piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:47+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 18:14:54+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 (2022-07-10 12:14:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123429454 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some POI additions, some of which at least are based on Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6130 and https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=15458291 .
trial (2022-04-10 10:38:24+00:00): According to IGN Ortho, 
with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/997767691, cars are running over pedestrians? :-( Die Verbesserung braucht noch Verbesserungen, oder?
EnumMapper (2022-04-07 22:47:06+00:00): the bbox is big but it's better to add all the stations at once
Herman Lee (2022-04-08 05:58:53+00:00): here I suggest that it's no need to create such large relation since more conflicts on relation will happen without downloading the whole relation with minor change. AND the name change to "Z164次列车：上海 -> 拉萨" is better.
我个人不建议引入如此大的车次关系，有的时候很容易在编辑的时候会引起版本冲突，尤其是在没有下载整个成员的时候，并且，name换成“Z164次列车：上海 -> 拉萨”可能更好一点
EnumMapper (2022-04-08 11:49:15+00:00): 个人感觉不能因为容易产生冲突就不添加车次关系（最长的火车关系目前应该是北京到莫斯科 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2950595）我明白容易产生冲突，我在编辑此关系时也遇到过，通常我会撤销我的编辑再从新编辑。分多个小修改集可能会减少冲突机会，例如创建这个关系我就用了近60个修改集。

确实wiki上也推荐”上海 -> 拉萨“ 我会修改一下
EnumMapper (2022-04-08 11:49:41+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2950595
Herman Lee (2022-04-09 02:31:36+00:00): 并不是您编辑的时候产生问题，是在后面别人编辑的时候会产生问题。
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-07 22:46:58+00:00): Glazebrook Drive
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:48+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.
user_6110846 (2022-11-10 11:59:43+00:00): your translations contain errors

there are rules for writing Ukrainian names in Italian https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traslitterazione_scientifica_del_cirillico
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:39+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 18:23:22+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.
SekeRob (2022-04-08 15:21:48+00:00): Hi,

Is your mapper name referring to how you enter data into OSM... by "import" or machine tracing? You may want to check the buildings afterwards as you've left several nonsensical self-intersection nodes. Red flags in OSM Inpector and no rendering with the affected objects.

ciao
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:38+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 18:21:36+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 18:23:53+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 18:20:03+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 18:20:18+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 18:15:14+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 18:22:46+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 18:21:18+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.
Dimitar155 (2022-04-08 08:05:24+00:00): Hello TheJAwesome1,

Thanks for fixing my apparent mistake. Why did you remove https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13734956? It seems to be correct.

Best regards,
Dimitar
TheJAwesome1 (2022-04-08 18:50:35+00:00): Hello! I updated the geometry to reflect the dual carriageway intersection seen in the most recent Maxar Premium and Esri imagery. I also updated the turn restrictions accordingly to prevent right turns outside of the existing link roads and added oneway tags to prevent routing onto the incorrect roads. Let me know what you think of this update and thanks for reaching out!
Dimitar155 (2022-04-08 19:29:28+00:00): The road layout for the minor road is fine. I'm couldn't see the second carriageway on Maxar nor on Esri. I've checked the press releases of the road agency and I couldn't find any mentions of repair works on this section (there are some works on other sections of II-49). I've removed the second way for the main road since. I've also added the missing turn restrictions (iD has a neat tool that allows you to easily view and add them).
TheJAwesome1 (2022-04-11 15:59:43+00:00): Looks great! Thank you for your assistance figuring out the modeling here.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:24:24+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 18:23:54+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.
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-15 22:22:46+00:00): You clearly didn't know what sources i used where accepted, i didn't copy anything in Canada from Google or any other non-open data source. Where i said York Region Open Data, Brampton Open Data etc., that is what it is called and clearly isn't Google, see York Region's Open Data Licence and for Brampton This data could be made available through Open Data.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-10 12:15:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123429454 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some POI additions, some of which at least are based on Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6130 and https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=15458291 .
MxxCon (2022-04-08 02:21:13+00:00): Hello.
Typical NYC sidewalk with concrete blocks/tiles can be more accurately tagged as "concrete:plates" 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119446907
Exasecond (2022-04-09 15:58:30+00:00): Please open a pull request or issue with StreetComplete if you want to contributors to have more specific options available for micromap tagging.
https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete
MxxCon (2022-04-09 16:03:15+00:00): It is already available in StreetComplete
Glassman (2022-04-09 17:53:37+00:00): #TIP: Try not to connect features like parks to roads. Making changes to either is much more difficult with the nodes connected. And I know the OSM editor is just trying to help ;)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119446924
mrpulley (2025-01-03 23:25:27+00:00): 331018810, 331018825 maxspeed 80 (previously 90, not 100)
391177425, 391177437 maxspeed 90 (not 100)
391177470 central section maxspeed is correct (100), northern section (new way 1348245609) is maxspeed 80, southern section (new way 1348245613) is maxspeed 90
Updated at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160948381
adrianojbr (2022-04-08 18:31:32+00:00): Olá! Não há necessidade adicionar o nome da cidade nos comércios e similares. Além disso, aproveitei a nota enviada a alterei a localização do ponto da pousada no mapa. Abraço!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:53+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 18:12:53+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 18:23:04+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_15517401 (2022-04-08 00:31:26+00:00): Não é praça. É uma escola.
Langlaeufer (2026-01-17 12:47:52+00:00): Du hast hier einen Teil vom Teil vom Trentelmoorweg (32- 38) als living_street eingetragen (verkehrsberuhigt) aber maxspeed=30 und maxspeed:type DE:zone30 stehen gelassen? handelt es sich wirklich um eine Verkehrsberuhigte Zone?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:48+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 18:21:56+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 18:20:07+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.
MxxCon (2022-04-08 02:32:12+00:00): Why did you remove bike lane tagging here?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119447689
TheBestIdea (2022-04-18 19:53:40+00:00): Hi Mxx,

Sorry for the delay in responding. 
I removed the bike tags from way 970983937 (the furtherest west highway=residential part of Shore Parkway) because it is just to the west of where the bike lane goes up onto the sidewalk (via way 970983936) and continues west towards Bay Parkway on way 970983935 (a bicycle=designated sidewalk). You can see the point where that happens right here: https://goo.gl/maps/qXfsCrVQkXWimigaA
Let me know if that makes sense.
All the best,
Brandon
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:17+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 18:23:21+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 18:23:42+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.
raphaelmirc (2022-04-09 12:30:26+00:00): Bom dia!

Por favor inserir nos comentários o que foi mapeado pra facilitar possível consulta!

abraço,

Raphaelmirc
user_15517401 (2022-04-09 17:55:18+00:00): Olá, Raphael! 
Esta descrição é padronizada aqui no OSM? Ou basta uma mais detalhada?
Muito obrigada! Abraço!
raphaelmirc (2022-04-12 13:50:12+00:00): Bom Dia!

Entendi outra coisa no seu comentário..  

Mais de qualquer forma você pode simplificar o comentário como por exemplo. 

" Inclusão de Escola no Bairro tal ou  mapeamento de Escola municipal no bairro tal.

Mesmo assim obrigado por seu mapeamento no OSM.

Abração!

Raphaelmirc
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:53+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 18:15:25+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 18:19:15+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.
nilloc29 (2026-03-23 08:34:19+00:00): I am working on road mapping with LIDAR on this forest. The Entiat area is all I have left for my first pass. This area has so many closed roads that I am considering an import. First I need to clean up what already exists. 

I have observed a lot of trails mapped in this area that I doubt exist on the ground. Many are abandoned roads that I would like to map as such but indicate that they could be bushwhacked. I live nearby so I can ground truth by looking for an informal trail tread. 

I am curious about the origin of the trails you mapped. I see that you added quite a few. The ground truthing will keep me busy this year but any context you can give me would be of great help, especially for trails not indicating abandoned roads. I am very curious why dozer lines were mapped as trails. One "trail" I ground truthed in the area that someone else name the dinkelman canyon trail, did not have any visible tread at road crossings.

From working for the USFS for quite a while I know that motorbikes cause a lot of damage. I am curious if some of what you mapped were illegal motorbike routes. I imagine those should be discouraged but I will check with the OSM slack if I am unsure how to proceed.
ivanbranco (2022-04-08 16:06:29+00:00): Hi CHAINDER19,

just to let you know: the previous wikidata code was correct. The new one you added redirects to the old one, so it's a useless extra step.

Good mapping
Frans S (2022-04-21 13:49:37+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not always accurate mapped and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention on these points:
You mapped a number of round buildings. 
Please take a good look to the shadow if you think it is a round building. The shadow will follow the rounding of the building. When the shadow is straight, the building is rectangular. Also buildings with a somewhat rounded roofcorners needs to be mapped as rectangular.



Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119447963
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:55+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 18:19:07+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 18:22:29+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.
fkv (2022-04-08 06:07:02+00:00): Ich habe nichts dagegen, wenn du Kollateralschäden behebst, die bei einem Revert entstanden sind. Z.B. layer=1 auf Way 504449885 - Asche auf mein Haupt, dass ich das nicht selber gemacht habe. Bei manchem bin ich mir nicht sicher bzw. es kann sich seit meinem letzten Besuch geändert haben (maxspeed=40, surface=compacted vs. fine_gravel). Manche deiner Änderungen sind aber einfach falsch: lanes=1 ist irreführend bei einer 5 m breiten Straße, wo Gegenverkehr nirgends ein Problem ist. Und was du dir bei waterway=tube gedacht hast (Ways 975129574, 975129576) bleibt ein Mysterium. Dieses Tag hat nicht mal eine Wikiseite. Bei Way 975129574 vermute ich nach Geländemodell und Orthofoto, dass dort überhaupt eine Brücke ist.
philippec (2022-04-08 11:05:21+00:00): Ronse stadhuis AED
ik begrijp de beschrijving niet.
De foto is ook niet nuttig voor wie de plaats niet kent.
Het is toch buiten, veronderstel ik.
vjyblauw (2022-04-08 11:26:50+00:00): buiten, onder buiding passage voetgangers zone tussen parking en grote markt
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:36+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.
gusfak (2022-06-06 15:29:31+00:00): Have you mapped the stream more from imagery or the USGS topographic map?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:40+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.
A67-A67 (2022-04-10 19:32:04+00:00): In deze wijziging wordt de waterstructuur beschadigd door het verwijderen van correct ingetekende waterwegen. Daarom teruggedraaid.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:33+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.
Glassman (2022-04-09 17:59:51+00:00): #TIP: When sidewalks go under roofs - I just disconnect the roof section, tag it as building=roof and layer=1. There is also a covered tag for sidewalks but this looked like a roof. 

Also - The building is tagged as a church - can you add the denomination?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119448316
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:36+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 18:21:32+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.