piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:08+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.
Herman Lee (2022-04-14 07:42:08+00:00): 建议您使用更简洁、更清楚、更能让其他绘图者能够抓取到编辑集信息的描述方法来解释您的编辑集，谢谢！
SomeoneElse (2022-04-13 22:38:05+00:00): Thanks for fixing!
Herman Lee (2022-04-14 07:42:17+00:00): 建议您使用更简洁、更清楚、更能让其他绘图者能够抓取到编辑集信息的描述方法来解释您的编辑集，谢谢！
真空中的球形猫 (2022-05-07 12:23:24+00:00): 似乎这也没必要出警吧，又不是和我一样那种骂人的话，Herman有没有考虑过开发一套自动识别变更然后生成得体而简单扼要的changeset描述的工具？（不能是OSMAnd那种 Add 1 xxx, 2 yyy, 3 zzz的堆叠罗列，因为那也不简洁，也容易被吐槽的）
eerib (2022-04-21 01:53:25+00:00): Hello,

I am the one that first added the cabin to the map. I added this cabin to the map because of it's extensive public history, including a public blog that provided information about the cabin for several years and discussions on public forums such as ClubTread, Bivouac, and Facebook.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170523115825/https://hathilton.wordpress.com/
https://bivouac.com/FtrPg.asp?FtrId=4582
https://forums.clubtread.com/27-british-columbia/92476-skunked-hat-mountain-march-24-2019-a.html

The deletion goes against OpenStreetMap's "Ground Truth" policy, which refers to mapping things as they are on the ground despite objections. There are a few noted exceptions to this policy but none that apply to this cabin.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth

The OSM US Trails Working Group goes into more detail in why even some sensitive features should remain on the map in their blog.

https://www.openstreetmap.us/2021/12/osmus-trails-working-group

I understand you may still disagree. Unfortunately, if everything that anyone considered to be a "hidden gem" or "secret spot" then the OSM project would suffer greatly and it would lead to safety issues.

Please let me know if you agree with bringing the feature back to the map.

Cheers, eerib
martin_nv (2022-06-02 18:46:51+00:00): Well I guess we will agree to disagree on this issue. I think that this feature, and also the one you added near Horseshoe Bay should stay off the map. In my opinion publishing these cabin locations will unfortunately lead to their misuse, despite what the openstreetmap policy might dictate. The Rummel cabin guidelines, posted in the cabin, specifically state to DO NOT SHARE THE LOCATION OF THIS CABIN.
eerib (2022-06-02 21:16:06+00:00): Hello Martin,

I agree that the cabins will see some misuse but other examples in the Lower Mainland region (in non-park areas and of similar accessibility) suggest that misuse will be the exception and not the norm. Cabins that do see frequent misuse are ones in areas known for reckless behavior (such as Stave West) and have greater accessibility (close to the roadway). An example of one such cabin that hasn't seen frequent misuse is the Ben von Hardenburg Memorial Cabin in Mission, BC.

I should mention, I do filter what I add to OpenStreetMap, as I know of more than a dozen cabins in the Sea-to-Sky area. The cabins that I have added (Rummel, Hat Hilton, Crolly, and the 99 Trail Association's cabins) are all well known. Specifically for Rummel, a map has been posted on Reddit, has multiple trip reports written on social media platforms, is well known by several hiking/trail running/peak bagging groups, has public tracks posted on various hiking apps, and the path shows up on the Strava Heatmap. Even with all that said, I have only added the Rummel features as undefined so that they will be available to various professional organizations but not show up in public renders of OpenStreetMap.

Finally, I do believe that increasing accessibility and equality to backcountry information will ultimately result in more funding for backcountry recreation and protection of natural spaces, which is a net positive even if some misuse happens along the way. However, I am open to learning about how OpenStreetMap can help prevent cases of excessive misuse.

Cheers, eerib
legofahrrad (2022-04-15 16:27:35+00:00): Hallo und willkommen bei OpenStreetMap!

Hydranten haben normalerweise keine Namen, sondern wenn dann nur Referenznummern.
Diese wird in OSM mit dem "ref"-Key abgebildet.
Dieser Hydrant besitzt schon den Tag "ref=51-017", daher ist der gleiche Wert im Namen unnötig.

Viele Grüße!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:22+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.
ZeLonewolf (2022-04-28 02:56:34+00:00): Hello!  This edit broke the boundary of Rosebery because two of the member ways are missing relation roles.  Did you notice if the the editor reported any warnings when editing the boundary?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:34+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.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:35+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 18:23:56+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.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:46+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 18:11:50+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.
bikingaround244 (2022-04-15 16:04:48+00:00): love your work! thank you for your contributions!
RamblingRubbisher (2022-04-17 17:32:43+00:00): Thanks! :)
felipeeugenio (2022-04-14 15:01:51+00:00): Hola Alonso. De donde salió esa población de esa villa? cual es la fuente?

saludos
felipeeugenio (2022-04-14 15:44:05+00:00): Hola Alonso. Por favor no inventar datos y agregarlos a OSM. Además la villa ya estaba. lo que hiciste fue duplicarla. Por favor atento a esos detalles.
saludos
berndw (2022-04-14 17:02:54+00:00): Auch diesen Bach solltest Du nicht einfach über alles hinweg einzeichnen sondern die schon genannten Eigenschaften tunnel=* und layer=* verwenden. 
Bitte informiere Dich im Wiki über die korrekte Verwendung der Eigenschaften, JOSM unterstützt dich dabei, diese dann richtig einzutragen

Bernd
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:41+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 18:15:06+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.
MxxCon (2022-04-15 02:42:50+00:00): Hello.
When mapping buildings or other features with right angles, you can right-click on it and select "make square". That will automatically straighten out your lines and angles making your mapping more accurate and neater. 👍🙂
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119688514
MxxCon (2022-04-15 02:59:28+00:00): Hello.
You tagged this basketball court and a couple of other features nearby as buildings. This is most definitely incorrect. 🙂 iD editor has preset for many different sports. Please use them, they really help you pick the correct tags for features.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119688554
berndw (2022-04-14 16:53:26+00:00): Hallo UWHorn

Bist Du sicher das der Müllerbach durch das Haus Nr. 30 in der Straße Am Grendel fliesst?
Das Gleiche gilt für die Häuser Nr 15 und 17 am Maarweg.

Auch solltest Du Überschwemmungen von Straßen, z.B. die B42 den Maarweg und viele andere, vermeiden in dem Du tunnel=*, layer=-1 und andere Eigenschaften verwendest.

Außerdem hätte ich es gut gefunden, wenn Du die von mir bereits eingetragenen Teilstücke korrekt angebunden hättest und nicht einfach einen neuen Verlauf drüber gebügelt hättest. Das hast du zwischen der B42 und dem Teich sowie dort wo Du den Hinweis gesetzt hast.

Bitte korrigiere das zeitnah, bei Fragen stehe ich zur Verfügung.

Bernd

P.S.: Ich habe alle meine Änderungen in den letzten Jahren dort mit Ortskenntnis gemacht.
voteforpedro (2022-04-14 13:09:48+00:00): In the future, please consider reducing the range of the changeset. This covers a range from Strasbourg to Manchester. Smaller changesets will make it easier for the community to filter changes to their areas.
redd (2022-06-05 12:26:28+00:00): +1, i send them an email and hope they respond soon. Otherwise I would suggest to do a temporary ban until this behaviour is fixed
holgerd (2022-06-09 19:13:46+00:00): Hi, I’m the co-founder of Wheelmap and responsible for this. Firstly, on behalf of the whole Wheelmap project: Our apologies, we strive to be good OSM community members!

We are aware that large changesets are a problem and working on fixing it. Please find our plans and the status here: https://github.com/sozialhelden/wheelmap-frontend/issues/329

The reason we did not reply earlier is, that I made one embarrassing mistake: The “wheelmap_visitor” user profile had an outdated e-mail address, so I did not get notifications and I did not notice this. I fixed it now and made sure all changeset comments in the future will be answered by me or our community management team.
voteforpedro (2022-06-17 08:56:44+00:00): Thank you for your work on contributing to OSM, and fixing the issue. I think your idea is a great one (with the fixes ;)). Keep Mapping!
DressyPear4 (2022-04-14 23:27:17+00:00): Olá, já existe uma praça no local, não é correto adicionar outra por cima.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119689014
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:45+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 18:21:45+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.
mrpulley (2026-02-28 09:58:46+00:00): This section of highway is still maxspeed 50. Fixed at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178527132
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:30+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.
mrpulley (2025-12-13 08:54:27+00:00): 803608947, 172159811, 450176932 - maxspeed correct
1051691958 - maxspeed 50 (not 100), corrected by AntBurnett at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141487951
26515589, 1051691959 - maxspeeds correct, but location of change of speed north of Tubbs Road, corrected at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169613072
239277278, 177843469 not checked
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:06+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.
Kovoschiz (2022-04-14 11:38:12+00:00): Thanks, but it's better to revert (using JOSM) than add again.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:41+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 18:20:25+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 18:22:52+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 18:22:25+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.
PT-53 (2022-04-14 05:59:59+00:00): Hallo  L___I,
ich halte diese TR
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14037331/history
für falsch. Ich kann mich nicht erinnern, dort ein explizietes Wendeverbot gesehen zu haben.
Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?
Fragende Grüße
L___I (2022-04-15 22:01:38+00:00): Hallo PT-53,

danke fürs Drüberschauen.

Dort ist laut Luftbildern keine durchgezogene Linie, habe die Abbiegebeschränkung dementsprechend herausgenommen, siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119766911
Schöne Grüsse
L___I
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:23+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 18:16:38+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 18:24:28+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 18:18:48+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 18:19:47+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 18:18:54+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 18:21:37+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.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:07+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 18:18:01+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.
Supaplex (2025-10-23 16:07:16+00:00): 這裡田中間，真得有咖啡店嗎？
Supaplex (2023-08-31 07:47:05+00:00): Hi,

請問你加的雪霸港(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1051699721)是什麼意思呢？
如果不是真實存在的物件，將會被移除
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:22+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.
user_5359 (2022-04-14 04:33:39+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5575859589. What is the meaning of the tag highway=ser (service isn't for node)?
MacLondon (2022-04-15 15:48:15+00:00): Hi. The errant tagging has now been removed.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:35+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 18:14:57+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 18:15:24+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 18:22:34+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.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:39+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 18:17:51+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 18:23:49+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 18:23:30+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 18:15:40+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.
Mariusz189 (2022-12-22 16:50:13+00:00): Czy to miejsce jest atrakcją turystyczną? jakimś zabytkiem ? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/509695755
kubahahaha (2022-12-22 21:28:11+00:00): Niestety nie wiem. Dodałem tam tylko ruins=yes na podstawie nazwy i orto.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:52+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 18:23:31+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.