piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Lee Carré (2021-09-21 08:44:31+00:00): “As I'm a newbie, I wasn't aware of any of those points.”

Indeed, quite understandable. I didn't mean to imply blame.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the problem isn't the newbies, but poor design of editors in this regard (usability / interaction-design, lacking tutorial). Hence pointing to the GH issue; it's a known problem, and is at least receiving attention.

Actually, I cited this changeset there, as clear evidence of the need for a remedy. So, you actually helped with making the compelling case by articulating the failure / cause clearly (and, based on your contribution history, you're exactly the target user-group). So, thanks 🙂.
Jakka (2021-09-20 17:07:02+00:00): not sure routeplanners recognize this "no left turn relation" ....
David4000 (2021-09-26 15:14:06+00:00): What do you mean?
Sorry, this is my 1st edit ever with OSM. I was using Waze and decided to switch to Magic Earth. I see several errors on my way to/from work and I want to contribute to rectify the inaccuracies.
Jakka (2021-09-26 15:59:45+00:00): code like this https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13238055
Arlo James Barnes (2025-05-08 00:33:52+00:00): is Lamy Fountain a sculpture?
Jakka (2021-09-20 17:11:45+00:00): Is dit de correcte naam "Rustoord Beerselhof" ?
vond dit ?
https://www.woonzorgweb.be/rusthuizen/antwerpen/putte/wzc-beerzelhof
Malfait (2021-09-20 20:10:52+00:00): Naam is eigenlijk Woonzorgcentrum, niet Rustoord. Beersel ook niet te verwarren met Beerzel. Aanpassing gedaan. 1e edit ooit, nog wat onwennig. Bedankt voor uw hulp.
Jakka (2021-09-20 20:15:01+00:00): Oeie met een letterke verschil kzou aan de verkeerde deur staan ;)
archpdx (2021-09-20 01:25:24+00:00): Hey there,
It looks like this changeset turned Ventura Pak into a parking lot. I've changed it back to a park.
TravGW (2022-02-13 17:14:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted, no golf course here.

This is a real world map that many people depend on. Please do not make fictional test edits.
Mashin (2021-09-20 02:43:16+00:00): Hi,
thanks for contributing. Just a question, do you have an evidence that those residential streets has private access? Residential streets are generally public and if there is no trespassing sign it is legal to enter such road.
Scooby527 (2021-09-20 10:31:14+00:00): Here is the link to the GIS map for the town that labels them as such. https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1582046648/westhartfordctgov/f1yym76b4kheome1c8zn/Street-Map.pdf I have made a few property owners upset trying to run on these roads.
Mashin (2021-09-20 12:57:36+00:00): Thanks for link to the map. 
There was a lengthy discussion about this topic on Slack a while ago that I just reviewed (https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1615311712470100). It seems people mostly agreed that we put access=private when there is a gate or sign that says no trespassing. 
There was suggestion that if there is no sign or gate we could place access=destination as alternative. 

There was a link to interesting ruling (http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/court-rules-that-your-driveway-is-not-private-propertyunless-youre-rich?news=841368)
and in CT it should be fine to be there if you didn't know you shouldn't (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-r-0365.htm)
mikko_tamura (2021-09-20 00:29:20+00:00): This upload is a test point. We will be deleting this after 1 week from upload. Thank you
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111426717
3ngineer (2021-09-28 04:20:02+00:00): Sorry, but the Esri imagery best matches what is on the ground here. I reverted this change because I am was just here and am certain the parking lot is not a circle.
jnighan (2021-10-26 01:40:07+00:00): Although privately owned, this road is intended for use by the public and is not signed as private, so it should not be tagged access=private
黄庭坚 (2021-12-12 21:41:27+00:00): Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/984989889 complete?
jnighan (2021-10-26 01:32:50+00:00): Although it is on a college campus, this road is open to the public and should not be tagged access=private
jnighan (2021-10-26 01:32:59+00:00): Although it is on a college campus, this road is open to the public and should not be tagged access=private
jnighan (2021-10-26 01:33:08+00:00): Although it is on a college campus, this road is open to the public and should not be tagged access=private
Scooby527 (2021-11-05 19:37:40+00:00): The road has a gate and guard and a pass is required to get on campus
jnighan (2021-11-15 18:45:27+00:00): Ah, I see. In that case, "access=permissive" is more appropriate than private.
imagico (2021-10-05 18:37:58+00:00): Please stop this import, revert the changes made and discuss your plans following the import guidelines on the imports mailing list before adding further data.

Specifically you are:

* importing natural features in the Antarctic under the disguise of this being a New Zealand Address import.

* not linking to a documentation of the import documenting sources and tagging used and procedure on the OSM wiki from either the changeset tags or the import user account page

* just dumping data in complete disregard with how it matches existing data in the area or if it duplicates existing features.
❤️‍🔥 (2021-10-05 20:35:28+00:00): Hi, I’ve re-read the import guidelines and I believe it has been followed properly. To address your 3 points:

* This import is not 'disguised', it never claimed to be just for NZ. Data from LINZ has been imported for the Ross Dependency, and parts of the Pacific since 2012, when it was initially discussed with the community (I was not involved at the time). You can see all the regions on the wiki page (https://wiki.osm.org/LINZ)

* documentation is available at https://wiki.osm.org/LINZ, and every changeset has the attribution= tag which links to the Contributors page, which links to the LINZ wiki page. However, adding source=xxx to every single imported feature is frowned upon nowadays, so we shouldn’t do this. As you suggested, I will add another changeset tag to directly link to https://wiki.osm.org/LINZ. 

* data is not being 'dumped in complete disregard'. The import is done using a modified version of RapiD, which requires you to manually check and add every feature. For melt streams, this involved merging the starts/ends of streams with lakes and the coastline, and skipping streams that duplicated existing data. The validator warnings from iD in this specific changeset were noted and cleaned up shortly afterwards. Please let me know if you see any examples of badly conflated data.
imagico (2021-10-05 21:35:57+00:00): I am not going to engage in a rule lawyering discussion here.  My comment was a courtesy message giving you the opportunity to recognize and fix the error in your approach yourself.  It is your choice what you make of it.
❤️‍🔥 (2021-10-06 00:02:14+00:00): As far as I can tell, all validator issues have been fixed since this changeset was made, and river relations have been created using the new ways. Following our discussion I've also updated the editor to add a link to https://wiki.osm.org/LINZ in all changesets. let me know if there are other issues with the import process
imagico (2021-10-06 12:04:43+00:00): All of the points i made in my original comment still stand.  It does not matter if you disguise this as a (new) New Zealand Address import or try retroactive piggy-bagging on a decade old New Zealand Import that might or might not have discussed back then - at a time when the data you are importing here did not even exist yet and when there was almost no manual mapping in the Antarctic yet.

If you want to have feedback on your import you need to follow correct procedure and offer your plans for discussion on the imports list before the actual import - including links to the specific data you like to import, the tagging to be used and the procedure to deal with pre-existing mapping.  I will gladly provide my suggestions in that case.  But i will not spend my time doing post import QA on an import that has been done in disregard of the established procedures we have and in disrespect of mappers working in the Antarctic.

The irony by the way is that you are not only littering OSM with data garbage and discouraging the few mappers who have worked in the area to add useful information from ever contributing there again, you are also making LINZ topographic mapping efforts in the Antarctic look much worse than they are.  By learning the specific structure and semantics of the LINZ antarctic topographic mapping, familiarizing yourself with the geography of the area, the pre-existing mapping in OSM and available imagery sources you could make this a valuable contribution to OSM.  But as it stands it is not.
ralley (2021-09-20 19:54:03+00:00): OSM imports require the import guidelines at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines are followed.  Part of this requires a dedicated  user account is used which is not being done here.  Please ensure all the guidelines are followed.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111427069
pi11 (2021-09-20 00:27:30+00:00): Aangezien er nogal wat relaties werden aangepast en ik niet zo ervaren ben daarin, wordt een tweede paar ogen ter controle zeker gewardeerd!
Glassman (2021-09-20 00:52:39+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111427284
Glassman (2021-09-20 00:52:55+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111427320
Ian Eure (2021-09-20 01:34:26+00:00): Thank you, I'm still getting the hang of this!
archpdx (2021-09-20 02:17:12+00:00): No problem, it's nice to see some more mappers in this area!
RajAnoop (2022-03-15 16:41:40+00:00): add individual roads to houses as service
DaveF (2021-09-20 11:10:43+00:00): Hi
railway=station are mapped as single nodes in the UK. One tag per station.
there can be multiple building=train_stations per station.
WoodWoseWulf (2021-09-20 23:23:14+00:00): Hi redredredemption,

Thanks for your recent additions to the map. I just wanted to check in regarding your line of thought when it came to changing the two ovals from recreation grounds to parks?

It's been some time since I've been to these locations, but from memory, they are both primary sporting focused as opposed to being more general parks?
redredredemption (2021-09-22 06:20:39+00:00): Hi WoodWoseWulf,
I was trying to establish some consistency as I have observed that most of the reserves/ovals/grounds throughout the shire have been classified as parks. Happy to be corrected though if you think that the designation of recreation ground is more appropriate!
WoodWoseWulf (2021-09-22 20:52:45+00:00): Hi redredredemption,
Thanks so much for the reply. 
Typically in Australia, we'll use both recreation ground and park tagging depending on the feature. 
It's a fine line, but typically I've found that if a green space is just a series of pitches and sports facilities, it would be mapped as either a recreation ground or sports complex (depending on the scale and complexity), whereas if the green space includes other features such as public playgrounds or picnic facilities it would be mapped as a park.
WoodWoseWulf (2021-09-22 02:23:10+00:00): Hi redredredemption,
Is there a reason why you removed the woods in Joseph Banks Native Plants Reserve? I can understand if you were to replace them with something (i.e. landcover=trees) but a straight up removal feels like it's just losing valid features here.
redredredemption (2021-09-22 06:14:31+00:00): Hi WoodWoseWulf, 
Before my most recent edits, I created a GPS Trace to help me accurately map the reserve and I cleared out some of the old, incomplete data so that I could be as precise as possible. I meant to also update the zoning (e.g. Sandstone gully/woodland forest remnant/gardens) etc but it must have slipped my mind. I'll go back over it and add that in.
WoodWoseWulf (2021-09-22 21:00:37+00:00): Hi redredredemption,
Sounds good, looks like you've done a really good job adding in more detail so far. I can't wait to see what it's like when you're done!
drkt (2021-09-20 14:27:46+00:00): Hi. In the future, can you please make more elaborate changeset comments? Simply stating the area is about as useful as having none.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Lee Carré (2021-09-20 12:02:25+00:00): 👍 thanks.

The whole réservoir area / site needs a bunch of surveying attention, and is on my hit-list.
user_1566574 (2021-09-30 12:47:14+00:00): Oulalala, erreur !

→ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Taguer_pour_le_rendu
TrondSBuskerudbyen (2021-10-27 09:55:15+00:00): Hei NKA. Sykkelhotellet på Lier stasjon gikk med i dragsuget her. Kan vi få tilbake den? Du eller jeg? Er vel denne: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/762808884
Se at den eksister her: https://www.buskerudbyen.no/nytt-sykkelhotell-pa-lier-stasjon/
Helt lik som denne:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/762262077
Hilsen, Trond S., Buskerudbyen
NKA (2021-10-27 13:17:12+00:00): Beklager, nå er den tilbakeført.
TrondSBuskerudbyen (2021-10-27 14:02:44+00:00): Takk for rask oppfølgning. Prøver å finne hvorfor en sykkelparkeringsboks på Bragernes Torg er borte også. Kan du hjelpe meg her? Noen meter syd for denne: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8631341287
TrondSBuskerudbyen (2021-10-28 15:58:13+00:00): Glem den siste. Boksen er flyttet fysisk uansett, så jeg har nå oppdatert OSM slik at alt er rett der. Takk forresten på gode innspill på forumet for arbeidet vi nå gjør.
Hans Thompson (2021-09-20 16:44:09+00:00): Hello Greg.  Are you sourcing these trails from Strava heat map and satellite imagery or a different source?Thanks.
Greg_Rose (2021-09-20 17:06:41+00:00): Hi Hans - All of the above, actually. The winter route is very easy to follow on Strava (much to my surprise - I expected the trail to be much more diffuse and unmappable), and the summer trail to the east is mostly satellite/Lidar imagery and some Strava, with topo maps guiding the way (trail is VERY hard to pick out in places). I plan to tag trail visibility accordingly.
Greg_Rose (2021-09-20 17:20:36+00:00): FYI - I'm planning to map all the way down to Indian Creek - let me know if you have any insight as a local. I always cede way to those that are local on-the-ground.
Hans Thompson (2021-09-20 17:46:51+00:00): I would say go ahead with caution that a packed winter trail could see plenty of traffic one year and have a different parallel route the next yet.  In those cases, the utility or reality of the route might be questionable. At the very least, perhaps listed as piste only.  

I leave it to you though. There's no way I'll be able to do an on the ground validation of all those trails soon.
Greg_Rose (2021-09-20 19:29:48+00:00): Oh jeez - thanks for reminding me. I forgot to toggle the different Strava modes to see if there was any non-winter activity - looks like it tapers off to the first north fording of Ship Creek. Would you agree that this whole route is a 'piste_type=hike' situation?
Hans Thompson (2021-09-20 23:46:58+00:00): I would be inclined to call it piste:skitour. I don't think many people are hiking snowshoeing but I can't speak for each trail.
BCNorwich (2021-09-23 07:26:07+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You requested a review of your editing.

It looks like it's all fiction and duplication. OSM is a live worldwide database from which maps are compiled. Please only add genuine, accurate features which will mean you always have a perfect map.

Thus I've reverted these changes so no harm is done.

If you need help with mapping please just ask.

Regards Bernard,
rthik007 (2021-09-21 05:13:58+00:00): Hi fpurnamasari,
Kindly align the road way 985052699 as it is overlapping with buildings
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111433212
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-09-20 13:12:20+00:00): Dear BJMTR
Thanks you for your attention in Hangzhou's railway transport, but in OSM you don't need to add a ref number in every language's name.
Those station had been already added in the relation, so you don't need to do anything.

Best wishes
快乐的老鼠宝宝
(A user who want to join DWG and hard working to reach this goal)
Supaplex030 (2021-09-20 14:47:11+00:00): Hallo Stefan,
du hast hier "access=private" bei den Wegen am Tempelhofer Hangar gesetzt, aber dort kommt man ja ohne weiteres drauf. Ist ja kein Tor oder ähnlichs, was einen davon abhält. Also müsste es wohl eher "permissive" sein..?
StefanHRT (2021-09-20 16:33:17+00:00): Hey Alex,
Ich glaube dann haben wir unterschiedliche Ansichten was permissive angeht. Dort sind Schilder, das der Zutritt/die Zufahrt nur für Berechtigte ist (analog der Zufahrten von der Straße "Platz der Luftbrücke") Für mich ist dies privat alternativ permit ;) https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=822598141975507&focus=photo&lat=52.4813824&lng=13.386086299999988&z=17 VG
Supaplex030 (2021-09-21 05:45:52+00:00): Ah, ok, dieses Schild ist mir nicht aufgefallen als ich neulich mal dort war. Dann könnte man das wohl so lassen.
StefanHRT (2021-09-21 08:03:26+00:00): Die Schilder sind dort bei allen Zufahrten, weis nur nicht ob die evtl. vom Columbiadamm aus auch vorhanden sind
Msiipola (2022-06-07 17:04:43+00:00): Hej! Ut på udden öster om Ramsnäs mot stranden har du lagt till flera unclassfied-vägar. I Lantmäteriets ortofoto syns inte dessa vägar. Inte heller i Bing-fotot ser jag dessa.
Om det är fråga om stigar, ej synliga i foto, bör dessa i stället klassificeras som "path"
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:53:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:01:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
A Viscacha (2021-09-20 12:08:56+00:00): 嗨，这其实不是矢量偏移……卫星影像是有侧摆角的，别把建筑物多边形移到建筑屋顶上去，那样误差会很大_(:3」∠)_
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:48:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:55:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
Md Shaheen Islam (2021-09-20 06:59:02+00:00): Follow My Link https://www.facebook.com/prince.shaheen.315
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:01:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:57:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:59:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
user_17222985 (2023-09-01 13:26:02+00:00): коли надалі будеш міняти ref доріг то старий ref треба зберігати у old_ref
Monstrofil (2023-09-01 15:04:57+00:00): немає тут ніякого old_ref
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:48:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:02:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
Saeed SJ (2021-11-21 12:28:55+00:00): سلام دوست عزیز
تگ name مختص تابلوی رسمی معابر است لذا از درج نام در پرانتز خودداری کنید.
لطفا به منظور درج نام های رایج یا محلی، از تگ های زیر استفاده کنید:
alt_name نام رایج یا دوم معبر
old_name نام قدیمی معبر
local_name نام محلی معبر
پیشاپیش از همکاری شما سپاسگزاریم.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:02:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:53:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:03:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:02:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
kschimney (2022-02-04 09:51:59+00:00): Warum wurde das Gebäude als im Bau markiert? Das Gebäude steht seit Jahren leer und wird wohl in der Zukunft abgerissen und wird dann durch einen Neubau ersetzt werden. Aber so weit ist es ja noch nicht. Richtig wäre hier meiner Ansicht nach eher disused:building=commercial oder vielleicht auch disused:building=retail.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:58:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
olo81 (2021-09-20 17:51:36+00:00): Czy jest tabliczka z nazwą parkingu ?
Nie nazywamy miejsc które tej nazwy nie posiadają!
C2oc4 (2021-10-17 06:58:36+00:00): wzorowałem się na innym rozwiązaniu gdzie parking przy lidlu był tak nazwany
olo81 (2021-10-17 15:03:10+00:00): błędów w osm jest sporo, lepiej je poprawiać niż powielać
C2oc4 (2021-11-07 07:28:48+00:00): czyli usuwać nazwy parkingów ?