piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
JeanSebastien (2026-07-16 19:25:19+00:00): Commentaire oublié : Cyclabilité des rues autour de la mairie du Perreux-sur-Marne
grzegorz75jan (2026-07-17 19:08:12+00:00): W edycji dodawałeś adresy. Składnia jest błędna ponieważ miejscowość nie posiada nazw ulic to nie stosuje się znaczników 
addr:city
addr:street
tylko 
addr:place

Doczytaj jak dodaje się adresy z nazwami ulic i bez https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:* 

Popraw te błędy i przy okazji warto do dróg, ulic bez nazw dodawać znacznik
noname=yes
GmGr (2026-07-18 05:16:23+00:00): Jasne, już poprawiam. Dane te wypełniałem w zakładce Adres w iD gdzie porównałem sobie jak to wygląda na innych budynkach, ale nie zwróciłem uwagi że daje inny znacznik.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185861624
Allroads (2026-07-19 11:48:04+00:00): Hoi, 
Waarom verwijder je hier de los ingetekende bollards?

Deze zijn met detail ingetekend op de plaats waar ze staan.

Allroads
Allroads (2026-07-19 11:52:11+00:00): https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=185862861#19/52.72580/5.73828
Allroads (2026-07-19 11:57:12+00:00): Je verschuift zelfs een node van de footway, dat de overgang van asfalt naar tegels niet meer goed ligt.
Crashtender (2026-07-19 15:39:38+00:00): Deze had ik verwijderd omdat ze niet voldoen volgens de wiki. Op het kruisingsvlak stonden reflector paaltjes, die voldoen niet aan de wiki definitie "bedoeld om de doorgang voor bepaalde voertuigen of weggebruikers te verhinderen".

Bij de winkel stonden ze los ingetekend, dat voldeed ook niet vlgs de wiki: "Voeg de tag barrier=bollard toe aan een lijn (way) toe die de paaltjes verbindt. Als een rij paaltjes dwars op een weg loopt, moet het kruispunt van de rij en de weg een knoop (node) zijn, waarbij de knoop zelf ook de tag barrier=bollard heeft. Dat stelt navigatiesoftware in staat om rekening te houden met het obstakel."
Allroads (2026-07-19 19:36:16+00:00): Als way ingetekend staat in wiki "can", als losse node Simply, wat de voorkeur geniet, geeft meer detail. "Simply add the tag barrier=bollard to a new node positioned where the bollard is."
Op de kruispunt heb je ze helemaal verwijderd, losse barrier=bollard mogen zo worden ingetekend. Het zijn wel barriers op het trottoir.
Ik zal de changeset terugdraaien.
Sharko_MV3 (2026-07-19 13:56:26+00:00): Czechia? Then why is there a change in France AND in Italy??
solenoid jam (2026-07-18 10:16:18+00:00): Здравствуйте. Вы добавляете кемпинги и достопримечательности там, где их нет. 
Например "Поляна", "Пляжик", итп. Это не самый лучший подход. Кемпинг, это не просто место где кто-то ставил палатки. Должна быть соответствующая обслуживаемая инфраструктура. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site

Так-же, "пляжик" не является достопримечательностью. Пляж это природный объект, который обозначается как natural=beach. Любой спуск к воде, или полянка у берега реки, это не пляж. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:tourism=attraction?uselang=ru

Будет лучше, если на карте не будет лишних объектов, способных ввести людей в заблуждение. Не всегда больше = лучше. Мы как картографы, должны стараться оправдать ожидания постороннего человека ищущего что то на карте. Что бы он придя в какое то место, нашёл то что искал
JJIglesias (2026-07-16 19:54:46+00:00): Saludos. No se lo q están tratando de hacer. Pero los Nombres NO deben ser cambiados.
Gracias
QuiLe (2026-07-17 04:57:35+00:00): Thanks for your contribution! If a road is private you may use access=private or access=customers, by implying access=no this would mean no one (including pedestrians or bikes) regardless if they are students or faculty have access.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185863857
eggie (2026-07-17 15:02:54+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
chris66 (2026-07-26 17:58:57+00:00): Die Position der Lampen zum Beispiel
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/14020729970

scheint mir nicht so genau zu sein.
Baloo Uriza (2026-07-24 15:36:55+00:00): Generally speaking it's appreciated to include street names on sidewalks, as navigation software nearly universally uses this information to call out street names for pedestrian directions.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185864386
Udarian (2026-07-16 19:45:27+00:00): I have asked the Facebook team to not do tasks overlapping with https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/projects/876 , I have also been fixing the MapRoulette tasks in the area once a section is complete in the tasking manager. overlapping changesets like this have a high chance of conflicts due to the ongoing pedestrian project. I would not be opposed if y'all contributed to the OSMUS tasking manager project as long as you map follow the guidelines provided in there.

Happy mapping,
Udar
LordGarySugar (2026-07-17 02:46:00+00:00): Unfortunately I have had to revert this changeset in order to restore the guided busway to its original configuration - there were also some damaging edits made in this changeset. In a couple of places, you deleted roundabouts and redrew them in segments, but neglected to carry across existing tags such as junction=roundabout, maxspeed=40mph and maxweightrating:hgv=7.5. Best practice is to split the existing roundabout ways and then all tags will be copied to the new ways. This will also preserve the original geometry, for example the rounabout on Windsor Drive was made less detailed. There are also instances in which you have combined road segments with conflicting tags and lost detail for example with regards to the number of road lanes. For example, you deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700206635 (3 lanes) and merged it with the adjacent 2 lane segment of Watling Street, removing the correct lane tags as it approaches the roundabout. You should only merge ways when the tags they have are exactly the same.
eteb3 (2026-07-17 09:36:17+00:00): Source = survey and aerial imagery
Joseph R P (2026-07-16 21:54:48+00:00): I have noted before that this isn't a through route at all. It wouldn't be worthy of primary and barely makes it to secondary since it is essentially only accessible to traffic visiting the Lake Mead NRA. All through traffic going from anywhere north of Vegas along I 15 or Moapa (and vice versa) towards Henderson will be taking the Interstates, which aren't just free but also faster.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-16 22:20:03+00:00): Okay, I see. I'll go change it back. It just looked like two primary spurs BEGGING to be connected somehow. Plus, this route would connect Henderson to Moapa Valley, reminding me of how SR 160 connects Enterprise to Pahrump. Not to mention that, in both cases, the routes are expressways within the Las Vegas metro area. Besides the fact that one of them is tolled, what's the difference between these two?

I just realized that SR 160 passes through Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. Why do it (and SR 159) get to remain trunk/primary (resp.), while SR 564, 169, and (former) 167 are secondary?
Joseph R P (2026-07-16 22:44:58+00:00): The major difference is that they aren't bounded by toll booths like the Lake Mead NRA roads. 160 is a major route that links Pahrump to Las Vegas, and 159 links 160 to Summerlin. They serve larger amounts of traffic that aren't solely visiting Red Rock Canyon.

Theoretically, yes, it does link Moapa and Henderson, but unless enough people were willing to spend $25 to take a worse road with no services for it to act as a major commuter route, it doesn't really serve a valuable role in general travel. In a scenario where Northshore Road does not require a park entrance fee to use, primary would make sense. 

Ignoring these factors and simply focusing on creating a route that renders more consistently, i.e. attempting to link two primary spurs, can create a hazard for anyone using an OSM-based router that either ignores tolls or they have tolls enabled, being unexpectedly led down a route with a costly toll and hardly any services like gas stations simply because it was tagged at the same level as a highway like US 95 or Route 160.

If you're focusing on tagging roads from a navigation-based perspective, it's best to imagine essentially every road that requires a pass or specific status to use as a giant, unroutable void (like park roads only accessible through toll booths or roads on military bases closed off by checkpoints) to get the best results, since these roads are no useful for general travel and cannot be accessed like a normal public road or even a toll road that is specifically built for regular traffic.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-19 05:35:48+00:00): I see. Sometimes, it's hard to tell for roads like these.

Historically, this entire segment was either SR 41, 41A, or 147 (and, of course, 169 in the present), forming a sort of continuous route between Henderson and Moapa Valley. This was way before I-15 and I-11 were built anyway.
MissMarcoPolo (2026-07-16 20:00:17+00:00): Correction: Source used was Mapillary.
pwbriggs (2026-07-19 04:01:43+00:00): Ugh, that's annoying that they stopped maintaining their website. Thanks for catching that and cleaning it up.

OpenStreetMap-wise, I think a better tag for their Instagram handle is contact:instagram=*, since it's not really their own website. I'll move the link you provided to that tag.

Thanks again for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Feel free to reach out if you have any questions.
cattycatcat (2026-07-19 04:32:39+00:00): Thanks for fixing that! I'm new, as you noticed :)

OSM is great!
Car Tographer (2026-07-16 21:51:39+00:00): Looks like you've labelled the residential area as a graveyard.(way/618348921)

Additionally, do be careful using AI to add buildings - mappers recently have spent a lot of time deleting buildings made with AI and redrawing them as the AI didn't draw them very well - see this link for a discussion on issues with AI buildings: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/poor-quality-imports-of-microsoft-ai-buildings/139610/1 

Essentially, if you use AI for buildings, make sure you check each one after. Some of these buildings you've added seem a bit off the aerials and some could do with splitting - in future turn on OSMUK Cadastral Parcels to see property boundaries to get an idea of where houses should be split. JOSM has a terracer plugin that really helps with this.
no details provided here (2026-07-17 06:40:09+00:00): Why is this railway line now tagged as cycleway?  It's a major piece of infrastructure.
VLD0251 (2026-07-18 13:17:09+00:00): Hi Backup Quintett, "name" appears to contain a description rather than the official name. also, "tourism=chalet" seems inappropriate for a riad. please verify these tags according to the actual establishment.
Happy mapping!
Backup Quintett (2026-07-18 15:23:09+00:00): Hi, it’s an Airbnb, so I thought it’s the best fit. There’s also no real official name, that’s how it’s called there. Your thoughts on this?
VLD0251 (2026-07-19 19:45:53+00:00): If this is a riad offered as an Airbnb rental, "tourism=guest_house" is more appropriate than "tourism=chalet". the text "Riad in Marrakech close to the medina" is a description, so it belongs in "description=*". please use "name=*" only for the riad's actual, verifiable name.
Backup Quintett (2026-07-19 20:13:00+00:00): Thanks, fixed :)
norgis (2026-07-23 15:07:59+00:00): Hi. Please read the guidelines for how mapping is supposed to be done in Norway. In Norway, the addr-tags are used only on separate address-nodes, not added to buildings or businesses like here. I have removed them from this node. Please do not add addr: tags forward, as they are automatically imported from official sources.
norgis (2026-07-23 15:08:07+00:00): Ref https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/Address_import_for_Norway#Tagging_scheme
NieWnen (2026-07-16 22:22:13+00:00): A to nie jest jakiś krótki 1-2 dniowy remont nakładki? Bo na bipie nic nie widziałem z tą ulicą?
adamsc (2026-07-17 07:50:35+00:00): Tam już od dłuższego czasu jest remont. Wygląda na przebudowę kanalizacji/sieci ciepłowniczej.
NieWnen (2026-07-20 14:14:00+00:00): Ok, faktycznie jeśli to jakaś kanalizacja to mogło mi to umknąć.

Przy okazji temat dopiero teraz pojawił się na lokalnej grupce i z tego co piszą, to ma potrwać do końca sierpnia.
mga_geo (2026-07-28 05:04:19+00:00): Bonjour,
Le trajet de la relation "Car BreizhGo 608" n'est plus continu suite à votre modification.
Pouvez-vous corriger ?
Merci d'avance
Marc
Frank Peng (2026-07-16 21:59:38+00:00): Hey Mitch, when there is a single node for an object, and you want to map the outline of a building or campus, it's good practice to keep the node as one of the nodes in the outline (e.g. as a corner of the building or the campus entrance), and remove the tags from the node. This preserves the history of the information in the "old" node, which is easy to find when somebody inspects such an object. Per the OSM Wiki article on Keep the history, it states:

> When you find a single node for an object, and want to draw the outline of the building or the campus, it is good practice to keep the node (without its tags) prominently in the outline (e.g. as a corner of the building or the campus entrance). This preserves the history of the information in the "old" node, which is easy to find when somebody inspects such an object.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history#Editing_techniques

I can see in this changeset that you mapped the school grounds area, but deleted the school node (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/356570396/history). It would have been better to copy and delete the tags on the school node (the node that you deleted in this changeset), paste the school node's tags on the newly mapped school grounds area (which is what you mapped here), and move the "old" school node into the outline of the newly mapped school grounds area. In iD, you can also select the area and the node (by holding down the "Shift" key on your keyboard, then selecting the node and the area), and press "C" on your keyboard to merge the node data with the area.

In the future, when you see a node for an object and want to map the outline of the building or campus, please make sure to keep the history of the node by mapping the area, copying and deleting the node's tags, pasting the node's tags onto the newly mapped area, and moving the node into the outline of the newly drawn area.
Frank Peng (2026-07-18 20:53:32+00:00): You can view this changeset on OSMCha, which may be easier to review: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185869242
pwbriggs (2026-07-19 03:50:30+00:00): Your edit looks good; thanks for the contribution and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I love the way you described the trail BTW, I'm still chuckling at "very earthy and it immerses the trail-goer" 😂
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-20 21:22:49+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Business POIs added to the map must be visitable physical locations that are verifiable on the ground. See https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Reverted adding SEO spam POI in a private residential dwelling, with no apparent verifiable location on the ground, in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/186083724
StreetSurveyor (2026-07-16 23:36:25+00:00): I see you’ve changed this from my edits for the second time. There is a street sign present displaying the name, Oscar C. Tugo Circle, and my edit was based on an on-the-ground survey. Also, your changeset comment, “corrections to alignments,” doesn’t appear to accurately describe the changes, as they also include renaming roads.
cubbe8 (2026-07-17 00:18:52+00:00): That sign is in the park. The primary street sign on the south east corner clearly shows the street as Avenue Louis Pasteur.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-20 21:22:37+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Business POIs added to the map must be visitable physical locations that are verifiable on the ground. See https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Reverted adding SEO spam POI in a private residential dwelling, with no apparent verifiable location on the ground, in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/186083724
GerdP (2026-07-17 09:48:59+00:00): Hi!
Wegen fixme=add ref number:
Die neu aufgestellten Wegweiser haben alle keinen Aufkleber mit der Pfostennummer. Ich habe aber vom Landkreis eine Übersicht über das neue Netz und da sind die mit drin. Ich kann Dir die Übersicht gerne zukommen lassen, möchte nur erst klären, ob das für den LK in Ordnung ist. Da sind aber die Ansprechpartner bis Anfang August in Urlaub. Ob die Nummern noch an die Pfosten kommen ist mir nicht klar, daher würde ich die auch nicht mappen, wo sie nicht zu finden sind.
jmsbert (2026-07-17 20:50:40+00:00): Hi,
mit den fehlenden Ref-Nr. ist echt schade. 
Sofern es für den Ansprechpartner vom LK-CLP OK ist, würde ich mich über die Liste der Ref-Nummern freuen und diese dann in OSM eintragen. Ich hoffe, die kommen dann auch noch an die Pfosten.

Bei meiner heutigen Tour bin ich dann noch auf Schilder gestoßen, die sich auf die alte Knotenpunkt-Nummerierung beziehen - direkt neben den neuen. Ich hoffe, dass die LK da auch noch einmal aufräumt.
GerdP (2026-07-18 02:51:03+00:00): Ich sammle solche Mängel und schicke die dann als Liste and Frau Katrin Robke: k.robke@lkclp.de 
Die ist beim LK jetzt zuständig für die Beschilderung, aber eben noch im Urlaub. Der LK würde übrigens sogar dafür bezahlen, wenn jemand das komplette neue Netz in OSM erfasst.
kjsfdhvk (2026-07-16 22:15:34+00:00): This changeset removes the landuse=grass tag. Accidentally used the same title.
george1201 (2026-07-17 06:22:20+00:00): Es ist bei Spessart, nicht Burbach!
A67-A67 (2026-07-17 03:30:01+00:00): Bedankt voor het toevoegen

Een paar opmerkingen:
- Wijkgrenzen zijn in Nederland geen bestuurlijke grenzen, dus geen boundary=administrative. Voor het taggen van wijkgrenzen gebruiken we boundary=place.
- Admin_level=11 bestaat niet in Nederland.
- Graag nieuwe ways aanmaken voor de grenzen. Geen bestaande wegen of kanalen gebruiken.

Zie ook https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=place?uselang=nl
Udarian (2026-07-17 15:26:43+00:00): looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-17 13:59:24+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is not allowed on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account; see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information. Furthermore, use of Google Maps as a source is strictly prohibited by both OSM and Google policies--see https://osm.wiki/Google 

Reverted adding SEO spam POI with advertising/malformed tags and source=* of Google Maps, in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185907720
gurglypipe (2026-07-17 09:27:58+00:00): Heya, thanks for all the edits you’ve been making over the recent months in Lancaster and Morecambe :)

When you’re significantly reworking geometry, please make sure to align the aerial imagery to a source of ground truth before beginning. The aerial imagery changes over time, and can be several metres offset across time and between different places in town, compared to (for example) an accurate GPS reading.

The easiest way to do this is to enable the ‘OSMUK Cadastral Parcels’ layer (in Overlays in ‘Background Settings’ on the right in the editor), and then align the imagery to that before editing. The Cadastral Parcels come from the UK Land Registry and are guaranteed to be aligned to ground truth.

For this area of Morecambe, I think the current offsets of Bing imagery are -0.68, -1.99 metres, which is why the bits I’ve tweaked since you‘ve edited them look offset when you first open the editor.

I’ll go ahead and realign these houses and the ones on George Street now, but in future if you could align the imagery before editing that would be fantastic :)

I hope that makes sense, and sorry for the long message. Unfortunately it’s not a simple topic! Let me know if any of it doesn’t make sense. Ta
tastycrackers (2026-07-17 02:52:30+00:00): I signed into Comaps to see if the pointless ghost version edits would persist and yes they did sadly. I have removed access to app. 

Good thing I quickly checked.
felipeeugenio (2026-07-17 12:48:48+00:00): Hola. el nombre de la vía es "Ruta J-289 - San Carlos" parece un error. Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185876113
wpg (2026-07-20 04:30:45+00:00): Hola, hay un error, es J-285, corregido. También mencionar que ese camino se le conoce como San Carlos, lo dejé ( )
felipeeugenio (2026-07-20 12:02:48+00:00): Hola. A lo que me refería es que, por lo general, son conocidos como A y, alternativamente, como B, para lo cual hay en OSM etiquetas ad hoc.
Si es conocido como San Carlos, lo voy a dejar así y con alt_name=Ruta J-285. Pero los nombres con paréntesis son descriptivos y no mapeamos así en OSM.
saludos
❤️‍🔥 (2026-07-25 08:18:48+00:00): hi, why would there be a license plate reader in the middle of a golf course?
Luzandro (2026-07-17 05:56:27+00:00): Hallo,

nachdem du Rad- und Fußweg getrennt hast, solltest du dort auch die Radroute entsprechend ändern: 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/207308

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/629255348
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185876701
keanga (2026-07-17 10:51:34+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis!
Hatte ich übersehen.
Alexis Giraud-Courtney (2026-07-17 00:42:28+00:00): on Alabat Island*
eerib (2026-07-17 00:45:58+00:00): Media release

https://metrovancouver.org/media-room/media-release/997
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-30 07:41:19+00:00): This doesn't make any sense. Changing natural=water to natural=area doesn't somehow magically make it into an area. Fortunately, someone else already fixed it for you.
cubbe8 (2026-07-17 01:38:22+00:00): This is incorrect per the state map.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-30 07:47:25+00:00): Huh? All you did here was remove the natural=water tag here, you didn't add any area (or do anything else, in fact). Therefore, I reverted this in changeset 186628323, so someone else can hopefully come along and actually map this correctly.

https://osm.org/changeset/186628323
fortera_au (2026-07-20 01:38:32+00:00): Based on ESRI imagery, that section is actually there. If this was made purely using GPS traces, that seems like bad logic as no traces along somewhere doesn't necessarily indicate there's no road there.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185877633
Kaduna (2026-07-20 05:45:04+00:00): Hi fortera_au, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.
Kaduna (2026-07-21 05:07:20+00:00): Hi fortera_au,
Thank you for your feedback. I referred to the latest GPS traces and removed the tertiary_link because I couldn't observe any traffic using it. However, I agree that the satellite imagery supports the physical existence of the link on the ground.
I'll restore the tertiary_link. If you have local knowledge of this location, could you please let me know if there are any access restrictions or other tags that should be applied so that the routing accurately reflects the real-world situation without impacting navigation?