piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-24 04:01:02+00:00): Reverted by DWG due to undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131631786
mcliquid (2022-12-19 05:53:04+00:00): Hi, you have destroyed a turn-restriction here. Since editing TRs in the iD Editor is no fun, I've already fixed it for you but to increase awareness, I would like to point out to you.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130232319
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-24 04:09:53+00:00): Not reverted as since modified
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-24 04:01:27+00:00): Reverted by DWG due to undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131631786
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-24 04:01:32+00:00): Reverted by DWG due to undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131631786
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-24 04:01:38+00:00): Reverted by DWG due to undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131631786
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-24 04:01:45+00:00): Reverted by DWG due to undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131631786
Palolo (2022-12-15 20:43:47+00:00): Thank you for helping map this part of Tanzania. Please map every building accurately with square corners. Use the q key to square the areas. Thank you
MxxCon (2023-01-11 04:36:26+00:00): Why was this feature not removed?! There's blatantly no parks here!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130130051
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-24 04:01:51+00:00): Reverted by DWG due to undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131631786
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-24 04:01:59+00:00): Reverted by DWG due to undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131631786
Palolo (2022-12-15 20:38:31+00:00): Thank you for your efforts to map this part of Tanzania. Please work to accurately trace the buildings. Use the q key to make square corners. Thank you
SunnyIsland10 (2022-12-15 22:40:32+00:00): Correction: Source used was Maxar Premium Imagery
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-24 04:02:06+00:00): Reverted by DWG due to undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131631786
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-24 04:02:11+00:00): Reverted by DWG due to undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131631786
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2022-12-21 23:26:06+00:00): Den restriction har kun en via-node.
Den skal også have en "from" og en "to"
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-24 04:02:19+00:00): Reverted by DWG due to undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131631786
Marek-M (2022-12-16 08:40:15+00:00): Cześć, dzięki za edycję ale chyba lokalizacja tego sklepu https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10266225009 nie jest poprawna? Czy ktoś rzeczywiście uruchomił sklep na takim uboczu?
Neko the gamer (2022-12-15 21:07:26+00:00): il multipoligono non è stato eliminato e non riesco a farlo

qualcuno lo faccia per me
ToniE (2022-12-15 21:12:47+00:00): ...aber es sind Wege, oder?

access=private

als Zugangsbeschränkung ist die Wahl in OSM.
Das ist für Militärgelände, Naturparks, ... akzeptiert uns sollte hier auch OK sein, oder?

Feuerwehr, Krankenwagen, Zusteller, Polizei, Besucher (mit berechtigtem Interesse) sind froh Wege auf Karten zu sehen um herauszufinden, wie man zum Haupteingang kommt.

Ich würde die Löschung rücjkgängig machenund access=private mapene, denn die Wege existieren ja: nur der Zugang ist beschränkt
BettyH (2022-12-15 23:29:14+00:00): Du stellst die Frage, weil Du da noch nie gewesen bist? Unterstellst aber das niemand akzeptiert wird? Der Haupteingang ist ein paar hundert Meter wo anders. Ich habe die Wege gelöscht, weil es gefährlich ist wenn man unbedingt drauf im Kreis herumlaufen möchte. Das ist eine eingezäunte Pferde- und Rinderkoppel. Das sind die Laufwege der Tiere von den Futterhütten zur Tränke und zu den Liegebereichen. Das macht doch gar keinen Sinn den Weg so stehen zu lassen. Dort ist auch gar Einfahrt. Das sieht nur auf dem Luftbild so aus. Das ist die alte Baustellenzufahrt die es so gar nicht mehr gibt. Das würde Rettungsdienst und Feuerwehr (die sich übrigens auf dem Gelände bestens auskennt und diesen Weg deshalb gar nicht wählen würde) doch eher verwirren als das es hilfreich ist. Ausserdem ist es nicht ungefährlich. Die Pferde galoppieren da häufig und die Rinder gehen auf Fremde los. Das macht keinen Spaß. Die sind schneller als Spaziergänger.
ToniE (2022-12-16 14:19:39+00:00): Ich stelle die Frage weill hier gelöscht wurde mit dem Hinweis "nicht öffentlich" und Privatgelände in der Annahm, dass es begehbare/befahrbare Wege sind.

Es ging mir mehr um das Zugangsrecht 'privat', dass wir mit access=private mappen statt zu löschen.

Ich kenne die Gegend, komme aus Ottobrunn und bin auch dort viel mit dem Rad unterwegs. Was hier also wohl auch noch fehlt: der Zaun.

Aber, wie auch immer: wenn das (Trampel-)Pfade sind, die vornehmlich von Tieren benutzt werden, so macht das Mappen wohl weniger Sinn als das Mappen eines privaten Fußweges zum Hauseingang.
Adamant1 (2022-12-21 13:38:46+00:00): Hi there. I do a lot of mapping and hiking around here. I was actually just out there the other day and added some of the trails a few weeks ago. From what I can tell the area for the OHV Area is much to large and doesn't fit reality. At least not in my experience. Really I think it's mostly the trails and doesn't have official borders. So is there a map you based this off of? I know you said the source is the BLM website, but their map doesn't have an area for the OHV area. 

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/Chappie-Shasta_2019_Final_508.pdf

Thanks
Adamant1 (2022-12-21 13:45:22+00:00): BTW, what I mean by "it's mostly the trails" is that the OHV area is mainly or only the trails on the west side of the dam. There's a staging area right below the powerplant on the west side of the river and that's about it. No one can or does ride their off road vehicles south of the staging area. Let alone all the way down to the ranch at Coram Road or further south where Coplay and Motion use to be. Again, at least not that I'm aware of and I hike around there pretty frequently.
Kai Johnson (2022-12-21 15:13:10+00:00): Hi Adamant1! The boundary data comes from the BLM GIS hub and specifically from this data set: https://gbp-blm-egis.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/blm-ca-off-highway-vehicle-designations/explore?location=40.719376%2C-122.390878%2C10.99

When you say "it's mostly the trails," that's correct. OHV driving is permitted only on designated routes within this area. I haven't measured, but BLM says that more than 250 miles of roads and trails in the area are open to OHV use.

You might be interested in these additional BLM resources: 

https://www.blm.gov/visit/chappie-shasta

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/Chappie-Shasta_2019_Final_508.pdf
Adamant1 (2022-12-21 15:37:01+00:00): >OHV driving is permitted only on designated routes within this area. I haven't measured, but BLM says that more than 250 miles of roads and trails in the area are open to OHV use.


I was looking looking at the https://webmaps.blm.gov/program_apps/BLM_Natl_Recreation_Opportunities/ a few minute ago. According to that most of the area inside of the so called "OHV area" isn't BLM land. I know for a fact that 40 acres of Coram Ranch is private land that random people can't just ride their OHVs through even though it's inside of official OHV area boundary as you've mapped it. 

So what I think would be a better approach is to either delete the area completely or confine it the areas we are actually the BLM owned OHV Area. Then map the actual trails with either access tags or as race tracks. Essentially like I've already been mapping it. Otherwise it gives the false impression that the whole area is BLM owned OHV drivable land when it clearly isn't. Thoughts?
Kai Johnson (2022-12-21 16:18:41+00:00): I don't think that mapping the area as BLM has designated it gives the impression that the entire area is driveable. I do think it's helpful to identify the area for recreation, because that's clearly the land manager's intention. You've suggested deleting the area completely. Wouldn't that leave important recreational information off the map?

I can see that some of the trails and roads leave BLM land and cross into land managed by other federal agencies or private land, but it's up to BLM to determine which routes they manage and make available to the public and I'm certain they wouldn't be sending people onto private land if they didn't have the authority to do so. (Much of this is former mining land for which BLM may have retained certain rights.) Do you disagree with the access conditions that BLM has published for the area? If so, why?

I think that limiting the area to the parcels that are shown as "owned" by BLM would be arbitrary and incorrect, since BLM's own maps of the area show BLM-authorized OHV roads and trails that extend outside of those parcels. What basis do you have to suggest that boundaries BLM has identified for this area are wrong?
Adamant1 (2022-12-21 17:54:14+00:00): BTW, just to clarify something the Chappie Shasta Off-Highway Vehcile Guide shows what type of vehicles can drive on the roads. That's obviously different then who can access them. Just because a car can drive down a private asphalt road doesn't mean everyone with a car can drive down it, obviously. So just because a trail is "OHV legal" or whatever doesn't mean it's legal for everyone with an OHV to drive down it. Like the map says only "Highway Licensed Vehicles" can drive across the dam, but I still have to stop at the security to get permission to and they can turn down my request if they want to. And they have BTW.
Kai Johnson (2022-12-21 18:44:01+00:00): It doesn't sound like we're going to come to an agreement about mapping the OHV area, since I think it should stay on the map as is.

But I hope we're both in agreement that the roads and trails in the area should be mapped with appropriate access conditions.
Adamant1 (2022-12-22 02:42:49+00:00): >But I hope we're both in agreement that the roads and trails in the area should be mapped with appropriate access conditions.

100%. like I said I was already in the process of mapping them based on the BLM map and ground surveying. If you look at you can see I added Escape Trail and the one along lake month ago after I went out there. I'm deleting the area though.
Adamant1 (2022-12-22 02:44:21+00:00): I'll probably re-map it at some point after the roads are done being mapped, but as a small area that actually represents reality.
Adamant1 (2022-12-22 02:48:50+00:00): Not to beat a dead horse, but on the northern east end of the area there's a power plant slightly south of the dam. The road is inside the area you mapped. Although it's fenced and gated off INRL. Which can partly be seen on the map. The idea that people can drive their dirt bikes to the power plant just because the road is inside the area because BLM gives people permission or whatever like you suggested is just laughable if not dangerous.
Kai Johnson (2022-12-22 15:11:06+00:00): I think you've misunderstood. The only access conditions that apply in this area are the ones tagged on the highways themselves.

I'm optimistic that there will be a broader discussion among members of the OHV community about how to map areas like this, so we may have some broader community consensus soon.
Kai Johnson (2022-12-22 15:31:56+00:00): Also, for what it's worth, I got a reply from Ranger Swartlander at the Redding BLM field office about the designated roads and trails on the OHV map that cross private land. BLM does indeed manage those roads and trails and they are open to public access. However, access to the private land off the trails is not permitted. So, the access conditions in the BLM PDF are what should be mapped for public access.
Adamant1 (2022-12-22 15:45:54+00:00): He or her can say that, but it's debatable and hasn't been my experience from actually hiking around there. Random government employees aren't authoritative anyway. 

Regardless though, even if that is the case the landuse=recreation_ground tag is for "An open space for general recreation, which often includes formal or informal pitches, nets and other recreation equipment or infrastructure." You'd have to at least agree that a single road going through a 40 acre private ranch isn't "an open space for general recreation." Let alone does it include "formal or informal pitches, nets and other recreation equipment or infrastructure." So sure, even if I give you the one road that someone can ride their four wheeler on the area was still mapped and tagged wrong. 

And I'm not going to lie, but this whole thing seems super petty on your part since I said I was going to add the access tags to the roads and re-map the thing once I'm done. It ultimately doesn't matter if it fits the exact, BLM designated area. At least I asked your opinion and am still going to add it. I could have just deleted it and not even consulted you before I did. So maybe show a little gratitude.
Adamant1 (2022-12-22 15:47:25+00:00): Compromise is a good a thing and it's rare people are even willing to do it on here.
Adamant1 (2022-12-22 16:17:09+00:00): https://www.coramranch.com/

5 star $2,200 per night ranch houses that do corporate retreats and reunions. I bet they would just love a bunch of random drunk people driving 4 wheelers through their thousands of dollars corporate retreat. Sure dude.
Adamant1 (2022-12-22 16:42:00+00:00): https://cdn.hibuwebsites.com/e12eeabe2e114277b02a954912640c97/files/uploaded/coram-ranch-diagram-pdf.jpg

Top left, "private drive." Sure, there's a "bike area" to north of the orchards which is along the road and I'm sure people could probably ride there dirt bikes there if they wanted to. But it's not in the ranch and people can't just go down the private drive and indiscriminately drive around. Maybe they would let some drive through if they asked, but that goes for literally everywhere and it's not a recreation ground.
ivanbranco (2022-12-16 09:31:11+00:00): Ciao alfcar63,

il nodo dell'ingresso dovrebbe essere incluso nell'outline dell'edificio però, non essere un nodo "indipendente". Riesci a verificare?
ivanbranco (2022-12-16 09:33:07+00:00): Tra l'altro subito vicino c'è un altro ingresso main (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8299530917) creato sempre da te, anche questo scollegato dall'edificio ma collegato al marciapiede.

Anche questo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8299531017/history
pitscheplatsch (2022-12-18 10:01:04+00:00): Hi.

Could you use the comment field of your created changeset for describing your map edits? See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks.

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
ivanbranco (2022-12-15 22:02:50+00:00): I only wanted to add an italian alt_name at the north pole but apparently I added an addr:city by mistake where I was leaving a note in USA, sorry for the big changeset area :/
eggie (2022-12-16 07:55:46+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
Allin_kindA (2023-01-06 13:28:25+00:00): Ваше замечательное "поправил геометрию" начисто поломало все схемы общественного транспорта. Впредь будьте аккуратны и внимательны. Их отрисовка довольно-таки нетривиальное занятие, в отличии от правки геометрии.
Владимир К (2023-01-06 17:41:04+00:00): Добрый день! 
Прямо начисто? Я старался следить за маршрутами, когда переделывал развязки. Только на площади ленина косяк помню. который хотел переделать. но забыл
Владимир К (2023-01-06 17:51:03+00:00): в общем, я вернул на площади ленина тот отрезок, что я переделал, отсортировал в маршрутах отрезки. если косяки остались, пишите
Allin_kindA (2023-01-06 18:04:49+00:00): Блин! :) Я только три маршрута поправил, решил собаку выгулять и вот опять править :)
Allin_kindA (2023-01-06 18:07:07+00:00): Короче не парься - я позже с geofabrik сниму ошибки и исправлю. Просто впредь будь аккуратней ;)
cserpell (2022-12-16 19:30:57+00:00): Why did you do this?
aaronq227 (2022-12-19 22:05:26+00:00): Hi cserpell, I changed the classification of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1117255543 to a residential because this way leads into residential apartments.
Nakaner (2022-12-16 14:47:55+00:00): Hallo,

ich habe die Signale in der U-Strab bislang als Ks-Signale erfasst, da das System dem Ks-Signalsystem der DB entspricht. Ich meine, vorletztes oder letztes Jahr auch Ausschreibungsunterlagen gefunden zu haben, in denen die Rede von Ks-Signalen war.

Viele Grüße

Michael
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130133524
mapper999 (2023-01-05 13:46:37+00:00): Hallo Michael, 
ich habe gerade die VBK-Signale auf Basis der Ausschreibungsunterlagen im Wiki ergänzt: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_Trams_in_Germany
Falls du dazu Anmerkungen oder Verbesserungsvorschläge hast, gerne melden, bzw. anpassen.
nlme (2023-01-27 11:06:28+00:00): Node 10266440601 is not a Paul - I specifically fixed this in 129714737.
RedAuburn (2023-01-27 11:46:20+00:00): ah oops sorry, thanks for the fix <3
জাবির (2023-07-29 07:53:49+00:00): Hi,
Where is the school name and amenity=school?
arafatamim (2023-07-29 14:07:34+00:00): This is an active construction zone in the site of a former school building
জাবির (2023-07-29 20:09:12+00:00): [Constitution key](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction) is used for to describe the type of the feature which is currently under construction.

If the school is re-building, then construction key is not appropriate for it. and previous name, amenity end etc features should remain there as it was.

Already existing features may be closed for a short time for temporary construction (e.g., old, damaged roads getting rebuilt or a road closed over a weekend to replace a sewer pipe). Don't use construction=* to tag such short-term closures; consider using [conditional restrictions](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions) instead.

If the School is demolished and somethig new is building up here other than school, then construction key can be used with the future feature going to be constructed here.

স্কুলটি যদি ভেঙে নতুনভাবে আবার স্কুল তৈরী করা হয়ে থাকে, তবে এর জন্য [Constitution key](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction) ব্যবহার করা যথাযথ না। construction key ভবিষ্যতে এখানে কি তৈরী হচ্ছে তা নির্দেশ করে, যদি নির্মাণ কাজ দেখা যায়। নির্মাণ কাজ শুরু না হলে  [proposed](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed) ট্যাগ ব্যবহার করতে হবে।


- স্কুল ভেঙে আবার আগের স্কুল তৈরী হলে আগের সব কিছু একই থাকবে।
- স্কুল ভেঙে নতুন অন্য কিছু হলে তখন construction key দিয়ে কি তৈরী হচ্ছে তার সাথে দিতে হবে।
- কোন খালি যায়গায় নতুন কিছু তৈরী হচ্ছে; তখন কি তৈরী হচ্ছে তা দিয়ে তার সাথে construction key যোগ করতে হবে।

- What is going to be build here? The previous school?  Then the name and other values should remain.
- If new feture is building, then add that with construction key.
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2023-01-12 23:55:49+00:00): Please read the signs before creating turn restrictions.

This is the wrong "to" way.
Land-o Calrissian (2023-01-14 01:49:27+00:00): Hi Niels Elgaard Larsen, the placement of the turn restriction sign here is a little ambiguous; in street level imagery the sign looked like it could apply to the intersection with Jens Juels Vej.  However, I can see how it could apply to the northwest branch of Christine Løvmands Vej ahead.  Are you saying that the northwest branch of Christine Løvmands Vej (aka the next intersection) should be the "to"?
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2023-01-14 12:40:10+00:00): Read the sign, including the text.

On the sign it says "Ved Ørbækvej" ("At Ørbækvej" in English)

Ørbækvej is tagged as two one-way streets in OSM, so there is no need to add a turn-restriction.

The sign is just there to inform drivers that it is not possible to turn left at Ørbækvej, so that they can decide to follow Jens Juels Vej instead.

In general these no-turn signs should not always become turn restrictions in OSM.

https://scontent-cph2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/m1/v/t6/An9AnyIRuqOBh-M2apGvdhB5Ow6g4TH6BOypapgWdxcerPv5v__Yl6U5HHfOVTvikOej0GAYXWKhfdWb0KaAZq283m-PX7zh6IdfoAIH5AckCIsPOZ_YBoqnC5vWo2jwXoLzkyuEAkDyeF7-wjO6NA?stp=s2048x1536&ccb=10-5&oh=00_AfDr93xDTLjS8NQcdF8Al1EHjMHuLsLNMjSq6Tc6HRQxPg&oe=63EA0EE7&_nc_sid=122ab1
Land-o Calrissian (2023-01-14 19:54:05+00:00): I see now.  Thank you for clarifying the situation.  I've removed the erroneous turn restriction.
SomeoneElse (2023-04-19 13:10:57+00:00): Hello,
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3479274 .  Just for the avoidance of doubt, we should not remove data from OSM (as seems to have happened here**) on that basis.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group 

** other possibilities might include that there are other sources that were used here; unfortunately the changeset comment ("fixing notes ") doesn't make that clear if that was the case.
pitscheplatsch (2022-12-18 10:06:18+00:00): partly reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130134749
NorthCrab (2022-12-16 10:21:49+00:00): Wygląda OK tylko ten punkt trzeba umieścić na boku budynku (tam gdzie są drzwi) Pozdrawiam!
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2022-12-18 06:03:02+00:00): 蕾咪好（

感谢您对OSM做出编辑，不过似乎建筑物上面并不需要直接写上年级名称
用grades=7-8表示初一初二，grades=10-11表示高一高二
这种语义化的方案是被推荐的
Dino Michelini (2022-12-21 18:11:24+00:00): Anche qui key name è usata impropriamente
Alessio Boccialoni (2022-12-21 22:33:27+00:00): ok
frozenrabi (2023-01-18 05:29:34+00:00): Hi Lorettalina. Thank you for showing your interest in OpenStreetMap. I know you are a beginner mapper and learning mapping. I am commenting in this changeset because you have mapped each individual parcels of farmland as farmland which is not preferred in OSM mapping. This is not the right way to map farmland. Please create a whole single polygon to map farmland instead of mapping small parcels as one farmland.Please refer to this link as well: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarmland. 
And for now i am reverting your changeset. Thank you!
NorthCrab (2023-01-18 06:12:05+00:00): The link provided does not clearly explain your thought process. Additionally, the suggestion to use the "crop=*" tag to specify the type of crop grown suggests using different values for different areas, which is not possible with a single blob for farmland. How would you suggest approaching such cases?

I believe that drawing individual areas allows for more precise control over the tags and increases the level of detail on the map.

I see a contradiction in the statement "which is not preferred" and "not the right way".

I think that immediately reverting a changeset because of a difference in preference is not the best course of action. It is always best to discuss such decisions before making drastic changes.
frozenrabi (2023-01-18 06:37:32+00:00): This is not an immediate action. We had written back to the user a month back. She didn't reply back. And this is just one example of wrong mapping. There are many such wrong malpractices that she had mapped in that task. So I am reverting this. 
And about the osm wiki link I  provided that is to aware the mapper what farmland actually means. I think this is not a contradiction cause this brings more problem than application of the data so created. I have validated the tasks of that particular user and given feedback in her every task. 
Please refer to this OSMCha link for other errors: shorturl.at/hstZ6
And please refer to this conversation discussed before. https://hotosm.slack.com/archives/C35UWSB6Z/p1671684933817659
NorthCrab (2023-01-19 05:33:24+00:00): Thanks for the explanation
ovruni (2022-12-16 01:46:03+00:00): Hola, veo que en varios de estos ajustes de estructuras estas indicando el uso de Maxar, sin embargo las imágenes de Esri aclarada permitir visualizar mejor los edificios en cuestión.
Saludos
daperson (2022-12-16 01:51:38+00:00): Buenos dias, no estoy usando ningun servicio de imagen para alinear las estructuras/geometrias, solo estoy alineando las geometrias para que el mapa sea mas apropiado para su uso publico.
ovruni (2022-12-16 01:55:42+00:00): Si no se usa una imagen entonces como es que se deja la geometría mas apropiada para su uso?