piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ladoga (2025-01-10 17:45:29+00:00): war doch kein gemecker. Nur konstruktive Kritik :-)
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-01-22 21:36:56+00:00): wycofane w https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161653743

proszę, przestań grzebać w drogach wysokiej klasy

a już na pewno przestań to robić bez dyskusji
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-01-22 21:37:46+00:00): wycofane w https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161653743

proszę, przestań grzebać w drogach wysokiej klasy

a już na pewno przestań to robić bez dyskusji

" A jednak są tu słupki pikietażowe dla DK83 oraz tablica szlaku drogowego dla DK83 " - niby co to zmienia? Nawet gdyby to była droga wewnętrzna czy gminna to dalej jest to motorway_link
Supaplex (2025-01-09 05:05:19+00:00): Hi computerOwl

Your changeset spin over two countries and across 4 continents

Please upload separately next time
user_21880486 (2025-01-09 05:11:04+00:00): Hi there,

I was unaware of this. Thanks for alerting me.

-computerOwl
pavvv (2025-01-09 06:28:27+00:00): Dlaczego? Nie powinniśmy kopiować klasyfikacji urzędowej, a Ty właśnie to robisz
szalona_entropia (2025-01-09 17:18:49+00:00): Przez analogię - ten odcinek S12 to też nie jest łącznica: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.43175/22.09612
szalona_entropia (2025-01-09 17:19:31+00:00): Zresztą oznakowanie drogi w terenie to nie jest to samo co klasyfikacja urzędowa.
szalona_entropia (2025-01-09 17:31:12+00:00): To, że jakaś droga prowadzi do autostrady nie zawsze czyni ją automatycznie "linkiem". Kolejny przykład: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.184116/20.915501
pavvv (2025-01-09 17:45:32+00:00): To S12 mogę zrozumieć, bo to jest dalej ciąg jakiejś drogi, ale tutaj jest to zjazd z autostrady na drogę DK15.
Uważam, że powinniśmy mapować drogi ze względu na jej fizyczną funkcję, a nie na to, czy ktoś postawił sobie tabliczkę, czy nie. Zapewne jest tu tabliczka tylko po to, żeby GDDKiA nadal było odpowiedzialne za tę drogę.
Przecież na tej samej podstawie ta droga nie jest łącznicą, bo nadal ma numer S8 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/365974057
Dlaczego według Ciebie akurat w momencie zakończenia rozdzielonej jezdni kończy się łącznica?
szalona_entropia (2025-01-10 11:18:32+00:00): Na węźle Opacz to jest ewidentna łącznica węzła typu WA.
Na węzłach typu trąbka to jest mniej oczywiste. Łącznica gdzieś się musi skończyć. Pierwszym takim możliwym miejscem jest punkt połączenia/rozdzielenia łącznic/jezdni.
szalona_entropia (2025-01-10 11:23:07+00:00): To, czy dalszy fragment jest łącznicą, czy nie to już nie jest takie oczywiste. Ja dostrzegam różnicę pomiędzy miejscami takie jak to (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.94833/14.94765) a DK96. W pierwszym przypadku to jest zwyczajna łącznica do drogi poprzecznej. Ale w przypadku DK96 mijam bramki i widzę "zwykłą" drogę, z własnym pikietażem oznaczonym słupkami hektometrowymi.
szalona_entropia (2025-01-10 11:25:51+00:00): Więc w takim przypadku proponuję tego już nie traktować jako łącznicy. Bo co, gdyby ta DK96 miała nie 2 km tylko 12? To też byś chciał ją w całości zaznaczyć jako link?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-01-22 21:37:52+00:00): wycofane w https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161653743

proszę, przestań grzebać w drogach wysokiej klasy

a już na pewno przestań to robić bez dyskusji
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-01-22 21:38:11+00:00): "Bo co, gdyby ta DK96 miała nie 2 km tylko 12? To też byś chciał ją w całości zaznaczyć jako link?"

tak
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-01-22 21:38:47+00:00): ale gdybym to zmieniał to bym się najpierw na forum zapytał
szalona_entropia (2025-01-22 22:31:44+00:00): Czy potrafisz mi w takim razie wytłumaczyć, dlatego to nie jest łącznica?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_car&route=52.9670%2C18.6754%3B52.9694%2C18.5428#map=13/52.97076/18.63796
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-01-26 18:00:51+00:00): > Czy potrafisz mi w takim razie wytłumaczyć, dlatego to nie jest łącznica?

A czy ja twierdze że to nie jest łącznica?
danieldegroot2 (2025-01-08 21:27:51+00:00): changeset comment should be
"changed playground seesaw node to line".
Sunni24 (2025-07-09 19:54:03+00:00): Hi, heute sehe ich das zum 2. Mal: Du teilst eine Linie, die Teil einer Relation ist und der neue Linienteil fehlt dann in der Relation (neue Linie; 1349634564; Relation: 10223522).
Wie ist das möglich??? Editierst du vielleicht Daten, die von Overpass Turbo kommen und keinen vollständigen Kontext haben?
Linie29 (2025-07-12 09:25:37+00:00): Servus. Sorry, ja das passiert mir manchmal wenn ich über Overpass Turbo die Straßen selektiere und dann nicht drauf schaue ob dann alle Relationen wieder vollständig sind. Ich werd da zukünftig genauer drauf schauen.
Layft Greater (2025-01-09 16:29:56+00:00): Discussable, but I think this is not a graffiti but a mural

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12485221980
Frans S (2025-01-09 09:22:35+00:00): Hello Birgitt. 
A remark about the mapping of residential areas.
The instructions ask to map residential areas when there are at least 5 buildings close together. (kind of hamlet) 
You mapped regularly single buildings as a residential area. 
Best regards
citrula (2025-01-09 08:08:13+00:00): There is a dog park at the car dealership? Is it open to the public?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161149806
citrula (2025-01-09 08:09:07+00:00): Hello, in this edit you replaced the traffic_signals information with the ALPR information - this is not correct. Please make a new node for the ALPR which is at the physical location, not directly on top of the roadway.
WutTheFlock (2025-05-07 15:08:53+00:00): I apologize about the mistake. This has been deleted and re-added in the correct position. Thank you for bringing this to my attention
canfe (2025-04-16 08:08:01+00:00): I footway in Piazzetta Reale non ci sono. (son anche stati disegnati piuttosto storti).
Ho lasciato il footway link centrale che funge da collegamento virtuale in modo da non spezzare il routing.
Il wiki trovi ogni spiegazione
ivanbranco (2025-04-16 11:06:09+00:00): Hai anche cancellato name:signed=no dall'edicola. Il tag indica che il nome non é visibile/esposto in loco. Se lo cancelli é perché é visibile, ma in tal caso mi aspetterei che tu lo aggiunga. Un errore?

Grazie per gli edit e buon mapping
canfe (2025-04-17 06:59:46+00:00): Sì lo avevo fatto con StreetComplete. Non c'è nome alcuno. Io di chioschi col nome non ne ho ancora incontrati invero.
notmyproblem1 (2025-12-12 10:34:07+00:00): ok
Syl (2025-01-09 15:35:22+00:00): Hello, the 3 buildings you add are not visible in the more recent "BDOrtho IGN" imagery.
MrMoehritz (2025-01-09 17:29:10+00:00): thank you for pointing me to that source, I didn't know it. Removed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161178677
citrula (2025-01-09 08:05:34+00:00):  Are you adding these dog parks on behalf of a company?
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-29 02:51:00+00:00): DWG revert - invalid deletion of names in different languages

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168248825
bxl-forever (2025-01-08 23:22:36+00:00): Thanks for adding data.

Please observe that URL in OpenStreetMap must be a full address, not just a domain name.

Therefore, https://simonis242.be/ and not just simonis242.be, otherwise the link won’t work.

We fixed your latest edits.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-29 02:51:01+00:00): DWG revert - invalid deletion of names in different languages

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168248825
Jordi MF (2025-01-09 22:14:32+00:00): En este cas, ocorre el mateix que t'he comentat abans. La toponímia oficial cataloga el túnel com a "Túnel de Sant Antoni" (sense perjudici d'afegir l'etiqueta name:es) > https://visor.gva.es/visor/?extension=713699,4256924,715119,4257580&nivelZoom=17&capasids=Topografico;,0103_NTV;&tcapas=1.0,1.0. D'altra banda, els túnels se solen nombrar utilitzant l'etiqueta bridge:name=*. Així, l'etiqueta "name" manté el nom de l'Autopista i la denominació de la carretera es manté coherent al llarg de la mateixa.

Salutacions.
Supaplex (2025-01-09 02:36:32+00:00): 如果建築還在，移除商家相關的標籤，也可以依據life cycle標示：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

另外如果是整個建築拆除，則用landuse=construction
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/161152426
citrula (2025-01-09 08:02:45+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please place the man_made=surveillance node at the physical location of the camera, not on the road itself.
tastrax (2025-01-10 02:12:22+00:00): Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits - FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, +61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Phone_Numbers .  I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
Pasguy13 (2025-01-10 03:18:17+00:00): Thanks mate I will keep that in mind.

I am quite new to openstreetmaps so any feedback is helpful!
I will go through and update all of the phone numbers as per the guidelines when I get a chance.
tastrax (2025-01-10 04:25:48+00:00): No drama - I have updated them (I do a regular check across Australia)
SomeoneElse (2025-01-09 10:11:07+00:00): Hello again mapeing,
I suspect that the information that you have added here doesn't actually reflect reality.  For example, if you wanted to cross the road here, I'm sure that you would not need to follow this route: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=51.394888%2C0.499913%3B51.394831%2C0.500114#map=19/51.394646/0.499720
There's been plenty of discussion about whether mapping sidewalks separately adds any value (I suspect it does in some cases, but not in others - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/undiscussed-mass-deletion-of-separate-sidewalks/117491/7 ).
What was the reason that you added them here, and are you really prevented from just walking across Kingswear Gardens?
Best Regards,
Andy
sheldonelectric (2025-10-06 14:30:41+00:00): Hey there, you can use cuisine=chicken but chicken is not a diet.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-01-10 17:32:36+00:00): vandalism reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161214509
JJIglesias (2025-01-09 07:44:35+00:00): Saludos
Acabas de hacer una Edicion de edificaciones en Colombia y Argentina en un mismo Changeset. Esto va en contra de todas las normas de edicion en OSM.

Por favor en proximas oportunidades  limitate a areas adjacentes por cada Changeset. Seria muy triste que te reviertan tus ediciones por esta mala practica.

Saludos y Gracias
GSF1200S (2025-05-23 13:40:44+00:00): 大哥没标签哦
BPTT (2025-01-10 16:02:12+00:00): In doing this, I also updated/corrected the boundary for Bass River State Forest North, but have not yet done the same work for BRSF South.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-01-09 15:27:46+00:00): why you described adding https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1349695456 as " Alignment Fixes "

what is your source for adding this no longer existing roads? what kind of traces are remaining after this roads?
ECRock (2025-01-12 15:20:04+00:00): NYS Hillshade and USGS Topographic maps
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-01-14 02:12:43+00:00): how you verified that there on-the-ground traces?

https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ may be of interest if you want to map features that are gone, including ones gone without any traces whatsoever
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-01-28 06:13:54+00:00): Can you help in cleanup and keep ones where there are traces of this roads still visible (ideally, marking what kind of traces is there) and remove one where no traces are present now?
NorthCrab_upload (2025-01-09 02:11:14+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

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/12485776444

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2025-01-09 02:20:48+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

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/12485776444

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Supaplex (2025-01-09 07:44:20+00:00): Hi

已經有步道了，不用重疊繪製

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161159023
Taksine (2025-01-09 02:49:42+00:00): 草泥马个玩意畜牲的东西
Udarian (2025-01-10 21:30:56+00:00): a few questions here:
1. are you sure that the bike305 site is license complaint with OSM and thus can be used as a source
2. what building are you talking about that has been demolished, before construction there wasn't any building here and their building a parking garage along with the new station here.
3. third since that bike305 website is a Miami dade county website I wouldn't trust it to be all that up to date and accurate since I have personally found meany issues with their sites in the passed and within the last few months. so I was wondering if you used any other sources because the Bing aerial imagery doesn't show the bike path existing around the construction (it fiscally isn't visible(no asphalt)) and having driven through last august I am almost certain that the alignment around the crossing is very incorrect.

In general Miami dade only pretends to care about pedestrians, they will go out of their way t6o ensure that cars can still navigate through and area while all pedestrian infrastructure will be inaccessible while construction happens so it is very likely that this gap in the route actually exists until they complete the BRT line. as of November of last year it is 87% complete, for more info see https://www.miamidade.gov/global/transportation/smart-plan-south-dade-transit-way-corridor.page
Udarian (2025-01-10 21:53:25+00:00): a few typos were fixed:
a few questions here:
1. are you sure that the bike305 site is license complaint with OSM and thus can be used as a source
2. what building are you talking about that has been demolished, before construction there wasn't really any building here and their building a parking garage along with the new station here.
3. third since that bike305 website is a Miami-Dade county website I wouldn't trust it to be all that up to date and accurate since I have personally found meany data inaccuracies with their sites in the passed and within the last few months. so I was wondering if you used any other sources because the Bing aerial imagery doesn't show the bike path existing around the construction (it physically isn't visible(no asphalt)) and having driven through last august I am almost certain that the alignment around the crossing is very incorrect.

In general Miami-Dade only pretends to care about pedestrians, they will go out of their way to ensure that cars can still navigate through and area while all pedestrian infrastructure will be inaccessible while construction happens so it is very likely that this gap in the route actually exists until they complete the BRT line. as of November of last year it is 87% complete, for more info see https://www.miamidade.gov/global/transportation/smart-plan-south-dade-transit-way-corridor.page
Eric Sofen (2025-01-10 22:57:23+00:00): Thanks for catching this, Udarian.

1. My first reaction was its government data, surely it's public domain? But then I realized it's Florida so all bets are off. But then I looked and data on the Miami-Dade Data Hub are "...made available without copyright, patent, trademark, or trade secret, or similar regulation other than reasonable privacy, security, and privilege restrictions."  https://gis-mdc.opendata.arcgis.com/documents/2b91577ca9fb44a289b6d74ec884fd5b/explore
2. You're right - I toggled through a few satellite sources and must have confused the chronology. It looks like there used to be a parking lot and is now a large building (visible in Bing, under construction in ESRI World Imagery).
3. I didn't realize construction was still ongoing. So I agree adding the trail through the transit center may be premature.

I came across this while editing the East Coast Greenway (FL) relation which was broken here. I'm not local, so can't check out the site in person. What are your thoughts on the best  way forward from here? Options that come to mind include:
1. Revert the change
2. Change attributes either to access=no or highway=construction, construction=bikeway
3. Add a map note asking for local verification.
Udarian (2025-01-11 03:08:08+00:00): to be honest, I'm not sure what the best rout is myself. I updated to have the section under the building and up to were there isn't any asphalt in the Bind imagery(the latest in this part of Miami-Dade)with a note describing the issues and added a crossing were it should end up roughly being based on the imagery. I already had a note in the area describing things roughly https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3818829 . 
I am decently sure that the busses go though there since the bus routes apparently go through there (according to the Miami-Dade county website) and those were last updated in July of 2024. https://www.miamidade.gov/transit/library/routes/38.pdf so it may be the case that the bicycle and footpath also is open through there and I am not sure. 
I'm ok keeping it as is, I'd estimate it will be roughly until July of August before there is new imagery in Miami-Dade county. the one that will likely update around then is the Miami-Dade County Orthoimagery (Latest), they tend to update the imagery yearly around that time. as a note the imagery isn't from July or August its from December 31 2023 currently but they don't post it until July or august. So the new one likely has been taken but will not be posted until July or August. when that happens I'll check this area again for any updates. the following might get the new imagery before it it becomes available in iD:
https://mdc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=e523627bb1a748408f7f61aae1bbbfd0
Udarian (2025-01-11 03:09:35+00:00): If you want to mark the ways as under construction or access=no I'm indifferent, if that's what you feel is best feel free.
Supaplex (2025-01-09 07:44:21+00:00): Hi

已經有步道了，不用重疊繪製

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161159023
lapinsk (2026-07-15 13:33:37+00:00): There is no camera here
mavl (2025-05-13 15:04:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
zzptichka (2025-01-09 17:02:13+00:00): You might want to add `man_made=crane` tag and remove `name=Crane` - such names are discouraged: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dcrane
zzptichka (2025-01-09 17:04:33+00:00): Also `Rock Beach=beach` is not a tag. Return `natural=beach` and give it a name if there is one.
ManuelB701 (2025-01-09 05:54:45+00:00): I assume that that gate you edited in Wales was an accident, considering the CS wouldn't span through the Middle East and Europe otherwise.
pavithralashu (2025-01-09 06:17:11+00:00): It was accident while dragging the vector features
Uralla (2025-01-13 06:02:06+00:00): С какого источника взяты названия вершин?
romevik (2025-01-13 11:49:15+00:00): Уточнил у местных жителей ближайшей деревни под данным хребтом в деревне Яндек. Если у вас будут вопросы, спрашивайте.
Uralla (2025-01-13 11:56:19+00:00): У вас в названии вершин указано "скалы". Так делать неправильно. Было бы очень хорошо вершинам оставить только высоты, а раз уж у скал есть какое-то название, то прописать его на том что у вас natural=scree или bare_rock и конечно же без слова "скала".
romevik (2025-01-13 12:10:41+00:00): При добавлении конечно ориентируюсь на документацию по ссылке https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:natural=peak

Да и просто вижу что туристы который пользуются данной разметкой не используют проблем, а наоборот благодарят за неё :-)
Uralla (2025-01-13 12:35:59+00:00): Данные осм используются не только чтоб туристам в карте красиво было и данные, внесенные не системно могут сильно усложнять определенные процессы. Рано или поздно это всё равно будет исправлено. Скорее рано чем поздно. Названия вершин не указывают как придётся, а с применением определённых регистрационных действий. Если название не имеет официальных оснований, можно указать loc_name или alt_name и тогда никаких вопросов не будет.
s777n (2025-01-15 13:19:47+00:00): "Уточнил у местных" - это очень плохой аргумент потому что местные могут сказать не то имя или имя не той горы или вообще пошутить. Например смотрите историю названия этого коша - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1125026533/history
Uralla (2025-01-15 13:29:52+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4317904406   Забавные случаи бывают
romevik (2025-01-16 04:22:52+00:00): s777n, очень интересно. Но это же не маленькая точка на карте и никак не может навредить общественности. 
Бывает встречаю в лесной чаще сделанные лагери и небольшие шелторы энтузиастов, они никому не мешают, зато у людей есть свое занятие и любовь к природе :)
romevik (2025-01-16 04:25:49+00:00): Uralla, вот из-за таких забавных случаев можно сделать точку притяжения для определенной местности. Оять же это может быть сделано не специально, а по ошибке в названии. А если преднамеренно, то это как уже писал никому не мешает, карты общественные и тут нужно доказать что это местно на карте называется по другому, это как говориться "Предъявите доказательства" 😁
mavl (2025-05-13 15:06:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
mavl (2025-05-13 15:07:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
mavl (2025-05-13 15:04:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
willkmis (2025-01-09 13:58:54+00:00): Hi, just FYI that building=destroyed is not a supported way of tagging a destroyed building. I've changed them to destroyed:building=yes, following the wiki guidance (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix), in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161171074.
mona_magdy (2025-01-09 13:59:42+00:00): Hello, Jad200908;
I would like to thank you again for the updates you are making in the United Arab Emirates, but please can you use the tags "highway=proposed" and "proposed=*" instead of
"highway=construction", "construction=*' because these tags indicate roads that are planned to be built in the future but have not started yet. but the tag "highway=construction", "construction=*' indicates that work has already started on their construction, and this is the OSM Wiki page for each of these tags (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=proposed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=construction).
If possible, convert the roads you have added from "highway=construction" to "highway=proposed" and "proposed=*"
Regards
mona_magdy