piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
EmiliaKukułka (2026-06-11 19:50:08+00:00): Witam, ta edycja to z zajęć ogólnoszkolnych, ulica radlna to po prostu taki jest tam adres dodałam z tego powodu, po drugie brudna jest dodane z powodu budowy obok aktualnie i tego że to jest żwirowi,piaskowo,kamienista i wiecznie jest tam błoto i kałużę
grzegorz75jan (2026-06-11 21:17:37+00:00): Wprowadzam tu pewne korekty. Nie wiem skąd taki adres ale ostatnio dzwoniłem do Urzędu Gminy ponieważ np. w Nowodworzu ktoś parę lat temu dodał nazwy ulic a w Nowodworzu nazw ulic urzędowo nie ma co potwierdziła Gmina i w Radlnej patrzę na podkład nazw ulic to nazw też nie ma.

Jako, że edytuję i często sprawdzam  edycje mapy w OSM to proszę o informację (jakiś kontakt, nazwę) do osób, instytucji która zleca wam wykonywanie tych edycji.  Chciałbym porozmawiać z kimś kto się tym zajmuje i jest za to odpowiedzialny ponieważ odnotowujemy sporo podobnych edycji i często musimy nanosić poprawki lub wręcz usuwać całe  edycje z powodu błędów a często nanoszenia fikcyjnych obiektów.
CurlConnoisseur (2026-06-11 16:50:14+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5334522
RedAuburn (2026-06-26 19:41:37+00:00): Really cool changeset, thanks! :)
I noticed that they're all yes values - if you have a list of which pubs have live_sport=no then it'd be great to explicitly tag them too!
mueschel (2026-06-19 10:14:19+00:00): Hi,
what does 'min_height:physical' mean? You must be 8 meters tall to physically be able to use the road?
molopoly (2026-06-20 11:16:30+00:00): Hey! That's no fun if you're a short-legged giraffe... (Have been trying to get this bridge up in the air using maxheight and maxheight:physical, so far no luck)
mueschel (2026-06-20 12:34:25+00:00): What do you mean by "get this bridge up in the air"? maxheight and minheight are restrictions for the traffic on the bridge, but no tags describing the size of the bridge.
joost schouppe (2026-07-10 12:53:57+00:00): Probeer je bij kapelletjes zoals deze https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1528561967 tags toe te voegen om duidelijk te maken of het over iets significant of iets kleins gaat? In dit geval zou ik er building=wayside_chapel van maken.
Meer context: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/diary/407621
felipeeugenio (2026-06-11 19:02:31+00:00): Hola. gracias por las ediciones.
No usamos contracciones, se anotan las palabras completas. en un entorno digital no tiene mucho sentido hacer las contracciones.
Pero una duda: La calle Las Tepas se divide en dos: una va de Norte a Sur y Otra de Este a oeste y siempre con el mismo nombre? parece un error.
Solo para aclarar.
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183982828
Ducking (2026-06-11 20:22:29+00:00): Estimado, corregí los errores mencionados, efectivamente la que va de este a oeste corresponde a la calle Rio Vilcun. Se indicó en los comentarios de la modificación.
felipeeugenio (2026-06-11 21:44:23+00:00): Buena, gracias. Preocuparse de los tildes, por favor. Yo los corrijo.


saludos
Rick Richards (2026-06-12 08:11:22+00:00): Dobrý deň, adresa Krakovská 23 je už zakreslená priamo na budove. Duplicitné adresné údaje na landuse=commercial som preto odstránil.

Ak je adresa podľa katastra priradená ku konkrétnej budove a je v mape správne uvedená na objekte budovy, nepridáva sa už na ďalšie plochy ani body, aby sa predišlo duplicite.

Ďakujem za pochopenie a prajem príjemné mapovanie.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-06-11 18:01:01+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 183744668, 183882405.
Udarian (2026-06-11 21:54:52+00:00): looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Udarian (2026-06-11 21:56:02+00:00): looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
plennert (2026-06-14 16:40:58+00:00): Hallo Patrick,

durch dass herauslöschen des alten Standortes wurden noch div. gültige Punkte die am Gebäude hafteten herausgelöscht.  hast du die Daten noch? Die sollten nämlich übertragen werden.

Gruss, Ralph
PatSchmid (2026-06-14 18:20:11+00:00): Hallo Ralph,

welche Punkte vermisst Du denn?

Gruss Patrick
plennert (2026-06-15 06:26:12+00:00): Hallo Patrick,
im Grunde geht es um diese Löschung

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183984531#map=19/47.795285/8.842016

Darin war noch die Sirene auf dem Dach enthalten, welche mit der Löschung entfernt wurde. Diese gehört wieder rein.
Der Rest scheint nun wieder stimmt. 

Gruss
Ralph
PatSchmid (2026-06-15 07:28:41+00:00): habe die Sirene wieder ergänzt
plennert (2026-06-15 07:36:28+00:00): Top ... aber da fehlen ja die gesamten Eigenschaften ....
plennert (2026-06-15 07:37:33+00:00): Bitte schaue nochmals was in der alten  eingetragen bzw. erfasst wurde.

Gruss und Danke.
PatSchmid (2026-06-15 08:43:19+00:00): habe die Eigenschaften ergänzt
Leo Slager (2026-06-11 22:20:52+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
pwbriggs (2026-06-11 21:23:51+00:00): Thanks. You marked this as a bookmaker, but apparently, that's a British term for a sports gambling shop (I had no idea!). Based on your note at the old location, I changed this to a bookbinding shop.
Printemps (2026-06-20 23:25:54+00:00): Fascinating! I suppose that makes sense if I think about it as a "booker". Thanks for finding the "bookbinding shop" designation.
vasony (2026-06-13 08:42:54+00:00): Szia!

Házszám végére nem szükséges a pont, ez egy adatmező, nem postai cím helyesírása a mérvadó.

Tamás
eggie (2026-06-16 10:42:41+00:00): Dag Piet,
name=.. heb ik verwijderd.
Svp niet name gebruiken om iets te beschrijven. 
MVG
eggie
hoserab (2026-06-12 14:11:35+00:00): Hello HMeadow, and welcome to OpenStreetMap. :)

When you made these changes—adding some sidewalks, moving the location of the H-Mart at Nuera/Alura condos on Macleod Trail—you also *deleted* this townhouse building under construction: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/780300333

I know you're new to OSM, but please by mindful of deleting things. According to the changeset summary above you used the iD editor with Bing satellite imagery, and the Bing satellite imagery is *not* the most up-to-date in Killarney. The site in question is just a pile of dirt on the satellite imagery, but in reality there is a new building there.
HMeadow (2026-06-12 15:14:36+00:00): Sorry about that, my bad! Yeah, I probably shouldn't rely on Bing imagery that much. (And I'll make smaller commits).
I see you added the townhouses back for me, thanks!
ICT_maps (2026-07-20 17:51:57+00:00): see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5401786
ratrun (2026-06-12 04:15:04+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM,

please improve your mapping style. You are creating a lot of unconnected ways, which prevents proper routing. See the errors on OSMI routing view https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=89.43728&lat=25.47640&zoom=10&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing for the background

Please fix those connectivity errors or at least improve further MAPWithAI imports.
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-11 20:58:49+00:00): #Spam
LordGarySugar (2026-06-14 01:50:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184077230 - marketing spam / incorrect tagging used. We do not map the service area of businesses, and highway=services is for rest and fuel areas, not a business' service coverage.

@pitscheplatsch - replying #Spam doesn't fix the damage caused to the map or indicate why it was wrong to do this, you should either revert it or report it to someone else who will.
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-15 06:15:27+00:00): Hi @LordGarySugar, thank you for your feedback.

I was travelling at the time and wanted to at least flag the changeset with a comment so that other contributors would see that something was wrong with it. I am fully aware that this does not undo the damage to the map by itself.

However, I often see cases where several contributors independently investigate the same problematic changeset, sometimes even revert it, but no comment is left on the original changeset. In my view, that can waste much more volunteer time than leaving a quick comment, which I would then have followed up on in the coming days.

I also see other contributors taking the time to explain in detail what went wrong, especially in cases where someone appears to be mapping on behalf of a business. My own view is that if someone is mapping for their own business, or is being paid to do so, it is their responsibility to learn how to map correctly, consult the available documentation and community resources, use the appropriate tags, and carefully double-check their work before uploading it. This is not only important for the quality of the map, but also in their own interest, as it makes it much more likely that the business is actually added correctly instead of being ignored or reverted.

You mentioned that I could also report it to someone else. That option is new to me. Should I send similar changesets directly to you, or is there a preferred person to report them to? My feeling is that there may be quite a few similar spam changesets, and I do not think every single one of them should necessarily have to be escalated to the Data Working Group. :)

In this particular case, the number of map changes was fairly small, and based on the changeset comment and the username, I think it was already quite clear that something was off with the edit.

Just my two cents.
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-11 20:57:33+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
Is the name real?
ALPR (770022278), v2
director373 (2026-06-11 21:45:17+00:00): Which name are you referring to, please? If the ALPR, I didn't give it a specific name. 

Thank-you!
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-12 06:02:16+00:00): Thanks for your answer.

I am referring to this element https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/770022278/history/2

As you can see in the history, you added this name.
aceman444 (2026-06-16 07:19:23+00:00): Zdravim, tak tazko ste nazov mohli najst na Aerial imagery, ci survey, kedze sa tak oficialne nenazyva:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3296932 . "Local knowledge" mozno, kedze ludovo sa tak nazyva. Uvadzajte spravne zdroje.
Rick Richards (2026-06-16 18:53:08+00:00): Zdravim, vratene v https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184196099. loc_name zachovane.
yelisey90 (2026-06-11 21:33:25+00:00): whoa!
IvaKraljić (2026-06-13 13:14:19+00:00): The unnecessarily tagged segment has since been deleted in the changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184055769#map=11/41.8263/-106.5228. #OptimoRoute
yelisey90 (2026-06-11 21:37:52+00:00): actually, it's better to keep POI as separate nodes, even if they occupy the whole of the building, so I reverted this moment
Asioisa (2026-06-12 05:48:44+00:00): Hello. I thought I was following the 'one feature, one OSM element' rule. Perhaps I have misinterpreted it.
yelisey90 (2026-06-12 07:05:42+00:00): It's really a very tricky question ;) Generally, it's OK to combine tags for the building and for the shop in one way. But when more sophisticated tags such as "start_date", "wikidata" or "operator" begin to appear, it may be difficult to understand, which entity they apply to, especially if the building has a complicated history. Also it may be a bit more tricky to edit a combined feature using mobile applications such as Organic Maps. So, it's totally a user's preference how to map a new object; but if somebody already created separate objects, please do not merge them.

A related issue is fences: the article https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element recommends against combining tags for fences and for the enclosed feature in one element. The better way is to map the fence as a way, then to create a multipolygon relation with fence as a single member, and add tags for the enclosed feature (like leisure=dog_park) to the multipolygon.
Asioisa (2026-06-12 07:32:57+00:00): Understood. My general philosophy is to avoid redundancy, but I now see how it can insidiously complicate things. Thank you for the clarification.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-12 10:57:14+00:00): Hi Godelzilla, welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Syntactically, your updates here appear to be valid. However, use of Google Maps as a source for OpenStreetMap is strictly prohibited by express OSM policy, and may violate copyright and/or contract law in your jurisdiction.

Therefore, I went ahead and reverted your changeset, while also (re-)applying myself straightforward syntax fixes that did not depend on any external source. See changeset 184011167 for my revert:

https://osm.org/changeset/184011167

Happy mapping!
demon_box (2026-06-12 07:57:59+00:00): Ciao Curculion, ho notato che hai taggato questo edificio industriale con l'indirizzo:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1528594476/

ti segnalo che in Italia il civico identifica il punto di accesso (entrata) e NON l'intero edificio. Infatti un edificio può avere più entrate e di conseguenza più numeri civici. 
Quindi hai 2 opzioni: 
1. Se conosci esattamente la posizione (entrata) del civico che stai mappando metti tutti i tags dell'indirizzo su un nodo del perimetro dell'edificio (aggiungendo anche il tag entrance sullo stesso nodo);
2. Se invece non hai questa informazione così precisa devi mettere tutti i tags dell'indirizzo su nodo adiacente ma STACCATO dal poligono dell'edificio.
Infine ti segnalo anche che il tag
"addr:country" normalmente non si utilizza, non è errato ma è inutile in quanto è un dato già implicito nei confini.
Ho già proceduto con le correzioni del caso. 
Grazie e BuonMapping!
Curculion (2026-06-13 08:35:31+00:00): Grazie, lavorando con i preset di JOSM avevo dimenticato la questione degli indirizzi.
GarliccBread1 (2026-07-07 07:35:22+00:00): I am going to remap/revert what was done here, Colorado Ave was redone between 30th and folsom Streets along with the 28th St intersection being rebuilt. What was mapped previously was correct. Please make sure to check multiple other satellite imagery in your future edits to avoid accidental removal of sidewalk paths and new crossings,. The new paths can be seen on ESRI, but Bing is outdated.
LordGarySugar (2026-06-13 18:00:54+00:00): You added height=0 (metres) to this building, I have removed that. If you know the correct height of the building or number of floors (building:levels=*), feel free to add that.
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-11 20:58:14+00:00): #Spam
LordGarySugar (2026-06-14 01:48:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184077230 - marketing spam / incorrect tagging used. We do not map the service area of businesses, and highway=services is for rest and fuel areas, not a business' service coverage.
LordGarySugar (2026-06-13 17:59:30+00:00): Hi, where access=private, private access for bicycles, horse riders, pedestrians etc. is implied, so you don't need to add all the extra values, just access=private is sufficient.
bxl-forever_repair (2026-06-16 13:05:02+00:00): Reverted.
IvaKraljić (2026-06-13 13:24:13+00:00): The unnecessarily tagged road has since been fixed in the changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184056122#map=10/44.5840/-106.2408. #OptimoRoute
LordGarySugar (2026-06-14 01:48:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184077230 - marketing spam / incorrect tagging used. We do not map the service area of businesses, and highway=services is for rest and fuel areas, not a business' service coverage.
GeeMaps! (2026-06-14 03:31:04+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20825
bxl-forever_repair (2026-06-16 13:01:59+00:00): Reverted. The changeset title is misleading. It is fairly unlikely to have residential streets here. This road category is reserved for streets inside cities or villages, typically with houses along them. You won’t find them near fields/meadows/woods…
YomanNH (2026-06-12 09:37:17+00:00): OpenStreetMap to nie plac zabaw. Usunąłem wandalizm.
felipeeugenio (2026-06-11 21:46:45+00:00): Hola. Gracias por las ediciones. por favor fijarse en los accesos a estos caminos (access=) Supongo que no es de acceso libre.
Si hay control en la entrada, agregar =private. Si no =permissive.

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183988484
VictorIE (2026-06-12 03:00:18+00:00): Thank you
ChrissW-R1 (2026-06-20 21:38:11+00:00): You're welcome
bxl-forever_repair (2026-06-16 12:58:24+00:00): Reverted. The "residential street" across the fields seems very unlikely.
nyanpsyche (2026-06-18 23:56:02+00:00): Thanks for the update! I was actually going to go survey the progress of this today, so you've saved me the trip!
John Kastner (2026-06-16 00:15:48+00:00): hi, without knowing the exact situation on the ground here, the original address doesn't look wrong. addr:unit=a serves to disambiguate, and it feels more likely to me that is a second unit at the same address.

Also, it's not clear to me how umd.me.uk relates to this. If this building is a private residence it probably doesn't make sense to have that website linked.
hmind (2026-06-16 12:30:30+00:00): John, thank you for the reply. Currently, 9509 and 9509A belongs to two different households: Christine Pigge, and Nan Zhuo. They sometimes received each other's mail if someone forgot to put A before 9509 for Nan's house. It's a shame that OSM confuses them as well.

Umd.me.uk is registered under the 9509A address so has the right to include it in the house tags as well. 

In fact, many houses have a website as well. For example, the following is a Tous Les Jours website for part of a building:

https://1.umd.me.uk/nominatim/details.php?osmtype=N&osmid=13861413701&class=shop
Sakari_N (2026-06-12 14:26:04+00:00): Hi,

If the foot and bike parts are not physically separated, they should be mapped as one line and segregated=yes. Same logic applies for road with multiple lanes (or road with a bike lane), if the lanes are not physically separated, it is one OSM object. 

And "physical separation" would be curb, fence, grass strip etc.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Fi:Piirto-ohjeet_Suomessa

And for the logic of mapping single or separated ways:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways#Carriageways
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway
Lieckio (2026-06-12 16:43:30+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:area:highway%3Dfootway

Legendary. Separate schemes and styles here and there.
Julyan128 (2026-06-12 06:18:58+00:00): I apologise for deleting the previous path. I did not notice the -4 tag. I will be more careful next time.
Piskvor (2026-06-12 09:46:35+00:00): No problem: you were right that it's not a footway, and you did the logical thing. 

After all, OSM encourages "to boldly edit" :)
Anas masuris (2026-06-12 21:23:16+00:00): Warto też od razu dodawać operator=* i operator:short=*

(Najczęściej operator=PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe, operator:short=PKP PLK)
kasmar00 (2026-06-12 23:32:29+00:00): Dzięki, będę dodawał. Te punkty lecą potem do GTFS, stąd najbardziej mi zależy na lokalizacji i numerze toru.
c674a (2026-06-11 20:42:05+00:00): *SP19-114-115-140
QuiLe (2026-06-13 04:37:55+00:00): Hi pramitb and welcome to OSM! Most likely since this footway runs alongside a road you can mark this as a sidewalk. Thanks for mapping. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183990081
silversurfer83 (2026-06-14 15:58:22+00:00): Hi

highway=living_street wird in Deutschland nur getaggt wenn das VZ 325.1 (Verkehrsberuhigter Bereich, vulgo "Spielstraße") aufgestellt wurde. Ist dies hier der Fall?

Grüße
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183990622
Strubbl (2026-06-11 21:30:15+00:00): "von Brücke West" statt "von West" sollte es heißen
BCNorwich (2026-06-13 05:38:57+00:00): Way: 1528620469, duplicated highway line removed it disrupts routing.
OpenSpacesNotClosedSpaces (2026-06-17 18:04:38+00:00): Hello, singletrack dirt trails should not be marked as a cycleway. Cycleway is often interpreted by as bike exclusive trails that are paved. More appropirate tagging is keeping it as path and marking access as desginated.
FrozenTomb (2026-06-17 18:31:56+00:00): Heard, I'll make adjustments. I'm playing around with things trying to figure out why things aren't showing up properly. Thank you.
OpenSpacesNotClosedSpaces (2026-06-17 19:13:29+00:00): What things aren't showing up properly and in what app? I'm just curious if it's something I can help with.
FrozenTomb (2026-06-17 19:35:18+00:00): RideWithGPS has some things that haven't properly imported for mountain biking. I've changed them to "Designated" and will see if that gets them to show up more accurately. There are some trails that are under prominent in their system, so I've also been adding in IMBA ratings and correcting surfaces on these as well.
Grocrab (2026-06-11 22:01:46+00:00): Ne pas tenir compte de cette modification d’indication de pente s’il vous plaît. 
Merci.
Bauxite (2026-06-11 22:02:23+00:00): Hm, les modifications effectuées ne sont pas celles auxquelles je m’attendais. Je vais annuler le changeset et réessayer de modifier demain.
Bauxite (2026-06-12 10:20:21+00:00): J’ai refait la modification correctement lors du changeset/184009773.
BerryTrails (2026-06-15 11:24:57+00:00): Haritron
Okay, cool. In that case, opening the highway from the construction state seems acceptable now, especially with the additional minor construction tagging that has been added.

My concern was that before this, the #adt user had opened the highway without providing any additional construction-related tagging, which could have been confusing for users unfamiliar with the area.

Thanks for the edit 

Happy mapping! Buddy...
BCNorwich (2026-06-13 05:53:06+00:00): Way: Mehsi - Madhuban Rd (1528627799) removed it duplicates an existing highway. please amend/correct existing features
Andrea Musuruane (2026-06-14 12:33:05+00:00): Ciao. Tutti i ref:msal che hai inserito sono errati. Hai messo degli zero in testa che non ci vogliono. In questo caso hai inserito "006190" mentre il codice corretto è "6190": https://www.salute.gov.it/CercaFarmacie/Ricerca?useMode=getDettaglio&VOLID=F6190
toponomastica_comune_arenzano (2026-06-15 07:21:46+00:00): Ho corretto grazie del controllo
gpserror (2026-06-14 00:35:01+00:00): IMHO the names are not really names, they're references when someone is buried in a specific section... so perhaps it should be ref=15 vs name="section 15"?
kiritimati_c7g (2026-06-14 15:35:05+00:00): names like Section 15 are the names of the cemetery sectors, which are the same area as the sectors*. i only had time to add landuse=grass and the name while surveying but i'm going to add cemetery=sector and the ref like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1508631089 .
(*for grass areas like sections 10 and 28b, i'll add separate cemetery=sector areas as they don't share the same area, and put the name on that)
Leo Slager (2026-06-12 22:19:44+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
pwbriggs (2026-06-12 00:29:27+00:00): Thanks! It's been a few years since I was at this park, but your edits look reasonable. One question I have is why you added bicycle=designated to many of these trails. Is there a sign that specifically permits bicycles?

Thanks again for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
hoserab (2026-06-24 23:43:12+00:00): Hello JGamerl,

You deleted the power=substation and ref=151S tags from the substation off of the Trans-Canada at George Freeman Trail. (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/432563285/) I have since fixed it. Please be careful with the changes you are making.