piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
JamJar II (2022-04-11 20:48:31+00:00): Source should have said local knowledge - apologies for the trigger-happy commit.
eggie (2022-04-11 21:22:12+00:00): Dag Frank.. 
Je vraagt om feedback.. 
Een fietspad zal het zeker niet zijn. Dus highway=path lijkt me beter. Het was al wel met access=destination getagd. Dus alleen toegankelijk voor bewoners. Wat staat hier aangegeven?
Wanneer er staat alleen voor bewoners was destination dus goed.
Wanneer er een bord art 461 wvs staat dan zou het private zijn.
Vooraan staat een barrier=fence  Dat mag niet op een node.
Tijdens de werkzaamheden zal er wel een afrastering hebben gestaan. Hoe zit dat nu?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-04-11 21:24:41+00:00): Of het hele gedeelte een highway=path is .. is maar de vraag. Waar auto's kunnen rijden zou het een highway=track kunnen zijn.

Ook de straatnaam ontbreekt. Volgens mij is het de Hoge Dijk

Up to you!
Gr eggie
dvdhoven (2022-04-12 05:44:19+00:00): Ik heb de route 74-73 en het Pelgrimspad hersteld. Bij beide routes was het pad uit de route gehaald.

Vriendelijke groeten,
Dick van den Hoven
eggie (2022-04-12 06:14:00+00:00): Ahhh  Dick bedankt  .. Zover had ik nog niet gekeken. 
Reden te meer om voorlopig foot=permissive te mappen 
Ik zal het voorlopig aanpassen totdat mapper Frankkie reageert.
Het staat nu op slot met access=private 

Groet
eggie
FrankkieNL (2022-04-12 15:53:27+00:00): Hi Dick en Eggie, 

Heb gesproken met de bewoners.
De achtertuinen van in ieder geval huisnummer 11b t/m 41 lopen tot aan het water.

Het gedeelte van de Hoge dijk, wat begint bij de Aalsmeerderweg tot aan de achtertuin van 11b is een openbaar wandelpad.

Er is een klein hek ter hoogte van huisnummer 11b, van hier begin prive terrein. Ter hoogte van van 15a staat een groter hek.

Aangezien dit gedeelte van het pad is afgeloten, is het pelgrimspad dus niet meer bruikbaar. Het is geen doorlopende wandelroute.

Heb foto's gemaakt, mocht dat helpen!

Groetjes Frankkie
eggie (2022-04-12 16:01:20+00:00): Hoi Frank.. Geloof je gelijk..
Heb jij een idee hoe de wandelroute nu loopt?
Gr eggie
FrankkieNL (2022-04-12 18:01:20+00:00): De wandelroute is niet meer.

Het is mogelijk om te lopen tussen het beginpunt aan de Aalsmeerderweg, tot aan huisnummer 15a; Dan moeten ze rechtsomkeert. 

De verwachting is dat mensen voortaan zullen omlopen/omfietsen via de Aalsmeerderweg, of Oosteinderweg.
eggie (2022-04-12 18:04:40+00:00): Oke.. iets voor de wandelspecialisten..zal straks wel een opmerking op de kaart zetten. Groet
Eggie
dvdhoven (2022-04-12 18:08:25+00:00): Ik heb 73-74 en het Pelgrimspad omgelegd
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
alester (2022-04-12 22:55:37+00:00): This isn't the city hall node, but rather the place=town node for Esquimalt. The name should be changed back to just "Esquimalt".
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
Glassman (2022-04-12 22:08:06+00:00): Question - is the entire beach part of the shoreline restoration area? If so, the tag should be on the area.  Also we don't use descriptive names. I'd add access=no to the area and tag it as boundary=protective_area. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area for the various types of classifications. Let me know if you need any help.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119595753
george1201 (2022-04-11 21:05:32+00:00): Faktisch passen dort 2 Wohnmobile hin, mehr nicht.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
sam-mapbox (2022-04-11 21:22:37+00:00): I also added this to both sides of the bridge.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:11:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
martianfreeloader (2023-05-29 17:54:38+00:00): ...in response to https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2513378
A67-A67 (2022-04-14 13:08:45+00:00): De correcte tag voor een busbaan is highway=busway, niet highway=service service=bus. Wegen getagd met highway=busway zouden by default toegankelijk moeten zijn voor hulpdiensten, maar eventueel kan dit expliciet worden getagd met emergency=yes.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbusway
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
mariotomo (2022-04-11 21:48:46+00:00): BigKev97, will you please, pretty please try to help the rest of us review your work? please!
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
BigKev97 (2022-12-03 16:00:17+00:00): I'm a global editor.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
culipabe (2022-04-12 14:05:32+00:00): WM-1004 existiert dort (oder ein paar Meter weiter nördlich, ich könnte ihn demnächst überprüfen) definitiv, ich habe ihn erst vor ein paar Wochen gesehen.
DD1GJ (2022-04-12 19:34:03+00:00): Der Mapper hat bestätigt, dass er WM-1004 unbeabsichtigt gelöscht hat.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:24:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
hebolz (2022-04-14 17:33:57+00:00): in addition to my first message: way 1051150877 is an example of what should not happen. It is visible on Bing, but goes right through a large building , visible on newer imagery from Maxar. I will have to delete it.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
CloudySky (2022-04-12 16:19:48+00:00): Correction: Source used was Esri World Imagery.
eggie (2022-04-12 05:35:53+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
DressyPear4 (2022-04-11 22:31:20+00:00): Olá, não altere a tag das edficações
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119597564
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
mariotomo (2022-04-14 15:34:17+00:00): :+1: :-)
porfiriopaiz (2022-04-12 04:26:57+00:00): Hello maritza esther,

Thank you for contributing to OSM.

I just noticed that you have added some changes to the map by citing Google as the source for the information that you added.

Also as part of the source you added a link that normally is used to embed information from Google Maps.

Citing Google, consulting Google or adding/modifying/deleting information to OSM based on Google is not acceptable.

Please don't do so.

Give a look to this document from the official OSM Wiki on this topic:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Preguntas_frecuentes#.C2.BFY_por_qu.C3.A9_no_utilizo_Google_Maps_para_mis_datos.3F

This changeset will be reverted on the next weekend due to the infringement listed above.

Please subscribe to the official mailing list to further assist you with any questions or doubts you may have on how to map and what sources to use.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ni

Regards,

Porfirio
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
antpriv (2022-04-12 22:32:06+00:00): https://www.romatoday.it/zone/sangiovanni/appio-latino/fermata-ferroviaria-piazza-zama-progetto-la-sapienza-.html
antpriv (2022-04-12 22:33:03+00:00): https://www.romatoday.it/zone/tuscolano/capannelle/fermata-ferroviaria-statuario-appia-antica-station-battaglia-lozzi.html
Mosi bjl (2022-04-11 22:56:52+00:00): VIP
Kovoschiz (2022-04-12 12:11:33+00:00): Please don't attach irrelevant features to roads. This doesn't reflect reality, and makes editing difficult.
user_5359 (2022-04-14 09:23:52+00:00): Hello! Please don't mark the whole property as building. Only mark the building as building.
Samuel Chávez (2022-04-12 23:12:15+00:00): Hola maritza esther, soy de Managua y estos cambios que estás realizando al mapa como es el caso de este changeset no tienen sentido para mi porque estas creando límites de un barrio y lo etiquetas como un Hospital del que por lo que veo tu operas, podrías explicar que quisiste decir. 

También es importante la información que escribes por lo que siempre debes de revisar si estás escribiendo correctamente las palabras, es algo tedioso pero esto garantiza la calidad de los datos subidos a OSM.

Estás combinando nodos de transporte público con tus vías creadas que rompen las relaciones. Otra cosa es que no borres nodos o vías sin saber que rol o función desempeñan en el mapa.

Además ya has sido contactada por Porfirio Paiz un miembro de la comunidad de OSM en Nicaragua por una de tus ediciones. En OSM sólo se mapean cosas verificables. 

Eres nueva y aquí hay ciertas reglas con lo que editas y creo que deberías de documentarte bien para evitar llamados de atención. 

Te diré también que debes de responder a estos comentarios porque sino lo haces te pueden suspender tu cuenta.
gscholz (2022-04-13 04:15:27+00:00): Hi maritza esther,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting ways:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-86.24154&lat=12.11238&zoom=17&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points,single_node_in_way,duplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=119598555

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
Samuel Chávez (2022-04-13 15:57:42+00:00): Hola Maritza esther, te quiero decir dos cosas: la primera es que OSM es de acceso público y por eso existen herramientas automáticas que registran los errores que cometemos al editar el mapa. Para evitar esto los editores deben de validar que tus ediciones no generan conflictos con los elementos ya existentes. Segundo como eres nueva desconoces muchas cosas sobre como editar elementos de manera adecuada y por eso te vuelvo a repetir que debes de instruirte más sobre que es correcto y que no lo es, al editar las cosas disponibles en OSM. Saludos.
maritza esther (2022-04-16 05:37:11+00:00): Gracias por las observaciones, estoy iniciando a editar, por eso mis limitantes, debo empaparme más del tema. Gracias y siempre atenta a las observaciones.
porfiriopaiz (2022-04-17 04:34:44+00:00): Hola maritza esther.

Gracias por la pronta respuesta.

Comprendo que dar los primeros pasos en la edición de OSM no es para nada fácil, pero para eso también están los miembros de la comunidad.

Existe la siguiente lista de correo a la que te puedes advocar para cualquier duda, comentario o consulta sobre cualquiera de tus ediciones, te dejo el enlace a continuación:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ni

No dudes en consultar.

Saludos.
Porfirio
ZLima12 (2022-04-12 01:56:53+00:00): Looks good, just one more thing I forgot: if the trail passes over something (e.g. water or marshy terain), you should also add a layer tag to show that it's elevated off the ground. Generally, anything with a bridge tag also gets a layer tag. Any value over 0 means that it's elevated.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119598789
Nat Bradley (2022-04-12 02:09:24+00:00): Gotcha. I also checked https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge#Layers & I gave it layer=1 in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119600565

Happy mapping.
ovruni (2022-04-12 05:36:55+00:00): Hola PIERINA NAYIBEL MARIN RAMIREZ, te escribo nuevamente debido a que los textos en tus conjuntos de cambios no brindan suficiente información sobre los cambios ingresados, solamente se menciona  #osmpe-unmsm-comaru  . Por favor revise la documentación sobre buenos comentarios en conjuntos de cambios. [0] 
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Good_changeset_comments