piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Berseter (2026-06-17 13:55:18+00:00): Hast du ne Quelle dafür? Aus https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:emergency%3Ddesignated, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Path und https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:access kann ich diese Interpretation so nicht nachvollziehen. Mein Verständnis von =designated war bisher, dass der Weg explizit für die jeweilige Verkehrsart vorgesehen ist und nicht (wie bei =yes) lediglich gestattet ist. Das sagt aber nichts über die Erlaubnis anderer Verkehrsarten aus.

Im Wiki heißt es: "Insbesondere sollte [emergency=designated] bei offiziell beschilderten Feuerwehrzufahrten verwendet werden", was hier der Fall ist. Und weiter unten: "Um eine Feuerwehrzufahrt einzutragen, wird der Access Tag emergency=designated zu einem bestehenden highway=* (wie z. B. Grundstückszufahrten oder Fußwegen) hinzugefügt" - auch das deutet meiner Meinung nach darauf hin, dass das so gedacht ist, wie ich es hier kartiert habe.

Ich lasse mich aber gerne eines Besseren belehren :)
aixbrick (2026-06-17 15:46:48+00:00): Entschuldige, du hast Recht. Ich hatte angenommen, das verhält sich wie foot/bicycle=designated. Das ist aber nicht so bzw. nur in Verbindung mit z.B. access=no.
Mister Kanister (2026-06-15 08:06:28+00:00): Hoi Raphael, ich vermute, dass du hier Änderungen für eine spezifische Veranstaltung (European Quadball Cup) gemacht hast, durch die die Anlage zwischenzeitlich verwendet wird? https://www.quidditcheurope.org/european-quadball-cup-2026-division-2

Es sieht so aus, als hättest du temporäre Einrichtungen bzw. Bezeichnungen eingefügt und die regulären Spielfelder gelöscht. Ich gehe nicht davon aus, dass für diese Veranstaltung tatsächlich die ganze Anlage physisch umgebaut wurde, oder?

Vermutlich unabsichtlich hast du die OpenStreetMap-Datenbank direkt bearbeitet, sodass die eigentlich 'korrekte' Kartierung der Anlage gelöscht wurde. Daher sollten diese Änderungen, aus meiner Perspektive, wieder rückgängig gemacht werden. Kurzzeitige Veranstaltungen und dazugehörige Nutzungen werden nicht in OSM direkt kartiert. Dafür kannst du mit der passenden Software, wie z.B. Grafikprogrammen oder GIS-Software, lokal selbst Karten erstellen, ohne die globale OSM-Datenbank zu verändern. Eine einfach zu nutzende online-Alternative wäre z.B. https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/fr/

Viele Grüsse
Moritz
RaphaelTraini (2026-06-15 16:44:12+00:00): Hoi Moritz

Vielen Dank für die prompte Rückmeldung, ja das habe ich tatsächlich falsch gemacht. Ich habe mittlerweile auch Umap gefunden und werde es damit machen, ich bestelle die Änderungen dementsprechend ab

Liebe Grüsse
Raphael
Mister Kanister (2026-06-23 11:51:24+00:00): see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184094086

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184473273
ScottWalkerAU (2026-06-15 08:47:52+00:00): Hi - it appears you deleted node/8006662698 (in the correct position, with extra tags) to re-create it with a new node node/1393834227?
Ideally you'd try and preserve history where possible - but this seems like an incorrect edit.
ScottWalkerAU (2026-06-15 08:48:47+00:00): Typo - new node is node/13938342278
Lockstar (2026-06-15 23:55:31+00:00): Thanks, this has been corrected, was an error in TfNSW data.
Glassman (2026-06-16 02:16:36+00:00): I don't see a grow avenue in this area. Did they physically move, if so, the old address is likely correct. Just need to remove the business tags. Can you review this edit. Let me know if you need help
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184094427
D E (2026-06-16 03:44:48+00:00): Apologies, I applied another edit after this one when I realized it wasn't how the address worked to restore it to the previous state (minus the business information). I see you've updated it to remove the unit, so I think everything is correct now?
aixbrick (2026-06-17 10:11:32+00:00): Hallo und willkommen bei OSM,
gibt es das Ladenlokal noch? Falls ja, bitte nicht löschen, sondern ein https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Lebenszyklus-Pr%C3%A4fix verwenden.
Gruß
Berseter (2026-06-17 13:43:44+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis! Ist mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184227338 korrigiert.
aixbrick (2026-06-17 15:36:08+00:00): Danke
eggie (2026-06-15 10:57:36+00:00): Dag Kapal. Ik heb historic =memorial toegevoegd en het adres verwijderd.

MVG
eggie
silversurfer83 (2026-06-14 19:24:17+00:00): Hi,

an dieser Stelle war schon eine Avanti Pizza erfasst. Doppelerfassung ist keine schöne Art der Datenerfassung für OpenStreetMap.

Ich hab die Dublette mal mit dem "Original" verschmolzen.

Wurde dieser POI von epizzashop aus Berlin angelegt oder haben die Betreiber der Pizza das selbst getan?

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184095105
hahae (2026-06-15 13:22:09+00:00): 求你了，把公交线路命名改回原本的样子吧
hahae (2026-06-15 13:27:05+00:00): 另外，像Hexie Jiayuan Yiqu North Gate 这种英文是臆想的吗，如果实地不是这样，是不能添加的哦，据我所知北京公交的英文是全拼而已
hahae (2026-06-15 13:40:24+00:00): 抱歉，请忽略上面关于英文名这条评论，谢谢
eggie (2026-06-15 09:44:55+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  Plaatsnaam toegevoegd.
Vreemd dat het hier op eens een lager nummer heeft? 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
El T 2043 (2026-06-16 04:55:03+00:00): Hoi Eggie,
Ja klopt ik heb het wss onhandig doorgegeven. Na lezen van de docs weet ik nu hoe ik het moet doen (hoop ik) dus ik zal een tweede poging later deze week doen. Deze wijziging voorstel kan genegeerd worden
Groeten,
Lil
eggie (2026-06-16 05:19:32+00:00): Hoi,

Wanneer het huisnummer klopt kun je het gewoon zo laten. Je hoeft niets aan te passen.

Mvg,
eggie
bxl-forever (2026-06-14 14:15:09+00:00): Hello, mathsaey,

As far as I can see, the name is the official name used in UrbIS for the future path here.  That alone is a reason to keep it, were it on the main name tag or with *another* tag.

A quick online search indicates that the city council voted to name a street here under Isala Van Diest, even though it often takes a couple of years between the official decision and the implementation.
* https://www.despecialist.eu/nl/nieuws/brussel-krijgt-isala-van-dieststraat.html
* https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/fr/2024/12/21/pourquoi-une-rue-de-bruxelles-porte-t-elle-le-nom-d-isala-van-di/

Perhaps you have local knowledge and maybe that you found out that there is no street sign so far with that name.  Should that be the case, we should probably retag it as "proposed:name" or "official_name" anyway instead of ruthlessly deleting.

In your edit, you do not provide any reason why you want to remove all references of that name from our map.  OSM is based on mutual trust, and, having seen waves of vandalism by new accounts, we are naturally a little suspicious.

Would you please reply to this message and tell us what makes you think that OSM should not keep any reference to that name?

Thanks in advance.


Also, you removed the name on several paths except for this one, why?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1108254459
mathsaey (2026-06-14 20:20:05+00:00): Hi,

While I am certainly not very active, this is not a new profile by any means. I mostly edit OSM when I encounter a private road that is not tagged as such on citystrides, as you can see from my edit history.

This was also what I was initially doing here. This part of the street was marked as public, which seems odd given that it is a private parking, as confirmed by satellite images and mapillary. While I was fixing it up, I noticed the name, which seemed wrong, as there is already a "Isala Van Diest" street a bit further south: way/569329141.

No article that I found (or the ones shared by you) mentioned a location more exact than "site Thurn & Taxis". Bruzz did share a video about the site, which indicates the way I linked above is the correct one: https://www.bruzz.be/actua/samenleving/big-city-isala-van-diest-was-de-eerste-vrouwelijke-arts-van-belgie-2024-12-13. I tried to confirm this based on Brussels geo data, but could not find anything of use (and was not familiar with UrbIS). Based on the above, I figured the name was a mistake and decided to fix it along with marking the parking as private. I did not remove the name from the way you linked as I did not spot it during the edit.

If my change was wrong I apologise and assure you it was a mistake rather than vandalism. I am also more than happy to make any edits to fix up my mistake. However, I don't think that the previous situation, which had two distinct "Isala Van Diest" streets is correct though; I imagine they should at least be linked somehow. I can try passing by way/569329141 in the future to see if it has a street sign. Either way, I'd urge to keep this road tagged as private until it is open to the public. Please advise what you think the appropriate solution is here.

Thanks.
bxl-forever (2026-06-14 22:10:52+00:00): Hello, and thanks for writing back.

Yes, the situation looks a bit unclear, because official UrbIS data still shows a name for the part which you removed, even if it is currently unbuilt and I couldn’t see any sign either.

And indeed, the article by Bruzz talks about that other path along the Herman Teirlinckgebouw, but no street sign seems to confirm that, so we don’t know if Bruzz was right.  I’ll try to find someone who can spend a little more time to investigate this; we have a few cases where official data is wrong.

My concern was only about the name. Marking the paths as private is perfectly fine, I have no intention to undo that.
mathsaey (2026-06-19 21:59:23+00:00): I passed by today to check out the situation:

- There is indeed no street sign on the path along the Herman Teilinck building.
- There is no indication of a road to come on the roads I edited (though the gate on the Dieudonné L. street was closed so I could not really check it out that well)

As you said, the second point may change in the future.

I'd argue we should follow what UrbIS says, remove the name from the way next to Herman Teirlinck and re-add it as proposed to these roads, but I'll defer to your experience here.
rskedgell (2026-06-15 18:26:20+00:00): Is removing the oneway=yes tag necessary, or even a good idea? Although the signs for one way streets only apply to vehicles in the UK and vehicle:backward=no has the same meaning, removing the "older" (and not deprecated) tag is likely to break things for some data consumers.
MappingMore (2026-06-15 10:38:51+00:00): Reverted in changeset ID:184130545
ivanbranco (2026-06-17 17:02:45+00:00): Ciao Lorenzo@,

il campo "Nome" va utilizzato solo per i nomi propri, ad esempio "abbandonato" non è un nome, ma una caratteristica, che si può descrivere col tag disused=yes o abandoned=yes.

Inoltre per le varie attività bisogna aggiungere i relativi tag, ad esempio un supermercato avrà amenity=supermarket, un dottore amenity=doctors ecc.

I vari tag li puoi trovare documentati sulla wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Pagina_Principale
Bauxite (2026-06-14 14:13:03+00:00): Je n’ai pas utilisé https://datanova.laposte.fr/datasets/laposte-boiterue comme source dans ce changeset, j’ai juste oublié de le retirer après le changeset précédent...
Bienson (2026-06-15 00:42:10+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184115227
impiaaa (2026-06-15 15:29:56+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap! The town already exists in OSM here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150968312 , it doesn't need to be added twice.
Kieran Newcomb (2026-06-15 15:56:42+00:00): Ah, got it. Still figuring out OSM. Thank you for catching!
Bienson (2026-06-15 00:42:13+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184115227
MarcoR (2026-06-14 19:44:39+00:00): Ciao e benvenuti su OpenStreetMap!

Il ristorante che hai inserito è già presente su OSM (node/2346908447) dalle parti di Genova; tra l'altro te lo hai posizionato vicino a Milano ^_^"

Buon mapping,
Marco
Bienson (2026-06-15 00:50:38+00:00): Korrigiert in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184115332
Bloomenwease (2026-06-15 09:30:22+00:00): Warum hast du die Poller gelöscht? Ich habe sie gestern vor Ort gesehen und eingetragen. Ich hatte sie in Change #184096573 hinzugefügt, allerdings war nach dem Upload die Position aus einem mir unerklärlichen Grund falsch. Daher habe ich die Position in #184096678 korrigiert.
Bienson (2026-06-15 21:09:31+00:00): Falsche Poller, verschobene Wege
FajrAl (2026-06-14 14:30:45+00:00): hanya karena garis 7 cm https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1311720933/
Wildsharky (2026-06-15 12:20:16+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:184133355
StreetSurveyor (2026-06-16 11:34:57+00:00): While I agree with changing the road classification to highway=service, I don’t agree with changing the access tag to access=private. In Boston, many streets are signed as “Private Way,” which generally indicates ownership and maintenance responsibility rather than restricted public access. A “Private Way” sign alone does not necessarily mean the public is prohibited from using the road. Unless there is additional signage or other evidence restricting access (e.g., “No Trespassing,” “Residents Only,” gates, or similar controls), I don’t believe access=private is warranted in this case.
D Ave (2026-06-16 13:20:23+00:00): Good morning StreetSurveyor
Thanks for creating a discussion on this, as I agree that many streets in Boston signed as “private way” are still accessible to the public. However after doing some digging, I believe this to be truly private. This road sign has existed since 2011 based on street view images, however I checked both Boston GIS property records, and MassMapper, and neither of them show this road, or even a cutout into the adjacent residential properties. As a secondary conformation, I could also not find any references to “Charlotte Web Way” on web search engines. The sign and sign pole also appear slightly different than other nearby official city installed signs, and the “way” looks identical to the nearby driveways. I concluded that this is most likely a homeowner installed sign to give their driveway a name, and it not meant for public access. Please let me know if you agree this should be an exception.
StreetSurveyor (2026-06-16 21:28:29+00:00): Thanks for the discussion. Based on my survey, the sign appears to include the City of Boston seal, which makes it seem more like an official “Private Way” designation rather than a homeowner-installed driveway sign. At the same time, I don’t think the presence of the seal alone necessarily determines whether this should be mapped as a named service road or not.

I also don’t see clear evidence that public access is actually restricted. In Boston, “Private Way” signage is often used for maintenance/ownership purposes and doesn’t necessarily imply access=private.

If there aren’t any gates or signs like “No Trespassing” or “Residents Only,” I think restoring the previous access=* tagging would be the more appropriate approach.
vectorial8192 (2026-06-14 14:59:14+00:00): So, why delete GMB 610S stops?

HKeMobility should be an acceptable data source (for scheduled public light bus factual texts, should be copyright-waivable).

Then, according to HKeMobility, Tung Chau Street is not in the route plan. These now-deleted stops are therefore illegal. Ideally, OSM should not contain illegal stuff.
Kovoschiz (2026-06-15 18:26:22+00:00): No, this means you didn't check it. It uses a more restrictive condition. 

Again, copyright isn't only concern. There are database rights, and ToS. The former may be none, as TD is considered first-party to set it. When the latter exists, it likely applies, except vague and no-effect "all rights reserved".
Kovoschiz (2026-06-15 18:31:19+00:00): Here, you are wrong
1. Stops listed should be signposted ones. `hail_and_ride` isn't listed.
2. `=bus_stop` can still be used for regularly used positions. I have already further added `informal=yes` , and there's `flag=no` + `pole=no` (and `physically_present=no` )
vectorial8192 (2026-06-23 10:43:22+00:00): imo this is beyond the usual "informal stops" concept. From the quoted docs, the TD never allowed the route to pass through Tung Chau Street. Unless you are suggesting that "informal stops" covers everything, and then I will have to start a new topic at Discord.

Alternatively, if quoted TD docs are not usable, then how can we even know what data to provide for the green minibus routes (aka where is the source of data/truth)? Does this mean there will now exist another new Discord discussion?
kingkingHK (2026-06-23 12:28:10+00:00): Informal alternative routes exist. There's many discussion about it on the OSM World Discord. Iirc the conclusion is that it just can't be handled with normal PT relations. But imo this doesn't mean we can't map the stops. Recall previous discussion about bus stop names: "Just because the government doesn't explicitly say it exist, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!"
vectorial8192 (2026-06-23 14:28:12+00:00): Discord then. I am less interested in PT mapping, but the very least a new topic should be started.
Kovoschiz (2026-06-23 17:54:15+00:00): Other `route=` has more roles `alternative` , `excursion` 
It's not the same as variants. Traffic diversions, or making stops are decided in-service.
eggie (2026-06-15 09:41:51+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
BertMule (2026-06-15 18:23:41+00:00): Zie je wel? Is weer onzichtbaar.
Wees nou niet zo eigenwijs.
BertMule (2026-06-15 18:26:56+00:00): Doe liever wat nuttige aanvullingen.
Er is genoeg te doen.
Wildsharky (2026-06-15 12:17:48+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:184123038
zorglubu (2026-07-15 17:52:52+00:00): Bonjour,

Comme j'ai constaté de petites erreurs, je me permets de vous demander si vous connaissez l'outil Pifomètre pour importer les  points adresse :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:France/Pifom%C3%A8tre/Compl%C3%A9ter_les_adresses_d%E2%80%99une_commune#S%C3%A9lectionner_une_voie_%C3%A0_compl%C3%A9ter

D'autre part, notez que la règle faisant consensus est de "Repositionner chaque point adresse à l'entrée de la propriété, ou devant la porte d'un bâtiment en ville."
Comme indiqué dans le paragraphe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:France/Pifom%C3%A8tre/Compl%C3%A9ter_les_adresses_d%E2%80%99une_commune#Continuer_dans_JOSM
qui est valable aussi si vous travaillez avec ID dans un navigateur.

Merci :-)
EneaSuper (2026-06-14 15:46:41+00:00): Fonte: https://www.dati.salute.gov.it/it/dataset/farmacie/
Haritron (2026-06-18 21:13:56+00:00): Hello GabiruX_,

I came across your recent changesets https://osmcha.org/changesets/184091039 and https://osmcha.org/changesets/184033097 and noticed several highway classification changes in this area that may not fully align with OSM highway classification guidelines.
The following segments were upgraded from service to motorway:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/216124523
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/216126210

Based on the OpenStreetMap wiki definition of highway=motorway, these segments do not appear to meet the criteria, as they do not function as controlled access, high capacity inter city routes
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway

The following segments were upgraded from trunk to motorway:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1316826069 to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/998236285
This section appears to align more closely with trunk classification, as it includes direct service road connections, whereas motorways typically require controlled access via designated entry and exit ramps.

The roads were also upgraded from tertiary to trunk:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/308478314 to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/734694924 According to the OpenStreetMap wiki definition of highway=trunk, trunk roads are major routes between cities and regions https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk in this case the road doesn’t quite qualify to be a trunk road

Other road segments were upgraded from primary to trunk:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/696281422
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/552350922
These edits upgrade roads to trunk classification but based on the surrounding network the segments do not clearly function as major intercity through-routes typically associated with trunk highways: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk

The following segments were upgraded from highway=residential to highway=trunk: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/734694924
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1529353008
However, a residential road does not meet the highway=trunk criteria on the OpenStreetMap wiki, as trunks are intended for major highcapacity through routes rather than local access streets
I also noticed the addition of the ref=BR-493 tag. BR-493 is an existing federal highway route in Rio de Janeiro and is already mapped in OSM at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4002780

I was wondering if you might be able to share the reasoning or any local knowledge or sources that informed these classification changes, and if you’re open to it, I’d be happy to help review the area and assist with adjusting any classifications where appropriate.

Best regards,
Haritron
eggie (2026-06-15 09:40:52+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
MarcoR (2026-06-14 19:36:55+00:00): Ciao, 
avevi modificato in maniera errata la relazione dellle piste sciistiche di Riserva Bianca (l'ho corretto); se vuoi aggiungere il nome all'hotel (oltre ad altri dati utili) puoi farlo modificando uno dei nodi di tipo hotel che hai creato con questo changeset

Buona mapping,
Marco

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184108596
dzidek23 (2026-06-18 14:52:20+00:00): Hi there,
I'm not entirely sure if this area is accessible to wheelchair users. Paths are interrupted by large section of stairs and the surface quality, although it once was tarmac, is almost equal to unpaved paths. I'll stand corrected if you have more up-to-date info but this so called 'park' isn't well maintained.

You can however get to the courtyard of the castle via "Brama Wjazdowa" in a wheelchair without a problem.
holgerd (2026-06-22 13:28:06+00:00): thanks, I updated the info!
MappingMore (2026-06-15 09:58:43+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset ID:184128908
9_tab (2026-06-24 17:22:37+00:00): The value for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:country would generally be https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:addr:country=IT
Masticass (2026-06-26 22:37:30+00:00): All entries updated with all tags having addr:country=Italy to add:country=IT. Thank you for the heads up!
NightH (2026-07-12 16:09:11+00:00): Szia!

Hartán a körzeti megbízott átköltözött ide: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13920113642
Lehet az eredeti node-ot kellett volna átvinnem, mindenesetre ami pontot visszaraktál, ott már nincs semmi.
vasony (2026-07-12 16:41:27+00:00): A címet akartam csak visszarakni, nem a körzetit, de most látom, lehet nem is jó, inkább töröltem.
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-15 05:47:07+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
Are the added names real?
voie principal
res 2
bxl-forever (2026-06-14 21:28:58+00:00): Hello,

We would appreciate if you could please write real changeset comments that accurately describe what you are changing.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Please no "Changed some cool stuff", which does not contain any useful information.

I see that you added the "name:tw" tag, to add a translation to the name of our Stock Exchange building.

According to the OSM wiki, "name:tw" is for the Twi language. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name:tw

This does not seem to be what you want.  Perhaps you wanted to use this tag instead: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name:zh-Hant-TW
Oliver Tzeng (2026-06-15 05:06:37+00:00): Oh I see now. Sorry for the lazy commenting. I always use Go!! Map for editing and I didn’t bother to change whatever I went with the first time I used the app. I’ll just change it now

Also I think you meant name:zh-Hant because I don’t think name:zh-Hant-TW exists