piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
freebeer (2019-05-30 04:23:27+00:00): in looking at the first page of this edit, i see you have changed tagged zebra crossings to generic (undocumented) non-specific marked crossings with no legal significance.

however, in viewing the imagery behind https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5161893249/history it is quite clear this is a zebra crossing.  there is an alternate _ref tagging that is available, but instead here you have adopted the idea that because in the us, painted zebra stripes are no different than any other marking, that tagging is not relevant to osm anywhere.  and in the current tagging you changed, the info about legal status for pedestrians and drivers of the previous tagging, has been lost.
pachter (2021-05-30 15:55:05+00:00): Goedemiddag, ik zie dat je een strook buitendijkse grond hebt gemapt als wetland. Ik ben daar pachter van en dat is gewoon grasland. Graag weer terugzetten als grasland. Met vriendelijke groet, Pachter
Allroads (2021-05-30 22:01:18+00:00): Een rietkraag, is wetland, ook al is het smal, misschien moet dat wat opgeschoven worden richting AAN / BRP belijning. Cultuurgrond overgang naar riet.

Maar omzetten niet.
Als je het over deze strookjes hebt.
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~allroads/NLOSMOK/OSMOKNL/OSMOKNL.html#map=19.58/661510.50/6912238.04/0
Allroads (2021-05-31 12:07:12+00:00): De intekening van mij was voor de dijkverzwaring in het gebied.
pachter (2021-05-31 14:26:49+00:00): Bij ons is geen dijkverzwaring geweest. Heb de dijk net gemaaid en we maaien altijd tot aan het water. Er staat dus ook geen rietkraag meer. Wel is een gedeelte een paar jaar niet gemaaid maar dat wordt nu ook weer gemaaid.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-05-30 00:17:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 70751675 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a persistent sockpuppet in Rochester.  See block 2548 et al
JJIglesias (2019-05-30 07:16:06+00:00): Misma Pregunta: Que Tiene de NO UTIL el Hotel Ichiban que SI EXISTE en ese Lugar?
JJIglesias (2019-05-30 07:13:32+00:00): Que tiene de NO UTIL un supermercado que SI EXISTE en ese lugar?
korolenok (2019-06-03 14:24:35+00:00): This changeset contains features like highway=pedestrian over buildings. Please, retag it or delete polygons.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70751618
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-05-30 00:17:25+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changeset 70751443.
JJIglesias (2019-05-30 07:39:19+00:00): Si puedes revierte esa borrada de areas. Yo me encargo de transformarlas a Place=Plot o City Block q creo seria lo mas correcto...
Zandu (2025-05-27 02:48:32+00:00): Hi, I just saw your additions to the Montgomery Bell State Park and noticed you changed it to National Park (about six years ago) so it would have a border. At the time you acknowledged that it didnt quite fit the description. I have recently conducted research for a county park near me and found that adding the "boundary=protected_area" and a "protect_class=5" will both show it with the green border and more accurately define the scope of protection. I hope you choose to "downgrade" your use of the national part tag to preserve it for items so designated while still showing off your resource for what it is. Best wishes and happy mapping!
iMacThere4iAm (2024-05-19 19:54:47+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6510091490 doesn't seem to merit the place=neighbourhood tag. Would an area with landuse=residential + name="Knight's Bridge Apartments" + residential=apartments be more suitable? I'm new at this.
gurglypipe (2024-05-23 08:22:39+00:00): Yes, what you suggest might well be better than place=neighbourhood. Feel free to change it, thanks :)
kolasau (2021-09-30 14:57:26+00:00): Hello, mapman44! 
I found out that slipway (WAY: 437746489) should be mapped as a node or a way, but not a polygon or a multipolygon. All info you can find here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dslipway
Please, fix the problem. :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/70752061
kolasau (2021-09-30 14:57:27+00:00): Hello, mapman44! 
I found out that slipway (WAY: 437746489) should be mapped as a node or a way, but not a polygon or a multipolygon. All info you can find here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dslipway
Please, fix the problem. :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/70752061
mapman44 (2021-09-30 16:25:26+00:00): Check it now to see if it passes inspection.
kolasau (2021-10-01 11:26:38+00:00): Thank you for the improvement!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/70752061
GOwin (2019-06-29 03:15:02+00:00): Hi @GrabPHVicPuno. 

The gate you added in this intersection (w693435343) should have been made a node to maintain routing between these roads. 

By adding a way  (w693435343) between Pililla, and JP Rizal, you break the routing between these two roads.

If this gate is inaccessible at certain hours (e.g. midnight to 05:00) of the date, you may add conditional restrictions on the node and routing engines should be able to understand that:
access:conditional = no @ (00:00-05:00)

Please refer to the wiki for details:
* https://osm.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dgate
* https://osm.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask in the local community channels: https://osm.org/wiki/PH/channels
muralito (2019-05-30 14:01:15+00:00): Hola Lucia.

Reitero por segunda vez el comentario que hice en tu cambio anterior. Para educacion primaria y secundaria es amenityy=school y no college. En Openstreetmap no se hace una traduccion de la palabra sino que se mapea por el concepto.
compdude (2019-07-14 00:19:37+00:00): Why do you think I-15 through this interchange should be marked as a motorway_link? It is clearly the thru route for this interchange and should thus be tagged as a motorway. 

Also, please leave an explanation in the edit summary when you make changes like this. Thanks!
MosKartograf (2019-10-10 15:21:38+00:00): Верните, пожалуйста, разметку зданий Шуваловского парка. То, что это достопримечательности не отменяет того, что это здания.
Константин Гам (2019-10-30 15:20:26+00:00): Добавляя свои уточнения вы удалили пешеходный мост... спасибо за сломанную навигацию
stevea (2019-05-31 06:25:55+00:00): Please undo what you did here:  there are already VTA light_rail routes in OSM AND their underlying infrastructure (which these were, but are no longer due to your tagging).  Did you check first before entering these? Please see our wiki at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/California/Railroads).  Also see https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_States_railways which explains the difference between types of railway routes (route=railway and route=train/tram/light_rail).

These are route=railway routes (sometimes known as "underlying infrastructure"), not the passenger routes (route=trail or route=light_rail routes), which also already exist for VTA routes.  It was correct for them to not have ref numbers (which only go on passenger routes, not the underlying infrastructure relations) and it was correct for them to be route=railway, not be converted into route=light_rail.

If you don't know how to correct these relations back to how they were, your changeset can be redacted in whole, which might be easier.
impiaaa (2019-05-31 14:28:17+00:00): Reverted in changeset 70811064
stevea (2019-06-01 17:23:20+00:00): Thank you!
Glassman (2019-05-30 17:59:52+00:00): It looks like you are having difficulties adding in the bridalways. I went ahead and removed all the nodes with ele=0. But there are untagged ways some which parallel an existing service road. I'm going to attempt to fix them. 

I'll send you so info on OSM but if you need help, please let me know.
Glassman (2019-05-30 19:06:04+00:00): I fixed all of the validation errors. It may not exactly match your records. We had existing service roads and tracks that the horse trail paralleled. I removed the new way and left the existing way. If that isn't correct all that is required is to change the tag from highway=service to highway=bridleway
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70753168
Dimacn (2019-05-31 18:17:56+00:00): Для дачного участка достаточно отметить огораживающий забор. Т.к. территория садоводства здесь уже отмечена. Во-вторых, в name пишем только официальные названия https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:name  Ваши названия некорректны, их нужно удалить.
pitscheplatsch (2019-05-30 06:21:34+00:00): Hi OrangeDrumr, welcome to OSM. 

Could you please don't remove and redraw more or less the same objects? This deletes the history. Thanks.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history

More information about your changeset: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=70753277

#GolfMapping 
--- 
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
mapper999 (2019-07-07 08:57:31+00:00): Hi,
looks like something went wrong here?
Could you please check the service roads again.
https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=94&error=111187929&zoom=17&lat=49.29442&lon=8.64009
AkuAnakTimur (2019-05-30 03:17:09+00:00): Salam, boleh tahu datang dari mana sumber nama jalan dalam edit ni?
GrabMY_maryamabu (2019-05-30 03:54:32+00:00): Salam, I compare this with DuckDuckGo map. 

https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH3

2.73848,101.89806
GrabMY_maryamabu (2019-05-30 03:55:26+00:00): Salam, I compare this with Bing* map
AkuAnakTimur (2019-05-30 05:06:55+00:00): Ok, thank you for your reply.

We can use satellite imagery from Bing to improve OpenStreetMap. Unfortunately, we cannot use geographical names (place names, street names, etc) from Bing.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing_Maps#Bing_Aerial_Imagery
GrabMY_maryamabu (2019-05-30 05:17:44+00:00): I see. I currently refer only from this https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Malaysia/Data_Sources
and havent read from this one.
Thank you for the information!

Thanks for the
AkuAnakTimur (2019-05-30 05:40:40+00:00): You're welcome. The street geometries can stay, but those names have to be removed for the time being. Those information should come from knowledge, or by taking some time to stroll around the neighbourhood and collect them over time.

If you need assistance in doing so, you may let me know about it.
zhouqi (2019-05-30 03:02:25+00:00): please delete it, thank you.
pitscheplatsch (2019-06-02 05:59:18+00:00): #test #failed ?

Please don't add test data to the live OSM Server. 
If you want a test server, perhaps http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ would work for you? 

--- 
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
zhouqi (2019-06-02 08:03:33+00:00): sorry again
pitscheplatsch (2019-05-31 05:30:24+00:00): Hi neilWSPRC, welcome to OSM.

Several issues of your changeset has been corrected here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70783559

#HappyMapping
Glassman (2019-05-31 05:35:35+00:00): Pascal - I've been in contact with neilWSPRC via email. He is fully aware of the corrections.

Keep up the good work on your reports. We appreciate them.
Rizki IRM-ED (2022-12-01 02:37:03+00:00): Hello geeceeChess. Your edit looks awesome, but I need to delete building due not exist in the imagery (https://maproulette.org/challenge/30233/task/142649844). Thank you.
abakus_uploader (2019-05-30 22:30:30+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
mavl (2019-11-10 08:08:52+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
mavl (2019-11-10 08:08:49+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
AkuAnakTimur (2019-05-30 05:38:08+00:00): Hello, welcome to OpenStreetMap.

For playgrounds, please map them correctly as playgrounds (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=playground), not as parks (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-01-21 23:41:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 79881305 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some mechanical edits that included China Wok, where the mechanically added values may be incorrect, where other mappers haven't touched the objects since.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/72812470 for details
eggie (2019-05-30 06:24:30+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
abakus_uploader (2019-05-30 22:30:29+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
ndm (2019-05-30 21:23:48+00:00): You deleted a way marked as a public footpath -- it seems to be on rowmaps -- seems like a bad idea?
Nick in Kew (2019-05-30 21:40:20+00:00): The pink/red dotted line is a signposted public right of way. The other paths were not, and were possibly "casual use" but are no longer visible. I was following those pathways and the landowner (very irate) told me that the pathways don't exist and cross his horse paddock and a hay field (which I'd just been trampling on). So I verified before deleting. I checked OS maps and the footpath is not there. Hopefully others won't follow these paths that don't actually take you anywhere. You cannot exit to Manor Road - the hedgerows and fencing prevent that. There is no exit to Wick Village Hall either, which is where I was trying to get to.
DaveF (2019-12-28 22:43:30+00:00): Hi Nick
Where did you view "pink/red dotted line "?
Paths don't have to be visible to still be in existence
How did you verify they had been redacted?
Did the landowners say when they were deleted? What evidence did he provide?

The paths are shown on the latest OS map: http://tinyurl.com/ux3vu4c
They are still in the latest issue of the derived digital database from South Glos Council.
There is an exit next to the village hall. It's behind the car in this Google Streetview.http://tinyurl.com/wogpfr3

Cheers
DaveF
Nick in Kew (2019-12-29 00:13:04+00:00): Hi DaveF. The OS Maps may be recent, but I was physically stood in all of those places and the paths are not visible at all. You would be trampling the landowners crop if you walked them. The entrance to that pathway is not accessible: it looks it, but I tried to get through and goes down their private driveway. It might be that they have usurped the public right of way, legally or otherwise. But I would not recommend anyone trying to use those pathways as mapped. 
Cheers
Nick
DaveF (2019-12-29 00:57:05+00:00): Hi
I'm afraid that OS maps usurps you being there. As i said, paths don't have to be visible to be legitimate, however I notice you you're aware of the stiles as you add access tags to them. The paths have never been removed from OS maps so you're claim you checked against them is false. 
I'm unsure what crops you refer to as it's been grazing each time I've been there. Landowners are meant to provide a clear space through any crops. 

Given you're inability to provide evidence they've been redacted I'm reverting your changeset.
Nick in Kew (2019-12-29 12:38:56+00:00): Hi DaveF. My claim to check the OS Maps was not false. I have it installed on my phone, and there was no path there at the time. I stood and argued with the landowner, and brought up the OSMaps app as I was using another map application at the time,, and the lack of pathways was clear and apparent. Which was embarrassing for me. The land is used to grow hay, so trampling the hay loses the landowner income. I was just trying to be helpful and help others to avoid future run-ins with the landowner along the lines of the one that I had. If OpenStreetMap is to be a copy of OSMaps, then why do we bother with any real-life, personal experience updates at all? Doesn't make any sense to me. 
Nick
Nick in Kew (2019-12-29 13:47:03+00:00): OK - this has been bugging me, because I hate being accused of lying. And I have found the map I checked. Screenshot here: https://imgur.com/a/cXXVIyr Only the path to the western side of the field is shown.
DaveF (2019-12-29 15:09:01+00:00): Hi
OSM has to be based on the best, authoritative data available, which isn't a landowner who gets upset with people crossing his land. Provide evidence from the local authority they've been removed & I'll willingly remove them from OSM

What is the name of the app you use? What is the name of the rendered layer?
DaveF (2019-12-29 15:40:35+00:00): Hi
I've just found it
https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/51.45468,-2.42429,16

I think it's called just 'Standard', It's missing a large percentage of PROWs bridleways etc. Hardly authoritative proof.
What you need is OS Explorer (link in previous comment.)
Nick in Kew (2019-12-30 11:48:33+00:00): I think "I'm sorry I accused you of making false statements" would have been a good start. OK, if I've used the wrong info, but you started with an erroneous claim, which you haven't yet corrected.
DaveF (2019-12-30 14:24:40+00:00): You were looking at the *wrong* map.
Nick in Kew (2019-12-30 16:31:20+00:00): I looked at the OS Map at the time and subsequently. I've proven that fact. You said that my claim to have done that was "false". Right map or wrong, you are accusing me of lying. If you'd said: "you looked at the wrong map," that's one thing. To say I my claim to look at the OS Map was false, is entirely different. Semantics, maybe, but the implication is clear: the statement presents as though I was making up the edits. I've said OK - I looked at the wrong map. But my edits were 1. well-intentioned, and 2. based on the evidence that I had at the time (being stood in the field), and 3. What I thought was in line with the process for helping other map users. I was wrong about that. 
But an apology from you about your incorrect accusation wouldn't be too hard, would it?
sannkc (2019-05-31 01:46:45+00:00): This changeset has a blanket building tag covering an area of several buildings, even though the individual buildings have already been mapped. If tagging an entire residential area, use the residential land use tag instead of a building tag. Please fix.
pitscheplatsch (2019-06-02 05:59:38+00:00): #test #failed ?

Please don't add test data to the live OSM Server. 
If you want a test server, perhaps http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ would work for you? 

--- 
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
GOwin (2019-06-01 10:42:18+00:00): This is awesome! Thank you for adding details and helping improve the map of your favorite neighborhood. 

If you wish to keep in touch with local mappers, there are a number of  community channels you can try: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/channels
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70757222
user_3216889 (2019-05-30 14:00:04+00:00): Picnic_site lijkt me wat overdreven, zie:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dpicnic_site

Hier staan enkele speeltoestellen en één picknick tafel.
Beter hele stuk gras markeren met leisure=playground en de tafel apart met leisure=picnic_table; zie:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpicnic_table
Jelle Ruben (2019-05-30 14:07:37+00:00): Als ik het object kijk staat er picknickplek. En dat is het toch ook
user_3216889 (2019-05-30 14:15:25+00:00): Met een site wordt een wat uitgebreider terrein bedoeld, met bv. meerdere tafels.
Ik geef toe, is een beetje arbitrair.
Jelle Ruben (2019-05-30 14:19:51+00:00): Ja effe zoeken,  om hem aan te passen.
sannkc (2019-05-31 01:42:16+00:00): This building tag covers an area of multiple separate structures.  Each building should be mapped individually.  If tagging an entire residential area, use the residential land use tag instead of a building tag.  Please fix.
MissingCSAA (2019-05-30 16:40:17+00:00): Hi Again - The document you referenced does not seem to be a conclusive source? After all, it also refers to I-15 as US 466, US 91 and the Arrowhead Highway.

More instructive is the NDOT 2017 Named Highways Map, which does not indicate a name for I-15. https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=134

Please consider reverting this.
btwhite92 (2019-06-06 17:01:14+00:00): This document doesn't state anything about "(Heavy Traffic Route)" being part of the highway name. Where is this coming from? Descriptions about the road don't belong in the name field.
SK53 (2019-05-30 14:15:41+00:00): Hi Jez,

I think you've still got the restaurant tag active for Jamie's Italian. old_name=Jamie's Italian currently corresponds well with active mapping communities: Nottingham, York, Bristol, Edinburgh, Glasgow & Brighton :-).


Jerry
Jez Nicholson (2019-05-30 15:35:02+00:00): Thanks Jerry,

I've changed it to a shop=vacant but is that consistent? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/622204335

Jez
SK53 (2019-05-30 15:38:29+00:00): I generally do that if the place is obviously retail premises. I didn't do that for the Nottingham one because it's located in an old town house, so what it becomes next I don't know. Paul Smith next door doesn't really look like a shop from outside (not much changed from this photo: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1911469).
sannkc (2019-05-31 01:39:16+00:00): In this edit, the area is incorrectly tagged as a building.  Please fix. Also, it's been tagged as a dealership, but isn't this a manufacturing plant?  There was an existing land use area already in place.  Is there a reason for adding an overlapping area instead of editing that one, or deleting it after the new one has been added?  Why duplicate the existing land use area?
RollTideRoll_asdfjkll (2019-06-02 00:31:23+00:00): This issue has been fixed. The duplicate tagged area has been removed as the existing tagged area underneath is is pretty much good enough representation of the car manufacturing plant.
pitscheplatsch (2019-06-02 06:00:44+00:00): #test #failed ?

Please don't add test data to the live OSM Server. 
If you want a test server, perhaps http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ would work for you? 

--- 
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
iWowik (2019-06-03 05:24:56+00:00): Это набережная Революции или аллея Революции?
Как программам догадываться?
dieterdreist (2019-05-30 12:56:58+00:00): Ciao Senzapaura,
ho visto che si è introdotto un errore con questa modifica, probabilmente per sbaglio hai trascinato un nodo di una strada molto lontano. Puoi vedere la tua modifica qui: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70758661
Cerco di ripristinare la situazione senza perdere gli oggetti che hai aggiunto.
Buona mappatura,
Martin
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/70758661
dieterdreist (2019-05-30 14:58:50+00:00): Dalla mia analisi sembra che non hai trascinato un nodo, ma hai uniti 3 punti (1 di via Murri, 1 di Via Poggioli e un terzo più lontano). Non ti preoccupare dell'errore, è già sistemato, ma cerco di capire com'è successo.