piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
MxxCon (2026-07-22 17:41:46+00:00): Hello person with familiar name. 😁
Could you elaborate how do you know that "Olly Olly Market" operates these footways?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185980415
Nanepiwo (2026-07-27 05:29:52+00:00): Hello :)

If there is a better way to tag the footways to indicate they're part of the food court, I'd love to hear it! By survey, these footways are all part of Olly Olly Market and the entrances are signed as such.
Lezurex (2026-07-23 08:32:18+00:00): Hallo d_berger
Ich habe ein paar Fragen:

Warum entfernst du überall crossing:island=no?

crossing:continuous=yes setzt highway=crossing voraus. Warum entfernst du alle beschreibenden Tags? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:continuous

oneway:bicycle=yes ist spezifischer als nur oneway=yes. Warum das Tagging also willentlich unklarer machen? Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway#Interpretation_for_routing

LG Lezurex
d_berger (2026-07-23 15:34:15+00:00): Hi. Siehe Erklärung in CS181993300. 

Nochmals aus dem wiki [1]: OpenStreetMap ist nicht der richtige Ort, um Daten über nicht existierende Kartenmerkmale zu speichern.

Und nein, oneway:bicycle ist nicht "spezifischer", "oneway" schliesst sämtliche Verkehrsarten (ausser Fussverkehr) mit ein und gilt in der Schweiz _zwingend_ auch für Velöli. Nur die Ausnahme, die sich aus der Zusatzsignalisation ergibt (oneway:bicycle=no, aber auch oneway:bus=no etc.) muss zwingend ergänzt werden. Es ist schlechter Mappingstil implizite Defaults, explizit einzutragen.

Der Clou an 'crossing:continuous=yes' ist, dass es eben genau keine "beschreibenden Eigenschaften" hat – es is eine Trottoirüberfahrt. Punkt. SC sollte in solchen Fällen das Abfragen von Nicht-Eigenschaften unterlassen.
'highway=crossing' braucht es nicht, wenn das Trottoir ununterbrochen ist – der Fussgänger quert hier keine "Strasse" (resp. Fahrbahn, aufgrund des Trottoirmappings); einzig für den Fahrbahnnutzer braucht es die Information, dass die Fahrbahn an der Stelle durch ein Trottoir unterbrochen ist – dies habe ich in der Stadt mit traffic_calming=table umgesetzt, bevor irgendwelche Tools anfingen sinnfreie Eigenschaften abzufragen.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Nichtexistierende_Merkmale

HTH & Grüsse, Dani
Lezurex (2026-07-23 17:52:38+00:00): Danke für deine Antwort.

Die erwähnte Wikiseite zu Nichtexistierenden Merkmalen behandelt etwas anderes, nämlich vor allem, wie mit nicht (mehr) korrekten Features und Tags umgegangen wird. Ich kann nicht nachvollziehen, inwiefern dies auf *=no Tags zu übertragen wäre?

crossing:island=no sagt durchaus mehr aus, als wenn man es einfach weglässt. Ersteres bestätigt, dass keine Insel vorhanden ist, letzteres lässt diese Frage offen, ist also ungenauer. Ein Beispiel: Personen älteren Alters sind oft langsamer unterwegs und bevorzugen Fussgängerquerungen mit Insel und möchten jene ohne möglichst vermeiden. Fehlt crossing:island können sie nur raten, mit crossing:island=no hingegen wissen sie, dass sie dort eher nicht durch möchten.
Anderes Beispiel: Ich möchte auswerten, wie viele Querungen auf vierspurigen Hauptstrassen keine Insel haben. Zähle ich nach crossing:island=no erhalte ich verlässlichere Zahlen, als wenn ich nach der Absenz von crossing:island=yes zähle, schliesslich könnten da auch nicht erfasste Inseln dabei sein. crossing:island=no hat den Status "akzeptiert". Wenn du dessen Existenzberechtigung infrage stellen möchtest, darfst du das gerne im Wiki/Forum machen. Hier aber im grösseren Stil und "aus Prinzip" alle Tags zu entfernen vernichtet die Arbeit anderer Mapper.

Zu oneway:bicycle=yes:
Bitte lies meinen zuvor verlinkten Abschnitt: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway#Interpretation_for_routing
Richtig, oneway=yes schliesst nur Fahrzeuge (wozu auch Velos gehören) ein, aber auf Fusswegen ist es kein Konsens, dass Fussgänger nicht dazugehören, vor allem wenns ums Routing geht (wie eben obiger Abschnitt aus dem Wiki beschreibt). Valhalla routet mit deinem Tagging nun nämlich um den Fussweg herum, weil es ja die falsche Richtung ist: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_foot&route=47.393124%2C8.447902%3B47.394703%2C8.448358#map=19/47.393893/8.448229
Übrigens handelt es sich hier gar nicht um einen "impliziten Default", der default auf Radwegen ist, dass sie in beide Richtungen befahren werden können.

Zu crossing:continuous=yes:
Auch hier, lies bitte die Wikiseite. In der Infobox steht ganz klar, dass highway=crossing oder footway=crossing dafür notwendig sind: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:continuous
Auch hier: Wenn du mit dem aktuellen Konsens (welcher nunmal durch das Wiki abgebildet wird) nicht einverstanden bist, darfst du das gerne aufbringen.

LG Lezurex
d_berger (2026-07-23 20:35:32+00:00): Ich Diskutiere in CS-Kommentaren nicht über Grundsatzfragen. Dafür gibt es ein Forum.

Wer Angst vor unvollständigen Daten hat sollte sich nicht OSM als Hobby aussuchen.

Es gibt in der Schweiz kein Anrecht auf Fussgängerinseln an mehrspurigen Strassen. Wenn du dies für deinen politischen Aktivismus nutzen willst, musst du dies selber von Hand erledigen. OSM ist keine Plattform für Politaktivisten. Danke für die Kenntnisnahme.

Langsam dämmert mir, dass das bisher übliche Tagging von Politaktivsisten aus der Ecke von Pro-Velo übernommen werden soll. Das finde ich ziemlich daneben.
Lezurex (2026-07-27 07:59:33+00:00): Grundsätzlich dem Konsens zu folgen und die Arbeit anderer Leute nicht zu löschen sind Grundsatzfragen, die längst geklärt worden sind. Müssen wir nicht drüber diskutieren.

Du hattest die Möglichkeit, sachlich auf meine Argumente zu reagieren. Stattdessen greifst du mich auf persönlicher Ebene an und unterstellst mir Politaktivismus. Das finde ich – um es mit deinen Worten zu sagen – ziemlich daneben.

Ich sags nochmals: Wenn du *=no abschaffen willst, darfst du entsprechende Vorschläge in der Community einbringen. Das alles aber immer wieder wegzulöschen bringt rein gar nichts, der nächste trägts eh wieder ein.

Die bemängelten Änderungen habe ich nun wieder korrigiert: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186441283

LG Lezurex
d_berger (2026-07-27 08:44:52+00:00): Dann werden wir dies wohl mit der DWG besprechen müssen. Insbesondere deinen Revert.
t_ja (2026-07-22 18:11:23+00:00): Ahoj,
adresa patrí na budovu, a tam už bola pridaná pred rokmi: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318423818
Na POI sa pridáva adresa iba vtedy, keď budova ešte neexistuje a nie sú dostupné podklady na jej zakreslenie, napr. Ortofotomozaika SR.
Cmapuk-noxa6bl4 (2026-07-18 21:59:55+00:00): Около посёлка Кажма пропали сегменты Онеги. Восстановил. Следите, пожалуйста, за валидатором (найденными ошибками JOSM) скачивайте затронутые мультиполигоны и проверяйте уже вместе с ними.
alpacaMaps (2026-07-19 00:12:05+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — the nodes sit well away from any road, which usually means the cameras aren't physically present on the ground.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
Makeena (2026-07-18 22:34:23+00:00): Changes in Sellenbüren
CAM-Gerlach (2026-07-19 18:13:17+00:00): On their website, the contact:mobile=* number was listed as "Text: " while the phone=* number was listed as "Phone: "; per testing the former phone number cannot actually be called, just texted. In the original changeset, I should have instead tagged that number as contact:sms=* (albeit it is a little-used key). I've fixed the tagging accordingly in changeset 186021190

https://osm.org/changeset/186021190
lukabułka (2026-07-20 14:49:11+00:00): nie rozdzielaj ścieżki dla pieszych i ścieżki rowerowej kiedy nie są faktycznie rozdzielone w terenie. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery#Drogi_dla_pieszych_i_rower%C3%B3w). Proszę też dodawać komentarze o tym co zmieniłeś w zestawie. Zestaw zmian wycofuję (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186064443)
Kamil_Piwowarski (2026-07-20 16:54:52+00:00): Są rozdzielone, naprawiłem to co ktoś inny zepsuł. Była już o tym dyskusja na forum, proszę nie niszczyć mojej pracy którą wkładam w dokładny mikromaping.
Marek-M (2026-07-20 17:48:41+00:00): A czym jest rozdzielony? Dokładny mikromaping obowiązują te same zasady co zwykły maping, w szczególności dla linii highway.
Kamil_Piwowarski (2026-07-20 17:54:23+00:00): Fizycznie krawężnikiem oraz podbudową. Tak jak np. większość chodników od jezdni i je też mapujemy osobną linią.
Kamil_Piwowarski (2026-07-20 17:58:31+00:00): Ogólnie odechciewa się mapować zgodnie z logiką i przebiegami prawdziwej infrastruktury. Rysowanie przebiegu po linii krawężnika i jakieś dziwaczne odginanie i rozdzielanie tylko, że pomiędzy drogą dla rowerów pojawiło się źdźbło trawy zamiast krawężnika to idiotyczny sposób mapowania. Jaka jest różnica czy jest krawężnik czy źdźbła trawy o szerokości kilku centymetrów? Infrastruktura rowerowa jest zupełnie czymś innym niż piesza, tak jak jezdnia i linia kolejowa. Wrzucenie pieszych i rowerzystów w jedną linię gdy fizycznie przebiegi obu dróg są odsunięte jest głupie.
lukabułka (2026-07-20 20:56:42+00:00): w tym wypadku ścieżka rowerowa i dla pieszych nie są rozdzielone nawet i krawężnikiem i można to zobaczyć na np. Mapillary (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=50.86519999999999&lng=20.628053333333014&z=17&pKey=486003395944943&focus=photo). Nawet gdyby krawężnik był to wg wiki dalej powinno być to mapowane jako jedna linia (cytuję  - "Ruch pieszych i rowerzystów zwykle rozdziela inny kolor nawierzchni lub/oraz niski krawężnik, który nie utrudnia jego przekroczenia.
Tego typu drogi dla pieszych i rowerów powinny być rysowane pojedynczą linią z poniższym tagowaniem"). Poza tym w OSM nie mapujemy według swoich własnych wymysłów bo uważamy, że coś jest "głupie" czy bez sensu tylko mapujemy zgodnie z zasadami.
alpacaMaps (2026-07-18 23:40:13+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — in addition to you adding known-to-be-false nodes, these newly added nodes span New York and Conway. You did not travel to New York and back in the time of one set of changesets.

Please respond to any of these comments or any of the DMs sent by myself and several other users or we'll be forced to loop DWG in.

— alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-18 23:40:12+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — in addition to you adding known-to-be-false nodes, these newly added nodes span New York and Conway. You did not travel to New York and back in the time of one set of changesets.

Please respond to any of these comments or any of the DMs sent by myself and several other users or we'll be forced to loop DWG in.

— alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-18 23:40:11+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — in addition to you adding known-to-be-false nodes, these newly added nodes span New York and Conway. You did not travel to New York and back in the time of one set of changesets.

Please respond to any of these comments or any of the DMs sent by myself and several other users or we'll be forced to loop DWG in.

— alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-18 23:40:10+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — in addition to you adding known-to-be-false nodes, these newly added nodes span New York and Conway. You did not travel to New York and back in the time of one set of changesets.

Please respond to any of these comments or any of the DMs sent by myself and several other users or we'll be forced to loop DWG in.

— alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-18 23:40:09+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — in addition to you adding known-to-be-false nodes, these newly added nodes span New York and Conway. You did not travel to New York and back in the time of one set of changesets.

Please respond to any of these comments or any of the DMs sent by myself and several other users or we'll be forced to loop DWG in.

— alpacaMaps
ftrebien (2026-07-21 23:57:10+00:00): Isto não é uma via, é um cabo de energia elétrica.
Raquel Dezidério Souto (2026-07-25 18:29:21+00:00): Também reforço o comentário. E saliento que o usuário não responde aos comentários há, pelo menos, 4 meses. Para fins de registro.
Fidelis Assis (2026-07-21 21:05:21+00:00): Boa tarde. Essa edição misturou etiquetas de vias de rodagem (algumas com valor fora da faixa esperada, maxspeed=999) com as de linha de transmisão. Imagens de satélite mostram uma linha de transmissão no local. Poderia rever/corrigir?
O comentário colocado no changeset precisa conter breve descrição do que foi feito e informar a fonte utilizada. Um simples "obrigado" não  tem utilidade ali. Por gentileza, pode complementar?
Raquel Dezidério Souto (2026-07-25 18:28:38+00:00): Também questiono o mesmo e ressalto que o usuário não responde aos comentários há, pelo menos, 4 meses.
Marek-M (2026-07-19 18:18:10+00:00): Cześć, daty OSM dodajemy w formacie YYYY-MM-DD. Tutaj przy terenach budowy osiedla zastosowałeś niepoprawny zapis: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1540366430

Więcej o formatowaniu dat w OSM możesz znaleźć np. na stronie: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:start_date
dknelson9876 (2026-07-22 03:28:16+00:00): Hi sun_lab, welcome to OSM! Thanks for your contributions. Please note for future edits that the sidewalk=* tag has been deprecated in favor of the sidewalk:*=* tag to reduce ambiguity. 

In simple cases this just means using sidewalk:both=no or 
sidewalk:both=separate instead of sidewalk=no or sidewalk=both, but gives the ability to be more specific in unusual cases. For more information about levels of detail in sidewalk mapping, check out the resources put out by the Pedestrian Working Group (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Pedestrian_Working_Group)
jmarchon (2026-07-19 03:11:38+00:00): Please stop adding this gas station.
Wildsharky (2026-07-21 05:48:23+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186045978
Wildsharky (2026-07-21 05:51:14+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186054080
user_5359 (2026-07-20 15:47:06+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1540374846. What is the mean of the tag layer2 = 1?
Deanna Earley (2026-07-20 18:09:20+00:00): typo
OddlyAngled (2026-07-26 22:40:49+00:00): I believe the current practice is to add waterway=flowline instead of deleting ways through lakes - this allows the waterway relation to be continuous - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12859915 has a gap now
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185984808
alpacaMaps (2026-07-19 01:11:12+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that were proven to be inaccurate by a Conway local.

Please stop. Also, we're now watching the gunshot detectors being added. These appear JUST as inaccurate.

— alpacaMaps
seateaeye (2026-07-19 01:41:21+00:00): I would argue that this section should not be tagged as a primary road since it does not carry comparable traffic to the adjacent expressway, would highway=motorway_link or highway=primary_link be more appropriate? I would also argue that the westbound way should be highway=service since traffic cannot travel onto the freeway.

Thanks for the note about service=driveway though, noticed the bit about not using it for parking after closely reading the wiki.
Minh Nguyen (2026-07-19 01:56:51+00:00): During its lifetime, Almaden Plaza Way has been through seemingly every possible highway classification except highway=raceway, so anything is possible. 😉

In isolation, the eastbound lanes do look like a candidate for highway=motorway_link. But we would need to either make the westbound lanes a link way that leads nowhere, or else the two sides of the street would have wildly different classifications. Most mappers avoid classifying a street differently on either side. There are occasional exceptions, typically because both sides are considered different streets.

A similar thing happens routinely in Texas. Freeway exits there typically empty onto a frontage road. If the ultimate destination of that exit is highway=primary, a short portion of the frontage road gets upgraded to match. Here’s an example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/599989943

This situation is so rare here that I can understand how highway=primary would seem like a mistake.
Minh Nguyen (2026-07-19 02:02:46+00:00): By the way, if this street is highway=service, some routers will avoid using it as a cut-through. For example, Valhalla is passing the exit and taking the next exit, then doing a U-turn back onto Highway 85 in order to get to Almaden Expressway. Routers often try to avoid cutting through service roads because they aren’t intended as part of the public road network.
arjunaraoc (2026-07-21 01:13:48+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  Andhra Pradesh page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh) and  join OSM Andhra Pradesh Telegram channel (https://t.me/osmandhra).
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185985793
alpacaMaps (2026-07-19 02:57:52+00:00): Nodes placed at this location are duplicates. Additionally, several of the previous nodes you have added have been proven fictitious.

Thanks!
alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-19 02:57:51+00:00): Nodes placed at this location are duplicates. Additionally, several of the previous nodes you have added have been proven fictitious.

Thanks!
alpacaMaps
IndiaKW2Gf7rTBt5C (2026-07-19 02:53:22+00:00): The changeset fix the incorrect mapping of rectangle-geometried motorway tunnel, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1533872144,  which no evidence of existing in reality. If any evidence to have such structures located underground, free to map if any source or evidence prove its actual existance
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185987108
FajrAl (2026-07-19 06:07:03+00:00): Several terraced houses have been mapped as individual buildings, even though they form a continuous row. If it is difficult to map each unit accurately (for example, when using the iD editor), it is perfectly acceptable to map the entire row as a single building and tag it with building=terrace. This is generally preferred over drawing inaccurate individual footprints. Tip: Press Q to square rectangular buildings.
FajrAl (2026-07-19 05:54:31+00:00): Hi, I have left comments regarding your buildings mapping. How can you keep mapping buildings separately while that actually one building?
Wildsharky (2026-07-21 05:50:23+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186053276
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-19 17:12:52+00:00): Welcome to OSM, and thanks for your contribution.

Valid OSM tag keys should never contain spaces, and there is no such tag as "coin counter" or any variant (with _, -, no space, etc) either documented or in use anywhere in the wiki or the database. While mappers are permitted to create new tags themselves under the appropriate circumstances, there should be a clear need, have valid tag keys following standard conventions, and be properly documented on the wiki, and its usually a good idea to gain more experience as a mapper first before doing so.

Also, keep in mind that a basic rule of OSM is to write out names in full as tools can easily abbreviate themselves, but the other direction is potentially lossy. This includes addr:street=*.  which should be written as "North Whittaker Street", not "N Whittaker St".

I've fixed both of these for you (but the last, which is a property of your changeset itself) in changeset 186018239 and changeset 186018319

https://osm.org/changeset/186018239

https://osm.org/changeset/186018319

Note that its usually a good idea to make edits in separate towns in separate changesets, as this otherwise creates a large bounding box for your changeset that complicates life for other mappers.

Also, all of your edits appear to refer to this credit union--if you have some affiliation with them, you should disclose that on at least your OSM profile.

Happy mapping!
Weekday Weekend (2026-07-19 17:21:41+00:00): I appreciate the help! This is the first edit I've made, and I'll follow the tips you've given for next time. Thank you! 
Also, I am an employee of said credit union, but I'm not at any kind of administration level. Just a lowly employee who realized the information was out of date on my way to work in the morning. Nevertheless, I will disclose that in my profile when I get some time to edit it. 
I am new to OSM, been using it for a few months, and wanted to give back, and so I figured this was a good place to start. 
Thanks again for your help, and I'll be sure to follow your tips for next time.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-19 18:19:29+00:00): Thanks for the quick and courteous followup! 99% of what I deal on here in terms of accounts mapping a specific business are offshore SEO spammers who couldn't care less about the map and just keep on spamming, very much unlike yourself, so I apologize if I was a little harsh at first. I hope that didn't discourage you at all, and looking forward to your future contributions!

Happy mapping!
Wildsharky (2026-07-21 05:45:09+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186039503
tordans (2026-07-19 04:59:33+00:00): Das mit der Vorfahrtsregelung an der Harzer Straße <> Treptower Straße (priority_road) ist vermutlich noch unfertig. Bin aber nicht im Tagging sicher…
philippec (2026-07-21 18:28:39+00:00): https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.25284720000002&lng=2.9780266999999867&z=18.92857241522563&focus=photo&dateFrom=2026-05-01&pKey=1104756146063280&x=0.4922377315398717&y=0.5011040394961227&zoom=0
felipeeugenio (2026-07-19 15:14:04+00:00): Hola. Reversé todo lo que hizo, ya que borró calles y defornó todo el barrio, pero dejé el nombre de la calle, que asumos que está bien.

Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185989415
ajmat (2026-07-20 06:39:49+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186041852
woodpeck (2026-07-19 11:33:37+00:00): Bitte das nächste Mal klarere Beschreibung im Changeset-Kommentar verwenden - "admin_centre von Berlin entfernt" oder sowas wäre ehrlich und erspart das Nachforschen.
geozeisig (2026-07-20 07:16:07+00:00): Es kann nicht sein, wenn ich nach Berlin suche, das 2 rote Punkte im Zentrum angezeigt werden (OSMAnd). Mit der Beschreibung magst du recht haben.
Udarian (2026-07-19 18:11:46+00:00): looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Udarian (2026-07-19 18:05:24+00:00): looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Udarian (2026-07-19 18:03:57+00:00): looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.