piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
cartogravy (2024-02-20 23:39:57+00:00): Saludos Santanaloba53,

He notado aquí que cambiaste https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/713538656 de una carretera principal/primary highway a una autopista (motorway). En el futuro, si que podría convertirse en una autopista con mejoras carreteras y cruces, pero actualmente las intersecciones a nivel con caminos/vías menores no coinciden con la definición de acceso restringido de una autopista (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway =autopista).
También en este conjunto de cambios, agregaste la etiqueta ‘source=google map’ que es incompatible con las reglas de código abierto que “prohíben explícitamente el uso de contenido de Google Maps, tanto datos de mapas como Google Street View, para crear cualquier tipo de contenido. Esto incluye usándolo para el mapeo de OSM” (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google). Si es el caso que fue un error, es necesario quitar la etiqueta. Si la fuente de este cambio si fue Google Maps, entonces es probable que todo el conjunto de cambios sea necesario revolverlo a la versión anterior.

Cordialmente,
cartogravy


Hi Santanaloba53,

I noticed here that you changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/713538656 from a primary to a motorway. In the future, with road and junction improvements it may become a motorway but currently the at-grade intersections with minor roads does not match the restricted access definition of a motorway (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=motorway). 

In this changeset you also added the tag of 'source=google map' which is incompatible with the open source rules which "explicitly forbid using Google Maps content - both map data and Google Street View - for making any other content. It includes using them for OSM mapping” (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google). If that was a mistake, the tag needs to be removed. If the source of this change was Google Maps, then entire changeset will likely need reverting to the previous version. 

Best,
cartogravy
mueschel (2024-02-18 09:15:04+00:00): 

Hi,
it seems something went wrong here. There are ~3500 objects that got a huge number of tags that shouldn't be in OSM, like these:

__system-attachmentsExpected = 1
__system-attachmentsPresent = 1
__system-deviceId = collect:etstWhLlpMhgov5h
__system-formVersion = 2023-07-13T16:28:54Z
__system-submissionDate = 2023-07-20T14:07:35.712Z
__system-submitterId = 2220
__system-submitterName = Rwanda Building Assessment_buildings_1821
admin_divisions-addr_cell = Mpinga
admin_divisions-addr_district = nyabihu
admin_divisions-addr_sector = Shyira
admin_divisions-addr_village = Gacurabwenge
building_tags-building_attributes_group-building_material = brick
building_tags-building_attributes_group-roof_material = metal_sheet
building_tags-building_damage_group-building_condition = average
building_tags-building_damage_group-building_damage = light
building_tags-building_type_group-building_type = house
building_tags-floors_group-floors = 1
meta-instanceID = uuid:b559dae5-e3ec-48d8-a4d0-34abb6593225
osm_id_used_in_FMTM = 1169795940

The changeset also misses the mandatory link to the documentation of this import.
KingVik (2024-02-18 09:23:18+00:00): Thank you Mueschel, Thank you for calling my attention 
I would love to discuss this further with you 
This actually the first import of FMTM data to OpenStreetMap  database, it pose many challenges and I would love to engage you so we could talk more about it as I am currently working on the documentation and protocols. 
Your input can help me in getting it right and we are currently working on making it better
mueschel (2024-02-18 09:28:17+00:00): Thanks for the reply. The first things to know about imports are described in our Import Guidelines:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines


In the current state, the imported data is not useful for any OSM data user.  None of the tags used is a common one that can be understood by other mappers or any software.

I suggest to fully revert the current edits to be able to start again with a clean tagging, after all the prerequisites have been met.
KingVik (2024-02-18 09:36:54+00:00): Thank you, let me quickly look at this document/link you sent, I will quickly engage with Ralph and Ivan Gayton 
Within  24 hours I should be able to give you solid feedback on reverting or cleaning out the unwanted tags. 
Please be patience with this, I will surely get back to you.
KingVik (2024-02-19 15:17:45+00:00): Hi @mueschel, I hope you are ok.
thanks, waiting for me for the feedback on the data I uploaded on OpenStreetMap database with wrong tags or not following proper protocols from FMTM project.
after making proper consultation on with Ralph and Ivan, Ralph guided me on what to do to make it right, as I informed you earlier that I will not prefer reverting, but I would prefer to clean it up myself, 
I am requesting that you should give me 2 days maximum to fix it and I will get back to you after that to inform you on the status. 
thanks, and have a great time.
rsavoye (2024-02-19 21:26:51+00:00): It looks like what happened was the data from ODK Collect was uploaded without running the conversion process FMTM uses. Rwanda was one of the very early FMTM field pilots, we learned a lot. We appreciate OSM Rwanda's help. But a lot of the conversion and conflation code wasn't fully working then. It is now as the 1st FMTM beta release will be soon.

It looks like the file was directly downloaded from ODK Central and uploaded to OSM. The data is still on our ODK Central server, so could be converted cleanly, but it's probably easier to just suffer through the manual change. The conversion from ODK forces only approved OSM tags and values. That's the whole point. That then gets conflated with OSM data and validated in JOSM.
KingVik (2024-02-22 14:37:12+00:00): Thank you @rsavoye, your rapid response saved a lot.

Dear Mueschel, I am back to tell you that issues have been cleaned and everything is ok now,
thanks for the guideline you provided, it serves as a learning material for me.
At the end, I learnt so much.
mueschel (2024-02-22 15:00:05+00:00): Perfect! Thanks for taking care about this!
KingVik (2024-02-22 15:05:20+00:00): Thank you so much too
rsavoye (2024-02-22 15:13:24+00:00): I still had the Rwanda data including the post converted file from FMTM as a guide to fixing the tags. I guess that's a good reason not to cleanup old files. :-)

@KingVik, thanks for jumping on this quickly! Learning can be painful at times, but thanks for helping map your community during the flooding! Looking forward to your future contributions, hopefully not during a local disaster.
KingVik (2024-02-22 15:26:52+00:00): Thank you so much @rsavoye.
you are doing a great job on FMTM, it is far better than how it was not.
Sure, I hope so ; I am open to learning and creating more impacts
mavl (2024-02-23 18:51:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 147818131, 147828921 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: nonexistent objects].
Herman Lee (2024-02-15 14:38:30+00:00): 刚才在昌平的编辑似乎发生了一些冲突，部分地方可能退回了一些，会涉及停站和道路信息。
编辑核准过的站点记得加个关系（一个platform一一对应一个stop position），防止误删。
感谢
erickdeoliveiraleal (2024-03-13 10:53:04+00:00): Colocou esta via de 60 sendo que as avenidas mais importantes de Águas Claras são de 50?  Duvido muito. Retirei o dado. Mas se tiver algum documento ou foto, poste para voltar a informação.
mueschel (2024-07-12 18:30:43+00:00): Hi,
could you check the parking tags you added in this area? They are "parking:side:..." but the word "side" can't be in the proper tag - it needs to be replaced by left/right/both.
yasslay (2024-07-12 18:35:00+00:00): Hi,
Parking is disallowed on both sides of each carriageway; I’ll change it now. Thank you for the kind notice too; I didn’t know you needed to specify what side(s) of the carriageway have parking restrictions!
yasslay (2024-07-12 18:37:41+00:00): Sorry, but I’m on mobile right now and won’t have access to my PC for a few days and GO Map isn’t making it easy for me to change the tags. I’d really appreciate it if you could do the changes for me if possible. Thanks so much!
mueschel (2024-07-12 18:42:48+00:00): Editing 34 ways without proper search and replace would be a nightmare...  I changed all of them to "both". 
Enjoy Mapping!
yasslay (2024-07-12 18:45:13+00:00): Thanks so much! The ways I edited all had parking restrictions (no stopping) on both sides as far as I know so there shouldn’t be an issue. Enjoy mapping too!
Glassman (2024-02-15 18:18:45+00:00): I would suggest adding a node in the way where the gate is located and tagging it as a gate. That way people are unlikely to remove the access=no. and instead, tag it as ownership=private.
mbstrother (2024-02-15 18:34:58+00:00): Thank you for the feedback.  I added the gate, but upon studying the local plat map, I'm second-guessing whether the road is actually on private property (despite the sign on the gate labelling it as such).  I'll have to revisit the spot to confirm.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-05-20 19:40:48+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11627048947/history has shop = shop=restaurant that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
shop= shop=restaurant? Is it even a shop? Maybe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drestaurant was meant here?
Kovoschiz (2024-02-16 06:55:09+00:00): Don't use `=mall` for each phase or building. There should only be one of it for each shopping center. It will include Phase 1 as well.
Kovoschiz (2024-02-16 06:55:42+00:00): The meaning on each of them is already partially expressed by `building=retail`
vectorial8192 (2024-02-19 03:17:01+00:00): The problem is, Phase 1 is just 2 small buildings, and Phase 2 is 2 large buildings. It seems you mean that we should have exactly 1 shop=mall for the entire Yan On Shopping Centre? The problem is, with that approach, we may lose information about which part is "phase 1".
Kovoschiz (2024-02-19 14:04:24+00:00): The existing situation doesn't explicitly show what's Phase 1 either. It's only a `shop=mall` for the original entire shopping center itself.
vectorial8192 (2024-02-19 18:36:09+00:00): It kinda feel like Phase 2 was an afterthought when planning the buildings, so I am really not sure how to approach this. Kinda like "oh we need something extra, then here are some proper shopping malls", and name those Phase 2.

My guess to mapping these, is to create a relation of areas and give that relation shop=mall, but not sure how it would appear on the map.
rivermont (2024-02-17 19:50:41+00:00): Are you able to provide sources for this or any of your other changes?

This one in particular appears to be copied from Google Maps. Aside from the coordinates the name, address, phone, and website values all follow GMaps formatting and not the formatting used on the company website.
XD346 (2024-02-19 15:36:27+00:00): 提醒阁下注意：您在本changeset中错误地删除了两条东莞境内的镇界路径，导致对应的镇界关系被破坏，此错误已由 Changeset# 147655223 修复，请您在之后的编辑中多加注意
Hufkratzer (2024-02-15 21:30:14+00:00): Hi,
I would not put the sports_centre tag on this building. The horse_racing does not take place in that building. I would rather put it on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/153681151
Compare the example in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport=horse_racing
silversurfer83 (2024-03-01 18:09:20+00:00): Hallo Witold,

diese Strecke kannst du gerne bei https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ eintragen :)

Bei OpenStreetMap tragen wir keine Historischen Ereignisse ein. Wenn du eine Hinweistafel findest, die über diese geplante Strecke informiert, dann darf diese gerne eingetragen werden.
Guck gerne mal im Wiki unter
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Mappe_keine_historische_Ereignisse_und_ehemalige_Objekte%E2%86%99
für mehr Details.

Dies soll dich nicht davon abhalten weiter bei OSM beizutragen. Bitte nur, was wir auch vor Ort verifizieren können.

Abschließend: Ich habe die Strecke mit folgender Änderung wieder aus der Karte entfernt:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148106515

happy mapping
silversurfer83
Robhubi (inaktiv) (2024-02-17 21:30:07+00:00): Im Tag „name“ soll nur der Eigenname stehen (s. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen und die Diskussion im Forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/adressen-und-namen-von-ladestationen/108364 ). Der Name „Tesla Supercharger“  oder „Tesla Destination Charger“ ist kein Eigenname.
jogemu (2024-02-18 13:19:54+00:00): Mein Fehler, sehe ich richtig, dass das mit osm.org/changeset/147588662 behoben ist?
Robhubi (inaktiv) (2024-02-18 17:50:00+00:00): Korrekt, ist behoben.
user_20879491 (2024-02-17 22:00:20+00:00): Hallo Everposter,
kannst du bitte deine Änderungen näher erläutern?
Aktuell ist der Böhler-Radweg nicht für Busse freigegeben. Zudem gibt es keine Zentralhaltestelle.
TrickyFoxy (2024-02-17 11:06:59+00:00): Желание понятное, но лучше добавлять ссылки на соцсети ;-) Добавил
woodpeck_repair (2024-02-15 15:39:49+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 146946992, 147494834, 147495352.
Znaika (2024-02-15 21:01:01+00:00): Hallo,
bist du sicher mit allen Änderungen? Ist da was Neues? Welcher Bus fährt da?
Sollte  die Straße, die zur Bahnübergang führt, folgendes haben:
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=no
und motor_vehicle= destination
Da ist (war?) ein Schild "Anlieger frei".
Der Weg ist auch nicht besonders breit für ein Bus.
Gruß,
Znaika
Strubbl (2024-02-17 22:22:44+00:00): Wegen dem note-Tag: https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/9/25/proc/3855969_3d260_614fb09e81a08.jpg

Wenn sich das nicht kürzlich geändert hat, muss man offiziell immer noch absteigen für den Bereich des Rügendamms.
Protoxenus (2024-02-18 09:19:10+00:00): Als ich das letzte Mal zu Fuß da unterwegs war (2019?), war bloß der Teil über die Ziegelgrabenbrücke  mit dem VZ 239 versehen. Habe es auch so kartiert. Der route validator von JOSM zeigt aber immer noch Fehler an.
Metzor (2024-04-17 20:14:24+00:00): Hi edalbahida,

You added a separate bike path in this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1250842915

However all I can detect on aerial images and mapillary is a protected bike lane (Fahrradschutzstreifen) that has no physical separation from the road.

As a consequence, one should rather add the following tag to the highway:
cycleway=lane
cycleway:lane=advisory
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:cycleway#Werte

Do you agree? The footage is quite old so maybe you saw something more up to date?

Best regards
Metzor
Metzor (2024-04-19 19:26:07+00:00): I changed it after asking a local:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150238143
HosseyNJF (2024-02-16 11:44:53+00:00): The exit and entrances are blocked with concrete roadblocks. this street only gives access to the gas station.
LimpopoRiver (2024-02-19 17:53:34+00:00): Hi HosseyNJF, thanks for reaching out and providing your local knowledge! After doing further investigation, it appears aerial imagery does support the existence of concrete roadblocks. Might I recommend applying a barrier=jersey_barrier tag (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=jersey_barrier) to the appropriate nodes on the connecting tertiary roads rather than changing the classification to ‘highway=footway’? This way vehicles can still drive into those roads, but not through the blocking barriers. I look forward to hearing back from you!
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-05-22 17:28:19+00:00): Hello!

You used
traffic_sign:direction=backward-
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11627259911/history

Have you maybe meant
traffic_sign:direction=backward
?

I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).

Or have you used this value deliberately? In such case, what was the intended meaning?
Günter-CW (2024-05-30 11:26:37+00:00): I am sorry - this was a typo, which I have now corrected.
Thanks for pointing it out to me.
Ruben Van de Velde (2025-07-08 10:29:55+00:00): Dag Pieter, op kruispunt Edelsteenstraat & Zwijnaardsesteenweg kon ik geen fietspomp terugvinden. Weet je nog wat de juiste plek is?
Pieter Vander Vennet (2025-07-08 10:52:04+00:00): 't is ook niet mijn gewente om een fietspomp pal in het midden van de weg te zetten, meestal zet ik ze mbv luchtfoto's exact juist... 

Vreemd, geen idee wat er hier is gebeurd. Ik heb de POI verwijderd
rene78 (2024-02-15 21:10:40+00:00): So many nameless viewpoints?
silversurfer83 (2024-10-09 18:33:15+00:00): viewpoints don't need to have names.

I'd rather like to know if these are personal bookmarks or intentional additions to the database.
rene78 (2024-10-13 02:48:12+00:00): The user seems to be blocked. Shall we revert?
rene78 (2024-10-13 02:57:23+00:00): Just now checked out a few of those POIs, and the ones I examined could definitely be classified as a viewpoint. Removing them might actually do a disservice to both his work and the OSM map.
silversurfer83 (2024-10-13 11:38:30+00:00): I don't think we should revert. Maybe trimarin comes around and can explain. Could be that they really travelled a lot and left these points for others to find.
trimarin (2024-10-13 22:19:57+00:00): Viewpoints in OSM are really useful for planning road trips, so I thought I will pay back by adding what's missing. It's usually not an "official" view point, so there is no name.
silversurfer83 (2024-10-14 04:22:48+00:00): Hello trimarin

Sorry for the cautious approach from our end. Since viewpoints in OSM are simply places with a good view this is alright.

(Just one little thing: maybe, in the future, upload more frequently so the areas your upload covers, is smaller. )

Safe travels
silversurfer83
trimarin (2024-10-17 21:07:42+00:00): I'll try to upload more often, thanks!
Hidden Mountain (2024-03-06 06:48:54+00:00): Добрый день,

Я был на вершине Павлика Морозова и поэтому интересно, когда ее переименовали в Маречека? И там точно только одна вершина, поэтому Бондаренко уже по логике не вписывается. Возможно это второе название Красной горки, или у пика Кошевого скальный гребень с как минимум двумя вершинами одной высоты, если там кто-то обозначил еще одну вершину, то скорей всего где-то на этих вариантах.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-12 05:56:01+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164841193
NorthCrab_upload (2024-02-15 17:00:21+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Klucz addr:place oznacza brak nazwy ulicy. Kombinacja z addr:street (który definiuje nazwę ulicy) jest błędna. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, zamień addr:place na addr:city. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1047444353
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1250854288

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
olo81 (2024-02-16 13:27:18+00:00): wywalone, nieodpowiednie tagowanie
gscholz (2024-02-21 07:33:13+00:00): Hi JazminRgz,
your recent edits have added a lot of errors to the OSM database regarding overlapping ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-103.36520&lat=20.65857&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=1147507751

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=147500281

As you may know, this kind of error irritates routing software and looks ugly on the maps. Can you please fix this?

You may like to educate yoursel about how to edit cycleways properly, which are part of a road:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway

Kind regards
Guido
woodpeck_repair (2024-03-08 18:34:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 148396825 where the changeset comment is: weitere leidige edits unerwünschter Sockenpuppen entfernt s. https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Global_ban_of_user_geocodec
woodpeck_repair (2024-03-08 18:33:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 148396825 where the changeset comment is: weitere leidige edits unerwünschter Sockenpuppen entfernt s. https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Global_ban_of_user_geocodec
d_berger (2024-02-18 12:07:34+00:00): Hi. Never split roads just to add U-turn restrictions on each and every segment. This is incorrect, and a central example for bad mapping.

See also: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Relation:restriction
mjasach1700 (2024-02-18 12:13:06+00:00): Ok, thank you. I will correct that.
woodpeck_repair (2024-03-08 18:33:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 148396825 where the changeset comment is: weitere leidige edits unerwünschter Sockenpuppen entfernt s. https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Global_ban_of_user_geocodec
Nakaner (2024-02-20 08:55:01+00:00): Hallo,

du hast in diesem Änderungssatz eine Gewichtsbeschränkung von 3,5 t an mehreren Straßenabschnitten und der Straßenrelation erfasst. In deinem Kommentar schreibst du jedoch nur von einem Tagfahrverbot für Lkw ab 7,5 t. Könntest du bitte erklären, was jetzt richtig ist?

Es ist übrigens nicht zielführend einzelne Straßenstücke zu sperren, wenn es Alternativen darum herum gibt. Zudem bezweifle ich, dass auch dem Lieferverkehr die Benutzung der Straße verboten wird.

Viele Grüße

Michael
craiutz (2024-02-21 14:05:40+00:00): Hi,

There are 2 restriction:
1. For vehicles of over 7.5 t MPW from 05:00 to 22:00
2. For vehicles of over 3.5 t MPW from 02:00 to 05:00

Exceptions: Vehicles that needs to deliver to the restricted zone.

I don't know how to apply time windows for max weight, that's why I added 3.5t restriction for all.
craiutz (2024-02-21 14:08:31+00:00): 2. For vehicles of over 3.5 t MPW from 22:00 to 05:00
OSM_RogerWilco (2024-02-16 07:32:17+00:00): Hallo AmyMe und willkommen bei OpenStreetMap! Ich freue mich sehr über Unterstützung im Heidekreis! :-)

Bei dem Weg, den Du durch den Wald eingetragen hast, hast Du angegeben, dass Radfahren und Reiten verboten ist. Ist es tatsächlich verboten oder wolltest Du nur angeben, dass der Weg nicht zum Reiten und Radfahren geeignet ist?

Viele Grüße
Roger Wilco
AmyMe (2024-02-16 08:34:04+00:00): Hallo,
ich habe es anhand der Barriere, welche am Nördlichen Eingang existiert, die nicht mit einem Rad oder Pferd passiert werden kann, so eingetragen.
OSM_RogerWilco (2024-02-16 09:36:25+00:00): Ok, alles klar.

An den Wegen sollte man nur rechtliche Beschränkungen eintragen. Normalerweise, die die durch Verbotszeichen und Verkehrsschilder vor Ort angezeigt werden. Bei physikalischen Barrieren macht man das an dem Punkt der Barriere. Besser ist es allerdings die Breiten und Abstände anzugeben, wenn man sie messen möchte. Dann kann die Software berechnen, wer dort durch passt und wer nicht (klassiche Fahrräder, Fahrräder mit Anhänger, Dreiräder, Lastenräder, Kinderwagen, Mopeds, usw. usf.). Die alle einzeln zu bewerten ist schwierig und vom Einzelfall abhängig. Man denkt auch nicht alle.
OSM_RogerWilco (2024-02-16 09:40:29+00:00): Es kann jemand z.B. sein Mountainbike über das Umlaufgitter heben und dann dahinter weiterfahren. Daher versuchen, wir es so genau wie möglich zu erfassen.

Es ist aber sehr löblich, dass Du daran bereits gedacht hast und nicht nur den Weg eingetragen hast.

Toll wäre es auch die Wegbreite vom Pfad anzugeben. Nimm dafür die engste Stelle am Boden. Kann man auch ruhig schätzen.
AmyMe (2024-02-16 11:15:23+00:00): Danke für dein Feedback.
Ich habe die Eigenschaften soweit angepasst. Es existiert kein direktes Verbotsschild, nur das Umlaufgitter. 
Es ist ein Trampelpfad welcher nicht mit Kfz's befahren werden kann.

Beim Umlaufgitter gibt es keine Eigenschaft wo ich die Breite eintragen kann.