piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
nmombo12 (2021-12-20 13:19:12+00:00): Hello John,
I understand this edit was made long ago, but do you recall why the lake in the NE of this changeset (relation 11521) was removed and replaced with a way that doubles back on itself (way 795459307)?
Also why the bridges in the south were removed (ways 719048332 and 719048336)? From what I can see in aerial imagery they still exist.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84027287
mapman44 (2020-04-24 01:15:37+00:00): Please share with all of us the source of the trail name in this changeset. Seriously?
mapman44 (2020-04-24 01:28:44+00:00): This changeset  has been reverted due to profane edit.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84027443
IanH (2020-04-24 02:27:40+00:00): changeset 84027495 is really large. Try to break up edits in smaller blocks. In most cases, they should not much bigger than a area couple km square.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84027495
kapazao (2020-05-02 14:50:53+00:00): Hola, veo que sigues editando con el comentario "Precisión" para todo.
Varios usuarios te lo han comentado en varias ocasiones y sigues sin hacer caso en ello.
Haces cambios en los tipos de vías sin seguir las pautas de la wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link) y dejando rotas muchas continuidades de tipos de vía y relaciones.
Revisa los cambios que haces con herramientas de validación como Osmose (http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr), que te ayudarán a ver tus errores.
Si continúas sin editar correctamente en cosas tan importantes y no lo corriges, se revertirán los cambios y se avisará a moderación para que revisen el caso y probablemente te baneen.
Un saludo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84027846
mapman44 (2020-04-24 01:48:19+00:00): Mill BOOK? Or Mill BROOK?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84027943
MAINEditor (2020-04-24 13:11:00+00:00): Good catch! :)
ralley (2020-04-24 09:45:28+00:00): Please don't use the name field for descriptions, it is for genuine names only
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84027953
Glassman (2020-04-24 03:04:58+00:00): TIP: When adding building zoom in so you don't connect the outlines when they are standalone blds.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84028081
mapman44 (2020-04-24 01:55:38+00:00): Thanks for all your contributions in Tripoli. Just a couple of tips...parking areas shouldn't extend out to the street - just include the part where cars can actually park. Also building look better when they have square corners. Just select and press the Q key to square them up. Thanks.
Danner36 (2020-04-24 02:01:51+00:00): Will do.
Glassman (2020-04-24 03:06:49+00:00): TIP: It appears that one of the buildings is actually just a roof over the gas pumps. If so it should be tagged as building=roof + layer=1 ( The layer allows drawing service lanes under the roof without the editor complaining.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84028268
user_610278 (2020-05-24 13:51:27+00:00): Не надо указывать этажность для разноуровневых строений - у каждого отдельного блока здания своя высота
Steve_32 (2020-05-24 19:37:48+00:00): NetFarmer, привет. Согласно вики, этажность на отдельных частях здания указывается в дополнение, но не вместо, с основным тегам на общем контуре здания.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:building:part
Это сделано для обратной совместимости, т.к. отдельные части используют только рендеры или программы, умеющие работать в 3D, остальные же будут брать информацию с полигона с тегом building.
Это, так же, уже обсуждалось на форуме.
Поэтому, верни, пожалуйста, удалённую этажность.
tekim (2020-06-17 12:46:29+00:00): Wow, you have done a lot of work in this area!

Just FYI, highway=crossing is for location where a "pedestrians can cross a street", not for the junction of two or more paths.[1]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing
user_8334278 (2020-06-17 13:05:41+00:00): i fixed.
tekim (2020-06-17 13:07:25+00:00): Thanks!
Frans S (2020-05-05 08:17:18+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.

Validators check mappers’ work to see if they meet the requirements of the project, are complete and of a good quality. 


A few pointers -
1) Most buildings are square so your mapping should reflect that, please remember to square your buildings by pressing the q key while the building is selected.

2) Please outline the buildings as closely as possible to the actual shape and try not to include the shadows of the buildings.

3) Map each building separately.
Be sure not connecting nodes of the buildings to each other or overlapping buildings.
You mapped here 38 buildings of which 36 are not squared.

Best regards
AndersAndersson (2020-04-24 05:56:53+00:00): Hello and welcome to OSM!

What is this forest named Grååsvägen?
The name doesnt sound like a forest and the forest covers a lot of houses and open areas.
Wulfmorn (2020-04-24 13:03:41+00:00): Yeah that looks very strange indeed.
AndersAndersson (2020-04-26 17:02:03+00:00): I removed the wood. If you think that is wrong, please let me know.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84150481
aitcheitch (2020-04-24 02:11:29+00:00): *mean to say businesses but autocorrect said bushiness
korolenok (2020-04-28 16:00:43+00:00): Hi! You created a huge building. Is it a buggy application?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84029470
korolenok (2020-04-28 16:02:43+00:00): Edits were reverted in https://osmcha.org/changesets/84278274/
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84029470
user_5359 (2020-04-24 03:32:03+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Don't add any private information from residential or owner to a residential building!
Vinber (2020-04-24 07:09:16+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenue dans OpenStreetMap,

un petit mot ici pour faciliter votre arrivée : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:WikiProject_France/bienvenue

Cas particulier 1 / Si vous êtes en seconde, en cours de SNT, veuillez faire suivre à votre enseignant-e le lien suivant https://dane.ac-lyon.fr/spip/spip.php?article628 (par avance merci !).

Cas particulier 2 / Si vous êtes un commerçant et que vous souhaitez voir apparaître votre commerce dans OpenStreetMap et donc également sur Ça reste ouvert, Qwant Maps, ... 1 lien ressource : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:shop 

Dans tous les cas, n'hésitez pas à répondre, poser des questions, ...

Vincent

PS : 2 liens souvent utiles : 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bonnes_pratiques#N.27utilisez_pas_de_tag_name_pour_d.C3.A9crire_des_choses.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bonnes_pratiques#Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications
andrewsuzuki (2021-11-22 01:22:45+00:00): Hey just a heads up, footway=crossing shouldn't be used on nodes. You put it on a few nodes where highway=crossing should have been used instead. I always forget which ones go where myself and have to look it up...
5m4u9 (2020-04-26 03:52:11+00:00): hola, En el nombre de las calles no es necesario poner la población, ya lo arreglé, gracias por añadir esta info
eggie (2020-04-24 07:29:00+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Shaun das Schaf (2020-04-25 10:14:39+00:00): Guten Tag,

Sie sollten noch den Tag tourism=apartment hinzufügen, um zu kennzeichnen, dass es sich um eine Ferienwohnung handelt. Den Tag layer=2 bitte wieder entfernen, er ist hier unnötig. Falls Sie die Anzahl der Stockwerke taggen möchten, dann beachten Sie bitte https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:building:levels und https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:level . Zusätzlich können Sie bei Bedarf auch noch Kontaktinformationen hinzufügen: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:contact

Falls Sie Hilfe dabei benötigen, lassen Sie es mich einfach hier wissen.

Viele Grüße,
Shaun das Schaf
Allison P (2021-11-12 08:44:12+00:00): I believe that some of what you've tagged as post boxes are letter boxes (for incoming mail, not outgoing).
T99 (2021-11-12 16:11:09+00:00): These mailboxes serve both purposes. There is one slot for outgoing mail, 8, 12, 13 or 16 slots for incoming mail, and usually 1-2 larger slots for incoming parcels.
Allison P (2021-11-12 22:05:28+00:00): According to the wiki page, a post box is used by the public. A residential neighborhood probably won't have one of those. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpost_box
T99 (2021-11-13 03:51:41+00:00): The outgoing mail slot is freely available for the public to use.
SomeoneElse (2020-07-05 14:54:45+00:00): Hello,
This looks like a one-by-one mechanical edit of notice boards with a misleading changeset comment of "Improved tagging". Can you explain where it was discussed with the community?
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2020-07-05 14:55:23+00:00): Hello,
This looks like a one-by-one mechanical edit of notice boards with a misleading changeset comment of "Improved tagging". Can you explain where it was discussed with the community?
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2020-07-05 14:56:12+00:00): Hello,
This looks like a one-by-one mechanical edit of notice boards with a misleading changeset comment of "Improved tagging". Can you explain where it was discussed with the community?
Best Regards,
Andy
Adamant1 (2020-07-05 15:21:12+00:00): I didn't know it was "miss-leading" to leave badly written, vague changeset comments. At least not the point of someone making a bunch of false accusations about me. Lessons learned I guess. I'm surprised as a DWG that you don't have better tools then how they phrase a changeset comment to verify if they did a mechanical edit or not. It's pretty ridiculous your basing this whole thing on it.
SomeoneElse (2020-07-07 14:48:03+00:00): Can you explain what you're trying to say in the "I didn't know..." paragraph?  It's really not clear from what you've written.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is definitely misleading "to leave badly written, vague changeset comments" (and that's something that most of us can improve - I sometimes loo back at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/history and wish I'd left more detail).
I'm not sure what the "accusations" are (false, or otherwise).  I don't understand the "I'm surprised as a DWG" sentence at all, and don't know what "this whole thing" is.
Adamant1 (2020-07-07 17:34:51+00:00): It's not miss-leading in the way that your using the term, because I didn't use the changeset comment as way to lead people down a different path for the purpose of deception. So in that respect, it was not "miss-leading. I don't know what other way you might be using it which wouldn't involve the implied negative connotation of deception that just didn't exist in my actions or the changeset comment.  

It should obvious that the "accusations" are your saying that I did "an un-discussed one-by-one mechanical edit of notice boards with a misleading changeset comments." That's what this conversation is about. Although, you didn't the "accusations" implies that you where accusing me of doing it and you phrased your original comment as a forgone conclusion that I did. So maybe that's where the discrepancy comes from. I'm choosing to call it in an accusation though because it isn't a forgone conclusion that I did an un-discussed mechanical edit, however you want to frame it yourself. 

It should be obvious that "this whole thing" is the false accusations you've repeatedly levied at me in multiple changesets. 

As far as the "I'm surprised as a DWG" comment goes, I just assumed the DWG would have better tools to discern automated edits then reading into a few changeset comments. I'm surprised they don't because IMO accusations like the ones you've leveled at me here shouldn't be done hurdy gurdy, at the spur of the moment, and should be taken seriously. I don't feel that you working backwards from your own conclusions because you don't understand why I wrote "improved tags" in a few changeset comments is taking these things very seriously though or doing the due diligence that you should be. If that's all you have fine, but you could apply the same standard that your using on me of "this changeset comment is vague and I don't understand it. So there must be something nefarious behind it" to accuse pretty much anyone on OSM of doing things. There should really be more involved then that. If there is fine, but it doesn't seem like it from my end. Which is surprising.
Adamant1 (2020-07-07 17:56:16+00:00): BTW, setting aside the changeset comment, looking at the wiki I guess "board" is listed as a possible synonym of board_type= (although apparently I added it as one. which I really don't remember doing, but I still think it's valid). Either way though and whatever the wiki says, there's currently 311 uses of "board. Looking at the tags history, there was about 20 less when I originally did this edit and it doesn't seem like it's usage went down at all before or after. 

Just looking at it objectively, It would be pretty weird if I did I intentionally used a "miss-leading" changset comment so I could do an "automated edit" to change the tags on like 2 information boards. I'm not sure how that would fit the definition of being automated anyway or why anyone would bother. Also, I'm pretty sure people don't have to discuss changing changing two tags anywhere before hand. The fact that I don't remember this edit or anything related to it makes me think it was probably a one off or something I had a passing interest in. If it was more then that, then I would have edited a lot more of them and I'd remember it. I wouldn't have done it through an automated edit either. 

You could have easily found all that out by looking at the tagging history or just asking. Personally, I feel like I'm done here. Since there's clearly nothing to this except you working backward from your own conclusions by reading into a changeset comment what you wanted to. If you have any other questions though, I'll be happy to answer them. 

Thanks (but not really because this was completely ridiculous),

Adamant1
abakus_uploader (2020-04-24 22:31:02+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!
SomeoneElse (2020-07-05 14:53:17+00:00): Hello,
This looks like a one-by-one mechanical edit of notice boards with a misleading changeset comment of "Improved tagging".  Can you explain where it was discussed with the community?
Best Regards,
Andy
Adamant1 (2020-07-05 14:57:59+00:00): Can you please stop spamming my changesets with the same message over and over? It's not really helpful. I responded on the first one. That should be enough for now.
SomeoneElse (2020-07-05 14:52:45+00:00): Hello,
This looks like a one-by-one mechanical edit of notice boards with a misleading changeset comment of "Added power pole".  Can you explain where it was discussed with the community?
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2020-07-05 14:53:41+00:00): Hello,
This looks like a one-by-one mechanical edit of notice boards with a misleading changeset comment of "Added power pole".  Can you explain where it was discussed with the community?
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2020-07-05 14:55:53+00:00): Hello,
This looks like a one-by-one mechanical edit of notice boards with a misleading changeset comment of "Improved tagging". Can you explain where it was discussed with the community?
Best Regards,
Andy
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-09-26 04:38:23+00:00): You used some incline=up/down tags - do you remember what you wanted to express with it?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/795510253/history
Flubber_00 (2022-09-26 05:15:59+00:00): I don't know what that was. It may have been tagged accidentally. Thank you for bringing it to my attention! I have removed it.
Warin61 (2022-08-12 03:17:25+00:00): Hi,

The individual residential areas are not named 'Town Of Yandina' ... Some times a node would be used to signify the town center (post office/town hall) with place=town ... or if an administration district then a administration boundary would be used..
Aalbers69 (2022-08-12 05:50:11+00:00): Thanks Warin61 - Noted that the name seems rather generic in nature, but the survey plans for this subdivision are title "Town of Yandina", so I added it as a name - figured it was the same as an estate name, which can be added to a residential area, according to the editing rules.
alphensebezorger (2020-05-19 14:19:59+00:00): Hallo Sander, zo te zien importeer je hier een gebouw ter vervanging van dit verwijderde gebouw: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/272060947/history. Als ik de BAG-viewer goed interpreteer, heeft dit gebouw uit 1970 al sinds 30-12-2019 de status ‘sloopvergunning verleend’. Geeft de BAG-plug-in geen waarschuwing als je een pand met die status wilt importeren. Of zo’n oud pand?
Vriendelijke groet, Alphensebezorger.
Sander H (2020-05-19 15:54:59+00:00): Zie niet zo 123 hoe dit heeft kunnen gebeuren.
De plugin zou die niet hebben moeten meenemen. Heb 'm weer verwijderd.

Ouderdom van panden is geen goede maatstaf helaas. Gemeenten zijn nog steeds bezig panden uit elkaar te trekken en ontbrekende panden aan het toevoegen met oude bouwjaren.
Alan Bragg (2021-06-25 10:59:24+00:00): A crossing was added at the intersection of a street and a driveway. I believe this was in error.
sawhs (2021-06-25 13:20:09+00:00): Hi,

Thank you for reviewing my changeset and correcting the edit.
Apologies for the incorrect "highway=crossing" tag.
It's an honest mistake from my end, I'll ensure not to repeat such errors going forward.
Looking forward to learn more from you!

Regards,
sawhs
Alan Bragg (2021-06-25 20:23:57+00:00): The problem was caused by a mapper who incorrectly added a footway on top of a road when trying to create a long hiking trail. Adding a "crossing" to an intersection with a footway was a correct action on your part.
tanish1980 (2020-04-24 09:50:32+00:00): Try to draw the ponds, assets, etc through the footprints.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84039929
Wright One (2020-05-06 05:11:03+00:00): 永寧里公廁編號應該係YL-51
MILKOFF (2020-04-24 06:33:21+00:00): Открытие небольшого одноэтажного павильйона с магазинами.
Mary Joice (2020-04-24 06:32:01+00:00): #COVID-19
#XylemWatermark2020
olo81 (2020-06-20 01:43:42+00:00): Przy jeziorze Rogoźnik dwa oznaczyłeś ścieżki jako highway=footway 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:highway=footway?uselang=pl
Byłem tam i nie są to zagospodarowane ciągi piesze tylko ścieżki leśne które oznaczamy  highway=path
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:highway=path?uselang=pl
C2oc4 (2020-06-29 06:42:04+00:00): oki w takim razie źle to oznaczyłem mój błąd
user_5359 (2020-04-24 09:41:02+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
olo81 (2020-06-20 01:04:09+00:00): Sprawdziłem na mapach topograficznych geoportalu z 1992/2004r oraz na mapie z lat 60 zaznaczone przez ciebie źródła i tylko mapa z lat 60 ma naniesione 8 sztuk i w innych miejscach niż te zanaczone przez ciebie.  Podobnie  przebieg drogi którą naniosłeś po włączeniu  skaningu laserowego ISOK ( ukształtowanie terenu ) jest  nierealny.  Nie wiem jakie są źródła tych edycji ale wprowadzają zamieszanie, najgorsze że trudne do weryfikacji. 
Zauważyłem też że bardzo często dajesz też  na początku rowu melioracyjnego źródło, może to wynika z niezrozumienia czym jest źródło? 
Pod linkiem opis źródła: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:natural=spring?uselang=pl

Jeśli czegoś nie jesteś pewien zapytaj na forum, na pewno ktoś pomoże. 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=23
zuicz (2020-06-23 20:17:39+00:00): Oprócz źródeł, wszędzie dodałeś brody. Pewnie wynika to z faktu, że edytor iD automatycznie łączy punkty na ścieżce i cieku tworząc bród, jednak nie jest to poprawne tagowanie.
No chyba, że brody faktycznie tam są.
C2oc4 (2020-06-29 06:44:54+00:00): bród czyli przejście przez wodę? źródła są możesz iść zobaczyć, że woda jest "wybijana" z ziemi
olo81 (2020-06-30 12:38:50+00:00): Źródła są ale czy taka ilość jaką zaznaczyłeś? czy ich lokalizacja jest poprawnie naniesiona? 
Dlaczego na innych mapach jest ich dużo mniej?
C2oc4 (2020-06-30 18:12:22+00:00): organoleptycznie powinno się zgadzać
tanish1980 (2020-04-25 12:32:22+00:00): Good work ! please keep going..
Please be careful while drawing the ponds, assets it would be better if we draw on the footprints it will look good.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84042379
aachso (2020-04-26 01:00:00+00:00): Kannst du noch oneway:bicycle=no hinzufügen?
aachso (2020-04-26 00:54:19+00:00): Ist die Straße nicht für Kfz freigegeben?
nevw (2020-04-25 11:40:22+00:00): Hi
I think the Brisbane River was probably tagged correctly before your change, though either method seems acceptable. I would try to make the tagging consistent along the lower part of the river with how others have mapped it.  This might be a topic to raise in the talk.au newsgroup if you wish to clarify. I find the various methods of tagging waterways a bit unclear though not too disparate
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway?uselang=en-AU
Coppertine (2020-04-25 11:44:13+00:00): Currently, it was actually a tagging warning shown on the OSM editor I only fixed it to what's recommended. You can initiate a topic on my behalf if you like.
nevw (2020-04-25 11:55:51+00:00): Ok, thanks. I am not familiar with iD.
Many rivers I have mapped have the centreline mapped in addition to the riverbank and in that case it makes more sense to have riverbank tagged as such, but I don’t see the centre line mapped here. I am using my phone and not a computer with an editor so may be an incomplete view. I won’t raise the issue on the newsgroup as there is a lot of info on the wiki, though I do find this subject uncertain.
dvyasha (2020-04-24 07:21:21+00:00): Created service roads
Wright One (2020-08-20 17:21:31+00:00): 你將新界嘅公廁編號搞錯晒喇

公廁編號係依據廁所水牌所示，而非食環署網頁公廁清單排序

有關新界公廁編號大全，可參閱區域市政局文件:

https://www.facebook.com/pg/OpenBigHK/photos/?tab=album&album_id=2291659901137869
SomeoneElse (2020-04-25 17:43:49+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Are you sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5892630021/history and the other end really is "foot=permissive"?  My recollection (based on walking and cycling between Sand Hutton and Upper Helmsley) is that it's only used for private access to the woodland here, none of which is public.
Best Regards,
Andy
TheNet1996 (2020-04-25 07:38:15+00:00): Hallo Christoph,
kannst du bitte den Namen der Liroschule nochmal prüfen? 
Danke & Grüße aus Augsburg
Mike
TheNet1996 (2020-05-02 07:45:56+00:00): Hallo,
ich habe es nun selbst korrigiert:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84508829
Danke & Grüße
Mike
David Crochet (2020-04-24 07:36:56+00:00): Bonjour
Merci pour ces premières contributions. N'hésitez pas à continuer