piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
syntex (2025-08-19 22:47:27+00:00): Poprawione, pomyłka ze strony budynków
dadavid (2025-08-20 08:17:26+00:00): Hallo Harald Heger, 

wieso läuft dieser Radweg schräg über die Straße? Das kann ich nach dem Luftbild so nicht bestätigen, kannst du da vielleicht nochmal nach schauen? :) 

Viele Grüße

David
HaraldH2 (2025-08-20 19:08:17+00:00): Hallo David ich habe die schräge vermutlich ehemalige Bahnlinie gelöscht. Der Radweg verläuft über den Weg
AlexSpritze (2026-03-26 09:15:47+00:00): Hi flierfy,

du hast hier einen Way hinzugefügt: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1423413127/history

Der jedoch keine Tags hat und nicht zu einer Relation gehört. Ist das beabsichtigt?
flierfy (2026-04-04 11:29:32+00:00): Diese Linie blieb übrig, als ich die Flächen zusammengefasst habe.
Die Linie kann wahrscheinlich weg. Aber ich hab sie halt noch einmal stehen lassen.

Gruss,
Stephan
German C (2025-12-03 20:29:02+00:00): Hola Lolj, ¿por que eliminaste los dos bosques que se observan en la imagen satelital? https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=170693895
A67-A67 (2025-08-30 12:04:51+00:00): Toastable stond al op de kaart. In deze wijziging wordt informatie van Toastable toegevoegd aan het adres op 3-hoog en het adres incorrect gewijzigd.

Ik zal het terugdraaien.
Glassman (2025-08-20 23:18:19+00:00): ou tagged this as a bicycle road which should only happen if the road is signed. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle_road%3Dyes

Also, the tag kerb extension ios typically a node where the curb extends out.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170695345
Glassman (2025-08-20 23:21:54+00:00): There appears to be two bike ways for the Tommy Thompson Parkway. User MulhollandWildcatCWU added them. Only one exists. I'd recommend keeping the one with the relation and removing the other. Can you do that or do you need help?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170695759
peanuthole (2025-09-06 21:48:24+00:00): Hola! Veo que te has currado mucho el changeset, pero quiero clarificar dos cosas sobre landuse=residential

1. En principio no debería cubrir cosas como colegios, iglesias, parques... (deberían ser otros landuses)

2. No debería ser tan grande, hacerlo tan grande hace un poco complicado trabajar con él para cualquiera que no esté trabajando con JOSM (como habrás comprobado, ya que veo que usas iD)

Aquí puedes leer más al respecto :)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Uso_del_suelo#Mapeo_de_grandes_%C3%A1reas_ininterrumpidas
Alvaro747 (2025-09-07 15:19:03+00:00): Buenas. Lo primero agradezco el feedback por tu parte. A continuación procedo a justificar la manera en la que he realizado el área:

1. Comprendo que al ser un área más grande es más complicado editarla. Aún así, no es raro encontrar áreas incluso más grandes en otras partes del mapa como París (que tiene su área metropolitana entera bajo una misma área residencial). 

2. Respecto a que no debería cubrir cosas como iglesias o colegios, lo considero una interpretación excesivamente rígida de las normas de openstreetmap (las cuales no son normas positivadas como tal, si no una serie de comportamientos consuetudinarios  realizados por la comunidad). Si atendemos a este último criterio (el de la costumbre), la gran mayoría de las ciudades en openstreetmap utilizan la técnica que he utilizado y, por pragmática y funcionalidad (aunque hay otras como Berlín que usan el método más detallado que tú sugieres, usando áreas residenciales pequeñas u esquivando colegios etc).

3. ¿Por qué considero que no constituye un error hacerlo de la forma en la que lo he hecho?. En primer lugar, las áreas de colegios, iglesias, parques etc. se solapan por encima de la zona residencial (como estoy seguro que sabes), por lo que no quedan afectadas por la naturaleza all encompasing de esta última. En segundo lugar, no creo que se necesario eliminar el área en ningún momento, ya que cumple su papel. La única instancia en la que podría ser un problema su gran tamaño es si se decide eliminar completamente, lo cual solo tendría sentido si alguien se tomara las molestias de hacer áreas residenciales mas pequeñas esquivando colegios y parques, (como tú sugieres) algo que sé que no va a pasar, ya que llevo mirando Madrid desde hace 8 años y nadie se ha dignado a darle un área residencial.

4. Finalmente quiero señalar que al fin y al cabo lo que prima es que un área metropolitana de 7 millones de habitantes como lo es Madrid tenga un área residencial en condiciones. Como he dicho, llevo 8 años viendo esta situación esperando a que alguien lo hiciera y al final he tenido que ser yo. Si alguien quiere hacerlo mejor (que se puede hacer) está invitado a hacerlo. La cuestión es que sé que nadie se va a tomar las molestias, es un hecho.

Con todo lo dicho, gracias por tu comentario. Espero que sigas contribuyendo al igual que yo. Si te has tomado las molestias de responder es que disfrutas los mapas al igual que yo y eso es lo que importa, mejorar openstreetmap para todos. Un saludo cordial.
Kovoschiz (2025-08-20 07:21:25+00:00): Please don't directly delete. They may contain addresses and other info. This makes tracking and updating them more difficult. Change them to a plain "Point", or "Vacant".
HenryEK (2025-08-21 10:07:24+00:00): my bad
Gregory Peony (2025-08-20 01:10:24+00:00): Overall the building footpritns you added are accurate, however the one I flagged actually envelopes 2 buildings. The landuse you tagged as farmland would more accurately be tagged as orchard. The track you added looka like it may not be a highway, becasue it appears sloped inward toward its centre like a valley. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170695946
Gregory Peony (2025-08-20 00:42:56+00:00): Welcome to OSM. You correctly identified a building and its shape. Remember to square footprints (q) when appropriate, and only apply specific values like house if you are certain about them. When mapping remotely usually the tag building=yes is used. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170695954
Gregory Peony (2025-08-20 00:45:14+00:00): See my resolution in https://osmcha.org/changesets/170696301
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170695954
Gregory Peony (2025-08-20 00:37:53+00:00): Welcome to OSM. You correctly identified a building in the imagery, but mapped its footprint inaccurately becasue you did not account for the fact that a part of its roof is obscured by vegetation. See how I mapped it here https://osmcha.org/changesets/170696131 Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170695959
Gregory Peony (2025-08-20 01:58:46+00:00): Welcome to OSM. You generally correctly identified buildings in imagery, but they are ever so slightly oversized. I noticed you looked at various imageries, when a building appears the same on two imagery sources you can trace it using the higher resolution one. 

When mapping buildings, please trace the shape accurately. Accurate building footpritns aid population estimates and prevent issues like data overlaps. Zoom in so that you can see the outline of the building and mark the corners carefully. Exclude shadows and yards when tracing the footprint.  Keep in mind that you are looking at the roofs of buildings, but mapping their footprints. Depending on how the scene is lit, pitched roofs may have light and dark sections that belong to one building. Generally pitched roofs overhang the walls of a building, so a footprint slightly smaller than the roof is accurate. You can scale selected features in ID with shift+(-/+), or JOSM with ctrl.+alt+Lclick & drag.  Take care to make contributions that others can build upon.

Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
MCDA (2025-08-20 18:45:21+00:00): Improving Nominatim results for who exactly?
I am proud of my County and it is included in my address.  Most businesses use them too.  

https://www.bankofireland.com/branch-locator/enniskillen/
https://www.axani.co.uk/insurance/branches/fermanagh/enniskillen/
https://www.dunnesstores.com/store/enniskillen-co-fermanagh-bt746ja/48/
mod22 (2025-08-20 22:45:47+00:00): The counties were tagged with boundary=historic and Wikipedia mentions they were abolished at some point, so I assumed they were no longer in use. If as you say they are indeed used in practice, then it seems that the boundary=historic tag is incorrect. It sounds like boundary=place would be more appropriate then?
MCDA (2025-08-21 11:13:45+00:00): There are people in our Government would love to make our counties and townlands historic.  I've been at many meetings to campaign to protect our townlands, it has also been written into local law.  However, we keep getting organisations like NISRA who when taking the last census, decided to drop all the townlands from addresses, in breach of local law.  County Fermanagh is part of MY address which is why I am commenting on this changeset.  I have given a number of large local businesses who also use the County when giving their address.  Belfast is probably the exception to this as the city is spread over two counties.
mod22 (2025-08-22 11:47:53+00:00): Yes, like I wrote in the previous comment, if the counties are still used in practice by local communities, then boundary=historic sounds wrong. That being said, the tag was not introduced in this changeset. I think the best way to proceed is to take the matter to the relevant OSM communities, discuss why the tag was added in the first place, and figure out what is the most appropriate way of representing truth on the ground.
SomeoneElse (2025-08-22 13:07:19+00:00): Re "the best way to proceed is to take the matter to the relevant OSM communities" it's normally good practice to do that _before_ making changes such as this (and that applies anywhere in the world).  There are all sorts of edge cases out there.
MCDA (2025-08-22 18:49:53+00:00): boundary=historic didn't affect the Nominatim addresses, and your change-set was labelled "Remove place=county from historic counties in Northern Ireland, improving Nominatim results".  I just question your logic/reasoning of removing tags from boundaries, without asking or discussing it first.  I wouldn't think about going into an area and mess with the tags, to "fix" addresses on Nominatim, because I don't know the area.  There are plenty of active mappers you could have messaged and asked.  There are plenty of businesses with address listed on websites to get an idea of what happens on the ground.
mod22 (2025-08-23 13:50:26+00:00): Well, yes, in general I don't hesitate to contact the community if there is some ambiguity. But in this case to me the edit was clear: The boundaries were consistently tagged as historic (so no longer in use) and that agreed with the information to be found on Wikipedia saying they had been abolished. It's by far not the first case I see where the admin structure changes and boundaries become obsolete, but not all of the related tagging is updated, potentially causing inconsistencies on data consumers' end. 

Nominatim has more uses than just address data. In my case the app I help maintain relies on the full administrative boundary hierarchy that it delivers. Objects marked as historic shouldn't even appear in Nominatim results. In this case it was only due to the inconsistent tagging that counties were still appearing there.
MCDA (2025-08-23 21:28:11+00:00): If you are interested in fixing Nominatim address, why is it displaying "Fermanagh and Omagh District" as part of our addresses in Fermanagh?  Fermanagh and Omagh District Council is the local council, but never used in our address!

Royal Mail recommend putting the postal town in the address, which is ENNISKILLEN.  But these postal areas are copyrighted data, so we can't use them in OSM.  

Can you please revert this changeset for Co Fermanagh and Co Tyrone?  I know businesses and people in these counties put the County in their address.
MCDA (2025-08-23 21:30:36+00:00): Even the Council put the County in their address, see - https://www.fermanaghomagh.com/get-in-touch/ bottom of page.
lonvia (2025-08-24 10:01:27+00:00): > In my case the app I help maintain relies on the full administrative boundary hierarchy that it delivers.

If that is the reason for the change, then you should adapt your app to get along with the data as mapped in OSM, not the other way around. My comment in https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/issues/3814 was not meant as an invitation to change a long-standing tagging practice without community discussion.
ramthelinefeed (2025-08-24 16:05:01+00:00): I think this change was misguided and should be reverted.
Counties Down, Antrim, Armagh, Fermanagh, Derrylondon & Tyrone are most definitely counties, and should remain tagged as such, 'place=county'.  
It is true that (since 1972) they are little used for administrative purposes (not for voting or collecting bins or organising fire brigades or in official Royal Mail postal addresses** or etc etc*) - hence the 'historic' tag. But they are very much still known and used by the people who live in them, in what I guess we might call a 'geographical' sense, simply as places. 
I don't really know much about 'Nominatum', but if it is outputting things like 'Enniskillen is in County Fermanagh' or 'Milisle is in County Down' these are perfectly sensible, useful and correct things to say.

*one thing they are still used for is 'Lord Lieutenancies' for the UK monarchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenancy_area

**adding a NI county to a postal address is not Royal Mail's official way to do things, but is not uncommon, and is never going to result in a letter or parcel going to the wrong place. Putting the current NI district council names in postal addresses is pretty NEVER done by anyone and Nominatum should certainly not be doing it! 
Another geocoding faux-pas is to add to mistakenly add the county of an addresses *Post Town* to an address - for example, many County Down addresses outside Belfast have 'BELFAST' for their post town - and it is very incorrect to instead put their address as 'BELFAST, County Antrim'.
mod22 (2025-08-24 19:28:21+00:00): >If that is the reason for the change, then you should adapt your app to get along with the data as mapped in OSM, not the other way around.

Sure, this approach is more than routine to us by now. That being said, if we detect some clear inconsistency in the results, then it feels appropriate to do the correction in OSM directly so others also profit from it. Indeed, some months ago we detected vandalism in UK counties that had managed to stay under the radar, and helped correct it. 

To add to the latest comment, this is what I already pointed out in my first reply: If the counties still have practical use, then a "historical" tag sounds inadequate. Seeing this tagging next to the information on Wikipedia, I (erroneously) assumed the counties were evidently no longer in use, hence the edit. 

It was never my intention to step on other people's toes. If the changes are incorrect, then by all means please feel free to rollback them. In retrospect, certainly we could have started this conversation on better footing. Still, I hope this has sparked some constructive discussion and I'm glad to see the boundaries are taken seriously by the community. (In my experience, not every OSM community cares as much about them, sadly.)
SomeoneElse (2025-08-24 19:35:10+00:00): > Indeed, some months ago we detected vandalism in UK counties 

who is "we"?
MCDA (2025-08-24 19:45:39+00:00): I don't know who marked them as historic, wrote the wiki article or what motive was behind it.  My comments are regarding this changeset, removing the tag place=county.  I consider this changeset as vandalism.  County Fermanagh is in MY address and thousands of other people who LIVE here.
MCDA (2025-08-24 19:53:36+00:00): Looks like another helicopter mapper made the change - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152654047
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-09-13 13:42:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 171876183 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some 'county place' changes in NI, see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/northern-ireland-county-vs-new-council-boundaries/134728
Gregory Peony (2025-08-20 01:46:38+00:00): Welcome to OSM. You created overlapping footprints here becasue the orientation of the one I flagged is inaccurate. Zooming in and out can aid interpretation of shape and orientation. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170696958
lunar_jaws812 (2026-06-22 16:59:22+00:00): Hi, I recently surveyed Olympic Boulevard and noticed that you mapped unmarked crossings going across 6 lanes of traffic. Based on survey, these are not dedicated crossings, but informal crossings; a daring pedestrian might try to cross, but these are not intended as crossings, and it is often unsafe to try to cross 6 lanes of fast traffic here, except at marked and/or signaled crossings.

I fixed the crossings at the intersection of Olympic and Masselin in this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184440610

You can use this as an example to correct the other intersections.
saraswathi89 (2026-06-22 18:39:09+00:00): Thank you for the valuable feedback and for bringing this to my attention. I have updated the changeset for the Olympic Boulevard junctions based on your suggestion. Your feedback is very helpful in improving the accuracy and quality of the map. I look forward to your continued suggestions and feedback in the future
Thanks and Regards,
Saraswathi M P
lunar_jaws812 (2026-06-22 18:47:18+00:00): Thank you for your work. Happy mapping!
aharvey (2025-10-31 04:35:52+00:00): hi I see you've removed the Aboriginal site tags, I raised this with the original mapper at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127996117 if the site is private property and public access is restricted then it's good to add the access=private tag, however the Aboriginal site should still have the relevant tags preserved, especially since this is a publicly documented site according to https://www.saveglenlee.com/

What was your reasoning for removing the tags?
nevw (2025-08-20 04:30:39+00:00): Hi, could you check if https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12419093565#map=19/-37.875809/145.133717 should be moved to the right where there is a building with no address. I think this node might have been accidentally shifted.
dypa (2025-10-13 11:06:37+00:00): При указании размеченных не регулируемых пешеходных переходов нельзя использовать тег crossing=zebra, см https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:crossing=zebra

Пожалуйста при внесении следующих правок используйте теги (Размеченный (нерегулируемый) пешеходный переход)
crossing=uncontrolled
crossing:markings=zebra

Заранее спасибо!
notalking (2025-10-14 06:03:32+00:00): бляха муха, а я везде его использовал.. т.к. он предлагается, а не нерегулируемый... спасибо за замечание.
nevw (2025-08-20 04:45:14+00:00): Hi, this polygon appears to only cover part of the building footprint.
Gregory Peony (2025-08-20 02:03:56+00:00): Looks like you included some of the building's shadow in its footprint resulting in it being slightly oversized.  


When mapping buildings, please trace the shape accurately. Accurate building footpritns aid population estimates and prevent issues like data overlaps. Zoom in so that you can see the outline of the building and mark the corners carefully. Exclude shadows and yards when tracing the footprint.  Keep in mind that you are looking at the roofs of buildings, but mapping their footprints. Depending on how the scene is lit, pitched roofs may have light and dark sections that belong to one building. Generally pitched roofs overhang the walls of a building, so a footprint slightly smaller than the roof is accurate. You can scale selected features in ID with shift+(-/+), or JOSM with ctrl.+alt+Lclick & drag.

Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
Gregory Peony (2025-08-20 02:00:34+00:00): A valid and accurate building footprint. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170697663
pitfire (2025-08-20 07:41:26+00:00): Hallo Edit on the fly,
danke für Deine  Beiträge, aber bist Du dir sicher, dass es auf dem Parkareal "Weg: 69563667"  11 ausgewiesene Behindertenparplätze (capacity:disabled) gibt?
VG pitfire
Gregory Peony (2025-08-20 02:06:44+00:00): A valid footprint. It could be a touch smaller; roofs tend to overhang walls. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170697671
Gregory Peony (2025-08-20 02:17:41+00:00): Why did you position the footprint in this way? 

Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170697732
Gregory Peony (2025-08-20 02:21:15+00:00): Hi, the eastern fooptint you added here duplicates and overlapps one you mapped previously. If you can tell what features existing data represents then modify it instead of re-mapping. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170697901
Johnatan Reyes (2025-08-20 02:28:10+00:00): will consider ur observations for future mapping:)
Gregory Peony (2025-08-20 02:27:43+00:00): Hi Johnatan, are you not confident in your latest contributions? You have requested review on many individually uploaded footprints.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170697972