piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
adiatmad (2024-06-25 15:12:34+00:00): Hello mueschel, would you mind explaining how to detect this descriptive name?

(https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/cleanup-of-name-fields-describing-buildings/99591/37)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152645679
mueschel (2024-06-25 19:18:15+00:00): The easiest way is to search for the tag on Taginfo and then use the "Overpass Turbo" link.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=Rumah#overview
adiatmad (2024-06-26 04:02:10+00:00): I removed that tag (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=153182571). Thanks, mueschel!
eggie (2024-06-13 18:46:42+00:00): Dag Mattijn,

Dit is altijd een bijzondere situatie. Het is .. of een tunnel.... of een viaduct. Hier was de rails al getagd als viaduct en hoef je dus niet een tunnel te mappen.
De tunnel kan dus in principe weer weg. 
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-06-13 18:47:18+00:00): ... of het viaduct.
Mattijncr (2024-06-14 08:45:47+00:00): Ah oke, ik heb het terug veranderd want ik denk dat viaduct dan toch het beste past.
eggie (2024-06-14 08:55:48+00:00): 👍
5m4u9 (2024-06-15 04:48:14+00:00): Hola, gracias por mejorar el mapa de Potosí.

La vez que estuve en Potosí, no pude ver si el edificio de la Gobernación es donde está el punto actual. Creo que lo mejor sería fusionar el punto con el edificio si es el caso.
Boris_YKS (2024-06-17 15:15:04+00:00): Tienes razón don de dice Gobierno autónomo es en realidad la Alcaldía. También el servicio de impuestos nacionales
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-08-16 00:42:16+00:00): admin_level=2 is reserved for countries
Pooh01 (2024-08-16 08:04:49+00:00): It depends of boundary type. You vcan't say level=2 is country if You don't know type of boundary.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dreligious_administration
citrula (2024-06-13 23:01:51+00:00): Welcome to OSM - please make sure that your changeset comment is more descriptive than "Added tags". Doesn't need to be long, but it should describe the edits you are making. Happy mapping!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152646957
ceirios (2024-06-13 21:16:08+00:00): Hi BEANS_SUCK, welcome to OSM!

Could you please write more descriptive changeset comments? Writing just "aaaaaaaaaa" or "s" isn't clear to other mappers what you've been doing.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Happy mapping
Ceirios
dankarran (2024-09-16 14:47:51+00:00): Why did the breakwater need deleting here?
literan (2024-06-14 17:24:51+00:00): кривой формат адрески

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%90%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B0#%D0%9D%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2
trigpoint (2024-06-14 08:16:29+00:00): Hi, this edit has gone a little wrong.

I assume it is an automated armchair edit as you didn't look at the edit history or notes?
If you had you would have seen that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11979023547 has been added in error as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204828073/history and https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4229717would have told you. 

FHRS is a useful source of postcode data for businesses already in OSM but it should not be seen as a source from which to add new objects to OSM.

Cheers Phil
RAC_UK (2024-06-14 10:23:06+00:00): Hi Phil,
Thanks for letting me know, some of the footage I had for the area and was using to cross checkis letting a little dated now:so I’ll leave Shropshire alone until I pass that way again later in the year.
PcMouse1 (2024-06-14 02:52:47+00:00): Is this account affiliated with Parks Canada?
ECOFU Parks Canada (2024-06-14 14:24:49+00:00): Yes it is, I work with Parks Canada sites in Eastern and Central Ontario.
LucGommans (2024-06-13 19:42:08+00:00): Description continued: replace highway=track with highway=service for roads meant to be used by customers (not for agricultural purposes); add lanes=1 + oneway=no to a road not wide enough for two cars to pass each other, adding passing spots as well
NorthCrab_upload (2024-06-13 19:50:21+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11978996119

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2024-06-13 20:00:22+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11979057757
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/626663727

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
miluethi (2024-06-14 01:45:22+00:00): Mike,
What is data source did you use. Neither ESRI nor BingSat show an asphalted road. Also the MTI has no asphalted highway here: https://idec.ineter.gob.ni/catalogue/#/dataset/26
Please submit proof or I will revert your edit. Thank you.
miluethi (2024-06-13 21:47:19+00:00): JinhyukKim,
Please try to square all building shapes in OSM. Select the building shape and press "Q" in the iD editor.
Thank you.
Lumikeiju (2024-06-13 21:41:19+00:00): Hi - please note that as per Seattle law (see RCW 46.61.235 and SMC 11.14.135) there exists a legally protected crosswalk at all intersections with curb ramps whether there are road markings present or not.

As such, these crossings (and the others in your recent similar changesets) are not informal crossings.

I also recommend avoiding use of the `crossing=*` tag entirely: instead, tag `crossing:markings=*` and `crossing:signals=*` as appropriate.
Baloo Uriza (2024-06-13 20:24:47+00:00): Some actually descriptive change comments would be useful.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152648759
Langlaeufer (2024-06-14 14:12:33+00:00): Hello Niels,

the speedcamera was correctly mapped as enforcement relation see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relation:enforcement  In this relation the device is mapped at is real position
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152648952
Langlaeufer (2024-06-14 14:16:40+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dspeed_camera
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2024-06-15 00:22:44+00:00): Sorry. You are right. I missed that and have moved the cam back.
miluethi (2024-06-14 01:40:46+00:00): Mike,
What source did you use for this Carretera Costanera. Bing Maps doesn't show it.
Thanks,
Michael
VictorIE (2026-03-16 12:57:56+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1257516115

The central section of the church should be substantially taller. The ridge line should be almost as high as the solid part of the bell tower.
LateNightTone (2026-03-16 13:10:54+00:00): If you're looking at this on demo.fmap.com, there are various rendering issues with how multiple building:parts interact, it's quite unpredictable - in the end I gave up as the figures in the tags should be about right, but the renderer makes a mess of the rendered shapes. I'm not sold on what's there, so feel free to work away 😊
Frans S (2024-06-16 10:18:12+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please square the building you map ! Next time.
Best regards
miluethi (2024-06-13 21:43:01+00:00): TMT,
Please try to square out all building in OSM by selecting the shapes and pressing the "Q" key.
Thank you for contributing to OSM Nicaragua.
wireguy (2024-08-28 09:25:39+00:00): Baloo, it's not a boardwalk, but it's part of 17603094, a maritime relation?  seems odd
5m4u9 (2024-06-15 04:37:49+00:00): hola, gracias por añadir el nombre de la calle. Corregí algunos errores.
CeskoBara (2024-06-14 19:30:45+00:00): Ciao, dove hai trovato il nome di località 'Mandra' vicino alle casare Asnicar?  Non mi risulta che ci sia quel toponimo in quella zona. Località Mandra è vicino al centro di Recoaro, vicino contrada Ongaro.
rescbr (2024-06-16 00:21:34+00:00): Olá, notei que o node da Av. Paulista 481 (4970563244, v4) foi alterado junto por engano! Poderia reverter a mudança deste endereço?
Luzandro (2024-07-02 04:12:56+00:00): Hallo Elena,

auch wenn auf dem Abschnitt nur Radfahrer und Fahrzeuge des öffentlichen Sicherheitsdienstes fahren dürfen, ist es als Wohnstraße und nicht als Fußgängerzone beschildert.

Siehe auch

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4247496

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4255816
CurlingMan13 (2024-06-16 01:21:39+00:00): Please use a more descriptive changeset comment.  What did you change, and why?  "-" tells me nothing.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152650692
Реdактор (2024-06-14 03:43:24+00:00): Зачем вы сломали полигон?
म्यापर (2024-06-14 13:18:29+00:00): Научитесь правильно размещать элементы. Тут не для красоты все делается. В правке видно количество исправлений очевидно вами не исправленных или сделанных.
akimapbuilder (2024-06-14 06:15:43+00:00): You draw building over backyard, try to avoid that. Thanks
Shrinks99 (2024-06-14 15:52:56+00:00): Nice job with the park details!  Looks great!
osm915 (2024-06-20 17:27:34+00:00): Hi Ioney, those buildings have been razed some time ago (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/669532318/history/2)
Please check/use the most up to date aerial images before you "update" buildings. In this area that would normally be "Bavaria (80 cm)".
Best regards!
silversurfer83 (2024-06-14 17:59:37+00:00): could you please try and keep the edits local?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

safe travels
silversurfer83
NorthCrab_upload (2024-06-13 22:31:01+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Śniadeckich":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11979256323
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11979256324

"Przesmyckiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1292215132

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
syntex (2024-06-14 13:50:13+00:00): naprawione
arctic-rocinante (2024-06-13 22:38:05+00:00): To elaborate: when they’re not operating, you can walk over them unimpeded (the surface is flat and dries out relatively quickly). When they are operating, you often see kids  running around playing in them. Hence why “splash pad” feels like a better fit than “fountain” to me.
LockOnGuy (2024-06-14 07:56:40+00:00): Hello Desertivy,  
I suppose you are relying on this source for your edits, right?  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Iraq#Highway/Roads_classification_in_Iraq  
If so, please keep in mind that those classifications are proposed and were never approved or voted on by OSM members or the community, similar to the administrative levels mentioned under that section in the same link . Therefore, we should use the tag's values wiki and see what it says:  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Highway  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=primary  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=secondary  
  
Keep in mind that in Iraq, we use the "النظام الانكليزي" (The English System) of road classifications and signs. You can see how the UK classifies its roads here:  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/International_highway_classification_equivalence#:~:text=United-,Kingdom  
  
In addition to that, I believe the ones you changed to primary it is not suitable for the situation on the ground. The main roads in this area of Baghdad are generally oriented from the southwest to the northeast, and the ones that cross them are narrower, have lower speed limits, and are less relevant and less used. Therefore, they should not have the same value, in my opinion. You changed almost all the secondary roads in Baghdad to primary, and I think we might need to reclassify those roads again.  
  
Tell me your thoughts.  
  
Regards.
desertivy (2024-06-14 16:52:42+00:00): Hi
>>"keep in mind that those classifications are proposed and were never approved or voted on by OSM members or the community."

All streets of Baghdad governorate and some other cities were classified based on this proposal not just these streets, and for my knowledge the proposal was made after a good amount of research into geographical studies of streets of Iraq, no harm in using it till approval or a better alternative.

>>"You changed almost all the secondary roads in Baghdad to primary"

that's an exaggeration, I only changed 5 roads.

>>"I think we might need to reclassify those roads again."

ok, tell me which roads you think shouldn't be a primary road and we can look into it.
LockOnGuy (2024-06-15 00:45:28+00:00): > streets of Baghdad governorate and some other cities were classified based on this proposal." & "no harm in using it till approval or a better alternative."  
No, and please do not edit tag values to proposed ones. We shall only used the official government classification system of the roads, and we shall not classify them based on our opinions.               
  
>the proposal was made after a good amount of research"     
Were this research published or discussed?  
  
> I only changed 5 roads.   
No, you changed many many road classifications, just last 3 days you made this changeset and those other changesets 152559788, 152559016, 152558508, 152558069 etc.. You has tens or even hundreds of changesets when you changed road classifications based that proposed tag, which is not the right thing to do, and shall be checked and reverted to the correct values manually.        
  
Regards.
desertivy (2024-06-15 21:02:03+00:00): >>"We shall only used the official government classification system of the roads,"

As can be seen in this study:
https://www.iasj.net/iasj/article/184845
page no. 101 (5th page), which specify all classifications of Sader City main streets according the Mayoralty of Baghdad, primary roads were maped based on it, along with my local knowledge of the city.

>>"Were this research published or discussed?"
the research output is the proposal itself, again all Baghdad were mapped based on it, you have a problem with it, then all Baghdad need to be changed.

>>"you changed many many road classifications, just last 3 days you made this changeset and those other changesets 152559788, 152559016, 152558508, 152558069 etc.. You has tens or even hundreds of changesets when you changed road classifications"

First you claimed that "I changed almost all the secondary roads in Baghdad to primary," 
First of all, all roads I've changed to primary are in Sader City exept two. secondly, Here is the list of all roads I changed to primary, which some weren't even secondary:

1- شارع الداخل (tertiary to primary).
2-شارع ابن الهيثم (tertiary to primary).
3- شارع الجوادر (half already was primary, other half was secondary).
4- شارع زين القوس (secondary to primary).
5-شارع الشيباني (secondary to primary).
as I stated, you're exaggerating.
citrula (2024-06-13 22:56:11+00:00): These were already correctly marked as private before you deleted them - if you remove them, someone might end up adding them back without marking them as private, which I assume you don't want. If the driveways are physically present (which they are, I can see them from aerial imagery), then they should not be deleted.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152652398
citrula (2024-06-13 22:57:14+00:00): I have reverted your deletions - I'd be happy to answer questions you have, and explain further

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152652790
Реdактор (2024-06-14 04:14:06+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14330744 исправляйте
Hugoren Martinako (2024-06-18 13:01:43+00:00): Buenas,

Quería comentarte un detalle, al haber añadido la referencia a un edificio: fíjate en el historial de la vía en cuestión (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1200739936/history), se creó el building=yes al que se le añadió un nombre; posteriormente, se agregó la wikidata, y ahora la referencia. 

Si observas tanto la capa ráster del IGN como la del ICGC, Camporrells es el lugar, no el edificio en concreto. 

Lo siguiente sería añadir la población e incluso elevación. Al ser edificio, también se podrían meter building:levels, etc... Y así acabaríamos con un elemento cuyo etiquetado no tiene mucho sentido.

Quiero señalar simplemente cómo se puede ir enrevesando una característica, hasta tal punto que resolverlo sea bastante difícil. Este caso es simple, pero ilustrativo. Mejor separar ambos conceptos (ya está hecho https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152847868)

Un saludo
Davileci (2024-06-18 16:00:53+00:00): Estoy de acuerdo contigo. Este sitio lo he encontrado por casualidad cuando lo confundieron con su homónimo aragonés. Evidentemente resulta sospechoso añadir "ref:ine" a un edificio. Sin embargo,  el dato de población, nula, me genera dudas: Según las directrices de etiquetado no puede ser "isolated_dwelling" porque oficialmente no vive nadie. Hace poco también se ha debatido sobre la diferencia entre este tipo de lugares y las granjas. Igual esto es una masía y no sé cómo se etiqueta. En fin, simplemente quise aportar mi granito de arena teniendo en mente que alguien como tú, al que no se le escapan estos detalles, podría mejorarlo.
Hugoren Martinako (2024-06-18 17:27:29+00:00): Ciertamente, es un tema que se ha hablado en alguna ocasión. Según la wiki, si un place pasa a tener population=0 debería ser algo así:

abandoned:place=hamlet
place=locality

Aunque este etiquetado genera alguna confrontación, ya que place=locality representa algo como de "menor entidad" que un place=hamlet (o isolated, u otro). 

En este caso concreto, es una masía (aplicaría igualmente a un cortijo andaluz) he optado por la solución rápida: puse el isolated_dwelling y fuera. ¿Se puede cambiar? sin lugar a dudas, es fácil teniendo el dato de la población.
Carto_Ferret (2024-06-13 22:51:31+00:00): Correction: Source used was Mapillary.
Geo-Tobi (2025-04-07 11:10:29+00:00): Hier hast du wieder path auf footway geändert, aber die anderen Tags unberücksichtigt gelassen. Tagging-Chaos.  :-)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903030394
CurlingMan13 (2024-06-14 05:15:12+00:00): Thank you.
rskedgell (2024-06-14 09:00:15+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding this public footpath.

If you're updating public rights of way in this area, you might find this resource useful:
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/oxon/south-oxon/

I've added the PRoW tags to the path you added.
akimapbuilder (2024-06-14 06:18:23+00:00): Hi! I had to revert your changeset since there is no building in sight.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-07-01 05:56:52+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1292223517 - are you sure that it is railway=disused? From aerial it looks like traces at most, not usable anymore

have you edited based on aerial? Have you used any other sources here (either way it would help to mention while editing, especially for old railways)
stephenms3 (2024-07-08 03:27:53+00:00): Yes the rails are still there. Some parts are overgrown in the summer months, then are revealed when the weather cools. The tracks are not mothballed. The SRRNJ and the Cape May seashore lines keep it maintained while they await funding for the swing bridge into Cape May.
pwbriggs (2025-09-25 21:16:45+00:00): Hey @VLD280, what leads you to believe this is an informal crosswalk? It looks like a legal crosswalk to me.
pwbriggs (2025-09-25 23:20:25+00:00): Oh, never mind, this looks like it was fixed. I had the wrong changeset number. My apologies.
emersonveenstra (2024-06-15 14:19:06+00:00): Hi there,

You removed the highway tags from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/709544239#map=19/33.50840/-112.14405, please fix this, thanks!
TeroToc (2024-06-15 19:30:21+00:00): Thanks for letting me know. I have fixed it.
MCDA (2025-08-24 19:48:51+00:00): Hi, why did you change County Fermanagh to boundary=historic?
ramthelinefeed (2025-08-24 21:21:33+00:00): Mister MCDA, I think 'boundary=historic' is indeed an appropriate tag. The boundaries in question were defined in 1898 (in the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898, to be precise). And as we know, they're not used for local government any more. So they are the kind of thing that 'boundary=historic' is used for.
MCDA (2025-08-25 20:00:09+00:00): Mister ramthelinefeed, what administration are you talking about?  When I'm making my will I talk about being in the County of Fermanagh.  My land deeds say County Fermanagh.  Legislation regarding registering of land talks about County -  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/1997/28/made Section 8 (vi) "the geographical description (e.g. street, town, townland and county) of the land affected by the document; and"
Is the registration of land not an Administrative function?
MCDA (2025-08-25 20:09:09+00:00): https://www.finance-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dfp/RD%20Form%201%20-%20Memorial%20for%20registration%20of%20a%20deed%20or%20conveyance%20-%20Feb%2015.pdf

Section 4 Property - (State briefly the geographical description of the property affected by the document e.g. street town,
town land and county)
MCDA (2025-08-25 20:19:31+00:00): Divorce application - https://www.justice-ni.gov.uk/articles/practioner-guidance-completing-forms

4. When giving the place where the marriage took place / the place at which the civil partnership was formed you should write the words contained in the marriage certificate / civil partnership certificate which come after the phrase “Place of marriage / Civil Partnership formed at”, for example: “The Register Office, in the District of ... in the County of ...”
ramthelinefeed (2025-08-25 20:59:43+00:00): The examples you give are all administrative functions, yes.  Another one is 'Lieutenacy Areas' (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenancy_area) - the current Lord Lieutenant of Fermanagh is Alan Brooke, the 3rd Viscount of Brookeborough (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Brooke,_3rd_Viscount_Brookeborough) which I'm sure is an extremely important job and King Charles III simply couldn't manage without him, although what he actually does all day escapes me for the minute :) 

However County Fermanagh is not involved as an administrative unit in a lot of rather more mundane administrative functions such as: 
- emptying bins
- running public libraries 
- running the NHS
- paying your rates 
- running fire brigades
- fixing the roads
- blah blah blah
(Such matters are attended to by district councils or fancy fellows in Stormont). 

On the balance of consideration, about 95% of civil and municial administration does NOT use County Fermanagh.  
Hence the 'historic' add seems fine to me, as a general rule of thumb.
ramthelinefeed (2025-08-25 21:01:56+00:00): None of the above is in any way an attempt to declare than County Fermanagh (or Down, Antrim, Armagh, Tyrone or Derrylondon) do not 'exist' or 'matter' - they are counties and should be tagged as such, and are still by far and away they most widely known and recognised georgraphic divisions in Ireland.
MCDA (2025-08-26 14:01:45+00:00): So what is my "official" administrative unit then?  It is Fermanagh and Omagh District Council who are supposed to empty my bins but can't even manage that these days!

Even on the Councils official website, https://www.fermanaghomagh.com/app/uploads/2022/02/211201FODCComplaintForm.pdf they list their own address as :
Corporate and Strategic Services
Fermanagh and Omagh District Council
2 Townhall Street
Townhall
Enniskillen
Co Fermanagh
BT74 7BA

If the local council are referring to County Fermanagh in an official address, why is it historic?!?