piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:28:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
vng_me (2022-04-30 10:51:25+00:00): You added new coastline here and, but didn't fix existing one. Now validator fails.
Colin Smale (2022-04-30 11:24:04+00:00): Oops! Sorry about that, I had a few crashes while I was doing this. I think it's OK now. I will check again in a couple of hours. Thanks for flagging it up!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:21:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Huwdiprose (2022-04-29 19:37:49+00:00): Automated upload, community consultation and methodology described in OSM UK Loomio: https://www.loomio.org/d/s5BWLiFX/uprn-tag-updates-based-on-positioning-of-node-within-a-building-way
Huwdiprose (2022-04-29 19:38:52+00:00): Source: https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/datasets/national-statistics-uprn-lookup-april-2022/about

OGL v3
Frans S (2022-04-30 10:31:35+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say that your mappings are not accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to these points:
Please  use the Maxar Imagery. Now there is an offset which needs to be adjusted.
Also check wrong mapped buildings.



Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120361047
Frans S (2022-04-30 08:29:08+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and mapped. 
Just 1 issue:  Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120361270
carfog81 (2022-04-30 00:50:59+00:00): Usted daño varias relaciones, de limites y de rutas de buses. Por favor arreglar
(Inactive) hayduke1275 (2022-05-02 16:00:28+00:00): Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
gscholz (2022-05-01 06:10:50+00:00): Hi Buciero,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=30.76753&lat=-3.05027&zoom=17

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=120361324

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
rjgambrel (2022-08-10 22:30:05+00:00): About the time you were making the specific change to a section of US 14 by adding the expressway=yes tag there was a discussion going on and reached about which motorway islands on US 14 (and other highways in Minnesota) should be classified as expressway. I have removed the expressway=yes for this small segment of US 14 to comply with the agreed Minnesota guidelines. If you are editing roads in Minnesota, please refer to: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification.  The changeset where I reverted the expressway=yes change is: 124751076. Please feel free to message me and if you would like, join the Slack discussion about Minnesota Highway classification or make comments on the wiki page.
Stretch Longfellow (2022-08-10 22:47:51+00:00): Fear not, I was already instructed at length about how Minnesota does not conform to standards elsewhere in the country, reverted all of my MN edits, and promised never to touch MN again months ago. Never editing there again; too many complex and contradictory rules!
rjgambrel (2022-08-11 00:48:14+00:00): Who instructed you that? I think MN tried hard to adhere to US guidelines. Feel free to message me directly.
Stretch Longfellow (2022-08-11 01:10:29+00:00): Whoever I had that conversation with months ago. I don't remember and I don't particularly care to look it up. But that was my first experience with state-based regulations (like Minnesota's bizarre motorway islands that cause confusion and look hideous in my opinion), and there is a LOT of variance state to state. I also found a lot of places in Minnesota's documentation that is contradictory to itself, hence why I figured it would be best to just bow out and let locals deal with it. Now I'm working on Nebraska's standards since we don't have any documentation.
rjgambrel (2022-08-12 16:49:35+00:00): Thank you for continuing the conversation. Coming up with state guidelines required lots of discussions and consensus building. The attempt was to eliminate ambiguity where possible with the possibility, always, of adding new ambiguity. It was a 1.0 attempt and maybe someday in the future we will revisit. I wish you luck with your effort. It can be daunting. Specifically with respect to the expressway tags, I have been reviewing all of the current use of it in MN. (I did this before we started the effort, and of course there was very little.) Our guidelines try to provide both general guidelines about when to use (which conforms we think with the broader US guidelines). The island discussion was difficult but in the end we reviewed each island and made a determination as to whether it was a
rjgambrel (2022-08-12 16:54:05+00:00): valid motorway island or should better be classified a trunk/expressway. Lots of disagreement across US but we thought we found consensus. In my effort (today) to review expressway=yes segments I found this about yours (not done yet, so might have to revise this): you seem to equate a divided highway as the main (only?) criterion to qualifying it for expressway=yes. The guidelines require more than that. The standard is something like "slightly degraded" from motorway. (Don't remember the words exactly, but that is the intent, it seems.) Having a lot of at grade intersections, we feel, does not qualify as "slightly degraded". I look forward to looking at your Nebraska consensus. Maybe you will have simplified guidelines we can adopt (after consensus discussion). Enjoy! And thanks for your time.
eggie (2022-04-30 07:53:41+00:00): Je vraagt feedback
Oke, maar ik denk dus ook gewoon parking=street_side parking:orientation=perpendicular

Groet
eggie
CasualDutchExplorer (2022-04-30 12:30:57+00:00): Beste Eggie,

Dank je wel voor het bericht.
Ik vond deze nogal een twijfelgeval, omdat deze parkeerplaats letterlijk het "eindpunt" is van deze weg.

Vriendelijke groetjes,
CasualDutchExplorer
eggie (2022-04-30 14:15:01+00:00): Up to you  :)
krusefahrer (2022-04-30 15:29:13+00:00): Dear Marc,

how would you tag https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/703345532 (and the other village on the bottom right)?
marczoutendijk (2022-05-01 06:34:19+00:00): Areas where people live should be tagged with landuse=residential.
Areas where people grow something have one of the many choices for landuse=*
See our wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse
martien-176 (2022-04-30 10:27:59+00:00): Hi Jenny, welcome to HOTOSM. You requested a review of your mappings. 

The buildings look good: corners are square and the footprint is traced well on the correct spot. One thing though: you mapped 2 buildings close together having a shared node. This should be prevented, you can do that by holding the Alt key while drawing the building.

A request: you upload every mapped buildings as a separate changeset. It is  more efficient to upload every 5 to 10 mapped buildings. Preferably when they are located close to another. 

Thanks, you are doing great. Kind regards, Martien, global validator
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120362902
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:20:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
carfog81 (2022-04-30 17:09:12+00:00): Please do not damage the route type relationships (bus)
(Inactive) hayduke1275 (2022-05-02 15:59:56+00:00): Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Lachgast (2022-04-29 20:23:09+00:00): Hier loopt een wandelpad (vermoedelijk klompenpad)
BCNorwich (2022-04-30 07:36:20+00:00): Duplicated highways removed.
eggie (2023-11-24 11:30:53+00:00): Hoi   Zou jij  even hier naar de spoorweg kunnen  kijken. Een startende 'mapper' heeft nu voor de 2de keer (na revert) de naam van de spoorweg aangepast.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144402580#map=18/51.88530/5.24443

Hij gaat random over de kaart om van alles in Deil aan te passen. 

Kon de laatste keer niet meer reverten.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=144402580

Hij is niet van zins om te antwoorden op vragen. Z'n eerste changeset was al vandalisme. Denk dat het nog een jong persoon is. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-11-25 13:20:32+00:00): Jeroen.. Ik heb het zelf al hersteld.  Van mapper geen reactie gekregen.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:17:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
BCNorwich (2022-05-04 08:15:45+00:00): Hi, You've made some inadvertent duplication of highways instead of amending the existing highways. It's OK though I've removed the duplicates. Need help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:26:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
BCNorwich (2022-05-04 08:29:07+00:00): Hi, You've made some inadvertent duplication of highways instead of amending the existing highways. It's OK though I've removed the duplicates. Need help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.
carfog81 (2022-04-30 17:07:10+00:00): Please do not damage the route type relationships (bus)
(Inactive) hayduke1275 (2022-05-02 16:00:09+00:00): Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
BCNorwich (2022-05-04 08:33:29+00:00): Hi, You've made some inadvertent duplication of highways instead of amending the existing highways. It's OK though I've removed the duplicates. Need help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.
SHARCRASH (2022-04-30 10:54:33+00:00): Did you have the chance to check if the beginning of this way is still roughly usable or its grade got worse? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/758394313
gloda (2022-04-30 12:41:56+00:00): Sorry, I focussed on way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431019914.
user_5359 (2022-05-01 15:14:02+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1056093817/history. What is the meaning of the tag surface=yes?
eggie (2022-04-30 06:01:34+00:00): Dag koopfloop..

De voorgaande mapper heeft op veel paden highway=path bicycle en foot=designated getagd. Dat behoort .....=yes te zijn. Dat was de reden dat alles als fietspad renderde. (Duitse manier van sommige fietspaden taggen) Wij doen dat anders. 
Je kunt dus het beste gewoon highway=path laten staan als er geen G7 bord staat en foot en bicycle = designated veranderen in yes. Dan verdwijnt de blauwe fietspadkleur. 

Het zou een goede zaak zijn als die foutjes eruit gehaald worden.


Er zijn namelijk bijna geen wandelpade met G7 waar je mag fietsen behalve al er een onderbord staat fietsen is toegevstaan.
Het zullen dus veelal paden zijn (highway=path)
Je edits.. https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=120364782
Verder is het van beland om surface=paved of bv paving_stones toe te voegen, want een router ziet path en footway als onverhard. Het zal niet naar behoren routeren zo. 
Meestal heb ik 'onverhard vermijden' dan ook uit staan in mn GPSr.
Groet
eggie
eggie (2022-04-30 06:04:17+00:00): 
Gebruik deze overpass
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1i41

Wel even op uitvoeren klikken.
eggie (2022-04-30 06:07:11+00:00): https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1i42
Voor foot=designated
eggie (2022-04-30 06:10:03+00:00): En bij highway=footway hoort geen foot=yes of designated (default)... en bij highway=path kun je wel foot=yes en indien toegestaan bicycle=yes taggen. (Dit voor de duidelijkheid al is dat ook default. )
designated geeft dus de niet gewenste kleur blauw ('Duits fietspad')
eggie (2022-04-30 06:27:44+00:00): Bij de RSE  heb ik het highway=path verwijderd van de omtrek van het gebouw.. Nog wel amenity=school en sports_hall toegevoegd.
eggie (2022-04-30 06:38:50+00:00): Nu ik daar toch aan het kijken ben.. De outer mp's heb ik van de fietsenstallingen gehaald. Daar hoef je geen mp's te gebruiken, want er is hier niets in te sluiten en outers mogen elkaar niet raken.  
De school zelf staat wel in een mp als outer omdat er een binnenplaats is. Alle schooltagging staat op de relatie. Het pad zal zo wel verdwijnen. ctrl-f5 een paar keer.
koopfloop (2022-04-30 10:42:25+00:00): Ik ga even kijken. Wat zijn MP's?
Dat pad om de school heen was er al, ik moest hem invullen om het überhaupt op te mogen slaan.
eggie (2022-04-30 11:07:17+00:00): De school heeft een binnenplaats. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.70849/5.26915
Om die te zien is er een relatie nodig tussen de buitenkant van het gebouw en dat vak binnen het gebouw. De omtreek wordt dan een multipolygoon (outer) en het stuk in het midden de inner.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Multipolygon_Examples

Op de outer komen geen tags. Die staan op de relatie..  bv building=yes name=...  enz. 
Die zie je niet. De lijn lijkt dus leeg.
Zo zetten we ook eilandjes in het water. Het water is de outer.. en het eilandje de inner.
Zie voorbeelden.
Met JOSM kun je dat makkelijk toevoegen.
De fietsparkeerplaats water drie outers. Dat was dus niet nodig, want er hoefde niets in te worden gesloten.  Kennelijk doet editor iD zaken automatisch heb ik gemerkt.
Waarom de omtrek van het gebouw een pad moest worden en iD daarom vroeg. Geen idee. 'k Denk omdat die lijn geen tags leek te bevatten. Die zitten in de relatie.
Het is in het begin allemaal abacadabra .. ik weet het.
Groet eggie
eggie (2022-04-30 11:08:57+00:00): Hier een voorbeeld waar mp's (multypolygonen) nodig zijn https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.71033/5.25339

Anders zou je geen eilandjes zien.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:22:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Frans S (2022-05-02 14:07:46+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and mapped. 

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120364943
SHARCRASH (2022-04-30 10:38:14+00:00): Hi! As far as i can remember, doesn't the stone you created have an inscription or isn't it memorial ?
gloda (2022-04-30 12:43:52+00:00): That's right, there is a plaque on it with the name of the mine in French and German and the time it operated - 1354-1938. I don't think it qualifies as a memorial.
SHARCRASH (2022-04-30 15:05:29+00:00): OK thanks for all!
tastrax (2022-05-06 11:50:09+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
Danchev (2022-06-09 15:39:19+00:00): Vaše budovy jsou ostuda.
eggie (2022-04-30 05:42:32+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback.. Probeer als het kan op de adresnodes bij te taggen. Dus niet nogmaals een adres aanmaken.

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-04-30 05:50:22+00:00): Beste mjeeloo
De school stond al op de kaart.
De info heb ik nu op de adresnode gezet.
MVG
eggie
BCNorwich (2022-05-05 09:31:56+00:00): Hi, Duplicated highways were removed but the new tagging looks like it might need amending.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-05-05 08:01:08+00:00): Please don't make fake edits. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:31:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:18:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
CurlingMan13 (2022-05-03 18:48:42+00:00): What source was used?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:30:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:26:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
boopington (2022-04-29 22:09:32+00:00): you do know this golf course doesn't exist anymore right?
Ginger Lover (2022-04-29 22:28:12+00:00): I do.  I am saving the course so my customer can play it in a game.  He used to play the course for years until it shut down.
boopington (2022-04-29 22:37:56+00:00): ok
drivec (2022-05-11 03:28:01+00:00): Reverted and fixed based on free imagery, city GIS, and GPS traces.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-05-05 08:03:50+00:00): Why were the roads deleted?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120366197
BCNorwich (2022-05-06 07:08:00+00:00): Hi, I've removed some roads because they were duplication.
MarcoR (2022-04-30 13:50:34+00:00): wrong source! Real source is aerial imagery (Maxar Premium Imagery)
skyper (2022-07-26 15:26:13+00:00): Hi Joerg
Why did you add a node `leisure=playground` inside an area with this tag (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/220410672)? Please, always look for areas representing the POI. If you try to tag individual constructions, please, take at look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:playground.
Cheers skyper
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:31:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-05-05 08:36:06+00:00): Features with a fixme shouldn't simply be deleted.
BCNorwich (2022-05-06 07:21:35+00:00): Hi, I've removed some roads because they were duplication.
Warin61 (2022-07-23 02:11:57+00:00): Hi,

Would you please repair the parking area way 860919670? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/860919670#map=19/-38.06819/145.43905
drivec (2022-05-11 03:27:44+00:00): Reverted and fixed based on free imagery, city GIS, and GPS traces.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:32:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
drivec (2022-05-11 03:27:38+00:00): Reverted and fixed based on free imagery, city GIS, and GPS traces.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-05-01 20:54:27+00:00): revertendo novamente. mesmo vias particulares podem estar mapeadas. o que se pode fazer é colocar como acesso privado, mas jamais deletar, não faça mais isto.
sanch3z (2022-04-30 00:11:33+00:00): Bist du dir sicher dass die Position des Mülleimers mitten auf der Straße korrekt ist?
drivec (2022-05-11 03:27:33+00:00): Reverted and fixed based on free imagery, city GIS, and GPS traces.
wille (2022-05-02 13:55:52+00:00): I reviewed your edit and it's fine. The only improvement I suggest is to draw the features with more precision and use the "q" key shortcut to ortogonalize the buildings.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120368249
BCNorwich (2022-06-22 08:11:35+00:00): Hi, You've got the Greenway tagged as a 1.5-mile-long bridge. You also have some sections of it duplicating existing highways. It also several times crosses over other highways with no joins.

From the current Bing and Maxar imagery on JOSM, it looks like some sections as set out do not exist, or are way out of alignment. Perhaps the Greenway should have included some of the existing cycleways? 

Could you have a look to try and fix the bridge, duplicated sections, and unjoined crossing highways, please? Need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.
bill mcbride (2022-06-22 16:37:35+00:00): Okay, thanks.  I'm pretty much a new comer to this.  Will fire us JOSM and make the corrections you suggested.  If I have issues, I'll get in touch.  Can I reach you via email?
Bill
drivec (2022-05-11 03:27:29+00:00): Reverted and fixed based on free imagery, city GIS, and GPS traces.
Violaine_Do (2022-12-21 02:38:56+00:00): OSM est un pot commun, merci d'en prendre soin et de ne pas mettre d'nfo personnelle dedans
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120368355
ElliottPlack (2022-12-30 03:58:17+00:00): Looks good