piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2025-03-26 20:11:59+00:00): Oke...correct.. . en zo was het al getagd.
Ga na bij TopoGPS waarom foot=permissive niet routeert.
Dat zou wel moeten volgens de conventie van OSM. 
gr eggie
Jon Rietman (2025-09-02 12:55:24+00:00): Ik krijg een melding over een voetpad in OSM, dat belopen wordt en de eigenaren melden, dat het afgesloten is voor publiek.
Tags: Access = private, Foot = private, bicycle = private.
Dan is het dus niet planbaar? 
Het pad blijft natuurlijk wel zichtbaar op OSM.
eggie (2025-09-02 13:37:44+00:00): Klopt... access=private zou voldoende moeten zijn.
Het gaat toch niet over dit pad?...
... want dat staat op foot en bicycle permissive.. en dat routeer dan wel.
Groet..
eggie
eggie (2025-09-02 13:40:44+00:00): Er loopt hier zelfs een knooppunt routerelatie overheen.
Jon Rietman (2025-09-02 13:48:09+00:00): Nee, het ging over een tuinpad in Nijmegen-oost. Wandelnet kreeg hierover een melding. Onze Wandelnet-planner, met OSM eronder, plant er netjes niet overheen. Het tuinpad blijft wel zichtbaar op de kaart zelf natuurlijk.
eggie (2025-09-02 14:12:10+00:00): Paden mogen gewoon zichtbaar zijn. Ze moeten wel de juiste accesstags hebben.
In dit geval access private.
Dat iets belopen wordt ligt aan het publiek en niet aan de routering in osm.

Het staat aan alle kanten op slot zoals je aangeeft.
We kunnen niet verantwoordelijk worden gehouden voor het negeren van toegangsregels. 

Groet..
eggie
Gregory Peony (2025-04-09 20:07:55+00:00): You created nodes shared by highways and buildings here: hold alt to prevent your cursor from snapping to existng data. Move the data or offset the imagery so that features have enough room where necessary.
NeisReview (2025-03-28 06:02:51+00:00): #UnexplainedChanges

Hello, welcome to OSM.

Could you please clarify the purpose behind your map changes? It's not entirely clear from the edited data and your added description. Also, what was used as a source of your activity?

Looking forward to your response. 
Thank you.
NeisReview (2025-03-28 06:03:26+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164140112
Strubbl (2025-03-26 22:24:42+00:00): There are some limitations, which i would say make using the ferry less popular. Ferry starts only three times a day and is not available usually from November till end of March.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-03-27 09:04:35+00:00): reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164153779
dknelson9876 (2025-03-28 00:09:53+00:00): Congrats on beating me to map this! I came to check as soon as I saw the headlines
Foonline (2025-04-02 12:06:07+00:00): Hallo, hierbei wurde ein Straßenpunkt falsch verschoben, bitte korrigieren.
Foonline (2025-04-03 21:36:58+00:00): erledigt
pwbriggs (2025-03-27 04:02:11+00:00): Your edits look good to me. Thanks for the contribution and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Jacopo (2025-04-01 15:16:07+00:00): Ciao
I see that you edited the Tangenziale di Verona quite heavvly around Verona Est exit. Can you provide a source for that? To my knowledge the Tangenziale has not been moved
Anonix35 (2025-04-01 16:27:01+00:00): Ciao,
Sì, ho modificato la Tangenziale, aggiungendo in particolare le "emergency_bay", i telefoni di emergenza, l'area di servizio e i limiti di velocita.
Non ho modificato il percorso, in particolare nella zona dei lavori con la linea ferroviaria.
Jacopo (2025-04-03 08:25:14+00:00): Ciao
In particolare mi riferisco alla way 301037789, mi pare che sia stata modificata con lo stesso change set tuo. Forse mi sbaglio
Grazie
Jacopo
Anonix35 (2025-04-03 08:32:50+00:00): All'incrocio con la linea ferroviaria ?
Jacopo (2025-04-03 09:17:22+00:00): Sì, all'incrocio con la ferrovia in costruzione
Anonix35 (2025-04-03 09:27:22+00:00): Non sono stato io a cambiarlo a quel livello.
Ho notato anche che si era spostato, ma ho pensato che fosse stato qualcuno a farlo per motivi di lavoro.
bartgron (2025-12-12 22:35:02+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
chwinter (2025-03-26 20:33:05+00:00): Or maybe Mr. Falafilo is in the place of Cafe Luna? I don't remember the exact position.
b-jazz (2025-03-29 05:44:05+00:00): Hello golf course mapper. The lines that define fairways and greens (and bunkers and other golf course elements) should never intersect or partially overlap each other and we noticed that they are overlapping in one or more of the fairway/green pairs in this changeset. If there is no obvious fringe around the green, the fairway should butt up against the green and every node between them should be *shared*. If there is a fringe around the green that is similar to the fairway, the fairway should extend around the green and the two objects should be merged together into a multipolygon (See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon for how to create them with your map editor).  Please read the wiki for instructions and examples of how to better map golf courses: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls. If you have any questions, please reply here and I'll gladly help clarify things. Thanks!

(See hole 18 for an example of a fairway with this problem.)
dentonny (2025-05-05 11:20:09+00:00): hey,
ik zie dat je in Stelen het mini-rondpunt hebt ingetekend. Echter heb je geen rekening gehouden met de routes die erover lopen. 2 fietsroutes en 1 wandelroute zijn nu gebroken. Het fietsknooppunt 40 heb je zelfs helemaal verwijderd?
Ook zijn de gescheiden toegangswegen naar het rondpunt overbodig. Deze dienen enkel ingetekend te worden indien deze gescheiden worden door een verkeerseiland. Dit is hier dus al niet het geval.

Ikzelf heb dit ook al eens willen detailleren echter worden de routes dan ingewikkeld en vandaar heb ik het altijd op de vorige manier laten staan. 

Indien je suggesties hebt voor de routes hoor ik het graag. Zeer graag zelfs
kabelhaai (2025-05-05 14:12:25+00:00): Ik heb nog nooit een fietspad of route zelf ingetekend dus ik heb geen suggesties. Weer vrij om het aan te passen zodat het niet meer wordt gebroken.
dentonny (2025-05-09 08:19:41+00:00): Ik heb alvast deze CS teruggedraaid in afwachting van betere suggesties ivm de routes.

Wat ik wel wil vragen is of je hier in de toekomst rekening mee wilt houden als je wegen aanpast. Er zijn veel diensten die gebruik maken van route-relaties.
Vraag gerust hulp in de chat over relaties!

Alvast bedankt!

mvg
dentonny
flohoff (2025-11-14 09:58:32+00:00): Moin,
nur als info an dich  - Ich habe die Ostwestfalenstraße wieder zu einer primary runtergestuft. 

In der history kannst du sehen das es da 2015 auf der osm-owl mailingliste schon eine diskussion zu gab. Auch die letzten Tage haben wir das auf der osm-owl mailingliste nochmal diskutiert.

Aus unserer sicht ist der Ausbau nicht Autobahnähnlich daher kein Trunk

Flo
TinPetreković (2025-03-27 20:44:38+00:00): Reverting because the sign has been removed and the tag contradicts the municipal laws #OptimoRoute

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164182584
dpolovinkin (2025-04-25 09:24:19+00:00): добрый день, когда делаете добавления на карту, пишите комментарии что именно изменено, нельзя писать no comment

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Good_changeset_comments
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-04-05 07:54:27+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7165126866/history has share_taxi = ues that was added in this edit
What this tag means? This access value is unusual

was it supposed to be =yes?
Acimut (2026-04-28 02:43:03+00:00): Hello!
You're correct, it's been fixed.
Thanks for your comment.
silversurfer83 (2025-03-27 16:32:50+00:00): Moin Christian,

Du hast darum gebeten, dass sich jemand diese Änderung ansieht. Mach ich mal.

building zu spezifizieren sieht gut aus, levels, check_date auch gut.

Warum machst du place_of_worship und religion weg? Weil denomination=catholic hast du ja dran gelassen.

Grüße
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164139300
Christian124 (2025-03-30 12:01:35+00:00): Hallo silversurfer83,

also, ich wollte hauptsächlich den Gebäudetyp von "Kirche" zu "Kapelle" ändern, weil dort halt keine Gottesdienste stattfinden. Ich bin mir nicht bewusst, place_of_worship und religion weg gemacht zu haben. Kann es sein, dass das mit der Änderung des Gebäudetyps automatisch weg gefallen ist?

Gruß,
Christian
silversurfer83 (2025-03-30 12:11:47+00:00): Moin Christian

Kann sein, dass der Editor das dann automatisch mit entfernt hat. Kann ich aber nicht genau sagen

Grüße
Silversurfer83
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-09 12:06:51+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12703568271/history has flag:type = commercial that was added in this edit
what was meant by flag:type=commercial ? How it differs from flag:type=advertising ?
wavewings (2026-02-09 12:48:49+00:00): Hi there, I might have used that tag because it is in an industrial area, flag:type=advertising would probably be a better tag for it.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-10 08:35:38+00:00): Thanks for reply!

I changed tagging then
wavewings (2026-02-10 11:33:05+00:00): Thanks!
rempshaener (2025-10-19 20:41:30+00:00): Hallo,
die Daten gehören nicht an das Gebäude, sondern an das Gelände (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1026476011). Nun sind die Daten teilweise doppelt bzw. widersprüchlich gepflegt.
Würdest du die Daten bitte einmal "umziehen"?
Viele Grüße
joost schouppe (2025-11-10 13:00:11+00:00): Heb je meer info over deze lijn? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1206155675
grzegorz75jan (2025-03-27 04:44:37+00:00): Ten Dixaner to kolejny chory kandydat na sól edycji  do głaskania w imię tolerancji OSM.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164140112
ChromeLotus (2025-03-31 21:54:10+00:00): Hello NFZANMNIM, I wanted to reach out regarding some modifications made in Afghanistan. I noticed modifications made to parts of the region’s road network, leading to breaks in classification along the NH67 route (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164190477, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164190477), NH39 route (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164190324), NH13 route (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164140166), NH93 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164107875), and NH87 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164133773) route. I also noticed that NH13 and NH87 routes contain construction features which cross over non-construction features (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1371872461; https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1287813506).

I am curious if you could help me understand your rationale for these classification breaks in the road network along the identified parts mentioned above. If there is construction in routes NH13 and NH87, I am not sure how those construction areas could overlap non-construction features as the construction would interfere with vehicle traffic, right? I would like to collaborate on a consistent approach to modeling of these highways and your input would be valuable for that (& is much appreciated!). Look forward to hearing from you.

-ChromeLotus
NFZANMNIM (2025-03-31 22:01:04+00:00): hey, thanks for the comment. I mean, this is the context I have in mind.

In such remote areas as central highlands of afghanistan, construction sites aren't really sealed off from the public. It's not really feasible. FURTHERMORE, a highway under construction, isn't going to be impossible-to-use until after it's fully paved, pavement lines drawn, signs installed. 

If the goal is to construct a paved standard up-to-standard highway, when vehicles come and clear mountains, build concrete culverts, put gravel on and flatten portions of the road, this wide smooth gravel road, will itself serve as a regional highway, while simultaneously work on paving and constructing tunnels and bigger bridges and so on continue.

A similar situation exists in Wakhan corridor. It's been on the news for the past year or two, different waves of news. contradictory news perhaps to a person who lives in an area with a developped road network and a solid cultura of management of construction plans. But in Afghanistan, those practices aren't just feasible.
ChromeLotus (2025-04-02 16:36:15+00:00): Hello NFZANMNIM, thank you for the response back. Focusing on NH87, it is unclear whether available resources can verify vehicular activity that is consistent with primary classification. OSM follows verifiable, on-the-ground mapping principle so other people seeing the map can reach the same conclusion; this excludes mapping things for how they will be in the future. These roads currently appear to function as tertiary road as opposed to primary road. If roads in subject are still passable, I would be curious whether assigning a specific set of construction tags instead, like construction=minor or construction=primary, would work (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction#Highways). In addition, opening_date=* and check_date=* would respectively inform users of an expected date for project completion and the last time a user checked on a project’s development. 

If you have any recent information on these highways, and in particular, the NH87 route that you could share, that would be great. I would be interested in learning about the projects’ development.

-ChromeLotus
ChromeLotus (2025-04-22 17:39:55+00:00): Hello NFZANMNIM,
I think it is most appropriate per OSM policy for the entire drivable way to be tagged as tertiary for now, with additional tags to indicate that it will be open as a primary eventually. What do you think of this proposal?

-ChromeLotus
bxl-forever (2025-03-27 00:54:00+00:00): Hello,

foot=customers is more advisable than access=customers.

access=* is a generic access tag, granting access to *everyone*.

Setting it on a footway can create unwanted results, e.g. navigation software might grant access to motor vehicles… on footways because of that.

We fixed your edit.
Patr1k_P (2025-04-03 15:51:52+00:00): zdroj kataster nie je spravny, ak kreslite podla katas. vrstvy tak by ste mali pouzit ZBGIS
hwierzbicki (2025-04-28 15:18:54+00:00): Hi osmhonehone,

Instead of mapping utility pole or streetlamp-mounted microcells like this:

MCCMNC=310410
communication:mobile=yes
man_made=tower
tower:construction=pole
tower:type=communication

It would be better to follow existing standards and wiki guidelines to map them like this:

MCC=310
MNC=410
communication:mobile_phone=yes
highway=street_lamp (or man_made=utility_pole)

This approach should align more closely with current tagging practices.

Let me know if you have any questions!
Leo Slager (2025-03-29 11:01:24+00:00): Met het beschadigen van 14 routerelaties is dit jaar weer een record verbroken.

Alle beschadigde rouerelaties zijn weer gerepareerd.
A-dg6 (2025-03-29 20:59:56+00:00): Mijn excuses, ik was me van geen kwaad bewust, ik zal er in het vervolg op letten.
Xavizard Knight (2025-08-04 23:51:17+00:00): Hello! Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap!

Sorry to come talk to you about this changeset of 4 months ago, but I've reverted it and re-done it in my changesets 169914060 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169914060) and 169914062 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169914062)*

The reason is that the buildings you've added in this changeset are very poorly drawn.

You seemed to have used exclusively satellite imagery (more specifically, Esri World Imagery) for drawing these buildings, which it isn't a bad thing on itself, but has caused many buildings to be incorrect.

Drawing buildings from satellite imagery is not easy, as shadows, colours and perspectives of the imagery and nearby trees or vegetation can make determining the presence and/or outlines of buildings very difficult.

In your commit, the vast majority of the buildings you've drawn are either incomplete (your shape does not match the real building, or it matches only a part of the building), oversimplified (you've drawn a complex building as a simple square or rectangle, when the real shape is more complicated than that) or outright incorrect (you've added several buildings very close together when in reality it's a singular building with a complex shape).

Over Catalonia, there are several satellite imageries available, like Mapbox Satellite, Bing, PNOA Spain, ICGC Ortophoto and Esri. Don't limit yourself to just using one, change to others if you have doubts on what you are seeing. What in one satellite imagery is hard to see, it may look clearer in another one.

Also, in Catalonia there's the ICGC Topographical Map layer which you can trace over and get the shapes of the buildings and other details. And in Spain, there's also the Spanish Cadastral layer that offers accurate building outlines. These layers are not perfect though (especially the ICGC Topo over rural areas), so you'll need to verify them with satellite imagery.

All of these layers are available to use as imagery in JOSM and other editors. Depending on your configuration, in JOSM you may need to go to the imagery settings.

Consider using these tips next time you add buildings from satellite imagery, by using several satellite layers you'll get better results than with just one.

Happy mapping!


* This is in two changesets because I've added many other things that didn't fit into a single changeset
stasiu512 (2025-03-26 23:56:08+00:00): Cześć, dzięki za dodawanie nowych ścieżek. Mała sugestia - horse=no używamy tylko wtedy kiedy jest to prawnie zabronione czyli wtedy kiedy stoi znak B-8. Nie wydaje mi się żeby na tych ścieżkach taki znak się znajdował. Oczywiście mogę być w błędzie :) 
Pozdrawiam!
34c6 (2025-03-27 00:01:05+00:00): Ok, nie będę tej opcji używał więcej. Intencja była taka że końskie kopyta mogą łatwo zdewastować takie wąskie gruntowe delikatne szlaki.
grzegorz75jan (2025-03-27 03:16:06+00:00): Intencja dobra ale w OSM wprowadzamy rzeczywistość niezależnie jaka ona jest. Nikt wtedy nie będzie miał podstaw by coś nam zarzucić. 

Nie dajemy przecież ograniczenia prędkości innego niż w terenie reguluje prawo, znaki. 

Nie ustawiamy granic po swojemu pomimo, że ktoś najechał inny kraj i ustalono nowe granice.
Bartek444 (2025-03-27 21:04:43+00:00): Czy ten fryzjer jest otwarty? Jeżeli tak to dla kogo?
yrtimiD (2025-03-27 01:11:10+00:00): Hi, you downgraded here several footways to a less specific path. May I ask why?
stephen hawking (2025-03-27 19:59:53+00:00): Hi yrtimid
The lanes were designated for walking only, which I know is not true.
Bicycles can also pass through the lanes I changed.
yrtimiD (2025-03-27 20:59:06+00:00): then there is a different way of marking this which depends on actual signs on the road. 
if there is no sign explicitly saying foot and bicycle and also no forbidding sign like "foot only" or "no bicycle" - then it usually mapped as highway=footway (aka, primary usage) + with bicycle=yes

if this way is explicitly designed for both foot and bicycle usage and has appropriate sign, only then we usually map it:
highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=yes/no
but even in this case if ways are separated - it's nicer to map them separately and have 1 footway and 1 cycleway.

in general, having only highway=path without extra clarifications is a bad idea is can be used only if actual status is unknown 

you can read more here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway

In any case, if you need a help, you are welcome to join our local community telegram group in telegram: https://t.me/OSM_Israel
ZLima12 (2025-03-26 22:36:05+00:00): JOSM glitched out and uploaded before I could write a changeset comment. The comment was supposed to be "Downgrade overclassified roads".
aceman444 (2025-04-15 20:27:04+00:00): Hi, why did you delete the parking spaces? What is the point? What is wrong with "micro-parking" spaces?
Liqid1010 (2025-04-15 20:37:06+00:00): Tento pán mi tiež nechcel uznať výkaz na Rovasi pre tieto "micro-parking" neviem čo aj napriek tomu, že som mu osobne odpísal aj s citáciou wiki. Absolútne nevidím dôvod ich vymazávať, hlavne keď tento človek očividne ani nezvykne v týchto končinách mapovať ale Bratislava nie je moje mesto takže nemám na to chuť to riešiť. Raz som si povedal, že prídem aj sem niečo zlepšiť. Ja by som navrhol revertnuť celú túto sadu ale neviem ako sa to robí, takže ak na to niekto má chuť, bolo by to fajn.
aceman444 (2025-04-15 20:42:55+00:00): Hej, mozeme mu to revertnut ak sa nevyjadri.
Walter Mayeku (2025-04-15 21:13:30+00:00): Hello, I reverted the changeset.
nevw (2025-03-27 05:18:59+00:00): You have entered two defibrillators in the same place. Are there two of them?
Dinil Wisundara (2025-03-27 05:23:24+00:00): No just one, im not sure why you see two entries i only entered once….
nevw (2025-03-27 05:27:33+00:00): Thanks, I’ll check again later.
nevw (2025-03-27 06:43:48+00:00): Hi Dinil, I re-checked and there were two mapped so I deleted one. Also, if you are entering more of these, the phone format for Australia is +61 3 9902 6011 and I have fixed it.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Phone_Numbers

I see quite a few people entering two defibrillators instead of one and have wondered why. I expect they expect to see a defibrillator icon on there map but the the standard map on osm doesn't render them yet so some mappers might think they haven't mapped it properly. Maybe they get a double subsidy for the extra one. Who knows?
Herwescheluc (2025-04-04 15:44:47+00:00): Hallo, BrummsLee,

nur mal schnell ein gut gemeinter Rat: Beim nächsten Mal besser kleinere Brötchen backen und öfter hochladen (unabhängig von den dabei entstandenen "Konflikten"). Solche über die Republik verteilten Änderungssätze sieht man nicht so gerne...

Schönes Wochenende und
herzliche Grüße aus Herborn!

Andreas
BrummsLee (2025-04-04 22:04:57+00:00): Hallo Andres!
Danke Dir für den Hinweis.
Ist leider etwas unglücklich aus dem Ruder gelaufen. Erst hatte ich was auf polnischer Seite korrigiert und dann bin ich mit der Challenge und dem gleichen CS in Frankfurt gelandet. Meistens bekommt man ja gar nicht mit, wo man gerade "unterwegs" ist.
Ich wußte bei der Challenge auch nicht, daß die Änderungen gleich upgelodet werden. Hab die Aufgaben immer im iD aufgerufen, dann alles im Umkreis bearbeitet und das für mehrere Aufgaben. Zum Schluß hatte ich das dann im iD als Gesamtkonstrukt hochgeladen. War wohl nicht der glücklichste Weg... 😟​🙋‍♂️

Grüße und Dir auch ein schönes Wochenende!
Healing Alexander Technique (2026-04-29 07:02:49+00:00): this place is now call Feast Cafe
OSMCowboy (2025-03-27 21:37:18+00:00): Correction: Source used was Bing SS
NeisReview (2025-03-27 10:16:12+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/1159312420
Jojolaglandouille (2025-10-20 22:33:44+00:00): Hello, I am truly sorry for replying to you so late.  
You were right to contact me because it turned out to be a mistake on my part that happened when I was not yet fully familiar with using OSM.  
I hadn't even noticed this error, even though I am active in this area. I thank you for contacting me and seeing a possible mistake on my part, and of course, I have put the node back in its place.  
Next time, I will be more careful with my edits and with messages...  
Finally, a segment of this line has been buried; it seems to me that it is not the one I mistakenly modified but the other one near the hamlet of 'Chaillargues' (sorry, it has no reference). I would need to research better to get more information on this. Thank you, and it is a pleasure if you want to contact me again.