piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
suchAnight (2024-08-14 22:02:45+00:00): Hello, the resources that I cited were the publicly available resources in JOSM.  Strava does not have a confirmable date that I know of. The most recent date of OSM GPS traces varies by area, but the most up to date trace is 03/09/2023. Esri World Imagery is from 01/23/2023.  At this time, I do not have anything up to date to confirm the current extent of flooding in Brazil, and I will defer to your knowledge of the area.  Thank you for providing an update and for maintaining the flood impact in Brazil.  
Have a nice day,
suchAnight
Alex Basau (2024-08-25 04:11:56+00:00): Hi Ryan!

I noticed that you mapped the bike lanes on the Interstate Avenue and the Denver Street as separate ways in this changeset. Generally, in OSM, bike lanes that are just painted on the road (or even physically separated by a small curb or buffer) are tagged using the cycleway=lane or cycleway=track tag directly on the main road. This helps to keep the map data simpler and more accurate. Separate ways are usually reserved for cycle tracks that are completely separate from the road infrastructure (e.g., bike paths in parks or those with their own distinct right-of-way).

In Portland, other bike lanes are also tagged this way rather than mapped as separate ways, to maintain consistency across the city's map data.

Additionally, mapping bike lanes both as separate ways and tagging them on the main road results in the lanes being mapped twice, which can be confusing and inaccurate. When bike lanes are mapped separately, the main road should be tagged with cycleway=use_sidepath. This indicates that cyclists should use the separate path, as riding on the main road is prohibited in such cases due to ORS 814.420 (Failure to use bicycle lane or path).

Also, if bike lanes are mapped separately, they need to be connected to the same intersecting streets as the main road. For example, the northbound bike lane on Denver Street should be connected to North Saratoga Street and North Liberty Street. Similarly, the eastbound lane on North Willamette Boulevard should connect to North Wayland Avenue, North Foss Avenue, North Hurst Avenue, etc. Without these connections, bike routing tools like Strava, Ride with GPS, and Komoot won't allow cyclists to make these turns because the tools don’t recognize that such turns are possible.

Another issue with separately mapped bike lanes is that they often don't have names, which can cause bike routing tools to use less detailed instructions. Instead of saying "turn left on Denver Street," they might just say "turn left," making the directions less clear for cyclists.

So that's why it's recommended to add the cycleway tag to the main road instead of mapping bike lanes separately.

There is a similar issue in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152475058, where bike lanes on Rosa Parks and North Willamette were mapped separately.

Could you please consider removing those separate ways for bike lanes? Thanks for contributing to OSM! And please let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns.

Thank you,
Alex
Alex Basau (2024-08-31 21:11:51+00:00): Hi again,

I am going to proceed with removal of those separately mapped bike lanes on Denver, Interstate, Willamette and Rosa Parks. Please let me know if your have strong objections.

Thank you,
Alex
Ryan Gurnick (2024-09-01 02:32:04+00:00): I do not have any objections and I will be sure to properly update the property on the various streets rather than drawing in the bike routes, unless they seperate from the road. Sorry about that.
​
​Feel free to roll it back and any other related changes I made that are similar too.
Alex Basau (2024-09-01 03:52:10+00:00): No worries at all. Both approaches (mapping bike lanes as separate ways vs adding cycleway tag to the main road) "are in use today, and there is discussion about when to prefer which method", as documented on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle. So there are no hard rules about mapping bike lanes. Only community consensus and standards from local mapping groups. AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful in cases like this because they can aggregate and summarize long discussions happening on OSM forums.
Thanks again for contributing to OSM!
eggie (2024-06-10 07:26:37+00:00): Hi Ryan  All buildings are import from the Dutch Registry  Please don't change buildingshapes. Aerial  imagery is not taken perpenducular. Never look to roofshapes.

Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2024-06-10 07:31:37+00:00): reverted by changeset #152484097
Please stop changing buildingshapes in the Netherlands.
Ryan Gurnick (2024-06-10 14:28:54+00:00): will do, you may want to see about getting these locations removed from map roulette, as there is a challenge there that directed me to these buildings. 

I will stop touching them, my apologies.
eggie (2024-06-10 15:01:11+00:00): Hi   I have unfortunately no influence in maproulette.
:(
Thanks for response,
eggie
Ryan Gurnick (2024-06-10 15:20:53+00:00): Here is the information that I was provided. 

With the instructions: "Way 268624040 has a suspicious corner with an angle of less than 5 degrees". 

Sorry again.
Ryan Gurnick (2024-06-10 15:21:15+00:00): mpr.lt/c/43054/t/229799715
eggie (2024-06-10 15:25:34+00:00): Hi here the BAG data  Dutch Registry
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/?searchQuery=Pasteurlaan+28&objectId=0772200000023314&theme=BRT+Achtergrond&geometry.x=162135.65361573623&geometry.y=380628.7462484004&zoomlevel=13.559999999999999

Some of the data in the viewer is outdated. I will fix that.
Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2024-06-10 15:30:17+00:00): fixed sharp angle. 
Even the government data is not 100%
Ryan Gurnick (2024-06-10 15:58:51+00:00): Thanks, I hope that helps improve the polys for various buildings.
eggie (2024-06-10 07:27:56+00:00): Ryan.  Please don't change buildingshaped in the Netherlands.
gr eggie
eggie (2024-06-10 07:30:06+00:00): reverted by changeset #152484056
due to wrong interpretation aerial imagery- roofshapes
Ryan Gurnick (2024-06-10 14:29:20+00:00): will do, you may want to see about getting these locations removed from map roulette, as there is a challenge there that directed me to these buildings.

I will stop touching them, my apologies.
Gillifrey (2024-07-04 11:57:04+00:00): Hi, I've just noticed that this changeset added `crossing=no_road_markings_or_traffic_signalsw` on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1182615189 — was that intentional or a typo?
❤️‍🔥 (2024-07-10 10:24:24+00:00): thanks, i fixed the typo
akimapbuilder (2024-06-10 12:07:13+00:00): Hi! I had to revert your changeset since there is no building in sight.
ivanbranco (2024-07-07 08:28:33+00:00): Hi Kamrul,

start_date=20141014 should be start_date=2014-10-14
check_date=20230628 should be check_date=2023-06-28

phone numbers should have a prefix before them

opening_hours have a syntax to be followed
wikimedia_commons has a syntax to be followed

what's the meaning of highway=residential on a building?

are you aware of the wiki? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/
there you can find all the syntaxes/standards
woodpeck_repair (2024-06-11 22:27:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 152563518 where the changeset comment is: revert large-scale place reclassifications, please discuss on forum before making these kinds of edits
Merlin13245 (2024-06-10 14:33:40+00:00): Hi PST5R!

I think you've taken "localized changes" to a bit of an extreme. You could save a lot of time an effort by adding all of theses addresses at once instead of saving your changes between each one.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets for more details.

Thanks for contributing to the map!
MatchaHatesGoogle (2024-06-11 09:24:39+00:00): Hey there! Why did you change Calhoun from a place=town to a place=city? l don't believe this to be correct, it seems like you have done this to a lot of other cities? Please discuss your rationale behind this if you wouldn't mind.
sen_takeya (2024-06-10 04:19:42+00:00): ソース押し忘れ、現地調査となります。
Merlin13245 (2024-06-12 15:28:09+00:00): Just wanted to ping this one for a second check... this area is not in Fort Collins.
Omnific (2024-06-12 16:30:42+00:00): Correct, just mistaken use of old changeset name
Merlin13245 (2024-06-12 16:34:17+00:00): Not a big deal then. Thanks for double checking :)
matheusgomesms (2024-06-10 16:03:54+00:00): Hi  Shre_WD, thanks for your edit.

You're right, this link doesn't exist anymore. However, when you deleted the link, the perpendicular avenue got disconnected (eg.: one could not travel south-north, or vice versa).

I had connected on this changeset: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=152504848

Happy mapping!
Shre_WD (2024-06-11 10:46:19+00:00): Hi matheusgomesms
Thank you for making the corrections. I missed to check that the highway was disconnected while fixing the connector issue. I'll be more attentive and will look at my edits more carefully and if I have doubt I will come back to the community. Thank you.
silversurfer83 (2024-06-10 19:26:40+00:00): Gude :)

hast du vielleicht auch noch die Information, was genau das Inn für ein POI ist? Eventuell auch Kontaktdaten oder so?

Danke und allzeit gute Fahrt
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152478670
ToTo_GSA_Rider (2024-06-10 19:48:09+00:00): Es ist laut Facebook und Internet ein Motorradtreff. Wir wollten da gestern eigentlich hin, da jemand bei Facebook Bilder reingestellt hatte von dem Ort. Gib es mal in die Suchmaschine ein, dann bekommst du noch mehr Infos und Bilder.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-25 15:10:46+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11967723669/history has rooms = 0 that was added in this edit
What was meant by this? That this object has no rooms? Seems surprising here
Vis_M (2025-08-19 15:38:32+00:00): You have incorrectly classified this SH  as secondary. You OLA editors should stop copying from google maps.
Ozbek (2024-06-10 06:01:40+00:00): схема https://imgur.com/a/jz2r3s9
Alexey Vazhnov (2024-06-10 07:07:00+00:00): Please use better text which describes what have you done.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Good_changeset_comments

Also you can check out my changes, I hope I write good descriptions for them (but they are not perfect, I know).

Thank you in advance!
romevik (2024-06-11 05:21:02+00:00): OK, thank you!
ManuelB701 (2024-06-10 08:36:39+00:00): Mal 'ne Frage: Sicher, dass der Automat https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11898783590 nicht der gleiche Automat ist?
jnk0 (2024-06-10 10:11:27+00:00): Du hast leider völlig recht. Ich habe das Changeset zurückgerollt.
Herwescheluc (2024-06-28 06:50:59+00:00): Hallo, L-Klitschi!
Bei diesem Eintrag erscheint mir einiges nicht richtig: 1.) Das müßte eigentlich "Sternhäuschen" heißen (siehe: https://www.myheimat.de/angelburg/c-natur/naturdenkmal-wilhelmsteine-im-schelderwald_a2493489#gallery=null), 2.) ein Rettungspunkt sollte alleinstehend sein, bei OSMOSE wird ein Merkmalskonflikt zwischen amenity und highway angezeigt, 3.) auf der LDK-Seite für Rettungspunkte stehen erheblich abweichende Angaben zu name und ref: https://rettungspunkte.com/rettungspunkt/DE-HE-LDK-343 (vergleiche auch andere Einträge im LDK: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1NtC), 4.) es fehlt der shelter_type, (ich vermute weather_shelter).
Würdest Du bitte nochmal drüberschauen?
Gruß
Andreas
L-Klitschi (2024-06-29 22:17:17+00:00): Moin Andreas...
Zu 1. Angepasst.
Zu 2. Angepasst.
Zu 3. Habe mir mal meine Bilder angeschaut, Ref. 10....kann ich Dir auch gerne zu Verfügung stellen.
Zu 4. Angepasst.
Gruss das Lars
Herwescheluc (2024-06-30 09:37:37+00:00): Vielen Dank, Lars!
Ein Bild wäre gut, das ist zwar der Weg zu meiner Verwandtschaft, aber so schnell komm' ich da erstmal nicht hin...
Liebe Grüße
Andreas
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-06-12 17:34:05+00:00): Hi, if possible, please upload changes in different countries separately in the future, thank you!
Eslam_Elsayed (2024-06-11 13:55:44+00:00): Correction: Source used was Maxar SecureWatch Imagery 2024-05-17
Mevess (2024-06-10 18:23:57+00:00): Salut!
Pour l'emprise au sol si tu veux y'a la couche ORTHO Express IGN 2023 où on voit les fondations du bâtiment, ou au moins l'un d'eux
Bonne carto !
Thibtib51 (2024-06-10 21:11:29+00:00): Salut,
J'ai fait un e-mail (09/06/24) au laboratoire afin d'avoir si possible le plan d'emprise au sol car il y a un parking. 
J'avais vu la couche ORTHO Express IGN 2023 et oui il y a deux bâtiments.
Merci ;)
Merlin13245 (2024-06-10 14:19:33+00:00): The node you added has some great details, but it's missing a few key indicators.

I've set the node type to "Hardware store" instead of generic. It's probably not a perfect description of your business, but was the closest thing I found. If this is wildly off please convert to a generic "Building" instead. I've also merged your node with the area that outlines the building - if you are NOT the only business in this building than the structure should be split up into multiple areas.

You can see my changes here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152500250

If you're unsure how to make any necessary changes you can reply on this changeset and I would be happy to assist.

Thanks for contributing to the map!
Noktoborus (2024-06-10 06:38:11+00:00): actually, its adding khaxhkar
Komadinovic Vanja (2025-03-01 21:44:48+00:00): Pozdrav,
Video sam da si planinarsku stazu https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12481140#map=17/44.126366/19.828960 prebacio sa https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/919082596 na https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/919082594 . Koji je razlog za tu promenu?
Boogier (2025-03-09 22:02:44+00:00): Situacija na terenu. Ne secam se sta je bilo tamo pre 9 meseci.
kurisubrooks (2024-08-23 08:18:09+00:00): Hi MapAnalyser465,
We don't have access to either of the sources that you linked as the source for this changeset. Have you been in contact with Big JayDog Adventures separately and received permission to use their footage for OSM mapping? The M12 CA Portal is also copyrighted.
Kind regards, Chris.
Komadinovic Vanja (2025-12-21 22:19:19+00:00): Hi,

Similar as in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170544123 I'm asking why you deleted part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729081927 with this changeset?
Boogier (2025-12-22 06:13:55+00:00): because when I was there that part of the path overgrew and disappeared/was not passable
Komadinovic Vanja (2026-02-15 20:21:49+00:00): Thanks for response, I will open note and contact club responsible for trail.
Merlin13245 (2024-06-10 14:11:25+00:00): Looks like you've already done most of the hard work. I've made a few additional edits to help make your building stand out and the map and comply with standard formatting (see opening hours).

You can review all of my edits here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152500011

Thanks for contributing to the map!
tastrax (2024-06-11 11:20:30+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 .  I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
aharvey (2024-08-26 03:10:15+00:00): hi northchun, you'll find that in Australia, common practice has been to map out roundabouts as a circular way and tag them as junction=roundabout. I realise this does conflict with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=mini%20roundabout?uselang=en but due to this longstanding practice you should consult the community before changing things around.

Regardless the style of mapping you've used here adding a single node not connected to the highway=* way is incorrect and would cause validation issues.
opendcc (2024-06-10 09:52:53+00:00): Ist diese allgemeine Verbesserung permanent oder nur vorübergehend montiert?
drlellinger (2024-06-10 11:27:53+00:00): Ich glaube das wird permanent
trapicki (2024-07-05 07:44:58+00:00): Thank you for mapping.
I'm highly confidential that theses are no buildings. It's a mountain top at 3300 m. Looks very much like rocks. You can compare to aerial images a lower locations like Yambali to get a sample of acutal buildings.
Please correct.
ivanbranco (2024-06-25 19:29:30+00:00): Ciao Sergio P,

c'é un problema con il valore wikimedia commons. La sintassi da seguire é "wikimedia_commons=File:xyz.jpg" ad esempio
qua hai aggiunto "=Tabelle segnavia LDP 260-03", manca il prefisso (File: o Category:) e l'estensione del file (.jpg, .JPG, .png ecc.). Riesci a sistemare?
Sergio P (2024-06-28 14:50:52+00:00): Grazie per l'avviso, ma domando:
l'indirizzo File.LDP 260-03.JPG va scritto manualmente o si copia da qualche link.
Grazie e buona giornata
Sergio
silversurfer83 (2024-06-10 19:22:18+00:00): Gude joekerna :)

hat es einen besonderen Grund, warum du einige Gebäude als multipolygone eingetragen hast?

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152484710
joekerna (2024-06-11 06:51:01+00:00): Nein.. ich habe versucht die Gebäudeformen nachzustellen
silversurfer83 (2024-06-11 10:02:29+00:00): Danke für die schnelle Reaktion :)

Ich habe gefragt, da es eher ungewöhnlich ist wenn Einfamilienhäuser und Garagen in dieser Form erfasst werden. Normalerweise reicht da jeweils ein Vieleck mit der passenden Eigenschaft. Diese dürfen sich auch gerne berühren.

Wenn es also nicht deine Absicht war hier Multipolygone zu erzeugen würde ich diese wieder zu normalen Flächen umwandeln, ok?

Silversurfer83
silversurfer83 (2024-06-10 19:19:00+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap :)

danke, dass du hilfst die Karte aktuell zu halten.
Du hast darum gebeten, dass sich jemand diese Änderung ansieht und ich mach das mal.

Laut Liegenschaftskarte des Landes NRW passt deine Information. Sehr gut.

Was bei solchen Änderungen noch schön wäre: Eine Quellenangabe.

Falls du Fragen hast, einfach raus damit. Entweder direkt oder unter c.osm.org

happy mapping
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152484718
YomanNH (2024-06-11 09:50:18+00:00): "Z zamkniętego fragmentu będą mogły korzystać pojazdy budowy oraz mieszkańcy posesji zlokalizowanych wzdłuż zajętego odcinka drogi."
Poprawiłem tagowanie na construction=minor.
Jarek 🚲 (2024-06-12 19:51:17+00:00): Hello,

Thanks for your edits to bike infrastructure in Toronto.

I was wondering what your motivation for the changes to map bike ways as separate tracks is? This was not previously used in Toronto for standard street-side bike lanes or tracks; bike track information was encoded using cycleway=* tags on the main road. This preserved information like the class of road or speed limit of the road the cycleway runs along.

Also to note, these are not called "Cycleways" in Toronto so the name tag is not really correct. Closest name is probably "cycle track" but it a description ("Danforth Avenue cycle tracks" as in cycle tracks along Danforth Avenue, not "Danforth Avenue Cycle Track" as a name) and not in any official names that I know of.
Jarek 🚲 (2024-06-12 19:55:09+00:00): For the record, see previous discussion for Toronto in early 2023 https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3498476
JacksonDavey (2024-06-12 22:52:42+00:00): Hi there,
My reasoning for making the bike tracks separate came down to them having physical protection/separation to regular road traffic as I can see concrete barriers from satellite view. In my home city (Christchurch NZ) this is how our separated one-way cycleways have been mapped, this is also why they've been named "cycleways" (sorry about that I didn't know the terminology was different in NA). I will change them to be cycle tracks.

Our cycleways are significantly different in New Zealand, as we generally either have standard bike lanes or something more permanent than parking protected bike lanes and more temporary protection like on Richmond street. Those aren't very common here so maybe I don't know the proper convention for these.
JacksonDavey (2024-06-12 22:56:07+00:00): The convention that I have based this on can be seen with the cycleway on 35 Tuam Street, Christchurch, New Zealand. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5264984092. This was similar enough in my opinion to copy the conventions used as they both have some degree of physical protection.
Jarek 🚲 (2024-06-13 01:42:05+00:00): Thanks!

Most of the "tracks" in Toronto are created without changing the roadway, by placing planters, pre-cast concrete curbs, and/or flex posts on the roadway. IMO this is borderline for "track", but it's different enough from the norm of painted lane that I don't mind cycleway=track tagging. But as it is on the same roadway, I'm not sure drawing a separate way for bicycles is worth it considering the downsides.

(There are _some_ spots where roadway has been rebuilt to separate bicycles more - Bloor Street east of Bathurst comes to mind - but they're few and might not be on aerial imagery yet)

For naming, if we were to go with separate ways, personally I would suggest to match the street name. The fact that it's a cycleway is already in highway=cycleway, and routers will use something like "turn right onto cycleway Richmond Street West" which seems better than "turn right onto cycleway Richmond West Cycle Track" because the former is the actual name of the street.

Another note about mapping if using separate ways - please consider avoiding merging into main way at intersections, per https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-dedicated-cycleway-on-pavement-temporarily-merging-into-main-road/113840/3 (but I would note that the discussion on whether or not to do this is avoided when cycleways are mapped on the main street way)

As you edit OSM please also keep in mind that different regions may have different tagging/mapping norms.
Jarek 🚲 (2024-06-14 16:55:06+00:00): Hello Jackson,

with the new mapping with separate ways, routing looks like a mess:

https://bin.piorkowski.ca/2024/2024-06-14%20bike%20track%20routing.png

(screenshot of https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_bicycle&route=43.6465%2C-79.4387%3B43.6653%2C-79.4094 right now)

12 instances of "turn slight right" / "keep right onto Bloor West Bike Track", and that's with the router actually giving up on the bike track for some of the distance (1100 m on Bloor Street West) - if it hadn't, there'd be even more of these instructions.

In reality, you turn onto Bloor Street West and continue straight. There is no "slight right".

I'm really not convinced this is an improvement, can you comment?
JacksonDavey (2024-06-14 22:56:31+00:00): Hi, as you can probably imagine I intended to make the cycleway appear more prominent on the map due to it being a protected cycleway. I also wanted to make it appear a bit more separate because the cycle track is separated from the rest of the roadway by parking most of the time. 

Routing was not something I considered properly and that has been fixed now as I have put everything back into the main road segment. That way directions should just say to go straight.
eggie (2024-06-10 08:40:26+00:00): Dag Erik..  Er loopt hier een wandelroute. Die kun je niet bewerken met editor iD.  
Dat kan alleen met editor JOSM.
De wandelroute is hier niet meer in orde.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-06-10 08:43:12+00:00): Fietspad gesplitst met routerelaties en wandelroute hersteld.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-06-10 08:47:49+00:00): Je had het met een trucje kunnen oplossen door gewoon de verbinding met het fietspad op te schuiven. Dan beïnvloed je de relatie niet.
erikvanderschaaf (2024-06-10 10:06:59+00:00): Ah, sorry. Bedankt voor de tip. Ik zie nu trouwens dat ik op verschillende zoom niveau's verschillende versies van het pad krijg...
eggie (2024-06-10 10:19:38+00:00): Dan even CTRL-F5   op dat zoomniveau.   Je browser cache leegmaken.