piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
Falsernet (2022-04-12 00:23:00+00:00): Also reclassified roundabout interchange, as all trunk through-routes are covered by the sliproads to the north
voschix (2022-05-02 21:11:25+00:00): Hi.
What is the source for the proposed roads?
Volker (Padova)
antpriv (2022-05-25 00:39:58+00:00): Excuse me for my bad english. There are 2 proposed new highway exit around Giarre, to the north (Mascali) and to the south https://www.gazzettinonline.it/2016/02/07/svincolo-a18-mascali-nuove-adesioni-a-nunziata_51227.html
https://www.gazzettinonline.it/2014/11/06/mascali-nulla-e-perduto-per-lo-svincolo-autostradale_17412.html
http://www.ancecatania.it/sito/system/files/Relazione_definitiva%20definitiva%20sviluppo.pdf
voschix (2022-05-25 09:50:33+00:00): Grazie della chiarificazione. Il mio problema con questo tipo di changeset è che come fonte è solo indicata la fonte delle immagini satellitari (Bing), che non c'entrano perché si tratta di progetti non visibili nelle immagini. Le fonti vere sono quelle che hai indicato qua nel commento. Qui si presenta per OSM un problema della licenza delle informazioni utilizzate. I giornali normalmente non permettono la riproduzione. Per quanto riguarda l'ANCI, non lo so.
SHARCRASH (2022-10-15 12:22:44+00:00): Hi!

You've added the tag sidewalks on the following roads as adjoined sidewalks, which is used when the sidewalk is directly on the side following the road (possibly with a parking lane part of the road separating both) but in the reality there is none. 

Examples on these...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/382051979 there is no sidewalk at all. On its left there is a grass island. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/381988703 same

On the followings, i know the situation in complex because of the constructions but there are jersey barriers and a cycleway directly aside the road. Therefore the sidewalk should be plotted separately and carefully avoid crossing the construction's fence (update it if needed).
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/84527867
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/244619759
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/738191563
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/711292218

Are you confusing side of the road and your own side on the screen?
Please make the corrections. I've removed those on Bd GD Charlotte.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
Nearby0051 (2022-06-19 15:30:58+00:00): Hi,
is this really called "Donmino's Pizza" or is this a typo?
cheers :)
Zing929645 (2022-06-19 16:42:33+00:00): Oh, really really thank you thats a typo.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
hauke-stieler (2022-11-01 17:00:14+00:00): Hi, eine Frage zu Way [0]: Wieso ist das jetzt "commercial"? Soweit ich das in Erinnerung habe, ist das größtenteils Wohngebiet und evtl. nur bei den Hausnummer 16 Gewerbegebiet.

Grüße
Hauke

[0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/102141351
OSM_RogerWilco (2023-03-20 14:48:40+00:00): Bitte auch kein building=school von Schulgebäude entfernen, sofern es sich um ein Schulgebäude handelt. building=school beschreibt das Gebäude. amenity=school die Einrichtung "Schule".
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:24:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:24:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
5m4u9 (2022-04-12 04:05:19+00:00): Hola, gracias por mapear en Potosí!

Lastimosamente borraste algunas calles y hay algunos peque errores en el "terreno". Ya los corregí.

Vendría bien si puedes averiguar y corregir en el mapa los nombres de calles y el nombre de la plaza.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
kimo (2022-04-12 02:17:20+00:00): This change appears to have reverted the East end of way 687895266 to the old alignment. The old alignment can be seen in Bing aerial imagery, while the new alignment can be seen in Maxr Premium Imagery.
Diacritic (2022-04-12 02:44:49+00:00): Thanks for the pick up kimo.

I've reverted my changes to 687895266.
kimo (2022-04-12 03:09:32+00:00): Thanks. Looks good now.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
ZLima12 (2022-04-12 02:54:59+00:00): Thanks for being so responsive to changeset comments! Looks good to me.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119600565
alester (2022-04-12 23:04:55+00:00): The brick area isn't a pedestrianized road, but rather just a large footway area. highway=footway with area=yes would make more sense here.

Also, don't forget to align the background imagery. For the current high-quality Bing imagery in the CRD, the offset is 2.09,-0.6
Andrea Musuruane (2022-04-12 07:05:33+00:00): Ciao. Non aggiungere il tag building su un nodo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9657914387 Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119600635
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
Carto'Cité (2024-10-02 09:55:58+00:00): Hello.
It looks like you did split the station perimeter https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/686073539 in two parts, creating https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1051179389. There should only be one perimeter for the station : I am merging them back but let me know if I missed out something.
Antoine from Carto’Cité for SNCF Transilien
ovruni (2022-04-12 05:35:50+00:00): Hola Erick Ch, te escribo nuevamente debido a que los textos en tus conjuntos de cambios no brindan suficiente información sobre los cambios ingresados, solamente se menciona  #osmpe-unmsm-comaru  . Por favor revise la documentación sobre buenos comentarios en conjuntos de cambios. [0] 
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Good_changeset_comments
Erick Ch (2022-04-12 13:01:10+00:00): Okey ,disculpe trataré de ser  más específico.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
sampeto (2023-05-06 20:12:44+00:00): Hallo WAM_SNZ144_ZCH

Im Rahmen des POTM zum Thema Adressen bin ich auf diesen und andere Changesets von dir aufmerksam geworden. Du hast add:street=*-Tags bei den Seilbahnstationen eingefuegt, die so keiner mir bekannten Datenquelle zu entnehmen sind. Bei der Talstation Spiringen-Chipfen hast du die Adresse des benachbarten Wohnhauses eingetragen. Kannst du mir die Quelle deiner Informationen verraten? Aus den Swisstopo-Bildern sind diese Adressdaten nicht zu entnehmen.

Gruss, sampeto
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-05-17 08:23:30+00:00): parking aisle with foot=no ???????
Flubber_00 (2022-05-18 03:30:50+00:00): There's a path to the North of the aisle. Florida law does not allow one to walk in the street if a parallel foot path is provided. Since this parking lot is owned by the City of Madeira Beach, I assumed they were subject to that statute.
user_5359 (2022-04-14 10:29:12+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/1051185025. What is the meaning of the tag Shoofly = Ruins?
majkaz (2022-04-12 08:55:57+00:00): Ten příjezd je za vraty, je to v oploceném sportovním areálu.
Jan_Kola (2022-04-13 06:31:24+00:00): Hi majkaz, I can't find any gate in the imagery indicating that a private tag is needed. Do you have any specific resource showing this?
majkaz (2022-04-13 11:04:52+00:00): https://en.mapy.cz/s/dopujoguzo - gate was open when the photo was taken.

The source is not available for mapping, but armchair mapping is frowned upon as well. Sorry, but the #tomtom failure rate is extremely high here.
Jan_Kola (2022-04-18 13:19:03+00:00): Thank you for your information & feedback, I have added the private tag. I will be also careful while mapping further.
TagaSanPedroAko (2022-04-12 19:28:40+00:00): Route 70 is a trunk route between Tacloban and Ormoc. Please undo this change.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-05-17 08:29:40+00:00): reverted because you just added the same tags to every road. Please only add foot=no or horse=no if explicitly disallowed.
Dick Dickerson (2023-12-06 13:22:51+00:00): El nombre de esa laguna es Laguna Neveria
Dick Dickerson (2023-12-06 13:23:15+00:00): no es Quimacocha
abakus_uploader (2022-04-12 22:31:23+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
cserpell (2022-04-12 16:41:39+00:00): Hola Gustavo, sabes que hay algunas calles entre las industrias que cambiaste de unclassified a residential, me pregunto si eso es correcto.
GustavoE (2022-04-12 22:24:44+00:00): Hola, efectivamente es correcto el cambio de etiqueta. El fin de semana me movilicé por ese sector y el uso actual de esas calles es acorde a la categoría que actualizé en el mapa. Saludos
Jørn-osm (2022-04-23 19:32:34+00:00): Hvordan kan det være at punktet er blevet flyttet mellem version 5 og 6?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8639227008/history
b-holdet (2022-04-23 20:15:45+00:00): Fordi punktet er flyttet hen til der hvor butikken fysik ligger.
Til højre for opgangen til nummer 48 set fra gaden.
Jørn-osm (2022-04-24 21:35:09+00:00): Punktet blev også flyttet mellem version 2 og 3. Her blev "SDFE aerial imagery" brugt. Hvad blev brugt mellem version 5 og 6?
b-holdet (2022-04-25 04:46:58+00:00): Jeg undskylder gerne at jeg, ligesom mange andre mapppere, ikke lige fik angivet kilden til mine ændring.

Det er baseret på lokal viden om stedet og jeg har stået udenfor butikken og set det. Jeg kan sende dig et billede af stedet, hvis det giver mere ro.

Hvad er grunden til din pludselige historiske interesse i mine ændringers kilder og ikke andre mapperes ændringssæt?
Jørn-osm (2022-04-25 21:50:50+00:00): Jeg er interesseret i, hvordan det er muligt at mappe så præcist og hvordan det er muligt at bruge det. Det første har jeg fået svar på, det sidste vil jeg gerne høre mere om.
b-holdet (2022-04-26 12:38:21+00:00): Helt fint at du spørger.
Jeg kan ikke svare dig på, hvordan programmer og brugere agerer i forhold til POI, det kræver specialviden og indsigt i en helt særlig grad. Måske ved nogen noget om det på Talk-dk?
Jørn-osm (2022-04-29 21:52:29+00:00): Det er din brug af punktet jeg gerne ville høre om. På osm-hjemmesiden er punktet nu næsten oven i adr-punktet, så nr. 48 ikke vises. Det lyder som om placering blot er til højre for opgangen. Ville det gøre noget at flytte punktet, så nr. 48 bliver synlig igen?
b-holdet (2022-05-02 18:26:53+00:00): Jeg har da ikke noget imod at du flytter punktet lidt til højre.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-05-07 03:30:52+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9659633663/history has shop = vape that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
shop=vape ? Could it be tagged as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=e-cigarette (if shop=vape / shop=vaping / shop=vape_store is needed - how it differs or is better than shop=e-cigarette ?)
KelsonV (2024-05-07 03:40:00+00:00): I think at the time I just hadn't found the closer match on the wiki. I'll updated the shop.
Kovoschiz (2022-04-12 10:48:06+00:00): Please don't use lines as the `network=`.
Kovoschiz (2022-04-12 10:55:22+00:00): 2. Don't use `highway=` + `construction=yes`.
osmviborg (2022-04-12 06:33:47+00:00): Cykelstien er tagget på Hundige Strandvej som 'cycleway:right=track' Du har dubleret cykelstien.
ThomasHjorth (2022-04-12 14:28:44+00:00): Ah ja. Der er meget at være opmærksom på i dette univers. Nu har jeg fjernet cycleway:right tagget på vejstykket, og håber det er ok.  Jeg er lidt usikker på hvor meget en cykelsti skal være adskilt fra vejen for at kortlægge den som sådan.
osmviborg (2022-04-12 15:02:19+00:00): Det kan du læse om her: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Da:Cykelstivejledning (siden kan godt være lidt længe om at loade).
osmviborg (2022-04-12 06:34:50+00:00): Dubleret cykelsti.
Warin61 (2022-10-14 08:25:43+00:00): A roof is always above ground, layer=-1 says it is below ground... Both roofs are now tagged as layer=1 i.e. above ground.
eggie (2022-04-12 06:55:53+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
PT-53 (2022-08-03 08:47:51+00:00): Hallo Matthias,
für was braucht es das Merkmal
- area=yes
an einem Gebäude.
War das ein Versehen?
Grüße