piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Udarian (2026-05-06 20:16:41+00:00): looking at the position of this ALPR on several aerial imagery sources in iD it seems incorrect. I highly doubt that they would put a ALPR in the area of the service road like this, especially because it is so close to the entrance of what looks like a drive through. Please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Udarian (2026-05-06 20:14:35+00:00): looking at the position of this ALPR on several aerial imagery sources in iD it seems incorrect. I highly doubt that they would put a ALPR in the area of the service road like this, especially because it is so close to the entrance of what looks like a drive through. Please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Udarian (2026-05-06 20:13:04+00:00): looking at the position of this ALPR on several aerial imagery sources in iD it seems incorrect. I highly doubt that they would put a ALPR in the area of the service road like this, especially because it is so close to the entrance of what looks like a drive through. Please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Udarian (2026-05-06 20:09:44+00:00): looking at the position of this ALPR on several aerial imagery sources in iD it seems incorrect. I highly doubt that they would put a ALPR in the area of the service road like this, especially because it is so close to the entrance of what looks like a drive through. Please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-06 19:06:17+00:00): Hi cole12345, welcome to OSM.

Some of your added names looks somehow strange (beside your used changeset comment)

Best regards.
Udarian (2026-05-06 20:04:43+00:00): looking at the position of this ALPR on several aerial imagery sources in iD it seems incorrect. I highly doubt that they would put a ALPR in the area of the service road like this, especially because it is so close to the entrance of what looks like a drive through. Please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
t_ja (2026-05-06 20:14:58+00:00): Ahoj,
pri úprave OSM dát treba byť opatrný a nespájať objekty, ktoré spolu nesúvisia. V tomto prípade bod https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13803300653 spája budovaný most s hranicou územia, čo je "virtuálny" objekt. Taktiež by ma zaujímalo, načo bolo nutné zmazať pôvodné body z mosta a pridať namiesto nich nové? V drvivej väčšine úprav nie je nutné mazať, stačí poposúvať existujúce body/cesty. Mazanie prichádza na rad napríklad vtedy, keď objekt už neexistuje (napr. budova bola zbúraná), alebo je jednoduchšie zmazať pôvodný objekt a vytvoriť ho nanovo (napr. bola zakreslená lúka s mnohými bodmi, ale prekrýva sa s okolitými lesmi, rezidenčnými oblasťami a podobne - vtedy je jednoduchšie využiť už existujúce body tých oblastí, ktoré boli zakreslené presne a zmazať to, čo bolo nepresné).

Prosím o opravu.
м1т (2026-05-06 18:53:13+00:00): https://vk.com/wall-205940540_19388?ysclid=mouexozxkc742952413
maro21 (2026-05-07 18:47:26+00:00): How there can be a restaurant in a demolished building? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/537018055/history

Why did you added a hotel https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4076358331 in the middle of a road?
Fizzie-DWG (2026-05-10 05:08:56+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20268
eggie (2026-05-06 19:44:31+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  motor_vehicle=yes is gewoon default op tracks. Dat hoef je niet toe te voegen. 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
scottaesmith (2026-05-06 19:21:36+00:00): Appears to display 140 Thompson Ave. on map? Correct address is 147 Thompson Ave.
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-06 19:12:31+00:00): Hi sjaantje, welcome to OSM.

I am not sure, but is this a mapped personal information?

Best reagrds.
sjaantje (2026-05-06 19:20:00+00:00): sorry, what do you mean by that? this bookstore has moved a couple of years ago...
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-06 19:23:46+00:00): Thanks for your reply.

In this changest you just added the name "Dani" to a node, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2831487071/history/4
sjaantje (2026-05-06 19:33:16+00:00): ah i see. sorry that was an error. 
i meant to type some new stuff on nr 47, but mistakenly added this to 39.
eggie (2026-05-06 19:48:18+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
sjaantje (2026-05-06 19:56:39+00:00): Thx!
user_5359 (2026-05-10 15:53:21+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1509936593. What is the mean of the tag c_2014_n3 = 150?
J N Squire-import (2026-05-21 17:48:20+00:00): Sorry about this ! It was tagged with a "green space" ID in the database, but excluded from such classification since improvements and verification made it residential instead. I missed it in my manual fixes before uploading 😅
Jacksonville (2026-05-10 15:39:00+00:00): This is not a primary road. It does not link cities or major towns together.
ahmadmanhala (2026-05-11 04:32:40+00:00): Hi Jacksonville,
Thank you for the feedback. However, I strongly believe this road should be classified as a primary road.
Manhala Road is the main lifeline of this entire region. It directly connects Manhala a major town with a population of nearly 30000—and about 28 neighboring villages to the main urban centers. In total, this road serves a population of at least 150,000 people.
There is continuous, heavy traffic on this road 24/7, making it the most important regional artery. Downgrading it to secondary does not reflect its actual usage, traffic density, and critical importance to such a large population. I request you to keep it as a primary Road.
ahmadmanhala (2026-05-11 04:52:16+00:00): Hi Jacksonville,
Thank you so much for your guidance. I realize now that I made some classification mistakes on several roads in this area, including Manhala Rd and Barki Road, because I hadnt read the pakistan OSM guidelines properly before.
I have now read and understood the guidelines, and I am going to correct these roads back to their proper categories as per the rules.
Thanks again for helping me learn and improve.
Linus W Frische (2026-05-07 20:25:02+00:00): Ser ud til der sker lidt ændringer ved shelterpladsen: https://migogaalborg.dk/istid-moeder-nutid-helt-unik-shelterplads-aabner-taet-paa-aalborg/
Lostmonkey (2026-05-07 20:41:24+00:00): Tak for link. Jeg har allerede en fixme der, men venter på de nye luftfoto :)
bxl-forever (2026-05-06 19:29:53+00:00): Please never destroy nodes, retag as vacant shop instead.
hatul (2026-05-19 16:01:50+00:00): שלום
כמו שכבר כתבו לך, הסימון הנכון הוא path ולא footway. בבקשה לא לשנות.
joost schouppe (2026-05-26 10:12:08+00:00): There's a specific tag for Lourdes grottos, I'll add it
maro21 (2026-05-07 18:38:19+00:00): Why do you edit in random places of the world and "correcting" random features? In this changesets you changed a lot of amenities names. Have you verified them?
bxl-forever (2026-05-11 21:37:38+00:00): This is clearly a blind edit solely aimed at pleasing the validator.  Again, please don’t do this if you only superficially look at the map, which seems to be the case when you pick random places all around the world.  The name-suggestion-index (NSI), which is the software providing those "green suggested edits", contains many false positives.

There are several mapping errors for which a good fix is definitely *not* to accept the silly NSI suggestions, which often makes the situation worse.  Having 3 bus stations piled on top of each other here (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/736265910) is an example of careless mapping.
eggie (2026-05-06 19:51:58+00:00): Dag Sjaantje,

Wanneer het een verzorgingshuis betreft lijkt het me correct.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-05-06 19:55:20+00:00): Dag logs,

De weg is als proposed ingetekend. Je zag 'm dus al niet op de kaart. Zijn er geen plannen  voor een weg hier of is het er nooit van gekomen?

MVG
eggie
logs88 (2026-05-06 20:06:47+00:00): Er zijn geen bronnen te vinden voor plannen van deze weg. Genoemde werkzaamheden aan de n69 noemen het plaatsen van geluidsschermen op verschillende plaatsen, maar niet een extra toegangsweg. In de plannen voor de N69 uit 2020 (https://www.brabant.nl/publish/pages/9961/leader_grenscorridor.pdf) staat ook niets over deze plannen, alleen de huidige situatie.
eggie (2026-05-06 20:10:29+00:00): Hoi, 
Je wijziging lijkt me dan ook correct.

Mapse,
eggie
luketaylor (2026-05-26 21:27:08+00:00): Hi, how did you determine the geometry changes here? Some of the geometry changes look incorrect, creating sharp discontinuities in paths that used to be straight.
matthewfecica (2026-05-26 21:32:24+00:00): What do you mean by "discontinuities"? I used the Strava Heatmap overlay extension to fix the route of some of the trails. I'm looking at it right now, and don't see any discontinuities in any of the segments?
luketaylor (2026-05-26 21:55:56+00:00): I’m looking at the diffs here: https://dev.overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=182310778

and seeing sharp jagged moves around nodes like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13803619047 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13803619033 where those ways used to follow a continuous path.

you will see what i mean if you look around those nodes, especially in the achavi diff; I think that geometry is unintentional?
matthewfecica (2026-05-26 22:02:58+00:00): Okay I see what you are talking about. In those cases, the existing data on OSM was significantly off from what was visible in the Strava Heatmap. I started fixing those trails from one end, but only got so far in one sitting and didn't finish, which is why there are those 2 jumps. In both cases, I started fixing from the south. I don't think there is a way to upload a screenshot here. But I can add fixing the remainder of those trails to my To Do list.
mueschel (2026-05-07 09:10:31+00:00): Hi,
what does "highway:reason = change:lanes" mean? "reason" is not a common suffix for a note, and there is also no "change:lanes" tag on these roads.
GSF1200S (2026-05-18 03:58:03+00:00): This guy is notorious for adding heaps of self-invented tags in OSM, while constantly criticizing others' edits for not conforming to his personal preferences. What a joke.
Kovoschiz (2026-05-18 17:52:56+00:00): @GSF1200S And you are notorious for harassing me on other users' changesets, name-calling, and promoting your own loop-sided view. Still waiting for your replies.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159360167 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144534922
Kovoschiz (2026-05-18 17:53:44+00:00): @mueschel I have already explained in the cited changesets https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182280452
mueschel (2026-05-18 18:03:24+00:00): I don't understand. 
You write "This section is because it only connects `=motorway` " and here you add "highway:reason = change:lanes"

To me it seems this piece of highway should be 'trunk', because it is the direction connection between two trunks.
kingkingHK (2026-05-19 03:52:10+00:00): @mueschel It is not "connection between two trunks", but connection between a trunk and a motorway

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19984021
mueschel (2026-05-19 07:32:04+00:00): You're right that overall it is connecting a trunk and a motorway. But this specific piece of road connects a trunk (tunnel) to a very short other trunk that then splits into a primary and a motorway_link.

I would call it a trunk until it splits into a motorway_link to the right and a trunk_link to the left.
kingkingHK (2026-05-19 08:03:29+00:00): If it connects to a motorway, then it is subject to the same restrictions as the motorway, and should therefore be `=motorway` or `=motorway_link` (there are disagreements on whether is specific piece of highway is a link or not)

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link#Special_considerations_for_motorways

> Ramps that can only be accessed by using a part of the motorway should be motorway_links.
mueschel (2026-05-19 08:19:55+00:00): Ah right, this intersection is just too confusing.
Shouldn't the rest of Lin Cheung Road be a trunk_link then?  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30658123
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30658139

@Kovoschiz you could have made the discussion much shorter by simply adding a note explaining the reason for the tagging instead of using some cryptic tag nobody understands.
"note = all lanes lead to motorway only, therefore tagged as motorway" - and we all could have used our time to do some actual mapping.
kingkingHK (2026-05-19 10:07:56+00:00): The reason https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30658125 is `=trunk` is that it connects Central Kowloon Bypass (numbered route; route 6) to West Kowloon Highway (numbered route; route 3), which satisfy "Road sections indirectly connecting between motorway / trunk" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hong_Kong/Transport/Road#Classifications
Kovoschiz (2026-05-19 18:49:01+00:00): @mueschel This `note=` is simply a template I have been using on every case before. I haven't thought of how to explaining all of them convincingly in brief. I would also need to update all of them. 
The `highway:reason=` is meant to explain all classifications concisely and machine-readabilbly, especially to list all weird cases. They aren't mutually exclusive.
eggie (2026-05-06 20:02:02+00:00): Dag logs
Tip.

Je kunt die faciliteiten ook als vlak intekenen.
MVG
eggie
logs88 (2026-05-06 20:12:38+00:00): Ik heb dat niet gedaan omdat de afbakening niet goed gedefinieerd is.
eggie (2026-05-06 20:35:10+00:00): Oke... up to you. Zo kan het ook.
eggie (2026-05-06 20:12:34+00:00): Hoi,

In dit geval is het meer een parkeerterreintje. Je hoeft dus geen street_side te gebruiken. 

MVG
eggie
NickvZelm (2026-05-07 09:35:12+00:00): Ah check dat wist ik niet, weer wat geleerd. Thanks!
maro21 (2026-05-07 18:17:47+00:00): What does adding the `bicycle=designated` tag to cycle paths accomplish? It is the default value for `highway=cycleway`.

Why did you add `public_transport = platform` on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7280360201/history after it was removed? This tag is already on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1180570617
Linus W Frische (2026-05-07 20:18:06+00:00): Regarding the cycleway; it is acceptable and standard tagging to tag it with foot=designated as well as bicycle=designated to mark the path as shared equally between the two user groups. I think foot=designated without bicycle=designated is ambigous, since it could be interpreted as pedestrians having a higher priority, despite bicycle=designated being the default value of highway=cycleway
t_ja (2026-05-06 21:05:02+00:00): Ahoj,
netuším, aký bol dôvod na toto "dielo", ale je to ukážka toho, ako sa to nemá robiť ☹️
Problémy:
1) cesty sa kreslia separátne až vtedy, keď sú fyzicky oddelené, viď. grafický náčrt na https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Motorway_with_lanes_and_destinations . Toto teraz nespĺňajú ani vetvy križovatky na Veľkej okružnej a ani na Hálkovej.
2) zákaz odbočenia z Veľkej okružnej doľava smerom k zdravotnému stredisku (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1940214) teraz nedáva zmysel, lebo na ceste "from" by sa muselo ísť v  protismere.
3) body https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11031834499 a https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13621433776 sú nielen osamotené, ale ešte aj používajú tag "direction", ktorý sa nedá vyhodnotiť (napr. pri navigácii), keďže nie sú súčaťou žiadnej cesty.
4) cesta https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1509969853 je otagovaná ako dvojpruhová (čo v realite nie je) a z toho jeden pruh je označený "lanes:backward", čo si protirečí s tým, že cesta je označená ako jednosmerka.
5) podobne ako predchádzajúci bod, cesta https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1509969847 je jednosmerka, ale má tag "turn:lanes:backword", čo je ďalší nezmysel
6) celkovo 14 úsekov ciest je označených zároveň ako jednosmerka a tiež "lanes:forward", čo je zbytočné a upozorňuje na to aj validátor.
7) cesta https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1509969858 v realite neexistuje, je to len vyasfaltovaná plocha uprostred križovatky

Suma sumárum: namiesto jednoduchej križovatky so 4 vetvami a jedným fungujúcim zákazom odbočenia, máme teraz:
- 20 úsekov ciest
- viac ako 20 zákazov odbočenia, a pritom ten jediný, ktorý existuje v realite, je nefunkčný
- hromadu problémov spomenutých vyššie
- neprehľadnú križovatku, v ktorej sa mám sám problém vyznať, a to som "domáci" a nie nejaký návštevník. Radšej ani nechcem vedieť, ako cez toto dielo naviguje navigácia, napr. OsmAnd 🙈

Odporúčam spraviť revert a vyhlásiť, že "skutok sa nestal".

T.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-05-26 02:22:39+00:00): Reverted addition of SEO spam POI with spurious and promotional tags/values and related spam/nonsensical changes (e.g. route relation of the POI)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183183323
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-16 11:04:14+00:00): Reverted adding SEO POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags, likely sourced from Google Maps, in changeset 184176103

https://osm.org/changeset/184176103
Herwescheluc (2026-05-08 22:16:59+00:00): Hallo. Max--,

"natural=scrub"  is` `ne gute Idee!

Grüße aus Herborn

Andreas
Udarian (2026-05-06 23:11:10+00:00): From my understanding political boundaries like this only follow road centerlines generally and not the centers of traffic islands splitting the dual carriageway of a road. So it is better to not align to the islands as you have in this changeset. 

Happy mapping,
Udar.
mueschel (2026-05-07 09:13:56+00:00): Hi,
could you check the ponds you added? There are many with a "walter" instead of "water" tag. I already correct some of them some days ago.
felipeeugenio (2026-05-06 22:24:14+00:00): Hola, Pero esa no es la forma del colegio. Es la forma del perímetro del conjunto de los edificios que lo componen, pero el predio no tiene esa forma por lo que se ve.
Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182313294
eggie (2026-05-07 07:16:30+00:00): Dag Grooff,
warnings:crossing_ways:highway-highway 	3
warnings:crossing_ways:highway-waterway 	2
warnings:disconnected_way:highway 	6

Maak node-verbindingen waar de wayterway de vlakken snijden.
MVG
eggie
Kamil Kalata (2026-05-07 21:40:10+00:00): Witaj!
Chciałbym zaproponować Tobie sensowne wytłumaczenie: organizacja ruchu preferuje ruch po łącznicach między Aleją Prymasa Tysiąclecia a jezdniami głównymi S8, w przeciwieństwie do odcinków bliżej Mostu Grota-Roweckiego. Widać to w szczególności w relacji jezdnia główna od Wisłostrady–Aleja Prymasa, która ma pierwszeństwo nad relacją od Ronda Ofiar Zbrodni Katyńskiej. Ponadto, ruch jadący S8 od węzła Konotopa, jadący łącznicą prowadzącą do Ronda Ofiar, nie może zgodnie z prawem wjechać z powrotem na jezdnię główną, co sprawia, że dla nich ta jezdnia jest dla nich na dobrą sprawę dalej łącznicą.
Jordi MF (2026-05-06 23:40:26+00:00): Hola snowy99,
Gracias por mejorar OSM. Viendo algunos nombres que estás añadiendo, da la sensación que se trata de nombres de senderos usados por la comunidad de ciclistas. Para estos casos, existe un etiquetado específico para los nombres de estos caminos, trialeras, etc: se debe de usar la etiqueta mtb:name=* (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mountain_biking#Basic_Tags_related_to_Mtbiking).

Otra cosa distinta es que haya unos carteles oficiales al inicio de cada senda. ¿Es así?

Saludos y gracias de nuevo.
Shel_Sri (2026-06-23 16:01:07+00:00): Hello Joachim_0, 
I have fixed validation error between building and building (w/669017372 and w/666308593). Inspect your task carefully before closing, please. Happy Mapping!
Wildsharky (2026-05-08 06:25:33+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:182327076
Kovoschiz (2026-05-07 17:31:09+00:00): `bus=yes` may be wrong, but it's fine to have `=bus_stop`
Wildsharky (2026-05-08 06:27:32+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:182364815
rajdhani (2026-05-08 05:26:24+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:182365908
crushtheserpent (2026-05-14 06:07:13+00:00): What was your logic for making this change to State Street?
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-05-14 13:18:46+00:00): As I said before on Otis Street (this applies to all the other "What was your logic?" comments), I connected secondary roads to one another.
crushtheserpent (2026-05-14 06:07:16+00:00): What was your logic for making this change to State Street?
crushtheserpent (2026-05-14 06:07:25+00:00): What was your logic for making this change to Otis Street?
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-05-14 13:17:17+00:00): To connect a secondary stub to a primary road...
crushtheserpent (2026-05-18 22:04:29+00:00): But this segment of Otis Street is now overclassified; I believe highway=tertiary is the best classification. It's two lanes, one in each direction, with a 25 mph speed limit (https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Lynwood/#!/Lynwood07/Lynwood0710.html#7-10) & has stop signs at the intersections with Abbott Road & Imperial Highway. In my view, stop signs on secondary roads should be rare & intersections with other secondary & primary roads require traffic signals, therefore highway=tertiary is the best classification for this highway segment.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-05-19 16:55:24+00:00): Well, leaving this as tertiary would leave a secondary stub at Abbott Road.
crushtheserpent (2026-05-19 19:33:28+00:00): I don't know of any OSM rules/guidelines that road classifications can change only at a junction with another road of an equal or higher classification. Stubs are fine if they accurately reflect road characteristics/roles rather than visual preferences of editors.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-05-19 20:14:08+00:00): I'm pretty sure it's on the wiki? Also, usually they aren't: since right-of-ways in OSM are classified by importance, they need to form a cohesive network. This means that (with a few exceptions), "important" highways (tertiary through trunk) should begin and end at a highway with equal or greater importance. In this case, the secondary road of Otis Street abruptly ends a few blocks north of a more important highway.
FreshlyTweezed (2026-05-07 14:17:38+00:00): I found an online reference that uses this Halkomelem name. There was only a small variation from what you added, so I updated it from šxʷt̓ q̓ʷeleʔca to šxʷt’q̓ʷeleʔc, and added another nearby name.
https://musqueamcapital.ca/one-a-purposeful-passage-the-other-long-and-winding-the-road-names-at-lel%C9%99%E1%B8%BF/
Taya_S (2026-05-08 10:04:02+00:00): Hello BertramEskeLund,

I had to undo parts of your edits here, due to this changeset breaking the coastline. 

Coastlines work a bit different from other ways in OSM: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline. The coastline *must* form a single contiguous line. Your edit left a hole in part of the coastline and connected another part perpendicular to an existing coastline.

I'm not sure how long this construction work is expected to last, but if its just for a few months, it is usually better to just leave it alone. 

Best regards,  
Taya Snijder
QuiLe (2026-05-06 23:34:02+00:00): Reverted the following changesets. 

182291973,182291932,182291860,182291261,182291196,182290843,182290639,182290430,182290271,182290070,182289964,182289923,182289749,182289699,182289600,182286927
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182316021
woodpeck (2026-05-06 23:33:17+00:00): In this changeset you deleted 600 buildings, many of which still seem to exist according to aerial imagery. I think this must have been a mistake! I have reverted your deletion.
Senihtu (2026-05-07 05:34:33+00:00): Guten Morgen!
Kannst Du Dir Relation 12456449 noch mal genauer ansehen? Die Buslinie hat jetzt ne Lücke.
happy mapping!
MattGPS (2026-05-07 09:56:27+00:00): Vielen Dank für den Hinweis, kann diese Lücke sogar stopfen, aber hier macht OSM prinzipiell etwas falsch da Straßenstücke zusammengefasst werden, zu Pseudo-Buslinien. Die Buslinien verbinden aber nur Haltestellen! Die Relation zu 359 sollte komplett gelöscht werden, der Bus muss derzeit quer durch die Stadt fahren weil an den Bahnbrücken gesperrt ist.