piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
JackArock (2026-03-01 20:38:38+00:00): Het zuidelijke kleine pad wat naar beneden loopt, komt uit op die track. Die track is gemarkeerd als begaanbaar met motorvoertuigen, en dat klopt ook met de echte situatie. Ik heb hier vandaag nog gereden, en is vgm een verbindingsweg voor bijv weilanden vanuit de verharde weg aan de noordkant.

Ik zou ergens op die track een waypoint moeten kunnen plaatsen, en dan zou osmand hier gewoon op moeten kunnen plotten. Want dat doet hij ook bij het onverharde pad naast de polderweg aan de andere kant van de snelweg. Hier werkt de routing gewoon perfect. Maar op deze track werkt ie niet. Terwijl dat wel gewoon bereikbaar is met een motorvoertuig.

Het klopt vgm wel dat de aansluiting op de parkeerplaats niet een officieel pad is voor autos, maar hier is wel een pad gekomen doot bijv andere motorrijders of offroad liefhebbers. Die daar dan naar boven rijden.
Hoe legaal het nu is weet ik niet, maar als het op een begaanbaar pad lijkt met de auto, dan mag je er in volgens de wet. Het is niet een efficiënte route, maar je zou er wel op moeten kunnen navigeren als je specifiek waypoint zet op de track daar beneden.

En hij plot dus überhaupt niks op die track.
eggie (2026-03-01 20:46:52+00:00): Met de instelling voetganger routeert het in GraphHopper. Zie: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=52.26691%2C4.96239%3B52.27819%2C4.95608#map=16/52.27405/4.96428
Dat lijkt me ook logisch, want dat zuidelijke stuk kent geen officiële aansluiting met die parkeerplaats. Het is een paadje. 

OsmAnd zal nog niet bijgewerkt zijn.
eggie (2026-03-01 20:49:33+00:00): ...  en daar wil je als reguliere automobilist niet overheen gestuurd worden. 
Het is tracktype=grade5   Dat is de laagste categorie. 
De routering zal toch moeten kloppen. Nu probeer je alleen een effect te bewerkstelligen voor je zelf?
JackArock (2026-03-01 20:56:56+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=52.278097%2C4.955507%3B52.266961%2C4.96184#map=16/52.26984/4.96402

Deze route is mogelijk met de auto, maar idd alleen als je onverhard aanzet, wat logisch is. de routing stopt dan voordat je dat olifantenpad op zou gaan. maar zoals je ziet route hij hem alleen als voetganger.

Deze:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=52.268962%2C4.95905%3B52.265025%2C4.958653#map=17/52.266930/4.960971


deze track heeft dezelfde eigenschappen als de vorige track, en hier heeft graphhopper geen moeite mee met de auto.

Dit is ook precies hoe OSMand het doet. 

Wat ik dus gek vind is dat hij niet kan routeren met de auto op het pad van de eerste link. wat wel zou moeten kunnen. al heeft het eigenlijk geen bestemming(open plaats in het bos), maar dat zou niet uit moeten maken. je mag er wel gewoon naartoe rijden met de auto/motor.  al zou ik het inderdaad afraden met een gewone personenauto. maar mocht je daar ooit moeten zijn, dan zou OSMand en andere die OSM gebruiken, dat gewoon moeten kunnen plotten.
Zoals de track in de tweede link.
eggie (2026-03-01 21:04:02+00:00): De track aan de westzijde is een track. dat routeert voor vierwielvoertuigen.
Het laatste deel van het oostelijk traject is een path. Dat routeert niet voor vierwielvoertuigen.
Het is getagd als highway=path en niet als track. 
Pas op 26-2 heb je het aangepast naar track. OsmAnd ziet dat nog steeds als path. Geen update doorgevoerd.
JackArock (2026-03-01 21:07:18+00:00): ah. dus dat duurt nog even.. wel lang voordat ook graphhopper dat doorheeft, want die werkt ook nog niet, evenals de andere routers.
Nakaner-repair (2026-03-01 19:46:48+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 179180628, 179182773.
Una tantum (2026-03-01 20:14:13+00:00): who knows how to do it, can revert 1425040736, v3 , please?
Mannivu (2026-03-01 20:41:04+00:00): Sistemato

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179226226
Frans S (2026-04-09 14:43:10+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here>
Please connect each piece of road to eachother when they cross eachother or has to be connected to another road.
You often stopped just for another road.
Best regards
dmlls (2026-03-06 22:09:08+00:00): Hi @Pavol33,

Please, don't write the names in capital letters (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13610250127).

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Proper_name_spelling.

Kind regards and thanks for your contributions,
Diego
Pavol33 (2026-03-07 11:54:32+00:00): OK, please
silversurfer83 (2026-03-01 20:55:43+00:00): Moin :)

level=1 bedeutet 1. OG. Bist du dir da sicher? Oft ist das EG ja leicht erhöht gebaut, weshalb ja auch die Treppe da ist. Da wäre dann level=0 angebracht.

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179224931
GenGap (2026-03-02 19:30:02+00:00): Moin und yes, du hast Recht! Wieder was dazugelernt und klingt auch logisch :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179224931
silversurfer83 (2026-03-02 19:42:30+00:00): 👍🏻
Taya_S (2026-03-07 16:44:52+00:00): Reverted fantasy edits

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179500995
Kamil Kalata (2026-03-01 20:16:01+00:00): Ortofotomapy czasowe użyte w tym zestawie zmian składały się ze zdjęć wykonanych w dniach 13 września 2023 roku oraz 21 czerwca 2024 roku.
silversurfer83 (2026-03-01 20:57:57+00:00): Moin Otto :)

bei Verrücken der Kirche im Nordosten ist dir ein node auf die Wohngebietsfläche gesprungen. Ungünstig.

Eine Bitte: Achte auf deine Änderungssatzkommentare und darauf, dass du nicht Änderungen an zwei Enden der Republik in einem Satz abspeicherst. Danke

happy mapping
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179225269
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-02 09:22:07+00:00): will add also image link to https://www.flickr.com/photos/cooks_forest/5206861886
tyfi (2026-03-01 20:23:06+00:00): The western campus border is the city line, so I glued those together.
Wildsharky (2026-03-03 12:02:11+00:00): Fully Reverted: Reverted in changeset id:179281782
eggie (2026-03-01 20:52:35+00:00): Zet OsmAnd eens op voetganger. Wanneer het dan nog niet routeert is OsmAnd nog niet periodiek bijgewerkt.
eggie (2026-03-01 20:57:26+00:00): Dat pad zat namelijk eerst vast aan het gras. Ik heb dat onlangs verbonden met de toegangsweg op de parkeerplaats.
JackArock (2026-03-01 21:01:30+00:00): Wat ook klopt, maar idd het is geen officieel pad voor met een motorvoertuig, al staat nergens dat het niet mag. En zo te zien wordt dat ook wel eens gedaan door andere voertuigen(zoals mensen met een offroad motorfiets of quad).

Maar dat terzijde. Het gaat vooral om de track waar hij op aansluit. Die zou(gezien hij toegankelijk is voor motorvehicles). Wel gewoon door graphhopper moeten kunnen worden gerouteerd.
eggie (2026-03-01 21:10:24+00:00): Nee.. want graphhopper geeft de voorkeur aan verharde wegen als die in de buurt liggen. 
In osm router kun je dat niet instellen.
Joske1020 (2026-03-01 22:51:13+00:00): misschien nog een water=river met water=river area maken zodat de meanders zichtbaar zijn?
Leo Slager (2026-03-04 23:47:00+00:00): Rijksweg 3 is hersteld.
Leo Slager (2026-03-04 23:49:29+00:00): Telefoonnummer sgraag in het voorgeschreven internationale format:
+31 434 5815 01
Leo Slager (2026-03-04 23:59:02+00:00): Beide huisnummers samengevoegd.
pwbriggs (2026-03-02 05:36:52+00:00): Thanks for updating these parks. I have two small notes:

First, phone numbers should be formatted with the country code, using all dashes. So like phone=+1-425-622-9406

Second, while you're at it, you might consider linking these to Wikidata to help data consumers grab more of the rich data available, That would probably be operator:wikidata=Q1507935 unless you wanted to be even fancier and create Wikidata items for each park or something like that.

Thanks again, happy mapping!
eggie (2026-03-02 07:45:26+00:00): Dag Astrid,

Beter niet een naam veranderen in Gesloten.
Je kunt dan gewoon de bedrijfsinfo verwijderen en evt shop=vacant taggen.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-02 07:47:53+00:00): Nooit een welkomstmail ontvangen.. Bij deze alsnog.. Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
AndyB_66 (2026-03-02 18:26:12+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-02 09:17:48+00:00): dzięki! Gdyby było zainteresowanie to jest jeszcze https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5185400
NeisBot (2026-03-01 22:12:40+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 12 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1410433023 v1 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1015838650 v2 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1015838659 v2 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/9370006986 v2
https://osm.org/node/9370034817 v4

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179229151
NeisReview (2026-03-10 05:33:23+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/179341989
Wildsharky (2026-03-04 08:47:04+00:00):  Revert of 179224829
b-jazz (2026-03-02 16:42:30+00:00): Please make sure that golf course elements like fairways, greens, and bunkers don't intersect/overlap each other like you did with the green here. Thanks.
b-jazz (2026-03-03 20:01:30+00:00): Thanks for fixing!
NeisBot (2026-03-01 22:18:39+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 7 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1094633606 v2 | 7 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/9146778647 v6

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179229272
pwbriggs (2026-03-02 06:17:42+00:00): Hey https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Ampersand%20Fitness

As the robot detected, you seem to have accidentally dragged a part of Aurora Ave far away from where it's supposed to be. I fixed that for you. Please be careful, and in the future if you break something and can't figure out how to fix it, please reach out so other mappers can help resolve issues like this. Thanks!
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-11 16:06:40+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179242053
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-11 16:08:23+00:00): User blocked https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19859
Dimitar155 (2026-04-08 19:59:20+00:00): Благодаря за промяната!

Желателно е когато добавяте обекти, които все още не са видими на текущите сателитни снимки, да добавяте fixme таг, за да може да бъдат проверени когато излязат нови снимки.

Поздрави,
Митко
nevw (2026-03-02 03:47:46+00:00): Hi, you have deleted everything in these building complexes.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=179229869
Was this intended? Is the area under reconstruction?
nevw (2026-03-02 08:14:47+00:00): no response so I have reverted this changeset that deleted extensive mapping. No reason given for deletions.
AndyB_66 (2026-03-02 19:58:36+00:00): Rok odpoczynku i reprymenda od DWG nic Cię nie nauczyły? Stosuj się, proszę, do zasad nazywania zestawów zmian: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
LeuvenNeedsTrams2 (2026-03-02 10:32:14+00:00): I went by here recently and there was a bike anchor here. Was it removed? If they get dirty or go rusty they can be hard to spot, but they do sometimes get removed or damaged beyond usability as well. The wiki describes a bike anchor as such:
An anchor (a relatively small loop, through which a lock is threaded to park one's bicycle) hammered into a wall, the ground, or boulders----or mounted on a post or other structure..
It may refer to devices like https://www.panzerhülse.de/ or https://www.amazon.de/Abus-78606-8-Wand-Bodenanker-Black/dp/B076JCN6CS
queerthoughts (2026-03-02 18:52:45+00:00): I checked quite thoroughly and was unable to locate the anchor, I believe it has been removed due to the reconstruction of the street. That also means it might return. I pass here regularly so I'll keep an eye out for it.
felipeeugenio (2026-03-03 20:19:56+00:00): Hola Andrés. Cuánto dura esto? Borraste varios semáforos. Hay que rehacer toda la esquina básicamente. Están construyendo algo?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179230367
NeisBot (2026-03-01 23:05:21+00:00): Hi Pioneertown Mountains Preserve, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 100% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 1 highway(s)
- 1 name(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179230402
Pioneertown Mountains Preserve (2026-03-01 23:12:27+00:00): This deletion was intentional.
woodpeck (2026-03-02 00:12:47+00:00): You are asking us to respect your work but you seem unwilling to respect ours. In response to your previous edit, I pointed you to a long wiki page that explains in detail how we deal with unsanctioned trails (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179092371) - this has also generated an email message to the email address you used when registering. There are numerous ways to address your concerns, but violating our terms by committing vandalism against our database is not one of them. If you delete this trail again, we will have to suspend your account.
kubahahaha (2026-03-02 06:22:53+00:00): Dzięki, bałem się że to któryś z mieszkańców tego miejsca zgłasza, bo "nie chce żeby mu jeździli" - dlatego założyłem uwagę.
Dindia (2026-05-07 21:52:26+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/179417066 is not ruins!
Wildsharky (2026-03-04 08:46:18+00:00):  Revert of 179230402
nevw (2026-03-02 05:17:55+00:00): Hi, are you able to check the 260 9 address as it looks a bit out of place in comparison to the others, thanks
nevw (2026-03-02 05:18:28+00:00): This one https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179231863#map=19/-37.676371/144.446682
NeisBot (2026-03-02 00:33:40+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 24 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1207305974 v5 | 18 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179231967
tomhukins (2026-03-10 14:57:28+00:00): I see you have reverted my changes in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179089114 without discussion.  Why?
Pete Owens (2026-03-15 01:02:15+00:00): I have not reverted anything - just tagged cycle access on pavements consistent with UK traffic law.
tomhukins (2026-03-16 18:21:36+00:00): You claim not to have reverted anything, but in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179089114 I fixed various mistakes including removing "bicycle=no" signage where there is no clear indication that all bicycle use is forbidden.

Out of courtesy I communicated this on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173513135 which introduced these mistakes.  You then reverted my removal of bicycle=no without communicating that you had done so.  Please avoid edit wars like this.

I recognise your point that bicycles must not be ridden on pavements (sidewalks), but you repeatedly ignore the suggestion that bicycle=dismount might work better for example on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179461786

Instead of repeatedly stating the same point, I encourage you to carefully consider the points other people make, in this case either avoiding tagging sidewalks with bicycle=* or tagging them with bicycle=dismount.

I have already pointed you at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/i-have-a-problem-with-a-user-being-very-rigid-with-legal-interpretation-of-access-rules/139067/36 which you have characterised as "a single scofflaw cyclist who thinks cyclists ought to be allowed to ride on pavements" which seems like a bizarre interpretation of the detailed discussion involving many mappers.

You do a lot of good work improving the map, but it would be helpful to incorporate the community's suggestions into your mapping.
Pete Owens (2026-03-16 21:44:06+00:00): That discussion was initiated by TomJeffs who most definitely subscribes to the view that cycling on the pavement is legal - and complains that my tagging is banning cyclists, rather than accurately reflecting the legal status.

Of the 41 posts in the discussion:
3 were from TomJeffs posting specific examples.
11 pointed out that he was wrong - including all his specific examples
2 pointed out that bicycle=no is correct, but unnescessary (if only)
1 pointed out that cyclists do indeed ride illegally on a pavement near him.
13 were discussing public footpaths rather than pavements
3 were discussing dual carriageways
3 others were asides - not directly relevant to the discussion.

There does seem to be a small minority who think dismount is a better alternative - but this is most certainly not a consensus and the tag is very rarely used. The motivation in most cases seems to be to fool cycle routers to include illegal routes.
tomhukins (2026-03-19 14:57:32+00:00): I strongly disagree with your claim that people use bicycle=dismount "in most cases seems to be to fool cycle routers to include illegal routes".

Although some ambiguity exists in the use of the "bicycle" tag, there are well intentioned mappers using bicycle=dismount to reflect the subtleties of cyle routing, not for malicious purposes, as you claim.  I find your summary of the community discussion surprising and I disagree with your conclusion.

It's a shame that you participate in a mapping community where you assume bad intentions in your fellow mappers and claim malice in their work.
silversurfer83 (2026-03-02 08:55:04+00:00): Hi :)

du hast hier und in der Änderung davor jeweils ein Stück Grenze (boundary=administrative) angefasst. Das ist in der Regel nicht notwendig, da diese aus amtlichen Daten importiert wurden und nicht mit den üblichen OSM-Objekten verbunden werden sollten, auch wenn sie gerne Wege kreuzen. Um dies zu verhindern kannst du im Editor Objekte ausblenden, die du nicht bearbeiten möchtest:

rechtes Menü: Kartendaten -> Karten-Objekte -> Haken bei "Grenzen" entfernen

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179232058
Sanchez carmona (2026-03-02 00:57:52+00:00): Motastepe
Bovi887 (2026-03-03 15:18:37+00:00): Hi Monolo23, Thanks for your contributions!

Are you sure Obelya station, which you re-added to line M4, is served by the M4 metro again? As far as I can find online service between Slivnitsa and Obelya station is still suspended due to construction works.
Monolo23 (2026-03-03 15:31:02+00:00): Hi, i added it because the official Sofia Metro maps shows the connection, i didn't know it was under construction but if it's the case, the part under construction should be tagged as such instead of removing it from the relation.
Bovi887 (2026-03-03 15:47:01+00:00): I understand, I was just a bit confused as it was removed with this reason some months ago. Might be best to change the role of the station to inactive than. I'll do this. I don't think all of the tracks are under construction, so I'll leave those as they are.
Dimitar155 (2026-03-03 17:00:43+00:00): This route change is permanent. M4 will not serve Obelya ever again. Instead it will terminate at the new Pancho Vladigerov station once it is built. M2 will also terminate at Pancho Vladigerov instead of Obelya. The tracks are currently open and will remain open since this is the only connection with the depot. Possible closures should be limited to a few hours or days.

The "temporary" changes are for 6 months each because this is the legal limit for a route change. The construction works will take at least another year if not more.

2025-07-19 - 2026-01-18: https://trinmo.org/public-transport/route-changes/3895
2026-01-19 - 2026-07-18: https://www.sofia.bg/w/7053894

The maps on the trains and stations should've been mostly updated with the new information (https://imgur.com/a/zJRt1uQ).
Bovi887 (2026-03-03 17:23:50+00:00): Thanks a lot for the additional information! I've removed Obelya station from the route of the M4 line again.
NeisBot (2026-03-02 00:57:39+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 37 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/544330062 v7 | 13 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1335559369 v3 | 12 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1095922752 v1 | 5 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/5261967806 v10
https://osm.org/node/10036497895 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179232305
Supaplex (2026-03-02 17:27:03+00:00): revert in changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179266094
rhhs (2026-03-02 08:51:18+00:00): I reverted your edit because of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_historic_events_and_historic_features (the existing remainders are already mapped)
Monolo23 (2026-03-02 10:11:29+00:00): Got it, thanks
fluffycupcakes (2026-03-02 01:32:03+00:00): I apologize, I happened to be mapping in the exact same area where you were and apparently we both edited the same area. I also removed two duplicated buildings that were created because of that
pwbriggs (2026-03-02 06:01:54+00:00): Oh, where did image=* and scraper_microdata:date=* come from?
Glassman (2026-03-02 20:40:59+00:00): Microdata_scraper is a plugin in for JOSM that looks for Schema.org information in from the website tag. It's great for pulling information into OSM with little work. See https://gitlab.com/vucod/microdata-scraping and schema.org. 

BTW - I have been interested in schema.org for a long time.
silversurfer83 (2026-03-02 09:31:59+00:00): Hi Kevin,

plant:output:electricity=yes is valid if the exact amount of power is unknown but the type of power (electricty) is known. 

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179233700
Baloo Uriza (2026-03-04 00:41:41+00:00): Seems like a lot of stuff from the TIGER imports that really only needed minor retagging and alignment work got wholesale deleted here.  Am I missing something?
Baloo Uriza (2026-03-04 00:41:43+00:00): Seems like an awful lot of ways that really just needed alignment and reclassification got deleted here.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179234248
Wildsharky (2026-03-04 04:40:57+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:179331610
Glassman (2026-03-02 23:36:02+00:00): Looks like you added the AlPR device in the middle of the road. Is that correct?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179235092