piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:43:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:39:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:37:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
nw520 (2022-10-03 17:50:07+00:00): Hallo osm-pt-account, zwischen den Haltestellen (inklusive) Römerkastell und Walpershofen/Etzenhofen verkehrt die Saarbahn nach BOStrab / Straßenbahn-Bau- und Betriebsordnung. Entsprechend bitte ich dich, noch einmal klarzustellen, ob vor diesem Hintergrund train=yes an den Haltestellen beabsichtigt ist.
osm-pt-account 😎 (2022-10-05 14:39:11+00:00): Please explain me exactly what you mean.
nw520 (2022-10-05 15:57:36+00:00): Between the stops (including) Römerkastell and Walpershofen/Etzenhofen the Saarbahn operates following the so called BOStrab / "Straßenbahn-Bau- und Betriebsordnung" meaning that from a technical (signalling, power) and legal perspective it's a tram and not a train. Do you still think that the stations mentioned earlier should be tagged as train=yes?
osm-pt-account 😎 (2022-10-07 19:53:59+00:00): I removed the tag train=yes from the stops between Römerkastell and Walpershofen/Etzenhofen.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:44:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
Sharifa abdulrahman alhalali (2022-10-05 06:19:21+00:00): Yes
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:35:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:38:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:44:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
DaveF (2022-10-03 10:15:30+00:00): Hi
Welcome to OSM.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/343909105#map=18/51.48519/-2.19580

Looking at the tyre tracks in the aerial imagery (& riding past) at least part of the way is used by vehicles & best tagged as a track.
Could you please amend,
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:38:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:37:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:37:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:42:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:39:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:40:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:44:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
Warin61 (2022-10-22 23:43:06+00:00): Hi
The raised railway belongs in Open Historic Map .. 

"In locations where the railway has been replaced by new buildings and roads, the mapping of such features becomes out of scope for OpenStreetMap."
Supt_of_Printing (2022-10-23 06:52:05+00:00): The mapping of abandoned and razed railways on Open Street Maps, whilst dot depicted in Open Street Maps, is depicted in Open Railway Maps, which is of great interest and help for people, usually rail enthusiasts, wanting to know where railways once were.
Warin61 (2022-10-23 11:19:13+00:00): The advantage of putting them in OHM is that the start and finish dates are supported .. and the old data is encouraged. The argument is that OSM is for current conditions not the past. 
I think ORM should consider using both OSM and OHM, OSM for the present .. and OHM for the past when the users want that.
Supt_of_Printing (2022-10-23 12:16:48+00:00): Maybe they should, however, abandoned and razed are options on OSM which then display on ORM which a lot of rail enthusiasts use as they overlay former railways onto current conditions, whereas OHM aren't as well presented. There should be no problem with them being mapped on OSM as they are invisible on that.
I have therefore reinstated them.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:38:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:43:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:41:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:42:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:38:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:42:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:40:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:43:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:39:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:38:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
user_5359 (2022-10-07 07:03:55+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on you entry! Many of the keys are misspelled (mostly all keys start with a lowercase character).
I am also pretty sure, that the object isn‘t a windmill (see https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:generator:source%3Dwind)
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:35:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:42:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
CoyKoi (2022-10-03 09:46:09+00:00): Hi WinnieJane, welcome to OSM and thanks for your efforts to improve the pedestrian network. Adding the 'footpaths' alongside the service parking_aisles is unnecessary. There are no physical footpaths there, and the already existing service ways are suitable for pedestrian routing. Please do not map footpaths in parking lots like this.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126923471
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:45:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:42:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:40:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
AndersAndersson (2022-10-03 09:33:25+00:00): Hej!
En uppfart till en enskild bostad ska inte sättas som highway=residential utan highway=service och service=driveway.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:36:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:42:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:40:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:38:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:38:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:43:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:39:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:37:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:38:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:36:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:44:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:36:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
maraf24 (2022-10-03 11:47:56+00:00): Adresy znikają.
Dwa skasowane, a kolejny przesunięty: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6451609226
Było dobrze, jest coraz gorzej.
mcliquid (2022-10-05 09:04:27+00:00): Hi, ist es auf diesem Weg für Fußgänger verboten zu gehen? Und ist die Einbahnstraße für Fahrräder vor Ort beschildert?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126925442
Michael Marte (2022-10-05 13:11:04+00:00): Hallo, ja es handelt sich hier um einen Mountainbiketrail, der nur abwärts berfahren werden darf und für Fußgänger verboten ist. Nicht alle Trails bei uns sind für Fußgänger verboten, diese sind dann als Shared Trails beschildert. Liebe Grüße, Michael
Supaplex (2022-10-04 13:20:32+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10072467123
如果這間店不存在請移除
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/126925512
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:41:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
dieterdreist (2022-10-03 23:09:37+00:00): Hi, this is an automated edit but I don’t find documentation here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Automated_edits_log

Have you discussed your plans and sought community approval for this edit? 

Cheers 
Martin
Friendly_Ghost (2022-10-04 08:07:29+00:00): This isn't very automated. I checked all the tags to verify if they indeed refer to Wikimedia Commons.
dieterdreist (2022-10-04 17:02:36+00:00): ok. but you are removing tags. E.g. I added all the images as "image" and now I do not find them anymore, because you not only added the wikimedia_commons tag, you also removed the "image" tag.
dieterdreist (2022-10-04 17:03:48+00:00): did you have a look at the pictures? Have you seen a fountain picture or two? ;-)
Friendly_Ghost (2022-10-04 18:49:53+00:00): "you are removing tags"

Not at all, I'm just retagging them under the key that's specifically intended for Wikimedia Commons images. No information is lost.

"now I do not find them anymore"

Not in the image=* key, no, but you will find them under wikimedia_commons=* together with the other Wikimedia Commons images.

"you not only added the wikimedia_commons tag, you also removed the "image" tag"

Indeed I did. I see no merit in tagging the same thing twice, because that is inefficient and may lead to redundant duplications. 

Other than that, software that only looks for full weblinks in image=* and "File:..." in wikimedia_commons=* key will now miss much less relevant data. 
The osm.org website is a good example of this: "image=File:..." will not be hyperlinked on this website, but "wikimedia_commons=File:..." will.

"did you have a look at the pictures? Have you seen a fountain picture or two?"

Surely I did. They look good. I always include quality assurance. That is also how in other changesets I discovered and fixed poorly formatted tags like "File:Fontana%20Piazza%20Brin.jpeg" instead of "File:Fontana Piazza Brin.jpeg" (fictional example). 
I also discovered and fixed a few cases like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126957131
Friendly_Ghost (2022-10-04 18:50:21+00:00): I hope that answers your concerns and questions well enough :)
dieterdreist (2022-10-04 19:53:32+00:00): You confirm that you are removing tags and break other people’s apps without prior notification or timeline or respecting the rules for such large scale retagging, so clearly I am not happy having it discovered. On the other hand, personally it doesn’t matter much to me, because some time ago I added a check for the wikimedia_commons tag as well, and it could be seen as “better” to make an exception for commons (not so clear though, next comes imgur, flickr, panoramio whatever as keys?), IIRR this was already discussed some time ago and no decision could be reached.
Not sure where the url escaping came from, maybe GoMap!! does it automatically?
Friendly_Ghost (2022-10-04 20:18:27+00:00): "you are removing tags"

No, I retag it to the key that we have for Wikimedia Commons images. I thought I mentioned this already.

"break other people’s apps"

I'm not responsible for other people's apps, only for the map data in my edits. I haven't removed any data, and if you find any app that doesn't support the wikimedia_commons=* tagging scheme, your attention is better spent on convincing them to use it, because there are over 85,000 of them on OSM. 

"I added a check for the wikimedia_commons tag as well, and it could be seen as “better” to make an exception for commons"

Yeah, that sounds like my reasoning behind this edit. I simply updated the map data here to match this.

"next comes imgur, flickr, panoramio whatever as keys?"

Well, we already have Mapillary, but I doubt the others will follow anytime soon because of licensing reasons.

"Not sure where the url escaping came from, maybe GoMap!! does it automatically?"

No clue, maybe people just copy things directly from the URLs, but fixing it isn't too difficult in most cases. 

I tried and failed to make a MapRoulette challenge for it, maybe I'll try that again so we have a more efficient QA pipeline to verify image tags.
dieterdreist (2022-10-04 21:11:47+00:00): "No, I retag it to the key that we have for Wikimedia Commons images. I thought I mentioned this already."

you are removing tags and adding different tags. That's what it looks like. You can pretend you are "transforming" tags, but what you actually do is removing tags and adding the values with a different key.




"break other people’s apps - 
I'm not responsible for other people's apps, "

no, but you may be responsible for breaking them, by performing huge edits which might force the devs of other software to add code in order to maintain the status quo, even without any notice.

"next comes imgur, flickr, panoramio whatever as keys? -
Well, we already have Mapillary, but I doubt the others will follow anytime soon because of licensing reasons."

hm, not quite desirable IMHO to have a key for every service that can be used to share pictures. I can understand we could make a case for wikimedia, as they are so huge and terms are open, but it is not an approach that scales well for _every_ image hoster
dieterdreist (2022-10-04 21:14:43+00:00): anyway, while you should try to respect the guidelines, I think this particular edit has its merit, the "file:"-URLs in the image tag, where everybody expects an http-link, had their problems. Thank you for performing it and discussing about it.
Friendly_Ghost (2022-10-04 23:59:11+00:00): "what you actually do is removing tags and adding the values with a different key."

This is true.

"you may be responsible for breaking them, by performing huge edits which might force the devs of other software to add code in order to maintain the status quo"

It's called the evolution of OSM's tagging schemes, and look at it from the other side: there is no point in retagging all 85,000+ wikimedia_commons=* tags back to image=*.

"hm, not quite desirable IMHO to have a key for every service that can be used to share pictures. I can understand we could make a case for wikimedia, as they are so huge and terms are open, but it is not an approach that scales well for _every_ image hoster"

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

"while you should try to respect the guidelines,"

If the guidelines say that I should spend a good week discussing a few hundred image tags that I actually verify in my edits with every relevant national, sub-national community and local mapper who might not even be in any community, I think I'll pass.

"I think this particular edit has its merit, the "file:"-URLs in the image tag, where everybody expects an http-link, had their problems. Thank you for performing it and discussing about it."

You're very welcome. I'm glad we could have a constructive discussion about this.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 11:39:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127566555, 127563965 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.