piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Jessica Lily (2025-07-26 19:34:48+00:00): Not sure how I managed to leave off my description of the change. Leaving a comment here in case someone wants to know.

I removed the duplicate parking pin. Added a handelsträdgård I found on a walk, plus two gates/barriers.
TrickyFoxy (2026-01-26 14:53:36+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177723665
NeisReview (2025-07-27 09:04:34+00:00): #NameCheck

Hello and welcome to OSM.

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits, particularly those concerning the names you've added or modified.

Some of these names caught my attention as they are quite unique or a bit unusual. Could you please confirm if these additions were intentional or if they might have been added mistakenly?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
pitscheplatsch (2026-01-26 14:56:44+00:00): 👍 TrickyFoxy
NeisReview (2025-07-27 09:03:30+00:00): #NameCheck

Hello and welcome to OSM.

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits, particularly those concerning the names you've added or modified.

Some of these names caught my attention as they are quite unique or a bit unusual. Could you please confirm if these additions were intentional or if they might have been added mistakenly?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-26 20:10:55+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1417607755

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
lf22music (2025-07-26 21:17:39+00:00): Czy mógłbyś to zrobić za mnie bo nie jestem pewny o co tobie chodzi  pozdrawiam!
Sylabowy Kot (2025-07-27 11:23:19+00:00): Jasno napisał w czym jest problem. I dlaczego zmapowałeś obszar do tymczasowego gospodarowania pod targi jako budynek? Ja tu nie widzę żadnej hali: https://portal-rolnika.pl/event/agro-tech-minikowo-2025/
lf22music (2025-07-27 11:35:32+00:00): przestan byc toksykiem
lf22music (2025-07-27 11:36:07+00:00): i nie sledz moich edycji jak jakis creep
lf22music (2025-07-27 11:42:02+00:00): lol i missclikiem  zaznaczylem jako budynek jak ci przeszkadza to se poprawiaj a nie mi piszesz pzdr ciebie to chyba podnieca
Sylabowy Kot (2025-07-27 11:43:57+00:00): Swoimi bezmyślnymi poczynaniami zaspamowałeś listę zmian w całym kraju, zacierasz ślady i dziwisz się, że ludzie są bardziej uprzedzeni do tego, co tutaj robisz?
lf22music (2025-07-27 11:50:20+00:00): sprawa zostala zamknieta przez dwg itd wiec juz o tym nie pisz
lf22music (2025-07-27 11:51:07+00:00): wszystko zostalo odwrocone wiec twoja płaknie jest juz zbędne
Sylabowy Kot (2025-07-27 11:53:55+00:00): No właśnie - odwrócenie zmian wymusiło pokazanie jeszcze więcej pozycji w historii, w wieli miejscach jest to nadal widoczne, więc sprawa nie jest zamknięta. To ty płaczesz, próbując zamaskować się wyluzowaniem. Normalnie zwracam uwagę, że OpenStreetMap jest projektem społecznościowym i swoimi poczynaniami sprawiasz, jak społeczność może oceniać twój wkład - nie przełożony na podstawie nieznanych kryteriów.
lf22music (2025-07-27 11:57:00+00:00): szkoda ze spolcznosc nie docenia ile dobrych edycji zrobilem i ile czasu poswięciłem
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-28 03:54:42+00:00): > przestan byc toksykiem
> i nie sledz moich edycji jak jakis creep

jeśli w edycji był buble to skomentowanie edycji było w pełni usprawiedliwione

a sprawdzanie jakości edycji jest normalne i sensowne
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-28 04:05:39+00:00): > szkoda ze spolcznosc nie docenia ile dobrych edycji zrobilem i ile czasu poswięciłem

a to że ludzie piszą do innych prawie tylko z narzekaniami a nigdy niemal nie chwalą to inna para kaloszy i też problem
Ponderosopine (2025-07-26 21:42:52+00:00): nodes, not modes
b-jazz (2025-07-26 20:20:39+00:00): oops
user_5359 (2025-07-27 15:15:10+00:00): Hello! You add some buildings with house numbers, but the outlines look completely different from what can be seen in the aerial view. 

If you know the house numbers, you can also just add a node with this information.
SomeoneElse (2025-07-26 21:18:38+00:00): Have you discussed this edit with the Polish community? The elevation of the road class here isn't in line with my recollection of previous discussions.
pavvv (2025-07-26 21:42:59+00:00): @Constrado ustalono że społecznością, że drogi do takich małych lotnisk są tertiary, bo wiesz, większość pasażerów zabiera stolica https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kategorie-drog-do-portow-lotniczych/127169

@SomeoneElse of course not, a revert would be appreciated
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-28 13:54:53+00:00): reverted as vandalism, situation is well known to this user

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169615935
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-28 13:55:36+00:00): "mapowane zgodnie z OSM WIKI !" - niby jakim kawałkiem?

Dobrze wiesz że zmiana taka wymaga dyskusji przed jej wykonaniem.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-28 13:58:32+00:00): @Constrado - can you just stop? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8044348/history
SomeoneElse (2025-07-28 19:49:29+00:00): @Constrado - I think you need to apologise to to the Polish community for the way that you've been behaving.
I would suggest that you need to do that before doing anything else.
Leo Slager (2025-07-27 10:16:40+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
Leo Slager (2025-07-27 10:23:11+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
literan (2025-07-27 10:24:33+00:00): вы шутите? перелаз через забор https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1417616714 добавлять как path? не надо так делать.

просто представьте, что там навигатор поведет ваших родителей, например.
neo-plan (2025-07-27 15:40:52+00:00): Вы, если пишете другому человеку для уточнений, то ждите ответа! А то уже всё удалено! Я просто так что ли стараюсь?! Разумеется там не через забор лезть, а проход между неправильно нарисованными заборами. Это кратчайший путь к домам ЖК "Волжский парк" от МЦК, где я встретил не менее 5 людей. Я же не на завод рядом предлагаю лезть, а просто пометил, что "в туфельках грязновато будет". Верните назад тропу!
literan (2025-07-27 16:33:40+00:00): но вы нарисовали перелаз через забор, с соответствующим barrier.
Leo Slager (2025-07-27 10:22:21+00:00): Dag Pieter,
Je hebt hier ook het memorial aan de Eusebiusbuitensingel verplaatst naar een nieuwe locatie.
Was dat wel de bedoeling ?
Ik neem aan dat je bij het schuiven met de kaart per ongeluk die node hebt versleept.
ik zet het even terug op de juiste plaats.
felipeeugenio (2025-07-26 22:12:08+00:00): reversado
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169528280
Sylabowy Kot (2025-07-27 10:44:19+00:00): Die besten Kastanien sind am Place Pigalle.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-26 21:31:54+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"15 Pułku Piechoty Wilków":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13027281311
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13027281312

"Brzozowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13027281408

"Stefana Kardynała Wyszyńskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13027281424

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
ivanbranco (2025-07-28 19:40:35+00:00): Ciao Stefano,

grazie per le modifiche, solo un appunto, non dare nomi descrittivi agli elementi (es. "parcheggio sterrato gratuito"). Il campo "nome" va utilizzato solo per i nomi propri

grazie e buon mapping
danieldegroot2 (2025-07-28 12:13:01+00:00): Hey JayBee,

Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap.

Local knowledge is a valid source for OpenStreetMap, but regardless I have checked the information you provided.

On historical maps, the label does point more clearly to the adjacent building in the 25 inch (which we can use only for reference, not for mapping, as it is still copyrighted and otherwise not explicitly permitted for use by National Library of Scotland.

However, the NIAH/NBHS building inventory
https://www.buildingsofireland.ie/buildings-search/building/12401306/clomantagh-lower-clomantagh-kilkenny
does mention it was in use as RIC barracks.
(maybe it counts adjacent building as part of it)

but a discussion on a blog post article which you may or may not be aware of, which includes (family of) owner, mentions similar idea as you do, where it was barely in use as RIC barracks (but due to rumors people assumed it was built as or always used as such).
https://theirishaesthete.com/2016/12/14/an-architectural-conundrum-update/

Resolved in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169609975

Changes visualised
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=169609975

Sidenote: Changed name to description, since this seems to be case of descriptive name
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
in Ireland users tend to use the name tag anyways, but usually it should be only done where it was the common name. (due to being solely outbuilding I assume it's not the case)
zuicz (2025-07-28 18:49:59+00:00): Łącznice też są w remoncie, a nie tylko północna nitka S1?
Tomek | Yanosik (2025-07-31 06:32:14+00:00): wrzuciłeś zmianę chwilę przed otwarciem, łącznice otwarte od 28.07, na takie krótkie zmiany ewentualnie access=no
fortera_au (2025-07-27 03:17:06+00:00): Hi, have you checked if any of these are already mapped as relations, as per my comment on your Nepean Bay changeset?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169530829
swinetown (2025-07-26 22:48:52+00:00): ...and removed some generic terraces too, so they can be mapped individually
charl3s (2025-07-26 22:41:44+00:00): nowe adresy*
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-26 22:51:12+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13027401788

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Taya_S (2025-09-21 10:02:43+00:00): Question, why did you delete the null-island/Soul Buoy in this changeset?
ika-chan! (2025-12-03 19:54:14+00:00): Partially undone (buoy restored): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175461804
SomeoneElse (2025-12-03 20:39:16+00:00): I think it was "missing presumed sunk" wasn't it?  
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154996123 and the links from there.  That one Mastodon reply remains, but I'm sure at around that time there were more links to "cruise ships failing to see it" etc.
ika-chan! (2025-12-03 21:56:02+00:00): Thanks, I've managed to find the reply chain at https://en.osm.town/@pietervdvn/112928272482062515with that link, and the outcome at the time was to mark it as disused. I originally restored the node because user "maurobe57" did not provide a reasonable reply, so I assumed it is still disused.
ika-chan! (2025-12-03 21:56:30+00:00): Sorry, I meant https://en.osm.town/@pietervdvn/112928272482062515 .
luschi (2025-07-27 12:41:40+00:00): Hi syzuub,     
da hast du wohl recht dass das kein Blitzer ist.      
Dann sollte die Relation auch entfernt werden.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3618765

Lg
syzuub (2025-07-27 21:14:19+00:00): ja, hatte ich vergessen, ist erledigt
Toby H Ferguson (2025-09-15 23:56:13+00:00): Steve,

I'd like to discuss your modification of the tagging (reverting access=permissive to access=no). I've been reviewing the 'map what's on the ground' recommendations by OSM and, from my understanding, access=permissive is exactly what we've got: a landowner that passively accepts what's going on (and has done for many years!) but who still retains the right to revoke the implicit permission this passive acceptance implies.
stevea (2025-09-16 00:05:20+00:00): I'm listening.  What is it, exactly that it is you propose to do / change?
Toby H Ferguson (2025-09-16 01:45:44+00:00): Great. Thanks for responding. 

What I hope to achieve is a shared understanding of what the correct access tag should be and to have the map reflect what’s on the ground in a way that is accurate and meaningful. In practical terms I believe the correct access tag value for these trails is ‘permissive’. That’s not to say that the landowner is giving explicit permission (they haven’t) but the implicit permission that is nevertheless being given is reflected in that value. So this would then accurately reflect the truth on the ground, in accordance with OSM guidelines.
stevea (2025-09-16 16:50:05+00:00): There are a number of "landowners" here:  UCSC, State Parks (both Wilder and HCRSP).  If you can point somewhere online where this "implicit permission" exists in publicly-accessible clarity (from State Parks and/or UCSC), then access=permissive might very well be correct.

For example, I got a letter from AASHTO (national-level route numbering protocol authority) to number bicycle routes that I enter (and posted a link to this letter in our wiki).  For another example, I have direct emails from the Watershed Manager of the City of Santa Cruz to tag watershed lands (around Loch Lomond) exactly as they are presently tagged.

Absent those, the more restrictive tagging (access=no) applies, as that is the best data I'm working with.  For access=permissive, all we need is an agency (or ranger...something authoritative) that says "it's OK to ride here, but we reserve the right to restrict this in the future..." and I'm fine with access=permissive.  But (in this case, as it has been so contentious) OSM really needs something more than simply one mapper's word — we need some documentation as to the actuality of the permissiveness.  Thanks for understanding we have a relatively high burden of "proof" here.
Toby H Ferguson (2025-09-18 18:09:34+00:00): Steve,

thanks for your explanation. Apologies for taking so long to get back to you. 

My understanding is that the OSM map should reflect what's true on the ground as the first principle. I want to ensure that the map is both accurate to the user’s experience and respectful of the land management’s official policy. 

'Implicit permission' means that it isn't written down! The point being that because no attempt is being made to enforce the rules denying permission (over many years, and with many opportunities to do so) then the effect is to give permission. That might well not be the intent of the land owners, but it is the effect. 

access=no is too strong (in my opinion - reasonable people might disagree!), and the only next step down is to use access=permissive, informal=yes, and perhaps a note as to what's going on. That seems to me to make a map that really does represent the truth on the ground, while respecting the land owners official policy. 

Its a tricky situation but as it stands the map doesn't represent the real truth; it just represents the idealized one from the land owners perspective.
stevea (2025-09-19 20:39:03+00:00): From https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=29709 (California State Parks HCRSP website):
"Bicycles are allowed only on Pipeline Road, Rincon Fire Road, Ridge Fire Road, and Powder Mill Fire Road."

From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access (OSM's own wiki about the access tag):
"Access tags pre-eminently describe LEGAL permissions/restrictions ... regulation, rather than guesswork. They do not describe common or typical use, even if the signage is generally ignored."

As these trails are not explicitly granted access, and the same at UCSC (I have worked personally with their Transportation And Parking Services on properly mapping campus access tags in OSM, and can similarly document their explicit mountain biking paths, now properly denoted in OSM), the access=no tagging as it presently exists appears to be correct.
stevea (2025-09-19 21:16:22+00:00): I spoke with "Jordan" (831-345-1397) who IS authoritative at State Parks and he said that a combination of California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 4326(a), together with "District Superintendent Posted Orders" (at the entrance kiosk off Hwy 9) makes all areas  of "Lower Highway 9 South of Garden of Eden, except on designated roads" to be off-limits (to BOTH cyclists and even pedestrians / hikers).

The "designated roads" I have (and the website has) clarified above.  So, now I am certain:  access=no is the correct tag according to State Parks, state law and OSM's tagging principles for access (=no).

I'll assume the same for UCSC, but if you want me to call my former colleagues at TAPS-UCSC, I can do that, too.

Accurate tagginig is what OSM is about.  Should mountain bikers decide to trespass by mountain biking here, the risk in doing so is wholly on those who choose to break this law.  In short, maps don't make people trespass, trespassers decide to trespass.

And, conclusively, access=permissive is now known to be wholly incorrect.
Toby H Ferguson (2025-09-30 02:15:51+00:00): Steve, thanks very much for your diligence and clarification. I appreciate it. I got a wrong steer on how access=permissive was supposed to be used and I've since clarified that both in these discussions with you and with discussions on the OSM community groups. 

My overall goal was to map what's on the ground (which is clearly a lot of illegal trails) and I veered into this access issue. Sorry if I've been a pain in the butt. That was really unfortunate and not my intention. Thank you for your patience.

Toby
stevea (2025-09-30 05:09:41+00:00): Toby, I do not consider you to be anywhere near a "pain in the butt," quite the contrary.:  we have had an educational, reasonable, adult dialog.

You are welcome for my diligence; I have found that it frequently pays to be diligent, here we are.

Keep on mapping and mapping well and I'll do the same.  Meanwhile, the data in OSM get better and better — and that's what it's all about.
Glassman (2025-07-27 18:56:51+00:00): #TIP: square buildings by selecting the outline then just type a "q" - they will look very professionally done
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169533047
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-07-27 12:20:10+00:00): Boul Hymus is continuing until Route Transcanadienne, as you fixed. However, the northeastbound is named Henri-Bourassa ouest. I updated it.
brandonosm2 (2025-07-27 15:51:28+00:00): Ah, I purposefully left it like that because I didn't want to confuse routers. For example, exiting the Rte. Transcanadienne service road eastbound, heading to Bd. Henri-Bourassa O (north), I didn't want there to be announcements of Bd. Hymus. There are several other such cases at this junction.

There's some discussion going on in this thread, regarding such intersections and how to name internal roadways: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/name-and-highway-changes-at-dual-carriageway-intersections/131397

I think I would consider these stretches of road to be "intersections"? Anyway, my solution was to leave those "intermittent" roadways with no name. What are your thoughts?
aharvey (2025-07-28 04:18:48+00:00): Thanks. This is visible on the Esri World Imagery (you can change the background imagery in the editor). I've made some minor tweaks, including adding the no-u-turn restrictions, adding the turn around roads on the side roads, and using the turn:lanes tagging over running the _link road for the length of the turn lane per best practice.
AndreaDp271 (2025-07-28 09:20:05+00:00): Thank you for your contribution but try to make smaller changeset areas. Thank you. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169535805
buy_osmand (2025-07-30 16:32:55+00:00): 👋ghort, an honest mistake i reckon.
my guess is that, 
perhaps you just discovered the leave `changeset open` prior to upload the hard way! 😆 that is recommended to be used to upload multiple POIs within a local-ish distance! 

https://osmand.net/docs/user/map/map-context-menu?_highlight=upload&_highlight=edit#-upload-poi--osm-note

# as-salāmu ʿalaykum,
valaise (2025-08-19 16:41:14+00:00): Hi, I noticed that some edits from a few months ago have been reverted (deletion of the sidewalk:both separate) tag as one example. I'm not sure if that was intentional because the tag was added back a few days later. Could you check that you have up to date map data, perhaps these reverts are occurring because historical data is being used?
fortera_au (2025-07-27 03:16:28+00:00): Hi, Nepean Bay is already mapped as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6669182, you could add this as a label node in that relation as per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169536327
Glassman (2025-07-27 18:58:06+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169536636
Glassman (2025-07-27 18:58:27+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169536701
Colbertson (2025-07-27 11:05:06+00:00): Hello.
Please map building footprints/foundations not roof outlines. Aerial imagery is usually at a slight angle or distorted. Buildings tend to be square.
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2025-07-28 17:45:37+00:00): This changeset had been fully reverted by another mapper in osm.org/changeset/169621588
and I've leave comment under osm.org/changeset/169589142

This comment only act as a notice for future mapper who want to find what happen and whether any handling was conducted.
felipeeugenio (2025-07-27 14:23:19+00:00): Hola. No toda área verde es un parque. Es un poco largo de explicar. Por favor unirse al chat de la comunidad en el link en mi perfil o en el que le fue enviado por correo.

muchas gracias
NieWnen (2025-07-28 18:30:22+00:00): Cześć, 
dzięki za dodanie nowego odcinka rowerowego. Mam jednak pytanie i kilka uwag:

1. Czy to jest Droga Dla Rowerów (DDR) po której mogą się poruszać piesi, czy ścieżka pieszo-rowerowa tzw. CPR (podejrzewam to drugie) – tutaj też to jest dziwnie podzielone od Okrzei się to zmienia.

2. Zapoznaj się proszę z wiki i tagowaniem ścieżek (pieszo-)rowerowych:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery#Drogi_dla_pieszych_i_rower%C3%B3w

3. `noexit=yes` na skrzyżowaniu jest niepoprawne, nie wiem jak tu wskoczyło: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13027802723

4. Proszę nie łącz ścieżek z landusami – nie powinny mieć wspólnych węzłów.
bienias87 (2025-07-28 19:00:57+00:00): Sprawdziłem w terenie, nie ma żadnego znaku, że to ścieżka rowerowa. 
W takim razie wydaje mi się, że trasa zostanie zdegradowana do ciągu pieszego ?
NieWnen (2025-07-28 19:33:48+00:00): Tak, jak nie ma oznakowania to wychodzi na to, że to zwykły chodnik. 

Znalazłem dokumentację i zdaje się to potwierdzać projekt Stałej Organizacji Ruchu.
https://platformazakupowa.pl/transakcja/931732
Hans Thompson (2025-07-28 03:51:42+00:00): awesome edit set. thank you.
IrrerPolterer (2025-07-28 10:39:59+00:00): This change set covers an enormous area. Please consider submitting multiple changes in different locations as separate change sets.
rempshaener (2025-07-27 16:35:43+00:00): Hallo,
eine Anmerkung zu deinen Anpassungen:
Hydranten sollten nicht mit Straßen, Gebäuden u. ä. verbunden werden. Das lässt sich leicht beheben: im Editor markieren und „E“ drücken – das löst den Hydranten von der Linie.
Viele Grüße
bradrh (2026-04-29 01:20:03+00:00): I noticed that you changed some roads in this area (199916303, 199916309 etc) from private to destination.    I went to the end of the public road here about 4 years ago & it was clearly gated as private.   Do you have more recent information?