piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
olimago (2025-07-14 18:48:16+00:00): Hi, thanks for your alert.
It was a mistype, i meant batteries.
Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168931447#map=19/45.848219/3.531297
scarapella (2025-09-22 11:20:51+00:00): Hello Dartmouthmapmaker,

Thank you for your contributions to openstreetmap.

I noticed that i this changeset you added the name to the natural=water + water-river relation for the saint john https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18254505 and tobique rivers https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6376043

According to the english and french wiki articles 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:water=river

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:water%3Driver

the names should remain only on the waterway=river.  

I propose then to revert this part of the changes.  

As  side note, maintaining giant multipolygon relations such as you've created is tough, and not necessary.  In some cases (like naming of rapids) it can even be impossible and may also be counter productive for performance as to render a small area the maps may have to retrieve data from very far afield. 

Cheers,
Sean
scarapella (2025-09-22 20:11:55+00:00): Hello again,

I propose to do a partial, manual rollback of this changest to return the rapids tagging to be in line with the guidelines and practices stated above.  Namely removing the name from the natural=water + water=river area as it already exists on the waterway=river and breaking the natural=water + water=river multi-polygon into more manageable chunks. 

Cheers,
scarapella
German C (2025-12-05 12:20:07+00:00): Hola Lolj, ¿por que eliminaste los 32 edificios que fueron creados en el 2016? https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=168761705 (en rojo están resaltados los edificios que eliminaste) no se deben eliminar edificios y volverlos a crear en el mismo sitio https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Mantener_el_historial
flohoff (2025-07-11 09:06:49+00:00): Moin,
good catch hier - hab erst ein wenig gerätselt aber auf den Ampeln fehlten die forward/backwards ;) Scheint auch bei oneways einen unterschied zu machen - sehr seltsam. Vermutlich ein Bug im OSRM.

https://osm.zz.de/routeqa/?rid=1055433,1083017
user_5359 (2025-07-12 09:56:26+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/1413960126. What is the mean of the tags
ACCES_VL = Libre
ACQU_ALTI = BDTopo
ACQU_PLANI = BDTopo
DATE_CREAT = 2006-10-12 15:18:01
DATE_MAJ = 2012-01-25 07:48:13
IMPORTANCE = 5
INSEECOM_D = 17466
INSEECOM_G = 17466
PREC_ALTI = 1.5
PREC_PLANI = 2.5
PRIVE = Non
SENS = Double sens
URBAIN = Non
VIT_MOY_VL = 1
?
Canard164 (2025-07-12 10:47:12+00:00): Hello! These tags were in the original data source I used (BD TOPO) and I forgot to delete them on this track segment before submitting my modifications. They have no meaning in OpenStreetMap.
Thank you for the heads up!
By the way, how dit you manage to find my mistake? I realize I have to improve my checks before committing changes…
user_5359 (2025-07-12 10:52:53+00:00): Did you know https://osm.mueschelsoft.de/taginfo/newkeys.htm ?
Canard164 (2025-07-12 11:00:54+00:00): No, I didn’t know this website. Thank you for this link. Have a nice day!
wildmaps (2025-07-10 21:33:02+00:00): *Codice di Avviamento Postale 57037
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-11 16:57:00+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/692317617/history has amenity = convenience that was added in this edit
What was meant by amenity=convenience? Is it a convenience shop? Then shop=convenience is likely a better tagging, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=convenience .
TJ Clark (2025-12-11 18:22:40+00:00): Updated to shop=convenience. Thank you for finding that.
Sun2306 (2025-07-11 17:36:10+00:00): Thank you for your help; I'll be more careful and proper in adding Lillooet alt place names in the future (and for places with a Lillooet name but no real common English one)
eerib (2025-07-11 19:06:05+00:00): No worries. Getting these Indigenous names into OSM is really great work!
TrickyFoxy (2025-07-11 00:04:01+00:00): Не, вы всё правильно в первый раз сделали. Не нужно ещё раз обводить. Просто карта не успела перерисоваться.
Bienson (2025-07-10 23:58:32+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168764791
Sylabowy Kot (2025-07-11 08:34:26+00:00): O, to ci ciekawostka! 👍
dsaneus (2025-07-11 07:39:42+00:00): Hola,
el Arco Noroeste pasa a integrarse en la A-30, igual que la MU-30 [enlace A-7 - enlace MU-31] y MU-31. Los tramos de la actual A-30 [Archena - centros comerciales] y [enlace A-7 Guadalupe - enlace MU-31] pasan a ser MU-32 y MU-33, respectivamente, según planificación de la Demarcación de Carreteras.
Lo que no sé es cuándo se hará efectivo este cambio, si hoy con la inauguración o en los próximos meses.
Estoy a la espera de las informaciones que salgan hoy para realizar los cambios.
~dsaneus
dsaneus (2025-07-11 10:25:54+00:00): Pues ya se sabe: se han abierto los dos tramos sin nomenclatura, con señalización provisional. La numeración de las salidas sí que es la definitiva, siguiendo la kilometración de la A-30.
Autopistero20502020 (2025-07-16 16:48:45+00:00): Hola, dsaneus:

Muchas gracias por la información, ahora esta todo claro. Con los 2 tramos abiertos, se queda la nomenclatura provisional: AN-30. Cuando se inaugure el tramo C, cambiará a la A-30 y sustituirá la parte de la MU-30 y desaparecerá la MU-31 y así renombraremos la MU-32 y MU-33 en los tramos actuales de la A-30 en las cercanías de Murcia.

De momento, no era necesario realizar los cambios solo las relaciones, no las etiquetas del trayecto que se queda como esta.

Saludos.
Leo Slager (2025-07-12 11:05:35+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
Fizzie-DWG (2025-10-11 23:20:17+00:00): DWG revert, apparent sockpuppet, poor quality mapping, unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173158841
German C (2025-12-04 16:58:28+00:00): Hola Lolj, ¿por que eliminaste las 18 casas que estaban por la carrera 2? https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=168764618 (En rojo están resaltadas la casas que eliminaste)
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-07-11 05:55:36+00:00): Hello, why did you upgrade Tree Line Drive to secondary? Sloan Lane and Vegas Valley Drive are at least longer and provide an alternate route between Sahara and Desert Inn. But Tree Line Drive is not as wide as the former two and runs through a residential area. Though I was unable to find traffic data for the route, RTC bus route 206 (Charleston) has its eastern terminus at Tree Line Drive. So, what gives? Thanks.
Joseph R P (2025-07-12 00:09:49+00:00): I upgraded it to secondary since it is definitely a wider, busier, and certainly a higher-priority route—granted it carries a bus route, has more access to amenities like schools, a park, and a church, and intersects two primary roads plus another secondary route in the southern end. 

Now, that I think about it, I'm more on the fence. Comparing it to obviously more important secondary roads in the valley or Desert Inn or Pecos it's probably a tertiary road, but for the area it's located in, it's definitely an important road. However, it might not be too different from your run-of-the-mill grid tertiary collector road which will normally link to school and parks and at some point connect to other major secondary/primary roads in most cases, and Tree Line Drive may just be an high-traffic anomaly/exception. I'm not too sure, but I think that the way it is now probably makes sense.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-07-12 00:43:59+00:00): Alrighty. The portion between Charleston and Sahara is notably wider than the portion between Sahara and Vegas Valley and traverses residential areas. Plus, if I recall correctly, the bus route portion of Charleston continues onto Sahara for a little bit.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-10-11 23:29:59+00:00): DWG revert, apparent sockpuppet, poor quality mapping, unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173159012
Frans S (2025-07-13 08:27:21+00:00): Hello , I have a question
You mapped canals here from south west - north east. Also canals west-east without connecting them to the canal southwest - north east.
I think, difficult to see, that there should be a culvert to make it possible that there is a water flow to irrigate the farmland.
What is your opinion ?
gnoye (2025-07-14 20:43:53+00:00): Hi @Frans S, yes I have faced this issue many times and without being able to identify a culvert, I assume that controlling the flow of water from one canal to another must be done manually. Best regards.
mueschel (2025-07-15 14:09:12+00:00): Hi,
please check this way, something went wrong with the destination tags:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1413983936
tontonfabrice (2025-07-16 05:27:10+00:00): Hello

I did make a mistake, thank you for pointing it out.

It's been corrected.
StC (2025-07-22 21:11:15+00:00): Bonjour,

l'historique de la relation 2785102 est trop gros pour se charger dans JOSM donc je ne peux pas vérifier, mais il me semble que c'est ce changeset qui a bouleversé l'ordre des membres dans la relation, et l'a donc rendu impossible à gérer pour les algorithmes de routage. Je vais tenter la remise en ordre.
tontonfabrice (2025-07-23 07:43:22+00:00): Bonjour,
pouvez vous me préciser les modifications que vous avez faites, afin que je puisse comprendre d'où venait l'erreur ?
merci
Udarian (2025-07-11 02:59:49+00:00): whats the source for this contribution
Udarian (2025-07-11 19:32:08+00:00): could you please give a better explanation of what you did in this change set please, so that other contributors can better understand what was done here and what you are trying to achieve. 

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Udarian (2025-07-12 21:31:08+00:00): please respond
Udarian (2025-07-19 05:03:21+00:00): please respond
無限の刃 (2025-07-12 01:27:04+00:00): They need "name:ja" Japanese name key.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#Repeating_name_with_language_specific_tag
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-08-28 12:30:21+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12993513354

is it cave entrance? Is it temple? is it both?
SD Mapman (2025-07-16 22:17:22+00:00): Hey, it looks like this could have been re-tagged with a better tagging scheme instead of deleted (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_bookcase). Could this be reverted please?
SD Mapman (2025-07-16 22:18:06+00:00): In my defense I don't think that tag existed 11 years ago (or I didn't look then)
andrewth1 (2025-07-17 00:36:01+00:00): Reverted, however I find it suspicious that a public bookcase has such a lengthy name. Do you know why this is the case?
SD Mapman (2025-07-17 01:58:06+00:00): Don't know, just copied the label that was on it
SD Mapman (2025-07-17 01:58:28+00:00): Last time I looked most of the letters had peeled off, it was more substantial 11 years ago
SD Mapman (2025-07-17 02:02:32+00:00): also thank you!
dreua (2025-07-12 10:29:52+00:00): Danke :)
Branko Kokanovic (2025-12-21 16:02:15+00:00): You just created vandalism. There is no such thing as "mazin blok", someone is just toying with you. If you knew language, you would know... also you are not looking at government open data, I am not sure how many times we need to tell you to NOT add/change street names
LemonEarlMapper (2025-12-22 21:05:25+00:00): Hello Branko Kokanovic, thank you for reaching out. BerbiceRiver is no longer on our team, so I’m responding on their behalf. 
I believe there may be a misunderstanding regarding what occurred in this changeset. No street names were newly added or altered by BerbiceRiver. The now-deleted way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339232839) was originally created in 2015 by the user acamaxitaxi as a residential road with the tag name=Mazin Blok. Additional name tagging was later added by the user Christophorus, and in 2023 the way was reclassified from residential to service by eclipse28. 
In this changeset, BerbiceRiver extended the existing service way, then split it and reclassified part of it as a footway, removing the name tag from that portion. This resulted in the newer history remaining on the service way and the older history being associated with the footway. After reconsidering the verifiability of the footway, it was removed entirely, which caused its history to no longer be visible, but it can still be viewed by undeleting the way. 
I understand that preserving feature history is an important practice in OSM, and that editing in this manner can create confusion for future contributors. My sincere apologies for this oversight. Our team is aware of the community’s preference not to update street names in Serbia, and we will continue to respect and follow this guidance in future edits. 
I hope this clarifies what occurred, but I’m happy to provide additional context if anything remains unclear. 

Hope you have a nice day!
Branko Kokanovic (2025-12-23 20:18:28+00:00): Oh, it was my mistake, I didn't check history properly. Sorry for my comment and for causing you inconvenience!
diodaix (2025-07-28 15:31:45+00:00): manuruik wak indak paralu agiah namo nagari dek lah ado tag is_in:village nan manunjuak di nagari ma latak jorong ko angku
honnip (2025-07-11 04:51:30+00:00): Hello. 
It has been agreed in the Korean community that the name should include the word '특별시' (and '광역시', '도', '시' etc)
Please refer https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/topic/85627
NeisBot (2025-07-11 05:26:35+00:00): Hi small_dragon, welcome and thank you for your contribution to the OSM project!

To help improve collaboration and make your edits easier for others to understand, please consider providing brief descriptions of your changes in the comment field. This will make it easier for the community to follow your adjustments. You can find some helpful tips on good comments here: https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Furthermore, based on your map edits in this changeset, I’ve drafted a suggestion for what a comment could look like: "Added address tags to several ways, including street and house numbers."

PS: I’ve also sent this message via the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#HelpfulComment #NoComment #AIgenerated
small_dragon (2025-07-11 05:58:31+00:00): I added street numbers cuz I tried to use navigation to friend's house, found that it was a mess and no numbers attached to buildings, so dug up the city public records, confirmed with my friend the data was accurate, and punched in the data so that hopefully on my next trip I can just punch in the street number and comaps will just take me there 

Apologies if the edits are a tad annoying, comaps UI for updating this ain't the greatest
small_dragon (2025-07-11 06:04:35+00:00): Oh, I just realised that you're a llm bot and not a person :/
NeisReview (2025-07-11 06:11:58+00:00): Thank you very much for your response. Yes, it’s a bot that tries to give new members a tip in the first step. All interactions after that are handled by a human :)

#HappyMapping
small_dragon (2025-07-11 07:01:58+00:00): well, for context, i used the city data available from https://www.welland.ca/Maps/PropPages/streets/Claremount-Circle.htm to try and mark the building numbers more accurately instead of the inaccurate noting that is there. the existing denotation makes it seem that there's a 1 claremount circle, when there is no such address! the lowest street number on claremount circle is a 3!
map per (2025-07-16 11:01:44+00:00): Please don't copy data from welland.ca to OpenStreetMap because the data on that site is copy right protected:

"No part of this web site, or information displayed on it, or hard copies made from it may be reproduced and/or distributed without written permission from the City. The information remains the property of the City of Welland and it's suppliers, except the Google Street ViewTM images. Users are not permitted to sell, re-license, or collect fees for this information, nor provide this information to another for commercial purposes."
Jarek 🚲 (2025-07-15 15:00:22+00:00): Hey, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1414000295 still has access=private here, I'm assuming that's an error?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-29 09:59:49+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12993629036/history has fixme:type = stationary that was added in this edit
Is it an attempt to map shop=stationery? ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dstationery )
Something else?
NeisBot (2025-07-11 05:28:23+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Comment #Description
NeisReview (2025-07-18 05:13:55+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted due to lack of response from the original contributor by https://osm.org/changeset/169089332
osmviborg (2025-07-11 05:56:27+00:00): 'access=no' på en hæk har absolut ingen virkning på navigation. Mht til den flyttede addresse, så går der tid, uger, før ændringen slår igennem hos de virksomheder der bruger data fra OSM. OSM er en database, ikke et kort med her og nu navigation.
MrManor (2025-07-13 15:21:19+00:00): Tak for info, hækken var i øvrigt ikke min idé, men en anden der forsøgte at hjælpe med problemet. Du har vel ikke en anden idé til, hvordan man så løser problemet for nummer 120, 214 og mange andre på den vej. Er det acceptabelt at flytte husnummeret udenfor bygningskroppen? (og kan man få kommunen til at acceptere det og indføre det i DAR). Jeg forsøgte også med en "vej" gennem haven, men det så heller ikke ud til at hjælpe.
Jeg er klar over det tager tid inden Flextrafik og andre får opdateret deres kort, men man kan jo teste ændringen efter kort i på OSM web.
osmviborg (2025-07-13 15:41:24+00:00): Bekendtgørelse om vejnavne og adresser siger: "Adgangspunktet placeres ca. 3 meter inden for omridset af den bygning eller det jordstykke, som adressen hører til".
Jeg tvivler på at kommunen går på kompromis med det. Undlad venligst at flytte på adressepunkterne.
MrManor (2025-07-14 18:00:26+00:00): Ked af at være påholdende, men der bor ældre borgere i kvarteret der har problemer med at få Flextrafik til at hente dem, når de skal til hospitalet eller andet. Flextrafik henviser selv til at de benytter OSM. 
Tak for oplysning om bekendtgørelsen, jeg vil forelægge den for Grundejerforeningen, så de kan rette henvendelse til kommunen.
A67-A67 (2025-08-15 21:41:29+00:00): Deze wijziging is incorrect. Volgens de BAG en BGT is de straatnaam Ravenseweg in Hellevoetsluis en Ravensweg in Oudenhoorn. Ik heb de straatnaam Ravensweg hersteld.
NeisBot (2025-07-11 05:51:35+00:00): Hi TereseWilcock123456789, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 89% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
No primary map features!?

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

Looking forward to your response.

PS: I have also sent this message through the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=168775091
TereseWilcock_GISOfficer_IRC (2025-07-11 05:54:54+00:00): just deleting nodes to realign a boundary. I'm not finished yet but it's not a mistake
Alliegaytor (2025-07-12 22:33:05+00:00): 
Hi,

Just a few things that might be of use:

1. You may want to add `public_transport:version=2` to the route relations so that editors and error checking tools can better understand which pt version is being used. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:public_transport:version)

2. The platform and stop members in the relation should have the platform and stop roles respectively, and are usually ordered as the first members of the relation in this sequence; stop, platform, stop, platform... from where the route starts to where it ends. This helps keep the stops grouped together and also signifies that they are stops and platforms rather than ways the train would traverse on (i.e. ways with no roles).

E.g.: in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19343119 at the top of the relation: West Footscray stop as the role *stop* followed by the respective platform as the role *platform*, then the Middle Footscray stop and platform, and so on until the last station Westall. 

3. To understand which relations are route variations of a "master" route they are added as members to a super relation called a route_master https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route_master . This helps a lot when editing and can save a lot of time figuring out which relations exist for a particular route.

4. I'd probably use different names to what you've used for the routes, but I'm not sure what the general consensus is for what the name should be for a train route (at least here in melb). Generally having what the route is actually called is a good start. (For instance, the Sunbury Line is generally called the Sunbury Line rather than *Start* => *Destination* like what you changed its name to. So I changed it to Sunbury Line: *Start* => *Destination* here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168814202))

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions about routes. I can send some more documentation if that would be helpful :)
LachlanTansey2009 (2025-08-06 23:11:56+00:00): Hello,
I have since replaced these relations with new ones using the correct order and the "public_transport:version=2" tag.
Alliegaytor (2025-08-08 12:44:01+00:00): Thank you. I've noticed and am glad you've fixed those relations.

Your contributions here are invaluable and you've already added more route relations than I have in such a short time. Really appreciate your work here :)

I've been fixing minor issues with the routes whenever they come up, but it's so much easier now to add a missing way or to change a stop role when it's already in order and done properly.
LachlanTansey2009 (2025-08-09 00:43:33+00:00): Hello,
Thank you for this feedback and thank you for fixing these minor issues. I really appreciate the help I get with my edits.
user_5359 (2025-07-12 09:54:25+00:00): Hello! Please have alook on http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/27FB . What is the mean of the tags
Lankroll = Normal
Ordningsnummer = 5125
Vard = Ja
?
ChristianA (2025-07-12 09:58:00+00:00): Hej. That is probably some error in the parsing of the upstream data (NVDB) that is converted into OSM-files for importing. I will manually fix the roads as soon as I can.
rskedgell (2025-07-11 08:57:45+00:00): Removing the highway=trunk tag from part of the Westbound carriageway of the A232 Barclay Road doesn't strike me as being particularly professional. If this hadn't been fixed promptly, it would have caused problems for OSM-based routing software.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168784365
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-08-11 21:54:36+00:00): Are you sure that this building is addressed as "Treess"?
NeisBot (2025-07-11 06:34:32+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Comment #Description
NeisReview (2025-07-18 05:41:57+00:00): ✅ Corrected by https://osm.org/changeset/168780132
flohoff (2025-07-11 08:38:51+00:00): Moin, 
den changeset verstehe ich nicht. Nur durch die teilung eines weges mit identischen tags ändert sich ja das routing hier nicht?

Flo
Glocke-Oelde (2025-07-11 09:00:57+00:00): Hi Flo,
das ist richtig. Der Weg ist auch nicht offiziell gesperrt, so das man nach STVO durchfahren könnte. Mit der Teilung kann ich mittlerweile in unserer Software zwischen zwei Punkten Sperren ohne die Daten hier in OSM zu tangieren :)

Viele Grüße aus Oelde, Patrick