piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Sébastien Pi (2026-06-23 21:54:57+00:00): Bonjour,

Ce changement concerne la création d’un magasin. Vous devriez, par égard envers les autres contributeurs et pour mieux comprendre vos changements, adopter un commentaire plus adapté au changement. Les bonnes pratiques sont décrites ici : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications.

Bien que les éditeurs proposent les anciens commentaires, il vaut mieux ne pas trop en abuser : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications#Réutilisation_d'anciens_commentaires

Bonnes contributions
iMacThere4iAm (2026-06-19 20:20:37+00:00): *Heathfoot Avenue.
jayaddison (2026-06-20 10:09:54+00:00): Thank you!
nevw (2026-06-21 04:51:55+00:00): Hi, this should be mapped as a multipolygon with the outside ring (role outer) as one polygon and all the islands as seperate poilygon rings with role inner.
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=123.09763&lat=-25.06446&zoom=14
If you are intending to map more of these, it would be preferable to start using josm with assistance from it's relation editor.
Tip for using Josm:
Only use 'add node' mode when adding nodes. The rest of the time have 'select' mode enabled.
Under 'view' menu, have 'Map Paint Styles' with Josm default (MappCSS) and Potlatch 2 checked so that you are viewing as as familiar map when editing.
nevw (2026-06-21 04:59:16+00:00): The way it is mapped now, you have lines linking the islands to other parts. This is not a correct way to map this type of object. Instead if you map as a multipolygon, you would have one ring around the outside of the water feature as a role outer. All the islands inside the outer ring would be drawn as separate rings with an inner role with no connecting lines to the outer.

If edited this way it is easier to map and maintain and meets the validity criteria.
TheSwavu (2026-06-21 05:42:08+00:00): Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184376211
NieWnen (2026-06-21 16:14:21+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/836512441

Cześć,
jeśli ta linia nie jest ścieżką pieszo-rowerową, to należy zadbać o to, aby usunąć z niej tagi bicycle i foot.
Cardiff_Electric (2026-06-24 20:41:03+00:00): Dzięki za czujność. Widzę, że już chyba poprawione. Zbudowali jakiś czas temu DDR obok, więc chodnik jest faktycznie chodnikiem, a nie jakimś tworem.
Minh Nguyen (2026-06-21 01:55:54+00:00): Changeset 183849933 already temporarily renamed the stadium in line with the FIFA host committee’s branding. The stadium building is practically synonymous with the stadium grounds, so I see no reason to give them different names. Your changeset removed both the usual and temporary names from the building, which seems excessive and inconsistent.

The stadium routinely hosts both American and association football (and concerts). We don’t need to track which sport is being played here on any given Saturday. I think the sport tag can include both sports, but we should leave the pitch at NFL dimensions because that’s the norm (as seen in aerial imagery).

Undone in changeset 184373122. I invite you to participate in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/fifas-temporary-stadium-names/144185 where others have opinions about this as well.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-19 22:34:30+00:00): I guess it DOES make sense for a redundant connection to be reduced to secondary, but I have two main objections:
1. All of Boulder Highway is part of the NHS. And so is Wagon Wheel Drive, between I-11 and Boulder Highway.
2. Now, the connections between Boulder Highway southbound and I-11 northbound and between I-11 southbound and Boulder Highway northbound are secondary, technically leaving an "incomplete" interchange here.

What should be done about this? Thanks.
Joseph R P (2026-06-19 22:54:11+00:00): While the Boulder Highway being a part of the NHS is a good case for noting its importance, it doesn't necessarily mean that every single segment of it needs to be tagged as primary. 

As for there being incomplete connectivity between I 11 and Boulder Highway via a primary route, since I 11 S to Boulder Highway N is not a common movement for major through traffic, connecting these movement by a secondary route should be fine. This is especially since that connection is Wagon Wheel Drive, which is minor arterial road being tagged up to primary just because of an uncommon movement between two other highways. I would agree with keeping Wagon Wheel primary if it was the only way for traffic to move from Boulder Hwy to I 11, which isn't the case since the vast majority of traffic is funneled through the dedicated ramps bypassing this diamond interchange.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-20 01:25:16+00:00): I see. Thanks for the info!
One interesting thing that I will note is that you decided to keep 5th Street as primary because it's part of the NHS. That, apparently, applies neither here nor in Reno (but DOES for Main Street). So, what gives?
Joseph R P (2026-06-20 01:40:22+00:00): Like I said while NHS classification is a good case for tagging a road as primary, not every segment of that road needs to be tagged as primary, particularly when there's no other reason aside from the NHS designation. In some cases it would be irrational to tag every section of a typically important highway (an NHS route, a U.S. Route, a major state highway, etc.) as primary or higher when that particular section has low connectivity.
BSG Commercial (2026-06-24 23:03:15+00:00): Hi, I noticed this POI was removed. I placed it at this building because the address is 2500 Tamiami Trail N, and I can verify the POI is located there. Was it removed because of tagging, source, duplicate status, or placement? I’m happy to fix it in the preferred OSM style.
TheSwavu (2026-06-24 23:45:01+00:00): This building is in Australia. You are wrong by about 10,000 miles.

Please at least check the country you are mapping in first.
Tomas Straupis (2026-06-20 16:20:23+00:00): Laba diena. Ten, kur nėra kelio ženklo „P“, tai nėra amenity=parking. Jei visas vietas, kuriose statomos mašinos sužymėti kaip amenity=parking, tai visas Vilnius bus vienas didelis „parkingas“ ir tada šita informacija bus beprasmiška.
ilias_ (2026-06-20 03:33:45+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I understand why you might think it's useless to map private driveways, but if it exists on the ground, it's fine to exist on OSM. So no need to delete them. If someone took the time to map them, they deserve to be on the map too.
LambdaComplex (2026-06-23 01:27:21+00:00): El tag de edificio es para la estructura, no el area en donde queda, gracias por la contribucion
Jesus Argueta (2026-06-23 15:23:37+00:00): Buenos dias, muchas gracias por la observación, la tendré en cuenta. Saludos
anshanin (2026-06-23 19:47:32+00:00): Da li je završena izgradnja celog kompleksa Lux 51? Može li da se promeni tip landuse?
Branko Kokanovic (2026-06-24 19:19:14+00:00): Kad sam bio u Lyri, i dalje je tu gradiliste, provlacio sam se kroz konstrukcije! Nije gotovo
ceirios (2026-06-20 00:37:23+00:00): Helo,

Could you please write descriptive changeset comments?Writing "1" doesn't help yourself or others to know what you've been up to

Cofion,
Ceirios
dmjab13 (2026-06-22 16:33:04+00:00): please try to limit changeset boundries to a state or region, rather than the entire east coast
bobthebuilder423468 (2026-06-23 04:53:50+00:00): FR bro
mclarkdev (2026-06-23 05:06:36+00:00): I did not intend to include the SC point, I will be more aware of boundary sizes with future changesets.
arafqus (2026-06-23 18:10:01+00:00): Hi, I hope this finds you well. I would like to know how you came into the conclusion of downgrading the classification of these segments of RN 44 between Berrahal and Annaba when they fit the criteria to be classified as motorways (as they were previously tagged), one of the most important and easily identifiable qualifications are 2X2 ways with additional emergency lanes on both ways on the right side, which are paved and found in the segments mentionned above.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-21 05:41:29+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186096731
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-06-20 21:46:52+00:00): OK, mais mettez-vous une alerte pour ne pas oublier de la réactiver. Quand la fermeture ne dure pas plus d'un an, il serait peut-être préférable de mettre ces infos dans un autre layer externe à OSM. J'ai peur qu'un engin de routage prenne les données aujourd'hui et ne les mette pas à jour pendant des mois ensuite.
AV31 (2026-06-22 01:01:43+00:00): Je suis régulièrement ce qui ce passe sur ce chantier. Sur le site de Québec511, c'est bien expliqué. J'ai dessiné les mêmes modifications que ce qui y est inscrit. Je vais aussi y faire une visite du chantier de temps en temps. Je compte y retourner bientôt.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-06-22 12:49:19+00:00): C'est bon, tant que vous faites les mises à jour à la réouverture. Merci!
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-06-20 22:31:14+00:00): Y a-t-il une séparation physique? La piste cyclable ne semble pas séparée de la circulation automobile, à part la peinture. Dans ce cas, on met les infos de la piste cyclable sur la rue elle-même. Voir ce wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada#Mapping_cycleways

Merci et bonne journée!
dermoth_ (2026-06-21 19:29:35+00:00): Ok... Il y a des séparateurs flexibles mais je ne me souviens pas s'ils sont installée à l'année longue (Il me je pense que oui). C'est aussi une piste bidirectionnelle, sauf la partie qui continue en contre sens sur prince (là c'est juste un marquage à droite et une piste en sens inverse à gauche). 

Pour la bande en sens inverse sur Prince, Il y avait cycleway:left=opposite_lane et l'éditeur indique que c'est déprécié, j'avais pensé qu'il fallait une piste séparée. En fait il suggère simplement de mettre "cycleway:left=lane" (et les autre attributs qui en fin de compte sont toujours là...).

Donc pour résumer:
1. De la Commune: c'est ok si les séparateurs y sont à l'année longue? Sinon, on peut indiquer une bande bidirectionnelle sur un seul côté? (j'avais pas comprit que c'étais possible)

2. Rue Prince: Je ré-integre la bande la la voie existante, et...
a. Je laisse "cycleway:left=opposite_lane" (noté come dépécicié)? 
b. Je change pour "cycleway:left=lane" avec "oneway:bicycle=no" (déjà présent) ?
dermoth_ (2026-06-21 19:40:05+00:00): Pour l'instant j'ai fait le point 2a (rétablit tel que c'était avant), j'attends une confirmation avant de changer autre chose.

Maintenant que j'y pense je suis sûr que les flex posts sont là la l'année, la piste est déneigée l'hiver mais il y a souvent une bordée de neige à franchir pour entrer/sortis de la piste hors intersections (sans flex posts la ville déneigerais la rue au complet).
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-06-21 21:02:41+00:00): Selon le wiki canadien, on ne sépare pas si il n'y a que des flex posts. Vous pouvez par contre corriger le cycleway:left=opposite_lane pour cycleway:left=lane avec oneway:bicycle=no
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-06-21 21:03:32+00:00): avec cycleway:left:oneway=-1
dermoth_ (2026-06-21 21:10:47+00:00): Merci. Justement au sujet des séparateurs flex, le wiki mentionne qu'on ne dessine pas la piste s'ils sont saisonniers.

"Draw as a separate cycleway when there is a clear partial or complete separation (like [...], permanent/non seasonal bollards [...]"

"Add cycleway tags to the road itself when there is only paint all the way [...], or flex posts (in areas where they are usually removed during winter for snow removal [...]."
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-06-22 12:45:37+00:00): Dans ce cas, libre à vous, mais SVP l'indiquer dans le tag note sur le way que les flex posts sont permanents. Merci!
dermoth_ (2026-06-22 14:15:30+00:00): Ok corrigé, à un détail près, je ne suis pas sûr comment indiquer un flex post permanent. J'ai aussi joint le chat matrix pour demander des clarifications sur certains tags.
felipeeugenio (2026-06-20 14:17:09+00:00): Hola. Realmente un portón tiene un nombre? a qué se refiere 32?
En OSM el tag name= es para cosas oficiales, quizás eso es una manera de llamarlo para alguien que trabaja en el aeropuerto, pero en OSM hay otros tags para eso. No agregamos nombres descriptivos.
Solo para saber.
Lo mismo para los otros nombres que agregó. RAPAZ es el nombre del edificio o del operador?
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184336979
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-19 07:02:28+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20960
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-20 05:54:50+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.

I think it should be "Sparta Road" and not "Sparta Rdoad"?
CAM-Gerlach (2026-06-20 10:02:24+00:00): Yes, without a doubt.

Also worryingly, it looks like the road previously named "Sparta Road" was entirely deleted, on the justification that it was a "private drive" (colloquial US term for a driveway or similar minor private service road). Assuming this is indeed the case, the name should be removed, the road reclassified (as e.g. highway=service + service=driveway) and access=private tagged.

@Mjmcc521 , could you explain why this "private drive" was completely removed from the map? If it is a private driveway, it should instead be retagged appropriately as discussed above. Otherwise, among other reasons other mappers can and will add it back without these tags making clear that it is private--see https://osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property for more details.

Thanks, and happy mapping!
CAM-Gerlach (2026-06-20 10:04:14+00:00): Also@Mjmcc521, as a new mapper I'd be happy to help you with restoring the removed road and instead adding the appropriate tags, if you'd like. Just let me know!
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-20 10:13:17+00:00): @CAM thank you as well for checking this map edit.
Mjmcc521 (2026-06-20 14:17:40+00:00): I removed the driveway because it is my private property and I am tired of delivery drivers using it as a shortcut cut between Hillside and Sparta (Williams st as it is miss named on here.) I already have physical signs that say private drive which are ignored.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-20 22:26:34+00:00): Thanks for clarifying. As we previously explained to you and the wiki page I linked describes in more detail, *deleting data from the map is not the correct approach to handle this situation*.

To repeat, among other reasons, another well-intentioned mapper is likely to come along, see the road on imagery, and map it again without necessarily adding the appropriate tags that classify it as a private driveway, meaning map apps will start routing drivers over it again and you're back to square one. In fact, this is exactly what happened--within *15 minutes* of your changeset someone else (neither of us) added it back without an explicit access=private, albeit much more correctly as a highway=service service=driveway which navigation apps still shouldn't route over.

Simply adding the appropriate tags I previously described to you to the existing road will ensure any map app using OSM data will not route anyone over it, preserves the valid portion of the data, and ensures you won't have to worry about this problem again in the future.

Therefore, in changeset 184370058 , I restored the deleted road and added the appropriate tags I mentioned instead (merging it with the existing driveway that had already been added back), in addition to a couple more that (smoothness and surface) that further characterize the road as an unpaved driveway, and mapping the geometry much more precisely for good measure. I also resolved your notes that you had left open, as you already fixed one of them yourself (renaming the road), and the other three, all repeating the same comment about the same driveway, were addressed properly in my changeset. Thanks.

https://osm.org/changeset/184370058
CAM-Gerlach (2026-06-21 09:01:55+00:00): NB, @Mjmcc521 responded on the aforementioned changeset objecting to the changes, in case anyone wants to give a second opinion.
Mjmcc521 (2026-06-21 11:21:47+00:00): If all you say is true, then thank you. I apologize for my attitude.  My dogs on on parameter collars so they cannot get in the public road. The delivery drivers come speeding through my driveway and have nearly hit my dogs. I see this on my cameras and I am not home to intervene most of the time. I hope this helps.  Thank you again.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-06-25 14:54:28+00:00): Just add/keep the access=private tag and after regular updates, the routing engines will stop routing through your driveway.
MassCartog (2026-06-21 15:55:53+00:00): Hi welcome to Open Street Map. In this changeset you removed valid roadway features. These changes were incorrect and have been reverted.
baotao (2026-06-22 16:00:43+00:00): 校区名要用英文括号标注。参加中国标注指南https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hans:%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E6%A0%87%E6%B3%A8%E6%8C%87%E5%8D%97#%E5%9F%BA%E6%9C%AC%E6%A0%87%E6%B3%A8#%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E4%B8%8E%E7%A7%91%E7%A0%94
mapl (2026-06-26 10:35:35+00:00): Hi Josef73!
Deine Änderung scheint mir sinnvoll, da da die alte opening_hours-Angabe nicht in das übliche Format passt. Der Kommentar "opening_hours angepasst" könnte hier vielleicht präziser sein. Ist deine Intention von review_requested=yes im Sinne von https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:review_requested , nach einem Review deines changesets zu bitten, oder geht es eigentlich darum, dass die Öffnungszeiten vor Ort überprüft werden sollten? Dafür wäre evtl. eine Note oder eine Notiz am Objekt sinnvoller?
Besten Gruß!
literan (2026-06-20 09:34:13+00:00): здравствуйте. landuse=forest в России, пожалуйста, не используйте (см. в вики подробности). Вместо этого для древесных насаждений применяйте тег natural=wood
Ruslan Fatih (2026-06-21 13:05:23+00:00): Хорошо. Спасибо большое за уточнение.
elsy1 (2026-06-20 14:59:03+00:00): باسلام، چرا وسط جنگل تگ صرافی با این نام ثبت کردید؟!
elsy1 (2026-06-20 15:00:13+00:00): لطفا توضیح مستند بدهید. در غیر این صورت مجبورم برگشت بزنم
churts (2026-06-20 07:28:22+00:00): Also avoids "225 logan st" coming up with random house out of 374 all having "housenumber=225"
TheSwavu (2026-06-20 11:13:22+00:00): Hello,

Welcome to OSM. 

Just to let you know units are tagged in Australia as addr:unit. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Addresses

There are about 500,000 uses of addr:unit and 629 addr:housenumber with a '/' in it.

Cheers.
eerib (2026-06-20 20:03:22+00:00): Hello Pnorman,

I've marked the trails in this area with motorvehicle=no and motorcycle=no because many of them specifically sign that they're not to be used by any motorized transportation, specifically dirtbikes and dual sport bikes. The motorcycle tag is the main legal access tag for dirtbikes and dual sport bikes.

The highway=path tag does not imply no access to these modes as highway=path is also used for motorized  dirtbike, dual-sport, and ATV trails.

The reason I do not use the access=no tag is because almost all of the outdoor navigation applications that run on Mapbox will default to showing these trails as no access.

Thank you, eerib
pnorman (2026-06-21 18:32:46+00:00): If you look at the default access restrictions around the world (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions) it's fairly universally no motorcycling on paths. None of the US-specific recommendations (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trails_Stewardship_Initiative) for trails mention needing to tag no access for motorbikes.

I'm not aware of any motorbike routers which will route over highway=path without access tags indicating it's okay.

Even if something did incorrectly route motorbikes over paths you still wouldn't need the tag in addition to motor_vehicle=no, because a motorbike is a type of motor_vehicle
eerib (2026-06-21 19:05:31+00:00): Hello Pnorman,

I can understand the drive to remove the legal access tags but I think it's better to include them for data completeness rather than to fall back on a routing engine assumption.

The reason I use both motor_vehicle and motorcycle is to ensure it is not ambiguous to downstream applications that may see motorized recreation devices as separate from street legal vehicles.

Unfortunately the OpenStreetMap wiki and tagging scheme largely does not address motorized recreation (dirt bike, trials motorcycle, e-devices, ATV, SxS, ...) and does not document in-practice standards or downstream application use. I hope to address this in the near future.

Cheers, eerib
pnorman (2026-06-23 05:08:44+00:00): It's not ambiguous. It's like adding motor_vehicle=yes to a highway=secondary. If it were a highway=track I'd agree with adding it because track varies from region to region. Path doesn't. 

Are you aware of any routers that process motor_vehicle and also default to allowing motor_vehicle on highway=path?
eerib (2026-06-23 15:50:28+00:00): Hello Pnorman,

Just because there is a router assumption does not mean that you delete the data that further clarifies that assumption. For example, this would be similar to deleting oneway=no from all features because the default assumption is no.

Since the edit appears to meet the automated edit definition, in that it's a mass removal of tags identified using an Overpass query and it's not in an area you normally edit in, it would be best practice to discuss the edit on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum prior to the edit.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

https://community.openstreetmap.org/

You're also welcome to contact the Data Working Group for a second opinion.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group#Contacts_in_case_of_problems

data@openstreetmap.org

Thank you, eerib
pnorman (2026-06-27 07:20:10+00:00): This is not an automated or mechanical edit. I am quite familliar with the guidelines as I was one of the people who wrote them.

Oneway is a good example. There are times when oneway=no adds value on a road which would normally not be oneway, such as if there's a bunch of parallel oneway streets and one exception. Adding a oneway=no tag (and possibly a note) can add information for a mapper to know that the exception was intentional.

When I was making my edits I found no cases  like that. This is more akin to adding oneway=no to a bunch of residential streets where there's no reason anyone would expect them to be oneway. Or, like adding motor_vehicle=yes to a perfectly ordinary highway=tertiary. We don't do that.
pnorman (2026-06-27 07:32:10+00:00): Please also remember https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Change_rollback and assuming good faith and giving people time to reply
eerib (2026-06-27 08:05:58+00:00): Hello Pnorman,

The motor_vehicle=no values add value in this circumstance because some trails in this area do allow motor vehicles, such as off-road motorcycles. Mass deleting the motor related legal access tags makes it harder to determine which trails have been surveyed and evaluated for this.

If you feel strongly about this then you can always change the tagging to your personal preference, like switching to using the access=no exception method. Or you can delete the motorcycle=no tags while leaving the motor_vehicle=no tags.

The access=no method would have two main downsides:

1. Some of the most popular outdoor navigation apps will render trails with access=no as "No Access" despite then having other more granular values due to current technology limitations.

2. It creates an exception based system where it's unclear if all exceptions have been documented. This creates unnecessary ambiguity over the more granular approach.

I hope this helps explain my rationale here and make it clear why I am tagging in this manner. Please do let me know if anything is unclear and requires further explanation.

Thank you, eerib
pnorman (2026-07-07 08:28:40+00:00): > add value in this circumstance because some trails in this area do allow motor vehicles,

I looked and there is precisely one highway=path with motor vehicle access in the area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/538347714

Where are the highway=path that you say are motor_vehicle accessible?