piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Tomas Straupis (2025-04-08 18:09:36+00:00): Laba diena. Nereikia nepasiaiškinus situacijos aklai keisti gerų duomenų. Kūdros teisingai sužymėtos landuse=basin. Atstatysiu teisingus duomenis.
tantanWS (2025-04-09 08:37:42+00:00): how does the dirt road cross the motorway?
DoronSela (2025-04-09 17:28:08+00:00): There is a tunnel
eggie (2025-04-12 18:55:15+00:00): Beste Spighetti.. Op de Noorderbrug had je alle routerelaties onderbroken. Wil je svp rekening houden met routerelaties. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-04-12 18:56:05+00:00): `https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164692197#map=19/51.816670/4.674801
spughetti (2025-04-12 19:55:06+00:00): Excuses eggie, routerelaties zijn niet mijn sterkste kant. Ik zal er voortaan beter op letten.

Mvg,
spuh
eggie (2025-04-12 19:58:28+00:00): Dick  heeft het gelukkig al hersteld. Die waakt over de routes als een tijger.

Groet
eggie
Skylark_H_C (2025-12-06 18:13:57+00:00): At least half of the powerlines in this changeset were demolished in 2022 (reviewed in Esri Imagery 2025). Please help to modify them if you can find further information.
Skylark_H_C (2025-12-06 18:19:12+00:00): Or... mention https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Oberaffe to help? It seems that most of the powerlines were created by him, and he is an expert in this field.
Frans S (2025-05-05 10:17:11+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Unfortunately, you used the BING imagery instead of ESRI. (See the instructions !)

Many mapped buildings do not match their ground plan on ESRI and need to be adjusted.

Best regards
BCNorwich (2025-04-09 05:11:45+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I wonder does your business occupy the whole building? If not then it should be represented by a node inside the building outline.

Regards Bernard.
Marek-M (2025-04-10 08:04:40+00:00): Cześć, nie rozumiesz co się pisze do Ciebie? Nie rozdzielamy pasów ruchu na oddzielne jezdnie. Kilkakrotnie zwracałem Ci na to uwagę i nie poskutkowało. Wycofuję Twoje błędne edycje.
Marek-M (2025-04-10 08:07:49+00:00): Wycofanie edycji z błędnie rozdzielanymi pasami ruchu na oddzielne linie highway.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164756290
grzegorz75jan (2025-04-10 11:26:09+00:00): Popieram wycofywanie jego edycji po pobieżnym przeglądnięciu. 

Edytujący praktycznie nie odpowiada na komentarze oraz pomimo uwag, pouczeń, poprawiania jego edycji nie wyciąga wniosków oraz nie widać poprawy a każda kolejna edycja powtarza poprzednie błędy oraz dokłada nowe.

Szkoda czasu i zasobów na osobę która jest niereformowalna. 

Czas który trzeba poświęcić na analizowanie oraz poprawianie jego edycji można spożytkować znacznie efektywniej w OSM.
NeisReview (2025-04-09 06:20:23+00:00): #UnexplainedChanges

Hello, welcome to OSM.

Could you please clarify the purpose behind your map changes? It's not entirely clear from the edited data and your added description. Also, what was used as a source of your activity?

Looking forward to your response. 
Thank you.
Gregory Peony (2025-04-08 20:26:05+00:00): The highways you added here are tracks becasue their primary role is to provide access to agricultural areas. Unclassified haighways link settlements.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164691168
gallseife (2025-04-16 10:23:38+00:00): Hi,
hast du für den Namen "EÜ Weg" eine Quelle? Er erscheint doch ungewöhnlich :)
gallseife (2025-04-17 15:43:10+00:00): Ich habe den Namen entfernt und möchte dich bitten, keine Namenserfindungen mehr einzutragen.
wireguy (2025-04-09 10:34:10+00:00): Hi chloealce.  Take care not to delete things.  I noticed a road deleted, so I added it back.  I also squared buildings and added addresses.  Quick tip, pressing the Q key when you have a building selected will square the corners.   Thanks for your additions, keep mapping!
pbnoxious (2025-04-10 06:51:11+00:00): Hi, jetzt gibt es die Hausnummer 13 doppelt direkt nebeneinander. Generell sind hier ein paar mehr Hausnummern doppelt (9 & 11 der Hauptstraße, 1 des Rings), wenn du Ortskenntnis hast, wäre es super wenn du das mal generell überarbeiten könntest. Aus der Ferne ist es teilweise schwierig zu sagen welches das "Haupthaus" ist.

Außerdem vermute ich aus der Nummerierungsreihenfolge, dass das Haus hier noch zur Hauptstraße gehört.

Viele Grüße
pbnoxious
openstreettom (2025-04-10 12:16:54+00:00): Das kleinere Haus mit der 13 ist ein Nebengebäude auf dem gleichen Grundstück der Nummer 13. 
Das kleinere mit der 11 sind Garagen. 
Vermutlich wäre es in dem Fall besser gar keine Hausnummer zu setzen? 

Die Nummer 1 ist ein getrenntes Haus mit 2 Eingängen die aber beide die Nummer 1 haben.
openstreettom (2025-04-10 12:23:22+00:00): Korrekt, 11, 13 + 15 sind Ebacher Hauptstrasse. Ich habe das angepasst.
pbnoxious (2025-04-10 12:53:06+00:00): Ja ich würde auf die Garagen und Nebengebäuden eher keine Hausnummern setzen.

Hausnummern doppeln macht für mich wenig Sinn und ist in OSM auch eher selten (rechtlich hast du teilweise recht, in Deutschland bezieht sich die Hausnummer in der Regel auf das Grundstück)

In OSM würde ich die Adresse nur auf das Gebäude packen, zu dem ich erwarten würde, dass mich eine Wegbeschreibung führt. Also quasi das Ziel der "Postadresse".
Man könnte die Adresse aber auch auf eine separate Node taggen, wenn man sie nicht einem Haus zuordnen will, oder (eher unüblich) auf das (extra dafür einzuzeichnende) Grundstück.
Felipe Alves (2025-04-09 13:05:23+00:00): Bom dia, td bem?
Percebi que ao mapear a estação do Bicicletar, adicionou 2 vezes, não sei por qual motivo. Já corrigi a edição, e também adicionei alguns dados que estavam faltando. Uma sugestão que dou é dar uma olhada nas outras estações já mapeadas, para ver quais as informações devem ser inseridas.
Qualquer dúvida, só avisar.
Abs
Sylabowy Kot (2025-08-08 19:59:45+00:00): Co do... Zablokowany kawałek drogi nie zmienia się na barrier=yes, jeśli nie jest on zlikwidowany, tylko zmienia się accessy. Pas-kudz-two.
zimi2k (2025-08-10 20:47:42+00:00): Dzięki za wskazówkę, nie jestem na tyle biegły we wszystkich niuansach OSM, ale chcąc pomóc wrzucam czasami aktualny status, dodając opis i zawsze zaznaczam aby ktoś zweryfikował.... PS, tej drogi już nie będzie, poleci tędy zjazd z s1.
Gregory Peony (2025-04-14 22:01:27+00:00): Generally adding a layer tag (over/under) is not the correct way to resolve overlap issues as they are usually caused by inaccurate geometry. If you come across overlap issues zoom to them by clicking on them and see if they can be addressed by modifying geometry. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164693122
vasony (2025-04-09 20:40:20+00:00): Szia!

Direkt lett egy n a Millennium park neve?
Millenniumi -> Millenium

Tamás
dcf77 (2025-07-06 07:23:41+00:00): Szia Tamás!
Nem direkt, elírtam. Javítottam. Köszi, hogy szóltál!
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1375928856
gallseife (2025-04-17 20:23:06+00:00): Deine Änderungskommentare sind wenig hilfreich.
Was ist deine Quelle für diesen Graben? Persönliche Inaugenscheinnahme? Dann solltest du das im Kommentar angeben.
gallseife (2025-04-17 20:26:08+00:00): Falls du den Graben selbst gesehen hast: Führt der nicht auch unter der Straße durch? Ist da vielleicht ein Durchlass?
NorthCrab_upload (2025-04-08 18:41:11+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12739636704
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/268434442

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Barroszt (2025-08-04 22:44:50+00:00): naprawione
Bence_ (2025-04-08 19:07:50+00:00): Nemrégiben megszüntetett gyűjtőszigetek listája: https://www.mohubudapest.hu/fovarosban-kozelmultban-visszavont-athelyezett-gyujtoszigetek
MxxCon (2025-04-10 20:49:01+00:00): Hello.
As documented on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone#Usage phone numbers must be separated only by - or space. They must not contain any other characters, like ( ). Additionally, phone numbers must include country dialing code. In US it's +1.
This POI should be updated to fix this.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164693679
Pegnitzkosak (2025-04-08 18:53:06+00:00): Änderung an der Gebäudefläche nach Lageplan Katasteramt
MassCartog (2025-04-09 14:05:15+00:00): Hello cncfreak247 welcome to OSM! Thanks for contributing. I noticed you removed part of a way that seems valid from aerial imagery. 

On OSM we do not remove road/paths or other things on private or government property. If it exists on the ground I should not be removed from the map. 

The correct method would be add a gate node where the fence meets the road. Then split the road after the gate and tag that section as "access=no".

Here are some helpful guides to read:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
MassCartog (2025-04-18 14:13:21+00:00): didnt respond, fixed in 165008295
b-jazz (2025-04-09 21:14:31+00:00): Reverted in changeset 164694035. Do not upload test data to OSM. Use the dev instance of OSM for that.
tpatte02 (2025-04-09 21:33:16+00:00): Need to test in prod - sorry - and please, find some other user to pick on
b-jazz (2025-04-09 21:53:34+00:00): I'm not "picking" on you. We all need to follow the same rules and you appear to show no respect for the rules and flaunt how you plan ignore them.
If your use case involves placing test data on the production instance, maybe your toolchain needs to be reworked. I don't see others creating "test" data. At the very least, draw your vandalism on Null Island instead of legitimate map locations.
tpatte02 (2025-04-09 22:00:12+00:00): You are following my change sets and actively harassing me - if this continues you will be reported.
b-jazz (2025-04-09 22:08:05+00:00): I follow ALL golf course mappers (in the US). Enforcing community standards is not "harassing". I welcome you involving data@openstreetmap.org. It would be good to get them involved.
tpatte02 (2025-04-09 22:10:23+00:00): The first two sentences of OSM wiki: OpenStreetMap is a free project done by volunteers. Anybody can enter anything they wish.  

Again, continue harassing me and I will report you
Allison P (2025-04-09 22:27:58+00:00): I invite you to report b-jazz. I can nearly guarantee you will be blocked instead. Your definition of harassing is not going to be received by admins. Users are entitled to comment on any edits, especially if the edits have issues that need to be addressed. It is certainly not picking on a user to point out objective issues with their edits.

It is never acceptable to test in prod. Find a way to test using actual data if the dev server isn't an option.

It seems you are willfully misunderstanding what that sentence means. It means that ability to edit is not restricted by default. It does not mean OSM is your playground.
tpatte02 (2025-04-09 22:32:32+00:00): Again, keep harassing me and I will report both of you.  Users are entitled to comment but reverting my changes are not.  I am not obliged to follow any of your self created guidelines - again "anybody can enter anything they wish" is self explanatory
Allison P (2025-04-09 22:38:29+00:00): Go right ahead. I doubt you'll enjoy being told by an admin everything both of us have told you already. Your reasoning does not pass muster. Vandals are frequently banned and their changes are reverted, even though entering the name of their middle school as "poop" is something they wish.

Your constant threats to report and accusations of harassment could constitute harassment themselves.
fortera_au (2025-04-09 22:56:19+00:00): Hi tpatte02,

Andrew from the Data Working Group here, what other mappers are telling you in this and other changesets is correct, in that both your edits done to suit a particular data consumer are incorrect, and that data should not be uploaded into the live database as a test.

The mappers commenting on your changesets are just trying to do the right thing and ensure OpenStreetMap data is correct.

Please stop any invalid edits or test edits, and if the third party data consumer you use isn't able to understand how things are mapped when done correctly, they will need to adjust this on their end.

Kind regards,
Andrew Welch, on behalf of the OSMF Data Working Group.
tpatte02 (2025-04-09 23:01:14+00:00): Hi Andrew,

Thanks for reaching out.

I understand your position and appreciate the time the DWG takes to help maintain the quality of the OpenStreetMap database. I’d like to clarify that my intent has never been to introduce “test” or “invalid” data into the live map. My edits were made with a real use case in mind, for a legitimate toolchain that depends on certain data visibility. The edits weren’t random or frivolous—they were structured and purposeful, even if unconventional by some standards.

That said, I hear the message loud and clear: OSM contributions need to align with established mapping conventions, and data tailored toward third-party consumption shouldn’t compromise the integrity of the map. I’ll take that into account moving forward and ensure any work I do adheres more closely to those expectations.

I’ll also say that while I respect the community’s desire to maintain standards, I don’t agree with the tone or approach these two users have taken. There’s a big difference between offering helpful feedback and making it personal. I hope we can all operate in a space that’s collaborative, not combative.
fortera_au (2025-04-09 23:08:06+00:00): Thanks for understanding.

The messages from others may seem a bit heated, but that does tend to come from recurring issues with users of the same software you are using. It's a pain point for a number of mappers.

I'd definitely encourage trying to push the developers of the software you use to correct it to handle golf courses as they are meant to be mapped, or to be able to take a .osm file in like other software can (i.e. Farming Simulator map makers), that way you can download an area in JOSM, make the changes you require, and save those changes locally for the software to use, instead of uploading to OSM itself.
tpatte02 (2025-04-09 23:13:21+00:00): Hi Andrew,

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply and for offering a constructive way forward—I genuinely appreciate that.

That said, I want to respectfully push back on one point. I understand that recurring issues with certain tools can create frustration for experienced mappers, but I don't believe that justifies the aggressive tone or accusatory comments I received. The way those users approached the situation felt more like gatekeeping than collaboration, and it left very little room for discussion or understanding.

Having a “pain point” is not an excuse for singling out users or treating them with hostility. We all care about the quality of OSM, and I believe that should include maintaining a community where people feel welcome to contribute and learn—especially when acting in good faith.

I’m moving forward with your advice, and I’ll look into adapting our process to avoid issues in the future. But I hope the DWG continues to encourage not just adherence to data standards, but also a respectful tone across the board.

Thanks again for your time and help.
Allison P (2025-04-09 23:41:03+00:00): I would prefer to speak to a human over ChatGPT. The latter is known for confabulating. For instance, I cannot find any combative comments from b-jazz. As for me, I am sorry that I was not more receptive to being told I was wrong even though I turned out to be right. I am additionally sorry for lumping you in with other golf course mappers making incorrect edits when all you did was make incorrect golf course edits. I am also sorry for not displaying good faith in response to your lack of faith in the advice we both gave you.

And as for the human who, unlike ChatGPT, can detect insincerity in these apologies: You did not display a willingness to learn when you refused advice from mappers with years of experience. You were not singled out to any extent greater than that you are singly responsible for your edits. All accusatory comments on your changesets appear to be factual. You were not gatekept from the platform in anyway other than to indicate that incorrect edits would be reverted. Collaboration is a two-way street that you have metaphorically set up a road block on with your comments. You were offered many chances at discussion, but refused them. This is a common theme amongst golf course mappers, who I proceeded to lump you in with. I am sorry that I was hostile to you, but that is a natural response when one's community is disrespected.

Furthermore, it is disrespectful to me and to b-jazz to completely ignore what we tell you only to suddenly act understanding when a moderator reiterates them. Tone is not the only way to show respect.
tpatte02 (2025-04-09 23:52:07+00:00): Andrews - Just to clarify what I meant earlier when I said the tone from some users felt hostile — this comment from Allison P is a good example. I understand there's frustration around certain types of edits, but I don’t think sarcasm, condescension, or sweeping generalizations about entire groups of mappers ("golf course mappers") helps anyone learn or collaborate better.

"I am sorry for not displaying good faith in response to your lack of faith in the advice we both gave you..."
"This is a common theme amongst golf course mappers, who I proceeded to lump you in with..."
"It is disrespectful to me and to b-jazz to completely ignore what we tell you only to suddenly act understanding when a moderator reiterates them."

I’m trying to take the feedback and move forward the right way, but I hope we can also agree that this kind of tone and generalization isn't constructive — especially for newer contributors trying to do better.
Allison P (2025-04-10 00:15:25+00:00): There is irony in bemoaning the lack of collaboration and communication when you rely on AI to communicate for you. ChatGPT does not understand language, so it can't actually tell whether a comment is hostile. As a result, it just quoted three random sentences from my comment. It is not hostile to tell someone they have disrespected you.

The fact that your comment does not address any of my concerns means that your prompt is essentially just to accuse me of hostility. Designing an algorithm to do that for you is definitely harassment.
fortera_au (2025-04-10 00:20:36+00:00): Allison, please keep your comments civil. There's nothing making it obvious their comments are from ChatGPT, and they've apologised for the problematic edits. I can understand your frustration, as well as theirs, but continuing like this does nothing to help the situation.

If you have concerns on any of their future changesets, please raise it with them politely, or report it to the DWG if required.
Allison P (2025-04-10 00:43:17+00:00): I am quite certain that all of their comments posted after your own comment were written with ChatGPT, though I appreciate that may not be obvious to you or others.

I don't think it is uncivil to be frustrated by my advice being ignored until backed by an authority. I do think it uncivil, though, to completely ignore my frustration in favor of chiding me about communication and offering unsolicited advice about being a better mapper. With that being said, you are right that continuing is most likely unhelpful, so I'll quiet down.
tpatte02 (2025-04-10 00:59:00+00:00): Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your continued support.

I’d like to draw your attention to the latest comment from Allison P. While I appreciate her acknowledgment in the final sentence that she’ll "quiet down," the rest of her message is still condescending and dismissive.
fortera_au (2025-04-10 08:10:34+00:00): Hi tpatte02,

I do have to agree with some of Allison P's last message, it's completely fair to be upset when community members try to assist (especially with something as frowned upon as testing on the live map) and then ignoring/arguing until the DWG has stepped in, especially considering some of your original responses. Please leave it be, and in future, engage constructively when someone comments on your changesets.
tpatte02 (2025-04-10 13:38:10+00:00): Hi Andrew,

Thanks again for your time and guidance.

As we move forward, I just want to give some context for why I felt the tone from certain users—particularly Allison—was disrespectful from the outset. For example, in one of her early comments she said:

“You are simply in the wrong, and you are in denial.”
“If you will not map correctly, you will not map at all.”
“The DWG has blocked many of your ilk…”

Phrases like these felt more accusatory than collaborative, especially for a first-time issue. I recognize that I could have responded better in the moment, but this kind of language made it difficult to have a constructive exchange.

That’s all I wanted to add—I'm taking your advice to leave it be, but I hope this gives some insight into my earlier frustration.
b-jazz (2025-04-10 16:33:01+00:00): 
This has been a fascinating thread. I hear a complete 180 from tpatte and I welcome the new attitude. I am optimistic, but am a little skeptical. My fingers are crossed hoping we can move forward with a better understanding. To whit: I have some comments on the conversation.

>I’d like to clarify that my intent has never been to introduce “test” or “invalid” data into the live map.

Your changeset description specifically used the words "Testing" with a promise to delete at a later date. The change had dozens of golf course elements that didn't exist in the farmland that they were mapped over. You say "my edits were made with a real use case in mind". This only reinforces that this changeset was indeed test data for a "real use case" that might exist in the future. that should have never been uploaded. Can we agree on that? This seems pretty black and white to me.

>The way those users approached the situation felt more like gatekeeping than collaboration, and it left very little room for discussion or understanding.

It's challenging to discuss proper mapping techniques with someone when they claim that standard mapping is "just opinion" and that their "opinion" is equally valid. GIS/topology/geometry has been around for decades and has evolved some rich standards for how to describe things. Multipolygons are the right way to describe things like greens and fairways and the parts of fairways that are greens and not fairways.

>Having a “pain point” is not an excuse for singling out users or treating them with hostility.

The way that is phrased makes it sound like we (myself, Allison, other OSM mappers) have a pain point. Let's be clear, this is your pain point, not OSM's. You have a tool that doesn't handle OSM data correctly and you can't expect OSM to bend over backwards to handle this pain point for you. Third party tools need to be fixed. OSM features that aren't handled by said tool aren't to be deleted and recreated in such a way that that particular tool will work. Please remember that you are just one "data consumer" and you live among millions of other consumers. That's why there are standards to work with.

You are not being singled out. As I've said, I watch all golf course modifications in the country and am working vigilantly with mappers that are exhibiting improper mapping. I've worked with over 70 mappers this year alone trying to educate and correct mapping misinformation and other bad assumptions. I'm hostile with none of them, or you. If you can show me where you feel I've been hostile, I'd love to see the example so I can adjust further interactions.

I'm looking forward to working with you to be the best golf course mapper you can be.
maro21 (2025-04-13 20:20:37+00:00): Why?