piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Jonathon Of The Creators of all creators! (2022-11-30 02:43:12+00:00): ok i am extremely sorry for deleting this joes buildings i am sorry pls forgive 😭😭😭😭
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:23:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Jonathon Of The Creators of all creators! (2022-11-30 02:43:23+00:00): ok i am extremely sorry for deleting this joes buildings i am sorry pls forgive 😭😭😭😭
CurlingMan13 (2022-04-24 09:54:02+00:00): Can you explain why you are just deleting the buildings instead of squaring them?  There could be a lot details contained in the object, such as address or type, but instead, you just deleted it without adding a replacement with the details?
Jonathon Of The Creators of all creators! (2022-11-30 02:43:33+00:00): ok i am extremely sorry for deleting this joes buildings i am sorry pls forgive 😭😭😭😭
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:33:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
AgusQui (2022-06-18 00:36:48+00:00): Estaciones abandonadas no deben estar con railway=station ni mucho menos public_transport, por favor ver: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/AgusQui/dia
SherbetS (2022-04-27 02:08:11+00:00): Seth,

I downgraded this section of US 231 because it links Huntsville with Birmingham, but the fastest route from Huntsville to Birmingham is now the interstate, so this road no longer meets the American specification to be a trunk road. 

Regards,
-SherbetS
SherbetS (2022-04-27 02:16:09+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Alabama/Alabama_Highways
SethY861 (2022-04-27 14:34:32+00:00): Okay, we can classify everything south of Green Cove Rd near Ditto Landing as a primary as it is not directly connecting major centers. North of Green Cove Rd should remain a trunk to the motorway because it is a signed US-highway and the major inner-city road through this section of south Huntsville. Also we should then reclassify US-231 from US-280 south to the interchange with AL-52 as a primary, because it also is not connecting those major urban centers and is redundant to I65.
SethY861 (2022-04-27 14:53:48+00:00): And all of the section, of US-231 I had reclassified to trunk regardless of whether primary or trunk should be tagged, expressway=yes. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:expressway
SherbetS (2022-04-27 16:37:24+00:00): Major inner-city routes does not make a road into a trunk road. A trunk road is a road connecting important population centers that aren't interstates. I believe that primary is the appropriate tag for this entire stretch.

The stretch of 231 from AL 152 to US 280 is trunk because it is part of the fastest route from population centers Montgomery and Anniston, and this stretch has not been replaced by the interstate and as such is a trunk road.
SethY861 (2022-04-27 17:08:58+00:00): That is what the definition says though, "Trunks are the most important non-motorway highways in an area. In Alabama, Non-motorway routes connecting major settlements are considered trunk roads, or major inner-city roads. these roads will be signed US or state highways." Its the same case for the north-end of AL-255 (Dr MLK Jr Hwy) in North Huntsville; it is a critical road not connecting major population centers, numbered, and not a motorway. And just as in the case ofUS-231 it is also an expressway. Taking US-231 to US-278 provides an alternative that takes about (+/- 5 min) the same time as US-431 connecting Gadsden/Anniston to Huntsville.

US-231 from AL-152 to US-280 is one of three routes with +/- 5 min of each other including AL-9 and I65. And if this route is important then AL-21 should also be a trunk to complete the route from Montgomery to Anniston.

The southern portion of US-231 is also only a 2 lane highway just north of Wetumpka and remains so until US-280. The section of of US-231 I upgraded to a trunk is an expressway as it is a 4 lane divided highway with limited access at-grade intersections and higher speeds. This indicates it should be the same if not higher classification than the southern section.  So either both can be primaries outside their respective cities, or both should remain trunks to provide a consistent methodology throughout the state.
SherbetS (2022-04-28 16:41:24+00:00): my apologies for the late response,

>That is what the definition says though, "Trunks are the most important non-motorway highways in an area. In Alabama, Non-motorway routes connecting major settlements are considered trunk roads, or major inner-city roads. these roads will be signed US or state highways."

Thank you for pointing this out to me. Since I wrote this, my opinion on what counts as a trunk route has changed. I no longer consider major inner city routes part of the trunk network if they have no linkage. I'd like to update this statement if you would agree.

>Taking US-231 to US-278 provides an alternative that takes about (+/- 5 min) the same time as US-431 connecting Gadsden/Anniston to Huntsville.

Okay, I do see your point here. I would ask that if we upgrade it, please upgrade it all the way to US 278 and not just to where the expressway ends.

US-231 from AL-152 to US-280 is one of three routes with +/- 5 min of each other including AL-9 and I65. And if this route is important then AL-21 should also be a trunk to complete the route from Montgomery to Anniston.

AL 21 is already trunk.



The southern portion of US-231 is also only a 2 lane highway just north of Wetumpka and remains so until US-280. The section of of US-231 I upgraded to a trunk is an expressway as it is a 4 lane divided highway with limited access at-grade intersections and higher speeds. This indicates it should be the same if not higher classification than the southern section. So either both can be primaries outside their respective cities, or both should remain trunks to provide a consistent methodology throughout the state.

expressway =/= trunk. This was one of the main points of the reclassification effort, to use trunk as its purpose of linkage instead of just physical significance.

I would agree with these stretches of roads being trunk:

US 231 from Huntsville to US 278 
US 231 from US 280 to Montgomery
AL 21 from Montgomery to US 278
SethY861 (2022-04-28 20:12:59+00:00): Okay, I agree with all of that if we reclarify the definition of trunk to exclude city roads, as well as add a statement about expressway tagging in primaries versus trunks.
CoyKoi (2022-04-21 23:16:30+00:00): Should probably be refined, by mapping natural features seperately from the island feature, similar to how I did Rotoroa Island
lsssmmns (2022-04-21 23:49:10+00:00): #uclamapathon2022
AndrewS (2022-04-22 23:53:59+00:00): Hi, OSMI is showing ring not closed on way 1029600990 after a change yesterday and I can't see why. Not sure if it is related to the relation I originally set that up for that Meadow area.
Andrew
Warin61 (2022-04-23 08:36:33+00:00): Trick... 
it was tagged as an outer .. when it should have been an inner (or the other way around) ... I think I fixed that .. just human error.. and we all fall for that from time to time. If you come across it again - check the roles of the connected ways.
lsssmmns (2022-04-21 23:49:18+00:00): #uclamapathon2022
Kovoschiz (2022-04-22 05:57:50+00:00): If the names wrong, please correct them only. Don't delete the thing that still exists in reality. Some are already corrected to `old_name=`. Please refresh your map cache, or ask your application to update the data.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:24:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
lsssmmns (2022-04-21 23:49:27+00:00): #uclamapathon2022
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-21 23:42:15+00:00): never mind, added missing street names with source, I accidentally wrote the wrong thing.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:16:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
user_5359 (2022-05-03 06:28:18+00:00): Hello! Please have a look http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1053778261, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1053778263. What is the meaning lay-1 = drinking_water? Did you mean "only" layer=-1?
cronoser (2022-05-03 07:50:27+00:00): it was fixed
DressyPear4 (2022-04-22 21:45:34+00:00): Adicione uma descrição ao enviar para que outros possam entender o que você está modificando
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:22:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:20:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
DressyPear4 (2022-04-22 21:45:21+00:00): Adicione uma descrição ao enviar para que outros possam entender o que você está modificando
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
DressyPear4 (2022-04-22 21:45:11+00:00): Adicione uma descrição ao enviar para que outros possam entender o que você está modificando
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:33:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:17:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:21:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:26:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:18:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:28:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
asciipip (2022-06-20 15:41:12+00:00): This changeset included a change from ref=140 to official_ref=140 for the MD 140 route relation.  But MD 140 is signed as such.  Was this an oversight, or am I misunderstanding the tagging here?

My understanding is that the MD 140 route relation ought to be tagged with ref=140, matching its signage.
asciipip (2022-06-20 15:46:01+00:00): For that matter, I see you changed the route relation for US 1 northbound from ref=1 to official_ref=1, but it doesn't look like you changed the southbound US 1 relation.  I think both probably ought to use the ref tag, not the official_ref tag.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:19:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
ke9tv (2022-04-22 00:52:24+00:00): Changeset comment s/b Town of Stockport; hamlet/CDP of Stottville; Stottville needs conflation in Town of Greenport
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:32:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:23:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:33:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:26:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:32:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:25:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:22:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:29:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:31:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:30:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
WoodWoseWulf (2022-04-22 09:45:11+00:00): Hello, the changes you have made don't make much sense - you added a beach to a house and changed a residential road into a link road to nowhere.
DannyFitz17 (2022-04-22 15:40:21+00:00): Yup those were totally fake, but did you keep the Henry V. Borst park? Because that is real.
WoodWoseWulf (2022-04-22 20:47:43+00:00): Thanks for the quick reply and confirmation. I did indeed leave the park as that seemed a lot more plausible.
DannyFitz17 (2022-04-23 03:35:19+00:00): Sorry about that!! Thought to myself that there’d be no harm in just making a little edit to the Pokémon go map to get some better Pokémon . But after I read your bio about it affecting other companies, I realized my mistakes. Once again, sorry.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:24:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:25:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
Negreheb (2024-12-21 19:20:31+00:00): Servus, nur zur Info, dein separates Gehsteigtagging wird im Forum als negativ-Beispiel hergenommen. Ich persönlich finds super, allerdings fehlen da - vermutlich? - ein paar crossing=unmarked (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dunmarked ), wo nur der Gehsteig abgesenkt ist usw. 

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/als-neuling-mappen-wie-bestehende-struktur-optimieren-ohne-auf-fusse-zu-treten/123210/3

Nur, damit du auch bescheid weißt :)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:25:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:27:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:20:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:20:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
user_5359 (2022-05-02 19:56:16+00:00): , Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1053799697, https://www.osm.org/way/1053799695, https://www.osm.org/way/1053799696,
https://www.osm.org/way/1053799698.
Did you mean highway=track or waterway=stream?
julcnx (2022-04-22 15:11:07+00:00): Welcome to OSM and thanks for your contributions!
You changed road 238030356 from unclassified to service. Are you familiar with Thailand's wiki road classifications ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Thailand
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:23:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:17:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:28:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:29:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:28:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.
❤️‍🔥 (2022-05-21 05:13:10+00:00): Hi, I've split this building into two, and added the wikidata tag. 

P.S. it looks like there are two duplicate wikidata items for the Barclay Suites (Q111408302 and Q111679947)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-06 01:23:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 120609049, 120606009 where the changeset comment is: Following a number of reports to the DWG, reverting some data that appears to be copied from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5978 , links from there and previous blocks for more info.