piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
micheleOSM3 (2024-04-02 17:38:30+00:00): Are you sure about your changes? Path 612 is an official CAI (Club Alpino Italiano) path that passes over a wooden bridge, now the modification has made it pass over a ford. If you make changes using only bing and other online tools you may damage the work done by other mappers who have personally walked the path.
Look at this orthophoto: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s0KkhyvfkgxJQAYIyqLvDTicIyZeycX-/view
mtrutman (2024-04-02 17:58:47+00:00): Hi, I walked the path 5 days ago. I never make changes using online sources only.
There is now new bridge at the new location, which is wide enough for a car.
See this orthophoto: https://mapy.cz/letecka?x=13.4928930&y=46.4875947&z=19
micheleOSM3 (2024-04-02 18:28:59+00:00): I don't know the new bridge, I know the wooden bridge which is a few meters further north.
However, even if the new bridge exists, I have doubts about whether they have moved the CAI 612 path that previously passed over the wooden bridge, unless the wooden bridge has been destroyed. So my questions are:
1) was the wooden bridge destroyed?
2) the entire CAI 612 path is marked with signs and trail signs, have you seen the CAI 612 trail signs on the new bridge?

I inform you that your photo is not an orthophoto, but a Bing satellite photo in which there is no wooden bridge, I don't know what date the photo is from, but what is certain is that in 2022 the wooden bridge it was definitely there.
mtrutman (2024-04-02 19:36:09+00:00): To your questions:
1. There is just the new bridge.
2. Marking in this area is generally poor. But the path over the new bridge is obvious and logical.
CoyKoi (2024-04-04 03:20:40+00:00): I suggest leaving a changeset discussion comment on the previous user's changeset #149294619, rather than reverting their change entirely. And/or set the access=private tag yourself if you have the local knowledge to confirm that
michael60634 (2024-04-04 03:34:29+00:00): I don't have any knowledge on this specific path, so I think it'd be inappropriate if I changed the accessibility tags myself. The reason I reverted is because the name change was clearly not something that would be a real name. Such as "Private Road, not Fairhaven Walk" or "Privat". I noticed this name change on osmcha while looking out for, funnily enough, some other names changes, and I thought I'd fix it as it seemed strange to me.
mcliquid (2024-04-09 07:16:32+00:00): Hi, ich hab hier motor_vehicle=designated zu "destination" geändert: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149762558
asdfwqer (2024-04-22 14:14:37+00:00): Графа "Общий доступ" не про физическую доступность, а про юредическую.
Leo Slager (2024-04-01 21:55:10+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
silversurfer83 (2024-04-02 14:09:44+00:00): Öhm...
Hi :)

Warum machst du denn aus den stop_positions eine platform?

cheers
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149448920
GerdP (2024-05-03 06:39:16+00:00): Moin aus Wildeshausen!
Bei dieser Änderung hast Du den Knotenpunkt 27 verdoppelt und einige Knotenpunkt-Routen sind jetzt nicht mehr OK. Siehe auch https://www.knooppuntnet.nl/en/analysis/network/16511786/facts#RouteInaccessible
Kannst Du das selbst reparieren oder brauchst Du Unterstützung?
GerdP (2024-05-04 13:17:36+00:00): Ich habe das mal anhand von Mapillary-Bildern von 2021 korrigiert:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150878603
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150879259
Schau bitte noch mal drüber, ob es jetzt so passt. Zumindest gibt es so keine Lücken mehr in den Radrouten.
silversurfer83 (2024-08-16 14:04:34+00:00): Moin :)

ist hier eine Beschilderung, die auf die Überflutungsgefahr hinweist?

Wenn ja, dann sollte dies in den Schlüssel "hazard=*" und hat nichts im Namen verloren :)

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:hazard
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen#Namen_sind_keine_Beschreibungen

Grüße
silversurfer83
cu0r€ (2024-09-08 06:47:17+00:00): hallo silversurfer,
dank für den hinweis!
habe das objekt abgeändert.
gruß
cu0r€
silversurfer83 (2024-09-08 09:22:19+00:00): Top. Danke
NorthCrab_upload (2024-04-01 19:40:25+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3669238367
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303287350

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
maro21 (2024-04-02 19:59:58+00:00): Dzięki za dokończenie
N1T3R (2024-04-05 01:14:08+00:00): For such a huge changeset, can you split it into multiple uploads in the future?

Changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:

• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)

• keep changes within the same country

• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Have a look at: "Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset

Thanks for considering.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-04-06 05:44:16+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/605885570/history - how do you know that there is speed limit 40 there and entire way is a bridge? Or it it a test edit/mistake?

Or maybe entire edit is a test edit and you were not intending to save it?

(I am asking as at least bridge is unlikely but I do not want to remove correct info)
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-04-06 05:44:26+00:00): Hello!

Note that you do not need to add description of feature type as a name.
For example when mapping tree it is enough to specify that it is a tree, no need for putting that name of this specific tree is "Tree".

So for buildings it is not needed to put House as their name.

Or do you maybe know that this specific object mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1268215041 is specifically named with such name?

And if it was mistake - can you edit map to remove this name?
    
Do not worry too much about this issue - I made way worse mistakes when I was starting. Maybe some tool or explanation is confusing? Why you added this name? Note that I am asking as maybe something can be fixed to be less confusing.
citrula (2024-04-03 03:32:47+00:00): lanes tag is for the total number of lanes on the roadway. Is this actually a single lane road, or is it one in each direction? If it's the latter, you should change it to lanes=2. Also, the barrier=gate should not be on the Reindeer Road way, but further down the driveway. Putting it on the shared node means that Reindeer road is blocked by the gate. Otherwise, it looks good to me!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149451255
map per (2024-04-03 09:11:11+00:00): Wegen review_requested:
Die Änderung sieht gut aus, danke!
rskedgell (2024-04-02 06:21:19+00:00): Which websites? Do they have licenses compatible with OpenStreetMap?
N1T3R (2024-04-08 04:21:53+00:00): For such a huge changeset, can you split it into multiple uploads in the future?

Changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:

• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)

• keep changes within the same country

• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Have a look at: "Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset

Thanks for considering.
canfe (2024-04-02 05:10:49+00:00): Perché hai cancellato quattro natural rock?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149452357
DaveF (2024-04-03 10:10:12+00:00): Please don't create linear platforms when there are already polygon platforms.
jasonhibbs (2024-04-03 10:16:04+00:00): Thanks Dave, I’ve not created these but expanded the length of the footways and added tags. I’ll remove platform tagging if that’s the appropriate thing to do.
micheleOSM3 (2024-04-02 10:30:29+00:00): Credo che tu abbia rotto varie relation (via alpina, CAI 072, alpe adria trail) e forse anche altre. Ora sto mettendo a posto spezzando in modo da poter aggiungere la way mancante (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1268336185) alle relations rotte.
MitjaJez (2024-04-02 13:32:25+00:00): Vem. JOSM se mi je sesu. Hvala, da si popravil, sicer bi pa jaz.
pitscheplatsch (2024-04-03 17:25:37+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149453338
pitscheplatsch (2024-04-03 17:25:30+00:00): revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149453319
literan (2024-04-03 20:11:01+00:00): как-то тротуар тут по проезжей части прямо идет, вплотную к линии дороги https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/741597045#map=19/55.83857/37.63304

но вообще, в этом году Сельскохозяйственную начинают реконстрировать с расширением, и это все придется сносить...
emersonveenstra (2024-04-02 10:36:31+00:00): Hi there,

You added "maxweight:hgv:conditional = 82 T", but :conditional tags need to have a conditional restriction (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions). You're maybe looking for something like one of the examples here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions#Vehicle_dimension
Branko Kokanovic (2024-04-05 18:00:08+00:00): Vidim da si spojio brojeve 37 i 41, a to nije nešto što praktikujemo. Ja sam sad ucrtao zgradu i na zgradu zalepio ta dva broja. Ako nećeš da ucrtavaš zgradu, dovoljno je i da približiš brojeve, ali nemoj da ih spajaš. Evo zgrade da vidiš kako to sad izgleda: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1270194371 (možda će trebati refresh više puta)

Više o tome kako se unose adrese ima na: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Serbia/Adresses
Hufkratzer (2024-04-02 21:16:27+00:00): Hi,
a riding arena (carriere equestre) is not a recreation ground, it should be tagged leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch#Examples
and also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dstable and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Driding_hall
5m4u9 (2024-04-02 08:27:11+00:00): Hola, gracias por mejorar editando el mapa.

En el cambio que hiciste, quitaste el doble sentido de la calle, eso quiere decir qué tiene un solo sentido? o no esta definido? 🤔

en próximas ediciones es ideal añadir la fuente a la misma calle para que quede constancia de la fuente...
MxxCon (2024-04-03 02:47:40+00:00): Hello.
As documented in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone#Usage phone numbers must contain country dialing code(in US it's +1) and they must be separated either by space or dash "-".

Furthermore, street names must be fully spelled out, not abbreviated. Not "E Roosevelt Road" but "Roosevelt Road" or "East Roosevelt Road", whichever is appropriate.
Both of these problems must be corrected.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149454248
MxxCon (2024-04-03 02:49:22+00:00): Additionally, "Chicago West", "Chicago North", "Atlanta", etc must not be in the name tag but rather in the branch= tag, specifically intended for this kind of information.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149454248
whb (2024-05-05 10:37:50+00:00): Guten Tag,

bitte nicht vergessen, dass Fußgänger auch weiterhin hier durch gehen dürfen.

Viele Grüße
whb
LockOnGuy (2024-08-20 19:44:28+00:00): Hello zhiar590,   
Why did you changed the name from Arabic to Kurdish and removed the Arabic name entirely from osm?       
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323152216/history    
And https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323276241/history
zhiar590 (2024-08-23 18:36:31+00:00): Hello LockOnGuy
I apologize for the late reply 
The reason i changed the name is that the main language of the city of Kifri is Kurdish and the city i the Arabic name was set as the main name i removed and write it in Kurdish and i forgot to write the Arabic name separately as Arabic and ive been to that city the name was written in Kurdish
Nakaner (2024-04-03 13:55:33+00:00): Hallo,

in OpenStreetMap erfassen wir die Welt, wie sie vor Ort ist. Das heißt, dass auch Wege, deren Benutzung durch die Öffentlichkeit nicht gestattet ist, von uns erfasst werden. Wir ergänzen in diesem Fall access=private, um die Zugänglichkeit darzustellen. Die Löschung der Wege schützt nämlich nicht vor einer Wiedereintragung. Die Wege sind vor Ort, aber zumindest auf Orthophotos sichtbar. Es ist daher nur eine Frage der Zeit, bis jemand den vermeintlich fehlenden Weg erneut einträgt.

Deine Löschungen waren nicht ausreichend begründet, daher habe ich sie als Vandalismus eingestuft und rückgängig gemacht. Siehe hierzu auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments

Viele Grüße

Michael
jptolosa (2024-04-03 21:38:45+00:00): Hola.
Yo creo que no corresponde usar natural=spring en estos casos y las relaciones de ríos que has creado sólo deberían agrupar los segmentos que componen el arroyo principal, sin sus afluentes.
Saludos.
Juan Manuel Stagnaro (2024-04-03 23:48:13+00:00): ¡Hola!

Gracias por tu comentario. Si, efectivamente es un error producto de una importación de datos. Estoy trabajando en solucionarlo ya que es un proyecto de mapeo de toda la cuenca.

¡Saludos!
muralito (2024-06-08 22:26:04+00:00): Hola. Los ejes no se pueden corregir con Bing Maps Aerial porque esta desplazado. Para corregir ejes tenes que usar las imagenes de IDE.uy que son las imagenes con mejor precision disponible gratuitas.
MxxCon (2024-04-03 04:01:11+00:00): Hello.
Why did you delete highway=primary tag from Montgomery Road?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149455537
Leo Slager (2024-04-02 11:01:25+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
MxxCon (2024-04-03 03:43:29+00:00): Perhaps Eltingville Blvd should get parking tags too? Or at least parking:right=separate https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Street_parking#Separately_mapped_parking_areas_and_spaces
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149455834
MapSpot (2024-04-04 15:48:14+00:00): Don't see why not. Done.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149576618
MxxCon (2024-04-03 03:53:08+00:00): Hello.
At intersections, if you are mapping curbs, please don't connect 2 sidewalks to the same curb, the way you did at curbs 11402316008, 11402316011, 11402316012 and others. Doing that affects pedestrian/wheelchair navigation routing since it crosses through such a curb. Some routers might complain that it crosses a curb and show a warning, when in reality you can easily get between these 2 sidewalks w/o that curb.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149456193
mcliquid (2024-04-02 06:52:23+00:00): Hi,

please note: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:

• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)

• keep changes within the same country

• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
MxxCon (2024-04-03 04:04:23+00:00): This edit, just like all your previous ones, needs fixing of the phone number and name tags.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149456811
Tomas Straupis (2024-04-03 05:56:27+00:00): Rokenrol! :-) Jei Ąžuolyne kombinuoti dviračių-pėsčiųjų takai jau yra tik takai be dviračių (nes, matau, path->footway, tai reikia ir foot|bicycle designated nuimti). https://lt.wikibooks.org/wiki/Atviro_%C5%BEem%C4%97lapio_vadovas/Redagavimas/Dvira%C4%8Diai
syntex (2024-10-21 14:52:12+00:00): By changing the tag type=multipolygon to type=civil, the Halifax airport relation has been broken (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15545954)
Xvtn (2024-04-02 14:23:41+00:00): Howdy! Instead of tagging as a park, have you considered tagging Little Sahara boundary as a protected area? [1] Even though (imo) neither park nor protected area is perfect, I understand park to mean more of a developed green space that's more managed. [2]
Also, for the dune outlines themselves, please consider avoiding descriptive names. [3]

Let me know what you think! Hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to boss you around. Thanks for your import of this boundary, and your other contributions!

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
Lexopedia (2024-04-02 15:06:29+00:00): I appreciate the suggestions, I went back and forth through so many options. for the boundary. I ended up typing BLM and using a previous suggestion. In my head the locals call it a park, but I agree with you that it is not correct. As far as the sand dunes I do know the actual names of the different dunes as well, but they will need to be broken up. I just didn't have the time right then to do so. The previous zone was all called "little Sahara Recreation Area" I believe and I know the property is technically much larger than the dunes. In the future I'll break them up and give them the names. Thank you for any corrections. I'm still figuring out how this mapping system operates over previous ones I have used for work.
goldfndr (2024-04-09 22:07:12+00:00): The route marker tagging was a mistake, they're guideposts.
Quimby5 (2024-04-02 15:02:47+00:00): Hi, this is not a great import.  You have woods that do not merge with adjacent tiles, and streams that are just fragments all on their own.  For example see:  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149460128#map=14/50.2462/-118.4783&layers=D

If you are going to be importing Canvec data, these are the sorts of things that need to be checked and corrected to ensure quality.    (You have imported some 200,000+ nodes in the last couple days which some people would question).
jmarchon (2024-04-03 05:43:16+00:00): Hello!
Thanks for reviewing my changes. Would you be able to point to some more specific examples?
jmarchon
Quimby5 (2024-04-05 20:45:28+00:00): Hi, I did include a link to show a specific example. Do you not see how the tiles you are importing do not line up / merge with the adjacent tiles that you have also imported?
jmarchon (2024-04-06 05:18:22+00:00): Hello,
My apologies, I overlooked the fact that your link is pointing to a specific location and not just a changeset. In that location, however, only the lower part is from the Canvec import. The rest has not been imported yet, hence the cutoff streams, etc.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions.
jmarchon
Quimby5 (2024-04-07 14:54:40+00:00): The fact remains that you imported the polygon without it matching the adjacent one. 
You imported stream fragments that don't connect to anything, instead of importing a complete watershed. 

Looking around a little more, your edits to existing polygons may even created invalid multipolygons in adjacent tiles. (See relation 16665336)

It could be argued your mechanical edits are making the map worse in this area.  I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, as you have a very high edit count ... but this means you should know better. If this were any newer an account, I would honestly be reverting your changesets.  

I'm hoping you'll come back and fix these issues, but it looks like you have moved on and are importing in several other areas now.
jmarchon (2024-04-08 03:19:54+00:00): I've now gone back and fixed the broken multipolygon you mentioned. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.  I've also filled in the thin forest landcover gaps between my imported data and the existing data.
As for the waterways, I'm not sure how to better go about importing that data. I don't have the computational resources or the time to import whole watersheds at once. The disconnected fragments are not wrong IMO, just incomplete. OSM has a ton of incomplete data, it's inevitable.
Udarian (2024-04-03 15:00:04+00:00): Wow, I really typoed that, I meant:
Small fix I forgot in previous commit.
joel56dt (2024-04-02 14:41:17+00:00): Hi Zarr,

Thanks for your changes here and all your other regular contributions.

I have noticed that we map "combined curbs" a bit differently (for example nodes 8177740855 vs 8177740857).  I am not convinced my method of adding two curbs to each corner is best and I don't want to add incorrect/misleading data to the map. The wiki is not clear and I am wondering if your method is adequate. Is it appropriate to have > 2 ways connected to a single curb node?
(I am aware that you also map two curbs in instances where they are clearly separate, such as node 5765177201)

Or, could we both improve how we map combined curbs? Would mapping them like node 11608418585 make more sense? If someone is crossing both roads they may not strictly need to step on to the first curb before starting their second crossing. In a situation where the 'intermediary' curb is raised but the other two are lowered, the data could be misleading. Routing for low-mobility users would interpret that the raised curb must be stepped on when in reality it could be bypassed. (I am probably over thinking all of this but curbs are one of the most tedious things I have decided to map so I definitely do not want to be spreading bad data.)

Thanks!
Joel
Zarr (2024-04-03 04:19:04+00:00): I think its a matter of ongoing debate online about what is the "correct" way to code curbs tags on these smaller crossings. From what I've gathered the most important thing is to never have the curb tag on the main sidewalk way itself (as that would suggest that you have to step over a curb to continue down the sidewalk). 

Typically in cases where the sidewalk is wide enough to support a 90 intersection between the two sidewalks, I separate the curb tags (similar to the graphic shown in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing or like node 5765177201 if there wasn't any grass between the two curb tags), even if the curb is in reality one large curb let down. I usually only do the nubbin for those crossings where the curb let down is directly on the apex of the sidewalk curve and right after the stop sign (as the crossing shouldnt be before the stop sign). That way its off the main sidewalk way without having the sidewalk way mapped overtop of the asphalt areas.

One general comment I have seen online against the nubbin is that it can create additional routing instructions, which is a fair point, although I personally support the maps being more realistic than abstract.

With regards to your comment about bypassing the curb I agree that could be possible. However, you could make the same argument for those cases where the curbs are physically separated in real life. If one of them is a high curb, someone could theoretically follow the curb along the asphalt roadway to reach the other crossing. As we don't account for these edge cases for larger intersections where it would require another separate link between the two, I  am somewhat less worried about it in the cases of smaller intersections (if that makes sense). If we wanted a truly 100% accurate representation for a freemoving pedestrian, all the sidewalks and crosswalks would be pedestrian areas haha.

Really I think that at the very least having the presence of a potential curb on OSM is worthwhile as that can allow additional information to be added through apps like StreetComplete.