piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
felipeeugenio (2025-09-09 13:55:14+00:00): Hola. Disculpas. Los nombres a los que me refería fueron agregados por otro mapero.
No obstante, esos caminos "Fundo Loreto" también parecen ser descriptivos.
Mas rato le doy una mirada más profunda a ese sector.

Saludos
AndyB_66 (2025-09-11 08:23:41+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments
blef (2025-09-09 19:53:50+00:00): Bonjour,
Je suis revenu sur vos modifications: le numéro de téléphone et le site web sont déjà, renseignés sur le centre aquatique lui-même: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/865462546#map=19/43.697434/-1.051801
Il n'y a pas lieu de les rajouter sur chaque bassin (ceux-ci ne disposent pas de leur propre téléphone et site web).
Cordialement.
Hindediou (2025-09-11 07:14:21+00:00): Merci beaucoup !
fortera_au (2025-09-09 22:23:49+00:00): Hi, you've ended this at the footpath, not the road, on the southern end.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171685874
Prasanna Msamy (2025-10-15 17:10:33+00:00): Thank you for the valuable feedback. I have reverted the edit . I look forward to your suggestion/feedback in the future as well. 
Thank you
dvdhoven (2025-09-09 14:06:28+00:00): Dit kun je niet met Vespucci doen. Nu waren er 3 routes stuk. Het knooppuntnummer staat nl in de ref van de route en die refs klopten niet meer.
Het is niet even simpel een ref van een knooppunt wijzigen, daar zit veel meer achter,
Jeroen Muris (2025-09-09 14:25:13+00:00): Dank voor de feedback. Nu is in ieder geval de ref bekend. Ik kan later thuis de routes nakijken (maar het is lang geleden dat ik daaraan gewerkt heb). Of herstel jij het, of heb je dat al gedaan?
dvdhoven (2025-09-09 15:08:54+00:00): Ik heb al hersteld
Jeroen Muris (2025-09-09 15:12:15+00:00): Dank voor het herstel. Voor een volgende keer: wat gaat er mis als ref (alleen) op knooppunt wordt gewijzigd, en wat kan ik doen om dat te voorkomen/herstellen?
dvdhoven (2025-09-09 16:48:35+00:00): Als de begin- en eindknopen van een route niet overeenkomen met de begin- en eindknopen in de ref, wordt de route door knooppuntnet als onderbroken gemeld of er komt een melding dat er een foute knoop in de route zit.
In de ref moeten de begin- en eindknoop vermeld worden met een koppelstreepje. Dus bijv., 71-99. Altijd laag naar hoog, ook de volgorde van de members in de route.
Jeroen Muris (2025-09-09 16:55:54+00:00): Duidelijk, dank. En ik zal er in de toekomst aan proberen te denken!
brdrsrsu (2025-09-09 21:41:39+00:00): Can you please either correct these ways to how they actually exist here, or revert this recent changeset? It is taking me significantly more time and effort to correct from this than if I had to draw from the blank slate. (1) Vehicle inspection is accessed from Лошињска. (2) Road between courier service and vehicle inspection is very bad, to be avoided. (3) Roads are pretty straight, boxy, not curvy.
KarooDesert (2025-09-11 21:34:00+00:00): Hello, 
Thank you for informing me of the concerns that you have with the edits made here. 
Looking at Mapillary Imagery, I do see another entry/exit for the vehicle inspection office (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=46.090943533448&lng=19.681842342796&z=17&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=4041721222563424), which it appears you’ve already updated.

It is often common practice to smooth or round the edges/corners of wide service roads to avoid sharp geometry. This helps reflect how the road is navigated in reality, as vehicles rarely make abrupt, sharp turns where a road can be navigated without them. That said, I’m happy to defer to your edits if you feel they better reflect reality.
AndersAndersson (2025-09-09 22:04:00+00:00): Hello
What did you try to do here with these changesets?
The islets does not show in the map since they do not have to role "inner" in the multipolygon for the lake.
aTarom (2025-09-10 02:00:13+00:00): Hi, I just wanted them to be drawn counterclockwise, checking one by one that they were really islets.
AndersAndersson (2025-09-10 17:32:41+00:00): Sorry, I discovered that the issue was from the changeset before yours. I tried to fix it now.

As far as i know there is no need to draw anything other that ocean coasts/ocean islets in the correct direction. But there are no harm in doing it.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-09-09 13:40:51+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2946790441
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439326724

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
stasiu512 (2025-09-09 14:23:30+00:00): Hello, the traction is suspended in both solutions despite the one-way, tagging was consistent with the wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trolley_wire
"On one way streets with trolleybuses that drive against the traffic direction trolley_wire:backward=yes can be used."
The change has been reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171689577
stasiu512 (2025-09-09 14:25:34+00:00): after your change, according to this tagging, traction was only in the opposite direction to the traffic
stasiu512 (2025-09-09 14:27:06+00:00): the typo has been corrected in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171689740
rempshaener (2025-09-09 17:09:55+00:00): Hallo,

du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Der Fehler wurde nicht von dir verursacht. Schau mal bitte auf die südöstliche Gebäudeecke: Dort schneidet das Gebäude die Straße. Versuche es ruhig selbst: die Position von Gebäude und/oder Straße scheint nicht ganz zu passen.

Viele Grüße
ghostrider44 (2025-09-14 15:33:22+00:00): Hallo wermak,
schau dir mal folgende Seiten an:
https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/results/DE/BW/DE-BW-VVS-Analysis.html#bus_578 
https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/results/DE/BW/DE-BW-VVS-Analysis.html#bus_592 
Laut Chronik hast du am 9.9.2025 an den Relationen Änderungen vorgenommen und diese dadurch beschädigt.
Bereits mit folgenden Änderungssätzen hast du Fehler in den Busrelationen verursacht:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/97365873 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158414434 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158414434 
Dies habe ich dir jeweils mitgeteilt. Auf keine dieser Nachrichten hast du geantwortet. Ich habe dir auch schon mehrmals geraten, die Busrelationen nicht mit dem dafür m.E. absolut untauglichen iD-Editor zu bearbeiten, sondern mit dem JOSM. Ich bitte dich nun erneut, die beschädigten Relationen wieder in Ordnung zu bringen.
Gruß ghostrider44
stasiu512 (2025-09-09 16:35:34+00:00): Cześć, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1428289860 brakuje access=no, DDR jeszcze nie jest oddany, a w tym miejscu co masz na miałeś na myśli? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1428289861. Przecież tam będzie nieodseparowany CPR a jak na razie jest to zwykły chodnik skąd tu druga kładka?
Szymson (2025-09-09 16:38:59+00:00): Ogólnie jest sens dodawać to jako osobna linia? Nie powinno to zostać oznaczone w tagach jezdni Aleji Armii Krajowej jako cycleway=lane?
stasiu512 (2025-09-09 17:04:45+00:00): nie jest to pas rowerowy, a DDR więc o cucleway=lane nie ma mowy, jeśli już to cycleway=track jak na AK w Sopocie. Jednak preferowałbym tutaj oddzielną linię tak jak na Marynarki Polskiej ze względu na betonowe separatory oddzielące DDR od jezdni. Jeśli na al. Adamowicza rozdzielamy DDPiR na dwie linie ze względu na betonowy krawężnik to myślę że zapora betonowa jest znacznym rozdzieleniem:)
stasiu512 (2025-09-09 17:05:52+00:00): przepraszam, na wysoki krawężnik miałem na myśli
Szymson (2025-09-09 17:20:19+00:00): Ok, rozumiem
Yog Sot (2025-09-09 18:29:15+00:00): dwukreskowość ftw!
Langlaeufer (2025-09-09 17:37:57+00:00): Danke :)
eggie (2025-09-09 20:12:32+00:00): Dag Martijn, Gebouwen worden periodiek geïmporteerd vanuit de BAG.
Dit jun je versnellen door een verzoek te doen op het forum in het draadje BAG importverzoeken. Dan komt de adresnode ook mee. 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/nl/43
Met deze tags krijg je ook geen gebouw op de kaart.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-09-09 20:20:54+00:00): Even als voorbeeld om een update  gevraagd. 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bag-importverzoeken/3394/3744
eggie (2025-09-10 05:51:49+00:00): Is opnieuw geïmporteerd.
Martijn-VR-Gooi en Vechtstreek (2025-09-18 08:53:01+00:00): Goedemorgen Eggie,
Sorry voor de late reactie. 
Bedankt hiervoor. 
ik heb ondertussen zelf een nieuwe aanvraag gedaan voor een locatie in Bussum.

met vriendelijke groet, Martijn
HaritaDuzenlemeHesabi (2025-09-10 05:51:48+00:00): Merhaba. Bazı yolları secondary'den trunk'a çevirmişsiniz. Yolları neden secondary'den trunk'a çevirdiniz? Yaptığınız değişikliğin doğru olduğuna emin misiniz? Lütfen değişiklik gerekçenizi aşağıda bağlantısını paylaştığım sayfaları okuduktan sonra açıklar mısınız? 

(Yine size ait olan sildiğiniz Eymeinnysf kullanıcı adlı(user id:23189629) hesabınız ile yaptığınız changeset/170871845'in tartışma kısmında da benzer değişikliklerinizi(yol sınıfı değişikliklerinizi) sormuştum fakat yanıt vermemiştiniz.)

Bkz:
-https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway

-https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tr:Turkey_roads_tagging
custodiankeyy (2025-09-10 20:01:24+00:00): Bu arada Eymeinnysf kullanıcısının aktif bir engeli bulunmakta:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18655
f4phantom (2025-09-12 13:20:54+00:00): Merhabalar, ben Çorum-Osmancık Yolunda bulunan bazı hatalar için düzenlemelere gerek duyuyorum. Ben bu yoldan bilmiyorum kaç kere geçtim ama şuan hala yapımı devam eden bir yol. Bahsettiğiniz gibi secondary'den Trunk'a çevirme sebebim o yol artık tek şerit değil. Şuan Bölünmüş yol olarak kullanılıyor.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-09-09 14:21:00+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13131012386
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/190001725

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
uprkos (2026-07-05 21:44:28+00:00): Tak jest w terenie i w Geoportalu - są to architektonicznie i funkcjonalnie dwa budynki, ale posiadają jeden adres: Grunwaldzka 37.
B252697 (2025-09-09 14:16:09+00:00): I mean I noticed there was such a footpath which connected the Rail Corridor and Bukit Merah bus interchange. Just walked past there this evening :)
YuliyaSurta (2025-09-09 14:18:41+00:00): Wrong action was mentioned. Changed road class.
Rodrigo Rega (2025-09-10 13:57:13+00:00): A 26 metros al este había ya una pareada mapeada. ¿La que añadiste en este cambio será duplicada?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171690052
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-09-10 16:09:59+00:00): Please keep oneway=yes on roundabouts, some older softwares don't automatically apply oneway=yes to roundabouts yet. Adding precision/default tags should not be removed when correct. Thanks!
keepright! ler (2025-09-11 13:00:27+00:00): Thanks for the info, I’ll consider this in the future.
Should I re-add oneway=yes to the roundabouts where I removed it? Or is it sufficient to leave it untouched wherever I encounter it?
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-09-11 13:52:16+00:00): It's ok, I will add it back myself. Thanks! :-)
keepright! ler (2025-09-11 15:48:16+00:00): You’re welcome!

However, I’m still curious as to which “older software” doesn’t support standalone junction=roundabout tagging. On the Forum, you’ve already mentioned scientific studies, but here, you referred to software in particular.

Have a nice day!
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-09-11 16:48:46+00:00): In fact, the main issue is that when someone draws a new roundabout or update one, since the oneway is not there becuase implied, it will not alwys show arrows, and I have seen several roundabouts that were not in the correct direction. Having the tag oneway=yes would have shown the error right away to the user. I understand that implied values are nice to reduce the number of tags, but in that case, it could result in erroneous data because of the lack of feedback. As a rule of thumb, I think that we should never remove implied tags that someone added, because the "duplicate" info here could help confirm the direction and make sure the arrow icons are shown in evey renderer. Just looking at issues in the OSRM project, I can find some issues mentioning that the router did make them use a roundabout in the incorrect direction, for this specific reason. The roundabout was drawn in reverse order and the lack of feedback made it hard to detect. Just imagine a UK user updating a north american or other european roundabout and, by reflex, they could draw it in the reverse direction (clockwise instead of counter-clockwise). Recent version of the id editor are indeed showing the arrows even when the oneway tag is not there, but other editors may not. It may be that all recent editors are correctly showing the arrows and recent routers may all imply the oneway tag for roundabouts, but I would like that until it is proven that all of them do, keeping the old implied tag is way more secure and robust against routing errors.
keepright! ler (2025-09-12 13:42:37+00:00): Ooh, now I get it, the main issue is the clockwise/anticlockwise confusion!
Mashin (2025-09-10 11:20:14+00:00): Hi,
I have adjusted hgv to destination as trucks can enter but should not cut through.

Cheers
StC (2025-11-05 10:25:30+00:00): Bonjour,

ce changeset a brisé la continuité d'un itinéraire pédestre qui passe par là. Je m'occupe de la réparation.
Jordi MF (2025-09-09 17:37:00+00:00): Hola Sandal man,

Pot ser que Balcón al Mar siga la següent urbanització? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/258340605

O ho tenim mal mapejat?
Sandal man (2025-09-09 18:13:59+00:00): Ups, tens tota la raó, estic confós mirant un mapa diferent.
El tornaré a canviar.
baprischka (2025-11-04 16:01:06+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1428305089 doesn’t exist; I fix it.
dp7 (2025-09-10 08:06:54+00:00): Ciao Danysan95. Questa way 1428313003 non credo sia una serra, stando alle immagini satellitari più recenti. Nelle foto meno recenti sembrerebbe soltanto un telo di copertura stagionale. In ogni caso, per il momento mi sono limitato a sostituire il tag building.
フーヴァー　リー (2025-09-10 06:52:18+00:00): 为什么building=no和area=yes需要删除呢？我看区域点击tourism=attraction的时候会自动生成area=yes
rza31 (2025-09-10 16:19:33+00:00): 你好，你使用的是「ID」。在「JOSM」中，building=no 和 area=yes 在驗證器中被標記為非必要，並會在修復時自動刪除。
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-10-04 22:42:30+00:00): This changeset duplicated roads
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171693535
Ferrocarriles de México (2025-09-09 22:05:07+00:00): `ref=CPKC` es incorrecto. Para eso tenemos el campo `operator` y ya está puesto.
mueschel (2025-09-11 10:00:32+00:00): Hi,
you added foreign tags to many boundaries, e.g.

Upop20250701
UPOp20250701
UArea
UPop20250701

First, what is the source of this data? Any import of foreign data needs to be properly documented.

And: Please use proper tags.
Tewuzij (2025-09-11 19:09:56+00:00): Source: gis.vn
UArea: area of adm. unit in sq. km
UPop20250701: Estimated population of unit on 2025-07-01
mueschel (2025-09-11 19:31:39+00:00): I can't find any license statement on this site. Do you have a written statement that this data can be copied to OSM?
Please read
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
Tommybara (2025-09-15 08:27:26+00:00): I also find this to be a misuse of tags. I don’t see the point of adding areas and population here in the map?
eggie (2025-09-09 18:41:07+00:00): Dag rweverwijk Wat bedoel je met 
seveso		Hogedrempelinrichting

Dat zijn geen valide OSM tags? 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-09-09 18:48:57+00:00): reverted by changeset #171701493
eggie (2025-09-09 18:58:14+00:00): Ik heb mij reverts nog even teruggedraaid 
Ik denk dat sleutel 
achter seveso bere in UK English kan. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seveso

MVG
eggie
arichnad (2026-05-11 00:59:33+00:00): Hello Heretofore,

I noticed you removed "bicycle=yes" and "foot=yes" in this changeset.  I'm not sure I understand this change, I think you're allowed to walk here and bike here.  

Thanks in advance!

arichnad
heretofore (2026-05-11 01:09:09+00:00): It's my understanding (and feel free to correct me!) that the default implied access for a `highway=path` is `yes` for foot, horse, and bicycle; and that only where the real value differs should one add explicit tags.

I think I used to have `designated` values here that someone removed, and I decided not to fight them about it.
arichnad (2026-05-11 13:44:37+00:00): Hello heretofore,

Yes, I agree.  highway=path says "used by pedestrians, small vehicles like bicycles, for animal riding or livestock walking".  On the other hand, the wiki does also say "All paths should ideally have access tags"

Also, I can't find it now, but somewhere it says something about adding access if you know it, regardless of the default, and not to remove it.  Or something along those lines?

> I think I used to have `designated` values here that someone removed

Wow!  Yeah.  That's too bad.  I must have missed that.  I took some pictures of the signposts, but I think I deleted them:  my memory is that this park does not have the "mode" (biking/foot/horse) information on them.  Maybe?  I forget.  The ones on the other side of Democracy Boulevard do, I remember that.

Thanks for the discussion!

arichnad
heretofore (2026-05-11 17:14:48+00:00): It looks like the old `designated` tags predate my tinkering with CJT, possibly added (haha) by you!

I haven't been to CJ in a bit, but my hazy recollection was that they had those brown wooden posts with the access types carved directly into the wood. I won't bring back the `designated` tagging without confirmation.

Didn't one of those trails have a MTB jump line mapped previously?
arichnad (2026-05-12 14:01:00+00:00): Hello heretofore,

https://montgomeryparks.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Cabin-John-Regional-map-2023-0502-letter.pdf

This map states that biking and foot are designated.

Also, lol, I didn't delete those pictures.  Here's a picture of this park:

https://imgur.com/2p5Ryb6

I have a bunch of these (2024), and none of them have the "access types" (the access types signs you mention are further south) but the map link above is sufficient (IMO).

> Didn't one of those trails have a MTB jump line mapped previously?

Ooooh, I didn't see that.  I took this picture in 2020 and my memory is that there are a few "bridge like" mtb things:

https://imgur.com/NCPAIwa

If there's a jump line, please, let me know!

Thanks,

arichnad
heretofore (2026-05-12 17:11:45+00:00): I was mistaken when I said I thought I had mapped an MTB jump line. That was in Fairland Rec Park on the Holly Loop. Sorry about that!

Glad you still had the pictures. :) I've definitely been to CJ since 2020, but I didn't know about the A-Frame. It's great when features like that get mapped.

Best,
htf
arichnad (2026-06-01 03:09:24+00:00): Hello htf,

So, I stopped by cabin john today and was thinking of you!  I noticed that there ARE biking signs inside the northernmost section of Cabin John Regional Park (so I was mostly wrong).  Based on this, I have changed the access to "designated" for biking and foot, for most of the ways in this section.

thanks,

arichnad
OrdinaryScarlett (2025-09-12 06:13:48+00:00): Hi! I was just curious how you were aware of the new segment between US 41 and US 60 opened to traffic and was designated as KY 3690?
s777n (2025-09-10 08:58:27+00:00): Здравствуйте. Удалил вашу правку. 
Чтобы добавить бар недостаточно добавить имя зданию. Вместо этого нужно создать точку и добавить ей теги бара и имя. Вот так - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13132811243

Магазин вы совсем странно добавили - как административную границу.

Имя только для собственных имен. Например “Александровский дворец” или “Атриум”. А вот местные названия, номера домов или типы объектов например “Бар такой-то” или “Магазин” добавлять не нужно. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Названия
bartgron (2025-09-09 20:59:31+00:00): Witaj, czy budynki nr 19 (tam gdzie Żabka) nr 21 (tam gdzie przystanek autobusowy) należą do ul. Akacjowej czy Sportowej? Pytam, ponieważ przy zmianie nazwy ulicy nie została ona zmieniona w adresach tych budynków. Z góry dziękuję za odpowiedź i pozdrawiam
TomHagen (2025-09-09 21:46:38+00:00): Cześć. Tak, te budynki mają adresację dla ulicy Akacjowa, ale np. paczkomat DHL Pickup, który stoi przy Żabce, ma adres Sportowa 13. Akacjowa jest przecznicę dalej (widoczna na mapie).
TomHagen (2025-09-09 21:51:55+00:00): I teraz trochę zgłupiałem. Sprawdziłem przed chwilą Geoportal i tam jest Faktycznie ul. Akacjowa (druga?!).
bartgron (2025-09-10 09:55:04+00:00): Trzeba zobaczyć przede wszystkim jak to wygląda w terenie (czy jest gdzieś nazwa ulicy i jeśli tak to jaka)
TomHagen (2025-09-10 17:10:45+00:00): Jestem Gryficzninem od urodzenia i tu poszedłem na pewniaka ;), bo to zawsze była Sportowa, a tu taka niespodzianka. Sprawdzę przy najbliższej okazji.
Angelo Giuseppe (2025-11-02 13:43:21+00:00): Caro Cortix perchè hai cancellato la MeMo storica (Meda Montorfano)?
Ci sono cartelli ci sono libretti...
Cortix (2025-11-02 13:52:42+00:00): Eliminato raccordi non pertinenti. Il tracciato completo verrà reinserito a breve con miglior dettaglio
Jrachi (2025-11-02 15:59:33+00:00): Ciao, Cortix.
Stiamo ancora aspettando tue risposte sul changeset 168439871.
Queste cancellazioni non hanno neanche la scusa dell'altro!

Ti prego, usa la buona grazia di revertare anche questo changeset.
Nel futuro, come già chiesto, avvisa l'utente prima di disfare il lavoro di qualcuno!

Ivo
micheleOSM3 (2025-11-29 08:14:29+00:00): Ciao a tutti, posso suggerire una strada che secondo me è la migliore per OpenStreetMap?

@Cortix: secondo me il modo più pulito e trasparente per ripristinare è fare un revert del tuo changeset originale, sempre che questo non impatti troppo su altre modifiche.

@Angelo Giuseppe e Jrachi: Mi pare che Cortix abbia ripristinato manualmente il sentiero, se Cortix ritiene la sua correzione manuale sufficiente o non vuole revertare, potete fare voi stessi il revert.

L'importante è che il dato finale su OpenStreetMap sia corretto. Trovate un accordo sulla strada più veloce per arrivarci.
Angelo Giuseppe (2025-12-03 06:44:47+00:00): Grazie Jrachi, michele, Io non so fare revert lo potete fare Voi.
Jrachi (2025-12-03 09:09:00+00:00): Ho revertato i due percorsi.
Ivo
Angelo Giuseppe (2025-12-03 09:15:36+00:00): Grazie Ivo.
mueschel (2025-09-11 09:55:48+00:00): Hi,
please don't add 50+ food and drink tags on restaurants. OSM is not the right place to store the complete menu of a restaurant. 
Just add a link to the menu on their website using website:menu.
Anonymous897234 (2025-09-11 16:55:03+00:00): Thus seems not the place to debate the use of food:* and drink:*.

Perhaps on the forums https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/new-tag-structure-food/99638 or wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:food:* or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Food_declaration?

In either case usage seems fitting with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:food:*. And this allows searchability for food/drink products, whereas a menu link does not. How else would an app have data that piroshki is served at From Russia with Love cafe https://openstreetmap.org/way/1428332092.
Anonymous897234 (2025-09-11 17:10:31+00:00): I did reduce the detail level on one restaurant, as (protein)x(dish) combinatorics we're a bit much. 

Main downside is app queries like "Chicken Tikka Masala" need to infer that independent food:chicken and food:tikka_masala hits should still cause the restaurant to be shown as a search result. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171794977#map=19/45.233319/-122.811043
mueschel (2025-09-11 18:06:41+00:00): Please feel free to ask for some feedback in the forums, but my hunch is that the general gist is that this is too much for OSM.
mueschel (2025-09-17 19:47:59+00:00): It seems you don't have an active account in the forums, so you likely didn't get the 'ping':
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/intended-use-of-food/135602
Pan (2025-09-10 00:52:19+00:00): Thanks a lot. I will be more careful about that.