piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:48+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 18:22:53+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.
VlIvYur (2024-08-30 23:50:46+00:00): Hello
Are those buildings really have housenumber=000?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:02+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.
WoodWoseWulf (2022-04-08 02:23:04+00:00): Hi ScrawnyMeowth1,

Welcome to OSM!

Thanks for your contributions so far. Just one quick bit of feedback- you're "gluing" features like parks to adjacent roads.

It's generally advised not to do this as it makes maintaining both the road and park harder in the future. It is also less accurate than mapping the actual extent of the park boundaries.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:52+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 18:12:51+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 18:13:06+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 18:20:16+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 18:16:20+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 18:22:32+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 (2022-05-06 01:17:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:50+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.
archpdx (2022-04-08 15:04:51+00:00): Hi,
I noticed you listed 'Bing' as the source of these street names. Please note the only legal use of Bing maps is tracing from their aerial imagery or Streetside (not available in this area). We're not allowed to use any other information from Bing maps (like street names etc.) See https://wiki.osm.org/Bing_Maps
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-08 15:38:36+00:00): yes i know so i will provide secondary source
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:23+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.
nevw (2022-04-08 04:58:39+00:00): Hi
I expect motorway link is the correct tag here. Can you explain why you have changed it.
nevw (2022-04-08 07:00:25+00:00): Hi
I changed this back to motorway_link as did another mapper correct this on a previous occasion, probably for navigator performance and function.
martien-176 (2022-04-08 17:58:43+00:00): Hi, welcome to HOT. You requested a review of your mappings. They look quite good, as to position (tracing the footprint outline) as shape. Although i noticed some buildings do not have the square corners they should have (i also looked to changeset 119450640). So please keep paying attention to that. And please keep mapping. Thanks and regards, Martien, validator.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119449677
Glassman (2022-04-09 18:07:05+00:00): #TIP: Street names are not abbreviated in OSM - reason - software has a hard time unabbreviating. Can you fix Butternut Rd?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119449743
Glassman (2022-04-09 18:07:58+00:00): #TIP: We don't use descriptive names in OSM. the tag tourism=guest_house is sufficient.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119449764
Glassman (2022-04-09 18:12:02+00:00): The county doesn't recognise the road. I would leave it as a highway=service, service=driveway. Also - I only add access=private if the driveway is posted keep out or no trespassing.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119449800
archpdx (2022-04-09 07:37:15+00:00): Hi,
Can you explain why you removed this forest? Imagery from May of last year shows that this area is still wooded.
Glassman (2022-04-09 18:18:27+00:00): I went ahead and added the woods back. Only the tags were removed.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119449853
DUGA (2025-02-06 03:51:11+00:00): Rutter's do not have such kind of building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1050157590#map=19/40.130974/-76.793607
krusefahrer (2022-04-11 19:59:40+00:00): Why has https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5441369/history no building tag?
AngocA (2022-04-11 20:27:21+00:00): Hi. Yes it seems there was a problem in that area. I was just correcting te postal code. I mean, I didn't introduce that error.
martien-176 (2022-04-08 18:00:46+00:00): Hi,  thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT. The buildings you mapped here are well done as to their location. But pay attention to the squarness of the corners. Always draw buildings as square as you can. Then add the Building feature type. And last, right click it and click the square icon. 

Please watch these 2 short video for more info: 
-Buildings--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o
-Roads--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBLwb2nisJQ 

Thanks so much for your contribution, Martien, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119450640
nevw (2022-04-08 05:03:07+00:00): Hi
please be aware that we do not have permission to use Google products like Google Maps or Google Streetview to edit the OSM.
jcl190 (2022-04-08 04:57:53+00:00): I traced a building.
RiverBearings (2022-04-27 21:11:28+00:00): Hello GrabID_rizki sari. 

I have noticed that you have made a lot of motorcar=no tag changes to roads that were previously residential without providing a source citation with your edit, and often without a changeset comment describing your edit which are OSM common practices (https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Action/Upload under “the changeset comment”). 

As OSM contributors, it’s generally a best practice to only restrict car access where we have definitive proof in available OSM resources.

You changed Jalan Pelajar (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/499219368) to living_street and added a motorcar=no tag in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119451626 (with no comment or source). There is mapillary coverage here showing a car driving down this precise road (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-6.1600658474348&lng=106.93333353086&z=17&pKey=326790108970341&focus=photo). These have a width tag of 3 which is objectively wide enough for cars in Indonesia.

Some of these features have aerial imagery that clearly shows a drivable road with cars on them such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/727434487. In that changeset, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120204508, you did not provide a comment explaining the edits nor a source for these changes either. 

Could you please explain what resource you’re using to make these changes since they don’t appear to be supported by Mapillary or aerial imagery from what I can see? Thanks and have a good day.
Leo Slager (2022-04-09 12:39:26+00:00): review;
Het paaltje op zich houdt alleen voertuigen op 4 wielen tegen. De tag voor de honden dus ook opnemen op de weg na het paaltje. En omdat het een afgesloten gebied is, is dat voldoende.
FinixFighter (2022-04-08 11:01:46+00:00): Please, try to make smaller edits, this one spans from USA to Somalia. Edits should be small and should delineate a small geographical area
skquinn (2022-04-12 20:33:13+00:00): Also, "misc. improvements" is a poor changeset comment because it tells us almost nothing. Virtually every changeset is going to be an improvement of some sort.
gpspilot1 (2022-08-13 23:57:47+00:00): Hello,

I have done some reading about good editing practices – probably more so than most editors – and I have never seen it said that edits should be confined to a small geographical area.  Can you direct me to where this is stated?

I am a busy person who barely has time to edit the map, so spending even more time writing detailed changeset comments is out of the question for me.  Are map improvements unwelcome if the editor doesn't have time to write detailed changeset comments?
skquinn (2022-08-14 02:55:24+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets -- "To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:

    combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
    keep changes within the same country
    upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area"

Regarding comments, they don't have to be extremely detailed (in fact I think the limit is around 500 characters), but something like "Refine road alignment",  "Extend road per newer imagery", "Add/edit retail" would be an improvement over something generic like "misc. improvements" or "updated". If you're using RapiD or MapWithAI to add a lot of buildings, and new buildings are all that's in the changeset, "Add buildings" is sufficient.
gpspilot1 (2022-08-29 01:15:25+00:00): Thanks for directing me to the good info in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Never knew that.

Yes, if my changeset is limited to fixing a road alignment, I do say that in the comments.  But my changesets are rarely limited to one single thing.  I look around at what needs to be improved, and I typically improve the alignments of multiple roads, and add a road or two, and improve the alignment of a stream or other waterway, and fix the boundary of woodland or scrubland, all in the same changeset.  There's no way I have time to spell out all that diverse activity in the changeset comments, so I will continue to use "misc. improvements" when applicable.
literan (2022-04-09 10:58:53+00:00): это не линк между разными дорогами, а примыкание Киевской улицы
mavl (2022-05-20 15:57:06+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
RiverBearings (2022-04-27 21:12:49+00:00): Hello AmanBD. I saw that you recently added the ref=R773 to the route that follows the primary way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/56722319 to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/596809920. Do you have a resource approved for OSM that you could share with the community?

I wanted to learn more about the Bangladesh road system in OSM but the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Bangladesh page does not have much established information on the most important routes in the country. The proposed tagging page has a link to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_roads_in_Bangladesh page but R773 route is not currently listed. 
Would you be interested in updating these pages with road and route descriptions for the community’s benefit and so new OSM editors understand the ref and classification system here? Thanks in advance.
AmanBD (2022-04-28 03:23:39+00:00): The wikipedia list of roads is old and needs updating. The latest information on highways in Bangladesh is available in the maps published by Department of Roads and Highways (RHD) in its website: https://www.rhd.gov.bd/RHDMaps_new/Index.asp

For example the R773 route is found in this RHD map: https://www.rhd.gov.bd/RHDMaps_new/Maps/Roads/7.jpg 

I hope this helps.
RiverBearings (2022-04-29 22:43:41+00:00): Hello again AmanBD. Thank you for that information. Do you know if all user are officially approved to use that government resource in OSM for refs? If so, would you be able to update the wiki to archive it for others?
Thanks for your help!
AmanBD (2022-07-13 12:44:56+00:00): The recommended tagging system for highways in Bangladesh is documented in this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Tagging_Standard_for_Bangladesh
RiverBearings (2022-07-13 22:02:17+00:00): Thank you for the information about the tagging guidelines AmanBD. Just wanted to clarify if this resource: https://www.rhd.gov.bd/RHDMaps_new/Maps/Roads/7.jpg - is it approved by the local government to use in OSM before making ref changes from it? Generally, data that is being used in OSM either needs to comply with OSM license agreement (https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright) or specific permission is granted by the owner for usage in OSM (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potential_datasources). This clarification does not seem to be linked or mentioned on the Bangladesh Tagging Guidelines page - Best
Dimitar155 (2022-04-08 08:14:14+00:00): Много лоша практика е да триете нещо, за да го добавите пак. Може просто да преместите точката.
bernardo60 (2022-11-04 13:46:00+00:00): Hi
What are all these nodes without a tag? I deleted many of them, but they are too much.
user_5359 (2022-04-08 07:18:24+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Note that in OSM classification of the objects has the highest priority. Are you object a lawyer or a car repair shop?? I have revert your change set. Greating to oconnorpartnersny :)
azakh-world (2022-04-08 12:07:20+00:00): Hello.
There is already a station node at 百水桥. Duplication of railway=station tags on the building is an error.

Best regards,
Alexey
user_5359 (2022-04-08 07:18:33+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Note that in OSM classification of the objects has the highest priority. Are you object a lawyer or a car repair shop?? I have revert your change set. Greating to oconnorpartners :)
FinixFighter (2022-04-08 10:57:35+00:00): Please, try to make smaller edits, this one is very big. Edits should be small, this one spans from Germany to India.
mvineetmenon (2022-04-08 11:32:04+00:00): yeah.. sorry. I realized it only later.
FinixFighter (2022-04-08 12:40:39+00:00): No problem :) I wrote you just to let you know for the future.
Have a nice day!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-10 12:15:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123429454 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some POI additions, some of which at least are based on Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6130 and https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=15458291 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-10 12:12:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123429454 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some POI additions, some of which at least are based on Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6130 and https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=15458291 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-10 12:13:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123429454 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some POI additions, some of which at least are based on Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6130 and https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=15458291 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-10 12:12:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123429454 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some POI additions, some of which at least are based on Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6130 and https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=15458291 .
Leo Slager (2022-04-08 23:05:18+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht
Nearby0051 (2022-05-18 19:26:12+00:00): Hi,
I noticed you were the last one to edit this POI https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/513993728 (Rhythm in the Villiage)
The linked website appears to be "http://www.uncommongrounds.org/" which doesnt load for me

Now a new mapper has moved a POI of the same type and a name similar to the website a few cm to the left of the existing POI

See:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120209339
and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3153059

Do you know which of the two POIs is the correct one? And maybe merge them?
majkaz (2022-04-11 12:20:34+00:00): Please mark as "private" or at least "customers". There is no public access there.
Gee_plant (2022-04-13 06:41:55+00:00): Hi majkaz, I didn't add the private tag because it's a car dealer/showroom which can be accessed by the public/customers. As per your suggestion, I added the tag access=customers.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-10 12:12:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123429454 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some POI additions, some of which at least are based on Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6130 and https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=15458291 .
berndw (2022-04-08 16:43:37+00:00): Hallo Jule

bitte überprüfe Deine Änderungen bezüglich der Eigenschaften foot=no an der B42 ab der Landesgrenze bis nach Unkel.

Die B42 ist dort _keine_ Kraftfahrstraße, jeder Fußgänger und Radfahrer darf dort den Regeln entsprechend laufen oder fahren. Ob das gesund ist, steht auf einem anderen Blatt ;-)

Für Router sollte die Eigenschaft motrroad=yes|no und/oder das Vorhandensein eines Fuss- oder Radweges ausreichend sein, diesen auch vorzuschlagen. 

Die Nutzung von use_sidepath sehe ich als unnötig an, da dieses IMHO einen entsprechenden parallelen Weg mit passenden Eigenschaften voraus setzt. Ein guter Router sollte dann den richtigen Weg aber auch ohne use_sidepath vorschlagen.

Ist kein paralleler Weg vorhanden, gelten immer die Eigenschaften der Straße und abhängg davon die jeweiligen Standardwerte für foot, bicycle usw.

Sorry, dass der Vortrag länger geworden ist, aber magst Du trotzdem noch man drüber schauen?

Wenn Du Fragen hast, immer her damit, hier oder per PM.

Bernd
berndw (2022-04-08 16:47:26+00:00): BTW:
Die B42 ist ab der Landesgrenze Richtung Bad Honnef bereits mit motorroad=yes erfasst, foot=no ist hier auch nicht erforderlich.

Bernd
Jule_Beuel (2022-04-08 17:33:55+00:00): Hi Bernd,
danke für deinen Kommentar. Ich gucke es mir noch mal an.
Aber: ja, mit der Bezeichnung motorway ist das no für die Fußgänger eigentlich redundant. Wie du mit deiner Konjunktivnutzung und der Einschränkung auf gute Router zeigst, ist es zwar vielleicht redundant und sollte unnötig sein, es ist aber auch unschädlich, das Attribut zusätzlich zu vergeben.
Ich nutze für etwas tatsächlich eine Webseite, die auf die OSM zurückgreift und für den motorway-Teil der B42 trotzdem meint, dass man dort zu Fuß gehen könnte.
VG Jule
berndw (2022-04-08 18:30:59+00:00): Hallo Jule

Dann sollte diese Webseite ihre Regeln prüfen und korrigieren. 

Solange die Daten für OSM nach der OTG-Regel erfasst,  das war vorher hier der Fall, kann es nicht unsere Aufgabe sein so etwas zu beheben.
Bei offensichtlichen Fehler ist das etwas anderes.

Bernd
user_5359 (2022-04-08 08:30:13+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Note that in OSM classification of the objects has the highest priority. Are you object a lawyer or a car repair shop?? I have revert your change set. Greating to oconnorpartners, oconnorpartnersny :)
user_5359 (2022-04-09 15:31:55+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/node/3432415398.
You use the tags
 disused:1991-2016:amenity = nightclub
 disused:1991-2016:name = The Paradox
 disused:start_date = 1991
First of all, note that the time is always at the end. So
disused:amenity:1991-2016
 disused:name:1991-2016 
instead of
disused:1991-2016:amenity
 disused:1991-2016:name 
Secondly, the disused and the time statement is a double statement, one statement is enough
amenity:1991-2016
name:1991-2016 
or
disused:amenity
disused:name
disused:start_date=1991
disused:end_date=2016
عثمان ਉਸਮਾਨ bgo_eiu (2022-04-09 21:31:47+00:00): alright, I've gone back over the relevant wiki articles for lifecycle concepts and I see what you're saying. I've retagged accordingly. I think when I tagged this I was thinking of the historic:<date range>:feature scheme which is common. It also looks like in this context no date or lifecycle prefix is necessary on name, just the amenity.

for what it's worth, I try to avoid end_date, as the wiki page for it makes a convincing and strongly worded case for not using it, even in combination with disused:
user_5359 (2022-04-10 05:59:37+00:00): I am also not a friend of key end_date. I like your solution because of its simplicity.
ChehrehBargi (2022-08-07 09:28:38+00:00): با سلام و ضمن خسته نباشید، در تقاطع بوستان شرقی و غربی، اتصالی که بین این دو ثبت کرده‌اید، به صورت جداگانه وجود ندارد و با جدول یا مانع دیگری جدا نشده. اتصال معمولی این دو کوچه کافیست.
یا حق
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-10 12:13:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123429454 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some POI additions, some of which at least are based on Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6130 and https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=15458291 .
gurglypipe (2022-04-08 09:26:21+00:00): Would it make sense to remove the BBQ site entirely?  Have the National Trust removed it physically?
lakedistrict (2022-04-10 13:29:34+00:00): The fixed BBQ was removed some years ago. Deleted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119535899
habi (2022-04-08 07:53:12+00:00): Siehe 'Diskussion' hier für den Grund: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119420917