piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
tastrax (2021-05-07 08:16:38+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
eggie (2021-04-16 05:36:24+00:00): Dag postxif.. Wat je hier hebt verwijderd zijn constructies die met het spoor te maken hebben zoals een overkapping en een cbeneden het maaiveld. Mag ik vragen waarom dat allemaal wegmoest?
Heb je het overlegd met JJJWegdam de voorgaande mapper.
De data zal afkomstig zijn van prorail.
Voor de zekerheid draai ik deze changeset terug.. Daarna kun je evt. even contact met Jertoen Wegdam opnemen wat te doen.
Je eigen edits.. 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=103019865

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-04-16 05:38:28+00:00): reverted by changeset #103031302
Wanneer je nog vragen hebt stel ze gerust.
MVG
eggie
JJJWegdam (2021-04-29 08:50:15+00:00): Prima om hier één gebouw van te maken i.p.v. tegen elkaar aan getekende gebouwtjes. Alles verwijderen lijkt me niet aan de orde; iets met een huisnummer en een koffiezetapparaat verdient een gebouw tag wat mij betreft
iandees (2021-04-15 23:55:42+00:00): Hello! Normally we don't split a road into a dual carriageway unless there's a physical barrier between the two carriageways. Snelling doesn't have that physical barrier along this piece of road. Would you consider undoing this change?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103020105
vsahith (2021-04-16 09:12:45+00:00): Hi, 

Thanks for the reviewing the changeset, I have used Bing/Esri world(2020) and Private Maxar imageries for the edit made and I've also attached the screenshot of Bing imagery 2020 (https://snipboard.io/UoEZdh.jpg) where the physical barrier is visible .
Please let us know if there are any further concerns with the edit. 

Regards,
vsahith
iandees (2021-04-16 13:36:21+00:00): Thanks, I see it now. The separation was farther south than I had looked.
rowcherryrow (2021-04-15 23:09:06+00:00): Correction: Comment should have been "Made some road network alignments near Neves #adt", source was Esri World Imagery
karson_ (2021-05-10 14:58:06+00:00): Hi,

It looks like you mapped out The Oaks Golf Course, but it doesn't exist anymore. 

I can see the golf course on Esri World Imagery Clarity, which is older imagery. The newest imagery, Esri World Imagery, shows that the golf course has been redeveloped to housing. Likewise, the county's cadastral map confirms that the course no longer exists.
mikko_tamura (2021-04-16 02:36:40+00:00): Salamat sa pag map! Moving forward, kindly polygonize or square your buildings. If you have any questions please feel free to reach out through mapbeks@gmail.com Thanks
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103020667
mikko_tamura (2021-04-16 02:36:41+00:00): Salamat sa pag map! Moving forward, kindly polygonize or square your buildings. If you have any questions please feel free to reach out through mapbeks@gmail.com Thanks
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103020667
DressyPear4 (2021-04-16 21:04:24+00:00): Olá, nomes não devem ser abreviados
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103020787
Ser9ei (2021-04-16 16:59:03+00:00): По-моему, если даже приблизительно не знаете, что это такое, то и наносить на карту не надо. Можно мапить знакомые места или места, не покрытые лесом.
Renaud Lavoie (2021-04-21 02:14:07+00:00): This and all your other changes in Ottawa are reverted. The tag does not appear in the map. Further, as explained in other changesets, mass changes like this should not be done.
colgza (2021-04-21 13:29:17+00:00): I admit that the manner in which I went about these edits was a careless, irresponsible, and perhaps even inconsiderate, and that I should have instead waited for local editors to make such changes instead.

However, I would like to point out that just because it does not yet render in OSM Carto does not mean that it is wrong. Here is the feature page for highway=busway:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbusway
Renaud Lavoie (2021-04-21 13:43:47+00:00): As you pointed out yourself in the thread pointing out the osm carto issue:
"These roadways are often incredibly important pieces of infrastructure. However, they have extremely low visibility in carto."
Until rendering is possible, we should wait until changing it to highway=busway.
colgza (2021-04-22 21:26:31+00:00): > Until rendering is possible, we should wait until changing it to highway=busway.

This suggestion goes against best practices; how something renders in Carto should not determine which tags are used.

For more information, please consult the following wiki page:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
Dimacn (2021-04-30 04:23:17+00:00): 1. Не надо удалять существующие здания, просто редактируйте их. Иначе вы удаляете все введённые свойства существующего объекта. В данном случае детский сад - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111674166
2. Не надо давать описательные названия объектам если свойства задаются тегами. В данном случае у игровой площадки не может быть названия “гаржи”, "да", "а". В name пишем собственное официальное название. Подробнее - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:name и  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Названия 
2. Дворовые проезды должны тегироваться как highway=service
Пожалуйста исправьте.
FlyTy (2021-04-16 23:47:09+00:00): Hello Ayalaje and welcome to OSM.  I have fixed three edits of yours where you removed a highway tag from Carretera México-Pachuca (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/773164885) and moved existing nodes far from their original locations (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7285191385, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6829083946).  The "highway" tag is necessary to describe that the geometry is meant to describe a road (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways) and based on the other attributes on this way this is definitely meant to be a highway so I have restored the highway=trunk tag.  Additionally, nodes are really easy to click and drag around in the iD web-based browser so I encourage caution while learning how the tool functions.

Practice and experience will help to avoid these issues in the future.  The iD tutorial built into the tool is a great resource if you haven’t completed it yet.  There’s also resources at LearnOSM (https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/).  Additionally, OpenStreetMap has an extensive wiki resource which can be found here (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/) and contains information for newer editors (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners%27_guide).  Hope this helps!

Traducción:
Hola Ayalaje y bienvenido a OSM. He corregido tres ediciones en las que eliminó una etiqueta de autopista de Carretera México-Pachuca (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/773164885) y movió los nodos existentes lejos de sus ubicaciones originales (https://www.openstreetmap.org /node/7285191385, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6829083946). La etiqueta "highway" es necesaria para describir que la geometría está destinada a describir una carretera (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways) y en función de los otros atributos de esta manera definitivamente está destinada a ser una autopista así que han restaurado la etiqueta highway=trunk. Además, los nodos son realmente fáciles de hacer clic y arrastrar en el navegador iD basado en la web, por lo que recomiendo tener cuidado al aprender cómo funciona la herramienta.

La práctica y la experiencia ayudarán con estos problemas en el futuro. El tutorial de iD integrado en la herramienta es un gran recurso si aún no lo ha completado. También hay recursos en LearnOSM (https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/). Además, OpenStreetMap tiene un extenso recurso wiki que se puede encontrar aquí (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/) y contiene información para editores más nuevos (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners%27_guide). ¡Espero que esto ayude!
mueschel (2021-04-21 12:37:34+00:00): Reminder: please fix the spelling of your presets. It's "message", not "messsage".
GOwin (2021-04-21 14:34:57+00:00): Thank you for the reminder. I know I already fixed this after the first comment from you, but apparently there's a bug in the plugin I use that retains and restores earlier versions.
iandees (2021-04-16 02:12:12+00:00): Welcome to OSM! When you're adding names to a road, please don't use abbreviations. It's a lot harder for a computer to expand abbreviations than it is to contract.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103021935
clay_c (2021-04-19 18:59:05+00:00): Reverted. Please use more meaningful comments than "dc area" so other mappers know what you've done and why.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103218509
MxxCon (2021-04-16 02:56:58+00:00): wow that's some boneheaded street planning🤦‍♂️
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103022142
aweech (2021-04-16 13:55:24+00:00): Hi,
I am extremely confused by your efforts to classify parts of Loveren's Mill Road as dirt. I haven't driven over there, but I find it _extremely_ hard to believe that Antrim tore up an asphalt road and then replaced it with a soft dirt surface. It sounds like a completely unnecessary expense for the town; it'd be cheaper to let it crumble to dust. Also, dirt roads are extraordinarily rare in New Hampshire, especially south of the mountains. The vast, vast majority of maintained, unpaved highways are either compacted or fine gravel. Can you show me some evidence that Loveren's Mill Road has been completely resurfaced in this way, either the call for bids or discussions held in town meetings. Surely such an expense would have been extremely controversial, but I cannot find evidence for it on the town website myself.
pokey (2021-04-16 16:16:06+00:00): I can not show you evidence that Loveren's Mill Road has been completely resurfaced, because I loaned my surface sampling equipment to NASA for the next Mars rover (the one with the really cool flexible metal tires). I can not show you the call for bids, because I had to sign an NDA when I reviewed them. I can not show you the discussions held in town meetings, because that's just absurd. One can not show another a discussion. I can only pray to great flying spaghetti monster above that what you request are not the actual prerequisites to editing the map. If they are, then I am guilty of Stalin-esque levels of crimes against humanity via my contributions to the map.

Here, to the best of my ability, is my account of the horrific incident, Cthulu take me if I deviate even the slightest from my honest recollection. I looked right, I saw dirt, I logged dirt. Some time later I made an edit.

It is entirely conceivable that I am not in fact the quizmaphadarack, the infallible mapping super being, that you seem to think I am. In which case I implore you to consider the possibility (however slim that possibility may be) that I made a mistake. 

I for my part "find it _extremely_ hard to believe" that you are "extremely confused" by my "efforts to classify parts of Loveren's Mill Road as dirt." If true, and you are "extremely confused" then I must conclude that you are extremely stupid, thus extremely unqualified to review anyone's changes to the map. However I do not think you are actually stupid, so I do not believe you are actually confused.

I do, however believe that you are being extremely hyperbolic, and extremely antagonistic. Two character flaws which I find extremely distasteful. I'm not alone in seeing these traits as distasteful, and I suspect its not the first time you've heard this.

So if your intent is to make a correction, go ahead and log in and make it. It's not that hard. If your intent is to get me to fix my own mistake, then a simple, "hey, I think you made a mistake," would have done just fine. If your intent is to start a flame war over the surface of single road, or over my edits in general, then you needn't bother. Your self righteous pedantry is not worth any more of my time than I have taken to write this, and only because I find this slightly amusing at the moment.

I contribute to the map because I'm some kind of a weirdo, and that's my idea of a good time. Its not because I'm seeking your approval, nor because I wish to argue about the surface of a minor road in a small town that I was passing through on my way to somewhere else with someone who has never even been there.
aweech (2021-04-16 17:48:37+00:00): To your point "So if your intent is to make a correction, go ahead and log in and make it. It's not that hard." I already did that once in changeset 102808433 without informing you, assuming that you had made a simple mistake. Then you went back in and changed the surface back to dirt, which showed that you did not think that you made a mistake. Since you did not think that you had made mistake, my request for a source was totally appropriate. Your return to this segment was much faster than with our other edit wars, so it seemed like you may have had some reason for it. Perhaps I should have left the explanation for why I wanted a source for message 3, and simply said "source plz" as the first comment on this changeset. I'll keep that in mind for the future.
pokey (2021-04-17 00:59:12+00:00): I had no idea, nor any intention of getting into an edit war with anyone. As I said before, it was a mistake. Unfortunately I rebooted my computer and my browser re-opened at  that spot, so I made the same mistake a second time over the top of your edit. I'm sorry that I changed your correction. It was unintentional.

As far as what you should or shouldn't keep in mind for the next time you wish to communicate to communicate with me, it doesn't really matter. I don't know you and I don't care to. I've had enough rude and hostile people in my life. I don't need another.

In general if you communicate civilly, people respond in kind. Feel free to try it on the next person.
blackboxlogic (2021-04-16 14:38:26+00:00): Thanks for adding these buildings. When adding buildings, if you copy all of the address details from an address node (like you did here), please delete the address node as it is now redundant. (For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7167474260)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103022491
Bluebasaur (2021-04-16 17:07:37+00:00): Whoops; definitely meant to do that. Thanks.
Anisa IRM-ED (2022-12-14 00:35:53+00:00): Hi, schann99.
Thank you for your mapping contribution
I deleted the water body of  pond because I think there's no pond (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/931229663) that matches the imagery. Thank you for your mapping contribution and Happy mapping!
clay_c (2021-04-19 19:42:02+00:00): Reverted. Please do not delete the names of features such as railway stop positions.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103219968
Allison P (2021-04-16 04:21:04+00:00): What is the point of changing a roundabout to make it not a link? It's not part of any particular road and it doesn't have its own name.
skquinn (2021-04-16 04:41:39+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout#Selection_of_the_right_highway_tag

Some roundabouts do have their own name. For those that don't there's always noname=yes.
Allison P (2021-04-16 05:17:48+00:00): All the other roundabouts in the area are tagged as links. Besides, the plat map for this subdivision indicates that the roundabout is not its own road. All it does is link a main residential road to the main collector.
skquinn (2021-04-16 06:00:04+00:00): I changed it because JOSM's validator flagged highway=tertiary_link as incorrect tagging. If the other roundabouts are also tagged as highway=tertiary_link or similar, that's still incorrect and they too need to be retagged.
CurlingMan13 (2023-03-22 03:47:34+00:00): Do NOT map for your golf game.  Incorrectly mapping roadways as golf cartpaths is not appropriate.
blackboxlogic (2021-04-16 14:41:21+00:00): Turning loops can be represented by either a highway=turning_loop or by an actual circle of road. I prefer using road geometry (as you did here), but please delete the turning loop node (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6979964251) when you do this, otherwise you have a turning loop with a turning loop in it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103024110
scotteaton92 (2021-04-16 15:22:22+00:00): I thought I had deleted the node. Not sure how it stuck around. I deleted it now.
scotteaton92 (2023-04-19 15:06:00+00:00): What is the network=lcn on w931237893
philipmolloy (2023-04-19 15:50:28+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:network=lcn?uselang=en
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103024126
Strubbl (2021-04-17 15:46:56+00:00): Auch hier stellt sich mir die Frage nach motor_vehicle=designated. Was soll das hier bedeuten? Im Zusammenhang mit motor_vehicle wird designated nicht genutzt:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:access%3Ddesignated
gscholz (2021-05-06 04:37:07+00:00): Hi islami_m,
your recent edits have created a lot of errors in the OSM database regarding not connected ways (red dots):

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-47.18689&lat=-23.10190&zoom=12&overlays=snap_points,unconnected_open_ends_1,unconnected_open_ends_2,unconnected_open_ends_4,unconnected_open_ends_5,unconnected_open_ends_6

As youn probably know these can not be used by routing software. Can you please fix this?

Please have also a look at the warings in this changeset which your editor showed as you uploaded this changeset.

Kind Regards
Guido
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:29:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:47:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
MxxCon (2021-04-16 17:07:54+00:00): Is this edit correct? Satellite imagery shows it's a grassy/park area..?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103025458
brandonbds (2021-04-16 17:19:44+00:00): Hi MxxCon. The stores' entrances are at the ground level of 15 Central Park West, on Broadway between W 61st St and W 62nd St, as positioned. Where do you see the grassy area?
brandonbds (2021-04-16 17:20:32+00:00): Oh, I know what you must mean. It's a green roof. :-)
MxxCon (2021-04-16 17:22:23+00:00): All the satellite imagery in iD shows what looks like a lawn there..
MxxCon (2021-04-16 17:24:24+00:00): Ah, i see. it's private green space above ground.👍 Looks really confusing.🙂
Jean-Marc Liotier (2021-04-16 08:46:51+00:00): Are you sure that those buildings are not orthogonal ? On the imagery they look orthogonal to me...
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103025544
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:21:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
surveyor54 (2021-05-04 20:36:15+00:00): Hallo,
start_date in der Zukunft wird in OSM normalerweise nicht eingetragen, ebenso Flustücke und Flustücksnummern. 

Gruß
surveyor54
FABN62 (2021-05-04 21:04:45+00:00): Hallo,

vielen Dank für den Hinweis, ich lerne und lerne noch. 

Ich werde das zeitnah korrigieren und in Zukunft beachten.

Gruß
FABN62
surveyor54 (2021-05-05 06:10:14+00:00): Danke für die schnelle Antwort und weiterhin frohes Mappen. 

Hier ein Link, wo auch viel Fragen beantwortet werden.

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=14
Ser9ei (2021-04-16 16:48:02+00:00): А что, уже есть тег building=data_center? Я не нашёл его тут: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:building

Можете дать ссылку на вики или обсуждение, где этот тег принимался?
Волосов (2021-04-16 21:42:26+00:00): Есть на английском языке: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:telecom%3Ddata_center#What_to_Tag
Ser9ei (2021-04-17 00:35:04+00:00): Так то telecom=data_center, который ставится в сочетании с building=yes, а не прямо в building.
Волосов (2021-04-17 07:21:35+00:00): Ладно, поскольку обсуждения не было, по крайней мере в wiki, пусть будет building=yes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103090903
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:56:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
map per (2021-05-01 18:26:23+00:00): Hello Yakobi,

i doubt that this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/844415351 is reall a motorway an deleted the Tag

Best wishes
map per
Buraddo (2021-04-16 14:14:04+00:00): Changeset reverted in #103065416.
Bad Russian name for river.
Buraddo (2021-04-16 14:11:13+00:00): Is this correct? From my observation, in English the most used spelling is "Tisza", followed by "Tisa"; "Tysa" is the least used.
ParqueRodo (2021-04-22 15:29:32+00:00): I see you have changed it back, thank you, and thank you for letting me know!
kucai (2021-04-19 10:24:41+00:00): layoff adding residential roads and such. You are creating roads out of nowhere.
krish_a (2021-04-20 14:36:40+00:00): Hi kucai,
Trust you are well, Thanks for reviewing the data. We will make sure to follow the policy for rest of the scenarios.
Thank you!
Buraddo (2021-04-16 14:06:18+00:00): Reverted in #103065072.
Bad names in other languages
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:26:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
Buraddo (2021-04-16 14:05:21+00:00): Changeset reverted in #103065006.
Bad names in other languages
muchichka_s (2021-04-16 11:42:37+00:00): Hello ParqueRodo

I see you've added the river name to the nation border lines.

Actually, in this place the borders are made in a strange way - there is a separate line for the river and several border lines, which causes some difficulties when working with them

And by the way, note that the tag "name:cs=Bílá Tisa" is incorrect here, it refers to only one branch of the Tysa. For more details see wikipedia https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%96%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%A2%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0
Buraddo (2021-04-16 13:07:01+00:00): I also saw some problems in the other changesets, regarding naming, mixing the tributaries name (white/black Tisa) and proper name (Tisa) in different languages and different segments (for example naming the entire river "name:ru=Чёрная Тиса", name:en/ro/uk=Tisa on the White Tisa part and "name:cs=Bílá Tisa" on segments after the confluence.

I'm going to revert of your changes and I'll do the naming in every language myself.