piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
gmar5 (2026-06-29 20:15:34+00:00): Hi. Welcome and thanks for your edit.

I think the established use of access tags like "foot=*" is to represent _legal_ access, not practicality or safety. If pedestrian have the legal right to walk on these trunk roads (as I believe is the case, but correct me if I'm wrong), even if not advisable, then your "foot=no" is wrong.
It is up to any router to de-prioritise use of trunk roads and direct users on other paths.

You have also added an "access=no", which applies to all forms of access.
ixuvia (2026-06-30 09:15:01+00:00): Hi, thanks for the explanation. Is there then any correct way to distinguish "trunk road which is also safely accessible on foot" from "trunk road without safe foot access"? In this local area there are many that would fall into each category
gmar5 (2026-06-30 09:40:52+00:00): I think that a highway=trunk with sidewalk=no already implies that there is no safe space for pedestrian walking. 
Other tags like sidewalk:left=separate or sidewalk:right=separate mean that a pavement is present, and mapped separately.

If the sidewalk=* tag is missing on some segments, that can be added, to provide the detail you are looking for, and to allow routers to better avoid these roads.

The access tag changes will have to be reverted though.

Best wishes.
gmar5 (2026-06-30 09:42:34+00:00): There is also a verge=* tag, which can be helpful in some cases.
gmar5 (2026-07-01 09:27:59+00:00): I have reverted these changes (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184903167).

Please do add additional information with sidewalk tags where missing, if you want.

Best wishes.
Frans S (2026-06-29 13:23:59+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
About the mappings of tall buildings. 
You included  the sidewalls of a hi-rise building in a mapping.

How to map high and high-rise buidings
https://youtu.be/u31wPYWkm3E?si=lDbvDutpUyZWQXXL

Best regards
osmviborg (2026-06-29 11:28:29+00:00): Normalt registreres kortvarige vejarbejder ikke. Hvis du absolut vil, så brug "Conditional restrictions" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions#Traffic_modes
marcmarti (2026-06-29 13:49:33+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM!

Just a reminder that you are tagging the entire road as a fence. The easy way to do it is by adding an access tag (access=private) to the existing road and adding a node where the fence is (adding access=private as well, if you want).

I've already fixed it for you, just a heads up.

Happy mapping!
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-29 14:15:43+00:00): User bas been blocked: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20877
MappingMore (2026-06-30 08:18:52+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184840678
yelisey90 (2026-07-14 17:47:06+00:00): If https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1533506599 + https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882766179 form a bridge above the road, then they should have no common nodes with the road below
birimkulova (2026-07-22 05:51:52+00:00): Thank you for the comment. I’ve fixed it.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-11 08:18:35+00:00): DWG revert - fictitious mapping

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185524044
cubbe8 (2026-06-29 20:49:22+00:00): Sorry, but this is incorrect
alokchauhan_Lyft (2026-07-01 04:51:22+00:00): Hi cubbe8,
Thank you for reviewing this edit and correcting the mistake. My name is Alok, and I am a mapper on Lyft's OSM team.
Regarding my edits: the no left turn restriction was added based on a bit outdated ground truth imagery (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q3ocbAQKH8rPVkkjscsK32P2DrB5_6F6/view?usp=sharing), from 9th of June. Upon reviewing your feedback and verifying the location with Lyft-owned street-level imagery (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hp5o_a6Y3uUDG2PLl0jqbDUDUGriU_ve/view?usp=sharing) dated June 27, I agree that no restriction sign is present & the lane markings have also been updated.
Please accept my sincere apologies for this oversight. I appreciate your careful review and will ensure greater attention to detail in future changesets.
Alok
confusedbuffalo (2026-07-01 19:24:24+00:00): Hi, can you double check the phone number on Forshaws pharmacy, I think you may have missed a digit out?
iuvi (2026-06-29 13:45:36+00:00): Пожалуйста, выравнивайте края зданий, иначе придёться откатывать и переделывать... если вы делаете в веб редакторе это можно сделать нажатием клавиши Q
Jrachi (2026-07-04 09:17:42+00:00): Ciao.
La way che hai eliminato è parte di un percorso della rete escursionistica regionale e Nazionale.
Se mi fornisci elementi per capire quale sia la difficoltà che hai riscontrato possiamo capire se taggare in modo appropriato quel tratto.
Nel caso sia effettivamente impraticabile o se necessità di manutenzione posso avvisare i responsabili della re3te locale e, in seguito chiedere la variazione del catasto.

Ora però faccio un revert, e se ti capita nuovamente di avere problemi su un percorso a catasto avvisami o contatta il comune o la sezione CAI della zona.

Ivo
Jrachi (2026-07-04 09:23:45+00:00): Ciao, devo chiedere umilmente scusa.
Sono andato a chiarire la storia di quel percorso.
È già stato eliminato dal catasto regionale, e nazionale.
Avevo già tolto i tag dalla relazione, ma ora vedo che poso tranquillamente cancellare la relazione...

Ivo
Matthias2 (2026-07-06 09:52:26+00:00): OK. Ho fatto un'escursione in quella zona a giugno e non ho visto né un sentiero né un indicatore. Non c'è nemmeno un ponte sul torrente.

Matthias
Jrachi (2026-07-06 20:55:59+00:00): Ciao.
Ho visto che sulle foto aeree più recenti non si vede traccia di un ponte.
Si vede una parte sulle ESRi e quello che probabilmente era il ponte sulle ESRI Clarity (molto più vecchio).
Ho provveduto a cancellare completamente la relazione.
Quando un percorso viene cancellato dal catasto regionale mi limito a togliere i tag che lo qualificano come tale, e aspetto di avere conferme da un survey. 
Grazie!
OlasMapy (2026-06-29 13:26:03+00:00): See node/2620447474. You classifiede my edit as undiscussed while no one uses French in the area.
Nakaner-repair (2026-06-29 14:31:48+00:00): Please file your complaint at data@osmfoundation.org.
kasa kai (2026-06-30 10:56:49+00:00): Hi there, thanks for contributing to OSM. However can you also from the next time onwards please add the correct tags (this is technically a building under construction), use straight lines as per imagery, and square the outline, thanks. I have fixed it for this building under https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184847642.
NieWnen (2026-07-26 15:26:43+00:00): Cześć
DDRiP tagujemy jako highway=path

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery#Drogi_dla_pieszych_i_rower%C3%B3w
MappingMore (2026-07-03 05:41:08+00:00): Revert of  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184781422
map per (2026-06-30 12:34:44+00:00): Hola teresabenavides2019,

¡Gracias por contribuir a OpenStreetMap!
Pero, por favor, no agregues nombres descriptivos como «casa» a los edificios que agregues.

Saludos cordiales,
map per
MarcoR (2026-06-29 21:31:37+00:00): Ciao e benvenuti su OpenStreetMap!

Come mai hai rimosso quei sentieri? Non esistono più oppure sono impraticabili?

Buon mapping,
Marco
brog_98 (2026-06-30 06:25:15+00:00): Ciao! Perchè il sentiero che ho eliminato è un percorso alpinistico per nulla battuto, pericoloso e con nessuna possibilità di proteggersi... anche solo arrivare a inserirsi sulla linea giusta è abbastanza complicato, e sbagliare può portare in posti poco simpatici in cui stare. Se una persona sa che esiste e sente di potersela cavare le informazioni sul web riesce a trovarle in qualche modo, non penso sia corretto però segnalarlo per ragioni di sicurezza e di frequentabilità del luogo (che è giusto che rimanga bassa).
brog_98 (2026-06-30 06:27:33+00:00): Oltre al fatto che non è un "sentiero CAI" e non è mai stato rappresentato in alcuna cartografia, neanche quando la frequentazione della montagna era meno "turistica"
MarcoR (2026-06-30 07:46:19+00:00): Grazie per l'esauriente risposta e per aver speso del tempo per migliorare la mappa.

Premetto che non conosco il posto,  comunque mi sembra che  il sentiero fosse segnalato con sac_scale=demanding_mountain_hiking e trail_visibility=horrible quindi secondo me la situazione era descritta bene; tra l'altro su OpenStreetMap si possono inserire anche sentieri non CAI e/o non presenti in altre cartografie purché esistano nella realtà (la sicurezza rimane totalmente a carico di chi li percorre).

Comunque, per me la tua conoscenza locale vale di più di quanto io possa riuscire a capire a distanza di centinaia di chilometri :)

P.S. cerca se puoi di usare commenti ai changeset che abbiano un minimo di senso (basta anche "rimosso sentiero pericoloso").

Buon mapping,
Marco
brog_98 (2026-06-30 08:40:37+00:00): Si ho visto le segnalazioni ma sulle varie app per trekking e tracking su base OSM quello non si vede, e sembra un sentiero normale.
Grazie per il commento e per la gentilezza, cercherò di essere più esaustivo. 

Buon proseguimento.
Elia
9_tab (2026-06-30 13:13:46+00:00): voir https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184476050
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-29 17:06:14+00:00): Half your tags here are invalid/nonsensical, including the top-level tagging, which means users and data consumers will not be able to interpret it correctly or at all, defeating your purpose here. If you're going to add a for-profit company you're working for, it is your obligation (both to the community and to your company's benefit) to do at least the minimum due diligence to use valid tagging.

 As for the correct overall top-level tagging, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office%3Dtransport

Cleaned up SEO spam and other mistagging for POI in changeset 184807425

https://osm.org/changeset/184807425
eggie (2026-06-29 13:29:41+00:00): Dag Wessel,

Gebruik svp de bestaande adresnodes om op bij te taggen. Niet zelf adressen aanmaken.

Mvg,
eggie
WesselP (2026-06-29 13:35:17+00:00): Excuus, zal het aanpassen!
eggie (2026-06-29 13:39:23+00:00): 👍
LordGarySugar (2026-06-29 16:56:57+00:00): Hi, if you do not know the housenumber, please leave it blank rather than entering '???', thanks.
LordGarySugar (2026-06-29 21:23:57+00:00): I realised this was there before you made your changes, I have left a comment for the original mapper too.
janika25 (2026-07-02 14:08:12+00:00): helló ezt be lehet rakni beamng
qstep (2026-07-02 14:17:22+00:00): Hello. Ezt nem értem.
eggie (2026-06-29 13:27:56+00:00): Welcome to OSM,

Perhaps service=driveway ?

Greetz 
eggie
scavidus (2026-06-29 13:30:19+00:00): Actually no, because the service roads are public and not privately owned. They lead to driveways.
user_5359 (2026-06-30 12:56:52+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2suT. What is the mean of the tags denominati = landmark? I don't think you mean the "denomination" key.
Abn_976 (2026-06-30 13:28:22+00:00): Hello user_5359! 
Thank you for pointing that out! It was indeed a mistake on my part. I have just corrected it. Thanks again for your careful review and for letting me know.
Frans S (2026-07-01 11:54:47+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (See attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Issues found on your mappings
A: Inaccurate mapping. 
C: Collected adjacent buildings and mapped it as 1 building.
D: Connecting nodes to other features.
E: Buildings not squared or rounded.


Explanation can be found in this document, which might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards, and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184795559
Frans S (2026-07-02 10:28:02+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this project.
Be careful to not let buildings overlap each other to other mapped features like roads. If an overlap occurs, and you see this a message in issue triangle of the iDeditor, do not select "tag this as higher/lower. Instead, select 'ignore this issues'and move the building you are mapping to ensure it does not overlap with the other mapped object.



Buildings shouldn't share nodes with each other or other features. When it happens accidentally, you can use the disconnect option ("D") in the iD editor to 'unglue' the nodes from each other (nodes that are shared are gray instead of white). To avoid it happening, hold the ALT key down while you are placing a node near another building, it will prevent nodes from snapping together

Best regards and keep mapping
Frans S (2026-07-02 10:16:05+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please do not tag a building as an area=yes. Just tag it as building=yes.
Best regards and keep mapping
Frans S (2026-06-30 15:07:04+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping,
You are a new mapper. Welcome.
This is a rather difficult project for a new mapped. Please map on more easier projects. 
Please do not collect multiple buildings and call it 1 building.
Default the buildings are to be tagged as building=yes,
Square each rectangular building.
Solve issues shown by the issue triangle before you upload your mappings.


Please check this footage on how to map High and  hi-rise buildings.

https://youtu.be/u31wPYWkm3E?si=lDbvDutpUyZWQXXL

Best regards
bxl-forever (2026-06-29 14:00:05+00:00): Hello, and welcome to OSM.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here.

You drew the cycleway as a separate way… but you did not modify the road, despite the cycle track was explicitely marked as an attribute of the road
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93048606

This is a design choice.  Mapping cycle tracks as separate ways is something that we do sometimes, but it must be done with proper care, not just drawing a long way like that. The OSM data model also includes cycle relations, which should have been updated accordingly too.

It would be preferable to discuss this first, instead.
coremath (2026-06-29 14:28:12+00:00): Hello,
So the issue here is not that I drew the cycle path in itself, but rather that I did not update other related things?
I admit I did not know roads had such attributes, and I haven't figured out how to deal with itineraries (if that's what you mean by cycle relations), although I did complete the tutorial (which didn't contain much, tbh)
bxl-forever (2026-06-29 22:36:04+00:00): Yes, mostly a dual tagging issue.
As I said, drawing cycle tracks as separate ways is possible—but only for cases where the infrastructure is physically segregated from the road, like here—as long as we take care not to present the same data twice.
I spent some time tonight to repair the situation here.
MappingMore (2026-07-03 06:16:28+00:00):    Revert of  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184789377
AntSom (2026-07-10 16:50:36+00:00): Hello edtahac,

I came across this object as part of https://maproulette.org/challenge/51634/task/359214795 and I wanted to ask you if you could take another look at this? I'm not sure how to resolve the errors that popped up in the validator when using JOSM.

Sincerely,
AntSom
edtahac (2026-07-11 05:55:24+00:00): I think I have fixed this issue. I use Vespucci, I saw the 'Open relation' issue only after your comment. Please check it in JOSM.
AntSom (2026-07-13 14:53:35+00:00): Hello edtahac,

Thank you for taking a look at the objects. I just ran it through JOSM's validator and it looks great.

Have a great rest of your day,
AntSom
bxl-forever (2026-06-29 14:05:59+00:00): Hello,

The tags were already correctly set for a shared foot- and cycleway, i.e.

highway=footway
bicycle=yes
segregated=no

We do not use those "designated" tags anymore, they are considered meaningless in Belgium. I know those tags still exist in the online iD editor. Until the devs can fix this, we kindly request users to stay away from those bad presets. Please do not engage in actively retagging such data, it helps no-one, on the contrary it wastes our time to constantly have to repair the map.
coremath (2026-06-29 14:08:34+00:00): Alright, thanks for the tip
JuanElDemografo (2026-06-30 19:32:43+00:00): I went ahead and fixed it, but you should know that the opening_hours key has a specific syntax. You can check if you got it right at https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/
Jan Olieslagers (2026-06-30 08:08:07+00:00): Why add a second aerodrome descriptive? There is only one aerodrome, as far as I can see.
JJIglesias (2026-06-29 17:40:20+00:00): Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Gracias
JJIglesias (2026-06-29 17:39:14+00:00): Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Gracias
JJIglesias (2026-06-29 17:38:53+00:00): Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Gracias
JJIglesias (2026-06-29 17:38:33+00:00): Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Gracias
Frans S (2026-07-02 08:51:42+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping
Hi-rise or tall buildings (even with a few stories) needs a different way of drawing them than low buildings.

Please check this footage on how to map these buildings

https://youtu.be/u31wPYWkm3E?si=lDbvDutpUyZWQXXL

A more extended explanation with samples can be seen here

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Roof_modelling#Drawing_at_the_roof

Additional find here a link to how to map complex situations
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Koreller/diary/404988#comment61337


Best regards
felipeeugenio (2026-06-29 15:38:48+00:00): Hola. existe el tag office=educational_institution

el instituto no es una universidad en si.

Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184798810
mueschel (2026-07-18 12:05:54+00:00): Which aerial images suggest these 'maybe:highway' exist? All images I find show buildings and no highways.
JJIglesias (2026-06-29 17:38:10+00:00): Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Gracias
JJIglesias (2026-06-29 17:37:50+00:00): Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Gracias
rumijr (2026-06-29 21:29:53+00:00): Thanks for the feedback, I updated this specific one to make it square. I'm aware of the problems with imagery, but in this case, it is pretty challenging for me to understand the base of the building. If you have a way to understand the base, it would help a lot. I'm from Turkey and not very expert of the region.
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-29 14:42:03+00:00): Hi, thanks for your contribution! I noticed that the name=* tag for this feature is 'sem-5'. Could you please clarify how this name is verifiable, such as whether it appears on a sign or is commonly used locally as the feature's name?
JJIglesias (2026-06-29 17:37:30+00:00): Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Gracias
JakovBušić (2026-06-30 09:20:16+00:00): Wront tag that was made in changeset has been set right in changeset 184843674. #OptimoRoute
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-01 01:18:26+00:00): DWG revert - I doubt the office is out in the yard!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184887576
JJIglesias (2026-06-29 17:37:05+00:00): Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Gracias
JJIglesias (2026-06-29 17:36:45+00:00): Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Gracias
JJIglesias (2026-06-29 17:36:06+00:00): Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Gracias
Frans S (2026-06-30 15:13:45+00:00): Hello.
Please do not collect multiple buildings and tag them as 1 building. Each building needs to be mapped individually.
Check this webpage. (there are more situations)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1533518400/history#map=19/10.610468/-66.994379
Best regards
JJIglesias (2026-06-29 17:35:41+00:00): Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Gracias
JJIglesias (2026-06-29 17:34:52+00:00): Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Gracias