piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
woodpeck_repair (2016-12-20 23:09:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44553573 where the changeset comment is: some fixes related to clean-up after accidental upload of 'lanelet' data to OSM. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44184590 for discussion.
woodpeck_repair (2016-12-20 23:09:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44553573 where the changeset comment is: some fixes related to clean-up after accidental upload of 'lanelet' data to OSM. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44184590 for discussion.
samely (2017-01-06 14:57:53+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
samely (2017-01-06 14:58:08+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
woodpeck_repair (2016-12-20 23:09:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44553573 where the changeset comment is: some fixes related to clean-up after accidental upload of 'lanelet' data to OSM. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44184590 for discussion.
samely (2017-01-06 14:56:36+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
samely (2017-01-06 14:59:15+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
samely (2017-01-06 14:57:35+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
Carnildo (2016-12-15 09:32:19+00:00): Thanks for updating these roads.

If a road is entirely closed to heavy-truck traffic, you can indicate that by adding a tag of "hgv" with a value of "no"; if it's closed except for local deliveries, you'd use a value of "destination".

The iD editor doesn't have a premade template for adding this, so you'll need to use the "all tags" section of the editor panel.
Tomas Straupis (2016-12-14 22:06:04+00:00): 44408958
mides (2017-01-10 07:01:19+00:00): Bonjour,
Le tag source ne devrait être utilisé que pour indiquer la source des données permettant de vérifier l'exactitude de celles-ci. Comment peut on savoir qu'il y a une interdiction de tourner sur une orthophoto ?
gileri (2017-01-10 08:13:27+00:00): Bonjour mides,

Hors changement sur le terrain, les flèches au sol indiquent clairement l'interdiction de tourner à droite depuis les 2 voies à gauche :

https://framapic.org/rwVcXfUhR2GZ/s5YJDPniejmq.png
mides (2017-01-10 11:27:40+00:00): "Hors changement sur le terrain" et c'est la réalité du terrain qui prime, non ?
gileri (2017-01-10 18:21:51+00:00): En effet. En l'état, la configuration des voies présente sur OSM correspond aux Orthophotos, et à mes souvenirs lorsque j'y suis passé la dernière fois (il y a moins de 2 mois).

Si les voies ont été modifiées récemment je t'invites à les corriger, sinon j'ai du mal à comprendre ce qui ne va pas dans ce changeset.
mides (2017-01-10 18:46:36+00:00): Excellente réponse de ta part, je ne m'attendais pas à moins ! +1
gileri (2017-01-10 21:23:51+00:00): Ça m'a motivé pour y aller faire un tour, voici une photo d'aujourd'hui :

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ar87uSCtEErJnUTMk_wxhQ
mides (2017-01-10 21:35:08+00:00): Perfect !  Peut être juste monter un peu en ISO, au risque de se retrouver limite flou artistique. Bonne fin de soirée. ;)
gileri (2017-01-10 21:43:30+00:00): C'est pas possible sur l'application Android Mapillary, mais dans tous les cas mon appareil ne monte que jusqu'à 800, ça aurait pas fait de miracles (si je n'y étais pas déjà).

Bonne soirée également !
samely (2017-01-06 14:58:35+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
woodpeck_repair (2016-12-20 23:09:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44553573 where the changeset comment is: some fixes related to clean-up after accidental upload of 'lanelet' data to OSM. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44184590 for discussion.
samely (2017-01-06 14:56:32+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
samely (2017-01-06 14:56:59+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
Tomas Straupis (2016-12-14 22:06:26+00:00): 44409203
Tomas Straupis (2016-12-14 22:06:51+00:00): Reverting changeset and marking as intentional corruption of data.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-01-28 13:48:39+00:00): You meant internet_access=no at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2348384273/history - right? 

(I changed internet_access=non to internet_access=no)
SomeoneElse (2016-12-16 16:04:34+00:00): It would be really helpful here if the bounding box for two changes didn't include about a quarter of the planet.  That way local mappers can see what has been affected near them.
Best Regards,
Andy
samely (2016-12-16 19:46:21+00:00): Hi Andy
Thanks for notifying this since we realized that we are generating big bounding boxes using to-fix plugin. We are working on fixing this bug and tracking here https://github.com/JOSM/tofix/issues/74.
NonnEmilia (2017-02-27 13:48:28+00:00): Ciao, perché hai cancellato il bosco?
SomeoneElse (2016-12-14 23:17:51+00:00): Force-reverting some further objects based on google.cn sourced data in China
SomeoneElse_Revert (2016-12-15 01:06:31+00:00): Force-reverting some further objects based on google.cn sourced data in China
ParadoX_ZLWC (2016-12-15 04:41:21+00:00):  Please give me a list of deleted data in order to restore the Bing map. Thank you 
请给我一个删除数据的列表，以便在bing地图上恢复。谢谢。
SomeoneElse (2016-12-15 09:43:03+00:00): As mentioned by email, the list of changesets can be seen in the comment added to http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44403770 .
samely (2017-01-06 14:56:50+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
samely (2017-01-06 14:58:23+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
samely (2017-01-06 14:59:25+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
samely (2017-01-06 14:57:49+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
samely (2017-01-06 14:58:46+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
woodpeck_repair (2016-12-20 23:09:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44553573 where the changeset comment is: some fixes related to clean-up after accidental upload of 'lanelet' data to OSM. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44184590 for discussion.
samely (2017-01-06 14:58:50+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
omargibran (2016-12-16 15:36:26+00:00): Hello. Thanks a lot. Although I see Mexico in the orange square, it is not listed in the github link of countries. Are mexican highways being corrected? Cheers
samely (2016-12-16 19:36:50+00:00): Thanks for noticing this, actually changes were in Los Angeles and Japan and not in Mexico. However, thanks to your comment we realized that we are generating big bounding boxes that we are tracking here https://github.com/JOSM/tofix/issues/74
woodpeck_repair (2016-12-20 23:10:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44553573 where the changeset comment is: some fixes related to clean-up after accidental upload of 'lanelet' data to OSM. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44184590 for discussion.
samely (2017-01-06 14:56:04+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
aharvey (2019-03-06 23:23:57+00:00): Hi this is a public map, please don't upload your private bookmarks. I've reverted this change.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2016-12-15 01:08:22+00:00): Force-reverting some further objects based on google.cn sourced data in China
AkuAnakTimur (2016-12-15 08:10:06+00:00): Dear Mapbox team, thank you (and the rest of the team) for your effort to detect and fix OSM data.

However, I believe this special case may be a false positive. It's undeniable that I have mapped this place remotely, without ground truth.

I have edited this region based on my (self made) EU Sentinel-2 satellite composite and relying on Strava heatmap.

The said imagery can be viewed on Mapwarper: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40108966 - and it's obvious that the tertiary highway was cut off due to the reservoir.

Could you please have a look again and potentially revert any changes?
AkuAnakTimur (2016-12-15 08:10:45+00:00): Sorry, the Mapwarper link is http://www.mapwarper.net/maps/14521#Preview_Map_tab
yurasi (2016-12-15 21:53:07+00:00): Hi AkuAnakTimur.
Thanks for letting me know about this. I edited this highway based on Bing, where the part of this highway is clearly seen. In Mapwarper, when verified, I couldn't see the block very well. It would be great if you could let me know the recency of the imagery you have used. It would help me in understanding this better and rectifying the changeset if need be.
Thank you.
yurasi (2016-12-20 14:36:14+00:00): Thank you for the reply and such a clear explanation of the current scenario. It does appear that the road has been diverted from the reservoir. I've revert my changeset. Thank you for bringing this to our notice.
AkuAnakTimur (2016-12-21 04:40:49+00:00): You're welcome. Many thanks for your understanding.
dgitto (2016-12-15 07:37:23+00:00): Benvenuto in OSM, buon mapping.
JesseAKARaccoon (2021-06-10 07:33:31+00:00): Should this route really be here? This isn't a historical map, but a map of verifiable, present things. Parts of this railroad marked as "abandoned" in San Rafael have no physical presence whatsoever, and this route is clearly not used. It creates clutter on the map near many walkways and roads.

I'm gonna give the community a week to comment, otherwise I feel pretty justified in getting this off the Sausalito map, at least.
stevea (2021-06-10 08:17:23+00:00): Yes, this route really should be here.  (You asked).

An abandoned railway is quite often a "verifiable, present thing."  Some have physical presence, some have very little or none.  However, if you read our wiki, you'll discover that rail tends to leave very long-lasting influences on the landscape (sometimes for centuries) and the route, whether actual infrastructure (like embankments, tunnels, bridges, cuttings...) remain or not, the routes (even as you dismiss them as "historical") remain as important entities in the real world today.

No, you are going to leave these data in OSM, as they are part of a huge amount of railway=abandoned in both California (and Earth, too).  OSM has been mapping these for decades and will continue to map these into the future, this is established precedent in our project.

See https://wiki.osm.org/California/Railroads, (specifically, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/Railroads#Abandoned_lines)  and similar states (in the USA, using various countries around the world...).  Confirm for yourself that we who map such rail infrastructure are completely within well-established OSM practice and precedent.

Saying "I'm gonna give a week for comments..." (until you remove valid data?) is NOT well-established OSM practice.  Especially as I (the author) have replied.  So, thank you for notifying me of your intentions, but they are misguided.  Please refer to our wiki on the topic of abandoned rail, as while it CAN be contentious, (it has a history of it, in fact), it doesn't have to be.
JesseAKARaccoon (2021-06-14 08:43:29+00:00): No, you're right, it was wrong of me to consider deleting it, and -- while I wouldn't have deleted it without getting *some* feedback on the idea -- the way in which I asked about it was hasty and dismissive.

I apologize. I sometimes get a little too enthusiastic about making a map that matches on-the-ground reality.

I did read those links, thank you. I actually wish to suggest a different tagging for the parts in Sausalito, to make the map better match what I've seen.

The "abandoned" tag along much of the railroad means that parts of the railroad are still visible. But I've walked along 2 miles of it while seeing nothing of it. These parts have been entirely replaced with bike paths, parking lots, sidewalks, etc.

Would you agree that "razed" or "dismantled" could be a better tag for these parts that I verified as being razed and replaced with other structures?
JesseAKARaccoon (2021-06-14 08:57:12+00:00): I think part of my hastiness came from reading this at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway

"Overall, mapping such features is acceptable where some remains like embankments, remains of bridges, etc., remain, even if rails are gone. In locations where the railway has been replaced by new buildings and roads, the mapping of such features becomes out of scope for OpenStreetMap."

At the time, I was aware of this, but not aware of an active project to map abandoned railways. I thought it was a solid community guideline, rather than something over which there was considerable disagreement.

This whole thing makes me more aware that aspects of mapping standards that seem straightforward can still have a history or level of contention I might be unaware of.
stevea (2021-06-14 14:40:15+00:00): I'm OK with railway=razed where that is a "more accurate" tag than railway=abandoned.

But yes, you can see how it is easy to reach a conclusion that "OSM conventions" are absolute, when, at least in the case of "old rail," it's less clear.  This HAS led to contention (and appeared to have done so here, however briefly), but as we seem to be concluding, doesn't have to, as there are "somewhat better" tags to denote the often-rather-complex lifecycle of rail, which for decades or centuries, leave long-lasting effects on the land (in a cartographic sense).  Thanks for your open-minded approach to this, that's a big help!
felipeeugenio (2017-06-14 12:42:01+00:00): Hola.
Un locality es un lugar sin habitantes. por favor ver bien la wiki antes de hacer estos cambios. Ya lo corregí en todo caso, no hay drama
DePelos (2017-06-14 13:04:47+00:00): Hola Felipe. Tengo entendido que la definición de localidad varía según el país. Las Cruces pertenece a la comuna de El Tabo, así que no debieran tener la misma definición (de ciudad = comuna) Tengo casa en Las Cruces y he ido toda mi vida. Es localidad. Lo dejaré como dices. Tú leiste wiki, yo no. Saludos.
felipeeugenio (2017-06-14 13:28:36+00:00): Hola. Gracias por tu tiempo.
Te estás guiando por el significado de la palabra en Castellano. Estás en lo correcto, pero la wiki no funciona así. Localiy está definido como un lugar sin habitantes. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aplace%3Dlocality)
Saludos y gracias por los aportes. Yo he pasado varias veces por las cruces mapeando, pero si vives ahí tanto mejor.
saludos
majkaz (2016-12-15 09:48:51+00:00): Thanks for adding to the map. I have noticed that you have added several points several times - even though they already were on the map. Could you please try to check for it (for example the Berega church, school of nursing, mission hospital, St. mary's primary were all already there since 2014, you have added it here and in another changeset).
Some of the points have wrong tags - if you cannot find the correct one, please use a note instead, somebody will put it on the map correctly.
brublanc (2016-12-15 00:52:37+00:00): wrong comment, "added some buildings around on N Overton" is better
maraf24 (2016-12-15 08:06:27+00:00): To co robisz podpada pod https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

W tym przypadku nastąpiło uszkodzenie danych.
maraf24 (2016-12-15 08:13:05+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1854937266
fkdoo (2016-12-15 15:04:40+00:00): Nie moja wina że ktoś ustawił punkt nazwy miejscowości Łuków w obszarze budynku biblioteki i wtyczka BuildingTools uznała to jako zbędny punkt/duplikat i go usunęła :)  Ale tak czy inaczej od teraz będę sprawdzał dokładnie miejsca w których ją stosuję czy nie psuje jakichś danych bo łatwo jest to sprawdzać
maraf24 (2016-12-15 15:33:34+00:00): Dokładnie to jest Twoja wina:)
To jest tylko narzędzie, ma swoje błędy (i nie jest to jedyne przeoczenie twórcy wtyczki), stąd też trzeba albo je świetnie znać albo sprawdzać wszystkie budynki. Ja stosuję ją selektywnie, naraz tylko dla niedużej grupy budynków.
maraf24 (2016-12-15 15:53:32+00:00): Wtyczka integruje węzeł miejscowości z budynkiem, bo jest tam tag addr:postcode. A jest, bo tak to sobie w Polsce zrobiliśmy, mimo że na wiki pisze, że do tego powinniśmy użyć postal_code. Trudno więc winić autora wtyczki.
fkdoo (2016-12-15 17:05:45+00:00): Cel został osiągnięty. Pomijając ten jeden błąd, który łatwo został poprawiony wtyczka poprawnie usunęła kilkadziesiąt duplikatów adresów i przypisała kilkadziesiąt adresów do budynków. 
Skoro ma być postal_code w nazwach obszarów (jak miasto Łuków) a nie addr:code (które ma być do budynków) to jest to wina tego kto wstawia addr:postcode zamiast postal_code do punkatów obszarów :) 
Sprawdziłem przed chwilą i jeśli jest postal_code przypisany do punktu obszaru (jak miasto Łuków) to narzędzie poprawnie to interpretuje i nie przypisuje nazwy Łuków do żadnego budynku ani nie usuwa takiego punktu.
Jeżeli ktoś nie stosuje się do wiki i używa niepoprawnych tagów postal_code do obszaru to jak to narzędzie ma poprawnie odzielać budynek lub obszaru? 
To już nie mój problem że w Polsce nie stosuje się poprawnego tagowania z wiki. Może jeszcze ja mam to tagowanie zmieniać :)
samely (2017-01-06 14:58:15+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
samely (2017-01-06 14:59:02+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
woodpeck_repair (2016-12-16 20:49:28+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 44151319, 44105238, 44127540, 44117498, 44095323, 44090371, 44115857, 44142301, 44115747, 44095990, 44076764, 44151536, 44103719, 44076948, 44086754, 44142057, 44077143, 44088709, 44090031, 44117920, 44147496, 44148457, 44116945, 44089731, 44117231, 44160662, 44151194, 44103294, 44162807, 44049218, 44146868, 44120379, 44086463, 44105435, 44118548, 44075180, 44095678, 44139231, 44127700, 44119854, 44076363, 44139511, 44149374, 44120597, 44117738, 44085388, 44049801, 44076535, 44160883, 44118030, 44149188, 44159984, 44147074, 44119479, 44147291, 44118907, 44127096, 44149593, 44139786, 44150655.
samely (2017-01-06 14:59:19+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
samely (2017-01-06 14:57:39+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
woodpeck_repair (2016-12-20 23:09:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 44553573 where the changeset comment is: some fixes related to clean-up after accidental upload of 'lanelet' data to OSM. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44184590 for discussion.
majkaz (2016-12-15 09:24:02+00:00): Thank you for adding to the map.
Some of the points were already mapped for some years - could you please try to check for it (for example the church, the orphanage, the school of nursing).
And please, try to use correct tags and if you cannot find the right one, use a simple note instead.

I have already deleted the duplicates in changeset 44418169.
samely (2017-01-06 14:57:04+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
samely (2017-01-06 14:56:18+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
mavl (2016-12-15 11:48:17+00:00): Здравствуйте. Ваши тестовые пакеты правок не содержат полезных данных. Также они причиняют ущерб данным OpenStreetMap. Пожалуйста, остановите ваши тренировки.  
Добавляйте только такие объекты, которые существуют на местности.
d1g (2016-12-19 07:02:20+00:00): Обратите внимание у нас есть специальная база для тренировок и обкатки программ:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sandbox_for_editing

У Кремля (в центре города), которым все пользуются тестовые правки делать точно моветон.
samely (2017-01-06 14:57:21+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
samely (2017-01-06 14:56:23+00:00): woodpeck, thanks for helping to repair this area and for considering my edits, I will take a look so I can contribute to improving this area.
SomeoneElse (2016-12-16 19:30:25+00:00): Just checking - does http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/206654 make any sense now?  My recollection was when I added that note that was a service road running through where the Travelodge building was - is that wrong, and the second access is into what OSM has as the Little Chef and Subway (and is it still a Little Chef, given that so many of them have been repurposed)?
Certainly the Bing imagery struck me as being out of date 2 years ago; no idea if it's been updated since.
Warin61 (2017-03-26 02:41:32+00:00): Relationship 6794412 taged breakwater;

 only has inners. It should have at least one outer.

Ways touch one another .. not good in a multipolygon!

I have made this into a simple way.
SomeoneElse (2017-02-11 00:21:21+00:00): How on earth can you think that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/459718300 is still an active amenity=parking?  It's around what is probably _the_ most iconic building in the area https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1402678 .  The Bing imagery presumably dates to it's most recent use as a Little Chef, but that's long gone now.  There are barriers preventing access from the road and the area's all a bit overgrown, as any of the thousands of people that drive up and down the A1 every day will be able to vouch for.
user_5359 (2017-01-04 18:19:12+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
anu_bala (2019-04-05 04:10:17+00:00): Hi Benjidad,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Aceh, I have come across 
"way 458350713
way 458484700" classified as 'Tertiary'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around,these seems to be residential'. Please look into this and share your thoughts on this.

Thanks in advance.
user_5359 (2017-01-04 18:19:18+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359