piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
tomhukins (2025-12-03 18:02:53+00:00): You and Pete Owens keep reverting each others' work.  It seems you aren't talking to each other to reach a conscensus, or involving others.

If you are unable to agree on how to map, please involve the Data Working group: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes

For those of use who review changes to the map, it's frustrating to see you both repeatedly reverting the same changes.

I have left a similar comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175412690
Pete Owens (2025-12-03 23:54:33+00:00): Highway Code
Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

The most critical information required by cycle routing algorithms is knowing where cycling is allowed and where it is not. If you systematically delete cycle access tags then routers are likely to send cyclists on illegal routes.
TomJeffs (2025-12-04 08:32:47+00:00): > If you systematically delete cycle access tags then routers are likely to send cyclists on illegal routes. 

Proof please.  And please also explain why you think that pedestrian crossings that join shared footways cannot be cycled.  A "solution" of yours that renders said shared footways completely useless.
Pete Owens (2025-12-04 16:14:20+00:00): Highway Code:
Rule 81
Do not ride across equestrian crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.
Richard (2025-12-05 15:32:58+00:00): Hello from a cycle router author.

No cycle router will send cyclists along highway=footway by choice, with or without access tag. Some may, however, potentially incorporate a highway=footway into a route, with a clear direction to get off and push, if it saves a long or dangerous diversion otherwise.

bicycle=no is, however, not likely to be the right tag on (for example) way 206286744. If you want to add an access tag, then the least ambiguous one would be bicycle=dismount. bicycle=no is best used for the situation where bicycles are forbidden _whether pushed or ridden_. This is the default situation on public footpaths (absent permission of the landowner, because a bicycle is not a "usual accompaniment"), as well as many permissive footpaths such as through the grounds of Oxbridge colleges.
TomJeffs (2025-12-05 16:30:01+00:00): I agree with most of this except the comment about public footpaths.  A footpath is simply an entry on a council's definitive map which says that there is a right of way by foot across some land.  It doesn't exclude other users - that is normally done with access controls on the route (physical barriers or signage).  The existence of barriers is normally the only time I will exclude groups of users in OSM, along with signage (like trunk roads, motorways, some busways etc).

There are also many occasions where signage has been erected without legal force - Trafford has many of these, where councillors have asked highways for exclusionary signage without the legal paperwork, rendering them useless.  There's one near me that isn't even on council land and is completely unenforceable.
Richard (2025-12-05 16:53:29+00:00): Yep, hence "absent permission of the landowner". A public footpath doesn't confer a right of way for cycling or pushing a bike. But a landowner is entirely within their rights to grant permissive usage, whether explicitly or simply through tolerance. We have a section of NCN near us which is officially a public footpath, for example, but the landowner has given permission.
TomJeffs (2025-12-05 18:24:33+00:00): The solution is probably cycling=dismount on footways but even then I would posit that disabled users who can't easily dismount are being discriminated against, especially as organisations like Wheels for Wellbeing are campaigning to have cycles classed as invalid carriages.  But I'm looking at areas like this https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.486370/-2.256337 and becoming increasingly frustrated at users who draw systems that make it very difficult for pedestrians to cross from the carriageway to the footway.  I believe such things are best done with tags.
tomhukins (2025-12-05 18:30:12+00:00): It's good that we're having this conversation, but this changeset isn't the best place for it.  As SomeoneElse suggests on https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19111 I encourage you to use the forum to discover conscensus and reconcile tagging disagreements.
Pete Owens (2025-12-06 16:35:28+00:00): Richard: The issue here is not footpaths or public rights of way where a landowner may or may not permit cycling, but pavements where cycling is prohibited by law.

You claim that cycle routers will not send cyclists along footways by choice - but then go on to describe situations where cycle routers choose to do exactly that.
Richard (2025-12-08 08:36:12+00:00): Yes, that's how sentences work, you can say one thing and then qualify it with another. "It is sunny today but there will be rain around 2pm."

Facetiousness aside, a typical case is https://cycle.travel/map?from=&to=&fromLL=51.500175,-0.241000&toLL=51.498920,-0.242396 where the sane route is pushing along a short stretch of highway=footway to avoid a 400m detour. c.t uses a pedestrian symbol in this case to indicate that the user should push (and in the app will give distinct turn-by-turn directions etc.).

Contrast with https://cycle.travel/map?from=&to=&fromLL=51.748672,-1.256575&toLL=51.751087,-1.248749, where you can't even drag the route onto the path through Christ Church Meadows, because pushing a bike is forbidden there.

This is why it is important to differentiate between "you can push a bicycle here" (bicycle=dismount) and "you cannot push a bicycle here" (bicycle=no).
eggie (2025-12-02 16:45:27+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
tersmitten (2025-12-02 17:15:23+00:00): Thanks
B252697 (2025-12-07 04:19:53+00:00): Hi FajrAI

Could you share what is your source for these edits?

Thank you!
FajrAl (2025-12-08 01:17:19+00:00): data.gov.sg from URA Master Plan 2019, I put it in source tag on each relation.
B252697 (2025-12-08 01:19:17+00:00): Ok, thanks for clarifying!
eggie (2025-12-02 16:47:34+00:00): Dag tersmitten. Ik heb het aangepast naar private.
MVG
eggie
tersmitten (2025-12-02 17:14:53+00:00): Voor nu in ieder geval. Ze gaan dat grijze stuk teruggeven aan de natuur. Maar ze zijn er nu aan het slopen en saneren.
eggie (2025-12-02 16:48:05+00:00): Je zou private kunnen toevoegen.
MVG
eggie
Yushclay (2025-12-03 21:07:27+00:00): Hello mdeveney, it seems that you've changed the relation type from Boundary to Administrative Boundary. While the reservation is very much an administrative boundary, it will not render Pala Reservation as indigenous reservation or imply sovereignty.
To return it to reservation boundaries, you must flip the relation back to Boundary and change the boundary "Type" to aboriginal_lands.
However it also seems that some of your boundaries are broken as there are lines without a boundary relation (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13886462#map=13/33.36258/-117.05435), I'll see if I could send you a photo to show you what I mean as well.
I'd probably fix it myself, but since it seems you represent the Pala GIS Department, I'll probably leave the discretion to you.
If you still want to emphasize Administrative Boundaries, I suggest using the Pala / Páala village administrative boundaries (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18405183#map=14/33.36957/-117.06345) if they overlap with the reservation as you can stack multiple boundary relations on top of each other. If not, I believe your department knows best where those boundaries are. Let me know if you need any assistance.
mdeveney (2025-12-03 22:09:01+00:00): Hi Yushclay, Yes, I'm with the Pala GIS Department and I'm trying to update the reservation boundary using JOSM, which I'm clearly still new to. I will get the boundary relations sorted out asap.
Langlaeufer (2025-12-04 11:15:20+00:00): Die Entsieglzng endet aber ei e Kreuzung davor
Taya_S (2025-12-10 13:25:10+00:00): OpenStreetMap is not intended to be used to map fantasy project. Please tell your classroom to cease using OpenStreetMap for its dam projects. 

The edits that have been peformed by your group in this area recently have been destructive as they were of very low quality and did not align with reality.

Furthermore the notes left behind in this area have been nothing but meaningless spam. Notes are intended to give feedback to other mappers about missing or outdated features. They are not intended to be used for classroom projects.
Chris Fleming (2025-12-07 22:53:13+00:00): Hi Jmes, this looks good to me!
tomhukins (2025-12-03 18:02:55+00:00): You and TomJeffs keep reverting each others' work.  It seems you aren't talking to each other to reach a conscensus, or involving others.

If you are unable to agree on how to map, please involve the Data Working group: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes

For those of use who review changes to the map, it's frustrating to see you both repeatedly reverting the same changes.

I have left a similar comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175410402
TomJeffs (2025-12-03 18:38:38+00:00): There is no point in creating cycleways that end with no means for a person to cycle back onto the highway.  Banning cycling in changesets like this renders those cycleways completely useless to navigation software.

Furthermore, adding "dismount" is incorrect and discriminatory, since some disabled cyclists cannot dismount.  That also happens to be the root of my objection to tagging all pavements as cycling=no; disabled people are perfectly entitled to cycle on the pavement using a cycle as a mobility aid.  Let the navigation software decide if it will put cyclists on a pavement - not users.
TomJeffs (2025-12-03 18:39:45+00:00): I would also add that there is no justification whatsoever for cycling=no at any highway crossing.  Cyclists have a common law right to use the highway and crossings are on the highway.  Making them inaccessible is legally wrong and I will always remove those tags when I find them.
TomJeffs (2025-12-03 18:40:18+00:00): edit - by highway I mean carriageway
Pete Owens (2025-12-03 23:37:54+00:00): Highway Code:
"Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement."

That is clear and unambiguous. There is no exception for disabled cyclists. 

WRT mobility aids, Disabled folk are permitted to use motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters limited to 4mph (not bicycles) according to pedestrian rules. It would clearly be absurd to designate all pedestrian accessible ways as "motor_vehicle=yes" on those grounds.

The map must reflect what is actually there on the ground - not what you think ought to be there or what you think the law ought to say.
TomJeffs (2025-12-04 08:35:33+00:00): > WRT mobility aids, Disabled folk are permitted to use motorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters limited to 4mph (not bicycles) according to pedestrian rules.

Right, so wheeling is permitted on pavements.

Also, please explain why you are banning children from cycling on the pavement, when that activity is allowed..

Actually, don't bother.  Because we all know that you just don't like cycling, and are doing everything in your power to stop it everywhere.  Including on public rights of way where no such bans exist.
Pete Owens (2025-12-04 17:01:20+00:00): And within a matter of hours TomJeffs has resumed his vandalism of my edits:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175476817
SomeoneElse (2025-12-05 12:32:35+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19111
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19112
norgis (2025-12-04 13:52:04+00:00): Hei,
tunnel=building_passage skal ikke brukes på stier etc. som går under broer. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel=building%20passage
En slik tag brukes på gangveier som krysser gjennom bygninger, for eksempel, der man har vegger på begge sider (altså en "tunnel" gjennom en konstruksjon).

Har fjerna denne taggen på en del av de der du har lagt det til.
Jonasklh (2025-12-04 15:18:00+00:00): Takk, var usikker på den, ja!
Frans S (2025-12-27 11:40:03+00:00): Hello .Thanks for mapping
You are only drawing rough rectangles without taking indentations and protruding parts into account. Follow the roof lines more accurately, please
Best regards, and keep mapping
MarkoŠatrak (2025-12-03 11:35:58+00:00): Reverting because a node was moved #OptimoRoute

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175442766
eggie (2025-12-02 19:35:48+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
porfiriopaiz (2025-12-02 20:24:26+00:00): Hello,

Can you please stop adding these landuse areas to the existing elements?

It is way better to add new elements that actually modifying or deleting the existing ones.

You could add the land use tag to almost any existing element and it would not help at all. On the other hand, adding new elements to the map would be way more useful that just adding the land use tag.

Please stop with the this non-sense.
Taya_S (2025-12-22 16:17:09+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176271486
AurélienQ (2025-12-03 09:27:35+00:00): Bonjour, 
tu as supprimé de gros éléments dans ce changeset, des éléments qui n'auraient pas dû l'être. Ce que tu fais n'est pas trop mal, mais fait vraiment attention. Je me charge de réparer cette erreurs. Fait plus attention à l'avenir s'il te plait.

N'hésite pas à demander de l'aide au besoin.
Cordialement, 

Aurélien
Anonymous36863 (2025-12-03 08:53:55+00:00): The key inscription=* is used for the text of inscriptions on buildings, memorials, advertising signs, and other objects.
rhhs (2025-12-03 11:39:48+00:00): True, but it's typically used to tag texts on the object that are not the name of the object.
Negreheb (2025-12-03 07:20:54+00:00): Hallo aighes, dir hast du fast etwas 'zu viel' gemacht :D . Ans Ende von Privateinfahrten muss kein noexit=yes getagged werden. Alles gute
aighes (2025-12-03 21:06:11+00:00): Siehe: 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/sind-hinweise-mit-driveways-wurden-noch-nicht-eingetragen-verboten/138372/53
Frans S (2025-12-18 09:28:15+00:00): Hello again
I adjusted a lot of inaccurate mapped buildings.
See my comments on another changeset
And...  Quality prevails above quantity
Best regards and keep mapping
Roydon Olive (2025-12-03 15:19:54+00:00): The ESRI imagery seems to have the new updates if you don't zoom in too far, that was enough for me to do some improvements. Take a look and see what you think.
fudoreaper (2025-12-18 16:10:50+00:00): Oh good! Yes OSM now looks better than before, closer to its actual alignment. Still not quite sure about pedestrian crossings, maybe we can update in the spring or after a survey (but harder to survey in winter)
Frans S (2025-12-18 09:00:34+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. 
We welcome you as a new mapper.
Your mapping does not meet the quality standards of HOTOSM. Often, your mappings don't reflect the real shape of a building. Don't you use a mouse? It is very difficult to draw a building with just a touchpad.
Quality prevails above quantity.
Draw accurately along the rooflines and square each building with the Q key while still selected.
Best regards
DariaDX (2026-01-08 10:27:45+00:00): I po co ta zmiana. Lokal w całkiem innym miejscu jest
user_5359 (2025-12-03 08:37:03+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please be careful! You moved the node https://www.osm.org/node/54484753 more than 100 meters over streets and buildings. 
I moved the node back to the original position.
Autopistero20502020 (2025-12-02 18:32:33+00:00): Enlace Catalogo oficial de las Carreteras de la Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa: https://www.gipuzkoa.eus/documents/2890238/2931564/Cat%C3%A1logo+Actualizado.pdf/6ccff55c-6249-911a-18f5-dc950e9964cd
Comino (2025-12-02 18:58:46+00:00): Name of the hotel is:
Hotel Margrethe

Not:
Hotel Margrethe (AirBtc.com booking only)

Please refrain from advertising on OSM.
b-jazz (2025-12-06 19:04:52+00:00): Hi Steve,

Thanks for contributing to golf course mapping. We need all the help we can get.

However, there are some problems with how you're mapping and I want to make sure you correct those behaviors so they don't continue into the future.

The first problem is that you are deleting information by removing someone else's work (a completely valid fairway, for instance). This is useful data in that history of the previous hole that gets difficult to find when you erase it to draw your own elements. You should modify the nodes (add/move/delete) if you need to, but deleting the entire way is frowned upon.

One common misconception is that a fairway looks like just a "line" when it is supposed to be defined as a "fairway" and an "area". Here is a wiki article that might clear that up: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID_understanding_golf_course_relations

Those fairway relations are correct and should not have parts deleted because it doesn't look right. If you are unclear, please reach out and provide examples for me to look and help explain what's going on. 

Thanks!
Hugoren Martinako (2025-12-03 08:38:44+00:00): Corregido el tramo de la A-15 de Gipuzkoa, cuyo nombre me lo indició el Autopistero en https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175395902

También se puede ver en ambos idiomas en: https://www.gipuzkoa.eus/es/web/errepideak/carreteras-de-gipuzkoa/catalogo-de-carreteras/detalle?codigo=1395 (es) y https://www.gipuzkoa.eus/eu/web/errepideak/gipuzkoako-errepideak/errepideen-katalogoa/xehetasuna?codigo=1395 (eu)

Cambiados igualmente todos los miembros de dicha relación.

Evitemos los name separados con barra en ambas comunidades desde: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/simplificacion-del-etiquetado-de-nombres-multilingues-en-euskadi-y-nafarroa/137377

Un saludo
dmfr (2025-12-18 20:04:18+00:00): Olá Rui! A Quinta dos Cónegos já estava mapeada com amenity=events_venue. Ao colocares o nome no farmyard, fica duplicada a Quinta dos Cónegos. O objeto amenity=events_venue inclui todo o espaço da quinta, incluindo edifícios e campos, enquanto o farmyard apenas inclui os edifícios e os espaços entre os edifícios.

Como é que devemos mapear esta feature?
rui228 (2025-12-19 15:15:59+00:00): Olá dmfr. Ok, erro meu, não tinha visto com atenção. Foi resposto a versão original. Boas criações
dmfr (2025-12-19 17:27:21+00:00): Obrigado!
I-76 (2025-12-03 16:36:14+00:00): *driveways
I-76 (2025-12-03 16:36:52+00:00): well, driveways and footpaths
honapak (2025-12-13 01:34:00+00:00): I don't understand this changeset. Strand Building, for example, is the name of a building. It doesn't appear in the address. Same for many of the others that've been changed.
LordGarySugar (2025-12-13 02:32:56+00:00): In what way would 'Strand Building' not appear in its address? It has no other housename or housenumber tagged, so how would that work? Is it because they are university buildings that something different should happen with these?
honapak (2025-12-13 12:44:23+00:00): It isn't because these are university buildings, I chose this one as an example. Just because a building has a name doesn't mean that name is included in the address, or that the building is addressable at all. You chose not to change other buildings in this area name tags to addr:housename tags, e.g. "Aldwych" or "The Old Watch House".

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:housename

This changeset should be reverted, or at least any name > addr:housename tag changes should be. Name and addr:housename are different tags for different purposes, a building can have none, one, or both.
ceirios (2025-12-13 21:21:27+00:00): I think this is fine, if not better than what was there before. In a place like London it certainly helps to see the house number.

And if these building names arent in the address, then how is correspondence sent and received? It's got to be in there somewhere!
honapak (2025-12-14 11:32:21+00:00): "it certainly helps to see the house number" even when it's fantasy? The university has a main postal address, not one for every building. Some of these buildings aren't publicly accessible. Based on your logic, why wouldn't we also change every building name tag on the map to addr:housename?
HurricaneGator (2025-12-05 20:33:12+00:00): Hello MK 1! I noticed that you’ve updated ref tagging to formatting that doesn’t appear on this government resource (http://62.77.137.99/roads/index.php). For example, you updated ref=A3 to ref=A3.1 for (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/440507480) and ref=R29277 to ref=R1311.1 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1318176273). I haven’t seen any ref tagging with decimal points and numbers after them so I was wondering if you could provide resources that reflect these changes. Thank you.
MK 1 (2025-12-08 14:05:28+00:00): Hello. There are branches of some, not all roads. 
For example, that A3.1 was M5K1.
A3 is main road, those are branches. 
Sorry but there is no notifications for those comments. Ig you are interessed, send me a PM.. Thanks
HurricaneGator (2025-12-09 15:49:12+00:00): Hello MK 1, would you be able to provide the resources that state the ref tags for these branches have decimal points in them? It seems like there’s been some contention over these different ref tags in the past. To reiterate, this government resource (http://62.77.137.99/roads/index.php) refers to (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/440507480) as A3 and not A3.1. According to (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice) it might be best to reach a consensus with the rest of the community before changing the ref tags like this. Thank you for responding and I look forward to hearing from you again.
MK 1 (2025-12-09 16:03:32+00:00): Because they are not the same route. They are branches. In former Yugoslavia roads were with branches. Branch was defined as XX.X
HurricaneGator (2025-12-10 17:52:08+00:00): Hello MK 1, thanks again for responding. I understand that you are saying the branches of main roads had ref values with decimal points during the former Yugoslavia ref scheme, but I am not aware of any available resources that show this is how they should be tagged in present day. For instance, [04/27/21 Mapillary](https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=226518595515105) located around (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/989399535) is showing signage stating that the branching (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1264968861) should have ref=A3. This is reinforced by (http://62.77.137.99/roads/files/Sections/RAMS_report-Section__1042.pdf), (http://62.77.137.99/roads/files/Sections/RAMS_report-Section__1043.pdf), (http://62.77.137.99/roads/files/Sections/RAMS_report-Section__1044.pdf), and this interactive map (http://62.77.137.99/pesr/webgis/#/map). To follow OSM’s on the ground principle (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Good_practice), are you aware of more recent street-level imagery or official government resources that reflect the decimal point refs? Thank you!
MK 1 (2025-12-10 21:19:06+00:00): RAMS' reports are with decimal.
They are branches. Branches are not the same with main route.
So according to the OSM's on the ground principle, this road sign exist, and should be marked with R103? 
(that marking was up to 2011, 14 years ago.
Same road https://myprintscreen.com/s/3s683/c81c962203

Marked as M1, now A1. 
So please tell me how to mark those roads. 
M1 or A1? R103 or R1107?
Or both? 
And also A3 with green shield is the same with A3 in blue?
https://myprintscreen.com/s/3s67s/10daaa785d
way/871882599
HurricaneGator (2025-12-11 20:19:57+00:00): Hello MK 1, thanks again for responding. I have not found any evidence of decimal refs on https://roads.org.mk/ or in the most recent street-level imagery. Could you please link the RAMS report you mentioned that has refs with decimal values? If these decimal refs are just historical values, it seems the old_ref= tag (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref) would be more accurate. Thank you!