piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Map-Peter (2026-02-06 23:39:43+00:00): Hallo Tino,
 
diesen Link finde ich hier nur im Änderungssatzkommentar und der dazugehörigen Änderungssatzdiskussion.
 
Ein Änderungssatzkommentar ist, genauso wie ein Beitrag in einer Änderungssatzdiskussion, zeitlich unbegrenzt unveränderbar.
 
Gruß Peter
Leo Slager (2022-04-13 21:46:46+00:00): En toen stond het Amstemeer als een grote witte vlek op de kaart !
Ik pas het even aan.
ovruni (2022-04-13 00:11:08+00:00): Hola AderlyCapristano, gracias por contribuir a OSM. He notado que en varios de sus conjuntos de cambios a agregado nombres de calles, por lo que quería consultarle si existe alguna fuente publica que permita la verificabilidad [0] de dichos nombres. Por otra parte, el uso de abreviaciones en prefijos como "C. ", "Jr.", "Av." se encuentra desaconsejados, en su lugar se aconseja utilizar los textos completos de los prefijos como Calle, Jirón o Avenida. [1]
Si tiene alguna duda sobre el mapeo de OSM en Perú, puede hacerla por el canal de telegram https://t.me/osmpe o la lista de correos de la comunidad de OSM en Perú https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pe
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Verificabilidad
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Nombres#Abreviaturas_.28no_hacer_esto.29
Glassman (2022-04-14 17:28:47+00:00): It looks like you added two additional building to existing one. Since the existing one had address and other details I removed yours. Let me know if you have any questions.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119642222
ToniE (2022-04-13 08:26:22+00:00): Hi Peter,

Danke für die Infos hier.

Einige Fragen noch:

1.) Die Nodes-Platforms (z.B.)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4640115772

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4640115767

Sind die eindeutig einer Buslinie zugeordnet oder ist das eher: wer zuerst kommt hält vorne (unten), wer später kommt hält dahinter?

Beide haben route_ref=1;9

2.) hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.56122&mlon=13.25879#map=19/53.56122/13.25879 ist eine stop_position gemapped, wo derzeit in OSM alle Regionalbusse halten (das ändere ich noch). Rechts davon ist aber keine Platform. Ist die Straße dort eher eine Durchfahrt, oder halten hier tatsächlich Busse. Auf Mapillary https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.561533957402&lng=13.259262658006&z=17&pKey=509519250179857&focus=photo&x=0.31843147498481345&y=0.3453892997088593&zoom=2.107805746616237 sieht man zwar ein Haltestellenschild, das ist aber ohne Nummer. Ich sehe gerade deinen Kommentar dort: nur Ankunft. Den Stop ignoriere ich dann.


3.) Ist das hier wirklich eine oneway https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.56149/13.25843
Ich denke nicht, denn der Flixbus müsste dann (Platform rechts vom Bus) gegen die Einbahnstraße fahren, wenn er hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.56143/13.25827 hält. Und wie/woher (wendet) verläßt der Flixbus den ZOB dann?


Ich versuche die potentiellen Anfahr- und Abfahrwege zu identifizieren

Viele Grüße
Toni
Map-Peter (2022-04-13 23:41:40+00:00): Hallo Toni,
 
1.) jein - die sind jeweils beide eindeutig immer zwei Buslinien (in diesem Fall 1;9) zugeordnet und wer zuerst kommt hält vorne (südlich), wer später kommt hält dahinter (nördlich). Aber ganz vorne (südlich) steht immer einer von beiden.
 
2.) Das ist die OSM-historisch einzige Bushaltestelle am ZOB gewesen (so weit ich mich richtig erinnere) alle anderen wurden von mir eingezeichnet.
 
z.B. Flixbus kommt vom Ring hier ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39058908 ), verläßt den ZOB über die Südbahnstraße und fährt dann hier ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/409799584 ) wieder auf den Ring.
 
3.) Die "unechte Einbahnstraße" ist ein paar Meter nördlich davon - habe ich eben korrigiert.
 
Gruß Peter
VictorIE (2022-04-16 09:59:10+00:00): Hi,

When mapping narrow ways like this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1051395174 it is probably better to map them as highway=footway I think it might be ambitious getting cars up there! :)
borovac (2024-06-13 09:40:30+00:00): Hi _Madfly, 
Are you sure that this road is footway?
way/1051395176
All the best Milan (borovac)
_Madfly (2024-06-28 09:45:50+00:00): Hi, I've changed it to a footpath.
user_5359 (2022-04-14 10:21:13+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/41263843. What is the meaning of the tags
Roofing = Slat
YrBuilt = 1695
Did you mean roof:material and start_date?
jacobwhall (2022-04-14 14:26:06+00:00): Yes, I did! Thanks for catching that. When I conflated the reference and ways, there was a mess of tags to merge from each, and those two slipped through the cracks. I'll correct them shortly.
Kiekin (2022-04-21 05:38:28+00:00): Das ist nicht Seepferdchenring 1, sondern Libellenweg 9a und 9b.
user_53559 (2022-04-21 07:23:00+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, ich habe die korrekten Adressen auf den Hausumriss übertragen.
kaelwd (2022-04-24 12:41:21+00:00): Drive-through should connect to the road, not just to the footpath
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119642485
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:25+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 18:18:10+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 18:16:59+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 18:24:05+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 18:22:17+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 18:21:47+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 18:20:41+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 18:21:42+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.
russdeffner (2022-04-13 03:02:11+00:00): Hi MountainAddict - It appears you changed the boundary of the BLM land while trying to 'add landuse' to the Buena Vista KOA. I don't think that's what was intended, but if you have source that the BLM boundary has actually changed there, please do share.
russdeffner (2022-04-20 13:02:22+00:00): I went ahead and did a partial revert of your edits. This hopefully fixed the BLM boundary (I had to guess on a few points since the revert did not fully put back to former geometry).
nevw (2022-04-13 13:44:01+00:00): Hi
Please don’t join the park outline to the road centreline. The park boundary finishes where the fenceline would be.
YoshiMaster67 (2022-04-13 21:41:07+00:00): No problem, sorry about that.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:05+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 18:19:50+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.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:12+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.
kartler175 (2022-04-21 17:20:47+00:00): Please fix modified boundary relations:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-73.57715&lat=45.54212&zoom=18&opacity=0.95
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-73.59565&lat=45.53071&zoom=18&opacity=0.95
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:27+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 18:12:34+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.
hanchao (2022-04-13 06:49:18+00:00): 删除oneway=yes？
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:28+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 18:21:10+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 (2022-04-14 17:31:36+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.

#TIP: when working in different areas, save and upload before moving to another location.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119644394
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:03+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 18:13:43+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 18:22:03+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 18:19:04+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.
clay_c (2022-04-13 13:59:18+00:00): Hi maplovr,

What you are doing here is not redacting; it is reverting. 'Redaction' implies it being purged from the database, which you and I don't have the power to do. The history of the objects remains publicly available when you revert a changeset.

If you are concerned about copyright violation, perhaps you could discuss it with other mappers or bring it up to the Data Working Group to be certain that it doesn't belong on OSM. I see you have not commented on any changesets of the mapper who originally added this data. Have you attempted to contact them?
maplovr (2022-04-14 01:43:07+00:00): I know the history is not removed, and I did not revert all the changes. I simply removed the data that was clearly stolen from my personal map, which the contributor also called out. I can leave a comment on some of his map edits.
clay_c (2022-04-14 02:13:29+00:00): If it is the case that your own copyrighted work has been plagiarized, then I would strongly recommend talking directly to the Data Working Group. You can email them at data@openstreetmap.org
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:22+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 18:19:57+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 18:18:03+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 18:18:36+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.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:36+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.
Herman Lee (2022-04-13 03:09:49+00:00): link:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119275999
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119252544
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119252529
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119252517
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119252496
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119252470
michael60101 (2022-04-13 03:13:55+00:00): In what way was the edit misleading? As this is a disputed territory, I used a neutral language, similar to what was used with other islands in the South China Sea.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119645247
Herman Lee (2022-04-13 04:01:55+00:00): This English name is not neutral and we should use the LOCAL LANGUAGE as its name. Even thouth it is a disputed territory area, the name should also follow the controlled country's language.
Lepuse (2022-04-13 04:09:59+00:00): This area is completely controlled by the People's Republic of China, and according to the principle "on the ground", the name should remain in the local language. Similar cases include the Falkland Islands, the Southern Kurils, Gibraltar, and more.
Herman Lee (2022-04-13 04:25:00+00:00): But you OBVIOUSLY DO NOT used the neutral language to other islands in the South China Sea.
michael60101 (2022-04-13 04:28:10+00:00): I don't believe I edited any other islands outside of the Parcel Islands group. Most of my edits are focused on New Zealand and I don't keep track of edits in the South China Sea.
user_11435438 (2022-04-13 04:36:42+00:00): @michael60634 According  to 'on the ground',  and 'name=* contains the common, default name in the local language.', obviously they should be named with Chinese, because Chinese troops stationed there. Lepuse is right, it's like Iturup named Итуруп(Russian) instead of 択捉島(Japanese) or Iturup.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119645247
user_11435438 (2022-04-13 04:37:51+00:00): No, I mean not reviewd bad.
NM$L (2022-04-13 04:59:57+00:00): According to De-fcto, the area is under Chinese contro, so it's suitable to use Chinese in its name just like the names of other islets under Vietnamese or Philippine contro are in their languages.
michael60101 (2022-04-13 05:04:54+00:00): Understood. When I changed the "name" tag, I did not know if there was any sort of established editing practices for the disputed South China Sea islands. At least I wasn't able to find any. My edits were solely based on the edits of some other users.
喵耳引力波 (2022-04-13 14:52:10+00:00): @michael60634
This is not High Sea area but disputed region, and now controlled by PRC. According to OSM's ON THE GROUND rule, the tagging method should follow China's guideline. So change to a English (A language that not used in controlled country) name won't make things neutral.
Supaplex (2022-04-14 03:33:08+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2417005

Just as the relation note says, the collection relation should be neutral. The name field will be renamed using Mandarin, Vietnamese, whose claimed this area. 

The individual islands name field will remain in Mandarin tag, currently in China control

Dennis Raylin Chen
Data Working Group
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119645247
Lepuse (2022-04-14 04:28:08+00:00): @Supaplex
If such a disputed area controlled by a single country needs to use the language of all the claimed countries as name, should the Falkland Islands (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1979517) with similar status also be changed to English and Spanish?
user_11435438 (2022-04-18 15:31:16+00:00): 我相信陈先生不希望看到台湾标上简体字的。
喵耳引力波 (2022-04-18 15:35:53+00:00): “台湾不是争议地区，台湾是主权国家，但是你们的，你们的，你们画的这些，都是争议地区，都，都给我标成英语” （建议管理按照这个回复哦）
user_11435438 (2022-04-19 05:01:43+00:00): 如果有claim就标上非实控方的文字的话，那么台湾显然被北京政府claim了。不愧是陈先生，毕竟是曾經做出过把釣魚臺列嶼改名叫尖閣諸島的賣台行為的。
Herman Lee (2022-04-19 06:57:35+00:00): 如果不介意的话，可以考虑一下去年9月的某个修改集。。。🤔🤔🤔
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:17+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.
Herman Lee (2022-04-13 03:10:28+00:00): link:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118801501
porfiriopaiz (2022-04-17 02:33:42+00:00): Hello Nia-gara,

The use of tags like: name_1, name_2 and so on are deprecated, please avoid using those:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Names&uselang=en#Deprecated_tags

Could you please fix the changes in which you have made use of those deprecated tags, like this one:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3921197131

Sincerely,
Porfirio
Nia-gara (2022-05-13 14:56:22+00:00): Hi Porfirio,
I fixed the name tags according to OSM Wiki. Sorry for my late response!
Have an excellent day!
MikeN (2022-04-13 18:39:01+00:00): Welcome to OSM!  Please use meaningful changeset comments - 'j' does not help other mappers understand what you are doing. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:24+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.
Kovoschiz (2022-04-13 07:45:09+00:00): Please don't de-duplicate `name=` in `building=` and `landuse=`. They serve different purpose, at least the local practice here.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:25+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 18:18:24+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 18:12:17+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.
allseasonhiker (2022-04-13 03:24:22+00:00): I forgot to add sources. I used Bing Streetside and aerial imagery as my sources.
Supaplex (2022-04-13 14:38:05+00:00): https://www.cpami.gov.tw/%E6%9C%80%E6%96%B0%E6%B6%88%E6%81%AF/%E5%8D%B3%E6%99%82%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E/87-%E6%96%B0%E5%B8%82%E9%8E%AE%E5%BB%BA%E8%A8%AD%E7%B5%84-1/36362-%E6%B7%A1%E6%B5%B7%E6%96%B0%E5%B8%82%E9%8E%AE%E3%80%8C%E6%B8%AF%E5%B9%B3%E7%87%9F%E5%8D%80%E3%80%8D%E8%88%8A%E5%9D%80%E5%85%AC%E5%85%B1%E5%B7%A5%E7%A8%8B%EF%BC%8C%E5%8D%B3%E5%B0%87%E9%96%8B%E5%B7%A5.html
舊址要改掉了