piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frans S (2022-04-06 12:50:25+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:
C: multiple buildings drawn as 1 building. Each building needs to be mapped individually.
Tag highways in according to the wiki
Please use the tag residential for all roads within urban areas. Connecting roads can be tagged as unclassified.
Please read this wiki about tagging highways in African Countries.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa#Typology_of_Road_Network_in_African_countries




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/119215371
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-03 17:14:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119272453 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG, reverting some unlikely changes to the Bahamas.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5873 .
martianfreeloader (2022-08-08 17:03:30+00:00): Hi there, it seems you've been mapping a lot of stuff using outdated aerial imagery; thereby destroying edits that I made where I used newer imagery. For example you removed this new building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186909634 that I had added and instead you re-created buildings that do not exist anymore, like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1047275934
martianfreeloader (2022-11-22 21:28:12+00:00): I've tried to fix it.
Jonas6 (2022-04-01 19:47:05+00:00): GoMap somehow reverted my commit msg just when submitting. This change adds the conditional speed limit in front of the Kindergarten, which was installed sometime in the last 2 years. I hope I didn’t break anything when I split they way into 2.
AntMadeira (2022-04-02 19:26:43+00:00): Olá, The Sparta.
Na estrada de serviço que alteraste no posto de combustível da Maceira, convém referir que o -1 representa um nível inferior. Neste caso, a cobertura já estava com o nível 1, logo, a estrada de serviço não deve, nem precisa de levar um nível diferente do 0, que é o padrão.

Cumprimentos,
António.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-03 17:14:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119272453 where the changeset comment is: Following complaints to the DWG, reverting some unlikely changes to the Bahamas.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5873 .
sander79 (2022-04-06 14:31:22+00:00): zou je aub geen footway (als stoep) willen intekenen wanneer deze nabij eenstraat ligt. Daarvoor gebruik je de tag sidewalk
Frans S (2022-04-02 12:55:36+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here.
Please tag buildings just as building=yes. ( all kind of buildings)
This is the standard tag for HOT projects.
Best regards and keep mapping
Hezza Fezza (2022-05-09 22:50:31+00:00): You may add landuse=construction!
DiogoBaptista98 (2022-04-02 15:57:00+00:00): Obrigado pela tua edição, porém penso que quando aumentaste o edifício do restaurante acabaste por destruir a area pedonal da doca da marinha que já não está a ser renderizada, consegues corrigir ou poderei faze-lo? Cumprimentos e boas edições.
Filohipo (2022-04-03 01:29:50+00:00): Parte do restaurante está sobre a Doca da Marinha. Eu não destruí nada. A area pedonal continua lá. Simplesmente colocaste o restaurante numa relação com a zona pedonal e ao aumentar o restaurante para as dimensões reais, este saiu fora da zona pedonal e baralhou o render.
DiogoBaptista98 (2022-04-03 03:03:06+00:00): Quando referi destruir foi precisamente esse baralhar o render de que falas, a shape ficou incorrecta e não estava a conseguir ser lida pelo sistema após teres expandido o restaurante, mas já foi corrigido e agradeço por tal. Boas edições
eggie (2022-04-02 06:06:59+00:00): Dag Liam  Ooit buiten Nederland begonnen meyt mappen, maar nog geen welkomstmail ontvangen.. Bij deze alsnog Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback..  Vlakken water horen eigenlijk nethes ingebed te worden in de landuse. Dus geen water op landuse..  In bossen krijg je dan zwemmende bomen.
Voor de specificatie heb je  water=sloot gebruikt.
We gebruiken vaste in de Wiki afgesproken formats. Bv water=ditch .
Voor sloten is eigenlijk geen betere te vinden.
sloot komt in het Engels trouwens wel voor, maar dan uit het Zuidafrikaans. 
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=119217254

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-04-02 06:35:36+00:00): Zichzelf kruisende 'wegen' hersteld  
Al die stukken sloot heb ik samengevoegd en netjes laten aansluiten aan de landuse..  
Daar zijn truukjes voor.
.. sloot omgezet naar ditch...  intermittent verwijderd. 
Mapse,
eggie
MxxCon (2022-04-02 03:17:03+00:00): Hello.
Could you please elaborate why did you delete existing sidewalk and properly mapped crosswalk and instead drew a new one?

Generally it's best edit and update existing features rather than delete and recreate. That way you preserve history of that object and ability to properly revert if necessary.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119217384
zhang-alvin (2022-04-02 03:47:09+00:00): Ah, I see. Apologies. Deleting and remaking the crosswalk was the fastest way I could think of integrating the curb points. The deleted sidewalk ... was unintentional. I will rollback the changes and use line splits instead.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119217384
zhang-alvin (2022-04-04 20:49:58+00:00): Following up, I've given Revert UI a shot, (http://revert.osmz.ru/6257) and it wasn't successful in doing the revert. I'm also having trouble with JOSM's reverter plugin in that I don't see the revert option. I've pinged #newbie on openmaps slack, and awaiting response.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119217384
Frans S (2022-04-21 08:32:47+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:
A: buildings not always accurately drawn. Please pay more attention on following the outlines of a building (with extentions)
E: Rectangular Buildings not squared.They are mostly strickt 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/119217550
xkillah (2022-04-02 10:35:05+00:00): Опубликованный маршрут автобуса 230 сильно отличается от этого. Это какой-то промежуточный вариант?
Dinamik (2022-04-02 22:20:03+00:00): Проверьте, пожалуйста, сейчас: должно было стать точнее.
xkillah (2022-04-03 12:19:20+00:00): 👍
ygcgjp5 (2022-06-10 08:25:49+00:00): ar tikrai reikia visą taką dabar pažymėt kaip construction? pvz. prie molo dar dabar jokie darbai nevyksta, bet naviguoti šiuo taku nebegalima, nes jis pažymėtas kaip construction...
PovilasDew (2022-06-11 09:26:18+00:00): Ok, galima pataisyti. Jau planavau kai kur jau pataisyt.
PovilasDew (2022-06-11 09:33:44+00:00): Pataisyta.

Atsiranda dviračių tako kontūrai tarp Dainų slėnio ir Breslaujos g., tai iš karto pažymėjau, kad done (galima ginčytis)

Ten kur iš vis niekas dar nerausta, gražinu situaciją prieš remontą, palikau atkarpą, kuris taip ir liks bendru pėsčiųjų/dviračių taku. Paskui išryškėjus tako kontūrams kitose atkarpose bus galima pažymėti kaip dviračių taką

Kitur kol kas pažymėjau kaip construction, t.y. kur tiesiog iškasta ir viskas.
ygcgjp5 (2022-06-11 15:50:22+00:00): super, ačiū!
Frans S (2022-04-04 09:27:56+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here.
We have a different idea how to tag a trace of a path/road
Here I tagged  traces as a path due to the width (appr 1 mtr wide) and vo view of traces of 4 wheel cars.
Taken into account that most traffic is by foot, motorbikes and cattle
Please measure the width of a trace before tagging it.
How to measure the width of a trace:

Zoom in as far as possible and draw a line between the shoulders of a trace and click
ctr +shift+M to shows measurements
click on the line between the nodes and you get the width.
Best regards
ps   I altered the tagging again.
Trevor_1 (2022-04-01 22:08:18+00:00): *tertiary
RisbjergAuto (2022-04-01 22:23:24+00:00): Ser rigtigt ud
Frans S (2022-05-24 13:27:33+00:00): Hello
Thanks for mapping here.
I noticed that you often map a walled area with a small building on it as a 1 building. Mostly they are walled courtyards,
Do not map them anyhow. Only buildings.
You can recognize these courtyards by the shadow it gives, both on the outside and on the opposite of the walls.
Best regards
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-10 12:14:40+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 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-10 12:14:48+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 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-10 12:11:51+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 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-10 12:14:11+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 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-10 12:15:18+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 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-04-20 14:19:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 150265070, 150261530, 150261385, 150261427, 150261374, 150261398, 150261463, 150262164, 150264883, 150261443, 150265293, 150265518, 150263711, 150261692, 150263544, 150263148, 150264695, 150263349, 150262918, 150264472, 150264284, 150261551, 150264090, 150262527, 150262687, 150263890, 150261413, 150261488, 150261509 where the changeset comment is: No reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15936 , so we've taken a guess at what was likely derived from Google Earth (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149290548 admits to that use)
habi (2025-08-11 06:51:35+00:00): Ciao WAM
Du hast hier den Seilbahnmasten zusätzlich zur schon erfassten `ref`-Nummer den Namen `Seilbahnmast $ref` gegeben.
Das ist nicht sinnvoll, ich habe diese Namen wieder entfernt.
Liebe Grüsse aus Bern,
habi
ma-rt-in (2022-04-02 16:50:11+00:00): Hallo,

bitte zukünftig deine Änderungen aussagekräftiger kommentieren ;)

vg
ma-rt-in (2022-04-02 17:06:09+00:00): Des Weiteren: Warum hast du an Node  1083488327 aus highway=proposed => =motorway_junction gemacht?
So lange das nix fertig gebaut wurde ist der geplant Status noch richtig.
Das gleich gilt auf für die anderen Abfahrten, welche du auch teils neu gesetzt hast, weg vom Abzweig.
julcnx (2022-04-02 03:19:05+00:00): Hi Otaru. I have updated the residential tag to apartments to reflect the global wiki valid values https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:residential
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119222301
DUGA (2022-04-10 23:30:13+00:00): Excuse me? What is the turning circle here???

It is a pedestrian area.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1804185781/history#map=19/39.39439/-76.60493
عثمان ਉਸਮਾਨ bgo_eiu (2022-04-11 21:58:54+00:00): I had tagged it as being for foot and not motor vehicles, but I didn't realize turning circles couldn't be mapped as pedestrian ways, my bad
JassKurn (2022-04-02 12:32:20+00:00): hi, you've left the reference key on the now disused post box. I assume the reference key can only apply to a functioning post box and needs to be removed from the disused box?
Frans S (2022-04-06 11:31:13+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:


A: buildings not always accurately drawn. Please pay more attention on following the outlines of a building (with extentions)
E: Rectangular Buildings not always squared. They are mostly strickt rectangular.
Buildings should be tagged as building=yes. Nothing else.
Please keep yourself to the mapping requirements.  Buildings only.
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/119223129
Frans S (2022-04-10 08:49:46+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:
Buildings should be mapped as building=yes.  not as building=house
Fences are no part of the project. please ignore them



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/119223270
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
tonyf1 (2022-04-09 04:20:26+00:00): shared path sign https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.987075950296&lng=145.15444414202&z=17&pKey=481297156525035&focus=photo&x=0.43087651002785543&y=0.47421908728879897&zoom=0.8864569083447333

If I don't hear from you, I will revert
HighRouleur (2022-04-09 10:26:42+00:00): Mapillary data noted. I did not see signage heading east along Rivergum Place hence the change.
tonyf1 (2022-05-15 01:03:49+00:00): see Changeset #120996687
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
richter_fn (2022-04-02 04:36:10+00:00): См. https://www.osm.org/changeset/94684752
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:10:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
tonyf1 (2022-04-08 21:37:01+00:00): https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=315103899974975&lat=-37.982287096651&lng=145.14649757923&z=17.712627509672352&focus=photo appears to show painted shared way heading north?
tonyf1 (2022-04-09 02:08:57+00:00): Yes painted markings and signs indicate a shared path. Mapillary is processing now and will be available soon. If I don't hear from you, I will revert.
tonyf1 (2022-04-09 06:27:30+00:00): https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/tonyf1?lat=-37.982454967277&lng=145.14651540801&z=17&pKey=3146850278920298&focus=photo sign and path markings looking north
https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/tonyf1?lat=-37.97877859999999&lng=145.1471173&z=18.56392192351324&pKey=135256952382880&focus=photo sign looking back south
HighRouleur (2022-04-09 09:56:03+00:00): I visited this location today after your initial link to Mapillary. The road markings heading north only last about 20-30m, which leads me to believe that perhaps that it intended to only go as far as way 95886163 which is also mapped as a shared path. There is definitely no shared path beyond the bus stop as there is only footways.
tonyf1 (2022-04-09 13:49:27+00:00): The photo sequence I supplied shows shared path signage at least as far as 651 Springvale Rd, near Caravan Court.
tonyf1 (2022-04-09 21:14:44+00:00): The map view cache in Mapillary may be old. You can still step through the photo sequence.
tonyf1 (2022-04-10 06:56:42+00:00): Hi Sebastian, its asking a bit much for you to comment when you can't yet view the Mapillary tracks in map view. There are 19 photos in the Springvale Rd set and 9 in the Jackson Rd set. Please let me know when you have worked out which photos are where and then we can continue the discussion
tonyf1 (2022-05-15 00:59:08+00:00): see Changeset #120996630
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:07:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 06:26:13+00:00): Can you please advise on the source for this street name?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 07:21:18+00:00): What is the source for this data?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 06:24:24+00:00): Can you please advise on the source for this street name?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 06:24:13+00:00): Can you please advise on the source for this street name?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:34:45+00:00): What is the source you are using for these street names?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 18:58:57+00:00): City of Alice Springs property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:34:09+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 07:22:34+00:00): What is the source for this road name?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 18:59:11+00:00): City of Alice Springs property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:33:59+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 06:23:40+00:00): Can you please advise on the source for this street name?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 18:59:18+00:00): City of Alice Springs property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:36:56+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:09:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 05:26:24+00:00): What source did you use for this data?
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-04 18:59:23+00:00): City of Alice Springs property records
tastrax (2022-04-04 22:33:43+00:00): Please point us to the website that you used so we can identify if the licence for the data is compatible with OpenStreetMap.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-04 23:08:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119319346 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/5881 and previous blocks.
tastrax (2022-04-02 06:23:21+00:00): Can you please advise on the source for this street name?