piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
LudovicG (2026-07-18 05:45:39+00:00): Merci d'avoir supprimé le doublon.

Pour la ref, j'ai effectivement survolé le sujet. Le co_mup La Poste (notre ref) est un code qui suit le motif A9A9A9. Autrement dit, toutes les refs débutant par "AO" (erreur de dymo terrain)  sont en fait des "A0" (etc.). Je suis bien d'accord que ce n'est pas ce qu'il y a sur le terrain mais ne pas corriger "logiquement" les ref empêche de réconcilier les post_box OSM avec l'open data La Poste et de "trouver" les prochaines post_box à ajouter à OSM.
Dans notre cas, et indépendamment de cette histoire de AO/A0, le co_mup n'existe pas encore (ou plus) dans la base La Poste (mis à jour 2 fois par an). Effectivement, il faut laisser cette ref terrain en attendant la mise à jour de la base La Poste.
Je vous propose donc de simplement passer au "A0" pour être logique.
AntoineO (2026-07-18 05:59:22+00:00): Bonjour, pas de soucis ! Je vous laisse faire la modification ?
LudovicG (2026-07-18 15:04:50+00:00): Ok, je viens de faire la modification.
Sakari_N (2026-07-16 17:27:52+00:00): Moi,

Kantalan teollisuusalue ei ole yksittäinen factory, eikä siellä varmaankaan ole yhtenäistä piirivartiointia.

Nämä räjähdekeskuksen tagit ovat yhtä hämmentäviä - mikä on lähde vartiointitavalle esimerkiksi, ja miksi sen kirjaaminen OSM:aan on mitenkään tarkoituskenmukaista?

Mitä tarkoittaa häshtag keskellä tagia, kuten: "military=danger_area # Tai military=depot (jos pelkkä varastoalue)"

"Sotilasalue - Puolustusvoimien varikko" on kuvaileva nimi. Alueen oikea nimi lienee "Räjähdekeskus" ainakin nettisivujen mukaan.
IndiaKW2Gf7rTBt5C (2026-07-17 08:57:33+00:00): Incorrect and useless building geometries and wrong outlines.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185242530
The_Nickname (2026-07-15 18:31:13+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1539534670 schließt nicht mit dem Infobau ab, da dieser wahrscheinlich zu klein eingezeichnet ist
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-16 15:12:05+00:00): Hi AlphaNine,

Thanks for the update here. Particularly since you explicitly requested a review, I do have some points of feedback on your changeset:

- The phone=* number should be in a valid format, i.e. +1-NNN-NNN-NNNN for NANP. See https://osm.wiki/Key:phone#United_States 
- The website=* should point to the web page for this specific feature, which you included in the changeset comment: https://caddooffices.com/locations/allen-office-spaces/
- The name=* should be the name only https://osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only , as signed on the building, which is just "Caddo Office Reimagined". The specific branch can be included in the branch=* tag.

Additionally, I noticed a couple other issues with the existing tagging:

- This is missing a useful top-level tag to describe what the feature actually is, i.e. an amenity=coworking_space 
- By contrast, the existing office=yes tag is not very useful and does not really describe the specific feature, since it is not one office of a business as office=yes (vaguely) implies but rather a provider of individual offices to clients
- Finally, since the building is an office building, it should be tagged building=office rather than the generic building=commercial

I went ahead and made these changes for you in changeset 185850366

https://osm.org/changeset/185850366

Feel free to ask any further questions, and happy mapping!
The_Nickname (2026-07-15 18:29:52+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5392475
alpacaMaps (2026-07-20 03:08:13+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — the nodes sit well away from any road, which usually means the cameras aren't physically present on the ground.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
george1201 (2026-07-16 21:01:36+00:00): Stehen die Räume jetzt leer? Wenn ja, dann könnte vielleicht ein neuer Arzt dort einziehen. Wenn nein, ist das Löschen in Ordnung.
Joachim Melcher (2026-07-20 15:08:28+00:00): Der bisherige Praxisinhaber hat im Amtsblatt der Stadt Rheinstetten vor einigen Wochen per Anzeige die Schließung der Praxis angekündigt. Dabei erwähnte er auch die erfolglose Suche nach einem Nachfolger.

Am Haus ist das Praxisschild inzwischen entfernt. Es gibt keinen Hinweis auf die weitere Nutzung der Räume.
george1201 (2026-07-20 21:10:50+00:00): Danke für die Erläuterung. In einem solchen Fall darf bzw. sollte man das Objekt auch endgültig löschen. So wie du es getan hast.
wireguy (2026-07-16 10:27:11+00:00): Bob,  the opening_hours syntax you added was not correct. opening_hours
Mo-Fr 8AM to 5PM
Suggested fix
Mo-Fr 08:00-17:00

Also, are they the correct hours?
Claude Kisnot (2026-07-18 18:10:59+00:00):  I realize that I’m new here but my cabin is west of this and I pass on this road at least 2x per week for provisioning. I appreciate that some are trying to keep certain areas “private” and want to keep the tourists and vanlifers on the highway and out of the hills, but saying a road is gone and not passable is BS! It’s obviously passable!!! I pass it weekly in my Tundra!!!  Perhaps the editor has made an error and meant a different road? I’ve had enough of this locals only city slicker attitude. 
How do we correct this mistake?
eerib (2026-07-19 06:51:26+00:00): Hello Claude Kisnot,

Scuzzy FSR is this location suffered multiple significant washouts that completely destroyed the road.

You can see photographs of the damage at this page.

https://ihikebc.com/trips/2023/trip285ScuzzyFSRHikeBostonBarBC.htm

As far as I am aware, the road has not been rebuilt. I can see no permits issued for the rebuilding. I can see no forest harvest authorizations further along the road. And, the BC Forest Service Road Safety Information Map still has a warning about the road washouts. 

Thank you, eerib
Claude Kisnot (2026-07-20 04:47:05+00:00): I’m confused; you said that the imagery was out of date and you edited the road to say it was not passable and then when someone who travels this road frequently tells you it is fully passable (with a truck, and in the winter with chains) and you provide out of date photos? You’re using out of date photos to disprove photos because those too are out of date?

I wouldn’t even have known anything about this map had my brother not called me to tell me that my road was washed out  according to this page - no it isn’t I said - I drove it today (yesterday). So I signed up to try to correct the map. 

You need a truck to pass the road. 
You should have a chainsaw as sometimes trees are down. 
It’s passable in the winter with chains and you may need a winch. 
Not for the faint of heart but I think you’ve got the wrong road. 
Editing a perfectly passable road to show it as impassable based on out of date photos from your couch seems like an odd thing to do when you really have no idea what the road is like. 
Good day sir!!!!
eerib (2026-07-20 23:19:10+00:00): Hello Claude Kisnot,

I have confirmed with the Engineering Officer for the Chilliwack Natural Resource District that the road has not been re-built and remains impassable to motorized vehicles. Repair works are still in the planning phase as several locations require Department of Fishers & Oceans authorizations as this is an S2 fish-bearing creek.

I have also spoken with one of the Engineers of Record for another project in the immediate area who also confirmed that the road has not been re-built.

Thank you, eerib
Claude Kisnot (2026-07-21 15:12:25+00:00): This is quite something! You just have the wrong road. 

I have spoken to myself and done a full debrief with myself, and determined that the road is currently quite passable. 

I have called my neighbour (1.6miles away) who also accesses her cabin via the road, and she was actually at her cabin and she doesn’t not know what you are talking about either. 

I have no idea what your agenda is here but if I have problems requesting access of any sort due to whoever it is saying that the road is washed out, I know who to blame. Clue: it’s YOU Mr Eebir falsifying maps that people may (or may not, I have no idea) use. 

No idea who you’re calling but I can call people as well!
habi (2026-07-16 06:02:56+00:00): Ciao Simon
Du hast hier die `swisstopo:BFS_NUMMER=1630` vonhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1683140 entfernt, das hat gemacht, dass https://github.com/habi/swissboundaries/actions/runs/29473175326 nicht durchgelaufen ist.
Können wir das grad noch so (falsch) lassen, damit ich das Vergleich-Skript ausbauen kann, dass das eine Reklamation und kein Fail gibt?
Gruss,
Habi
SimonPoole (2026-07-16 06:11:50+00:00): 2 linke Daumen .... ich hab den Fehler  so oder so noch nicht behoben, da das QA Skript nicht gelaufen ist, und ich es deshalb ja auch noch gar nicht wissen kann :-).
habi (2026-07-16 10:15:20+00:00): Ich hab' die BFS-Numer in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185836193 wieder eingetragen, jetzt wo das Skript von http://boundaries.osm.ch/ damit umgehen kann, dass diese allenfalls fehlen kann und allenfalls mötzlet: https://github.com/habi/swissboundaries/actions/runs/29488782559
GerdP (2026-07-15 19:30:52+00:00): Hi! 
Ich sehe, Du bist schon fleissig.
Das Knotenpunkt-Netz wird komplett vom Landkreis Cloppenburg betrieben, sollte dann auch in operator=*
Bitte dran denken, auch die neuen Knotenpunkt-Routen in die Netzrelation aufzunehmen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16511786
Ansonsten hilft ein Blick auf die Analyse hier:
https://www.knooppuntnet.nl/en/analysis/network/16511786
Fraxi (2026-07-26 21:01:00+00:00): Обектът вляво е бил магазин за дрехи преди. В този случай, ако и двете помещения се ползват от фирмата зад "Saha", и не са 2 различни магазина, можеш да обединиш обектите(в редактора ги избираш и натискаш "C"-combine). Но огледай таговете.
NieWnen (2026-07-16 13:20:13+00:00): Cześć, 
ten odcinek nie ma nazwy wg warstwy ulic, inna kwestia to nie dajemy "ulica" w nazwach.
eggie (2026-07-15 20:04:48+00:00): Hoi..
In Nederland voegen we bedrijven toe op de adresnode.
Mvg,
eggie
XimeX (2026-07-15 22:19:07+00:00): Ich würde statt vehicle=private besser vehicle=destination nehmen
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:access#H%C3%A4ufige_Fehler
Ich2PunktNull (2026-07-16 04:46:54+00:00): Guten morgen, das war sowieso ein Fehler, habs nur nicht bemerkt
eggie (2026-07-15 20:03:55+00:00): Dag Tipolino,
Gebruik svp de adresnode om op bij te taggen .niet het gebouw zelf.
Mvg,
eggie
eggie (2026-07-15 21:15:23+00:00): De info heb ik verplaatst naar de adresnode
rajdhani (2026-07-17 05:40:02+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185884720
MassCartog (2026-07-15 22:54:52+00:00): Hello again, welcome to OSM. Features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

So again "Privacy" is not a valid reason to remove features from the OSM database, removing them is vandalism.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
Supaplex (2026-07-16 10:41:31+00:00): Thanks for the fix, I have miss a few when doing the big changeset
LordGarySugar (2026-07-17 02:57:47+00:00): Reverted as explained in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185865558
Negreheb (2026-07-15 22:59:23+00:00): Bist du dir sicher, dass hier niemand gehen darf? Effektiv sagst du, dass hier nichts und niemand durch darf und kann. Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:access=no?uselang=de 

Und, bei den Tunnel durch die Gebäude wie https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1539560834 hast du auch ein bisschen was falsch eingetragen. layer=-1 ist nicht notwendig, am nördlichen Weg (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1317829024 ) siehst du, wie es richtig geht - die Linie soll die Gebäudeaußenlinie kreuzen und am Bereich IM Gebäude dann ein tunnel=building_passage - Im Wiki ist da mehr beschrieben https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tunnel=building%20passage?uselang=de
Vektor_567 (2026-07-15 23:34:38+00:00): Das dort ist ein ein nicht öffentlicher Bereich. 

Ich habe auf "destination" geändert.

Den Hausdurchgang habe ich auch korrigiert
felipeeugenio (2026-07-15 21:10:33+00:00): Hola. Se puede cuadrar una estructura con la letra Q. Estas se notan que están hechas a pulso.

Por otro lado, por favor no dejar montadas las casas unas sobre otras.

En todo caso buen trabajo, gracias por sus ediciones.


saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185806876
5m4u9 (2026-07-16 01:32:35+00:00): Hola bienvenid@ y gracias por querer mejorar el mapa.

En Bolivia, los nombres de caminos en este mapa los establecemos por la importancia de las poblaciones que unen, en este caso Parotani-Tapacarí.
pwbriggs (2026-07-16 17:18:28+00:00): Parking lot entrances are not service=driveway per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway#:~:text=When%20not%20to%20use

You also seem to have something going on about https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/824225394. First you downgraded its classification from highway=secondary to highway=tertiary with access=no last month in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184550436. Then another user undid those changes in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185767080, but 12 hours later you changed part of this road again, this time using access=customers and highway=construction. *What's going on here?* Please point me to official sources about the construction here, or otherwise explain what you're trying to do.
JM642 (2026-07-16 18:13:49+00:00): Appreciate the feedback pwbriggs. Snohomish County classifies that road as rural minor arterial. OSM doesn't appear to have that as a road type option. Hence "Secondary." Perhaps it really should be classified as a Tertiary Rd in part because of OSM Wiki's definition. Thoughts?

Currently the section of road tagged Closed due to construction is Closed due to construction and open ONLY to local residents and businesses.

Hope this helps!
pwbriggs (2026-07-16 18:27:49+00:00): I'm far from a road classification expert in real life and in OpenStreetMap tagging, but it sounds like you're reasoning that secondary is appropriate here? So was it a mistake that you changed it FROM highway=secondary TO highway=tertiary in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184550436? Or what am I misunderstanding here?

Re: the construction, what's the construction for? Is there some kind of Snohomish County project page where I can learn about the project and restrictions?

Thanks!
JM642 (2026-07-16 19:22:47+00:00): Based on OSMs guidelines I would recommend a change in classification to Tertiary.

As for the project - https://snohomishcountywa.gov/6701/S-Machias-Rd---Snohomish-2026
JM642 (2026-07-17 21:21:25+00:00): pwbriggs- You mentioned that parking lot entrances are not driveways. Well, they are and need to be because if those lot entrances are marked as a road that causes issues with the routing software I use which uses OSM as it's base map.
pwbriggs (2026-07-18 21:03:25+00:00): Re: highway=service — do you agree that the wiki page I linked above (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway#:~:text=When%20not%20to%20use) says that service=driveway is not correct on parking lot entrances? I could be misinterpreting the wiki regarding the established norm. Otherwise, that sounds like an issue with the routing software, not a data issue in OpenStreetMap. If you're comfortable sharing, what routing software is this and what issue does it have when parking lot entrances are tagged without service=*?

Re: reclassifying the rural minor arterial to highway=tertiary, I'd ask the local community first whether Snohomish's rural minor arterial classification maps better to tertiary. https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ or https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/us/78 are good places to discuss this.
JM642 (2026-07-19 03:24:23+00:00): Re the local community, I am in the community so I know full well how it should be tagged.

As for the service road/driveway issue, in my work area, we are tagging any "highway" that leads off of a road into a residence or business as a driveway because the software we use sees a potential road as a path to route our vehicles. We DO NOT want that to occur.

I understand the naming convention generally used elsewhere, but this doesn't affect too many users comparatively.

We appreciate your understanding.

Do you have anything else about the closed road matter?
pwbriggs (2026-07-20 02:38:07+00:00): > Re the local community, I am in the community so I know full well how it should be tagged.

Yes, apologies, I see you on OSMUS Slack. I though I glanced at a possibly relevant discussion on there recently, but now I can't find it. Am I imagining it, or can you point me to the discussion about road classification? Thanks.

> As for the service road/driveway issue, in my work area, we are tagging any "highway" that leads off of a road into a residence or business as a driveway because the software we use sees a potential road as a path to route our vehicles. We DO NOT want that to occur.

I appreciate that, but this still feels like its primarily a limitation in the software you use, not an issue that should be worked around using non-standard mapping practices.

> I understand the naming convention generally used elsewhere, but this doesn't affect too many users comparatively.

I'm not sure what this means. Not to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that it's good to bend the rules of the tagging conventions here because your particular router is more important than the consensus? I don't know why the wiki-documented convention is to have no service=* tag on parking lot access roads, but I feel like changing that would be unpopular with other mappers.

> We appreciate your understanding.

No problem. And I apologize if my initial message sounded too aggressive. I (wrongly) assumed that this was blatant vandalism for the purpose of tweaking a router. I should have approached giving you more benefit of the doubt.

As a site note, who is "we"? Are you part of some kind of organized editing group? If so are you on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities? My question is as much out of personal curiosity as it is about assurance of correct procedure.

> Do you have anything else about the closed road matter?

I left a comment at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185767080 with the construction link because they seemed to think the road was open. Maybe they didn't know about the project 🤷

Thanks for the continued discussion!
pwbriggs (2026-07-20 02:39:20+00:00): Spelling correction: "As a *side note". Thanks.
Negreheb (2026-07-15 22:37:47+00:00): Hm,ich denke es wäre besser, wenn wir primär eintragen, dass hier das housing_cooperative ist. 
Ich denke da könnte man zusätzlich ein amenity=housing_cooperative dazupacken, das könnte schon sinn machen. Inklusive passender Daten wie Homepage und Adresse usw - was denkst du?
Vektor_567 (2026-07-15 23:12:34+00:00): davor stand bei  "die Salzburg" nur Büro. Also Hausverwaltung ist schon mal eine Steigerung.
Vektor_567 (2026-07-15 23:18:45+00:00): Ich habe gerade "die Salzburg" etwas ergänzt
LordGarySugar (2026-07-17 02:57:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted for the same reasons as in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185865558, to restore the busway to its previous layout
Michelinho (2026-07-16 08:43:29+00:00): Der Rettungspunkt liegt dort falsch und genau auf dem Strassenknotenpunkt (Fehlermeldung OSM) Edit. Der Punkt liegt versetzt am Wegesrandrand in Böschung...genaue Koordinaten und Fotos vorhanden.
DD1GJ (2026-07-16 08:52:12+00:00): Vieen Dank für den Hinweis. Ich habe den originalen Punkt genau auf die von Dir erfasste Position geschoben.
TrickyFoxy (2026-07-16 22:04:06+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185871405
Sanniu (2026-07-26 11:06:43+00:00): Hi, there is no פייבל street nearby, can you map one?
Sanniu (2026-07-26 11:06:58+00:00): Near https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11429486169
hatul (2026-07-26 19:35:57+00:00): Hi,

You are correct that Feibel Street is not currently mapped on OSM. The address (Feibel 3) is based on the official address listed for the site (including in Wikipedia), as Feibel Street is actually the very beginning of Biluim Street.

I don't have an open data source or ground imagery to accurately trace the geometry and alignment of Feibel Street at the moment, which is why I haven't mapped the road itself yet.

If you or anyone else in the community has local knowledge or open sources to map the street accurately, feel free to add it!
YomanNH (2026-07-16 08:23:55+00:00): Hej, czy https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1539583271 jest dopiero w budowie? Jeśli tak, to bicycle=designated i foot=designated są błędne.
capt_planet (2026-07-16 16:09:28+00:00): jak najbardziej w budowie.

w jaki sposob zatem madrze otagowac cycle & foot path w budowie?
YomanNH (2026-07-16 16:12:21+00:00): Można dać construction:bicycle=designated + construction:foot=designated.
capt_planet (2026-07-16 22:38:40+00:00): podmienilem
felipeeugenio (2026-07-15 22:02:20+00:00): Hola. Buenas tardes. Estás en el chat de la comunidad? Con todo lo que están mapeando quizás deberías unirte. además en el chat va a ser mucho más fácil transmitirte técnicas y datos para mapear mejor manera y más eficiente. El editor que estás usando es muy poderoso y tiene varias herramientas.

ojala puedas unirte. Te debería haber llegado un correo con el link cuando te uniste, pero puedes hacerlo ahora aqui: https://t.me/OSMcl/1


Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185811472
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-30 07:52:21+00:00): This was already explicitly tagged not:brand:wikidata=Q5887912 , but then you added the same Q5887912 to brand:wikidata without removing that tag, which doesn't make any sense, thus iD warning you about this which you then ignored. Which is it here?
O1S (2026-07-30 12:40:03+00:00): Not sure why that was there... 🤔

Just making sure, "not:brand:wikidata=Q5887912" means it's not that, correct

I changed only the brand name there, to replace it from the generic "hotel" one to the "brand" one.

Therefore, removed in changeset 186642102
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-30 22:22:22+00:00): It means another mapper has added an tag explicitly indicating to other mappers like yourself that despite what it may appear, the object is not in fact part of that brand network, so that other mappers don't add it (as you've done).

However, it seems to me from what I can tell, the other mapper wasn't correct in this case and the tag may have been added by them via a semi-automated suggestion from iD, so your change does in fact appear to be correct. However, in general, especially as a newer mapper I would exercise great caution when contradicting existing tagging.
DressyPear4 (2026-07-22 17:26:53+00:00): Este changeset foi revertido com changeset/186190623
aproposofouroboros (2026-07-15 22:04:43+00:00): https://illinois-department-of-transportation.prezly.com/keeler-avenue-over-i-290-bridge-replacement-begins-today
user_5359 (2026-07-16 09:48:14+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please don't add any information from Google!