piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Jerry_W2k (2021-07-29 04:03:49+00:00): Hej, masz rację zagapiłem się i skopiowałem pobliski adres z nie tą miejscowością. Poza tym korzystam w JOSM z osobnych warstw "Nazw ulic" i "Punktów adresowych" - często na skrzyżowaniach ulic nie wiedziałem do jakiej ulicy mam przypisać budynek. W sumie mógłbym importować adresy z większą pewnością ze strony budynki.openstreetmap.org.pl
Dzięki wielkie i życzę jak najmniej napotkanych baboli w OSM :) Jerry
sorcrosc (2021-07-28 22:49:39+00:00): Ho corretto la tua modifica su via Cristina Belgioioso perché la pista ciclabile è già mappata su percorso separato.

Ciao
felipeeugenio (2021-07-27 22:36:11+00:00): Hola Vicente. Lo que estás diciendo es que la bomba de bencina está solo en el techo.
Esto es algo que varios maperos hicieron hace unos años y con el tiempo lo hemos ido arreglando. 
el techo es solo un building=roof, la bomba de bencina es todo el resto.
Y bueno, si hay una farmacia o un local para comprar snacks se agregan también.
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108711528
VicenteBarraFM (2021-07-28 00:33:52+00:00): Ok. Muchas gracias por la corrección. ¿Entonces la bomba de bencina es mejor dejarla como nodo aparte y los demás locales/tiendas, etc.. alrededor si se pueden mapear como área por separado?
VicenteBarraFM (2021-07-28 00:44:02+00:00): Y bueno, también como tu lo has editado ahora... pero mi pregunta refiere a si en otras bencinas se podría mapear como he mencionado además de la forma en que la has corregido.
felipeeugenio (2021-07-28 12:15:23+00:00): Hola
Como quieras tú. La verdad es que no hay una regla que te diga si las tiendas (shop o amenity) hay que mapearlas como nodo o como área. Lo que si, es que si ya la pones como área, que sea el área real y no solo el techo.

saludos
user_11418917 (2021-07-27 23:08:15+00:00): Stop adding spam!
Yu_llis (2021-09-21 07:43:03+00:00): Неіснуюча дорога — лінія 962737141
SomeoneElse (2021-12-11 12:01:11+00:00): Hello,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6194967015/history seems very unlikely.  Apparently the path https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/661712673 joins the stream here and then stops, but there is no connection to the tertiary road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/728214934/history just to the east.  The imagery suggests that there is access west from the tertiary road, but the path south is actually fairly unclear.  Bing appears to be the clearer imagery than Maxar here.
Best Regards,
Andy
VARVAR8 (2021-12-11 22:15:06+00:00): Andy. As history shows, the author of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/661712673/history was mirmap. I try not to correct the eyelashes of other cartographers, because they could visit that place and know the circumstances better than I do.
impiaaa (2021-07-27 22:56:12+00:00): This changeset reuses nodes from a motorway to form a footway. Please do not reuse nodes for unrelated objects.
fabiotofy (2021-07-28 08:25:24+00:00): Ciao, nel campo city si indica solo il comune. La frazione la si può mettere nel campo place. Il nome corretto della via è Casali Stella non Casalia
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108712337
SnowDiver (2021-09-03 09:09:32+00:00): Sorry, my italian is not the best. I understand your comment as a remark, that the address is not correct. Please feel free to correct it. I stayed at this guest house as a tourist during summer. I don't know the local adress format.
fabiotofy (2021-09-03 09:33:13+00:00): Ok, thank you. 
I applied the fix. Bye
Glassman (2021-07-28 18:00:08+00:00): #TIP: Instead of deleting the restroom node, just move it to the correct location. That save the history of the object.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108712915
Glassman (2021-07-28 18:01:29+00:00): #TIP: area is an incorrect tag, it should remain as parking if that's what the area is used for. Can you fix?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108712915
danieldegroot2 (2021-07-28 11:07:08+00:00): Hey nivesnine,

Looks like you know how to square corners. Otherwise, you can always look this up with the help tab in the editor's right sidebar, or go to http://learnosm.org/ to learn more.

If you have time, feel free to check/survey whether the buildings "Laundry Room" and "Community Building" have correct names (not mapped by you). They seem to indicate their function instead of their name. As you may know, these are indicated with their own tags. You can look up tags on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page

Regards,

Daniel
danieldegroot2 (2021-07-28 11:19:40+00:00): Streetside parking is usually not mapped as parking areas(, though for certain cases parking=streetside exists). They are usually mapped on way segments with "parking lane" tagging. Anyhow, parking areas are mostly meant for seperate areas dedicated to parking (usually by malls/supermarkets or in city centres).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parking

(Excuse me for the additional comment, I only just saw you already mapped on in this changeset)
nivesnine (2021-07-29 05:57:31+00:00): Hey Daniel, thanks for the feedback. Everything makes sense, I am a bit confused about the parking lot. Should it just not be marked? It is not gated but also not an actual street, the lot is contained inside the apartment complex. 

Thanks,
Dustin
JeroenHoek (2021-07-31 07:02:56+00:00): Hello, you've used footway=separate (way 313596139 for example) in this changeset, replacing the documented and common sidewalk=separate:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk

Was that intentional or a mistake?
MacLondon (2021-08-01 16:12:22+00:00): Hi. Yes, it was intentional.

The relevant footways that are mapped separate to these cycleway crossings are footway=crossing, i.e. they're not sidewalks.

The documented (global) tagging for separately mapped 'bicycle only' cycleways is with "foot=no"... but in the UK (to my knowledge) pedestrians can legally still use them, so there is no actual access restriction for pedestrians on these. I know some OSM users are very protective about inaccurate use of "foot=no".

Instead I've added "footway=separate" just as a potential aid for routing engines to direct pedestrians via the intended pedestrian crossing rather than via the cycleway crossing.
JeroenHoek (2021-08-01 16:38:50+00:00): For such cases you could consider foot=use_sidepath, but that may depend on local laws and mapping custom. Often pedestrians are legally compelled to use the footpath if it runs parallel to the road or cycleway. foot=use_sidepath is fairly well supported in routers these days.

Keep in mind that footway=* really only provides a way to further specify the type of a highway=footway (e.g., footway=crossing, footway=sidewalk, footway=access_aisle in addition to highway=footway); it's not really suited to be used to say something about any mapped parallel footway (well, you can of course, but it goes against documentation and common usage patterns). Routers are thus unlikely to support it. foot=use_sidepath may be worth looking into though.
habi (2021-07-30 12:41:12+00:00): Ciao rodolfovargas

You've added ~11000 trees with `Circunfere=$number` in this changeset.
I think this tag should actually be `circumference`, as specified in the wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:circumference)
Additionally, I think the numbers are a bit high, since they should be given in meters.

And; did you really look at all the trees in place or is this part of an import?

Greetings from Switzerland,
habi

PS: I came here from https://osm.mueschelsoft.de/taginfo/newkeys.htm

----deepl translation---

Ciao rodolfovargas

Has añadido ~11000 árboles con `Circunfere=$number` en este changeset.
Creo que esta etiqueta debería ser `circunferencia`, como se especifica en la wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:circumference)
Además, creo que los números son un poco altos, ya que deben ser dados en metros.

Y; ¿realmente has mirado todos los árboles en su sitio o esto es parte de una importación?

Saludos desde Suiza,
habi

PD: He llegado aquí desde https://osm.mueschelsoft.de/taginfo/newkeys.htm

Traducción realizada con la versión gratuita del traductor www.DeepL.com/Translator
ivanbranco (2025-06-10 22:25:26+00:00): An update just for the record — even after 4 years, the circumference values still look off. In Bolivia alone there are at least 11944 wrong circumference values (is the country with most flags): https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/issues/open?source=6925&item=9006&class=9006033
JJIglesias (2025-06-16 08:45:44+00:00): All that data was a data import, not consulted neither agree with the local community.

If you are able, please remove from the database all the wrong data in these or similar Changesets.

Thanks and Best Regards...
Zkir (2026-03-06 02:03:00+00:00): What a pity. 

If it was possible to fix typo in tag name, why it is still not possible to fix values? Namely convert centimeters to meters?

Or just delete this tag from those trees, if it is not possible to determine proper unit?
Zkir (2026-03-06 08:59:27+00:00): I've opened a discussion in the osm community forum
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/fixing-an-old-natural-tree-import-in-bolivia-circumference-in-wrong-unit/142055

@rodolfovargas, you input would be  precious.
mueschel (2021-07-29 08:39:44+00:00): Please stop importing these trees! You already did that, and the changes were reverted a few months ago.
5m4u9 (2021-07-30 02:27:13+00:00): hmm... this trees may be brazil nut trees.
habi (2021-07-30 12:41:58+00:00): Also see this changeset here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108713223 (and my prompt for discussion...)
mueschel (2021-07-30 12:48:28+00:00): And this is the link to the changeset with exactly the same import from a month ago:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106490346
rodolfovargas (2021-07-30 15:52:32+00:00): Hola.
Los arboles son de CASTAÑA, un recurso fundamental en la zona amazónica de Bolivia, y de la "Reserva Nacional de Vida Silvestre Amzónica MANURIPI". 
El arbol de Castaña produce la Almendra, y este recurso esta siendo actualmente monitoreado. 
La Almendra contiene altos contenido de antioxidantes.
Esto solo para dar a entender la relevancia de este recurso natural.
5m4u9 (2021-07-30 18:42:19+00:00): Rodolfo, creo que está revertido. Yo pienso que deberíamos añadir esta data fundamental más aún si está dentro la reserva, pero debemos elegir bien las etiquetas. Me comprometo a ayudar si aún tienes el dataset. Qué dices?
mueschel (2021-08-04 07:12:32+00:00): I propose to revert this changeset for now. If the data is important to OSM, a new import may be done afterwards, in accordance with the OSM import guidelines, and using only common tags.
rodolfovargas (2021-08-04 12:54:27+00:00): Hola.
Se volverá a añadir el dato de árboles de Castaña.
Las etiquetas están correctas. La fuente de información es de primera mano, es decir que se hizo un censo forestal contando y marcando cada uno de los árboles. 

Saludos cordiales :)
mueschel (2021-08-14 08:00:28+00:00): How do we proceed here? Are you going to fix the tagging?
MxxCon (2021-07-28 03:39:45+00:00): Hello.
2 right-most fields are not tennis courts but american handball.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108713328
kevinchen1 (2021-07-28 16:36:05+00:00): Thanks, I have retagged with sport=american_handball in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108770055
kapazao (2023-05-19 06:22:28+00:00): Hola, ¿por qué etiquetaste las tierras de cultivo como landuse=meadow, había algún problema con landuse=farmland?
Esto último parece ser lo más correcto en esta zona.
Un saludo
prudhraj (2021-07-30 11:43:09+00:00): Hi "DTWD", please help us understand the reason behind deleting these road segments. While mapping these road segments, we have considered all the OSM norms. Thank You.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108713590
Meine Gegend (2021-08-06 18:58:21+00:00): leisure=park in OSM means a landscaped (city) park. State Parks are tagged with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area + the appropriate protect_class (e.g. 3).
WoodWoseWulf (2021-07-28 21:25:35+00:00): Hi Ali2020,

Welcome back to OSM!

Just wondering if these areas would be better as landuse=grass? natural=grassland implies they are unmaintained (think the prairie or the plains of Mongolia). 

Also, is there a reason why you've drawn grass areas as several connected shapes rather than just drawing one shape for each grass area?
AndresDuhour (2021-07-28 18:45:11+00:00): Buenas tardes!
Estaba revisando abreviaturas y vi los árboles cargados en la localidad de Leones. ¡Está muy bueno el detalle! Lo que te quería comentar es que se utiliza 'name' si el árbol tiene un nombre por que es un árbol histórico. Pero si no, la especie va en otra etiqueta, por ejemplo si solo se conoce el género va en genus=Eucalyptus. Saludos!
danieldegroot2 (2021-07-28 11:12:02+00:00): Hey nivesnine,

residential areas for individual apartment complexes are ok. The way residential areas are mapped in general varies from place to place.
You can ignore landuse for now. It doesn't matter if a building is mapped without landuse.
nivesnine (2021-07-29 05:59:00+00:00): The area I had questions about now makes sense to me, someone had mapped the housing developments at some point. I figured it would make more sense to map the named neighborhoods but I will just leave it all alone for now.
MxxCon (2021-07-28 03:49:40+00:00): Hello.
Do you have some supporting information that there's a neighborhood named Ravel there?
As far as I'm aware that area is referred to as Brooklyn Heights.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108714756
jmapb (2021-07-31 02:21:02+00:00): Chiming in -- never heard of this "Brooklyn Community Board Recognized Colloquial Neighborhood" -- what's your source?
MxxCon (2021-07-31 18:49:07+00:00): Since I found nothing about this feature online and this user didn't respond in 4 days, I deleted that neighborhood. Perhaps their other changes should be reviewed as well.
zyphlar (2021-08-06 23:53:39+00:00): Thanks for your contributions! The shape of the Uplands Preserve on this website ( https://www.sonomaopenspace.org/lands/?property=76 ) doesn't match the shape in your changeset, do you have a source for the shape? Also, the description of an element in OSM should be about a sentence long and contain only critical information, details can be found by users clicking on the linked website.

Thanks again!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108714827
tastrax (2021-08-02 05:35:33+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
Irma IRM-ED (2023-01-03 04:13:10+00:00): Hi Rebatnaath, Thank you for your contribution to OSM. I need help as I am not sure about this area https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/968022107. I found a water body crossing problem in this area with highway. I have checked various satellite images.  The bridge is not in the satellite image? Since part of the road is flooded, is the road passable?
Please let me know if you have any information or suggestions. This is very helpful to me as a remote mapper.

Thank you
(https://maproulette.org/challenge/30209/task/143780224)
rothbasque (2023-01-03 05:48:34+00:00): Hi Irma, it's not a walking road but more of a path for sand miners. From May to August it rains so that is the only time it'll be closed, after the rainy season stops people from mining company pave their own way and make a path for them to mine the sand. it's not a official path but people from those village may use that path to cross the river when it's not flooding.
Irma IRM-ED (2023-01-03 06:36:23+00:00): Hi  Rebatnaath , Thanks for your information. It is very helpful for me as a remote mapper. I will add tag(ford:yes) to the highway.

Thanks and happy mapping!
tastrax (2021-08-02 05:36:36+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
luiswoo (2021-07-28 07:31:03+00:00): Почему только для точек?
afnxn (2021-07-28 09:07:56+00:00): Насколько понимаю правила отображения для слоя Мапник, именно точки используются для вывода подписей населённых пунктов. И тег capital=4 (вроде бы) влияет на то, чтобы подписи выводились на меньших зумах и крупнее (см "Суми", "Липецк" на z=5)
luiswoo (2021-07-28 11:55:36+00:00): Насколько я понимаю, то содержимое точки должно соответствовать полигону. А мапить под рендер не комильфо. ИМХО.
ovruni (2021-10-16 01:10:11+00:00): En este conjunto de cambios se han agregado barreras, se ha indicado como source=streetlevel imagery. En el conjunto de cambios 112524497 se dice que se ha utilizado Mapillary, sin embargo Mapillary no contiene imagenes para varias de las calles donde se han mapeado estas barreras.
impiaaa (2021-07-28 13:58:07+00:00): This changeset uses nodes from a motorway to create a forest. Please do not reuse nodes from unrelated objects.
Glassman (2021-07-28 05:43:42+00:00): #TIP: When removing businesses, keep the address for use with the next business to move into the building.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108716464
tastrax (2021-08-02 05:33:20+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
the_cool_guy (2021-07-28 04:16:51+00:00): The roads were mapped using bing imagery
mavl (2021-08-26 16:20:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 110297264 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5292].
VictorIE (2021-08-08 07:33:19+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/968032515

highway="Malachi Place"?
user_2066394 (2021-07-31 22:00:09+00:00): Ist die Hausnummer 8 nicht mehr maßgeblich?
cats_pajamas (2021-09-01 19:42:32+00:00): Hi erickdeoliveiraleal, I noticed your recent edits to this trunk highway around way 968037899 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/968037899) that is undergoing construction. Do you happen to know if this project has been completed or if the current geometry reflects whats accurate on the ground? Brief research seemed to indicate this project has progressed a bit but I wanted to get your perspective before making any adjustments. Thanks!

/

Olá, erickdeoliveiraleal, Reparei em suas edições recentes nesta rodovia troncal em torno da maneira 968037899 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/968037899) que está em construção. Você sabe se este projeto foi concluído ou se a geometria atual reflete o que é preciso no terreno? Uma breve pesquisa pareceu indicar que este projeto progrediu um pouco, mas eu queria saber sua perspectiva antes de fazer qualquer ajuste. Obrigado!
erickdeoliveiraleal (2021-09-01 19:51:13+00:00): Olá, a minha edição reflete a realidade atual, uma via foi bloqueada e aberta uma ao lado, do outro lado ainda está sendo finalizada uma via alternativa. Um viaduto será construído no lugar da rotatória.
cats_pajamas (2021-09-01 21:24:17+00:00): I appreciate the information! We will check back when construction has been completed, thank you.

/

Agradeço a informação! Voltaremos a verificar quando a construção estiver concluída, obrigado.
prudhraj (2021-07-30 11:43:30+00:00): Hi "DTWD", please help us understand the reason behind deleting these road segments. While mapping these road segments, we have considered all the OSM norms. Thank You.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108721701
mariotomo (2021-07-28 20:11:35+00:00): hey. not going to change anything here because I've not visited the place, but it does look weird that you're not reusing nodes, like fence and landuse, and the fence not reaching to the building.
prudhraj (2021-07-30 11:41:56+00:00): Hi "DTWD", please help us understand the reason behind deleting these  road segments. While mapping these road segments, we have considered all the OSM norms. Thank You.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108722416
alester (2021-07-28 17:26:32+00:00): Hi Computron,
I noticed a few of the objects you moved in this changeset are now no longer aligned with the CRD 2019 imagery (which I used to map many of these objects initially), and I'm wondering if you might have an offset in place for that imagery layer in JOSM. By comparing the CRD imagery to the known coordinates of high-accuracy geodetic benchmarks, it's already very well aligned across Victoria, so an additional offset isn't required. An alternative is the Bing imagery, which was recently updated with August 2020 data and is very good quality. For Bing, I found that an offset of 2.09; -0.60 aligns it with both benchmarks and the CRD 2019 imagery across the region.

Happy mapping!
Andrew
Computron (2021-07-29 02:08:40+00:00): Hi Andrew,

Sorry for upsetting your work! I do not use an offset with the CRD 2019 imagery available via their ArcGIS WMS server. I do have my map projection in JOSM set to UTM 10N, same as the imagery. I check imagery against the Province's Parcel Map BC (which I had the Geo Warehouse reproject to UTM 10N) and both sources appear to precisely align.

I moved a lot of nodes, would you be more specific so we can determine if it is a technical error or simple mistake?

-Nick
Computron (2021-08-01 21:27:47+00:00): On closer inspection, the CRD imagery available through their WMS seems to have an offset of 1.335,-0.7890 relative to the lot boundary image available on the same server. This offset is not present through their web mapping application.
BCNorwich (2021-07-28 09:06:32+00:00): Hi, Could you please add descriptive comments to your changesets? This will help folk and yourself to understand what has been done.

Regards Bernard.
streckenkundler (2021-07-28 06:17:34+00:00): Der Weg ist Luftbildsichtbar und vom Winkelweg sichtbar, also in OSM auch erfassbar. Mit access=private ist er als Privatweg markiert. Daher hab ich den Weg wiederhergestellt.
Lee Carré (2021-07-28 20:36:43+00:00): “I know what I'm doing "perfectly"”

Yet, you're still causing the same problem as http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108644521

Please stop.
Super-Map (2021-07-28 21:38:48+00:00): I know the jalousie is the worse poison of this world!... have a nice evening and enjoy yourself... And one more time this map isn't a game, it's very serious!
Lee Carré (2021-07-28 23:46:44+00:00): “jalousie”
Jealousy?
Sounds like projection, to me.

“this map isn't a game, it's very serious!”
If only you'd heed your own advice, instead of making ad-hominems.

More projection. Yawn.
Super-Map (2021-07-31 17:49:29+00:00): I have no time to lost with you, so stay "blind" and have a nice "future"... don't expect anything about me
..."Please stop."... Ah!Ah! In your "dreams"!