piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
bhietsch (2022-04-07 19:35:47+00:00): What's your source for the horse racing tracks that you created?

Also, when adding buildings, please square the corners of them by pressing "q"
jrh31990 (2022-04-07 19:40:56+00:00): Local knowledge, this area has been used for horse training. Okay, will do. Sorry about that.
syntex (2022-04-03 11:15:09+00:00): Dlaczego?
Mordechai23 (2022-04-06 07:29:50+00:00): bo to droga z linia autobusową
syntex (2022-04-06 07:53:58+00:00): Ale to jest droga o znikomym ruchu
Mordechai23 (2022-04-06 08:24:46+00:00): ok
SekeRob (2022-04-02 17:15:48+00:00): Hi,

You broke the geometry! "warnings:mismatched_geometry:line_as_vertex"- Please Fix

ciao
voschix (2022-06-04 15:20:14+00:00): Hai il permesso del giornale di utilizzare il loro materiale? Normalmente materiale pubblicato da giornali è coperto da copyright e non può essere utilizzato in OSM.
JesseFTW (2022-04-02 17:49:42+00:00): Please consider making future edits like this in smaller, individual changesets, to avoid covering such a large area with the bounding box.
ivanatora (2022-04-03 14:17:08+00:00): +1 for JesserFTW
Please, commit changes on a smaller scale.
MxxCon (2022-04-02 15:51:18+00:00): Hello.
It appears that you accidentally dragged a sidewalk node many streets away.
I have correct this mistake, but in the future please try to double-check your changes so that not to damage map data. 👍
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119234979
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-04-05 08:30:14+00:00): You shouldn't drag the nodes like this
eggie (2022-04-02 16:06:28+00:00): Nog een tip nav PB  Wanneer je de linker CTRL toets gebruikt tijdens intekenen plakt je lijn niet vast.
Gr eggie
eggie (2022-04-02 16:52:23+00:00): Je afrastering zit ook vast aan de boundary=administrative van het gebied. In Achavi zie je ook waar dat is.. Node selecteren en op de G toets drukken.
eggie (2022-04-02 16:54:07+00:00): Die grens heb ik vast maar losgemaakt voor de zekerheid , want die grens heeft ook verbindingen die weer niet losmogen.
adrianojbr (2022-04-02 20:14:27+00:00): Em Florianópolis, as imagens Esri World Imagery parecem estar melhor (mais atualizadas, nítidas e georreferenciadas). Abraço.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-09-18 10:16:22+00:00): Can you take look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3895102 ?
JeroenvanderGun (2022-04-02 14:58:41+00:00): *Oosten
Arisuaq (2022-04-02 14:59:11+00:00): ... that villages with <10 inhabitants are hamlets even when they are standalone
MWXNG (2022-04-12 17:43:10+00:00): you moved the bus stop while the node was part of the car park, which changed the shape of the car park. the node should have been disconnected from the car park beforehand (it should in fact have never have been part of the car park, no idea why it was part).
i've fixed the issue now, so don't worry.
Matt Brayley (2022-04-12 21:20:40+00:00): Thank you for this helpful feedback and correcting the issue you identified with the edit.
MWXNG (2022-04-13 08:53:26+00:00): no prob, happy mapping :)
voltairovicz (2022-04-03 09:24:22+00:00): Coś się stało z wielkim obszarem leśnym koło Kozienic, las się teraz nie wyświetla poprawnie
Władysław Komorek (2022-04-03 16:36:00+00:00): Odśwież jeszcze raz.
user_2066394 (2022-04-03 20:50:12+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dparking_entrance
Fr33M4p (2022-04-04 10:37:16+00:00): Hallo! Ist das ggf. falsch, eine Tiefgarageneinfahrt so einzuzeichnen? Soll sie entfernt werden oder einfach Teil des Gebäudes sein?
user_2066394 (2022-04-04 10:44:39+00:00): Technisch parken die Fahrzeuge ja in der Tiefgarage, momentan ist die Zufahrt als Parkplatz kartiert.

amenity=parking_entrance könnte man direkt an die tatsächliche Tiefgarageneinfahrt setzen und mit einem highway=service anbinden.

Die Mauern der Zufahrt könnte man mit barrier=wall skizzieren.
Fr33M4p (2022-04-04 12:07:59+00:00): Danke für die Vorschläge!
Ich habe noch gesucht und ein paar alte Diskussionen gefunden:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=30685
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=7997

Da gibt es offenbar keine ideale Lösung.
Ich bin gerade unschlüssig, ob ich sie nicht einfach wieder entferne, da es viele solcher Einfahrten in der Gegend gibt und die alle fehlen.
Das Problem ist, dass ich nur die Tiefgaragenzufahrten von außen sehe, aber nicht die jeweilige Tiefgarage an sich...
Weißt du, wie das anderswo gehandhabt wird?
user_2066394 (2022-04-04 12:19:55+00:00): Ich hab das mal kurz skizziert, wäre praktisch das, was man von außen sehen kann. Ist aber natürlich nur ein Vorschlag.
user_2066394 (2022-04-04 12:26:56+00:00): Im Luftbild sieht das wie eine Überdachung über der Zufahrt aus, das müsste man dann ggf. noch ergänzen. Technisch ist die Zufahrt dann tatsächlich eher oben.
Fr33M4p (2022-04-09 19:01:44+00:00): Ich habs mir heute nochmal vor Ort angeschaut und das jetzt noch angepasst. Danke für deine Mithilfe!
user_2066394 (2022-04-09 19:47:05+00:00): Einwandfrei, gerne
Animyos Fox (2022-04-02 17:53:21+00:00): Update: I took photos of the building // Update: Ich habe Fotos von dem Gebäude gemacht:
https://imgur.com/a/0PIxjiw
Animyos Fox (2022-04-02 17:54:14+00:00): (See note of the node) // (Siehe note des Knotens)
eggie (2022-04-02 16:48:47+00:00): Hoi  Je vraagt feedback.. Het ziet er op zich netjes uit. Je hebt wel iets kennelijk vastgemaakt aan een grens.. Ik denk protected_area van het duingebied, want je editgebied is erg groot geworden
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=119240027

Even de rendering in de gaten houden (of alles een kleurtje houdt) , want het is 'kwa' mapping een kwetsbaar gebied dat al vele malen is gerepareerd.
Gr eggie
eggie (2022-04-02 16:50:16+00:00): `Je kunt het beste inzoomen op het gebied waar je hebt 'gewerkt' En dan draai je de validator nog een keer.
Niet elke fout is een fout overigens of heeft iets met jouw edits te maken.
Mapse
eggie
Peter_1962 (2022-04-04 08:00:41+00:00): Dank voor het nakijken en de reactie.
Het gebied "NoordHollands Duinreservaat" heeft inderdaad niets met mijn edits te maken, maar moet zeker in dat gebied worden aangepast.
Daar ga ik nog wel werk van maken op een vrij moment.
eggie (2022-04-04 08:13:02+00:00): Oke.. maar niet door landuse toe te voegen aan grenzen en toponymen.. 
.. en ook niet aan Multipolygonen. Daar staat de landuse al op de relatie. Ja ik weet het... het is ingewikkeld. 
Kijk even hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119288029#map=12/52.5305/4.6795
eggie (2022-04-04 08:16:18+00:00): Dit is wat er dan gebeurt https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.51536/4.63393
Wanneer je hulp nodig hebt voor het herstel zeg het dan even.. 
gr eggie
Peter_1962 (2022-04-04 11:20:04+00:00): Helder, Ik zag dat je de tag dan al verwijderd hebt. Dank.
Het toevoegen was meer door een waarschuwing tijdens validatie die aangaf dat een tag die het gebied beschrijft zou kunnen ontbreken. Op zich klopt dat ook, maar dan wel met de juiste tags zonodig. 
Dit was weer een goed leermoment over wat tags precies voor effect hebben.
eggie (2022-04-04 12:42:01+00:00): Die toponymen zijn ontstaan tijdens de import van de 3dshapes om namen op gebieden te krijgen. We willen er eigenlijk van af, maar er is niet zomaar een alternatief.
De foutmelding dus gewoon negeren. 
Groet
eggie
joost schouppe (2022-11-20 16:26:30+00:00): Ben je zeker dat https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/95366677/ eenrichtingsverkeer is? Ik zie op het oostelijk deel auto's in de twee richtingen geparkeerd. De verkeersbordendatabank wordt hier goed bijgehouden, en deze staat er niet op.
user_5359 (2022-04-02 17:10:44+00:00): Welcome to OSM! For a better description of the school please have a look on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dschool
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
olehz (2022-04-05 10:34:07+00:00): Чим ти керушся при зміні класу highway=*? Ти вже в 5-е змінюєш район біля площа Січових Стрілців. Аргументуй з посиланням на правила, чому там треба було змінити клас.

Знову посунуті дороги (3 дні тому). Тепер бульвар Торосевича. Ти можеш взяти телефон і пройти з увікненим GPS по тому, що ти "поправив" і зацінити в "полі" своє "покращення"? Тобі самому не цікаво де буде твоя точка? На дорозі/стежці чи десь збоку?

Я не знаю як тебе ще просити. Ти розумієш, що ти купу доріг зсунув? + Топологічні помилки. І ти продовжуєш це робити. Я не розумію який сенс обмальовувати спотворені і зняті під кутом знімки.  Дуже шкода, Трускавець тепер в гішому стані, ніж був рік тому. Зате є тротуари, тіні від крон дерев і городи. Воно того вартувало.

Ти можеш інсталювати нормальний редактор, який показує GPS треки (рекомендую JOSM), а не цей недоредактор браузерний, яким ти користуєшся?
Shyshka (2022-04-05 14:19:11+00:00): Я не трогаю дороги. Відчепись від мене
SHARCRASH (2022-04-22 13:06:34+00:00): Hi! Why did you change the highway from track to cycleway? 

I've plotted in purpose all entrances to fields to demonstrate OSM contributors that the way is also used by agricultural vehicles. Therefore it is more relevant to have it as a track than a cycleway since a track is more of a multi purpose way than a cycleway which is rather dedicated to cyclists, sometimes shared with pedestrians (then some prefer to tag the highway as path, also such way has great chances to be narrower). A bicycle can use a track but a tractor cannot use a cycleway/footway/path. The tag you've favored misleads people who would think they are safe on the way. If you haven't heard of this accident on the following link, it's a great example that we shouldn't mislead users of the map to think that the way is only for cyclists and therefore keep being cautious and accept sharing the way. https://today.rtl.lu/news/luxembourg/a/1900714.html

I've noticed that you've done this on other locations. Unfortunately, we will certainly need to revert those edits.
SHARCRASH (2022-04-22 13:23:33+00:00): If you need an even more obvious example is when using highway=unclassified, implicitly it is a way for broader types of vehicles. Even though cyclists are allowed to use such way, we won't certainly tag it as a cycleway.
Lxfly (2022-04-22 15:58:40+00:00): Hi, do not agree. I don't know what part you exactly mean, but on this area the cycleway PC15 is an official cycleway shared with pedestrians and usable by agricultural vehicles and land owners.
Lxfly (2022-04-22 16:16:44+00:00): You have this situation also near Essingen, Colmar-Berg, Schieren, Lorentzweiler .......
For me, what is missing in most properties is the indication that these specific parts are usable by motor vehicles.
SHARCRASH (2022-04-22 17:12:35+00:00): That's exactly what I've said: the way is shared between agricultural vehicles, emergency vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians and sometimes even horse riders. For example this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26380730 
I know it's part of the official cycling network but there are also parts of that network that go on roads but we are most certainly not going to tag them as cycleways just because of your argument "it is part of the cycling network". I think you can agree with this. 

So, since it is shared, we need to find the most relevant tag. In this case it is highway=track since it is not allowed to general traffic but allowed for agricultural, etc. 

Also OSM's Wikipedia clearly states that it should not be used when "cycling infrastructure is an inherent part of a road" and when "Off-road and outdoor: Outside of cities and dense populated areas most cycling routes are mapped using highway=track when the way is also used by large motorized vehicles (agricultural, forestry, emergency vehicles...) or highway=path when not intended for motorized vehicles (rather pedestrians, horses...). 

After all this, if you still disagree that such shared ways should be tagged as "track", can you explain me how other users such as emergency vehicles will be able to know that such way is usable for them in real in case of an emergency for a person who had an accident?

If the way would be blocked with unmovable barriers such as blocks, fixed bollards or cycle barriers, it clearly is restricted to other vehicles.
SHARCRASH (2022-04-23 18:29:26+00:00): For your last comment, isn't it obvious that the farmers need access to their fields?! Hence why i've plotted the entrances to the fields to show other contributors that these ways are also used for accessing them. 

Therefore it's a matter of relevance: a track can still be accessed to bicycles, in contrary cycleways are more specific, they cannot be accessed by tractors, horses, etc.

In terms of indication there is always the C3 sign with exceptions. Here is another proof. The fact that you changed it in cycleway despite the signs clearly demonstrates you made the changes without taking care of its access restrictions. https://goo.gl/maps/HUqZiK5KeHUtcKgi9

I've initiated a discussion with the community about your changes...
SHARCRASH (2022-04-23 18:35:35+00:00): By the way, myself i'm also a cyclist. I'm not trying to misinform people, rather i want everything accurate. In contrary you've tagged to render the ways as cycleways whereas they are also used to access fields. 

If you want to see the entire cycling network i suggest you to switch to another map CyclOSM is good for that. Please in the future avoid misleading people. Thanks for your comprehension!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse (2022-04-05 07:42:01+00:00): Whilst the change of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/244898746/history from "Colonization Road" to "Reconciliation  Road" is plausible (many similar roads have been renamed in Canada) no source was provided by PopeyePopcord for this change here.  Can someone local provide it?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SAS1000 (2022-04-02 17:40:57+00:00): Added small business name
mcliquid (2022-04-11 13:38:32+00:00): Hi AntiCedros,

Unfortunately, you have also caused some new errors when "fixing  some errors" by changing the turn restrictions on the L 598. There are now some missing "to" and "from" values in the relations.

Could you please fix this again? Thank you very much!
AntiCedros (2022-04-11 20:04:28+00:00): Hello mcliquid,
thank you very much for pointing this out!
I think I found the errors you were referring to and (hopefully) fixed all of them in my latest edit.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-20 11:59:17+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/516159970/history has n=Orchard Farm key that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What you intended to express by using this unusual key? Is this tag needed? Or maybe can it be expressed in a more typical way that would be easier to understand?
ALu68 (2022-04-02 19:35:37+00:00): Please specify the period with Key:historic:civilization https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic:civilization#Values 

historic:period=stone-age + historic:era=neolithic
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9631729927

historic:period=bronze-age
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9631729926

Name is the name only - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
eggie (2022-04-02 17:52:39+00:00): Dan dus toevoegen
de uitzondeing.. 
oneway:bicycle=no

En als het voor brommers ook geldt
oneway:moped=no
oneway:mofa=no
Gr eggie
eggie (2022-04-02 20:16:46+00:00): oneway:bicycle=no toegevoegd tbv de routering. 
Gr eggie
eggie (2022-04-02 17:54:08+00:00): Wanneer een onderbord aangeeft uitgezonderd tweewielers dan
oneway:bicycle=no en evt ook voor moped en mofa
gr eggie
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:11:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
Leo Slager (2022-04-03 12:58:22+00:00): Dag Colin,
De bushaltes heb ik aangevuld met:
public_transport=platform
bus=yes

In de routerelaties staan de bushaltes nu niet op de juiste plaats.
Dus die heb ik ook aangepast.
Colin Smale (2022-04-03 13:19:28+00:00): Bedankt Leo, ik was inderdaad de haltevolgorde helemaal vergeten!
eggie (2022-04-02 17:55:12+00:00): Maar dan nog kan er een uitzondering voor tweewielers zijn.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
eggie (2022-04-02 17:55:45+00:00): idem... uitzondering tweewielers?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:11:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:07:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
tux67 (2022-04-04 08:12:05+00:00): Hallo PUSde
willkommen bei Openstreetmap und danke, daß du mithelfen möchtest die Kartendaten zu verbessern.
Bei den Bänken war diese https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9631821871
mit dem way für landuse=forest verbunden. Das sollte vermieden werden und ist jetzt gefixed.
Prima, daß du deine Änderungssätze mit aussagekräftigen Kommentaren versiehst.
Eine gute allgemeine Einführung zu OSM gibts z.B. hier:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf

Solltest du Fragen haben oder Hilfe benötigen, dann kannst du dich gerne bei mir oder im Forum melden:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=14

Für eine Qualitätssicherung an der sich alle Mapper in der Gegend beteiligen können - bitte antworte - wenn notwendig - immer hier im Änderungssatz mit der Kommentarfunktion.

Viel Spaß beim Mappen wünscht
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119243149
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:11:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-04-26 18:12:04+00:00): Czy jesteś pewien istnienia https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1047472963/history ?
maraf24 (2023-04-26 18:25:18+00:00): Dodany w kwietniu 2022, ostatnie orto geoportalu jest z czerwca 2022 i nic tam nie ma.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-04-26 18:30:23+00:00): to do kosza z tym
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.