piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Kastchei (2020-10-15 19:55:53+00:00): Hello AlexRiabtsev!
You’ve recently made a number of edits in the town of Глеваха in relation to the HOT OSM project #9257. Your edits have shifted road alignment away from Bing Aerial Imagery or placed buildings that don’t match up to those shown in Bing Aerial Imagery. Bing is aligned with OSM GPS traces as well. Please re-align the area back to Bing Aerial imagery at your earliest convenience. Thanks!
Frans S (2020-10-17 11:50:25+00:00): Thank you for mapping on this project.
I am sorry to say but your mappings should be more accurate and lacks the finishing touch of squaring them.

Most buildings here have a rectangular pattern. Please follow the outlines precisely and square each of them with the Q key in the editor

Here are some tips and hints which might be helpful to improve your mapping skills

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit?usp=sharing
Best regards and keep mapping
Warin61 (2020-09-01 07:21:44+00:00): Hi,
Welcome to OSM.
A number of small errors in your entries, just need a little fixing. 
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=115.98763&lat=-31.98047&zoom=13
For instance Way: Kewdale Industrial Area (742768435) ... this doubles back on itself causing the area to crossover itself. Looking on the imagery it does not look to be this entire area so I would remove the tail bit to the north east and what looks like scrub rectangle also in the north east. 
The tag of warehouse does not look to apply to the entire area ... some of it looks to be a car park? 

Keep mapping, try to fix these errors .. if you need help you can ask here or elsewhere.
naveenpf (2020-09-01 07:21:40+00:00): Thanks for cleaning. 



1.Run the overpass query :- http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Xuj
2.Click on export and select Level0 editor .
3.Correct the  name tag for each of entity.
4. Click on Validate and check for conflict. 
5. Add the change comment and click of upload to OSM
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90222709
Richard (2021-09-18 09:04:09+00:00): Hi,

You added https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/842952310 in this changeset. What evidence do you have that this is a road with a public right of access, as highway=service would imply?

Richard
user_10219382 (2021-09-20 08:53:59+00:00): Hello Richard,
Thanks for checking my edits. I have added highway=service with default access as there is no street view or resource to find any gate or board suggesting private access. Thanks for making the changes. Apologies for inconvenience caused. 
Regards,
kusweta
Richard (2021-09-20 09:11:58+00:00): Hi kusweta,

Access in England and Wales works the other way round. The track is private _unless_ there's a sign (or similar evidence) to say otherwise. If the track is open to all then you would expect a signpost saying that it's a byway, bridleway, or public footpath.

At the very least I would suggest you add a 'fixme=check access' tag if you're unsure.

Richard
user_10219382 (2021-09-20 10:14:36+00:00): Hi Richard, 
Thanks for the inputs. I will keep this in my mind for the future edits. Happy to learn from you. 
Regards, 
kusweta
aharvey (2020-09-01 12:02:26+00:00): What was the source for the left turn only restriction in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11566491/history ? From Mapillary I can't see any indication of such (but also can't see any indication that there is none) https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/hUPzG2Q1Jxzvaq35UKk_FA
jet_01 (2020-09-01 15:06:36+00:00): Hello Andrew,

I have aligned the roads at the intersection as per the aerial imagery (Maxar Premium).
Pre-review <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-AOS7a2mDAdg/X05YHDdSO7I/AAAAAAAAAd0/QVHeiieghT8uM3RiVgf2uVgNTLr60F6DQCK8BGAsYHg/s0/2020-09-01.png>
Post review <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6nI1fQcol9E/X05YSMsbrqI/AAAAAAAAAd4/45Lm9bWqAmEfhX-payW41jCzuC-WNqdUQCK8BGAsYHg/s0/2020-09-01.png>
Though I could not get any evidence from Mapillary to confirm the existing turn restriction, I could not delete it assuming it could have been added with local knowledge. Hence, I retained the turn restriction. Please suggest if you think otherwise.

Thank you!
aharvey (2020-09-02 01:15:44+00:00): I see now this was an existing turn restriction, because you deleted the existing one https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11155539/history and added it as a new one https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11566490/history. It's good practice to retain the history of objects https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history which I know that's not always possible and I'm being pedantic here, but it would have helped me understand the change better if retained the history.
I think leaving the restriction in place is fair enough without local knowledge either way, so I've drop a note here for someone local to review it https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2331888.
Taksine (2025-12-20 13:35:17+00:00): 看样子又把O当成测试网站了，记录。
user_5359 (2020-09-02 10:31:46+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have revert your SEO SPAM because your business is not the street. If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. Please try again to mark the main place of your business (and not the street) to add your business information.
MrMoehritz (2020-09-09 19:58:17+00:00): Willkommen bei OSM!
skfd (2020-10-08 23:12:07+00:00): Привет! disused: префикс можно ставить только на amenity )
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90224927
eggie (2020-09-01 07:08:27+00:00): Correct
seewäldler (2020-09-01 20:27:13+00:00): Revertiert mit changeset 90263731. Die Beschilderung der B33 ist ab dem Kreuz Hegau Richtung Konstanz in die beiden Fahrtrichtungen unterschiedlich (Autobahn bzw. Schnellstraße) und so auch in den Notes beschrieben. Das war davor schon richtig so....
kukułka (2020-09-01 18:11:41+00:00): Konsulat honorowy nadal ma tu adres. Powinien być nadal oznaczony jako węzeł. Tak jest nawet bardziej prawidłowo, bo budynek mieści też inne instytucje. 
W tej chwili mamy Villę Behrendt w kraju Etiopia ;)
Buraddo (2021-04-27 15:32:54+00:00): Salut,
Văd că ai făcut un import al zonei. Din păcate datele acestea nu au nicio relevanță în baza de date OSM, deoarece au fost importate doar punctele, fără nicio informație despre ce reprezintă și cum sunt conectate. De unde au fost luate datele? Cum a fost făcut importul? Mai ai datele originale pentru a încerca să reparăm importul? Dacă nu reușim să ducem la capăt acest import va trebui să fac revert la mare parte din acesta, deoarece dacă ar trebui verificat manual fiecare punct și să se redeseneze fiecare casă și drum pentru a putea fi aceste date de folos.
naveenpf (2020-09-01 07:34:22+00:00): name tag is wrong 

Search Results Web results Ssnkm Sharada Mandir Mattanchery Primary School
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90226372
naveenpf (2020-09-01 07:33:20+00:00): Thanks for cleaning. 
Please change addr:city and addr:postcode
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90226474
kukułka (2020-09-01 17:59:32+00:00): ta linia (816861939)powinna być relacją
seewäldler (2020-09-01 14:46:34+00:00): Revertiert mit changeset #90251894. Die teilweise neu eröffnete B31 ist gelb ausgeschilderte Schnellstraße, Kraftfahrstraße und Bundesstraße, keine Autobahn.
eggie (2020-09-01 10:08:11+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.

Probeer svp bij je uploads aan te geven wat je hebt gedaan. Nu staat er.. geen opmerking. 
MVG,
Eggie
PT-53 (2020-09-01 15:11:18+00:00): Hallo surveyor54,
mich würde wirklich sehr interessieren, was Du an diesem Knoten
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3373052612/history
gefixed hast?
Siehe hierzu:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=70468
Fragende Grüße
PT-53 (2020-09-01 15:17:31+00:00): Das gleiche bei diesem Knoten:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3373052610/history
surveyor54 (2020-09-03 10:53:54+00:00): Hi,
sorry, das hat mit diesem Thread nichts zu tun.
Ich habe mir deine Probleme angeschaut, konnte auch nichts feststellen.
Da die Lage der Brücke etwas daneben lag, hatte ich den Versatz von Esri World Imagery nach bestehenden Nachbargebäude angepasst
und die beiden Brückenpunkte verschoben. Dabei habe festgestellt, dass da noch mehr zu machen ist.
Die Sitzung musste ich aus Zeitgründen unterbrechen und hatte danach nicht mehr an die Verschiebung gedacht, die ich eigentlich wieder rückgängig machen wollte.
War ein Fehler von mir, werde die Änderung der beiden Punkte wieder rückgängig machen.

Danke für die Info,

Gruß
surveyor54
bxl-forever (2020-09-21 17:53:08+00:00): Hello,
Why did you undo the changes about small parking spaces and turned them into amenity=parking?
Example here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402628154/history
If each of them is a full-size parking area, then apps such as StreetComplete will bug users and ask to give a name.  And there is also a rendering issue.
Any thoughts?
wardmuylaert (2020-09-23 09:54:46+00:00): Hey,

They caught my attention cause ID said the tags should be upgraded. Clicking upgrade added capacity=1.

I must have interpreted the meaning of the tag incorrectly/differently. I had not seen parking_space before and ID calls it "a single parking space" which I interpreted as a spot for one car (though I'll admit the presence of capacity seemed weird in that regard, I assumed some backwards compatibility). Looking at the wiki for it I'm still not really convinced it isn't the case that it is for a single car spot, though the wiki seems to make the case for both situations (capacity=1 by default, more if you cannot be bothered?). The wiki also seems to see it as a part of an amenity=parking. Idk if the wiki is just too american centric where gigantic parking lots are the norm :)

Apologies if I interpreted it incorrectly, I'll change them back if you want me to.
wellasus (2020-09-03 06:58:25+00:00): This is the correct comment for this changeset 90227693 - added service road#MapWithAI & #https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Facebook_AI-Assisted_Road_Tracing
user_5359 (2020-09-02 10:00:39+00:00): Hello Short hint: Please use lowercase characters for the keys: name instead of NAME
mueschel (2020-09-03 17:06:34+00:00): Hi,
please let me point out that 'requirment' is spelled 'requirement'. 
The tag 'height_requirement' doesn't seem to be in use yet, but there are several attractions tagged with 'minheight' and 'maxheight' for the same purpose. Maybe one can use these tags here as well?
user_5359 (2020-09-08 05:40:48+00:00): Please note changeset comments. Mueschel's comments are correct and there is no need to use your own keys for the description.
Brian@Brea (2020-09-08 06:16:39+00:00): If both of you have check what min_height=* applies to is mapping of 3D objects in OSM. It applies to the lowest height a building/wall is placed in the render. We should not get this tag mixed up with a tag I use that is meant for attraction=* ways. If you want to see what I am referring to take a look at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/3D_tagging. And for the the actual tag min_height =* : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:min_height.
user_5359 (2020-09-08 06:29:17+00:00): Please read chapter "Minimum height of people to use the feature" of this wiki page. This key isn't only for 3D buildings!
Brian@Brea (2020-09-08 06:41:12+00:00): The tag is at best ambiguous and on the same structure could be needed in duplication. The current definition is purposing said tag but that tag would not be appropriate for something like Power Tower as the does the building or the attraction get the min_height tag and how would you discern between the two without building a structure like that piece by piece. Further definitions or new tagging agreements by the community need to be passed. In fact there are a slue of issues with Theme park tagging especially with the attraction=* tags. It doesn't seem like the there is enough of us Theme Park editors to get our voice out about these issues.
mueschel (2020-09-08 08:38:30+00:00): I agree that 'min_height' is ambiguous. 
That's why I wrote 'minheight' in my comment.
This tag is:
- used 40 times, only on attractions, referring to people's sizes
- coherent with existing access restrictions (e.g. maxspeed / minspeed, thus maxheight / minheight)
- can't be confused with actual heights which are tagged height/min_height.
Brian@Brea (2020-09-08 17:41:29+00:00): So just checking out the different tag types:
*It turns out that my tagging style is actually used the most with my tags equaling 179 usages (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=height_requirement)
*minheight is only used 41 times. Also to add to my case it looks like maxheight is still to ambiguous with over 95 different usage types.
*If we do start using maxheight we have to start using tag maxheight:attraction=* to separate from the other 95 different types of tags (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=maxheight).
*Currently maxheight=* is being used for max height of vehicles with bridges and tunnels roadway (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/maxheight).
mueschel (2020-09-08 17:55:33+00:00): 'height_requirement' is used just 7 times, all by you.

Where did you find 95 different types of maxheight? 'maxheight' just states the limit of the height of the user of a feature - exactly what is needed here. 
"maxheight:attraction" is semantically wrong, because it limits the height of the attraction (compare: "maxheight:hgv")

Could we have this discussion on the mailing list? There everybody can contribute and discuss more easily.
mueschel (2020-09-08 18:10:08+00:00): https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-September/055331.html
Frans S (2020-09-08 12:12:46+00:00): 
Hello. 

Thank you for mapping on this project.
Your mapping should be more accurate and lacks the finishing touch of squaring them

Most buildings here are rectangular. Please square each of them with the Q key in the editor

Here are some tips and hints which might be helpful to improve your mapping skills

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT_4K-s7HItsGTDt4dx43C3iD7u5uHtUyvasd_eMUQIq9zWbwlMXQk90jDHcdq6OcOnMc6B1NHYG4cO/pub
Best regards and keep mapping
seewäldler (2020-09-01 19:11:26+00:00): Revertiert mit changeset #90261354. Die B27 / B33 ist gut ausgebaute Schnellstraße und Kraftfahrstraße (motorroad, trunk) und keine Autobahn.
Carto'Cité (2020-09-09 13:38:00+00:00): Merci beaucoup pour ta correction ;)
Et ce commentaire :D !
À bientôt et n'hésite pas à nous solliciter si tu as des remarques ou des questions.
Charles
eggie (2020-09-01 10:11:33+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.

Wat je hier hebt verwijderd was geen wandelpad , maar een track dat met access=no op slot stond voor iedereen.
Waarom zoiets weghalen?
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2020-09-01 10:21:46+00:00): reverted by changeset #90238471
Lisettehaneveer (2020-09-01 11:46:12+00:00): Hallo Eggie,
Ik ben marketingmedewerker hier in het gebied en ik weet dat het een zeer kwetsbaar gebied is. Ik heb dit pad weggehaald omdat er regelmatig onduidelijkheid is over dit stuk pad. Mensen denken namelijk dat hier gelopen kan worden en dat is absoluut niet het geval. Om meer duidelijkheid te scheppen heb ik het pad verwijderd. 
Het is een beschermd natuurgebied en hier loopt geen pad door heen. 
Graag een reactie.
MVG,
Lisette
eggie (2020-09-01 12:41:11+00:00): Dag Lisette.. De track waar we het hier over hebben staat gewoon in de BGT. 
Ook is het herkenbaar op recente luchtfoto's 
Het is ook niet als wandelpad ingetekend, maar als track voor landbouwvoertuigen. 
highway=track (landbouwspoor) access=no geeft aan dat het Verboden Toegang is. 
Het zal dus niet routeren. 
Ook heb ik nog het hek toegevoegd. (incl access=no) 

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=90230200

Uiteraard kan het een probleem zijn dat bezoekers alle borden hekken negeren, maar dat kan OSM niet verweten worden. 
Het is een ergernis.. ik weet het. 

Je kunt je probleem ook aan de orde stellen op het forum van OSM.
Je bent van harte welkom.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12


MVG,
Eggie
pio2_122 (2020-09-01 09:34:06+00:00): Bezpodstawne zmiany.

Wycofane w całości.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90230390
donbass73 (2023-04-14 05:45:15+00:00): 4450010
user_2066394 (2020-09-01 09:35:38+00:00): Warum den bereits bestehenden Knoten gelöscht?
eggie (2020-09-01 10:19:30+00:00): Beste ... Het is een zeer kwestbaar gebied hier.. zeker als startende mapper.
Je hebt de administratieve grens verwijderd. Dat heeft niets met een pad te maken.
Dit waren je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=90231844
Het graspad is er wel degelijk en stond op access=private en vehicle = no
Ik draai je changesets terug.. alleen al gezien de schade aan de administratieve grenzen. 
Wanneer je nog vragen hebt stel ze gerust.
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2020-09-01 10:22:21+00:00): reverted by changeset #90238437
Lisettehaneveer (2020-09-01 11:45:26+00:00): Hallo Eggie,

Ik ben marketingmedewerker hier in het gebied en ik weet dat het een zeer kwetsbaar gebied is. Ik heb dit pad weggehaald omdat er regelmatig onduidelijkheid is over dit stuk pad. Mensen denken namelijk dat hier gelopen kan worden en dat is absoluut niet het geval. Om meer duidelijkheid te scheppen heb ik het pad verwijderd. 
Het is een beschermd natuurgebied en hier loopt geen pad door heen. 
Graag een reactie.

MVG,

Lisette
eggie (2020-09-01 12:26:26+00:00): Beste Lisette...  Wegen verwijderen uit OSM ligt gevoelig.
Wanneer er geen pad loopt kan het uiteraard weg. 
Het gaat over het traject over het dijkje.
Het was getagd met surface=grass en access=private en wel dor een ervaren mapper. 
Het pad heb ik tot de vogelkijkhut verwijderd.
De administratieve grenzen heb ik intact gelaten. 
MVG,
eggie
Øukasz (2020-09-30 12:30:00+00:00): Hi,

Can you explain the name tag here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/539156630 please?

Thank you
SomeoneElse (2020-10-10 10:16:45+00:00): @Øukasz I've reverted this, and sent the user a message that they have to read before continuing to edit at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3978 .  If you see any other problems that need looking at please mail the Data Working Group via data@osmfoundation.org .
Best Regards,
Andy, from the DWG.
user_11418917 (2020-10-12 00:15:33+00:00): @Øukasz + @SomeoneElse You can translate the word “صدر” and see what it translate to. 
Maybe next time your should translate the name in Arabic to English to see what it came
SomeoneElse (2020-10-12 08:58:01+00:00): For the avoidance of doubt, the translation of the name before and after it was changed was "The shrine of the first martyr al-Sadr".  See http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=539156630 .
Frans S (2020-09-01 09:59:40+00:00): Hello. 

Thank you for mapping on this project.
I am sorry to say but your mapping work lacks a bit  accuracy and details.
Most buildings here are rectangular. Please square each of them with the Q key in the editor next time.
I will correct your mappings now.

Here are some tips and hints which might be helpful to improve your mapping skills

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT_4K-s7HItsGTDt4dx43C3iD7u5uHtUyvasd_eMUQIq9zWbwlMXQk90jDHcdq6OcOnMc6B1NHYG4cO/pub
Best regards and keep mapping
mgpx (2020-09-01 20:13:02+00:00): Szia,
az utak (és bármilyen más OSM objektum) "name" mezőjébe az út/objektum egyedi elnevezése írandó, pl. Petőfi utca, Grófi út stb. A turistajelzéseket nem a "name" mezőbe írjuk (az ugyanis nem az út elnevezése), hanem a turistajelzést reprezentáló kapcsolathoz rendeljük hozzá az adott útszakaszt
mgpx (2020-09-01 20:17:42+00:00): Ha egy üzlet vagy vendéglátóipari egység bezárt, akkor ezt úgy jelezhetjük, hogy az egység típusát jelző címke elé helyezzük az "abandoned:" prefixet. Tehát a bezárt söröző helyes jelzése: abandoned:amenity=pub. Alternatívaként a POI törölhető is.

Az opening_hours-ba beírt "Bezárt!" üzenet nem megfelelő, mert ettől még továbbra is jelezni fogják a térképek
mgpx (2020-09-01 20:21:18+00:00): A völgyek megnevezését nem a bennük futó út "name" mezőjében adjuk meg, hanem a völgy aljánál húzódó vonalat rakunk fel, amelyet natural=valley címkével jelölünk, és erre rakható egy "name" mezőben a völgy neve is. A Templom-völgy egyébként már ily módon jelölt, az átmenő útra ismételten felírni a völgy nevét szükségtelen (OSM szempontból helytelen)
5m4u9 (2020-09-02 03:13:15+00:00): hi, I fixed shadow of building (west side of grandstand). In Bolivia we using bing imagery as main source, others satellite imagery have an offset
Tomas Straupis (2020-09-02 07:06:29+00:00): Removed tracktype tags from highway=residential.
Tomas Straupis (2020-09-02 08:31:10+00:00): Reverted incorrect change of memorial to monument.
CRCulver (2020-09-02 11:04:47+00:00): I examined this POI firsthand yesterday, and it is not a memorial (it is not in memory of any individual or group) but rather a monument.
CRCulver (2020-09-02 11:05:19+00:00): Please do not remove tracktype= tags from highway=residential. Tracktype= tags are used to provide routing guidance for e.g. cyclists on unpaved roads.
CRCulver (2020-09-02 11:07:20+00:00): Nevermind, that particular memorial was my mistake. However, my comment about tracktype= still stands.
CRCulver (2020-09-02 11:08:06+00:00): For reference, see the wiki entry for tracktype: "It usually applies to highway=track but is often used for non-tracks too, especially in less-developed places where many main roads are unpaved."
CRCulver (2020-09-02 11:22:10+00:00): Also, this is not the first time that you have reverted a change which I made within a very large changeset that involves many other things. It is not easy to find the way/POI for which there is disagreement. Please do not do this again – and in general discuss these matters with me first before reverting – or I will have to bring this to the attention of the DWG.
Tomas Straupis (2020-09-02 13:05:11+00:00): When doing changes in unfamiliar places - please try restricting your changesets to much smaller areas so that it is easier to review and fix or I will have to bring this to the attention of the DWG :-D
BTW: at least some tracktypes were incorrect, but I will see how to improve out autotests to handle such cases.
CRCulver (2020-09-02 15:31:11+00:00): My changesets these last days have been of quite reasonable size and typical of one doing a survey by vehicle where uploading each individual change on mobile would be awkward and time-consuming. However, if you are editing from a computer (as I assume from the fact that you are reviewing and then uploading such immense changeset), then it would be little trouble for you to 1) leave a quick comment on my changeset first before reverting, and 2) if you must revert, then do it in a dedicated changeset. This would be polite and helpful.
Tomas Straupis (2020-09-02 15:37:45+00:00): Ok. For now I see tags which are incorrect/different from massive amount of other same tags in Lithuania by a non local user with small number of small changesets so I see no point of discussing before fixing. The problems are detected by automated QA scripts and I'm reviewing the results daily. Making separate changesets for each user would take way too much of my time. But let's continue discussion of tracktype usage on the other changeset and we'll see from there.
Polarbear (2020-11-01 18:10:31+00:00): Wieder zwei sinnlos gelöschte Zufahrten, einer davon zu einer Schule, 
Repariert.
Ralphie Raccoon (2020-09-01 18:19:44+00:00): It doesn't really matter in this case, but for future reference OSRM/GraphHopper will consider if a way is tagged access=no (don't know about access=private) and prevent traversal of that way. It seems the graph hasn't be updated for this yet so it still routes you over the bridge for now. Since based on my personal survey the bridge is almost certainty permanently closed (but not yet demolished), removing the paths seems sensible anyway (but keeping the bridge).