piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Udarian (2025-02-22 00:15:28+00:00): as I have previously mentioned, these are bike and foot paths, that means that they have tags of "bicycle=designated" + "foot=designated" + "highway=cycleway", so stop changing the bicycle=* value. there is  ageneral access=private, that already tells you that it is private, disgnated tells you that this path si specifically for use by bike and foot with the general access=private telling you its private bikes and pedestrians, please stop changing this.

Happy mapping, 
Udar.
Udarian (2025-02-22 00:19:50+00:00): these are bike and foot paths and thus necessarily have tags of "bicycle=designated" + "foot=designated" + "highway=cycleway", they already have a tag of access=private, that is enough to mark these as private.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162800365
mweper (2025-02-22 12:11:14+00:00): Hola xrosarinox. Para mantener el nombre anterior en el historial y por si alguien lo conociera mejor por el nombre anterior, volví a añadir este pero con la etiqueta "old_name".

Véase https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:old_name

Saludos.
mweper (2025-02-22 12:12:30+00:00): Hola xrosarinox. Para mantener el nombre anterior en el historial y por si alguien lo conociera mejor por el nombre anterior, volví a añadir este pero con la etiqueta "old_name".

Véase https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:old_name

Saludos.
NieWnen (2025-02-21 22:16:07+00:00): Jak nie ma tutaj DDR/CPR to trzeba zmienić na np. z prefixem was: (nie usuwać, bo widać na orto i ktoś może dodać), bo takie zostawione niepołączone odcinki są niepoprawne.

Pytanie jak wygląda tam oznakowanie i czy nadal są światła dla rowerzystów?
KhalidKashmiri (2025-02-21 22:47:23+00:00): Nie ma znaku DDR, świateł chyba nigdy nie było, nie ma znaku poziomego "roweru" ani znaku przejazdu dla rowerów. Zastanawiałem się czy nie usunąć kompletnie, bo póki co jest to nic więcej niż kawałek asfaltu, niemającego mocy prawnej. Nie wydaje mi się, że kiedykolwiek coś więcej tam istniało, nie lepiej byłoby całkowicie usunąć lub dać coś typu proposed:? W praktyce jest to tylko parę metrów drogi przypominającej DDR
Rogoyski (2025-02-21 22:49:56+00:00): Nigdy nie było DDR. Fragmenty wokół skrzyżowania zostały zbudowane na przyszłość. Proponuję całkiem skasować.
NieWnen (2025-02-22 00:10:40+00:00): Ja nigdy nie było, to jak najbardziej popieram całkowite usunięcie.
Rogoyski (2025-02-22 08:23:32+00:00): W takim razie skasowałem.
mweper (2025-02-22 12:15:56+00:00): Hola xrosarinox. Para mantener el nombre anterior en el historial y por si alguien lo conociera mejor por el nombre anterior, volví a añadir este pero con la etiqueta "old_name".

Véase https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:old_name

Saludos.
notmyproblem1 (2025-02-21 22:02:26+00:00): Hello efi99, your changeset comment is not very helpful to know which, what and why you edited these nodes/segments

For more info: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Have a great day and Jó térképezés!
grzegorzmilosz (2025-02-21 21:58:13+00:00): Proszę nie cofać zmian jakie wprowadziłem wiem że brakuje niektórych pól ale naniosę je na mapę, co swoje trwa aby oddać ich prawdziwy kształt po za tym muszę korygować przebieg dróg polnych cieków i obszarów co też wydłuża cały proces. Z racji późnej pory do edycji powrócę w Sobotę bądź w Niedzielę.
Nzau (2025-02-21 22:13:03+00:00): Colombelles : ajout cheminement piéton #Caen24
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-13 03:38:12+00:00): Can you take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4695526 ?

It appears that it is a on-road bicycle lane (at least for some section), not cycleway physically separated from the carriageway
NorthCrab_upload (2025-02-21 22:40:57+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/12608564656

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
TheFighter137 (2025-07-23 09:04:17+00:00): Bonjour,
Les références d'entrée aux bâtiments que vous avez cartographiées sont-elles réellement des numéros d'adresse ?
Mashin (2025-02-22 11:33:41+00:00): Hi,
are these sections newly built?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1361840455
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1361840456

They don't show on imagery from 2023.
Jack Dougherty (2025-02-22 13:09:00+00:00): Yes, trail sections were newly built in Fall 2024. Sources:
https://bikewesthartford.org/trout-brook-trail-ride-2024/
https://we-ha.com/friends-of-west-hartford-park-to-hold-walk-on-newest-section-of-trout-brook-trail/
Mashin (2025-02-23 23:31:45+00:00): Nice. Thanks for the info!
Glassman (2025-02-22 22:22:04+00:00): The shooting range is already tagged. When you do add a feature, besure to tag it properly. The English Pit Gun Range is tagged as leisure=sports_centre + sport=shooting. I'll send you more info on OSM in a message.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162799109
Joseph R P (2025-02-21 23:39:52+00:00): Hello, I have reverted your changeset because 'Future I 11' is not a valid value for the 'ref=*' key, unless it is officially signed and designated.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162799791
maro21 (2025-02-22 18:37:05+00:00): * Te parkingi to nie parking=surface, tylko parking=street_side. Przez parking=surface musiałyby przebiegać uliczki parkingowe.
* Nie dajemy layer=-1 na chodnikach jeśli są na powierzchni ziemi
Krzemyczek (2025-02-22 21:59:04+00:00): czyli wtedy budynek dajemy na 1? Klikałem "mark as lower" chodniki
maro21 (2025-02-24 22:06:57+00:00): W tych przypadkach w tym zestawie nie ma potrzeby dawania [layer]. Layer dajemy gdy jeden obiekt przecina drugi. Tam były ścieżki na peronach.
user_22533963 (2025-02-21 23:14:26+00:00): used aerial imagery + local knowledge to map, forgot to tag sorry!
Glassman (2025-02-22 22:26:45+00:00): Welcome to OSM. Do you have any information on what area the subalpine meadow sensitive area covers? Be nice to add to OSM.

Also, the natural tag should be one of values found on the wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural. I'm not familiar with the value you added but happy to help find the right tag.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162799341
wireguy (2025-02-21 23:22:27+00:00): detailed info https://phillyyimby.com/2023/12/construction-complete-at-620-moore-street-in-wharton-south-philadelphia.html
hfs (2025-02-21 23:26:11+00:00): Siehe auch https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4505704
ManuelB701 (2025-02-22 04:55:11+00:00): Kleine Tipp fürs nächste mal: Entfernte Elemente nicht sofort löschen, sondern durch "demolished:*=*" bzw. "razed:*=*" kennzeichnen, da die zerstörten Gegenstände auf den alten Luftbildern immer noch erkennbar sind (in dem Fall ist es okay, da du hier ein neues zeichnetest und dadurch ersichtlich ist, dass die Luftbilder veraltet sind aber trotzdem).
jkoe (2025-02-22 10:25:11+00:00): danke für den Hinweis. Ich hatte tatsächlich überlegt, es so zu machen, aber es dann gelassen, weil im Wiki empfohlen wird, den Tag sehr selten zu verwenden.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-02-21 23:40:43+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera nadmiarowe informacje. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Paczkomat nie powinien mieć nazwy. Nazwa nadawana jest automatycznie, na podstawie wartości brand. Opcjonalnie, numer identyfikacyjny może być przekazany w polu ref.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9279368647

Dokumentacja paczkomatów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:amenity%3Dparcel_locker

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
trigpoint (2026-07-02 22:45:05+00:00): Is this pub open or closed?

You set the existing node to disused and created the building as an open pub losing the name.

Cheers Phil
Udarian (2025-02-22 00:18:33+00:00): these are bike and foot paths and thus necessarily have tags of "bicycle=designated" + "foot=designated" + "highway=cycleway", they already have a tag of access=private, that is enough to mark these as private.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162800351
Udarian (2025-02-22 00:23:12+00:00): my bad accidentally reverted my own commit, got the tabs open mistaken
Udarian (2025-02-22 00:52:11+00:00): accidentally reverted the wrong commit, got the tabs mixed up, the accidentally reverted one was my own so not effecting anyone here, will be more careful next time.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162800792
Udarian (2025-02-22 08:37:25+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162800792 seemingly didn't fully upload to OSM so trying again

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162807379
Udarian (2025-02-23 02:55:10+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162800792 seemingly didn't fully upload to OSM so trying again.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162837745
pitscheplatsch (2025-02-22 07:30:46+00:00): Hi Alexpvv, welcome to OSM.

In the past 12 hours, you have made numerous name changes across various changesets. This included modifying names. Are these changes being made in coordination with the local community? Additionally, could you share more information about your sources?

I would appreciate a response.

Thank you.

You can find an overview of the recent changesets at the following link: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious?uid=22491289
Alexpvv (2025-02-23 18:19:34+00:00): Hello Pitscheplatsch,
I am certainly changing many place names, especially street names. I'm doing so with the information I've gathered about how it should be done in the Valencian Community and which guidelines I should follow. The local user Jodi MF sent me the information I should know about the use of toponyms in this region, you can see it here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ca:Comunitat_Valenciana#Topon%C3%ADmia_de_la_Comunitat_Valenciana
This together with the guidelines of the AVL (Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua) regaring the correct use of the Catalan language in this territory, along with different laws stating that Catalan language should have preference in the areas where it is spoken, is everything I used to make the changes, always taking into consideraton the actual and real use of what I'm correcting. 
Let me know if you need more information.

Kind regards,
Alex
pitscheplatsch (2025-02-23 18:54:44+00:00): Perfecto. Thanks a lot for your reply and your explanations.

#HappyMapping
the13thsense (2025-02-26 12:51:41+00:00): Udarian,

I've gone by this location multiple times on my bike to double check what you are stating. They are footpaths within a larger complex that has a security gate outside it. The only way you can access the path is by being let in by a security guard. I asked him if I could enter to double check the path. He said unless I am authorized or have a pass, he will not let me in. When you set it to "designated" it implies a cyclist or pedestrian can enter and use the path which is incorrect. I believe the correct thing to do is mark it private for cycling and foot as no individual other than one who is authorized to enter on those grounds can access that path.
the13thsense (2025-02-26 13:00:03+00:00): Please see the definition for designated (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated). It suggests that while a motorist may not be permitted on the pathway, a different user (pedestrian, cyclist, skateboarder, etc.) may use the path. However, the designated definition does not apply here to begin with given that a person cannot access the path due to a guard gate preventing any user on any form of transportation to get in without permission. Accordingly, the  section "Allowed Access" should not note foot or cyclist as designated, but as private for only individuals who are permitted into the area
Udarian (2025-02-27 09:47:39+00:00): It is designated because from what I can tell it is a pedestrian and foot path and thus the tags used are highway=cycleway + foot=designated + bicycle=designated, those are just the community decided on tags for pedestrian and foot paths, that is why there is the general access=private because unless something specifically overrides the general access=* tag it applies to all uses, and the designated value doesn’t override the access=private because designated tells you whether a specific mode of transportation is allowed on a way and if so how, it does not tell you what the access requirements are (what private tells you). In essence the access private tells you that bicycle access is private and foot=designated + bicycle=designated tells you that only bikes and pedestrians are allowed to use the path which because of access=private means that only private pedestrians and bikes are allowed to use the path. I have already explained this in comments left on your commits previously.
the13thsense (2025-02-27 13:34:30+00:00): Udarian,

So this is the problem with leaving it as designated and why I made the edit and believe it should be as I edited. On many cycling platforms, to generate cycling routes, a the platform relies on data from OSM to generate a route. I previously created a route that included the footpath at issue. When I was riding I came across the issue we are discussing where I wanted to get on the path but the path is within a complex that is guarded by a gate. Thus access to this area is private, not designated. The reason for that is the term designated as it's defined in the link I sent you refers to cycle paths, like for example the pathway along US1 for cyclists known as the Underline. That is a "designated" foot/cycle path as no heavy motor vehicles are permitted on that path.

The example we are discussing, is a pathway that is private. The only people allowed into that complex are people authorized, thus it's essentially private and the whole thing, including the roads should be tagged as that. You'll notice on the regular roads where cars drive in that area that the roads are marked as private. If the roads where the cars drive in that private complex are marked as private, then it follows that a pathway there must also be marked as private.

In your response you mention "It is designated because from what I can tell it is a pedestrian and foot path," however, have you been to the location to verify this? I encourage you to go there and speak to the guard the same way I did to ask if the pathway is "designated" for public access who cycle or walk on there, or if the pathway is actually private. This is no different than marking a pathway on a military base as private, and not designated because designated implies certain road users of the public can access it if they walk or bike on it.

Do you potentially have another solution? I'm all ears as to how to figure this out with you to ensure that the pathway is correctly marked.
Udarian (2025-02-27 16:00:32+00:00): first of all, on OSM we don't map for data consumers, if an app is using the OSM data incorrectly its on them to fix their implementation. I have mapped enough pedestrian and foot paths in Miami that look the exact same to be 99% certain that this is a pedestrian and foot path along with driving by many a time as I used to live somewhat near by. again designated does not necessarily mean public access, it just means that the specific type of traffic (in this case bicycle and foot) are allowed to use the path, again the access=private is what marks it as private.
again as previously explained desginated only tells you which transportation modes are allowed to use a specific way, private, permit, etc. tell you what the permissions on the way are, aka. if you need permission to access a way. 
again access=private already tells you that, while changing bicycle=designated to bicycle=private actively lowers the amount of information encoded as we are no longer specifying that this way is specifically for pedestrians and bikes. again let me make it abundantly clear that these ways are tagged as private due to the access=private tag. 
also don't pretend I don't know what the underline is as I have made several fixes to its alignment after the second phase of construction finished up last year.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-03-09 22:54:37+00:00): Tags like bicycle=designated absolutely override access=private.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-03-09 23:14:50+00:00): reverted
see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Transport_mode_restrictions
Any mode specific access tags override access=*

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163420964
Udarian (2025-03-09 23:19:33+00:00): how, I don't see how, access=private tells you who is allowed on a way while *=designated tells you the type of transportation allowed on a way not who is allowed on a way, removing bicycle=designated and foot=designated would remove important information in this case. access=private tells you only certain people can access this way while bicycle=designated + foot=designated tells you that only bikes and pedestrians on foot are allowed to use these ways. the *=designated tags don't say that anyone can use the way they imply no such thing, they just tell you the type of transportation allowed on the way and in that way doesn't override the access=private.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-03-09 23:40:49+00:00): The wiki documents the use of mode specific access tags to override general access=*.
If you don't think it should work that way a forum post would be a good way to discuss this with the wider community.
the13thsense (2025-03-11 00:13:51+00:00): Out of an abundance of caution, I asked two communities, the OSM Community Forum, and the OSM Reddit about how to correctly tag the pathways we were discussing. Members of both communities have stated that because the pathway is within a gated community, the pathway should be labeled as private, not designated because the designated tag overrides the private tag. It appears that Spaghetti Monster's comments above fall in line with those of the other members of the OSM community. You can read each community's messages regarding this at the below links and post your feedback there as well:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-should-i-tag-a-foot-cycle-path-within-a-gated-business-complex/127153

https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/1j7iqxh/question_about_tag_on_a_cyclefoot_path_within_a/
DaanLT (2025-02-22 08:16:39+00:00): bad mass edit, who asked you to damage street names all over Lithuania?
Tomas Straupis (2025-02-22 11:19:13+00:00): Pakeitimas atšauktas. Priežastis: masinis pakeitimas be vienos žinių.
Tomas Straupis (2025-02-22 11:19:59+00:00): Beje ne pirmas kartas, kai Šūrikas nesąmonių pridaro. Kol kas nei vieno naudingo pakeitimo Lietuvoje nėra padaręs.
Shoorick (2025-02-22 11:51:00+00:00): See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Abbreviations — rule is

> If the name can be spelled without an abbreviation, then don't abbreviate it.

So g. is abbreviation of gatvė (street) and it shoud be changed to full name. 

Ar ne?
Shoorick (2025-02-22 11:51:58+00:00): Tomas Straupis, your sentence is a lie.
Tomas Straupis (2025-02-22 13:01:31+00:00): Main rule: you should check local community before doing any mass changes. All official street signs use g. in Lithuania that is for "on the ground". All maps use "g." so people are used to seeing "g.". But most importantly for us, all official databases use g. in street names. This is very important because we're using quite a lot of different validations and synchronisations ant that will not work if you change g. to gatve.
Shoorick (2025-02-22 23:01:47+00:00): 1. Plates „on the ground“ can have abbreviations (English St./Str., Russian/Serbian ул., Serbian/Polish ul., Turkish sk. or cd. and so on) but their using contradicts to OSM recommendations not to abbreviate. Moreover, address plates and road signs can contain errors — I saw them IRL.

2. Map renderer/navigator can abbreviate — it’s not a task for mappers.

3. It seems, that it’s hard to match your local traditions with common OSM recommendations due your legacy. Well, the discussion ended. I see no sense to continue it. Have a nice day.
DaDapperMapper (2025-02-24 18:31:03+00:00): Correction: Comment is "Added alley, Passagem Rio Grande, just north of Inamar based on Maps feedback #adt"
Glassman (2025-02-22 22:28:58+00:00): Did you use google to add information to OSM? Google does not allow it's data to be used. If you did use google, the information you got from google should be removed.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162801189
MxxCon (2025-02-24 03:42:19+00:00): Hello.
Please write meaningful changeset messages on your edits.
"Fixed by owner" doesn't help others understand what you are editing.
Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162801374
MxxCon (2025-02-24 03:43:32+00:00): Hello.
Please write meaningful changeset messages on your edits.
"changed by owner" doesn't help others understand what you are editing.
Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162801403
MxxCon (2025-02-24 03:48:18+00:00): Hello.
As documented on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone#Usage phone numbers should contain only numbers, spaces or dash as separators. ( and ) are invalid symbols.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162801520
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-17 00:49:39+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165050253
jmarchon (2025-02-23 01:08:44+00:00): Hello,
Please take another look at the data you've imported as well as the various wiki pages for the Canvec import. I see some issues right away:
1. You appear to be importing more than the approved data types (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18736785 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1361881766 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1361881990)
2. Footways overlapping other highways. No highway=* objects from Canvec should be uploaded. (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1361881992 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1361881766)
3. Overlapping water areas. (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1361881743 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1361881859 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1361881987)
4. Deprecated tagging leftover. (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1361881987 )
5. Duplicate place=*: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12609014267
6. Duplicate natural=water on nodes (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12608030522 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12606175009)
7. Relation with only a source tag: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18736805
8. Duplicate nodes (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2442258591 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12608016044)


Most of the above are only examples of each issue (the first few I came across). There are likely more examples out there as well as more issues; I only looked at a few small areas which you imported.
Unfortunately, importing Canvec isn't quite as simple as just uploading the data to OSM. There's a lot of prep work, conflation, validation, and cleanup that has to go into it.

Happy Mapping,
jmarchon
felipeeugenio (2025-02-22 12:28:13+00:00): Hola. Vi que eliminaste el barrio que representaba un condominio. Eso está bien, pero aún así hay que dibujar el condominio como landuse=residential + name=

Aquí simplemente lo borraste. Aprovecho de eliminar también esos nombres de calles. Los dejo como noname=.

Saludos
Daemon Targaryen (2025-02-22 21:10:03+00:00): No lo hice porque no encontré ninguna fuente que diga que ese condominio se llama así. De hecho, hay otro que sí lleva ese nombre que está al llegar al Camino Internacional.
txemt (2025-04-20 16:29:10+00:00): Any particular reason you're turning county roads to secondary highways?
stosh77 (2025-03-02 23:53:32+00:00): Revised.
stosh77 (2025-03-02 23:53:20+00:00): Revised.