piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
silversurfer83 (2023-11-22 07:59:36+00:00): Hello StanV1,

welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for contributing to this database.

At least I hope you intended to contribute because, sadly, very many users of the app maps.me mistake a certain feature of the app for a cloud back up of their personal bookmarks.

If you wish to continue working on the map data, I would very much like to suggest to do that with a different app, like "Go Map!!" and before you continue to help, which would be very much appreciated, there is a wiki which contains an article or two which you might wish to read:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice

Please reach out should there be any questions concerning OSM, we're always happy to help

safe travels
silversurfer83
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-22 19:00:46+00:00): Has anything been changed here?

aerial imagery from March suggests that everything is in place

https://fotoladu.maaamet.ee/etak.php?B=59.35221346053511&L=24.61018345038208&fotoladu
silversurfer83 (2023-11-22 08:10:39+00:00): Moin Tom :)

danke, dass du hilfst die Karte zu verbessern. Gerade gewerbliche POIs machen die Datenbank auch interessant für mehr NutzerInnen.

Ein Hinweis zu POIs wie Geschäften, Büros, Firmen,...: Guck dir mal die umliegenden Restaurants und Geschäfte an. Die sind in der Regel als einzelner Punkt innerhalb des Gebäudes in dem sie liegen erfasst. Das macht es wesentlich einfacher und eindeutiger die Eigenschaften des eigentlichen Gebäudes und die Eigenschaften des POIs (oder vielleicht der vielen POIs) zu trennen und aktuell zu halten.

Bei Fragen, immer raus damit und ansonsten lohnt sich auch immer ein Blick ins Wiki. Zum Beispiel hier:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:How_to_map_a
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Map_Features


Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144312460
aceman444 (2024-01-04 21:46:56+00:00): Budova na Ortofotomozaike (ktoru ste udajne pouzili) stale je.
Cize abandoned:building na jej uplne odstranenie z mapy nebude spravne.
arjunaraoc (2023-11-25 04:14:55+00:00): I have fixed your inadvertent vandalism with regard to Center Point Hotel (in Thailand)  by changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144428528
Please ensure that you are updating correctly in future.
aixbrick (2024-03-24 12:04:24+00:00): Hello,
you added multiple benches at Aachen Hauptbahnhof, but not on the platforms, but between them or the tracks.
Would you please correct that.
Regards
Nicolelaine (2024-03-24 14:40:43+00:00): Hi there! I can see them, and they all seem to be offset the same amount, so I'm wondering if we're both looking at different imagery? I added them using GoMap!! and they appeared to be directly on the benches when I added them. Are you able to confirm which imagery you're looking at? To be honest, I'm also a bit unclear which imagery was used in the app. Do you see that in the changeset anywhere? Maybe I'm simply missing it.
aixbrick (2024-03-24 15:17:20+00:00): You used "NRW vDOP" (aerial images) and your source is "knowledge". If I understand you correctly you were not on location, you added them by aerial image? How do you do that, because, there is a roof?
aixbrick (2024-03-24 15:25:37+00:00): You could see the offset by using https://www.openstreetmap.org/. Platforms are dark grey (example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33170523), benches are visible as icon.
Nicolelaine (2024-03-24 19:04:41+00:00): I was on a train that had a long stopover in the Aachen train station, and I opened Go Map!! while we were sitting there stopped. I saw a bench next to me outside of the window and was surprised that I could also see it on the satellite imagery, so I added it. I then also slowly added the others. But it's possible that I misunderstood entirely. I actually can't get that imagery to load any longer in the app, so it's difficult to double check. If you live in the area and you know where the benches should be, feel free to move them around. I likely won't be back down to Aachen for a while to correct it in person.
aixbrick (2024-03-24 20:00:44+00:00): Thanks for the explanation. The vDOP are no longer available because they are preliminary (the "v" stands for "vorläufig"). Sometimes these images have an offset, but as I mentioned you won't be able to see the benches on them because of the roof.
Whatever, I think the local community will correct it. :-)
RalfL (2023-11-22 07:58:14+00:00): wenn source=motorcycle von mir kam, war es definitiv ein Versehen.

Danke für den Hinweis
silversurfer83 (2023-11-22 08:03:51+00:00): (nur zur Info: Das kam nicht von dir, das wurde direkt beim ersten einzeichnen des Weges getaggt. Siehe hier: https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/253507141. Trotzdem gut, dass du es entfernt hast, da mittlerweile die Luftbilder gut genug sind und der Verlauf auch aus diesen gut korrigiert werden kann)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144314313
Sylabowy Kot (2025-06-11 21:16:33+00:00): Hej, o co chodzi w tej poprawce, że dodałeś uchwałę dot. granic dzielnic jako źródło granicy dekanatu i parafii? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/834286345/history/5
Sylabowy Kot (2025-06-11 21:19:05+00:00): W sumie nie ma tematu. Widzę już, że zapewne ci się omsknęło i dodałeś ten tag nieświadomie na za zbyt dużą linię. Zdarza się.
arjunaraoc (2023-11-25 03:54:02+00:00): Welcome to OSM. What is the reason for deleting so many POI's?  There are no meaninful comments with your changeset.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144315404
arjunaraoc (2023-11-27 04:29:02+00:00): I have reverted your changeset vide https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144492262 Please update again with your changes if any with explanatory comments
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144315404
ocramzir (2026-02-26 17:34:49+00:00): Ciao, vorrei aggiornare le linee urbane di Pordenone con i nuovi percorsi perchè ho visto che alcuni non lo sono. Ho visto che hai rinominato tutte le fermate come sono sul sito di TPL FVG, cioè ad esempio "PORDENONE centro commerciale Meduna". Però sulla mappa del comune con le linee le fermate sono indicate solamente come ad esempio "Centro Commerciale (Meduna)". Aggiungere il comune ad ogni fermata mi sembra un po' ridondante, sopratutto per le linee urbane. Cosa ne pensi?
JoseppeO (2026-02-27 09:05:51+00:00): Ciao, inizialmente avevo fatto così per una coerenza tra i file PDF e quanto mostrato da Google Maps.
Effettivamente in ambito urbano è ridondante considerato come vengono mostrati i nomi sulla mappa.
Lavorando come autista ti posso dire che non vi è un nome ufficiale e univoco delle fermate: quello mostrato dentro al bus e nel nostro computer talvolta differisce da quello negli orari PDF e in palina.
Quindi uno vale l'altro :)
HellMap (2023-11-22 17:48:58+00:00): Sveiki,

Kadastrā šis ceļa gabals joprojām ir "Stārķa ceļš" gar ēku. Vai Kuldīgas pašvaldību dokumentos ir citi dati par to?
Noktoborus (2023-11-22 17:41:06+00:00): Здравствуйте!

Обратите внимание на этот мльтиполигон:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3029491/history

Тип отношения "multipolygon" (type=multipolygon) не имеет ролей "part":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%9E%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD
Роль "inner" буквально означает дырку в мультиполигоне, а не внутренний элемент здания.

Вероятно, Вы имели ввиду, что роль "part" как часть здания, для этого описано другое отношение:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:building (type=building) с ролями outline, part и другими.

Для этого нужно создать новое отношение и добавить элементы здания.
Polzovatelskij (2023-11-23 00:59:07+00:00): Спасибо, учту в дальнейших правках
Mahdi Nameghi (2023-11-27 06:01:43+00:00): سلام
در این چنجست این خط به پیاده راه تغییر کرده است.
علت خاصی داشته؟

427040059
silversurfer83 (2023-11-22 09:26:34+00:00): Super. Sehe gut aus, die Schranken :)

Ich hätte dann noch eine Frage zu diesem Abschnitt von "Auf den Kämpen":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51878874/
Der Weg ist aktuell auch für SÄMTLICHEN Verkehr (auf Fußgänger) auf "privat" gesetzt (von dir). Er ist jedoch Teil einer Wanderroute. Mit diesem Zugang verhindern wir jedoch aktuell eine Routenführung über diesen Weg.
Daher auch hier meine Frage: Wie ist die Beschilderung laut StVO? Was steht an der Kreuzung zum "Mühlenweg" für ein Schild?
silversurfer83 (2023-11-22 09:28:11+00:00): Sorry für die vielen Nachrichten. Ich versuche nur zur helfen.
Hier ist der Artikel im Wiki, der die Sache mit den Zugangsberechtigungen in DE erklärt:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:access
Elemnia (2023-11-22 09:31:13+00:00): Kein Problem, wir ziehen hier doch alle am selben Strang, nämlich die Karten so aktuell und präzise wie möglich zu halten. ;)
Der Weg ist tatsächlich mit einem gelbem Schild "Privatweg, Durchgang verboten" markiert. Und der ehemalige Hof Kruse, über den er führt hat zusätzlich nochmal ein "Betreten verboten" Schild und Überwachungskameras. Total irrwitzig, aber man darf da nun wirklich nicht mehr entlang (neuer Eigentümer).
silversurfer83 (2023-11-26 17:05:44+00:00): Danke für die Informationen (auch an anderer Stelle).

ich habe mal die Betreiber des Wanderweges angeschrieben, der hier entlang führt und bin mal auf die Reaktion gespannt. Hab da auch einen erfahrenen Nutzer an der Hand, der dann ggf. die Relation ändert
bxl-forever (2024-01-06 14:08:12+00:00): Hello,

Is this a crossing?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1225853033

Looks more like a traffic hump, and footway connectors here are not necessary since there are proper zebra crossings nearby.
(Also, crossing:island=yes means there is a refuse for pedestrians in the middle, I don’t see any here.)

What do you think?
SachaBe (2024-01-06 14:12:59+00:00): Yes you're totally right!
Fixed, thank you :)
TrickyFoxy (2023-11-22 14:03:33+00:00): Яндекс.карты использовать в OSM нельзя
elsy1 (2023-11-23 09:43:09+00:00): درود دوست گرامی شما محدوده منطقه و محله رو با تگ ساختمان ویرایش کردید متوجه این موضوع هستید؟
elsy1 (2023-11-23 09:45:13+00:00): لطفا تا وقتی کاملا به نحوه ویرایش کردن و جزپیاتش آشنا نیستید اقدام به ویرایش نکنید و قبل از آن ویکی اپن استریت را مطالعه کنید و یا در کانال و گروه تلگرام سوالاتتون رو مطرح کنید تشکر
kucai (2023-12-01 03:32:49+00:00): Where did you get the name of the residential streets in this place? way 1225857609 and the adjacent one?
OuanoukrimMNT (2023-12-04 15:18:01+00:00): Hello Kucai, thanks for reaching out. These street names were added based on a Maps user's feedback. Happy Mapping!
eggie (2023-11-22 10:42:37+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback Waarom denk je dat Blokker een shop=appliance is? 


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dappliance

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2023-11-22 10:49:09+00:00): shop=houseware ?
Cursan (2023-11-22 11:06:29+00:00): Electrische huishoudapparaten.
eggie (2023-11-22 11:13:34+00:00): Oke
4004 (2023-11-25 23:03:43+00:00): здравствуйте, спасибо за правку.
чтобы обьект отображался на картем его еще нужно отметить правильными тегами. Рекоммендую пройти обучение в редакторе
literan (2023-11-22 17:07:22+00:00): здесь то же самое. Куча зданий с неверно расставленной адреской
literan (2023-11-22 17:08:04+00:00): откачу, попробуйте еще раз
MarinaKuzko (2023-11-23 06:58:34+00:00): Здравствуйте. Прочитала ваши комментарии.  Еще раз пересмотрела названия улиц в яндекс-картах, 2гис и flatinfo. Названия улиц везде соответствуют тем которые писала я. Можете пояснить в чем заключается моя ошибка?
literan (2023-11-23 16:47:59+00:00): я написал вам в комментарии к другому ошибочному пакету правок https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144318197#map=18/55.65360/37.69369

название улицы на здании должно быть таким же как на самой улице
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-24 02:29:10+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11368191975/history

is it a building entrance?

main one?
eggie (2023-11-22 10:03:22+00:00): Dag ErikJan,

Wanneer men een pad bewust laat dichtgroeien kun je die het best taggen met disused:highway=path  Het zal dan niet meer zichtbaar zijn op de kaart en voorkomt opnieuw intekenen.
Wanneer het gewoon moeilijk doorkomen is dan kun je taggen smoothness=very_bad  of geen doorkomen smootness=impassable.
Verwijderen is het allerlaatste. Dan moet er geen sprake meer zijn van enig pad.
MVG
eggie
ErikJanVens (2023-11-22 14:03:54+00:00): Ben ik met je eens. Maar dit pad is dat stadium al voorbij. Ze hebben het laatste stuk eerst dicht laten groeien en nu is het helemaal weggehaald. Er is geen pad meer, alleen maar weiland. En je kunt niet meer in het weiland komen omdat het bruggetje ernaar toe weggehaald is.
eggie (2023-11-22 14:54:15+00:00): Oke.. prima...
MVG
eggie
Nzau (2024-08-10 18:11:10+00:00): Bonjour Chalexis,

Je vois que tu as transformé la voie verte en piste cyclable (cela a changé la valeur highway=path en highway=cycleway.

Je me permets de revenir à la version précédente avec highway=path puisque c'est comme cela qu'on cartographie une voie verte/voie partagée avec le panneau C115. 
C'est une erreur plutôt courante, tu peux retrouver plus d'infos ici : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bicycle#Voies_vertes

A bientôt
Enzo
Marc_ch (2024-10-01 10:50:48+00:00): Bonjour et un peu tardivement bienvenue,
Merci pour l'amélioration des données.
pourriez-vous aussi ajouter si c'est un self service ouvert 24h/24 ou s'il y a des horaires limités ?
J'ai déplacé le no sur le bon objet (la maison en face)
Salutations,
Marc
literan (2023-11-22 17:01:13+00:00): здесь рядом улица, попробу
literan (2023-11-22 17:02:08+00:00): йте еще раз внести правильно ее название на здания: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30427677#map=17/55.65205/37.69448

я удалю неверные значения addr:street со зданий чтобы вы могли попрактиковаться
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-22 19:15:28+00:00): Hi, please don't change
highway=path
to
highway=cycleway

highway=path is regarded as a more correct value for combined bicycle-pedestrian paths by some mappers and we don't want edit wars.

Here are some tips on mapping cycleways in Estonia

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-cycleways-in-estonia/104894/4
Tormi (2023-11-22 22:46:06+00:00): Well, if it's marked as path then it's not used by routing engines for bicycles. And it is cycleway (first part of the "jalgratta- ja jalgtee") by definition. So, please don't revert things if possible. 

Here's one example where I changed the highway: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/767951968. It has cycleway signs installed: https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3486132,24.6209206,3a,46.5y,64.38h,87.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxupNdnsO9qngF1lkT0EhxQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-23 10:30:48+00:00): Paths are used by all routers I know of which support cycling routing since it's an old convention. Do you have an example of router which doesn't? I think Komoot, organicmaps, brouter, osmand all support paths. 

I'm not up for reverting things back and forth without a reason. It's not incorrect,  but also not more correct.
Pikse (2023-11-24 09:08:40+00:00): I also notice that here a cycleway[1] is drawn as a new way next to existing footway way, while these appear to be the same path really. This adds unnecessary clutter on maps. Normally a single way is drawn, like the one mentioned in previous comment. If only part of the existing footway is also a cycleway then this existing way should be split.

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1225862763
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/215307282
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-24 11:49:16+00:00): I agree. I don't even see segregation, but maybe imagery is outdated, bicycle parking looks a lot smaller there too.

I'd say there are cases when two ways are ok. When the road is segregated and really wide. Like here
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/858682902

or some parts here when they come together
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1191470364

But in this case it looks strange.
eggie (2023-11-22 09:55:14+00:00): Dag Cartobassus,

Misschien lastig te zien, maar het staat nu 3x gemapt op de kaart.
Gebruik in principe alleen de adresnode.
Dus niet de gebouwomtrek.
Kijk je nog even?
MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-11-22 09:57:08+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpost_office

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:post_office%3Dpost_partner

MVG
eggie
cartobassus (2023-11-22 10:20:54+00:00): Hi eggie,
Bedankt voor de feedback. Dat had ik inderdaad niet gezien. Ik heb het aangepast. Als het goed is heb ik nu info over Post Service alleen gekoppeld aan de adresnode, niet meer aan gebouwomtrek. DHL node heb ik even bijgewerkt met adres.

Zoals je merkt ben ik net begonnen met mappen. Je tips zijn welkom.

Mvg, cartobassus
eggie (2023-11-22 10:29:43+00:00): Mooi... evt kun je de adresinfo van het gebouw halen. Er is al een adresnode.
Veel plezier met mappen..
eggie
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-11-22 19:13:14+00:00): Please always check for warnings before saving. On the junction you've changed here https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/81587170#map=19/59.31236/24.63114 cycleway is not connected to carrigeways it crosses. No routing software would be able to plot a route with a switch from cycleway to carrigeway or vice versa
CRCulver (2026-05-31 20:03:07+00:00): Hello Ionut. In this changeset you erroneously changed lanes=2 to lanes=1 for a tertiary highway that is not oneway. This is always incorrect tagging in Romania: there are two directions in which traffic flows, so the implicit values should be lanes:forward=1 and lanes:backward=1, and the lanes= tag (which must be the total of these two lanes) must be 2.

If there are no lane markings, on a road, then use the lane_marking=no tag, but do not change the value of the lanes= tag. If the road is so narrow that only one direction of traffic can flow at a time, as is common on bridges, then leave lanes=2 but add the narrow=yes tag (usually in Romania the official European signage for a narrow bidirectional road is present).

These last two days cycling across northwestern Muntenia and northeastern Oltenia, I have encountered a large number of bidirectional roads that are incorrectly tagged lanes=1. I suspect that many of these are your doing, because you are among the most active mappers in the region. I would be grateful if you could avoid this tagging practice in future, and clean up whatever errors you notice on the map.
Ionut Paduretu (2026-06-01 06:35:32+00:00): Hello! I appreciate the detailed explanation, but I will respectfully disagree in this specific case.

The roads I tagged as lanes=1 are physically single-lane roads, meaning the carriageway is so narrow that only one vehicle can pass at a time, and opposing traffic must yield or use outside area of the carriageway. This is not a tagging error and it reflects the physical reality on the ground.
You correctly note in your own message that for roads "so narrow that only one direction of traffic can flow at a time", that is precisely the situation I observed and documented. 
It is also worth noting that the perception of road width can vary significantly depending on the mode of transport. A road that feels comfortably passable on a bicycle may in practice not allow two motor vehicles - or a car and a truck - to pass each other simultaneously. Many rural tertiary roads in Romania are considerably narrower than what the same classification implies in Western Europe, and tagging them as lanes=2 by default would misrepresent their actual usability for general traffic.
I agree that lanes=1 should never be applied simply because lane markings are absent on an otherwise standard two-lane road and I have not done that. Where the road physically accommodates two passing vehicles simultaneously, I have not changed lanes=2.
I'm happy to discuss specific changesets if you believe a particular road was mistagged. However, a blanket correction of all my lanes=1 tags in the region would itself introduce errors for the genuinely narrow roads. And I will also try to specify the roughly narrow of the carriageway. I did not find any evidence of strictly marking a tertiary road with lane=2 in the OpenStreetMap Wiki documentation
CRCulver (2026-06-01 10:24:38+00:00): As I mentioned, the marking of lanes derives from the directions of traffic flows,[0] not road width, and the aforementioned tertiary roads have traffic in two directions, they are not oneway. As countries (even ones with comparably narrow roads to Romania) increasingly tag highways with the appropriate lanes:forward=1, lanes:backward=1 tags, the use of lanes=1 is gradually disappearing because it does not validate.

I don’t advise using the narrow= tag unless the official European signage for a narrow road is present. Otherwise, it is arguably nonverifiable. Of course, width= would be a verifiable and appropriate tag.

I’ll mention here two other problems I noticed in this region that have occasionally resulted from your changesets. There are a lot of highway=living_street for ways leading to a single home or two. These should generally be retagged. In the last several years, consensus has evolved towards not using highway=living_street in the EU unless the official EU signage for a living street is present. 

Secondly, there are instances of unpaved and rough highway=track that have tracktype=grade1. This is incorrect for tracks that do not have a sealed surface such as asphalt or concrete. This error has real-world effects, as a bicycle router will send cyclists down tracks mapped as grade1. I personally don’t mind being directed down a brutally rough and muddy route, because I travel precisely to improve OSM, but imagine how the average cyclist feels.

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Two_driving_directions

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype#Values
Ionut Paduretu (2026-06-01 11:57:30+00:00): Your comments seem to be purely critical, with no consideration for perspectives other than your own. There are routing software systems that factor in the number of lanes when prioritising between possible routes. Tagging a narrow 3-metre road with 2 lanes would be treated the same as a genuine 2-lane, two-way road wider than 4 meters which is clearly misleading. As for the other comments, I was simply following the editing patterns established by more experienced contributors. You are welcome to update the data as you see fit, but please do not reprimand me for edits made two years ago. These are voluntary, unpaid contributions, and I have no intention of spending more time defending my work.
CRCulver (2026-06-01 12:07:14+00:00): My comments about lanes have nothing to do with routing systems (only the tracktype=grade1 comment involved routing). Rather it is based on experience mapping in various other countries that have much more detailed lane tagging than Romania, and so I immediately recognized lanes=1 as a more primitive stage of mapping. Once the lanes:forward and lanes:backward tags are implemented, your lanes=1 tag (if not changed there and then, as JOSM will warn about it) will generate a bug in the Osmose layer, i.e. making work for other mappers.

My commenting on your changeset is not meant as harsh criticism, but rather encouragement to join me and other mappers in remedying these problems. This is normal practice on OSM, which does draw on unpaid, volunteer efforts but is used by myriad data consumers, and so we need to take our work seriously.