piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2025-03-10 10:38:05+00:00): Aanvulling  Een highway=path routeert voor voetgangers en fietsers per default.
Toch voegen we dan nog foot en bicycle=yes toe zodat een volgende mapper weet dat je een 'survey' hebt gedaan.
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2025-03-19 02:31:12+00:00): This is a halting site.
It is not a tourism=caravan_site
JJIglesias (2025-03-10 21:27:03+00:00): Why are you changing the roads inside the private condominiums? all those ways have strict rules about speed, right of use, and priorities.

Did you live there of has been there anytime. If Not leave as they ARE.

One thing is that #ADT correct mistakes and errors in the map and another is MESS AROUND with what YOU DO NOT KNOW.

Thanks
AcconaDesert (2025-03-11 18:31:29+00:00): Hello, my colleague AzuisRiver has addressed your comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163435257 to keep the conversation in one thread, as it pertains to the same subject. Thanks!
eggie (2025-03-10 10:16:38+00:00): Wytze   Wanneer een pad is afgesloten halen we het niet van de kaart voeg je accesstags toe. BV access=no of access=private
Is het pad er nog steeds?
Wat staat vooraan. een bord een hek?

MVG
eggie
Wytze2 (2025-03-10 10:31:06+00:00): Dank voor de feedback, het pad is tot ruim een meter hoogte vol gelegd met omgezaagde bomen en snoeiafval, dit over de gehele lengte van het pad. Dit pad is daarmee naar mijn inzicht geen pad meer, ook geen afgesloten pad.
eggie (2025-03-10 10:34:49+00:00): Wytze

Wanneer een pad onbruiktbaar wordt gemaakt dan taggen we vaak 
disused:highway=path  (rendert niet meer op de kaart) Wanneer het dan dichtgegroeid is halen we het pad weg.
Dit voorkomt opnieuw intekenen door medemappers die de witruimte zien en de ingetekende weg in de BGT transparant. 

Maar laat het voorlopig maar zo.
Groet
eggie
eggie (2025-03-10 10:36:09+00:00): Ik heb de witruimte verwijderd.
aharvey (2025-03-10 12:23:01+00:00): Unfortunately Landgate don't release their data as open data so due to copyright we can't utilise it in OSM. Safest to check the street signage via a ground survey.
Oblate Spheroid (2025-03-20 08:30:47+00:00): It appears that this has been updated/corrected. Thans to the community. :-)
CurlingMan13 (2025-03-12 00:54:01+00:00): Changeset reviewed as requested.  Access should be "private" not "no".  Updated.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163434050
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-08 02:12:53+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164657866
kapazao (2025-04-04 10:55:12+00:00): Hola, por favor es necesario que comentes correctamente los conjuntos de cambios y seas más preciso en tus ediciones.

"rm" supongo que significa Roquetas de Mar, pero no tenemos por qué estar haciendo jeroglíficos para adivinar lo que has editado. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Buenas_prácticas_en_España#Changesets_o_conjunto_de_cambios

En cuanto al carril bici inventado que añadiste por favor revisa cómo se etiquetan este tipo de carriles antes de añadir algo así que no ayuda en nada al mapa y crea problemas. Puedes ver los errores en Osmose (https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/es/map/#loc=16/36.760964/-2.605796&item=xxxx&level=1%2C2%2C3&issue_uuid=a7d86d91-87a5-44a8-4c80-21883b58dc03)

Un saludo
silversurfer83 (2025-03-10 12:57:27+00:00): Hi Zusselkopp :)

die schönere Variante wäre gewesen die Gebäudeumrisse mit einem lifecycle prefix nach dem Muster "razed:building=yes" und der von dir am neuen node hinterlassenen note zu versehen. Das nur als Hinweis für zukünftige Abrissarbeiten.

happy mapping
silversurfer83

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Lifecycle_prefix
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163435100
VladaC (2025-03-23 14:33:25+00:00): Dobrý den, proč jste přemístila adresní místa Velká Černoc 12, 53 a 89 kamsi do polí? Můžete to prosím opravit? Díky, VladaC
JJIglesias (2025-03-10 21:26:46+00:00): Why are you changing the roads inside the private condominiums? all those ways have strict rules about speed, right of use, and priorities.

Did you live there of has been there anytime? If Not leave as they ARE.

One thing is that #ADT correct mistakes and errors in the map and another is MESS AROUND with what YOU DO NOT KNOW.

Thanks
5m4u9 (2025-03-11 04:13:33+00:00): Yo creo que el cambio es bueno, porque la mayoría de estas calles fueron añadidas confundiendo la etiqueta porque la traducción al español aparecía primero antes que la etiqueta residential.

Eso no quiere decir que hay urbanizaciones cerradas que podrían tener tienen esas condiciones.
AzuisRiver (2025-03-11 18:23:16+00:00): Hello JJIglesias,

I am responding to your similar comments across changesets 163448157, 163436009, 163433397 & 163433159 on behalf of myself and my colleagues to consolidate everything into one thread. Recently, the community user YoViajo (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/YoViajo) updated most of the living streets in this area to residential on 3/10/25, leaving a few ways still classified as living streets. Our team’s edits aimed to maintain consistency by updating the remaining classification gaps to surrounding data and the residential classification seemed reasonable.

We are happy to defer to your local knowledge if you believe ‘living_street’ is a more appropriate classification for these areas. However, you may also want to reach out to YoViajo to discuss their reasoning for these updates and continue the discussion with 5m4u9 above.

Best,
AzuisRiver
JJIglesias (2025-03-12 01:25:20+00:00): Hi, whatever user YoViajo did do not mean that was correct. Mostly if not all the roads inside the closed Condominiums area indeed living street and not residential roads as such. All such areas share the same rules pedestrians are priority over cars, whatever they have paths or footways present.

So the correct classification should be Living Streets and not Residentials. Outside condominiums those rules and restrictions do not apply.

Thanks
JJ
AzuisRiver (2025-03-13 16:02:07+00:00): Hello JJIglesias. Thank you for your response, and I appreciate you explaining your preferences for living_street classifications inside closed condominiums. 

I had assumed that YoViajo had discussed these living_street classification changes in Santa Cruz with the rest of the Bolivian OSM community based on their other changesets (https://osmcha.org/changesets/163019167, https://osmcha.org/changesets/163052733, https://osmcha.org/changesets/163405486, https://osmcha.org/changesets/163365640, etc.). My team and I would be happy to follow the local community's preference for classifications in these types of areas, however (based on YoViajo’s edits and 5m4u9’s comment) there doesn't seem to be a consensus for how these features should be mapped.

I wasn't able to find anything about these specific classification preferences on the Bolivia page on the OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Bolivia), and I believe it'd be beneficial to everyone mapping in the region if, once a consensus has been reached by the community, it was documented there for easy reference. I'd like to reiterate that our team's primary goal is improving OSM while aligning to the standards of the local communities where we're mapping. We don't have a preference for living_street or residential in these type of developments, our aim is just to improve the consistency and quality of OSM. Without these classification preferences being documentated, though, it becomes difficult for us and all remote mappers to contribute to OSM in the area.

It might be beneficial to open up this discussion to the broader Bolivian OSM Community on Telegram or elsewhere to come to a consensus on a classification policy for Bolivia that can be documented on the OSM wiki. If you'd like, feel free to reach out to Teddy Ahlvin (tahlvin@apple.com), our Community Lead, if you'd like our parcipitation or assistance in establishing and documenting the community's classification preferences.

Thanks again for your feedback and help in resolving these discrepancies.
mavl (2025-05-13 15:09:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
Piskvor (2025-03-10 15:59:26+00:00): Zdravím, crossing:markings ale označuje _vodorovné_ značení, tj. zda a jak je označen na vozovce.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:markings
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
eggie (2025-03-10 11:02:27+00:00): Oke  De overgebleven stukken fietspad heb ik ook omgezet naar highway=path met surface fine_gravel
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
mavl (2025-05-13 15:04:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:48:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:48:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
ddbb07 (2025-03-17 00:01:50+00:00): This road is neither restricted, a busway nor 50km/h. There is a bustrap that's already mapped and should prevent routers from choosing this road, but it is still open to the public, and on the other side of the bustrap are homes that use this road to get to their driveways.
Geidenstam (2025-03-17 08:42:59+00:00): Actually the comment by ddbb07 is incorrect. On both sides of the marked sections of the road there is a road sign prohibiting cars and motorcycles from using the road.  Below this sign it informs that there is indeed a bus trap, and below this another sign to inform the prohibition does not apply to buses. 

The houses concern on the western side of the of road would naturally be excluded from the prohibition
ddbb07 (2025-03-17 15:11:50+00:00): 1. I was talking about general access. highway=busway implies access=no which means that no traffic is allowed, and highway=busway is not meant for this kind of road either, a more appropriate tagging would be highway=unclassified+motor_vehicle=no+bus=designated, this would allow foot and bike traffic to pass.

2. This way extends to the west side of the bus trap so tagging the entire way with restrictions would be incorrect, so this would have to be split before adding any restrictions.

3. The speed limit, the eastern part of the road has a speed limit of 50km/h while the western has a speed limit of 30km/h so it would again have to be split for correct mapping.

I could make these changes if you would be fine with me splitting the way at the bus trap and tagging the west side with highway=residential, and tagging the east with highway=unclassified+motor_vehicle=no+bus=designated, and also adjusting the speed limit.

And i also want to thank you for your contribution, and apologize if my first comment seemed a little aggressive, it was not meant as such.
Geidenstam (2025-03-17 15:54:19+00:00): 1. Hi, indeed you are correct about the proposed classification. Pedestrians and bikes would be allowed.

2. In actual fact, the sign is mounted at the first crossing on the west side so per this it would actually formally indicate the full road between the cross-roads are in fact prohibited for traffic (I can share somewhere the sign if required?) but indeed in reality the house owners on the western side would of course be allowed to drive and park their cars.

Splitting the road into sections to show the reality might be a way to go.

Thank you, no worries. Thanks for your assistance!
ddbb07 (2025-03-17 20:53:47+00:00): I think this is a case of improper signage since the two sides seem to be intended to act as different road but you are right that the restrictions formally apply to the entire road.

I went ahead and made the changes we discussed but feel free to make any changes you feel fit, you can find my changeset here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163750167
JJIglesias (2025-03-10 21:25:53+00:00): Why are you changing the roads inside the private condominiums? all those ways have strict rules about speed, right of use, and priorities.

Did you live there of has been there anytime. If Not leave as they ARE.

One thing is that #ADT correct mistakes and errors in the map and another is MESS AROUND with what YOU DO NOT KNOW.

Thanks
ErieCanal (2025-03-11 18:29:12+00:00): Hello, my colleague AzuisRiver has addressed your comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163435257 to keep the conversation in one thread, as it pertains to the same subject. Thanks!
Famlam (2025-03-13 15:01:50+00:00): Hi Rubenke, ik denk dat je een typfout heb gemaakt in de highways van de platform-wegen van halte Duitslandstraat, pas je het even aan?
Rubenke (2025-03-13 15:09:55+00:00): Ik zou niet weten wat er fout zou moeten zijn... normale halte
Famlam (2025-03-13 15:13:15+00:00): Open de weg maar eens, dan zie je "highway=platformKuifjestraat" ;)

Ik vermoed dat je toch echt highway=platform bedoelt.
Rubenke (2025-03-14 10:50:53+00:00): scherp! fixed
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:48:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
Mathias_ADAV (2025-04-07 08:06:26+00:00): Bonjour, 	Rue du Faubourg d'Arras il s'agit bien d'un double sens cyclable avec bande. J'ai donc rétabli, n'hésitez pas à consulter la doc :  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bicycle#Bandes_cyclables_sur_les_routes_%C3%A0_sens_unique 
Bon mapping ! 
Mathias
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:48:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:48:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:48:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:48:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:48:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
Dani CS (2025-04-06 17:23:53+00:00): Doublon, j'efface.
NeisBot (2025-03-10 11:09:41+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was flagged because your added description contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2025-03-21 19:19:20+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163921414
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:48:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-03-23 10:16:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163979213 where the changeset comment is: Following on from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163963906 , and see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/about-mapping-features-with-computer-vision/127790 - reverting some 'AI detected swimming pools', some of dubious quality.
eggie (2025-03-10 11:43:24+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
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
aharvey (2025-03-10 12:20:08+00:00): Looks like you may have already found https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths because you're tags are close.

What you have is pretty much it, except you got the key=tag a bit mixed up.

We write key=tag so left part is the key and right part is tag, it should be abandoned:highway=path not abandoned=highway=path as you have.

See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:abandoned:highway
aharvey (2025-03-12 10:52:20+00:00): I've fixed this now.
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:48:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-10 09:37:08+00:00): Reverted addition of SEO POI for Brownstone Law with blatantly promotional description and incorrect social media tagging to building already occupied by other POIs

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183913891
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
NeisReview (2025-03-10 15:24:49+00:00): same again: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163442661
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:48:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:48:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
Baloo Uriza (2025-03-10 21:49:55+00:00): You can leave the operator and operator:wikidata blank instead of filling them in with placeholder data.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163437615
TedTimesSix (2025-03-10 22:06:33+00:00): Ok will do in the future.  Not relevant info to put?
Baloo Uriza (2025-03-10 23:07:53+00:00): Operator and wikidata are relevant information, but the lack of the tag generally implies the correct value is unknown.
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
flohoff (2025-03-10 12:47:58+00:00): Moin,
ich war gerade etwas verwundert das dieser changeset eine routingänderung bewirkt hat. Der changeset kommentar hat das irgendwie nicht so richtig hergegeben.

Es wäre schön wenn du dir bei den Changeset kommentaren mehr mühe gibts. 

Wenn daraus eindeutig hervorgeht was der sinn der änderung war - wie hier "Geschwindigkeitsbeschränkungen" - dann weiss ich sofort das das wohl richtig ist das sich daraus eine Routingänderung ergibt.

Hier eine der routingänderungen - rot alt - grün neu:

https://osm.zz.de/routeqa/?rid=642807,997991#51.2996,6.26255,14z

Flo
Joopvdl (2025-03-10 13:48:17+00:00): Thanks for the feedback! I must admit that the description could be better. I will make sure to create a more appropriate description next time.
disc24 (2025-12-16 08:59:38+00:00): Hallo,
mir ist gerade aufgefallen, dass Du mit diesem Changeset große Teile des Mühlenbachs als culvert/layer=-1 eingetragen hast. Ist das wirklich vor Ort so oder war das evtl. ein Versehen?
Danke und Gruß
Dirk
Ana Luisa (2025-12-16 13:12:10+00:00): Hi,
gut aufgepasst, das war nen versehen, da hab ich im Editor die Linie nicht an der passenden stelle getrennt ... ja ja das Alter ;)
hab es wieder korrigiert.
viele Grüße
disc24 (2025-12-17 07:42:14+00:00): Ich glaube, Du hast da noch nicht alles vom Bach erwischt. ;-)
Zumindest der Teil Nahe Ostönnen ist aktuell noch als Culvert in der Karte.
Viel Grüße
Dirk
Ana Luisa (2025-12-18 09:47:30+00:00): jetzt sollte es passen
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:48:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379
woodpeck_repair (2025-03-10 12:47:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163441152 where the changeset comment is: revert possibly contentious edits in Spain, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17379