piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eerib (2024-09-09 23:55:35+00:00): Hello _BAR_,

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me with your concerns.

I highly recommend that trail builders and other advocates you know join the OSM Trails Working Group. The group consists of multiple stakeholders including government organizations, land managers, parks agencies, and app developers and are working on issues similar to those you’ve described. This group would be the place to advocate for structural changes to OSM data, a new policy and/or tagging schema for trails that may be considered secret, and how that data is used within outdoor navigation apps.

https://openstreetmap.us/news/2021/12/osmus-trails-working-group/

You could start with a discussion within the #trails channel on this Slack workspace.

https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/

One of the main initiatives to come out of the working group so far is a tagging schema for unsanctioned and informal trails. What they have come up with is to display those trails with significantly less emphasis and sometimes prevent routability based on various criteria. Currently both AllTrails and GaiaGPS are piloting this approach with results being closely monitored within a few study areas. You can see an example of this with the trails in the Boulder Creek area of the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve and in the old CPTA trials trails in təmtəmíxʷtən/Belcarra Regional Park.

I also recommend you open a discuss topic on the matter within a local mountain bike forum such as:

https://nsmb.com/forum/forum/the-shore-3/ 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1025689240817931

I recommend guiding the discussion to include topics like open data, closed data & proprietary lock-in, user safety, emergency service (BCWS, SAR, Fire Rescue, …) considerations, environment & development pressures, land manager positions, and social & health impacts. I also recommend asking users for a defined repeatable method for how to determine whether a trail should show up on a map (that isn’t just asking the legacy builder/maintainer) that could be presented to the Trails Working Group.

Thank you, eerib
Lola Fox (2024-09-10 20:35:19+00:00): Una autiostrada abbandonata è pur sempre una autostrada, con tag "abbandonata" come si fa anche con vecchie ferrovie. Convertirla in linea la si fa scomparir dalla mappa. Credo che questa operazione che hai fatto sia sbagliata e si debba rirpristibnare il tag autostrada.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-09-10 20:46:02+00:00): Keeping the highway tag is tagging for the renderer which is not allowed
Lola Fox (2024-09-10 20:54:25+00:00): Scusa ma cosa si mappa per fare cosa? Se c’è una autostrada abbandonata la dobbiamo nascondere ? Solo perché non si deve mappare per il renderer ? Prima era mappata strada di servizio (e non è una strada di servizio) e ti andava bene?
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-09-10 21:26:23+00:00): I wouldn't say I was okay with that. I wasn't aware of it.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
Lola Fox (2024-09-12 11:29:06+00:00): Sei completamente in errore. Io so benissimo cosa bisogna fare per non mappare per il rendering. Ciò che mi hai messo nel tuo link lo conosco benissimo. Ripeto: qua c'è una AUTOSTRADA ABBANDONATA che TUTTI possono vedere. Dal vero e dal satellite. E l'ho pure percorsa.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-09-12 12:14:14+00:00): and its tagged as such
Alexmol (2024-09-18 12:00:10+00:00): Olá.
Sobre as antenas de redes móveis recomendo leitura da Wiki em:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Key:communication:mobile_phone

Cumprimentos
Alexandre
tastrax (2024-09-10 08:53:31+00:00): I have placed the unit numbers under the addr:unit key. Are there actually multiple units at each location (ie unit 1 seems to be missing at each site)?
Peter W34 (2024-09-10 09:09:12+00:00): Hi tastrax, They aren't really units but separate houses on one large block of land. This is an upmarket area. There are no units or apartments in Windaroo. Your edit is fine with me. I was only fixing my previous edit that assumed the two houses to have separate numbers.
tastrax (2024-09-10 11:38:29+00:00): no worries - I just wondered if they were just 25 and 27 - the numbering just seems strange.
Peter W34 (2024-09-10 23:28:04+00:00): I have now fixed it. I didn’t realise it had put /2 on both houses. I used the unit tag. Though this isn't displayed in Mapnik.
mueschel (2024-09-10 17:48:00+00:00): Hallo,
bitte nutze OSM nicht als Datenbank für ein Dutzend Fotos einer Speisekarte, dafür ist hier nicht der richtige Ort.

Außerdem: Hast du eine Genehmigung dieses Material hier online zu vervielfältigen?
raincandy (2024-09-14 23:03:30+00:00): Hey!

Ich kann damit gerne aufhören, aber aber hast du eine Quelle dafür, warum man das generell nicht tun sollte?
Und wüsstest du von einem alternativem Ort, wo man solche Informationen veröffentlichen kann?

Ich halte mich gern an alle Konventionen, aber kann leider nichts zu dem Thema finden.

Hier ist es natürlich sinnvoller direkt das Menü auf der Webseite zu verlinken, vielen Dank dafür!

Wenn du meinst, dass diese Art Bilder in OSM nicht sinnvoll sind, wäre es wahrscheinlich gut, das beim Entwickler von MapComplete anzusprechen, ansonsten werd dies in Zukunft vermutlich noch wesentlich öfter passieren.

Hinsichtlich der Lizenz hast du natürlich auch Recht, ich werde in Zukunft in den Restaurants immer nachfragen!
mueschel (2024-09-15 12:29:22+00:00): Abfotografieren  und Veröffentlichen von Druckwerken ist immer ein Problem, von dem am Ende oft auch der Ladenbesitzer nichts weiß. Manch einer möchte seine Preise auch nicht im Netz veröffentlichen, deswegen muss man da dabei immer vorsichtig sein.
raincandy (2024-09-15 14:59:09+00:00): Verstehe, da werde ich darauf achten, dass ich immer vorher Einverständnis hole!

Vielen Dank für den Hinweis!
rhtb0 (2024-09-10 13:55:28+00:00): Why don't you write blank letter(　​) rather than • ?
gpserror (2024-09-10 00:39:38+00:00): ... and hit submit before finishing the changeset comment.  but anyway also changed a few service roads to driveways for indivduals, marked some roads as unpaved where visible in sat imagery, and straightened a few roads
mini-me (2024-09-10 10:59:26+00:00): I don't know what you were trying to do, but it definitely doesn't match the description. Are these freight routes?
michael63 (2024-12-27 10:32:55+00:00): Hi,
are you sure that you wanted to designate this 27 square kilometer area named "EAIS 9" as hospital? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1314532546#map=14/-1.47334/-78.01966

The initial version was created by you, the current state contains a small correction by another user.
Pan (2024-09-10 02:37:52+00:00): Sorry, the source is aSwiss Image 2024 + GWR from https://qa.poole.ch/addresses/ch/missing/5406.geojson
MapSpot (2024-09-10 19:21:12+00:00): Hello Alexander,

The building at 128 Mills Ave has already been mapped. Rather than adding a point at this location labeled "house", I added tags to the building polygon to designate it as a dethatched house.
rskedgell (2024-09-10 07:15:04+00:00): You appear to have tagged several street section as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists and have therefore reverted your edit.

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:foot

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.
SomeoneElse (2025-04-18 10:49:07+00:00): You didn't add it originally, but have you any idea what sort of building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51583113 is?  It does match OS OpenData but doesn't match Bing imagery, suggesting that something might have been rebuilt in its place?
JassKurn (2025-04-23 13:12:22+00:00): Hi,

In summary, very large and very old outbuilding.  Thick stone wall with corrugated rood. Typcial historic farm outbuilding found on Dartmoor. Associated with resdiential house to east which is missing from OSM.

I do know the area, and ironically have been delayed answering because I've been staying in Dartmoor area for the last few days. The building is easily viewed and next to a very popular PRoW in the very popular Postbridge area.

The building is a large outbuilding associated with a house to the east of it. The house and another outbuilding are missing from OSM. These buildings look newer (but still 19th Century). All on OS OpenMap Local

Bulding looks very old, with large rough granite stone construction, with a modern rusting corrugatged roof. Typical Dartmoor farm building. Now an outbuidlng for an expensive house. Confident, but can't prove, built as farm outbuilding.

So mapping original use
building=farm_auxiliary ?
or
building=outbuilding
SomeoneElse (2025-04-24 17:25:58+00:00): Thanks - makes sense.  I've changed it to "farm_auxiliary".
大山かなめ (2024-09-10 04:31:55+00:00): 過去に道路があったと考えるにも不自然なものが含まれており、最終更新が13年前など古いことから
不鮮明な衛星画像から道路でないものを誤って描いたという可能性もありそうです
happmaoo (2024-09-10 23:29:26+00:00): 66
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-17 04:10:14+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165052779
BCNorwich (2024-09-11 08:23:03+00:00): Node removed, the islet is already mapped, and I've added your new tags to the existing islet.
BCNorwich (2024-09-11 08:16:35+00:00): Reverted, the hotel and the several bars/restaurants are already mapped.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-06 04:11:02+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164574113
Kovoschiz (2024-09-10 09:07:03+00:00): Please check again. This is a `building:part=` . There is already a `building=` here.
BCNorwich (2024-09-11 08:11:42+00:00): Reverted duplication.
fortera_au (2024-09-10 06:23:37+00:00): Should the name tag include the branch name? There's a separate tag for that (branch=), and the name in person is just Bunnings Warehouse usually.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156422243
fortera_au (2024-09-10 06:25:17+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name also mentions at the bottom of the When not to use section that it usually shouldn't include location
Pakenhamin (2024-09-12 10:07:59+00:00): When I type bunnings into the gps app I get a whole list of bunnings warehouses but no clue as to which one they are.

If there was some way of seeing the suburb they were in in the search results that would be most helpful.
fortera_au (2024-09-12 22:34:50+00:00): That comes down to the app you use needing to improve, I'd recommend reaching out to them and asking them to consider appending the branch or suburb to search results
大山かなめ (2024-09-10 05:46:08+00:00): ・編集した場所は滑川町域でした
・Esriで存在を確認した道路を地理院地図からトレースしています（Bingにはまだない道路）
前のコメントからコピーしたため、以上の2点を間違えていましたので訂正します。
BCNorwich (2024-09-11 08:04:34+00:00): The boundary already exists and the relevant relations hold the descriptive tags. I've reverted/removed.
woodpeck (2024-11-30 12:10:52+00:00): This changeset seems to have removed some addresses like e.g. here https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/342302798/history - was that intentional and if yes, why?
osmviborg (2024-11-30 12:15:09+00:00): Yes, in DK we prefer to only have addresses on the address- nodes.
BCNorwich (2024-09-11 07:58:38+00:00): Deleted highway reinstated.
mariotomo (2024-11-11 14:25:24+00:00): hola. en acuerdo con cómo OSM interpreta (y pues también renderiza) los "place" y los "landuse", tenemos un acuerdo que se utilizan nodos para los place=town y áreas para landuse=residential.
con este conjunto de cambios desaparecieon tanto el área residencial como el nombre del pueblo.
voy a hacer un 'revert' parcial.
mariotomo (2024-11-11 14:28:13+00:00): recupero el nodo del place=town Pesé.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159011411
mariotomo (2024-11-11 14:32:45+00:00): recupero el área residencial de Pesé.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159011611
BCNorwich (2024-09-11 07:43:16+00:00): Requested Review, There are many problems mostly your addition of fiction. I'll revert the changeset.

Please don't add fiction or corrupt the database.

Regards Bernard.
mavl (2024-09-10 13:36:13+00:00): Здравствуйте. Адресную информацию лучше не удалять. Кому-то может понадобиться найти просто адрес без привязки к зданию или участку. Кроме того, есть вероятность, что на этом месте будет здание с таким же адресом.  

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/238393222/history
user_20909876 (2024-09-11 11:20:54+00:00): Исправлено: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156478428
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-16 11:28:18+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12167478888/history https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12322928784/history

is there a hospital/doctor here?

Or is it abandoned and inactive healthcare location?
Frans S (2024-10-11 10:19:52+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. 
A remark about the way high rise or multi-story buildings are often mapped 
On the imagery, you see both the roof and a sidewall (with multiple floors) 
The imagery is taken under a certain degree and shows you the height of a building.
Don't map both the roof and the sidewalls as 1 building.
Draw just the rooflines as a building and move it to the building's footprint.
See this clip.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V5-bADsYiffCD9bo6l64YOdTvmKqMGry/view?usp=sharing
giggls (2024-09-10 06:56:51+00:00): Was machst Du da? Erst reverten und dann doch nicht?
cuzi (2024-09-10 07:07:36+00:00): Sorry, zuerst dachte ich das wäre Vandalismus daher hatte ich es reverted, aber scheinbar wurden die Campingplätze von dem Betreiberverein gelöscht, der mir jetzt rechtliche Schritte angedroht hat wenn ich sie nicht lösche.
giggls (2024-09-10 07:11:07+00:00): Du hast keinen Vertrag mit denen es ist nicht illegal das zu mappen. Wir hatten das Thema auch in anderen Regionen.
mariotomo (2024-12-25 06:45:31+00:00): hola. gracias por la contribución, cuidado con el etiquetaje de los objetos.
las rutas de acceso a las gasolineras no repiten el nombre de la gasolinera, y no son rutas de parqueo.
ygcgjp5 (2025-08-10 09:04:09+00:00): Kas ten per bokštas Savičiūnų kultūros centre?
Resutas (2025-08-10 10:29:05+00:00): Techninis bokštas. Su antenomis, garsiakalbiais ir pan.
Johnwhelan (2025-03-16 14:02:42+00:00): I can see the wall but no building.
Langlaeufer (2024-09-16 14:17:05+00:00): Die Verkehrsschilder müssen nur an Straßen wiederholt werden - nichct an Ein/Ausfahrten. Von daher würde ich nicht sagen das der Fußweg dort traffic_sign=none hat. Sonst wären dort auch kein Radverkehr erlaubt oder es wäre ein sonstiger gemeinsammer Rad- und Fußweg
Taksine (2024-09-13 04:30:36+00:00): 你是汕头本地人，还是外国人？这里并非只是给英语国家用的地图，你要写英文得加到对应的语言名称上来，而名称本身要写这个国家自己的语言，这里是中国，你要写中文。
Syl (2024-09-20 13:16:33+00:00): Bonjour, je viens d'annuler ces modifications.
SNT Lycée Beghin ROLLAND (2024-09-20 14:21:59+00:00): Bonjour,
Merci pour votre vigilance, je n'avais pas relu les bêtises qu'ont fait les élèves.
Comment faites-vous pour annuler les modifications ?
Merci beaucoup
Mr ROLLAND
Syl (2024-09-21 11:01:30+00:00): Bonjour, je n'ai corrigé que les plus grosses erreurs (principalement les suppressions et les déplacements de nœuds incorrects), je vous laisse vérifier plus en détail le reste.
Pour annuler j'utilise un plugin dans JOSM qui permet de revenir sur les modifications d'un ou plusieurs groupes de modifications puis d'envoyer ces données dans OSM (avec la possibilité de ne revenir que sur une partie des modifications). Il existe également une interface pour annuler la totalité d'un groupe de modification : https://revert.monicz.dev/
Il s'agit en faite de créer une nouvelle versions des objets en se basant sur une version antérieure, les modifications problématiques sont toujours dans l'historique.
SNT Lycée Beghin ROLLAND (2024-09-23 07:57:57+00:00): Merci beaucoup !
ObscureAngel (2024-10-09 09:03:46+00:00): Bonjour, merci pour votre contribution :)

Effectivement le chemin est visible depuis l'imagerie aérienne. Je valide vos modifications.

Bonne journée et bonne cartographie :)
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156425124
Syl (2024-09-20 13:12:36+00:00): Bonjour, je viens d'annuler ces modifications.
Syl (2024-09-20 13:11:43+00:00): Bonjour, je viens d'annuler ces modifications.
Syl (2024-09-20 13:11:45+00:00): Bonjour, je viens d'annuler ces modifications.
Syl (2024-09-20 13:10:10+00:00): Bonjour, je viens d'annuler cette modification.
NM$L (2024-09-12 10:22:19+00:00): Hello @cngvng,
This area (including the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands) is a disputed territory, which should be tagged in the language of the country that actually controls the territory; information about territorial disputes is typically noted in administrative relations and tags. Simply renaming elements to quotes like "quần đảo Hoàng Sa" is a destructive behavior, and does not help on labeling features on disputed territories. Therefore, I have restored some of the damaged data because OSM follows the "de facto" principle. If you still have questions, feel free to communicate.
cngvng (2024-09-12 10:38:53+00:00): Hi, 
First of all, I would like to extract some evidence: "From the first half of the 17th century, Lord Nguyen organized a "Hoang Sa team" (taking people from An Vinh commune, Binh Son district, Quang Ngai province) to the Paracel Islands (with a period of six to eight months per year) to collect goods drifting on the sea, catch rare seafood; at the same time, measuring diagrams, nautical charts, planting trees and setting up landmarks on the islands.

Also with this task, until the 19th century, the Nguyen Dynasty organized more "Bac Hai team" (taking people from Tu Chinh village and Canh Duong commune, Binh Thuan province) to advance to the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa islands to carry out sovereign actions here. According to the geographical understanding at that time, the name of the Paracel Islands was adjacent to a strip, including the Paracels and the Spratlys.

That proves that since the 17th century, Vietnam has established and exercised sovereignty over the two archipelagos of the Paracels and the Spratlys when these two islands were still unmatored territories and can be said to be the only country to exercise sovereignty over these two islands peacefully, continuously and without encountering opposition from any country.

This fact is proven in many documents, ancient books, legal documents of the State, maps showing the exercise of Vietnam's sovereignty over the two archipelagos of the Paracels and the Spratlys kept in Vietnam and many countries around the world such as: The Complete collection of Thien Nam Four Chi Roads of Do Ba, the Cong Dao self collected, compiled and completed in 1686; Le Quy Don's chronicle (1776); Phan Huy Chu's charter dynasty calendar (1821); Hoang Viet Geography (1833); Dai Nam real land in front border (1844-1848); Dai Nam real land main border (1844-1848), Vietnamese history review strategy (1876), Dai Nam Nhat Thong Chi (1882); Dai Nam real record (1910); Overseas chronicle (1696) of Chinese monk Thich Dai San; The main border (1910), An Nam great national map of French bishop Louis Taberd (1838), Dai Nam unified map (Official map of the Ming Mang dynasty) (1838)...". Therefore, this is not a dispute but an arbitrarial invasion of Vietnamese territory. If you consider this as a disputed territory, the names of the islands must use international names, or international languages, not Chinese (which is the language of a country participating in the invasion of the islands). I strongly oppose the behavior of OpenStreetMap. Thanks.
NM$L (2024-09-12 11:24:08+00:00): "OpenStreetMap maps world as it exists, and includes mapping borders and countries according to actual current situation and not a preferred or ideal situation." (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputed_territories)

OSM follows the de-facto policy which is equal to every country. China also has many historical material to support its claim from of old until in now, like 诸蕃志 said China has administrated this area since A.D.789 (under 振州's administration), 四海测验 (1279), 琼台外记 (Ming), 琼州府志 (1841), etc. If every country maps as its claim, the map would be in a mess. So, OSM follows the de-facto to map the real world rather than somebody's imagination world.
cngvng (2024-09-12 23:55:18+00:00): So if so, why is it placed in Chinese on the islands, Although the Openstreet map platform is an open source mechanism, having a large number of developers participating and developing, which in the long run will affect people's perception of these two areas?
NM$L (2024-09-13 06:47:48+00:00): I have mentioned that OSM follows the de-facto policy, so labels for China controlled area should be labeled in Chinses, same as Vietnam controlled area labeled in Vietnamese.
Syl (2024-09-20 13:07:51+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai annulé la suppression de ce bâtiment.
habi (2024-10-17 09:03:28+00:00): Ciao Mi_Luz

Ich bin auf einer grossen Korrekturaktion komischer `level`-Werte in der Schweiz, da ist mir `level=bettenstation_6._og` hier aufgefallen.
Aus Datensicht macht das keinen Sinn, das hier auf dem Umriss des Kantonsspitals zu erfassen, da die Bettenstation glaub's nicht global im 6. Stock ist.
Kannst du erklären, was das mit "Rescuetrack Nutzung" zum Ziel hat?
Hat das einen Zusammenhang mit https://www.rescuetrack.de/ ?

Gruss aus Bern,
habi
habi (2024-11-01 08:55:31+00:00): Ciao Mi_Luz

Da nach 14 Tagen keine Antwort von dir kam, habe ich dein Changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158609351 rückgängig gemacht.
Falls der Wert irgendwo 'wichtig' ist, helfe ich dir gerne, den sinnvoll irgendwo einzutragen, eine Diskussion gerne hier oder im Schweizer Teil des OpenStreetMap-Forums unter https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/ch/107

Gruss,
habi
eggie (2024-09-10 09:11:17+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback Let op dat je de paden niet vastplakt aan de landuse.
informal=yes gebruiken we voor een olifantenpaadje.
Wanneer je op priveterrein welkom bent dat kun je foot=permissive bijtaggen. 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-09-10 09:16:15+00:00): Het pad heb ik losgemaakt van de landuse en de sloten.
De linker alttoets gebruiken tijdens intekenen voorkomt plakken bij editor iD.
Groet
eggie
woodpeck (2024-09-10 09:07:25+00:00): Dear someone123457, please be careful when assigning name tags on OpenStreetMap. Only use the name that is indeed advertised on signs; don't add helpful explanations. For example, only use "Courtyard Amarillo Downtown" for a hotel name when that's what it says on the big sign. If the sign only says "Courtyard" then that's what goes in the name tag. Same for parking garages - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403173998 should only be called "Happy State Bank Parking Garage" if that is what is on the sign. Generally the fact that it is a parking garage is already well represented by the amenity=parking tags.
tastrax (2024-09-10 10:25:54+00:00): Hi Folks - rather than delete objects and then redraw them its best practice to edit existing features. This maintains the history of past edits (Franklin Square paths). Cheers
eggie (2024-09-10 11:03:20+00:00): Dag Hein  Svp niet de BAGdata verwijderen.
Ik heb het hersteld.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-09-10 11:01:46+00:00): De info verplaatst naar de adresnode.
companytag toegevoegd.
Svp niet de gebouwomtrekken gebruiken.
MVG
eggie
infeeeee (2024-09-10 13:19:07+00:00): Szia! 

A shop=* címkét levetted a pontról, és nem raktál helyette semmilyen elsődleges címkét, így ez "el fog tűnni" a térképekről, mert nem tudják hogyan kell megjeleníteni.

Mi ez? Valami óvoda-bölcsőde szerű intézmény?