piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Nakaner (2024-10-08 12:50:28+00:00): Hallo,

prüfst du die Inhalte der Notes eigentlich? Machst du Recherche vor Ort?

Viele Grüße

Michael
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157559340
unzow (2024-10-08 13:20:36+00:00): Ich erwäge bzw. prüfe vor jeder Änderung ob Autor des Hinweises und vorgeschlagene edits plausibel erscheinen - sollte ich Zweifel haben kommentiere ich, und-oder mache keine Änderungen.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:21:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:14:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
aceman444 (2025-01-26 23:59:10+00:00): Hi, please don't add duplicate and incomplete addresses like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12230507547. Also do not put outdoor_seating=no on objects like building where they do not make much sense.
The building does have 18 levels (you count the ground floor too in OSM into building:levels).
The position of the parkings at LIGET and parking roof are very imprecise. I am not sure which Ortofotomozaika you used, because the old one (2020) does not show the building yet, the new one (2023) would show you you have placed the objects wrongly. So that is weird. I will fix it, but please improve your process.

The grass areas at Topolcianska look right, but there is no real wild grassland in this area, it is all managed grass. See the description at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dgrassland .
Also you should have connected the big grass area to the adjoining water polygon of Chorvátske rameno, as there is no gap between them (grass touches the water).
andriu44 (2025-01-05 02:30:03+00:00): Boardman Place seems to have the wrong type of highway tag - it is functionally a footway not a pedestrianized street, where vehicles could be expected. 

The presence of a green street sign does not imply the presence of a street - only a public way that is in the city's register. In this case, Boardman Pl does not have an easement as seen in the city assessor's map. https://gis.cambridgema.gov/blockmaps/Block_76.pdf

It does seem like there is a street center line (i.e. registered public way) that surrounds 11-15 Boardman St on three sides - perhaps a footway is better for that case?
StreetSurveyor (2025-01-05 02:41:37+00:00): I do not agree. If you click edit on Boardman Pl as it is currently set as a pedestrian street, you will see the access attributes automatically sets automotive=no.

Additionally, you will find Boardman Pl listed in the city's GIS: 
https://www.axisgis.com/cambridgema
andriu44 (2025-01-05 03:00:54+00:00): Functionally, Boardman place isn't wide enough to be a "pedestrianized street" - which is what the pedestrianized tag is supposed to represent.  Note the last sentence in the opening pargraphs of the pedestrianised street wiki page. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian

The City's GIS represents all registered (but city-owned) public ways. That is, there is some amount of legal access. Regardless, ownership doesn't imply what to do with the highway tag. The function of the public way, in this case is much more a footway than a pedestrianised street.
StreetSurveyor (2025-01-05 03:20:17+00:00): If it's registered as a street with a name, it should be listed as such.  A footway is not a "street". That reference says "generally wider" but that doesn't mean that's common mapping practice here as it even states: "Scope of this tag may overlap with highway=footway, which is generally used for narrower, often unnamed, pedestrian pathways and sidewalks. The distinction between the two may be region-specific."
andriu44 (2025-01-06 18:30:39+00:00): This is a narrow, named pathway. And until your changes now how this set of privately-owned public ways have been tagged.

Sorry, my comment should've said *This is registered but not city owned) "public way". Private "public way" signage is placed to give people information but not designating it as a proper street. 

Again, looking at the functionality, which is what should be mapped - this is a (named!) footway.
Udarian (2024-10-06 23:03:59+00:00): ignore the warnings:ambiguous_crossing:crossing_conflict they are from ways that are tagged correctly and Rapid wants to add implied tags on crossings; they are not ambiguous. aka crossing=uncontrolled & unmarked imply crossing:signals=no and crossing=crossing=traffic_signals implies crossing:signals=yes so I am not adding duplicated information.
ManuelB701 (2024-10-07 20:20:03+00:00): Ich stimme nicht zu mit der Umänderung von w31294388 und w1315565296 in highway=busway, da es sich nicht per-se um Busspuren sich handelt.

Sieh auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbusway, unter "Physically-separated bus bypass lanes", warum primary_link hier besser geeignet ist.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:19:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:23:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:19:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:15:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
CurlingMan13 (2024-10-08 23:13:49+00:00): Thanks for updating.

You don't need to add a name.  You can just remove it.  Names should only be the official name, and not descriptive, such as "(Empty)".  I have updated it for you.  :)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:18:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
BCNorwich (2024-10-08 07:09:26+00:00): Hi, Sorry to say that you've duplicated several sections of highways placing a highway directly on top of another highway. The duplication will probably disrupt routing. I would normally correct these but there are a lot of relations involved which are mixed between the duplicated highways. So, it will take some time to study and sort out the relationships. The duplications are to be seen here:- https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-1.08743&lat=53.50308&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas

If you need help please ask, I'll see what I can do.

Regards Bernard.
jordie8396 (2024-10-08 12:48:33+00:00): Hi, I did not realise duplicates of highway ways had been created - I believed most the work I've been doing was relations only. Thanks for information me, I shall go through and check the issues!
Regards Jordan
BCNorwich (2024-10-12 05:49:16+00:00): Hi, Thanks for sorting out the duplicated highways.

There remains only one problem area here:- https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/107321#map=17/53.486440/-1.048658   There are duplicated highways on the roundabout and sections missing from relation 107321

Regards Bernard.
pyram (2025-06-18 09:50:30+00:00): Hi wildmaps,

please check your imports better.
By example
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1321717952
or
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1321717929
(see also https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=tagging&lon=10.40911&lat=42.73029&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=nodes_with_empty_k%2Cways_with_empty_k%2Cnodes_with_empty_v%2Cways_with_empty_v%2Cnode_tags_with_whitespace%2Cway_tags_with_whitespace%2Cnode_with_unusual_char%2Cway_with_unusual_char%2Cnode_with_short_or_long_key%2Cway_with_short_or_long_key%2Cnonop_confusion_on_nodes%2Cnonop_confusion_on_ways%2Cno_feature_tag_nodes%2Cno_feature_tag_ways%2Cfixmes_on_nodes%2Cfixmes_on_ways%2Cways_without_tags%2Cnodes_with_empty_k%2Cways_with_empty_k%2Cnodes_with_empty_v%2Cways_with_empty_v%2Cnode_tags_with_whitespace%2Cway_tags_with_whitespace%2Cnode_with_unusual_char%2Cway_with_unusual_char%2Cnode_with_short_or_long_key%2Cway_with_short_or_long_key%2Cnonop_confusion_on_nodes%2Cnonop_confusion_on_ways%2Cno_feature_tag_nodes%2Cno_feature_tag_ways%2Cfixmes_on_nodes%2Cfixmes_on_ways%2Cways_without_tags )

It is also a little frustrating when you find dozens of addresses on the wrong side of the street or duplicate entries or addresses that cannot be found locally in the data. I deleted about 100 duplicates that I had already entered here years ago...
Your source seems not to be the best :-(
Example:
There is no
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12188318945
and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12188321468
(both housenumber 5a nearby with different addr:street)
or housenumer 10 in the mid of the square: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12188319211

best regards
pyram
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:12:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:18:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:18:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:24:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:23:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:22:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
hikr_WillA (2025-10-17 20:08:12+00:00): You removed Homer Hill!  I know it is not a real peak but still, it figured in the "47 peak challenge" (47 peaks in the Sooke Hills)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:23:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:13:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:11:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:18:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:19:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:12:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
tastrax (2024-10-08 11:14:58+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, +61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Phone_Numbers .  I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
ivanbranco (2024-10-07 08:01:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157568390
A67-A67 (2024-10-08 13:08:45+00:00): The name is Veluwe, 'Nationaal Landschap' is a description and doesn't belong in the name-tag.
fortera_au (2024-10-07 06:03:04+00:00): Hi there, you shouldn't add a descriptive name like Shelter to objects
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157561771
Warin61 (2024-10-08 00:33:26+00:00): Hi
Why a multipolygon for the Lismore Garden Centre??? 
It brakes the 'rules' fr a multipolygon - shared segment ..

I have transferred the tags to a single node. The 2 ways I have made on into a building the other a nursery
aharvey (2025-03-12 10:40:52+00:00): Hi, this track you edited has been recently deleted, did you have any local knowledge you can add?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12555742
hoserab (2024-10-07 17:51:56+00:00): Hi Andrew, FYI the road ways you added in this change seem to have been duplicates of existing ones already on the map. I presume you were trying to fix the connectivity of the #9 Dalhousie bus route, and JOSM mistakenly generated new ways rather than adding the existing ones to the relation.

I've since fixed it. (See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157593048)

Just wanted to let you know, to keep a lookout as you continue to make sure it's not adding copies of road ways on top of existing ones.

Thanks!
Xvtn (2024-10-07 14:42:57+00:00): Howdy! A couple suggestions:
- For an orchard such as the one by Larsen Street, it doesn't make sense to add individual trees. For larger areas of tree cover, you should use an area enclosing the group such as orchard or natural=wood.
- For a row of trees, you can use natural=tree_row.
LuxuryCoop (2024-10-07 04:13:25+00:00): 건물 안에 상점이 여러 개 있다면 건물 안쪽에 점을 추가해서 각 상점의 정보를 넣어 주시면 됩니다!
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-18 05:22:18+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165095996
HellMap (2024-10-10 11:36:54+00:00): Šeit ir izdzēsts servisa ceļš - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/937869949/history . Tagad vairs nav iebraukšanas ceļa teritorijā. Lūdzu izlabo.
ZLima12 (2024-11-02 04:04:36+00:00): Hi,

This name is not signed anywhere along the road. Supposedly, it was once the commonly used name, but as a local I only ever hear it referred to as "route 17". As such, I believe that noname=yes with ref="NY 17" is the appropriate tagging for the road.

Note that this does not apply to NY-17 west of Binghamton, which is a separately constructed road that does have a signed name.
ZLima12 (2024-12-02 03:16:54+00:00): I reverted this because I didn't hear back. Please feel free to comment if you disagree
BG2ETV (2024-10-13 18:51:42+00:00): 您好，请勿在废弃元素上直接打（废弃）标签。
不同程度的废弃元素，标注类型也不同。对于道口来讲，外观上拆了，股道上不会留下什么痕迹，所以应当将拆除道口的标签删掉。
nevw (2024-10-07 08:44:43+00:00): Hi, I reverted this change because you accidentally dragged a road node across a few streets.
Can you edit it again to make the changes you want.
richlv (2024-10-07 08:43:46+00:00): Hi, thank you for the map contributions.
OpenStreetMap changeset comments serve as a way to better understand the changes other mappers make - collaboration is crucial.
Could you please consider a bit more informative comments instead of "123", "321" etc?
ElliottPlack (2024-11-01 20:15:19+00:00): Hi there, nice work on tidying up. Please do consider something more descriptive in your comments beyond "update". Also, regarding disassociating nodes from buildings, e.g., at Walgreens, it is fine to leave them merged. I will take care of that. Not everyone enters at the entrance. You can map the entrances though if you like.
DUGA (2024-11-01 20:17:18+00:00): Ack! Thanks Elliott!
jmarchon (2024-10-11 00:34:31+00:00): Reverted due to addition of spam

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157736935
Nielkrokodil (2025-02-01 18:49:27+00:00): Hallo,
der Alte Statt Trail ist als Einbahn mit oneway=yes eingetragen. Gilt die Einbahn auch für Fußgänger?
captain_slow (2025-02-03 02:04:48+00:00): Hallo Nielkrokodil
Vielen Dank für den Hinweis, das ist mir beim Mappen entgangen. Der Fehler wurde offenbar gestern korrigiert: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162024331, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162025674
lenochod (2024-10-30 17:16:10+00:00): Ahoj _VSA.

Přidával jsi bod https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12231143543 s tagem  amenity=post_box označující poštovní schránku. Není to ale elektronický box Zásilkovny? Ty by se měly označovat amenity=parcel_locker.

S díky za případnou opravu
Lukáš
VSA_ (2024-10-31 09:54:17+00:00): Lukáši,
mám dojem, že ten box nebyl v barvách Zásilkovny, ale s žlutým logem pošty. Ještě se tam podívám, až dokončí stavbu ruční myčky.
Vítek
Oier_ (2024-10-07 20:16:01+00:00): Kaixo, se ha revertido el contorno inexistente por no ser una autovía. Edozein zalantza esan lasai.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:13:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:23:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:20:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
eggie (2024-10-07 06:56:01+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Is dit een openbare weg? 

MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-10-07 07:04:39+00:00): Ik heb de weg omgezet naar highway=track  tracktype=grade2
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-18 05:22:19+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165095996
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:21:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
Yusuke1109 (2024-10-07 08:50:01+00:00): こんにちは．ウェイを結合するときは，タグおよび所属リレーションが同一であるのを確認してから結合してください．よろしくお願いします．
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:15:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:19:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
Luzandro (2024-10-07 10:40:46+00:00): Hallo,

soweit ich das sehe, steht im Landesstraßenverzeichnis weiterhin nichts von einer Unterbrechung der L2003 zw. B11 und B16, sondern "... die Mödlinger Straße B 11 kreuzend in Maria Lanzendorf ..."

vollständiger Text:

"L 2003

Von der Budapester Straße B 10 in Schwechat über Zwölfaxing-Pellendorf die Mannersdorfer Straße B 15 kreuzend über Himberg die Mannersdorfer Straße B 15 kreuzend bei Himberg die Mödlinger Straße B 11 kreuzend in Maria Lanzendorf die Ödenburger Straße B 16 unterfahrend zur Anschlussstelle Leopoldsdorf S 1/B 16

Länge in km: 11"

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=LrNO&Gesetzesnummer=20000792
djatwork (2024-10-07 11:08:35+00:00): Danke für die Info! werde meine Änderungen wieder rückgängig machen. Lt Ausschilderung und Gemeindeverwaltung Ende die L2003 bei der Kreuzung mit der B16. Beudeutet ja, der 30er Radar ist auch hinfällig.... Danke nochmal für die Info

https://www.facebook.com/profile/100069719660786/search/?q=Vorschriftszeichen
Luzandro (2024-10-08 04:57:50+00:00): Das Radar und den 30iger würde ich aber trotzdem nicht ignorieren, immerhin gibt es auch eine fette Bodenmarkierung. Der NÖ Atlas hat anscheinend zw. Kreisverkehr und B11 eine Lücke in der L2003, ich werde denen wiedermal schreiben. Fürs erste habe ich den 30er auf der Wiener Straße wiederhergestellt und die Himberger Straße auf 50 geändert, die komischerweise auch 30 hatte (naja, ganz so komisch auch nicht, wie soll sich bei der Beschilderung wer auskennen?)

https://atlas.noe.gv.at/atlas/portal/noe-atlas/map/Verkehr/NÖ%20Straßen

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?z=17.95080024903852&lat=48.098891700000024&lng=16.418480600000066&pKey=1183889432873235&focus=photo