piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Erick Alfaro (2021-02-11 23:22:49+00:00): up garage
MxxCon (2021-02-12 05:34:11+00:00): Hi.
Coney Island Creek is already mapped with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/101141590, isn't this a duplicate?
zhik (2021-02-13 01:45:21+00:00): Hey,

Thanks for letting me know, I did not see that. I will revert the changes.
TravGW (2021-02-12 06:06:58+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thank you for adding a new sidewalk to the map. Just a small note for the future. Looks like you added the sidewalk inside the street area. If you look at the Bing or Mapbox imagery the sidewalk is quite a few feet from where is should be. Next time you edit the it helps to check more than one imagery source to make sure everything aligns up correctly. 

Don't worry too much this small mistake. I've already fixed it for you.
Andrea Musuruane (2021-02-12 09:24:52+00:00): Ciao. Per favore. Ripristina i railway=level_crossing. La chiave railway=level_crossing non ha alcun senso. Gli attraversamenti esistono ancora tutti. Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99132671
fedc (2021-02-12 11:58:55+00:00): Visto che si tratta di una disused railway, mi sembra coerente usare la chiave disused:railway=level_crossing per segnalare i passaggi a livello (o meglio: gli ex passaggi a livello, dato che le sbarre sono state rimosse e tutto il sistema non funziona più)
confusedbuffalo (2021-02-11 23:01:51+00:00): Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
You requested a review of these changes.
In this case, the roads you deleted should still be on the map as they do exist. It seems though that their access should be tagged as private.
Also, the name tag is only for the name as on signposts, not a description.
If you're not confident in reverting the changset or adding the service roads back in then let me know and I can do so (this also applies to some of your other recent edits.
Puxan (2021-02-12 11:43:09+00:00): Muy bien, veo que has escuadrado los edificios ya mapeados pero que no estaban escuadrados.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99132931
Tomas Straupis (2021-02-12 06:10:31+00:00): Reverted incorrect changes of waterbody landuse=basin tag. iD is a crappy editor lying about "outdated" tags.
#banid
michalfabik (2021-02-11 21:23:02+00:00): Dobro došao i hvala što doprinosiš u OpenStreetMap!  
  
Samo mala ispravka: izgleda da si precrtao oblike zgrada kako izgledaju u perspektivi (npr. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/906333934). Oblici na karti trebaju predstavljati tlocrte zgrada. Dobro je kopirati oblik krova i onda pomjeriti cijeli pravougaonik (poligon) kako bi se njegovi ćoškovi podudarali sa ćoškovima zgrade na tlu. Ne treba uzimati u obzir vertikalne ivice zgrade koje se vide na slici kada kamera gleda ukoso.  
  
Kada iscrtaš oblik zgrade, možeš pritisnuti 'S' (kao "square") kako bi napravio pravougaonik.
woodpeck (2021-03-02 20:10:45+00:00): Bitte diese Datenbank nicht missbrauchen, um Tests zu machen. Wenn Du herausfinden willst, was die Reit/Wanderkarte mit bestimmten Bäumen macht, dann frage doch einfach nach, der Autor ist im Forum aktiv. Ausserdem könnte sich das auch jederzeit ändern, und wir würden nicht wollen, dass Du dann alle Bäume wieder umtaggst.
user_12356191 (2021-03-02 21:34:46+00:00): Danke für Deinen Kommentar. Meine Änderungsbeschreibung ist wohl missverständlich. Die verwendeten Denotations sind immer passend, z.B. wurden sie von anderen Mappern für ähnliche Bäume verwendet. 
Aber ich habe zur Prüfung zunächst nur eine kleine Gruppe getaggt. Es gibt ja nur EINE Denotation, aber oft mehrere korrekte Werte. So versuche ich, den passenden UND korrekten Wert zu ermitteln, und die Datenbank von unnötigem hin und her zu veschonen.
Russbiggs (2021-02-18 15:22:19+00:00): Hi there, you've deleted a large number of buildings in this changeset that still seem to be present on the ground. I will revert this changeset unless you have a source for why these buildings should be deleted. Please do not delete large amounts of data without a helpful changeset comment describing why the deletion might be necessary.
Filip009 (2025-12-02 15:22:21+00:00): Zdravím, prečo to rozdelenie nástupíšť? Nejedná sa stále o to isté nástupište?
HaPe-CZ (2025-12-03 07:02:38+00:00): Ahoj, nejsem prvním autorem nástupišť ale je to tak, že nástupiště jsou propojena s dopravními relacemi. Ze severní části se jezdí například do Děčína (jedna relace) a z jižní části se jezdí do Budějic. Takže celé nástupiště je rozděleno na dvě části podle směru dopravních relací. V místě rozdělení jsou umístěna i cestová (Lc) návěstidla tak, aby na jedné koleji mohly proti sobě stát dva vlaky, každý s následným odjezdem do jiného směru.
Filip009 (2025-12-03 07:13:33+00:00): Potom pardon. Bol si autorom multipolygonov preto som si myslel, že si aj autorom označenia nástupíšť. Pozriem teda, kto vytvoril čiary.

Čo ale ak je vlak dlhý a príde na celé nástupište, ktoré sa potom pridá do relácie?
HaPe-CZ (2025-12-04 06:47:16+00:00): Tak dlouhé vlaky už v česku nejezdí. :D
HaPe-CZ (2025-12-04 06:49:11+00:00): Pokud by to chtěl někdo opravdu řešit, tak relace budou přiřazeny části nástupiště, koleje a místa zastavení, kde bude čelo vlaku.
czubi (2021-02-12 07:13:11+00:00): Bäume haben keine Eigennamen.
Das ist die Gattung (genus:de=*)
Habs geändert.
czubi (2021-02-12 07:14:35+00:00): Sei doch bitte so lieb und lies vor deinen Änderungen das zugehörige wiki und versuche dich daran zu orientieren. Sonst muss ich alle deine Eintragungen im nachhinein nochmal korregieren!
Puxan (2021-02-12 11:39:00+00:00): Muy bien.  Es mejor no mapear los caminos que unen la vía principal con cada edificio, si es corto (inferior a 100 metros).   Muy bien, sigue mapeando.      Joaquim
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99133651
iandees (2021-02-11 21:27:22+00:00): it's odd to have a bus stop in the middle of the intersection like this. Should that be on a sidewalk?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99133769
karson_ (2021-05-23 15:23:25+00:00): Where did you pull this information from?
kguenther24 (2021-05-24 04:25:03+00:00): Some personal knowledge and some from this map from the City of Des Moines: https://maps.dsm.city/docs/maps/NeighborhoodsSmall.pdf
However it has since been updated...
karson_ (2021-05-24 14:13:16+00:00): Sounds good. I am always a bit hesitant to use city published neighborhood maps since they are arbitrarily drawn and might be
different even on the same website. I think using place=neighbourhood nodes like you did was a good choice.
canfe (2021-02-12 05:57:34+00:00): Si prega di fare il revert.
Il nome Case sparse è presente, inserito mediante cartellonistica dal Comune di Front e l'ho verificato personalmente con un sopralluogo.
WoodWoseWulf (2021-02-12 00:03:04+00:00): Hi AmateurPlanner!

It looks like this park is already on the map as an area, here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/897718999

Were you trying to add something specific to the park?
AmateurPlanner (2021-02-12 12:24:20+00:00): No, that's my bad! I thought for it to show up a specific Point was needed. I can remove this
AmateurPlanner (2021-02-12 12:25:58+00:00): Removed in Changeset 99175622
eggie (2021-02-12 15:09:34+00:00): Je vraagt om feedback.. bicycle=no hoeft je niet te taggen op een voetpad.
Dat is 'default'.
Wanneer je wilt dat het routeert kun je het pad beter doortrekken naar de weg op de parkeerplaats.
MVG
eggie
dijk6jes (2021-02-12 18:59:54+00:00): bedankt voor het antwoord
ma-rt-in (2021-02-15 07:07:25+00:00): Hallo,
leider hast du bei deiner Erfassung die Kontaktdaten doppelt erfasst. DIes sind bereits via dem contact-Schema erfasst worden. Ich bitte daher deine Änderungen rückgänig zumachen.

Schönen Gruß und viel Spaß weiterhin beim Mappen.
TravGW (2021-02-12 06:11:42+00:00): You made a common mistake. This community USPS box is not a post box/mail box. It is a letter box.
Post box = mail drop off box.
Letter box = individual boxes where customers receive their mail.
eggie (2021-02-12 07:51:09+00:00): Review.. Prima om iets weg te halen dat er niet meer is.
De landuse=allotments (volkstuin) heb ik gelijk ook maar omgetagd naar de actuele landuse.
Die is er ook niet meer hier. 
MVG
eggie
ma-rt-in (2021-02-15 07:06:18+00:00): Hallo,
leider hast du bei deiner Erfassung die Kontaktdaten doppelt erfasst. DIes sind bereits via dem contact-Schema erfasst worden. Ich bitte daher deine Änderungen rückgänig zumachen.

Schönen Gruß und viel Spaß weiterhin beim Mappen.
jhmeniscus (2021-02-12 21:17:51+00:00): Hey there, I made some modifications to your Waterhouse Trail additions along Bronson Rd and Bethany Blvd and felt they were significant enough to give you a heads up. I see you’re a new mapper and hope to maybe offer some insight.

While I know the path is a little wider than a typical sidewalk, It doesn’t really meet the standards of a shared multiuser path so I’ve changed the highway type to sidewalk, but have added notes and the Waterhouse Trail walking relation to it while keeping the cycling relation on the road lanes. This should make the map and specifically hiking and cycling app routing more accurate.

If you’re not sure what a relation is, it’s seperate overlayed data to an area or way that is typically non-physical in nature such as a turn restriction or bus route on a road, or association of a trail route to multiple different roads/paths along its way. If you view the open cycle map layer in regular map view you’ll see the route relations as purple lines on trails for example.

Thanks, and keep on mapping!
archpdx (2021-02-13 05:18:22+00:00): Hi, thank you for your help and feedback! I'm still trying to get a hang of what features to use for scenarios like these, so this is some useful information that I'll be sure to use in my future edits.
ivanbranco (2021-02-12 11:40:24+00:00): Ciao Mtech79,

un consiglio. Nelle highway=track i tag bicycle=yes, foot=yes, horse=yes ecc. sono superflui, in quanto già impliciti. Vanno aggiunti quando c'è un apposito divieto, sennò dovremmo aggiungere questi tag in modo ridondante a tutte le highway=track che esistono.
user_5359 (2021-02-12 06:29:57+00:00): Welcome to OSM! The development in the management of cadastral systems clearly shows that successful use is only possible with uniform keys and values. 
Personally, I find it sad that comments on incorrect entries are not heeded by the course instructor and the requirements for the work are adjusted accordingly. This applies to the wrong key "condition of building" as well as the redocumented values C,D, G,M (also in lower case), NR.

Καλώς ορίσατε στο OSM! Η εξέλιξη στη διαχείριση των κτηματολογικών συστημάτων δείχνει σαφώς ότι η επιτυχής χρήση είναι δυνατή μόνο με ομοιόμορφα κλειδιά και τιμές.
Προσωπικά, λυπάμαι που τα σχόλια για λανθασμένες εγγραφές δεν λαμβάνονται υπόψη από τον εκπαιδευτή του μαθήματος και οι απαιτήσεις για την εργασία προσαρμόζονται ανάλογα. Αυτό ισχύει για λανθασμένο κλειδί "κατάσταση κατασκευής" καθώς και για τις τιμές C, D, G, M (επίσης με πεζά γράμματα), NR.

Μετάφραση στα ελληνικά με το Google
hoserab (2021-02-19 19:50:06+00:00): Hello Sylvia,

Your reclassification of a number of roads in downtown Calgary is incorrect. Please review https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Calgary#Road_tagging_guidelines for more information, and please desist making more of these changes until you have had a chance to more thoroughly review what these classifications actually mean.

Please note that if you are unsure about your changes you can mark them for review by more experienced contributors by clicking the "I would like someone to review my edits" checkbox.

Thanks!
hoserab (2021-02-24 22:10:13+00:00): Hi Nicole,

The building part you added at 1st St SW & Daqing Avenue no longer exists. It was demolished a few years ago. I have summarily deleted it.

Please be mindful of the age of background satellite imagery.

Thanks
user_5359 (2021-02-12 05:19:01+00:00): Hello! Please notice: the minimum keys for an address is addr:street and addr:housenumber! Can you add the value for the house number, please?
SomeoneElse (2021-03-19 10:18:15+00:00): Hello,
Can you provide a source for this change?  If you can't, we'll have to change this back.
Best Regards,
Andy
dcapillae (2021-02-12 00:51:35+00:00): Hola, Fulguer.

Gracias por los cambios. Buen trabajo. He aprovechado tus indicaciones para añadir el ceda el paso en la bajada, en el cruce con Calle Antonio Vico.

Atentamente,

Daniel
pio2_122 (2021-02-12 08:56:32+00:00): Mam małą prośbę: Przy dodawaniu punktów POI, proszę umieszczaj je jak najbliżej brzegu budynków (najlepiej w miejscu wejścia) - dzięki temu najczęściej nie zasłaniają one numeru budynku na mapie OSM :)
Jeśli dane POI zajmuje cały budynek to najlepiej uzupełnić to w znacznikach budynku.

Poza tym, dobra robota ;)
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:27:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:28:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:27:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:42:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:38:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
MxxCon (2021-02-12 06:49:56+00:00): According to https://bustime.mta.info/m/index?q=B36&l=&t= MTA calls this route 
to CONEY ISLAND W 37 ST
to SHEEPSHEAD BAY AVENUE U
Perhaps it makes sense to name it the same way in relations?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99138996
daniel_solow (2021-02-12 21:38:04+00:00): I'm open to that suggestion. I was going off the nearest neighborhood names using the wikimedia map layer in JOSM for bus lines in neighborhoods i'm not too familiar with. 

Also I wasn't sure if using the MTA website directly would violate the rules about using open data. Not entirely sure.
MxxCon (2021-02-12 21:44:24+00:00): I have no idea, but I can imagine if something is using this data, routes might not match up if their names are different from MTA's.
To figure out bus routes you are using MTA's data anyway...I don't see that being any different..
clay_c (2021-02-13 02:45:45+00:00): Public transit route names on OSM are sort of a gray area right now. Generally they're given names that follow the format "[vehicle] [ref]: [origin] => [destination]" mostly for the convenience of maintaining them, despite this being a description and not a name.

That said, the ref tag is substantially more important for matching up public transit data between OSM and an external source. Ideally we'll get to a point where The Name Is The Name Only. In some cases this would mean the name tag would actually be blank, since the route may have only a ref and not a name.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:33:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:40:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:36:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:39:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:41:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:42:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:26:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:29:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:42:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:43:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:37:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
Warin61 (2021-02-26 07:30:13+00:00): Hi,

Muiltipolygons outer ways should not have the same tags on them as the relation. 

I have fixed relation 12305019 (grass fairway).
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:26:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:43:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:29:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:39:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:35:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:27:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:44:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:35:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
cserpell (2021-02-12 14:17:18+00:00): De verdad la obra se llama "Por Favor"?
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:36:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:42:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.