piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
TagaSanPedroAko (2019-05-04 22:38:28+00:00): Comment: [Pampanga and Bataan] realign alignment for Hermosa-San Jose 500 kV Line, other power lines, and parts of Jose Abad Santos Avenue (including crossing roads), clean up validation errors. The original comment did not appear on the upload dialog box because of a possible glitch.
freebeer (2019-06-03 10:21:44+00:00): if you were not aware, the orphan nodes were left behind from a restoration after serious vandalismus incidents, when the restoration process somehow went titsup, uploading a number of nodes but almost no ways to connect them.

my attempts to restore this failed due to the activity that modified the nodes comprising nearly everything deleted, so i spent the night manually restoring everything from Potlatch 1 as far as i could see from the changesets.

there is still one object that has been bothering me, as it used to have several nodes that you deleted, and the automated step recreated the outline without those nodes (trimming, as i read in the source).

i was wondering if my Potlatch Lazarus experience resulted in these old node numbers being pulled back to life and re-used, and it is the case.  every one of the half dozen nodes i checked below is in use again.

it is a pity you included more than just deleting the nodes, otherwise i would be tempted to revert your deletion and seeing where and how many nodes re-appear, in case there are things i have overlooked, as the vandal did not limit himself to just wiping the golf course clean.

anyway, on my lack of sleep, ii think i will try to find more vandalism i overlooked.

no real point for me to type all this, was there...

thanks
stevea (2019-05-05 01:46:07+00:00): Nasty storm recently.  I'm weathering it OK.

What is your source for the lcn 11 extensions along Monterey Highway?  I'm not doubting you, more like fumbling myself for a good/recent source for those data and I wasn't sure I saw it in your tagging/source comments.

Though there are four layers listed in imagery_used, I don't know if you are seeing city bike route signs in those, are using an online map I might not know has recently updated, or what.  I didn't know of such "double-routing" (lcn 01, parts of lcn 17 and lcn 11 sharing common infrastructure).  Thanks.
Minh Nguyen (2019-05-05 15:54:01+00:00): The bike route 11 signs are visible all along the road in Mapillary imagery (going southbound) and OpenStreetCam imagery (going northbound). I used the Mapillary sign layer to more easily locate the signs, and the Mapbox layer was just on as a matter of course. (I used that layer for pinpointing city limit signs that I came across, also in this changeset.)

Bike route 11 is San José’s first signposted crosstown bike route. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5417#page=2 To my knowledge, other routes that have been entered so far are only found on maps published by VTA and aren’t officially numbered. So I’m considering removing the refs from those routes.
Minh Nguyen (2019-05-05 16:02:49+00:00): I originally didn’t intend to map bike route 11 in this changeset, but as I went looking for the “Welcome to San Jose” archway along Monterey Rd. (which sadly seems to have been taken down), I encountered the BEGIN and END signs for bike route 11 at the San José/Morgan Hill city limit.
stevea (2019-05-05 17:59:57+00:00): Thanks for your answer:  ground-truth bolstered by Mapillary and OSC images.  Wow, not only bike route signs, but BEGIN and END signs for them, too!  (I'm impressed with VTA for being so complete with its signage).

I don't want to sound publicly contentious, but when you say you're considering removing routes which aren't signposted, that seems  a very (overly?) strict application of our on-the-ground rule.  There are plenty of routes (and boundaries) in OSM which are not well signed (or even signed at all).  Does OSM really want to remove them all?  Do we want a map devoid of routes (and boundaries) which aren't clearly marked on-the-ground?

Have we settled whether or not if VTA (or any government) "publishes" a route (in written form, for example, declaring its existence) but hasn't signposted it, that route doesn't belong in OSM?

What about VTA's light_rail routes?  Those aren't signed "green" or "blue" along the train routes, yet we agree those routes with color designations should be in OSM.  How do we know what color and composition are the routes?  VTA publishes those, they don't signpost them on-the-ground.  I wonder where the determination is made about routes (or boundaries) when they can't be seen on-the-ground, but "everybody knows" (due to the publication of geo data or public-domain maps) where those routes (or boundaries) are.  Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts.
Minh Nguyen (2019-05-05 19:12:06+00:00): Unlike the other routes that have been entered, route 11 is designated and signposted by the City of San José. I’ve never actually seen a VTA map that indicates route numbers; do you know where they come from?

The VTA LRT maps are posted on information boards at each station, so it’s no different than signage as far as I’m concerned.

I do consider publications distributed on the spot to satisfy the “on the ground” rule. For example, I often add contact information to business POIs based on receipts I’ve gathered. On the other hand, I draw the line at planning documents that one has to go out of their way to obtain; tags like unsigned_ref and official_name are more appropriate for those cases.

By the way, last year, VTA started replacing the color-coded destination icons with color-coded route icons on station signage. For example, the Mountain View–Winchester line is now represented by a B in a blue circle. But it’s in a state of limbo until BART Silicon Valley comes into service and the routes are reconfigured: onboard the trains, the routes are still posted and announced the old way, by destination, and the VTA’s website still shows the destination icons.

Compare the old and new sign designs:
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/cidGJeIL_L4FuTfv9HMm2A
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/gm-HoE1ONioHi2NUQPHA4A
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/CyiLY1mIydftpEA-xn5YvA
Minh Nguyen (2019-05-05 19:13:47+00:00): Clarification: The Mountain View–Winchester line will be an O in an orange circle after BART opens, so some signs have been updated to that instead.
stevea (2019-05-05 19:33:11+00:00): I've been "watching" as VTA prepares for BART and "going to orange," but yours (above) is the first confirmation that I've seen (either on a map, not a planning map, an actual route map) that there really is an "orange" right now.  So, thanks for that, I did not know VTA had started doing either "orange" or putting colors on signs like they're doing.  Thanks for your great communication!

(BTW, I agree with all you say about "planning documents" and unsigned_ref.  True, dat.)
stevea (2019-05-05 19:43:09+00:00): Much has happened since 2008-9 when SCC's Countywide Bike Plan (CBP) was adopted, including a lot of work in 2016-7 to revise the CBP.  I've just taken a look at that (and probably should have a year or three ago) and also find a dearth of bicycle route numbers on many of the related documents.  I'm not sure what's up with that, though if you are seeing "11" on signs in Mapillary, these network=lcn routes do "still" seem to be around.  I'm going to spend some time poking around "what's up" with these, perhaps I'll have more to say later.  Though this discussion is getting long; perhaps I'll private missive you with what I learn.  Thanks  again for "waking up" some apparently needed attention and good communication about updating various sorts of routes around here.
stevea (2019-05-09 22:57:18+00:00): I'm not sure where I got this (I sketched my understanding with a pen, leving my notes "source-less.")  It was from maybe six months ago about how "orange" was being introduced into the VTA light_rail lines when BART SV arrives in the 2020s and it didn't call Orange MV->Winchester, it called Orange MV->Alum Rock.  Baypointe becomes a "transfer station" as it serves all three (Orange, Blue, Green).  This "truncates" Blue and Green at North 1st and Baypointe.  (Orange is East-West, a bit SE towards Alum Rock), Green is (N-S, with a SW jog to Campbell) Baypointe->Winchester and Blue is (N-S with a SE jog to Santa Theresa) Baypointe->Santa Theresa.

It seems like you (or the signs? photo appears to be Baypointe...) say Orange will be a direct replacement for Green, while Blue will remain as it is today.  Are we clear?  (I honestly say no:  I don't know which segments will make up Orange, though if VTA has chosen a single place to put Orange on a sign in prepping the future for BART SV, Baypointe station is a good choice).

We can look for more VTA Orange line signs or we can ask VTA to more clearly articulate its (BART SV route change plans), maybe both; that would be a two-pronged approach to get to the bottom of this.  Sorry to be confused, it's like having two watches and not knowing what time it really is.  Basically, "any help appreciated" and I'm looking around for answers myself (VTA's web site, BART's website, maybe...).  I haven't tagged anything Orange...yet.  Kinda wrapping my head around the future, really, as I'm surprised to see VTA putting Orange on light_rail signage this far before BART SV.
Minh Nguyen (2019-05-10 21:27:39+00:00): https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/CyiLY1mIydftpEA-xn5YvA is from the Downtown Mountain View station. (I took it from the comfort of a second-story seat on Caltrain.) The new signage has also gone up along the 1st St. corridor, if not elsewhere, though it isn’t reflected in Mapillary or OpenStreetCam yet.

The current plan of record is illustrated at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VTA_Light_Rail_map_after_NTSP.svg , based on VTA documents. Full information about the New Transit Service Plan is at http://newtransitplan.vta.org/ .

I think the new signage went up prematurely (or proactively) because BART’s timelines keep slipping. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that it’s being phased in, starting with the least critical station signage. Departure boards and onboard signage will probably be the last to change.
ElliottPlack (2019-05-08 05:06:57+00:00): Agreed here. Let's keep an eye on this user. I'm an experienced mapper in the area and have seen some dubious edits. There's a thread on OSMUS slack with more. I reached out politely on a few of the edits already.
M!dgard (2025-09-18 20:58:43+00:00): Is social_facility=workshop hier wel gepast?

> A non-residential work facility that primarily employs people with disabilities. Also includes workshops for rehabilitating or juvenile offenders.
M!dgard (2025-09-18 21:16:11+00:00): Verwijderd op basis van informatie op website
WoodWoseWulf (2019-05-05 00:17:08+00:00): Again, please do not add pretend features to OSM.
FixedIt1900 (2019-05-05 00:40:14+00:00): Actual park here would send a picture if I could attach it. I know you are trying to do the right thing but please research before you get carried away.
WoodWoseWulf (2019-05-05 04:52:55+00:00): It appears that this is the location of a Bed and Breakfast - the park you added doesn't cover the whole grounds and partially intersected the building. Your account is not the only one making changes to this location as well, the mapper "harryrooster1990" has also used paths to write their name amoung other changes in this same location.

If you are trying to add something legitimate here, please feel free to shoot me a message and I'll help you add it to the map correctly :)
user_6110846 (2019-05-05 11:50:01+00:00): I invite you to the forum to give an explanation in detail

You started the editing wars.
user_6110846 (2019-05-05 11:51:15+00:00): згоден лише за landuse=admin_centre
only agree for landuse = admin center
KKS (2019-05-05 15:05:22+00:00): Одиним коментом то релігія забороняє писать? Чи букви на клаву сильно повільно кладуться і ти поки дописуєш слово - забуваєш шо хотів сказать?
user_6110846 (2019-05-05 17:52:49+00:00): ваше поведение в проекте и в дискуссиях есть возмутительным 
your behavior in the project and in the discussions is outrageous
user_6110846 (2019-05-05 17:58:08+00:00): все кроме landuse=admin centre будет revert 
Предоставьте доказательства микрорайона Гнилище 


Вам нужно позвонить в Недашки сельсовет или приехать в етот поселок 
Откройте интернет и там вы найдете телефон недашковског о сельсовета 
Вам нужно позвонить в Недашки сельсовет или приехать в етот поселок 
Откройте интернет и там вы найдете телефон недашковског о сельсовета 



all but landuse = admin center will revert
Provide evidence of the neighborhood Hnylyshche
 
You need to call  or come to this village
Open the Internet and there you will find the phone number of Nedashky Rural Council office
KKS (2019-05-05 20:10:06+00:00): Я говорю так як вважаю за потрібне.
От ти маєш телефон Недашок - от позвони, хай вони нададуть докази ТВОЇХ ДІЙ, а поки цього не буде - буде по моєму, точкою.

Знов ти БодяМіша незміг одним коментом написать, знов ОЗУ нехватило? поки пишеш друге речення - забуваєш перше? От бідося.
user_6110846 (2019-05-06 06:06:16+00:00): Polygon will be until the Ukrainian community writes about POI
Polygon will be until the Ukrainian community writes about POI
If you want poi - ask the Ukrainian community what they would have written
KKS (2019-05-06 11:29:24+00:00): Я задовбався тобі пояснювати, якщо ти дурний і не розумієш слів - це твої пробелми і твого дільничного психіатра. Подальшу дискусію я з тобою припиняю. Бо більший толк говорить з дубом ніж з тобою, бо ти твердіший за дуб.
user_6110846 (2019-05-08 17:48:28+00:00): phone 04133-95142  of Nedashky Rural Council 
телефон НЕдашківської сільради
user_6110846 (2019-05-08 17:50:48+00:00): Ваше нежелание проверить информацию лично - есть подтвенржением что вы не хотите конструктивно сотрудничать с инными картографами 

Your unwillingness to verify information personally - there is a confirmation that you do not want to cooperate constructively with other cartographers.
Kartenziegel (2019-05-27 20:51:08+00:00): Privyet,

some of your houses lack any building tag and are therefore not rendered: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/687871954

Best wishes
viloan (2019-05-05 00:26:58+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
Leo Slager (2019-05-05 12:53:03+00:00): Overtuig je eerst van de juistheid voor je iets gaat verwijderen. In dit geval zijn alle woningen met het adres Rodenbachlaan via deze weg bereikbaar.  Die naam staat er daarom niet voor niets.
Leo Slager (2019-05-05 13:01:16+00:00): Sorry, zie nu dat je die weg zelf hebt ingetekend. je eerste versie was dus wel degelijk juist. Zie ook de BAG viewer voor alle adressen:
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?geometry.x=116751.29616135&geometry.y=473690.54652679&zoomlevel=7&objectId=0451100000009862&detailsObjectId=
mxosm (2019-05-05 14:10:25+00:00): Oke, dank voor de correctie.
user_6110846 (2019-05-05 17:26:19+00:00): Я не не згоден з вашими дыями   

Деякі складові цього редагування будуть revert 
Ви не відвідували Малин район 
Ви фальсифікуєте інформацію 

I do not agree with your actions

Some components of this editing will be revert
KKS (2019-05-05 20:06:00+00:00): скріни, пруфи. Інакше ти знаєш шо робиться з твоїми ревертами... їх ревертять
user_6110846 (2019-05-05 12:05:14+00:00): I invite you to the forum to give an explanation in detail

You started the editing wars.
KKS (2019-05-05 15:04:26+00:00): Ти так ніхера своєю головою недопер.
user_6110846 (2019-05-05 17:41:21+00:00): where is it written about the same lines
де написано про одинакові лінії?
KKS (2019-05-05 20:07:13+00:00): це базова функція людського мозку. Хоча може в тебе lite версія - через шо ти задаєш такі питання.
viloan (2019-05-05 01:24:14+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-09-22 14:10:12+00:00): Can you take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3902662 ? It almost certainly is a bit funny typo
cleary (2023-09-22 22:14:56+00:00): Fixed now. Thanks for identifying error and letting me know.
mariotomo (2019-09-07 12:17:56+00:00): hi.  welcome to Panamá.  we have a discussion group on Telegram, and we are starting an activity on protected_area.
you tagged a small area between a beach and an industry as protected_area.  I'm afraid it does not fit in the Panamanian definition of protected area.  anyhow, come to the Telegram Group if you want to join the discussion.  thank you!
https://t.me/Comunidad_OSM_Panama
Viajero Perdido (2020-01-06 18:14:00+00:00): Hi badenk.

This way, "boundary=usgs", seemed to have no purpose, so I deleted it.  The boundary here is already mapped - from Canadian sources - and it appears to be accurate.

Please avoid using US sources to map Canadian boundaries.  Thank you.
badenk (2020-01-06 19:15:32+00:00): Hi Viajero:

I cannot find exactly what you changed.

Unlike most people, I have extensively investigated the interprovincial boundary.  The current (official) mapping is extremely erroneous.  The USGS topo maps are not only very clear, helpful and usually the most accurate, they also include the boundary markers and their labels.

I not sure why you would contemplate excluding U.S.A. based mapping, as OSM already uses Bing (secondary source), Yahoo (ditto), Mapbox, ESRI, DG-Maxar, etc.  There are also large global tracts of OSM mapping that are based on U.S.A.  government sources, and I cannot see über nationalism playing a constructive role by denigrating their value.

thanks,
Baden
Viajero Perdido (2020-01-06 20:39:43+00:00): Hi.  You had a way with no tags other than the one I'd mentioned, connected to nothing, in the rough vicinity of existing boundary ways and relations.  No big deal, especially since it likely never rendered on any map.

Local government sources should be considered authoritative, as they've defined the boundaries in the first place, no?   This is different than mapping the natural world.  

The dataset I've used from the AB gov't in the past seems accurate; various boundaries from there match up with various other boundaries from there.  BC, I'm not so sure.

I'm not the local boundaries expert (we have one), so I'll leave it at that.

Happy mapping,
VP
badenk (2020-01-21 03:41:18+00:00): Hola Viajero:

The Alberta - B.C. border is defined by Canadian Government Statute stating that the interprovincial boundary follows the height of land (natural border) from the International Border (Waterton) to the 120th degree meridian, and then along that meridian to the N.W.T border.

The only parts which do not follow geography are in the mountain passes, where markers and carins were placed to ensure a visible and discernible boundary.  The Interprovincial Boundary Commission surveyed the border from 1913, and is responsible for its demarcation.  R.W. Cautley, the Alberta appointee, surveyed and placed monuments in the mountain passes, and Arthur Wheeler, the B.C.  appointee, remotely (photogrammetrically) surveyed the remaining continental divide.  The Commission occasionally clears the cutlines between the markers, so usually the border is easily distinguished on imagery.

"Local government sources" do not have any authority determining nor surveying the border.  AFAIK, there are no maps which officially define the border.  The reason you probably found agreement in the Alberta maps, is that all the Alberta maps probably originate from the same provincial data set.

thanks,
Baden
Viajero Perdido (2020-01-21 03:57:50+00:00): Adding to the fun, I found one of those boundary markers, there at Crowsnest Pass, wasn't even attached to the ground.  A small concrete thing, the size of a bowling ball but not as round.  We joked about moving it a little to make our favourite province a bit bigger, but couldn't agree which direction that meant it should go.  :)
下り専門 (2019-05-05 05:58:18+00:00): はじめまして。OpenStreetMapへようこそ。このエリアのBing航空画像にはずれがあることがGPSログとの比較で分かっています。右メニューの背景画像設定から「国土地理院 全国最新写真(シームレス)」を選ぶと正確です。（ただしちょっと古いのでBing航空画像と使い分けるのが良いかと思います。）日本のBing写真がイマイチな話はこちら。 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/nyampire/diary/36310
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/69893343
たつん (2019-05-05 06:17:09+00:00): 下り専門さん、こんにちは。ご指南ありがとうございます。なるほど、落とし穴があったのですね。トレースしなおします。道路はあまりいじらないでGPSデータを上げたほうが良いのかもしれませんね。
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/69893343
下り専門 (2019-05-06 12:42:44+00:00): たっつぁんさん、返信ありがとうございます。  
ある程度の位置合わせができているのは国道と県道くらいでそのほかはまだズレが大きかったり道路自体がたりなかったりします。  
なので引き続きよろしくお願いします。
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/69893343
たつん (2019-05-06 13:31:03+00:00): ありがとうございます。ところどころ謎の道があったりもしますが、ここまでのベースのデータをどなたが用意されたのか、感心しながら編集を進めています。
pitscheplatsch (2019-05-05 06:39:31+00:00): revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69717091
pitscheplatsch (2019-05-05 06:39:38+00:00): thanks
TagaSanPedroAko (2019-05-05 05:54:13+00:00): Correct changeset comment: [Karawang and Pamanukan, Indonesia] undo fantasy edits, realign portion of toll road exit, add/extend/unmangle power lines
Zabir91 (2019-05-05 09:33:28+00:00): This পুড়াখালী বিল (641437221) should be tagged as 
natural=wetland
wetland=marsh
see here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wetland
Thank you for your contribution 😊
Zabir91 (2019-05-05 09:31:01+00:00): This সিংড়ার বিল (687884599) should be tagged as 
natural=wetland
wetland=marsh
see here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wetland.
Thank you for your contribution 😊
felipeeugenio (2019-05-05 16:49:04+00:00): Estimado. Si por el camino tienen preferencia los peatones, sin embargo vehículos pueden pasar, entonces es pedestrian
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian.
Si solo es para peatones, entonces footway es apropiado.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway


saludos y muchas gracias por sus aportes. por favor no dude en escribir si tiene dudas
TagaSanPedroAko (2019-05-05 05:53:47+00:00): Correct comment: [Bogor Regency, Indonesia] add bridges and tag alternate name for Bogor-Ciawi-Sukabumi Toll Road, realign further local roads affected, delete demolished buildings