ("Esri/Mapillary/customer feedback" :  I do not consider my comments to belong in those categories) 

Of course organised / commercial edits are welcome, but it should be done in such a way that OSM-volunteers are required to do quality assurance after these edits are added to the map.

I look forward to hearing your (and/or your colleagues) suggestions to improve the workflow. Thanks!
sbelemey (2022-07-05 06:20:55+00:00): Hello, multimodaal!
Thanks for your comment, these are really the right things to pay attention to and we will raise this topic again for the accuracy of fixes within the team.

best regards,
Sergey
multimodaal (2022-07-07 20:21:27+00:00): Thank you, Sergey!
I spotted a typo in my last comment, but is think that was obvious (-; 

In the section below "not" was missing before "are". We all make mistakes ((-;

"_but it should be done in such a way that OSM-volunteers are required_"

Best regards!
sbelemey (2022-07-11 09:33:41+00:00): Hello, multimodaal!
That's all right, we all make mistakes.

best regards,
Sergey
mariotomo (2022-06-30 17:48:03+00:00): hola y bienvenido a OSM.
la base de datos OSM es una base en que no es usual ni aconsejable hacer "pruebas", pues los cambios son reales y visibles para el resto de la comunidad.
te invito a aprovechar de los canales de comunicación y socialización ofrecidos por las plataformas OSM.
otra opción sería de aclarar bien las intenciones de esta "prueba", para que otros intervengan y mejoren explicando cómo alcanzar las intenciones de aprendizaje.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Good_changeset_comments
msevilla00 (2022-06-30 18:25:13+00:00): Hola Javier y Mario,
Como cualquier persona que empieza en OSM es normal que se cometan fallos. Por ejemplo, Javier, poner "prueba" como comentario en el conjunto de cambios es mala práctica, pero todos hemos empezado por algún lado pero ojo, sigue las recomendaciones, lee la wiki, hay vídeos en la red... y pregunta en la comunidad.
Saludos
mariotomo (2022-06-30 18:29:16+00:00): Sí, gracias Miguel, mi castellano falta de modales, la intención es de ofrecer apoyo, y pues para ofrecer apoyo uno debe saber cuál es el apoyo deseado. lo dije de manera ofensiva? "please assume good faith, thank you."
JJIglesias (2022-07-04 23:37:31+00:00): empiecen por "practicar" en learnosm.org antes de lanzar cambios q eventualmente van a ser revertidos por mala calidad.
Jjhend (2022-07-28 19:37:15+00:00): Lots of invalid post codes for this area. The buildings around the Cesar Chavez school are showing 85399 which is a invalid postal code. It should be 85339 instead.
streckenkundler (2022-06-30 16:32:40+00:00): Hei, kleine Bitte: versuche vorzugsweise Esri zu nutzen. Du kannst und darfst auch die Luftbilder des LGB nutzen. Das ginge bei iD irgendwo als benutzerdefinierte Karten oder so: Vergleiche auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brandenburg/Geoportal

Die Daten sind besser und genauer. Im Zweifelsfall, wenn Bing oder anderes neuer ist, richte ich die Dinge zu mindestens nach LGB aus, so gut es geht...

Danke.

Sven
adrianojbr (2022-06-30 20:58:31+00:00): Olá, Cláudio!

Muito úteis suas contribuições. Apenas alerto para ter atenção para não mapear itens em duplicidade (ponto e área).

Mais informações em: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Abraço!
Bienson (2022-07-01 02:54:00+00:00): Hallo,
Die Brückenfläche war eigtl. korrekt eingetragen, sehr gut zu sehen im NRW DTM Hillshade. Dort, wo du die Grenze hinverschoben hast, ist offensichtlich aber der Fahrbahnübergang. Was ist denn richtig - die Grenzen der Brückenkonstruktion oder der Fahrbahn? Konnte dazu nichts finden. Aber meiner Meinung nach eher die gesamte Brückenkonstruktion, wenn sie so gut sichtbar ist wie hier im Hillshade.
VictorIE (2022-07-03 23:14:09+00:00): Hi, rather than removing wiki links, they can be changed from wikidata=* to subject:wikidata=*
FinixFighter (2022-07-04 10:19:26+00:00): You're right, I didn't think of it. Thank you for pointing out!
Growdigitech (2022-07-23 09:55:45+00:00): singh tattooz amritsar
praeteritum (2022-07-01 03:27:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123066449.
Herrieman (2022-06-30 20:19:19+00:00): Please add POIs to the existing address nodes
sbelemey (2022-07-04 09:23:10+00:00): Hello, Herrieman!
Thanks for your comment! I added POI to the existing address node
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123180638

Best regards, 
Sergey
RaccoonFederation (2022-06-30 22:49:26+00:00): Nice work, map looks so much better with the land use completed
Syl (2022-06-30 19:40:59+00:00): Bonjour, je viens d'annuler cet ensemble de modifications (excepté l'ajout du passage piéton).
Vous aviez a nouveau ajouté des éléments n'existant pas (encore) : l'école et la partie de la rambla a l'est de l'avenue.
Merci de ne plus les ajouter tant qu'il n'y aura rien sur le terrain.
Minh Nguyen (2022-06-30 17:48:16+00:00): …added bridges, culverts; realigned roads, streams
stevea (2022-07-07 00:11:59+00:00): Minh, please undo the railway=disused tagging from here.  Just months ago, there was a demonstration train here (from Capitola to Santa Cruz, I believe, though Watsonville must have been "connected").

See https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2021/11/04/rtc-moves-past-tig-m-roaring-camp-request-for-partnership .

You can say that there isn't "regular, revenue passenger service" here, and I would agree with you, but you can't say "disused."  Rather, it is "getting shopped."  That's active rail.  You might say "semi-active," and I'd agree (again), but it isn't "inactive" (disused) rail.
stevea (2022-07-07 00:25:45+00:00): Additionally, SCBTRR has trackage rights on the (publicly-owned) Santa Cruz Branch (to Watsonville Junction / UP), otherwise it would be isolated from the rest of the national rail.

These are "lightly used" rail, not disused.
stevea (2022-07-07 00:55:42+00:00): Saint Paul Pacific (subsidiary of Progressive Rail, Minnesota) has an operator's license (contract to operate freight rail) on this entire branch until 2029, I believe.  These are legally active rail.

See https://www.progressiverail.com/rrspp/spp.html and https://www.up.com/customers/shortline/profiles_q-s/sc_mb/index.htm and https://sccrtc.org/status-of-agreement-with-saint-paul-and-pacific-railway .

This rail has its problems / issues, but these tracks are not disused.
Minh Nguyen (2022-07-07 18:42:03+00:00): I’m happy to retag the specific portions that have had this occasional service. I thought I was merely acting on the note that was added in changeset 67040694.

It wasn’t clear to me from my research that this occasional service extends all the way from Santa Cruz to Capitola. In fact, the TAMC document I cited above states that there is indeed an isolated segment of active rail from Santa Cruz north, with the segment from Santa Cruz to Watsonville being unmaintained and out of service. However, that was 2020, and I’m happy to hear that there have been developments since.

Retagging the trackage all the way to Watsonville would raise some questions that hopefully you can shed more light on:

1. Is the old-school wigwag on Seabright Avenue still in operation? I have no idea how to tag it if so.

2. Does this tree still block the tracks south of the old county landfill? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1074882241 It would be surprising to tag an impassable railway as anything but disused. By that logic, any railbanked trackage would be railway=rail.

3. What are the speed limits on this stretch? It had been mistagged maxspeed=40, which presumably meant 40 mph, for Class 3. But FRA records for crossings along this stretch give limits of 10 mph freight / 15 mph passenger, in line with Class 1 and consistent with the TAMC document.
stevea (2022-07-07 19:22:12+00:00): Regarding maxspeed, I think that somebody mistakenly "guessed" the tracks were already Class 2 (25 MPH) and set them to be "40" (meaning km/hr, essentially the same thing).  But people misunderstood the 40 as km/hr and thought it meant 25 MPH.  It still isn't clear to me whether it is best to tag maxspeed=* values on USA rail as km/hr (no units, the "international OSM method") or explicitly with "(value) mph" because so much rail infrastructure history is explicitly "miles" (not kilometers).

But yes, I think exactly as you and TAMC describe, they are Class 1 on the entire branch, so 10 mph freight / 15 mph passenger, in line with Class 1.  There appears to be "good intentions" to upgrade these (in places?  the whole line?) to Class 2, but we are years away from that as reality.
stevea (2022-07-07 19:39:14+00:00): Mmmm, because of demonstration trains sometimes going as far as Swift Halt / Natural Bridges, I've made the disused portion from at the wye, but from  Moore Creek (approx. Shaffer Road) westerly out to Davenport.
stevea (2022-07-07 20:19:36+00:00): Oops:  minor corrections to the above:

"thought it meant 40 MPH"
and
"I've made the disused portion NOT from at the wye, but from Moore Creek"
Minh Nguyen (2022-07-08 06:23:51+00:00): Thanks for taking care of the retagging so quickly. The idea that a one-off trip could prove decisive against years of inactivity boggles my mind. There’s a parallel discussion in Slack about when to call a road under construction versus no-access with a very different conclusion. But with rail, I suppose any state of disrepair can be temporarily mitigated with enough resources, staff, and… intention.

I retagged the fallen tree as removed in changeset 123344330 based on the understanding that this segment was the only way last year‘s demonstration train could’ve made it to Santa Cruz. I can’t find any timestamped imagery to corroborate it yet.

These had been the only railroad=* ways in California with maxspeed not explicitly set to miles per hour, so at this point we can enter these values in mph without having to convert or worry about misinterpretation.

I’m still genuinely curious about the best way to tag a wigwag. In this changeset, I used crossing:light=wigwag, but maybe it should be a separate node representing the device itself, since it’s so rare.