piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mavl (2025-05-13 15:04:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
osmviborg (2024-12-10 10:58:17+00:00): Hej. Undlad venligst at tagge bygninger/polygoner med adresseoplysninger. Adresse- punktet er adressen.
soliMM (2024-12-21 08:59:00+00:00): I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160461888

Important thing to keep in mind, while 130 km/h is correct default maxspeed value on motorways in Serbia, there are plenty of traffic signs on certain segments of motorway that change that value to something else.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards
soliMM (2024-12-21 09:03:26+00:00): I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160462111

Important thing to keep in mind, while 130 km/h is correct default maxspeed value on motorways in Serbia, there are plenty of traffic signs on certain segments of motorway that change that value to something else.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards
soliMM (2024-12-21 09:05:23+00:00): I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160462164

Important thing to keep in mind, while 130 km/h is correct default maxspeed value on motorways in Serbia, there are plenty of traffic signs on certain segments of motorway that change that value to something else.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards
soliMM (2024-12-21 09:13:38+00:00): I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160124501

Important thing to keep in mind, while 130 km/h is correct default maxspeed value on motorways in Serbia, there are plenty of traffic signs on certain segments of motorway that change that value to something else.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards
soliMM (2024-12-21 09:15:03+00:00): I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160462375

Important thing to keep in mind, while 130 km/h is correct default maxspeed value on motorways in Serbia, there are plenty of traffic signs on certain segments of motorway that change that value to something else.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-25 15:14:13+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12409143183/history has rooms = 0 that was added in this edit
What was meant by this? That this object has no rooms? Seems surprising here
soliMM (2024-12-21 09:17:29+00:00): I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160124858

Important thing to keep in mind, while 130 km/h is correct default maxspeed value on motorways in Serbia, there are plenty of traffic signs on certain segments of motorway that change that value to something else.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards
soliMM (2024-12-21 10:23:19+00:00): I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160462504

Important thing to keep in mind. You have added 130 km/h maxspeed to segment of the road which is not motorway but trunk (motoput). Default value for trunk road in Serbia is 100 km/h unless signs alongside road change that value to lower one.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards
FenyMufyd (2025-03-13 17:12:30+00:00): OpenStreetMap is not a property registry; thus, do not map individual ownership of buildings or plots; OpenStreetMap bukanlah database sertifikat tanah atau plot tanah kepemilikan, Silakan baca https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163579772
FenyMufyd (2025-03-13 17:09:22+00:00): OpenStreetMap is not a property registry; thus, do not map individual ownership of buildings or plots; OpenStreetMap bukanlah database sertifikat tanah atau plot tanah kepemilikan, Silakan baca https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163579628
FenyMufyd (2025-03-14 15:53:57+00:00): OpenStreetMap is not a property registry; thus, do not map individual ownership of buildings or plots; OpenStreetMap bukanlah database sertifikat tanah atau plot tanah kepemilikan, Silakan baca https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163615869
ToniE (2024-12-11 10:17:43+00:00): Servus wyk,

ein kurzer Hinweis zu gtfs:route_id:*=

PTNA unterstützt das derzeit noch nicht, d.h. unterstützt derzeit z.B. nur

- gtfs:feed=DE-BY-VGN

- gtfs:route_id=xxx

- gtfs:trip_id:sample=yyy

- ...

Das ist keine große Einschränkung, denn der Hauptverantwortliche für eine Buslinie kann nur ein einzelner Verkehrsverbund sein.

Was mit dem GTFS-Taggingvorschlag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GTFS definiert wurde sieht etwas anders aus als du es hier verwendest. Korrekte Alternative (noch nicht unterstützt) wäre

- gtfs:route_id:DE-BY-VGN=xxx

- gtfs_trip_id:sample:DE-BY-VGN=yyy

- und so weiter

ohne Angabe von gtfe:feed= und gtfs:feed:*=

N.B.: gtfs:stop_id:DE-BY-VGN=zzz wird beim Vergleich GTFS vs OSM aber unterstützt, das betrifft aber nur Haltestellen: diese können ja von mehreren Verkehrsverbünden angefahren werden.

Viele Grüße
Toni
FenyMufyd (2025-03-13 17:07:28+00:00): OpenStreetMap is not a property registry; thus, do not map individual ownership of buildings or plots; OpenStreetMap bukanlah database sertifikat tanah atau plot tanah kepemilikan, Silakan baca https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163579539
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-03-03 18:22:12+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11612731354 - how you know that this building abandoned?

why note refers to rebuilding it if it exists?

why "In comparing imagery from 2023 and the current Esri imagery from Feb 2024 - this building looks abandoned on the latest imagery. People however might move back home and rebuild their house" got added to nodes of a building?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-05 09:07:43+00:00): I am planning to (soon) remove all this notes

please, at least reply have you tried to map building that is destroyed or one that is abandoned
Jorieke V (2025-05-12 14:19:14+00:00): Hi Mateusz, apologies for following up only now, as in the other comment I left (in here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160127304#map=15/13.43230/22.41271),  this mapping was done by my intern who is not working with us any longer. 
This is however not an excuse and I should have double checked this better when the data was mapped.
Jorieke V (2025-05-12 14:30:30+00:00): The goal of these notes was to mention what buildings were burnt down and thus abandoned. If you check the currently available Esri imagery (which are of Feb 2024) you can clearly see the difference with the older available imagery such as with Bing. The area was carefully scanned and consequently this note to every building that looked burnt down was added. 
In addition this was confirmed by a survey on the ground from someone who actually went there end of 2024. That person went around in these neighbourhoods and shared with us that the buildings were not fully destroyed, but rather burnt and abandoned. This is a difference because people might come back to the house when it is safer again.  
Why the note was use; this is because it was hard to find the correct tag, and we thought with an explaining note we never can go wrong... seems however we can :)
Jorieke V (2025-05-12 14:35:05+00:00): I'm wondering as well how I could have spotted this changeset comment of yours earlier. The mapper was using the #msf #missingmaps #darfur hashtags that are all noted in our MSF wiki page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/M%C3%A9decins_Sans_Fronti%C3%A8res#Ongoing) - but please any suggestions are welcome to keep track of changeset comments with certain hashtags better. Is there a tool that I am not aware of?
Jorieke V (2025-05-12 14:38:40+00:00): For next - I understand that you went ahead with the removal because you did not get any reply. However, it would still be great to have this information back onto OSM. How would you suggest for us to do this?  

Also, I have a couple of days ago started a post on to the OSM forum to ask for help with the tagging of damaged buildings. It would be great if you could as well share some of your thoughts there to come to a solution for this one too.  Here is the forum post: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-damage-on-openstreetmap/129704
Jorieke V (2025-05-12 15:16:37+00:00): For additional info, this is a photo of how houses would look like when tagged with this note: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news-feature/2021/4/8/whats-behind-the-rising-violence-in-sudans-darfur
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-13 12:55:24+00:00): Part of reason why I revert these is that there were some problem.

Message was referring to houses, even for building within schools and markets.

Also, note was also on nodes, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11575953745/history

For mass edits like this one you should have followed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-13 12:56:16+00:00): "In comparing imagery from 2023 and the current Esri imagery from Feb 2024 - this building looks abandoned on the latest imagery" was also dubious given mass adding it to every single building

has really every single structure been abandoned here?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-13 12:58:38+00:00): > 

For additional info, this is a photo of how houses would look like when tagged with this note: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news-feature/2021/4/8/whats-behind-the-rising-violence-in-sudans-darfur

these kind of damage is definitely mappable, though I am not sure how (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mateusz_Konieczny/ruined_building is my attempt to invent something)
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-13 13:28:23+00:00): > but please any suggestions are welcome to keep track of changeset comments with certain hashtags better. Is there a tool that I am not aware of? 

no idea about any currently existing tools here, I guess you can ask on OSM forum?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-14 06:35:55+00:00): > How would you suggest for us to do this? 

are you interested in marking specific heavily damaged buildings or general area where many buildings are damaged?
Jorieke V (2025-05-15 13:24:54+00:00): Thanks for you messages Mateusz! There is a lot of info here now - I was not aware of the automated edits code of conduct - I will carefully read. 
Amazing that you started this page on ruined buildings! How can I interact best to that - Or is there a different/better way. Probably not on this changeset? On that forum thread of damaged buildings that I started?
Jorieke V (2025-05-15 13:25:42+00:00): > Also, note was also on nodes, see osm.org/node/11575953745/history
Yes, thanks for correcting, that was a clear mistake!
Jorieke V (2025-05-15 13:28:47+00:00): > no idea about any currently existing tools here, I guess you can ask on OSM forum?

For a potential tool - I have asked someone within HeiGit if they are aware - and maybe they can come up with something. I keep the forum in my head.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-23 12:41:14+00:00): oh, I see you found a thread already: thanks for commenting there!
soliMM (2024-12-21 10:25:04+00:00): I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160462708

Important thing to keep in mind. You have added 130 km/h maxspeed to segment of the road which is not motorway but trunk (motoput). Default value for trunk road in Serbia is 100 km/h unless signs alongside road change that value to lower one.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards
mavl (2024-12-10 13:19:46+00:00): Здравствуйте. Добавленная этим пакетом правок заправка уже обозначена.  
  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86599145
OSMchik (2024-12-11 07:57:38+00:00): Добрый день! Спасибо за замечание! Откатываю
FenyMufyd (2025-03-13 17:06:43+00:00): OpenStreetMap is not a property registry; thus, do not map individual ownership of buildings or plots; OpenStreetMap bukanlah database sertifikat tanah atau plot tanah kepemilikan, Silakan baca https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163579506
mueschel (2024-12-11 11:00:51+00:00): Please check this import. There are 212 ways without any proper tag.

Also, important documentation according to our import guidelines is missing.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
JosephAbboud (2025-02-21 22:09:34+00:00): Hello. Please double check this edit you made. You seem to have deleted one of the towers when importing data. Emirates Tower One no longer exists on the map, and was deleted in this edit. 

Please see the linked discussion entry:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/someone-removed-one-of-the-twin-emirates-towers/126280
Langlaeufer (2024-12-14 16:10:30+00:00): Hallo,
access=no bedeutet betreten verboten. Ist es das was du ausdrücken wolltest?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160125918
01Groot (2024-12-14 20:15:25+00:00): Der Weg ist von der Stadt Hemmingen nicht gewollt und die Stadt sperrt den Weg immer wieder ab. Deswegen habe ich Access=no angegeben. Ich hoffe das war richtig
LG Groot
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/512637561#map=17/52.320176/9.732379
Langlaeufer (2024-12-14 21:43:43+00:00): Das macht dann schon sinn. Grüße und weiterhin frohes mappen.
mavl (2025-05-13 15:08:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
map per (2024-12-13 09:47:13+00:00): Wegen review_requested:

- Die Öffnungszeiten sollten unter Öffnungszeiten und nicht als Beschreibung eingetragen werden. 
- Die Öffnungszeiten sollten in einem Maschinenlesbaren Format (vgl. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours) eingetragen werden. Hier wäre das z.B. 'Mo-Fr 08:00-12:00; Tu 14:00-16:00; Th 14:00-18:00'. 

Viele Grüße und frohes Kartieren
map per
felipeeugenio (2024-12-10 15:05:10+00:00): Hola Nicolás.
El condominio está dibujado perfecto.
Pero tenemos un tema de hace unos años con respecto al nombre de la calle.
Se llama realmente así? No puedo saber yo en este caso, pero en el 99% de los casos no se llama así. Seguramente la dirección de las casas es Avenida Matta XXX, casa XX, y el nombre interior del condominio solo va a traer problemas.
A veces es mejor usar noname=yes.
Solo usamos nombres oficiales y éste es uno descriptivo.

Pasa mucho también en malls y supermercados, que la gente le pone el nombre del recinto a las calles interiores.
Estams erradicando eso.
Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160126935
ntzm (2024-12-11 16:22:33+00:00): Hi, what is the reason for the removal of the junction=roundabout and is_sidepath tags?
MacLondon (2024-12-13 19:50:30+00:00): Hi, as it appears that cyclists entering the circular junction don't have to give way to cyclists who are already on the junction, the junction=roundabout tag isn't correct.

junction=circular could be used instead.

I have readded the is_sidepath* tags, although I've also changed this tagging from the (former) tertiary to secondary.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-03 02:36:39+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1243571999/history - why you think this house is abandoned on recent imagery ?

Have you discussed this mass edit?

Note, I am planning in reverting mass addition of this note
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-03 07:40:04+00:00): Is there any progress on handling this?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-06 17:31:53+00:00): for now I started removing from nodes (where note duplicates note on building area)
Jorieke V (2025-05-12 11:41:42+00:00): Hi Mateusz, these edits where done by an intern of mine. Apologies for the no response. Let me check in detail right away! For further comments can you tag myself? Thanks!
Jorieke V (2025-05-12 15:16:24+00:00): See here for more of my explanations: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160125534#map=16/13.44294/22.40636
joegiddings (2024-12-11 13:07:59+00:00): Lots of changes made but no useful notes added to the nature of the changes?
joegiddings (2024-12-11 13:55:32+00:00): In fact, many deletions of footpaths without any changeset comments (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments)

I think this changeset should be reverted.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160128076
JassKurn (2024-12-11 21:54:32+00:00): Gloucestershire councils online map shows that the deleted Footpath MST28, is temporarily closed due to safety reasons. Deletion was the wrong choice.  Tagging should have been changed with a note, so map does not show it as accessible.

Strava heatmaps imply some of the other deleted paths are used. Do they exist?

This is a poor edit, and should be reverted, primarily to bring back and retain history of temporally closed footpath public footpath. But, it's important to deal with issue of other deletions that may be correct.
woodpeck (2024-12-12 14:16:33+00:00): I am reverting this. @Spring Valley Farm, the next time you feel the need to delete paths form OSM, please discuss on the forum before you go ahead. See also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/landowner-deleting-footpaths-with-no-changeset-comment/122833
woodpeck_repair (2024-12-12 16:36:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 160215241 where the changeset comment is: complete the partial revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160209752
Hugoren Martinako (2024-12-13 11:14:02+00:00): Boas! Revertei os conjuntos onde adicionaste os roles admin_center ás comunidades espanholas: elas não têm capital oficial, por tanto, não têm rol tampouco.
joegiddings (2024-12-11 14:12:03+00:00): I reverted this changeset as the path exists linking the end of Rosedale Avenue and the southern end of MST62.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160170514
bison166 (2024-12-10 13:12:23+00:00): Hi OpenStreetBoy, ab der Abzweigung L171 nach Brunsbrock Richtung Kreuzung Klein Heins gibt es keine Rad u. Fußwege
OpenStreetBoy (2024-12-10 13:22:24+00:00): Danke, korrigiert.
joegiddings (2024-12-12 08:53:01+00:00): The description of a class 6 highway is technically correct however I don't think this should be in the 'name' field as it doesn't meet the criteria of the field: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name

Both paths are footpaths and not 'Bin & Greenwaste' alley. One is the start of the current MST28 (https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/7510838) and the other links Oak Way to footpath (also deleted by the same user) which was Determined via DMMO on Monday 10th December (https://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=266&MId=11474&Ver=4). The DMMO and its determined status can be viewed here: https://ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk/PROW/ApplicationForm.aspx?RecordFilter=573%2f11%2f212(4)

I think these names should be moved to a more suitable tag and the actual footpaths reinstated that were removed in changeset 160128076

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160128076
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160128506
joegiddings (2024-12-12 15:44:08+00:00): I have reverted the changes made in 160128506 as they now clash with the reverted changes made to 160128076. Removes duplication of MST28 and restores way between Oak Way and MST30.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160213332
woodpeck_repair (2024-12-12 16:36:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 160215241 where the changeset comment is: complete the partial revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160209752
rempshaener (2024-12-12 19:17:19+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.

Du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten. Diesem Wunsch komme ich gerne nach.
Ich arbeite mich mal von außen nach innen vor.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/817828212
addr:street: Das „an der Feuerwehr“ müsste „An der Feuerwehr“ heißen
addr:city: Sofern die umliegenden Adressen richtig sind, müsste es statt „Hemmingen-Westerfeld“ nur „Hemmingen“ heißen.
Das area=yes ist überflüssig

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341535468
Das ist sogenanntes nicht-funktionales Tagging, da „surface“ immer an Objekte gehört.
Verbreitet ist dafür landuse=grass, ohne area=yes.
Bitte beachte, dass diese Fläche andere Flächenanteile überlagert.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341535464 und https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341535463
Für derartige Flächen gibt es ein spezielles Tagging-Schema, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Area_highway/mapping_guidelines

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/817826970
Der Name ist bereits am Gelände erfasst und sollte hier wieder entfernt werden.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341535467
service=emergency_access ist hier nicht richtig; das wäre eine Feuerwehrzufahrt.

Bitte melde dich, wenn du Fragen hast.
Danke für deinen Beitrag und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen.

Viele Grüße
01Groot (2024-12-12 20:12:35+00:00): Vielen Dank für die Hinweise! Ich habe die Karte angepasst und noch ein paar weiter Änderungen vorgenommen. Besten Dank und Viele Grüße
01Groot (2024-12-12 20:16:16+00:00): Ich habe doch noch eine Frage:

Diese Fläche ist geteert und dementsprechend Asphalt. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341535464

und diese Fläche ist gepflastert.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1341535463

wie kann das am besten gekennzeichnet werden?
LG
rempshaener (2024-12-13 20:09:12+00:00): Hallo,
einfach mit surface=asphalt bzw. surface=paving_stones.
Bei Fragen einfach melden.
Viele Grüße
P.S.: Das area=yes kann auch noch raus.
Piskvor (2024-12-10 13:37:54+00:00): Není potřeba to srovnávat úplně přesně na odchylku 0 stupňů - většinou navigace mají nějaké rozmezí +- 15, 20 stupňů, než to překlopí do "mírně vlevo/vpravo". Ale proč ne - i takhle se to dá mapovat :)
simacekjakub (2024-12-12 00:09:59+00:00): OK, OK :) Řídím se podle toho co mi říká uzel, který cesty spojuje. Díky
silversurfer83 (2024-12-12 20:59:56+00:00): Hi there :)

welcome to OSM. Thank you for contributing to the database.

Please do not add fictional elements. We try to map what's really there.
Jakka (2024-12-10 13:43:07+00:00): merci attention googlemaps est copyright protected.
https://geoportail.wallonie.be/walonmap#SHARE=28EB91961ADE634DE0630CB6A49D0754
Ivar70 (2024-12-10 13:49:47+00:00): J'ai essayé de trouver les systemes de cartographie et voire quelss sont ou se trouve les erreurs. J'ai pris GM et cadsis comme reference, mais en quoi citer GM est problematique ?
ma modification est donc acceptee ?
Jakka (2024-12-10 13:59:42+00:00): toutes les modifications sont ajours instantané, selon les serveurs bondés et pour chaque zoom niveau, pour voir il faut renouveler votre écran. tapez ctrl+F5
KKS (2024-12-17 16:06:10+00:00): Привіт. Ти порухав будинки в Горенці, судячи з усього з підкладкою Бінгу. Бінг в нашому кутку має зміщення від реальних даних і перед редагуванням треба використовувати корекцію. Зміни шар на Esri, який прив'язаний правильно. І виходить що до твоїх коригувань будинки були прив'язані правильно, а після коригувань вони прив'язані неправильно через кривий Бінг :/
woodpeck (2024-12-30 11:17:33+00:00): Dear BREYSSE JM, please use good changeset comments instead of "Mise à jour" which applies to practically every edit. See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications