piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
shanewh (2025-03-29 10:24:59+00:00): Just because a government paints what looks like a bike lane, that doesn't make it a bike lane.
This is a semi truck route and cyclists are being routed alongside these trucks traveling at 60kph, while being expected to cycle alongside in a lane so narrow that a bike symbol doesn't fit.
More junk maps.
fortera_au (2025-03-29 10:29:45+00:00): Your edit did nothing to remove bike lane tagging. And again, if it exists, then the tagging needs to remain. I'd suggest taking your issues up with whoever is responsible for that road to remove the bike lane entirely, or widen it sufficiently, but if one is there, then it should remain in OSM.
SomeoneElse (2025-03-28 23:35:02+00:00): The "one vs four" problem was caused indirectly by the mapping of the former units as "buildings" (possibly by me!).  This isn't really correct; there's actually really only one building on each side, and the interior partitions can be moved and removed easily.
fortera_au (2025-03-29 04:13:10+00:00): Hi, access=no means access in general is illegal. This is also a track, not a residential road.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164230768
shanewh (2025-03-29 09:03:37+00:00): I'm quite close to reporting you.
You remove edits without addressing the original problem.
I had fixed the routing of this path. I have visited it in person. Have you?
fortera_au (2025-03-29 09:07:32+00:00): The edits you've made have several issues, and don't match up to your changeset comments. I'm happy to help correct your tagging, but the edit you made in this changeset stated that access to that path is illegal/prohibited, which isn't what you stated. What you want is horse=no and bicycle=no, and I'm happy to add those when I have some spare time, but removing the incorrect information that did exist is generally more of a priority to other mappers.
shanewh (2025-03-29 09:14:52+00:00): Why are you mapping roads made by people on their own land?
fortera_au (2025-03-29 09:19:19+00:00): Because that is what OpenStreetMap does, some people may find value in that information. You can mark them as access=private to reflect that, but if you delete them, someone will likely just map them again. 

The wiki article below has some good information on this. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
shanewh (2025-03-29 10:26:22+00:00): Weird. Really weird. I'll make certain my roads aren't mapped. 
Thanks to your mods, the map here is once again completely incorrect, mixing private and public tracks.
I'll notify the lawyer who owns this land and perhaps you can discuss your actions with him.
fortera_au (2025-03-29 10:30:46+00:00): Agai, we have tagging to indicate a private road or trail, and that should be used.
shanewh (2025-03-29 11:03:57+00:00): THE ROUTE IS INCORRECT. YOU REMOVED THE EDIT THAT CORRECTED THIS. YOU PRODUCE JUNK.
fortera_au (2025-03-29 11:44:02+00:00): Please show respect to other mappers. 

If the path doesn't exist at all, then yes, it can be removed, but it's best tagged with a lifestyle prefix instead to show that and prevent it being mapped again. If it does exist, then it should remain and be tagged appropriately, as mentioned.
fortera_au (2025-03-29 04:19:57+00:00): Hi, I've reverted this due to issues with the mapping, please see my changeset comments on the changes for more details. Happy for you to message me directly if you do need assistance with any of the tagging I've reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164233798
silversurfer83 (2025-03-29 19:27:49+00:00): Gude

war das Absicht, dem Gebäude da "vehicle=delivery" zu verpassen?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/722761900
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164231207
MHD (2025-03-29 20:24:32+00:00): Nein, das war ein Fehler, ist geändert.
silversurfer83 (2025-03-29 22:18:21+00:00): Danke
fortera_au (2025-03-29 04:14:50+00:00): Hi, if the lanes exist for part of it, the road should be split and tagged to represent what is there. Even if vehicles are allowed to park there, the tagging should represent that the bike lane is conditional.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164231208
shanewh (2025-03-29 09:06:16+00:00): You just go about reverting edits without fixing any problems.
The mapping of the bike lane on this road is complete rubbish and endangers cyclist's lives.
fortera_au (2025-03-29 09:09:28+00:00): If the bike lane exists, it should be mapped. There might be tags to describe details about it, but just removing it or marking it as non-existent even if it does exist is wrong. Making several incorrect edits that aren't correct because you're not happy with the real life situation isn't the way to handle it.
aharvey (2025-03-29 12:20:32+00:00): hi shanewh, given you're brand new to OSM, I suggest taking some time to learn about how OSM works, learn from other experienced mappers in the area, and take in feedback.

In this case fortera is correct that if the bike lane exists it should be mapped. If you don't like narrow bike lanes perhaps you could work on tagging the widths of each bike lane so people can make maps highlighting those that are wide and those that aren't? Then routing engines can favour wide ones and avoid narrow ones.
fortera_au (2025-03-29 04:15:53+00:00): Hi there, if tracks are on private land, they should be marked as such (access=private), not removed.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164231295
Fizzie-DWG (2025-03-30 01:38:16+00:00): Reverted by DWG - deleted valid features & incorrect mapping

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164270753
fortera_au (2025-03-29 04:17:21+00:00): Hi, instead of access=no, the better way would be to just tag bicycle=no and horse=no.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164231460
shanewh (2025-03-29 10:27:20+00:00): Under Allowed Access:
All = no
Foot = yes
This is correct.
fortera_au (2025-03-29 10:31:33+00:00): The best option is to specifically mark what isn't allowed, unless nothing is allowed.
shanewh (2025-03-29 11:32:12+00:00): If you edit this, 'All' is shown as No, but if you just view the map, 'Access' is shown as No. Quality. What a waste of time.
fortera_au (2025-03-29 11:45:19+00:00): The options in iD are a simplified version to try and help, but access tagging is generally best to be specific unless there's no access allowed regardless of method of travel. 

I'd recommend reading some of the wiki pages around access tagging.
aharvey (2025-03-29 12:15:31+00:00): Agreed with fortera here. a top level access=no strongly implies it's in general not accessible to anyone, it's always best to try and tag specific modes and omit the top level access tag. 

So it sounds like foot=yes + bicycle=no + horse=no.
fortera_au (2025-03-29 04:18:27+00:00): Regardless of the size, if the lane exists and is marked (as per the aerial imagery your edit says you've used) then it is okay to have in OSM.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164231580
shanewh (2025-03-29 09:11:43+00:00): REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE? I take it you don't cycle?
When is a painted bike lane not a functional bike lane then? 300mm wide? Never?
If someone paints a lane on a road and deems it suitable for cycling, but is so narrow that a bike symbol cannot fit in it THEN IT'S PROBABLY NOT SUITABLE FOR CYCLING IN ALONGSIDE 2+ TON VEHICLES TRAVELING AT 60kph. REAL ROCKET SCIENCE.
I gather you don't cycle? Or are you up for a ride in this fake bike lane in the middle of a weekday? Let me guess...... nah!
Do you work for SA's DIT?
fortera_au (2025-03-29 09:16:46+00:00): If it's a functioning bike lane then it should be mapped. From the looks of aerial imagery, which is all your edit mentions using, there's a bike lane there. If it doesn't actually exist then it's fine to be removed, but if it exists, it should stay. 

If it is only 30cm wide then it's not a bike lane, but aerial imagery shows a standard width bike lane, not just a random line painted there.
shanewh (2025-03-29 10:23:25+00:00): How can it be a standard width bike lane if the painted bike symbol doesn't fit in it?
Your edits are just producing junk useless maps.
fortera_au (2025-03-29 10:27:45+00:00): If it's not a bike lane and is just a line on the side of the road then sure, the bike lane tagging can be removed, but you need to state that and not say you're removing it because it's not wide enough.  If there's anything indicating a bike lane is there regardless of width, then the tagging should remain.
shanewh (2025-03-29 11:02:50+00:00): A map exists to serve users, in this case cyclists.
In this case, it fails that purpose, rendering it useless junk.
fortera_au (2025-03-29 11:42:44+00:00): There's more than just cyclists using OSM, it's a geospatial database with many uses. We map what's on the ground.
aharvey (2025-03-29 12:12:48+00:00): hi shanewh, I can see you're brand new to OSM, I suggest reading some wiki pages like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice

In this case, it's easy, just tag the bike lane width per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Supplementary_details then data consumers like maps and routers can factor that in. You can even then make your own map style using OSM data that ignores bike lanes less than a width you choose, then others can make other map styles showing bike lanes even if they might be narrow.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-03-30 01:09:12+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17482
dentonny (2025-03-29 13:58:58+00:00): Dit gedeelte ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/219292412/ ) ligt niet op de grens maar in Mol.
Ook heeft dit eigenlijk geen naam. Geen straatnaambord te zien. Geen gegevens op Lara/GRB. 
Terwijl je recent de naam Zandstraat zelf in Geel hebt verwijderd omdat je er niks van terug vindt? Hier voeg je ineens zelfs 2 name toe op een veldweg zonder naam
JJIglesias (2025-03-29 04:12:14+00:00): Saludos
Ese Village "Virupaya" que colocaste esta en Peru o en Bolivia? Porque técnicamente lo colocaste en Bolivia, y si es en Bolivia pues hay un tema pues el "Virupaya" Boliviano ya esta en el mapa y esta unos pocos kilometros al Este de esta villa que creaste. En el caso Boliviano, nuestro Virupaya tiene(tenia) 105 habitantes.

Gracias por tu respuesta.
JJIglesias (2025-03-29 06:18:09+00:00): Listo lo que pusiste es correcto, movi la poblacion a ese lugar e hice arreglos y adiciones en toda esa area. Muchas gracias
5m4u9 (2025-03-29 14:20:01+00:00): Se podría tratar de lo mismo que ocurre en desaguadero, para mejorar la ubicación y distinguir de país sería mejor añadir la etiqueta addr:country y las otras subregionales.
TuAmigoElEditor (2025-03-29 22:56:39+00:00): Hola, no me dí cuenta que existia un centro poblado 2.5 km al sureste que se llamaba Virupaya. En este conjunto de cambios añadí un nuevo nodo de "Virupaya" justo en la linea fronteriza que haga referencia a ambos lados del mismo pueblo. 
En el Perú, se tiene nombrado a ese punto como "Karifuyo" con una población (del censo de 2017) de 82 habitantes, lo cual lo convertiria en "hamlet".
Pero es evidente que el nombre mas común es de Virupaya y la población de ambos lados suma alrededor de 300 lo cual podria posicionarlo como "village" en vez de 2 "hamlets". Una situación similar a la de Desaguadero.
Perdón por responder tarde.
Saludos
NeisReview (2025-03-29 07:27:37+00:00): #NodeDragging

Hello, and welcome to OSM.

Thank you for contributing to the map. I’ve reviewed your recent edits and noticed that at least one node of a way was moved. This can sometimes happen unintentionally, and it’s led to some unusual intersections or overlaps between street segments and other map elements.

Could you kindly confirm whether these changes were intentional or if they may have been made by mistake?

Thank you, and I look forward to your response!

---
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2722616626
NieWnen (2025-03-29 20:45:40+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Szpitalny_Oddzia%C5%82_Ratunkowy
mwk3 (2025-04-18 10:13:08+00:00): Moja intencja była następująca. Na mapie powinien się wyświetlać wyraźnie napis SOR, by wskazać, które wejście prowadzi na SOR. Z własnego doświadczenia - jeśli człowiek potrzebuje szybko do szpitala, jest w nerwach - szuka wejścia - takie oznaczenie byłoby bardzo pomocne.

Myślałem, że taki efekt uzyskam dodając name=SOR, ale nazwa się nie wyświetla.

Mogłaby się wyświetlać gdyby dodać:
addr:flats=SOR, ale w takim wypadku jest to oczywiście niewłaściwy do tego celu tag.

Trudno też uzasadnić, że wyświetlanie numerów mieszkań jest na tyle ważne by je renderować, a wskazanie SOR'u już nie.

Czy jest jakiś uzgodniony sposób takiego otagowania wejścia by wyświetlić na mapie napis SOR przy właściwym wejściu?
mwk3 (2025-04-18 10:13:32+00:00): Ok, dodałem tag, i widzę, że wejście wyświetla się w postacie czerwonego kwadracika...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165104415
NieWnen (2025-04-18 12:20:18+00:00): > Moja intencja była następująca. 

Rozumiem intencję. 

> Mogłaby się wyświetlać gdyby dodać:
addr:flats=SOR, ale w takim wypadku jest to oczywiście niewłaściwy do tego celu tag.

Zgadza się. Nie tagujemy pod render. 

> Trudno też uzasadnić, że wyświetlanie numerów mieszkań jest na tyle ważne by je renderować, a wskazanie SOR'u już nie.

To temat rzeka. 

Jest wiele obiektów, które nie wyświetlają się na głównym stylu na stronie OSM, a naszym subiektywnym zdaniem powinny. Oraz są i takie co się człowiek zastanawia jak ktoś to dopuścił zamiast czego innego.

Ogólnie OSM trzeba traktować nie jako malowaną mapę, a bazę danych.
Dla ciebie będzie ważniejsze wyświetlanie SOR, a dla innych podajniki na worki na psie kupy (tak renderują się).
 
To co się wyświetla na głównej stronie zależy już tylko i wyłącznie od tego, co się dzieje tutaj: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto

Każda inna strona, aplikacja mobilna/dowolny konsument danych może sobie stworzyć własny styl, wyrenderować mapę jak chce wybierając kluczowe obiekty wg uznania.
Dlatego powstają różne style.
-

Jeśli uważasz, że to tagowanie z wiki jest nieprawidłowe/da się to poprawić, to możesz zaproponować coś w tym zalinkowanym temacie na forum.
Warto jednak najpierw przeczytać całość tego co społeczność wypracowała: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagowanie-sorow/85044
大山かなめ (2025-03-29 07:48:57+00:00): 店舗の情報の追加、ありがとうございます。
しかし、住所の形式が日本のOSMの慣習を守っていないようです。（addr:streetは日本では使いません）
Every Doorの仕様はよく存じていませんが、もし適した形式にすることが可能なら、ご検討ください。
nevw (2025-03-29 11:47:59+00:00): Hi, there is no need to enter the postcode as the see are all already mapped by there bounds. I have deleted it.
Vster (2025-03-29 21:06:34+00:00): I was trying to indicate that the business Botanic Lab listed on the map is gone and replaced by another business. Unsure what your comment about postcodes refers to. Is there an FAQ about updating incorrect information you can point me to?
nevw (2025-03-29 21:53:43+00:00): Your edit is correct. I deleted the postcode as these are already mapped by their boundaries but I should have checked when it was added before leaving the comment.
This guide provides a lot of useful info 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-03-29 11:57:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 164246355 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes by a user who appears to be trying to evade previous blocks and community communication.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17480
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-03-29 11:57:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 164246355 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes by a user who appears to be trying to evade previous blocks and community communication.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17480
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-03-29 11:57:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 164246355 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes by a user who appears to be trying to evade previous blocks and community communication.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17480
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-03-29 11:57:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 164246355 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changes by a user who appears to be trying to evade previous blocks and community communication.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17480
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-05 04:58:54+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164535643
NeisReview (2025-03-29 06:49:48+00:00): #HighwayChanges

Hello, welcome to OSM.

In this and your latest changesets, some types of highway are being added or modified by you. 

Could we know the sources that you used? Thank you.
eggie (2025-03-29 07:09:20+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
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-05 04:58:48+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164535638
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-05 04:58:41+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164535637
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-05 04:58:39+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164535636
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-05 04:58:35+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164535633
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-05 04:58:29+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164535631
Joseph R P (2025-04-05 02:52:52+00:00): Hello. What is the reason for downgrading this section of Pennsylvania Ave to primary? The road serves as a major commuter route in and out of DC and downgrading this trunk section breaks the connectivity with the rest of Pennsylvania Avenue and creates a dead-end trunk route on Branch Avenue as well.
blacklocust (2025-04-05 05:10:11+00:00): Hey thanks for the message. Glad I'm not the only one who cares about highway classifications.

So my reasoning for changing that section from trunk to primary was because the nature of road itself changes drastically at the DC line—from a sidewalked, 4 lane road with bus stops, residences, etc—to a high-speed, 6-lane divided highway with no pedestrian access. E.g. you can walk from the Capitol to Southern but no further.

Grading the DC and Maryland sections as the same did not, to me, reflect my visual observations on the ground. Even if a lot of commuters use it, it just didn't seem to match the road itself if that makes sense.

I didn't really think of it as "breaking" the trunk, just clarifying that the function of the road changes as it enters the city.
Joseph R P (2025-04-06 02:39:49+00:00): Trunk roads are not classified based on their physical construction but rather their role in the highway network. In an urban scenario like DC, these are the most important highways that links commuters and trucks in and out of the city. See for example, Routes 1, 29, and 50 through DC, which serve as major arteries that link the city center to other major highways leading out of the city. Pennsylvania Avenue is also designated as a truck route in both DC and Maryland, and then becomes a freeway like Branch Ave does, linking the city to other major exurban communities.
blacklocust (2025-04-06 06:29:01+00:00): Thanks for reply.

As I understand your reasoning, I'm not sure if I fully agree in this case, but I could be wrong. I think Penn Ave's function/role does change from a linking route to an urban street at Southern, and the physical nature of the road reflects that. However I get your point about the signed routes US 1 etc being trunk. Tbh, many of the hierarchies for the roads in DC feel off for me, and I wonder if this is just an instance that seems particularly off to me.

Let me go ahead and change it back though.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-05 04:58:22+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164535629
Luzandro (2025-11-25 07:37:30+00:00): Hallo,

bitte lege keine Duplikate an, das war das geschlossene Geschäft neben der existierenden Pizzeria: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5043328
hoserab (2025-03-29 18:21:06+00:00): "Grove Street — home. At least it was before I $#%@ed everything up..."

:P
Glassman (2025-03-30 00:44:31+00:00): A couple of suggestions. We don't use descriptive names. If it's not named then don't add a name. You changed the access from private to no. access=no is pretty strong. access=private is typically assumed for driveways. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access  It also appears there might be a gate. If so, just add a node were the gate is on the road, and tag it as barrier=gate. I'll send you more info on OSM in a message
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164233434
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-05 04:58:15+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164535626
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-05 04:58:12+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164535625
NeisReview (2025-03-29 07:14:17+00:00): #NameTag

Hello, and welcome to OSM.

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I’ve taken a look at your recent edits, especially those involving name tags. Some of the names you’ve added caught my attention, as they seem a bit unusual. As noted in the OSM Wiki, the name tag should contain only the actual name of the feature—not descriptions, types, locations, family names, addresses, or other attributes.

Could you please confirm whether these entries were intentional or possibly added by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

---
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:name
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-07 05:38:07+00:00): DWG revert - poor quality mapping

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164616578
aharvey (2025-03-29 10:55:25+00:00): Seems unlikely there would be a house ware shop here, can you provide anything to support your claim? Also the building added should only cover the building footprint, not the whole lot, is that something you can fix?
aharvey (2025-04-01 03:41:11+00:00): no reply so I'll revert this.
pesticides (2025-03-29 05:22:56+00:00): Bus layover area will need to be aligned with aerial imagery once available. King County will likely release new imagery this summer.
jeslop (2025-04-23 09:27:01+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165322895
大山かなめ (2025-03-29 07:29:44+00:00): company=busではない理由は日記に書きましたので、参考までに。

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/%E5%A4%A7%E5%B1%B1%E3%81%8B%E3%81%AA%E3%82%81/diary/406442
jeslop (2025-03-29 15:56:31+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164255126
Jbeuw (2025-03-30 11:42:22+00:00): The name isn't "Kyoto Geust House" but "Kioto Geust House"
jeslop (2025-03-29 15:56:32+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164255126
jeslop (2025-03-29 15:56:33+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164255126
silversurfer83 (2025-03-29 20:26:35+00:00): Moin

die einzelnen Ladesäulen sind hier schon als charge_point erfasst. Du kannst alle drei entweder in einer Relation als charging_station zusammenfassen oder ein Polygon um die Parkplätze herumzeichnen und das als charging_station kartieren.
Das ist wie bei Tankstellen, wo die einzelnen Zapfsäulen erfasst sind.

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164234874
mappy123 (2025-03-30 14:13:53+00:00): Okay, habe es mal angepasst, in der Hoffnung dass die Ladestation jetzt auch auf den Karten angezeigt wird, lt https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:man_made%3Dcharge_point ist das bei charge_point bisher nicht der Fall.
silversurfer83 (2025-03-30 14:31:30+00:00): Danke

Ja. Da müssen die Karten sich entsprechend anpassen.
h551w (2025-03-29 21:27:31+00:00): It looks like there's a typo on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1372593516
Allison P (2025-03-29 21:29:36+00:00): Thankq for pointing it out
jeslop (2025-03-29 15:56:34+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164255126