piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
MarinoBM (2026-07-24 21:46:18+00:00): Hola Ufones de Aliste: ¿En qué te basas para afirmar que esta carretera le corresponde la categoría de secundaria?
En las directrices de etiquetado españolas para Castilla y León está definido que a las carreteras pertenecientes a la Red Complementaria Local les corresponde la categoría de tertiary
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Directrices_de_etiquetado_espa%C3%B1olas#Castilla_y_Le%C3%B3n
Este es la página oficial con el Catálogo de la Red Regional de Carreteras de Castilla y León
https://carreterasytransportes.jcyl.es/web/es/red-regional-carreteras.html
Un saludo.
Este conjunto de cambios ha sido revertido.
Fan map 2 (2026-07-23 20:19:12+00:00): Niezrozumiale dodany park w kwartale ulic Bema, Świetlana, Przedwiośnie, Zgierska. Wycofane.
pesticides (2026-07-23 18:10:27+00:00): In https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186161061, I created a separate route=bicycle for the ODT and added the route=bicycle;foot;inline_skates;horse one (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1896877) to it as a member. I was hoping that this would allow it to show up on cycling maps like OpenCycleMap or CyclOSM, but it doesn't. Will look into other options to achieve this.
pesticides (2026-07-23 18:17:42+00:00): Just for reference, the original relation was changed from route=bicycle to the multi-value route fairly recently: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171014206 (11 months ago, with the relation being 14 years old).
MarinoBM (2026-07-24 21:44:39+00:00): Hola Ufones de Aliste: ¿En qué te basas para afirmar que esta carretera le corresponde la categoría de secundaria?
En las directrices de etiquetado españolas para Castilla y León está definido que a las carreteras pertenecientes a la Red Complementaria Local les corresponde la categoría de tertiary
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Directrices_de_etiquetado_espa%C3%B1olas#Castilla_y_Le%C3%B3n
Este es la página oficial con el Catálogo de la Red Regional de Carreteras de Castilla y León
https://carreterasytransportes.jcyl.es/web/es/red-regional-carreteras.html
Un saludo.
Este conjunto de cambios ha sido revertido.
MarinoBM (2026-07-24 21:44:26+00:00): Hola Ufones de Aliste: ¿En qué te basas para afirmar que esta carretera le corresponde la categoría de secundaria?
En las directrices de etiquetado españolas para Castilla y León está definido que a las carreteras pertenecientes a la Red Complementaria Local les corresponde la categoría de tertiary
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Directrices_de_etiquetado_espa%C3%B1olas#Castilla_y_Le%C3%B3n
Este es la página oficial con el Catálogo de la Red Regional de Carreteras de Castilla y León
https://carreterasytransportes.jcyl.es/web/es/red-regional-carreteras.html
Un saludo.
Este conjunto de cambios ha sido revertido.
QuiLe (2026-07-23 21:19:26+00:00): Request denied. Changeset 186251082 was reverted in changeset 186259252. Please follow our tagging conventions and do not include promotional material in your edits.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186251082
NEmappingperson (2026-07-23 18:22:56+00:00): Hours + Address + Phone: https://www.creationtech.com/locations/rochester/
MarinoBM (2026-07-24 21:44:16+00:00): Hola Ufones de Aliste: ¿En qué te basas para afirmar que esta carretera le corresponde la categoría de secundaria?
En las directrices de etiquetado españolas para Castilla y León está definido que a las carreteras pertenecientes a la Red Complementaria Local les corresponde la categoría de tertiary
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Directrices_de_etiquetado_espa%C3%B1olas#Castilla_y_Le%C3%B3n
Este es la página oficial con el Catálogo de la Red Regional de Carreteras de Castilla y León
https://carreterasytransportes.jcyl.es/web/es/red-regional-carreteras.html
Un saludo.
Este conjunto de cambios ha sido revertido.
user_5359 (2026-07-24 15:05:34+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please use lowercase characters for the OpenStreetMap keys. Also check the usage of the key road (this key isn't display on a map).
Marek-M (2026-07-24 11:07:45+00:00): Cześć,
Dodając drogi proposed/construction unikaj dodawania accessów dopuszczający jakiś ruch, czyli pomijaj np. tagi:
bicycle=designated	
foot=designated

Niektóre nawigacje traktują to jako dopuszczenie do ruchu dla wybranych pojazdów pomimo trwającej budowy.
NieWnen (2026-07-24 11:25:21+00:00): Ew. warto dodać z prefiksem np. 

proposed:bicycle=designated 
proposed:foot=designated 

wtedy informacja nie zanika, że ma być to CPR i nic tym nie powinno poprowadzić.
Szymson (2026-07-25 09:30:47+00:00): Poprawiłem: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186336299
Marek-M (2026-07-26 14:08:39+00:00): Dzięki 👋
Frans S (2026-07-24 13:02:23+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please check your mapping skills.
You regularly map buildings in 2 steps.
Check this footage, please
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoJGEUYuXS8

Sometimes it is difficult to see the difference between yards or open terrain and buildings. Be sure you see the shadows and rooflines  when you want to map an object.
Best regards
Kostaki01 (2026-07-24 15:04:05+00:00): Heya, I was the one who added the original stop tag (though it appears I somehow made a typo with spelling minor Oops!)

A project I have been doing is mapping blinker lights in Northern NY, which while technically being traffic lights still have stop signs at them.

Some blinker lights have all way stops while some of them only have minor stops. I didn't know how quite to tag them because I wanted to make it clear that blinker lights are not three colored lights, so I added the stop tag, and I have been doing that consistently.

Since you are a more experienced mapper though, do you know if there are any better ways to tag blinker lights?
maxwellward (2026-07-24 17:31:42+00:00): Hi! Thanks for your message. I wasn't too sure the best way to tag these either, and I had a bit of a discussion with some other mappers about it. The main challenge being that the blinker lights are sometimes only for 2 directions, but the light is physically in the centre of the intersection (making it tough to know how to tag direction).

The Tag:traffic_signals=blinker page does not include the stop=* tag, and my take on it is that since stop signs are still present, we can map the stop signs at their actual location (the stop line), then not include stop=* on the blinker since the blinker isn't what requires cars to stop, it's the stop sign (I think, I don't know NY law very well).

I hope this makes sense, I'm just kind of throwing ideas out there and in no way am making a final rule of law on how to tag these! Please let me know what you think, new ideas are always welcome!
Kostaki01 (2026-07-25 14:10:29+00:00): I think that makes sense.
You are correct that the blinker does not make the cars stop: The stop signs do, and I have been mapping the stop signs as well to make it clear which roads require stopping.
But the blinker lights are not the feature which makes trafffic actually stop, so it doesn't make sense to add the stop tag to them when the stop signs can just be mapped instead. 

I was just worried at the time that the blinker lights would be confused with traffic lights, as a lot of traffic lights only use the signal tag, and technically aren't tagged as traffic lights.

One thing I also have been doing is that I have been retagging a lot of traffic signals by adding the traffic_lights tag to them, to differentiate them from other lights.
They previously only had the signal tag.

Signal, while being the default tag, is a bit too vague due to there being many types of traffic signals. In my opinion, it makes sense to add the extra tagging to make sure blinkers are not confused with being actual traffic lights by mapping software. :)

But this is something I am curious to see what other people think about.

Either way, I agree with you that the stop tag is redundant on the blinker lights since we can just tag the stop signs. I just tagged them like that in the past due to the lack of tagging on the other traffic signals in the areas I have been mapping. :)
Subs@Bluceu (2026-07-23 23:27:52+00:00): Hi all...the bus stops highlighted in the map correspond to a trolley service. The tram stops don't have assigned numbers... the stops have a sign at each stop that says "Coral Gables Trolley". I can upload a photo of the signs at each of the stops so that there is no doubt of what is written on them.
CAM-Gerlach (2026-07-24 00:50:03+00:00): Hi @Subs@Bluceu,

Thanks for the reply and the additional information.

> The tram stops don't have assigned numbers... the stops have a sign at each stop that says "Coral Gables Trolley".

Right, then they don't have a (publicly-marked) ref=*. A ref=* is a distinct reference number or code that uniquely identifies each stop, which I'm sure you'd agree that a sign stating the name of the network, the same for each stop, clearly is not.

As @Udarian has previously explained to you on your reverted changeset as well as on your previous changeset 186034280, this instead is the network=* as is currently tagged on the corresponding public transport bus route relations, and can also be tagged as such on each of the stops.

For more details, see the following resources:

https://osm.wiki/Buses#Step_1_-_Add_bus_stops_to_OpenStreetMap

https://osm.wiki/Key:ref

https://osm.wiki/Key:network#Public_transit

Thanks, and happy mapping.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-29 20:36:11+00:00): Does this make sense? Or is there something you're still unclear on?
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-24 06:34:21+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
Is the added name real?
LTLFLD (11057335625), v2
DPBG (2026-07-25 10:43:34+00:00): Yes.  You might see a brook, along side our property, named LITTLEFIELD.  I call our property by that name and often shorten it to LTLFLD.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-25 16:03:17+00:00): OSM should reflect what exists on the ground, not be edited to influence Tesla routing.

Could you please remove your added name?
literan (2026-07-28 19:43:12+00:00): здесь аналогично, тег bicycle=yes лишний. также вы перевели велопешеходные дорожки в разряд велодорожек, что неверно. правку придется отменить
rempshaener (2026-07-26 17:36:41+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.
Ich habe eine Anmerkung zu deinen Bearbeitungen.
In das Feld ref kommt die Hydrantennummer, die oben rechts auf dem Schild ausgewiesen ist, nicht das z. B. „H100“.
Vielen Dank für deinen Beitrag und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen.
Viele Grüße
pwbriggs (2026-07-27 22:03:21+00:00): Thanks. It's currently mapped as a foot path (with bikes allowed), not as a road. Let me know if you have any questions.
felipeeugenio (2026-07-23 19:47:48+00:00): Hola. El pedazo de camino que está antes del portón/puerta y en el cual se puede circular libremente, no lleva access=

Yo lo arreglo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186254826
MyBeautifulSunflower (2026-07-23 19:50:39+00:00): ohhhh, entiendo, muchas gracias!
synthfi (2026-07-28 03:16:59+00:00): can you attach messages as to what you did next time
ratrun (2026-07-24 13:32:48+00:00): Please stop your not discussed import!
As I expect you not to answer again, I'm going to report you to DWG again.
This looks better than last time, still again there are a lot of unconnected ways: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-3.94596&lat=7.42883&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1

Via google translate:
Veuillez cesser votre importation non concertée!
Comme je ne m'attends pas à une nouvelle réponse de votre part, je vais à nouveau vous signaler au DWG.
Cela semble meilleur que la dernière fois, mais il reste tout de même de nombreux tronçons non connectés : https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-3.94596&lat=7.42883&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1
woodpeck (2026-07-24 14:21:24+00:00): The user has been in touch with DWG and claimed that this was not an import; however, serious quality doubts remain. Among other things, this changeset added a duplicate and apparently broken village boundary - but that may also be a technical fault?
ratrun (2026-07-25 08:56:08+00:00): Thank you @woodpeck for blocking this user for 14 days. From my perspective it is a pretty long time, but it might help in getting the user  more cooperative.
Usually I would clean up the unconnected ways in this period, but in this case I won't do this. Instead I leave this exercise to @joedal-osm to do it himself when his  block ends.

Google translate for French:
Merci à @woodpeck d'avoir bloqué cet utilisateur pour une durée de 14 jours. À mon avis, c'est une période assez longue, mais cela pourrait l'inciter à faire preuve de plus de coopération.
D'ordinaire, je profiterais de ce laps de temps pour nettoyer les chemins déconnectés, mais je ne le ferai pas cette fois-ci. Je laisse plutôt le soin à @joedal-osm d'effectuer ce travail lui-même une fois son blocage levé.
Sylv1_Durif (2026-07-23 20:07:07+00:00): Ce changeset est moins précis que les précédents (position approximative sur les 2 derniers segments, mais très proche) et sur les sections où le canal est réellement sous terre.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-24 20:25:25+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Please see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Reverted adding SEO spam POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/186316334
DD1GJ (2026-07-24 07:17:15+00:00): Hallo jrajko,

willkommen bei OSM und danke für Deine Ortskenntnisse. Die von Dir für Fahrräder gesperrten Wege waren alle als reine Fußwege (highway=footway) eingetragen, auf denen Radfahren eh verboten ist. Ein zusätzliches bicycle=no ist deshalb nicht erforderlich. Ich habe daher deine Änderungen wieder rückgängig gemacht.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dfootway

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Germany

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf

Viele Grüße, Joachim
Negreheb (2026-07-31 20:11:33+00:00): Den name=* kannst du lsöchen, der ist nicht notwendig und horse=* kannst du auch löschen, das ist ebenfalls nicht notwendig. Das muss man nicht extra auf jede Straße raufpacken, wär mir zumindest ganz neu.
Vektor_567 (2026-07-31 20:51:04+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis.
QuiLe (2026-07-23 21:20:38+00:00): Hello and welcome to OSM! Please note that you do not need to name a driveway. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names

Names are not for descriptions
For descriptions, please use description=*, not the name=*. A name should not contain additional information that is not part of it, such as categories, addresses, ref=* links, owner=* or operator=* data, technical specifications, etc. The name=* is also not intended for explanations of the object’s state, role, or time restrictions. OpenStreetMap terminology or any other notes for mappers should not be part of the name.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186255697
jr-grenoble (2026-07-23 20:18:15+00:00): Pascal Sombardier a donné le nom de Lac sud de la Barbarate à ce lac en 2019, bien avant que celui-ci ne soit répertorié incorrectement par l'IGN (qui le confond avec le Lac de Balme Rousse).
norgis (2026-07-24 14:23:35+00:00): Hvorfor har du fjerna oneway=yes fra rundkjøringa her? Og hvorfor fjerna forgjengerfelt (nodene) ved kryssingene?
Merk også at stikkveier som er tilkomstveier til parkeringsplasser ikke skal ha service=parking_aisle iht. wiki.
gormur (2026-07-26 19:05:29+00:00): Ang parking_aisle er nok det en inkurie. Fiks i vei.
De andre tingene du nevner blir debattert på andre changeset, så det tar vi ikke her på dette.
tux67 (2026-07-24 07:19:00+00:00): Hi - Apart from DOPs .. what is the source of this change? Any on the ground knowledge?
BR
tux67
mapperue (2026-07-24 08:17:20+00:00): Hi, a Bolzplatz is not a soccer field. A soccer field is around 90 metres long.
tux67 (2026-07-24 08:19:39+00:00): thanks .. but that was not my question ..
tux67 (2026-07-24 08:21:17+00:00): I was trying to compensate the missing source information in the changeset 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
mapperue (2026-07-24 08:34:06+00:00): The sources are aerial imagery and the Bunter Garten website.
tux67 (2026-07-24 08:36:11+00:00): ok, thanks
user_5359 (2026-07-30 10:05:21+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3507733. What is the mean of the tag 1=1?
c674a (2026-07-30 17:10:36+00:00): Hello, it is for sure a typo. I see has been corrected already. Thanks anyway.
ratmice (2026-07-26 00:09:49+00:00): While this is probably an improvement, I think what really needs to happen is to increase the waterway width to match the river.  The old footpath was about right.

The river centerline just doesn't match the actual river.
ratmice (2026-07-26 00:11:13+00:00): That is something I've been intending to do, I just haven't done it before and feels like it's going to take some effort, so I haven't gotten around to it yet.
scarapella (2026-07-27 05:21:17+00:00): Hi ratmice,

The two changes I did here were to connect the portage to the waterway (with waterway=access_point) and mark the river as it crosses the dam as canoe=no. This allows the proper routing of canoes around the dam (e.g. on https://paddlemap.net/)

You are right that the current geometry is a a compromise.  I've thought about these situations and have come eventually to a conclusion similar to yours:  Ideally the river would be surrounded by a natural=water area, the portage trail would end at the natural=water and a waterway=link would connect the portage trail to the river.  However, it's a lot of work to add the natural=water area... so if it doesn't exist connecting the portage directly to the river is the best compromise. 

Cheers,
scarapella
ratmice (2026-07-27 07:10:41+00:00): Thank you for the detailed reply!
I'll definitely refer back to it when I find the time to put towards filling out the riverbank!
scarapella (2026-07-27 07:25:47+00:00): 👍
HT259 (2026-07-24 02:24:20+00:00): Typo, Brainerd, not Brainard
tyfi (2026-07-23 21:14:57+00:00): Intersection reopened a few weeks ago at this point, just took a low-fidelity GPS trace, waiting for imagery
Baloo Uriza (2026-07-24 13:55:00+00:00): Looks like you have tagged a series of power towers as poles.  Poles carry distribution lines (power=minor_line), high voltage is carried on much taller towers (which aren't always lattice, such as these tubular towers).  The design tag looks good but power=tower would be the right tag for these jumbo-sized ones.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186258984
Baloo Uriza (2026-07-24 14:08:02+00:00): structure=tubular could be added to power=tower to highlight that it's a tubular tower.  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:structure
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186258984
HT259 (2026-07-24 02:24:36+00:00): Typo, Brainerd, not Brainard
Wildsharky (2026-07-29 06:51:24+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186390774
Fraxi (2026-07-23 21:50:51+00:00): Видях аномалията при https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/254957226 отдеве, но за много неща според мен трябваше да внимавам - тунелите, стълбите и др.
Allison P (2026-07-23 21:49:59+00:00): The proposed subdivision east of Willow Creek Road changed almost completely. Could well end up changing again before plans are finalized, or plans may never finalize. Did not update the geometry. May come back later and delete it.
nerihv (2026-07-23 22:16:12+00:00): mapeado con esri desplazado 5.62, 1.33 tomando como referencia el camino
h234a2hm (2026-07-23 22:24:04+00:00): Pulled membership info from https://thelanierlibrary.org/membership-form/#wpforms-5932-field_5_1
Need insight on if the current way of listing memberships is the best way or if there is a better more suited tag for this.
Dvorný (2026-07-24 19:20:51+00:00): Ahoj, všimnul jsem si, že chybně mapuješ landuse s cestami. Cesty totiž mají vlastní fyzickou plochu a ta by se neměla překrývat s ostatníma plochama, např. okolní tráva, lesy, apod.. Pokud zakresluješ cesty jako pouhé středové linie, s landuse by tedy být spojeny neměly. Zvaž tedy prosím opravu. Dík
Lopata007 (2026-07-28 20:47:05+00:00): Ahoj,
děkuji za upozornění. Chápu argument, že každá komunikace má vlastní fyzickou plochu. Otázkou podle mě je, kdy má smysl tuto plochu explicitně mapovat a kdy je vhodnější ponechat komunikaci pouze jako středovou linii.

U lesních a polních cest nebo pěšin se domnívám, že je ve většině případů dostačující zakreslit pouze osu komunikace procházející lesem nebo polem. Pokud by se hranice okolních ploch vždy vedly až k okrajům komunikace, vznikaly by mezi nimi úzké pásy, které často nemají samostatný charakter ani využití a jejich mapování by zbytečně komplikovalo data.

Na tomto ortofotu může být oddělení okrajů komunikace od okolního porostu poměrně snadné, ale například v hustém lese bývá problém určit už samotnou osu cesty natož její přesné okraje.

Zajímalo by mě proto, podle jakého pravidla rozlišuješ, kdy je vhodné mapovat pouze osu komunikace a kdy už i její skutečnou plochu. Existuje pro to nějaké doporučení nebo zavedená konvence?
Dvorný (2026-07-28 21:02:00+00:00): Řídím se především tím, že nikdy nenapojovat landuse na cestu. 
Pro někoho jsou potom tyto pásy zbytečná práce, ale opravdu tam jsou (není to pole, ale spíš natural=grassland). Někteří lidé to mapují, např. uživatel "zemcoj" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1531886200
Moje pomůcka je si představit, že na místě stojím a zeptat se, zda je na tom místě opravdu to co zakresluji. V tomto případě by to tedy bylo: "je na této cestě z poloviny tráva a z druhé poloviny pole?" Odpověď je, že je zde cesta, která má např. štěrkový povrch.

Snažím se tedy zakreslovat přesně to, co existuje v realitě a data nezjednošovat.
Lopata007 (2026-07-29 22:01:07+00:00): Díky za vysvětlení. Uvědomil jsem si, že jsem v tomto případě zjednodušil již existující detailní mapování, což nebylo ideální. Do budoucna budu u podobných úprav opatrnější a existující úroveň detailu zachovám, pokud k její změně nebude jasný důvod.
Ještě jednou díky za vysvětlení.
HT259 (2026-07-24 02:23:31+00:00): Typo, Brainerd, not Brainard
PumpkinPieAficionado (2026-07-27 15:29:03+00:00): Correction: Source used was Vantor satellite imagery via Vantor Hub 2026-04-17.
nerihv (2026-07-23 22:43:44+00:00): el edificio estaba en mi cuadrante  mas del 50% 
mapeado con esri desplazamiento 5.33, 8.49
nerihv (2026-07-23 22:47:30+00:00): los circundantes igualmente estan mapeados con esri 5.33, 8.49
uknown-gryphus (2026-07-24 15:06:07+00:00): Hi, could you please use more descriptive change set comments? NE4 is already a motorway, it was never `highway=trunk`. Also as I've commented on a previous change, India uses this classification: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India/Tags/Highway access control doesn't automatically imply motorway, that does not reflect how MORTH or NHAI treat it.
nerihv (2026-07-23 22:55:43+00:00): desplazado con esri 5.33, 8.49
Đuro Jiří (2026-07-26 12:40:42+00:00): Ciao GiovanniC83, perché hai cancellato nome "Polizia Locale"?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/84565275/history#map=19/45.177382/9.649527&layers=N
GiovanniC83 (2026-07-26 17:01:05+00:00): Ciao, errore mio, mi sono fidato dei suggerimenti di OSM senza troppo pensarci, mi diceva che il nome Polizia Locale era sospetto e consigliava la rimozione. Ho appena corretto indicando come nome "Polizia Locale Casalpusterlengo" e non segnala più correzioni.
Grazie per la segnalazione e scusa per il disagio