piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
aceman444 (2026-07-27 22:55:03+00:00): Zdravim, cesticka https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/923551962 uz neexistuje? Na Ortotofoto (ale 3 roky starej) ju stale vidiet.
Myslim, ze chodnik https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/136408029 zbytocne prekombinovany takto zakruteny.
Oprava zaoblenia https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23046536 dobra snaha, ale teraz sa Vam useky prekryvaju s chodnikom https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23046535, ten sa zase na kratkom useku prekryva s https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/207806667 .
Posun fontany https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/923214926 trochu odvazny. Objekty maju byt tam kde su na zemi, nie kde sa zobrazuju na Ortofotomozaike. Vidite to na budovach, ze su fotene zboku, je tam ista perspektiva a horna cast (strecha) je inde ako podorys. Ten isty posun moze byt ja pri tej fontane a Vy ste ju prave dali podla hornej strany ("strechy"), co nemusi byt spravne.
Aj na druhej zastavke zbytocny slimak s chodnikom https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/167395091. A zase prekryv s dalsim chodnikom.
Bod https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12344771021 ma odkial nazov? A ma sa skejtovat priamo tam na chodniku?

Nazov Hirosima na https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/60896935 je potrebny, ked uz je aj na celom areali https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25018494 ?
Aj celu budovu https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164368218 ste posunuli nespravne, na poziciu kde sa zobrazuje jej strecha, ale to je klamliva poloha sposobena len fotenim zboku.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/220123523 odkial je nazov "papradovy lesik" ?

Preco musel byt usek cesty https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537565189 odseknuty od povodnej https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/220123517 ?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1707347178 udaje o kosi a lavicke uz su na objekte reprezentujucom zastavku: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/158551324 .

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/14005360341 naozaj ohnisko? Dokonca celorocne?

Ostatne zhruba dobre, dakujeme.
AmanBD (2026-07-14 18:29:16+00:00): You have marked a residential road as a trunk road. A trunk road means national highways like Dhaka-Chittagong highway. Please undo incorrect changes.
pwbriggs (2026-07-12 07:51:10+00:00): Phone number format in OpenStreetMap should be like +1-425-398-0001 (all dashes). Thanks!
15419 NE 140th St (2026-07-12 15:41:21+00:00): The [wiki](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone) says spaces are fine too.
15419 NE 140th St (2026-07-12 15:42:04+00:00): Wait nevermind I didn't scroll down and see that it's different in the US.
pwbriggs (2026-07-12 18:39:32+00:00): Yeah honestly either is probably fine, but I suppose local/regional consensus is important
confusedbuffalo (2026-07-12 05:15:21+00:00): Hi, thanks for doing this, I see you added neat house outlines for the terraced houses. However, I think it should be building=house, house=terraced for individual houses and building=terrace for a whole (unsplit) row. I've changed them here
Mastrick_Mapper (2026-07-13 06:21:18+00:00): Thanks for the heads up. I forgot to do that.
Marvk (2026-07-11 23:37:51+00:00): Hallo Flo und willkommen auf OSM!

Das Gebäude hat noch das tag removed:building=yes, das ergibt wenig Sinn mit building=yes und kann daher weg, wenn sich dort jetzt wieder ein Gebädue befindet :-)

Grüße
Marv
vng_me (2026-07-12 01:33:29+00:00): You have deleted a bunch of natural=coastline. Please, use JOSM Editor with validator for coastlines.
Frans S (2026-07-14 12:01:42+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
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. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she deliver high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (See attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Issues found on your mappings
C: Collected adjacent buildings and mapped it as 1 building.
E: Buildings not squared or rounded.
F: Buildings partly hidden under trees.
G: Included the shadow of the building.

H: Included a yard of clearing.


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/185563749
felipeeugenio (2026-07-12 13:09:52+00:00): Hola. Buenas ediciones. Muchas gracias.

eso si, porfavor fijarse que las casas queden alineadas unas respecto de las otras. No se trata de hacer un trabajo de topografía con exactitud milimétrica, pero si que las casas estén mas o menos paralelas.

Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185564147
Frans S (2026-07-22 14:49:49+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
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. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she deliver high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (See attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Issues found on your mappings

A: Inaccurate mapping. 

B: Overlapping buildings.

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/185564437
ForestFurnace (2026-07-11 23:34:45+00:00): "Waterloo, IA: Drew paths in Valley View Park based on Bing imagery."
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-12 05:45:08+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
The name tag 'This is the end of Stone Gate Rd, (44 Stone Gate Rd)' seems unusual. Could you please clarify?
andicoombs (2026-07-12 12:34:25+00:00): Stone Gate Rd ends at 60 Stone Gate, but a small section of it hooks down to 44 Stone Gate. At that house, the road turns into a private driveway down a hill that ends at the end of Cobble Lane. It looks like the road continues (because we’ve expanded the driveway so it looks like the road) so couriers have been driving through the resort, using the driveway as a loop road to connect Stone Gate and Cobble Ln. Because they drive too fast and we’ve had too many near misses with kids at the resort, I wanted to leave a note to say STONE GATE RD ENDS AT 44 STONE GATE.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-12 12:44:33+00:00): Thanks for explaining. The safety concern makes sense.

However, name=* should contain the actual name of a feature, not a description or an instruction. Also, note=* is intended mainly for other mappers and will not normally be displayed to courier drivers or used by routing software.

The better solution could be to map the driveway between Stone Gate Road and Cobble Lane as a separate highway=service + service=driveway way and add the appropriate access restriction. If public access is genuinely prohibited, that would normally be access=private. If access is permitted for people with a destination there but not for through traffic, something such as motor_vehicle=destination may be more appropriate.

Could you please remove the descriptive name from the node and apply the relevant tags to the actual driveway instead? This should give routers a much better chance of avoiding it.

Thanks!

Best regards, Pascal
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-12 15:12:08+00:00): In my view, way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33930968 should be restored, and its tagging should be adjusted to reflect the actual situation on the ground.

Based on your description, there is a physically existing private driveway connecting the two roads. Therefore, the driveway should remain mapped, with the appropriate highway and access tags applied to the way itself, for example, highway=service, service=driveway, and an appropriate access restriction such as access=private.

Adding name, note, or description tags to several nodes is not an appropriate substitute for mapping the physical driveway and its access restrictions. Such descriptive text will generally not prevent routing applications or delivery drivers from using it.

Could you please restore the driveway and discuss the appropriate tagging here before making further changes? Thanks.
andicoombs (2026-07-12 17:31:02+00:00): Okay, I restored the road, labelled as per instructions... but I left the end points disconnected from the residential roads either side on purpose. Thank you
aceman444 (2026-07-27 22:38:15+00:00): Zdravim, oblasti ako https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537583888 nemusia byt nutne zahradou (a neuviedli ste ziadny typ, ci verejna ci sukromna). Ale ak su tam kvety na okrasu, moze to byt landuse=flowerbed, nie zahrada.
Adresy ako https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1787882472 ste sam odsunuli dalej od vchodu a potom ste ich duplicitne pridali v dalsej sade zmien.
Vymaz kontajnera https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9171833753 a nahradenie niecim https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537583822 co pokryva cely pristresok pre kontajnerove stojisko. No nezda sa mi to.
Brana https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/982272074 naozaj existuje? Ak ano, aka je tam dopravna znacka? Lebo ste tam popridavali dost znaciek obmedzujucich pristup (dokonca ze kone mozu), tak ako ste na ne prisli. A to ma vysku len 1 meter?
Tie plynojemy ako https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/14005520098 sa tam kde zmestia do tych zahradiek? Plynojem je obrovska nadrz na plyn. Ak ste mysleli uzaver plynu v skrinke na ulici, tak to sa znaci man_made=street cabinet + utility=gas .
Priechod pre chodcov https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1001042540 naozaj zrusili? Na Ortotofomozaike je vidiet.
Na priechodoch ako https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1446784575 neviem preco pridavate neurcite crossing:markings=yes, ked je tam jasna zebra. A tiez to znacenie by bolo vhodne pridat na body priechodov ako https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1446784575 . Na footway=crossing je to nepovinne.

Na vchodoch ako https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/14005519921 to level=-1/0_medziposchodie vyjadruje co? Su v suterene (-1) alebo kde? Ale urcite toto nie je dobry zapis.
Ostatne asi dobre, dakujeme.
rajdhani (2026-07-14 06:05:19+00:00): Partially Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185695834
Frans S (2026-07-14 11:57:07+00:00): Hola. Gracias por crear el mapa.
El mapa está bien hecho. Sin embargo, no has cuadrado los edificios rectangulares.
Solo tienes que presionar la tecla Q mientras el objeto sigue seleccionado. Es difícil dibujar un rectángulo perfecto a mano.

Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Accurate mapped. However, you did not square the rectangular buildings.
Just hit the Q key while the object is still selected. It is hard to draw a correct rectangular by hand.
aceman444 (2026-07-27 21:46:43+00:00): Preco bolo potrebne muriky rozsekat na useky, aj ked maju rovnake vlastnosti?
Tie nazvy ako "murik s podsvietenim" alebo "sedaci mur" su z akeho zdroja? Alebo ste si ich vymysleli a ide o opisy objektov? V tom pripade do OSM nepatria. Naco bolo potrebne rozseknut cestu https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/345979885 ?
Tie nazvy "male" a "velke javisko" su odkial? Nic take som tam nevidel. A ako viete, ze su to vobec javiska? Tu neuvadzate vobec ziadne zdroje. A urcite to nie su amfiteatre. Maximalne tak amenity=stage ak to je naozaj urcene na vystupovanie.
Frans S (2026-07-14 12:47:47+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
The instructions ask to map from the Bing Imagery instead of the Esri world imagery.
Many buildings show a sidewall. 
Please map just over the rooflines and place the whole on its footprint,
The default tagging of buildings is building=yes. Nothing else.

Hi-rise or tall buildings (even with a few storeys) need 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

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


Best regards
Jose Cedeño (2026-07-14 14:19:26+00:00): Muchas gracias, en cuenta para realizar las modificaciones necesarias . Saludos.
Frans S (2026-07-12 13:34:48+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please solve the issues, shown by the issue triangle before you upload your mappings.
You mapped this buildings.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537589883/history#map=19/10.582244/-67.063411
alongside the treelines.
Just map it as a rectangular and extrapolate the rooflines.
Best regards and keep mapping
aharvey (2026-07-24 02:18:58+00:00): Thanks! I added some of the construction areas from my imagery, and will try to keep it updated too.
Frans S (2026-07-12 15:02:50+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please do not collect multiple buildings and map them as 1 building like you did here.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537590866/history#map=19/10.387221/-68.703829
Best regards
zekerian (2026-07-13 00:48:23+00:00): Hello. Thank you for the feedback. I’ll make sure to map buildings individually and avoid grouping them as one.
zekerian (2026-07-13 01:25:39+00:00): I value your observations, they really help me improve in building mapping. It may be that some corrections are not entirely accurate. For example, if we look at this construction with the different background images in the link I share below, the building clearly has a “C” shape inclined downward, which matched the way I had mapped it.

osm.org/go/YP5YJBPKp?m=
CAM-Gerlach (2026-07-19 21:49:19+00:00): After a discussion with the mapper on the OSM-US Slack https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C3G0Y73FC/p1784152297222719 , reverted the deletion of the entire building and instead just removed the address tagging in favor of these nodes, in changeset 186029010

https://osm.org/changeset/186029010
Halfdeaf007 (2026-07-12 12:38:24+00:00): Why did you revert broken natural=coastline? If you look at the export on OSM, it does not show blue water; it looks like gray water.
vng_me (2026-07-12 13:26:23+00:00): Please, use JOSM Validation plugin when editing coastlines.

Or add natural=water here https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2186218
Halfdeaf007 (2026-07-12 12:37:11+00:00): Why did you revert broken natural=coastline? If you look at the export on OSM, it does not show blue water; it looks like gray water.
vng_me (2026-07-12 13:23:50+00:00): Well, I reverted to the initial state (before your changes) because coastline validation failed (no 1-1 connection and direction - land on the left).

You can revert my revert and update coastlines correctly. Use JOSM Validation plugin.

Or you can add natural water here https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2186110
vng_me (2026-07-12 13:24:40+00:00): Please, use JOSM Validation plugin when editing coastlines.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-12 05:44:01+00:00): Hi, thanks for your contribution! I noticed that one of the modified ways has a name tag 'tresspassing on private property', which seems to describe a warning or restriction rather than the actual name of the path. Could you please clarify or adjust the name tag to reflect the real-world name of the feature, if it has one?
Joel Koen (2026-07-12 02:51:29+00:00): addr:suburb, addr:postcode, addr:state is not necessary in Australia because we have various boundaries that provide this data.

For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2431045 provides a default postcode and suburb for all objects inside.

The data you've added here doesn't need to be removed, but please don't add more :)
MxxCon (2026-07-14 03:44:06+00:00): Hello.
Instead of outright deleting closed business, it's much better to use lifecycle prefixes as documented on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
Doing it this way preserves history of that object if there's ever a need in the future to refer to it. Just deleting it destroys that data.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185568307
user_5359 (2026-07-24 13:17:21+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/21088992. What is the mean of the tag sumber=Kajian EVCA PMI Bojonegoro bersama relawan pemetaan SIBAT Desa Mulyorejo ?
husni-RC (2026-07-24 13:26:05+00:00): ---
Hi user_5359,

Thank you for pointing this out.

`sumber` is Indonesian for "source" which our volunteer intended it as attribution note, mean that this is a sub-village (dusun/RT-RW level) boundary from participatory mapping result, delineated together by SIBAT (Indonesian Red Cross village volunteer) as part of EVCA study by PMI Bojonegoro in Mulyorejo village. This is not standard OSM key, should be `source=*` instead.

We will fix this to use the correct standard key. Thank you for the correction.
LordGarySugar (2026-07-14 00:13:57+00:00): I have reverted all your changesets as they are vandalism - please do not add fictional entries.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-12 05:59:50+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.

In this changeset, several language-specific name tags, including name:ja=*, name:en=*, and name:ja-Hira=*, were removed from a number of ways.

The official notice concerning the change of the road area may justify removing or changing ref=*. However, it does not appear to justify deleting the existing name information entirely.

Would it not have been better to retain this information in OSM?
FreshlyTweezed (2026-07-13 20:58:30+00:00): What is your reason/source for tagging this as private? It looks like a public path.
fortera_au (2026-07-14 02:36:33+00:00): Hi, do we have permission to use data from Electranet's website?

There's a copyright mark on the bottom of the page, and no obvious indication that this data has been released under a license we can use.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185571856
dhx1 (2026-07-14 02:54:33+00:00): What do you propose is copyrightable about this changeset?

See https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2023-08-14#Ticket#2023081110000064_%E2%80%94_First_party_websites_as_sources
fortera_au (2026-07-14 03:04:18+00:00): That's based on copying things like opening hours, addresses, and other simple facts like that. The details you've copied extend beyond that and go beyond just copying simple facts from a website.
dhx1 (2026-07-14 04:30:35+00:00): The LWG decision doesn't differentiate "simple facts" from any other type of fact, therefore I believe it should apply here too.

To run through the components of the changeset:

Geometry changes were traced from satellite imagery (ESRI).

Naming of power lines, substations, voltages, etc is factual information. One can obtain the same non-creative names for power routes by tracing a power line from satellite imagery between two named substations and putting a hyphen in between. Most if not all substations were already present in OSM and already named, with no change needed. Voltages are confirmed by looking at satellite imagery of substations to find the bus connections and transformers at a substation to confirm which power lines in/out of the substation are at the same voltage. This is exactly what OSM mappers (including myself) do in countries where there are no public datasets available. Even in countries such as Australia with public datasets, it's still common to find inaccuracies and missing information that can only be deduced and confirmed from satellite imagery or process of elimination. For example, two portals observed in satellite imagery indicating two circuits connected to a bus (6 cables) but public dataset still only indicates a single circuit (3 cables) connected. The satellite imagery will be preferred for accuracy unless there is some other reliable data source confirming more recent removal of the power line in question.

If it helps, Geoscience Australia publish almost the same information as this dataset at https://digital.atlas.gov.au/datasets/digitalatlas::power-lines/about and claim the dataset is CC-BY-4.0 (what part is original expression and copyrightable I'm not sure...), and they go as far as explaining they applied, seemingly, the same process I did, using ESRI satellite imagery and latest public datasets (facts) to compile their own dataset.

ElectraNet also supply the same facts from their online website (ArcGIS Feature Server map) in spreadsheet format at https://electranet.com.au/resources/transmission-annual-planning-report-2/ These are the same facts with a different method of presentation from the ElectraNet website's map page and from the Geocsience Australia dataset.

If you still have concerns, are you familiar with the process to seek another opinion of the LWG, to make it clearer beyond the context of opening hours what other facts could be imported from public datasets, websites, etc.
fortera_au (2026-07-14 04:35:07+00:00): The LWG decision originated from a discussion on opening hours. It's focused on database rights for a chain of stores with opening hours and addresses, not on geospatial data regarding electricity networks.

CC-BY-4.0 still requires a waiver as we can't attribute in a way that follows that license as well.

Where you've used satellite imagery, that is fine, but using those other sources would be a problem without permissions or waivers.
dhx1 (2026-07-14 08:31:22+00:00): The applicable CC-BY-4.0 waiver for Geoscience Australia (the dataset I referred to) is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/c/c7/GeoscienceAustralia_CCBY_Waiver_EmailAcceptance.pdf
fortera_au (2026-07-14 08:36:25+00:00): Then the only concern would be anything that's only available from Electranet. Is there anything here that you could only find from there? If so, that should be removed.
Wildsharky (2026-07-15 04:19:40+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185631238
Norbert Dichter (2026-07-13 18:58:27+00:00): Hello, thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT. Thank you for your contribution. The buildings you mapped are well done as to their location. But pay attention to the squareness of the corners. Always draw buildings as square and precise as you can. Then add the Building feature type. And last, right click it and click the square icon. Or just hit the Q-key.
Also please keep in mind: many buildings are very close but do not actually touch each other, try to map them close to each other without letting them connect or share nodes with each other, roads, or residential area outlines. In the iD web editor, holding down the "alt" key will keep nodes from "snapping" to each other and accidentally connecting.  Thanks so much for your contribution, Norbert 'Nodi' Dichter, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185571987
zstadler (2026-07-17 12:31:49+00:00): @Norbert Dichter

Please note the potential issue of mapping buildings that no longer exist. https://osm.org/changeset/185701260
Jenessian (2026-07-17 12:56:56+00:00): Could people have died from my ignorance?
zstadler (2026-07-17 13:00:23+00:00): I doubt that any of the military forces in the area rely on OSM...
Jenessian (2026-07-17 13:04:35+00:00): But what about the peacekeepers? Humanitarian OSM is known for directing users to make OSM changes in the most critical areas. But I didn’t edit Gaza through Humanitarian OSM. I did it on OSM purely. I think since Gaza is a disputed territory humanitarian mission participants would rely less on OSM. I hope I’m right about this…?