piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Fraxi (2026-01-23 19:38:26+00:00): Един въпрос от лаик: сигурен ли си, че по тази промяна има такова кръгово (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1415487641)? Ако искаш, виж как е на снимките от MAF Orthophoto. Тогава си го правил по ESRI, може още да не са били в употреба снимките на MAF. Сега правя измествания на южното платно на Св. княз Борис I(съобразно MAF), тротоари и др. и после, ако сметнеш за необходимо, направи корекция.
foreigner037 (2026-01-23 19:43:43+00:00): Здравей, юни месец ходих в Поморие и кръгово си имаше определено. Ако са го махнали в последствие не ми е известно.
Ето и видео материали от местна новинарска агенция: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmgon0Cp964
Fraxi (2026-01-23 19:57:58+00:00): ОК. Значи, ако може, след като приключа с тази част на Поморие, хвърли едно око и виж дали има нужда нещо да се променя по него(спрямо снимките от MAF). И за да не се получат edit conflicts.
user_5359 (2025-07-18 08:37:05+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/node/6296281121, https://www.osm.org/node/6296425796. You move the booth node more than 100 meters. One fountain is on street.
stillhart (2025-07-21 11:12:19+00:00): Awesome edit 🤩

I choose to add the name and map the individual man_made charge points as tesla chargers. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169237520
Spush (2025-07-17 20:45:37+00:00): Ahogy látom a díjköteles utakat valamilyen elv szerint kapcsolatokban is szoktátok jelölni. Ezt itt majd pótolni kell.
NittyGrittyInTheCity (2025-07-17 21:55:40+00:00): Correction: Source used was MGP Pro 20205.07.16.
Jakub Sýček (2025-07-22 05:22:47+00:00): Node 954274945: please confirm the tactile indication such as a vibrating button. Is this correct, did you really feel the button vibrate? I’m asking because vibrating crossing buttons are rare (and I’d love to know where they are) and most people mark them incorrectly in the app. It’s OK if you don’t remember, it’s been a while. Just be careful to not mark any false positives. It could be an app design issue, see https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/6224
kartler175 (2025-07-18 14:19:42+00:00): Was bedeutet da "dekolonialisiert"?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/657739981#map=17/47.278749/11.149798
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48000692#map=16/47.28049/11.15097
mobileGEO (2025-07-18 14:42:55+00:00): einfach, dass die Gegebenheiten jetzt mit lokalem Wissen hinterlegt sind.
Speziell was die Wohnzone angeht.

An die Agrarflächen wage ich mich noch nicht ganz dran, aber da ist im wahrsten Sinne auch Kraut und Ruaben :D
rempshaener (2025-07-18 20:40:30+00:00): Hallo,

du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Ich vermute, die Warnung ist falsch positiv. Das Problem dürfte sein, dass die Einbahnstraße „im Nichts“ beginnt – das ist  bei Tiefgaragen und Parkhäusern aber genau so richtig. Insofern war auch das amenity=parking_entrance richtig.
Daher: am besten nimmst du deine Änderung zurück.

Bei Fragen bitte melden.
Viele Grüße
simonmicro (2025-07-19 09:37:32+00:00): Guten Morgen,

danke für deine Antwort. Trotzdem verstehe ich denn Fall hier noch nicht... Die Einbahnstraße wird in jedem Falle immer "im Nichts" beginnen müssen, egal ob der Ausgang als solcher markiert ist oder nicht? Wenn ich meine Änderung zurücknehme, dann sollte ja auch weiterhin die Einbahnstraße dort starten, damit aber ist der Ausgang des Parkhauses falsch markiert - also ein Netto-Negativ? Die Warnung müsste ja aber auch eigentlich immer dort ansgezeigt werden, aber warum nur wenn es kein Eingang ist? Ich bin verwirrt.

Vielen Dank schonmal!
rempshaener (2025-07-19 15:18:45+00:00): Hallo,
zu dem parking_exit: In OSM werden Ein- und Ausfahrten zur Tiefgarage/zum Parkhaus beide mit amenity=parking_entrance getaggt. Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_entrance: „The distinction between entrances which function as exits, entrances or both is defined by the oneway=* tag of the highway=* connected to the parking_entrance node.“ D. h. die Nodes für Eingang oder Ausgang sehen gleich aus, nur das Wegestück dorthin bzw. von dort weg unterscheidet sich.
Das heißt aber auch: der Validator müsste schon unterscheiden, ob ein oneway, der einen offenen und damit grundsätzlich problematischen Anfang hat, ausnahmsweise von einem parking_entrance ausgeht. Zumal es durchaus Fälle gibt, in denen Ein- und Ausfahrt miteinander verbunden sind, weil sich der Fahrweg im Gebäude noch per highway abbilden lässt.
Ich würde den Hinweis ignorieren.
Viele Grüße
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-17 21:21:26+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13007406584

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Szymon Brnk (2025-07-28 19:38:34+00:00): Cześć, wszystko w porządku. Wprowadziłem zmianę zgodnie z Twoją sugestią.
Pozdrawiam!
Rainero (2025-07-17 21:27:27+00:00): Korrektur meines Changeset-Kommentars:
Richtig ist "lamp_mount"="bent_mast".
Joseph R P (2025-07-30 23:40:57+00:00): Hello, according to the source used, traffic won't be re-routed here until September. The road is still currently inaccessible and under-construction, according to this news video description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L280VW6ek4&ab_channel=St.GeorgeNews

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169745228
Rainero (2025-07-17 21:27:05+00:00): Korrektur meines Changeset-Kommentars:
Richtig ist "lamp_mount"="bent_mast".
Joseph R P (2025-07-18 18:01:22+00:00): Hello. I think this changeset and a couple others around this area overcomplicate/confuse some road classification criteria. Usually, it is fine for motorways to meet pedestrian crossings when they terminate at an at-grade intersection, especially when that intersection is a major one that indicates the end of the freeway. The only cases in which it is better to terminate the motorway at the interchange instead of the intersection is when the interchange is what indicates the end of the freeway, such as if the highway transitions into another highway or road that is not intended to be a freeway, like the Airport Connector or after passing through the terminals becomes Paradise Road or how the interchange east of the Hoover Dam marks the end of the bypass to become the original alignment of US 93, and there are no signs or signalized intersections which would better indicate that the freeway has ended. Additionally, regarding median breaks—these authorized access-only crossovers are essentially on every single divided highway, to allow emergency and maintenance vehicles to make safe immediate U-turns or for traffic to be switched over if urgently needed. It's very common for motorways to have intersections with various track and service roads that only authorized vehicles can use, and even sometimes even very minor publicly-accessible roads, usually unpaved ones.

As for Route 173, and the implication it should be trunk to eliminate a dangling spur, that is the reason I had downgraded it from trunk to primary in the past, as the freeway section of the 93 Business loop is only tagged at a motorway for its physical characteristic rather than its importance, and would be a primary road itself if it weren't built up to freeway standards between I 11 and VM Drive. In reality, 173 is only used to connect traffic between US 95 and I 11 into Boulder City, and is more of a local access road than a major long-haul highway like 95 or I 11.

Now regarding the Railroad Pass Casino Road—despite its freeway connection, it isn't necessarily used for getting between the two motorways (which is what 173 does further east) and doesn't serve any other secondary (or higher) tagged roads, but is rather only used for accessing one other tertiary road (Dawson Ave) and the commercial/industrial development right here at the interchange. In more rural areas like this, it will be more common and expected to have roads that connect to Interstates be tagged as tertiary and even unclassified/residential roads.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-07-18 21:12:27+00:00): Okay... Well, what should be done about the dangling spur? Should this portion of US 93 Business even be considered a motorway at all? IMO, the only thing it has going for itself being a motorway is that it has two grade-separated interchanges. There are no "Freeway entrance" or "Freeway ends" signs anywhere on the route, not even a yellow advisory sign like I-215/Lake Mead Parkway does. What should be done, with all this information in mind?
Joseph R P (2025-07-18 23:39:00+00:00): If the spur you're referring to is 93 Business—motorway spurs are perfectly fine as it's a physical construction-based classification rather than an importance-based one. There are many examples of this throughout the country, like I 8 in San Diego, Northern Parkway in Phoenix, Earhart Expressway in New Orleans, and quite a handful around Providence, RI. Regarding solely its length—considering it is a direct spur off of another motorway and isn't disconnected, it being a motorway should be fine.

As for signage, considering not all freeways have "Freeway ends" signs by their terminus it's usually standard practice to end the motorway at where there's a physical characteristic change like an at-grade intersection or when the road narrows, or at the last interchange of a bypass or where it transitions into another road.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-07-19 00:29:39+00:00): Alright then, I guess I'll restore their old classifications. The only thing I now have against that decision is this: I read somewhere (I think on the wiki) that motorways should not share nodes with other non-motorway (link)s, as that would generate an error. I figured that they should also share nodes with other highways only if they are tagged as an expressway. The original setup has a motorway ending without transitioning into an expressway first, which, it appears, occurs between the interchange at NV 173 and the intersection at Veterans Memorial Drive. Where should this expressway segment be?
ZLima12 (2025-10-21 04:07:42+00:00): Hmm, I don't know, I think I would support highway=primary+expressway=yes here. The segment is fairly short, and it doesn't seem like the freeway section is more important than the non-freeway section. So, I think they should be at the same classification level.
ZLima12 (2025-10-21 04:08:09+00:00): If we want to show that it is controlled access, we can use access_control=full
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-10-21 17:01:56+00:00): For the hundredth time, highway=motorway does NOT indicate a road's importance in the network! Quoting Joseph RP from earlier, "the freeway section of the 93 Business loop is only tagged [as] a motorway for its physical characteristic rather than its importance, and would be a primary road itself if it weren't built up to freeway standards between I 11 and VM [Veterans Memorial] Drive." That's why I tagged with highway:motorway=primary. If you really wanted to, you could ditch highway=motorway entirely and replace it with motorway=yes (and highway=primary), but I don't recommend doing this until the community reaches a consensus (Spoiler alert: it hasn't—yet).
ZLima12 (2025-10-21 18:27:55+00:00): Under the 2021 classification guidelines, motorway does indicate that a road is in the topmost level of importance. And motorway=yes, as it is currently defined on the wiki, is talking about access restrictions, so it is not the right tag here. The closest thing is expressway=yes+access_control=full, but a better tag should probably be developed at some point.
user_5359 (2025-07-30 12:01:34+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/node/13007460021. What is the mean of the tag 
Ljungbyholmsskolan = school
?
Did you mean
amenity = school
name = Ljungbyholmsskolan 
?
Carto'Cité (2025-10-03 12:09:14+00:00): Bonjour.
Il est important de conserver cette barrière linéaire, d'une part parce que cela représente fidèlement la réalité terrain, d'autre part parce qu'elle peut être prise en compte par un algorithme de routing surfacique. C'est notamment le cas de celui utilisé par transilien.com. 
As-tu fait le même type de suppression sur d'autres gares ?
Cordialement,
Antoine de Carto'Citépour SNCF Transilien
Nausicartographe (2025-10-03 18:42:30+00:00): Je n'ai touché qu'à la gare de Vigneux.

Je vais te laisser bien faire ! Je ne sais plus ce qui m'a motivé à toucher à ce point... Osmose peut-être.
SomeoneElse (2025-08-11 12:26:09+00:00): Thanks!
Supaplex (2025-07-18 01:46:03+00:00): 因為使用非開放授權資料繪製而回退

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169085716
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-17 23:35:50+00:00): Fantastic! Now every joey in the world can find it! Great job. You know fine well that the metadata you've added wont show on the basemaps of strava, gaia, trailforks so is essentially useless to a large portion of OSM secondary users.
eerib (2025-07-17 23:48:13+00:00): A number of applications use portions of the metadata in the their render of the trail. AllTrails, Gaia, and OnX are apart of the OpenStreetMap Trails Working Group and use the developed guidelines in rendering of trails.

Particularly for Gaia they render unsanctioned status and IMBA rating.
hamare_raaz (2025-07-17 23:52:11+00:00): @MomentSkiGuy, the trail is not even correctly labeled (Trespasser isn't the trail in question). I'll get a fix up on it soon
hamare_raaz (2025-07-17 23:56:29+00:00): @eerib, I'll go through the metadata for this trail (and some others in the CRA/with land access issues) and make sure that they're all correct. I contacted a friend at WB and they gave me certain access/other parameters to put on the trails whilst they (slowly, very slowly) meet and decide what their management strategy will be (presumably in consultation with the Province and with OSM).
hamare_raaz (2025-07-18 00:00:44+00:00): (that's not to say that I am obeying what WB 'wants' shown, but they have informed me on the legal access status/other info for the trails)
SPalferro (2025-07-17 23:05:51+00:00): Este conjunto de cambios será revertido al finalizar la Fiesta del Poncho
SPalferro (2025-07-29 21:24:37+00:00): Conjunto de cambios revertido

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169693694
SPalferro (2025-07-17 23:37:28+00:00): Este conjunto de cambios será revertido al finalizar la Fiesta del Poncho
smallCat (2025-07-26 04:37:12+00:00): Why IT company is a bench? Why the bench belong to seoul subway line 2?
b-jazz (2025-07-20 03:21:07+00:00): RE: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/866775459

When drawing golf course areas (such as greens, fairways, bunkers, tees, etc.), please be aware that the lines used to outline those areas can't cross over each other. Fairways outlines shouldn't cross over greens or bunkers or other fairways for example. Take a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Golf.png for an example of the "Wrong" way to map a fairway and a green. (The same can be said about fairways and bunkers, tees, roughs, etc.) There are some cases where a fringe exists around a green and you should draw the fairway outline completely around a green. Other times, the fairway and green butt up against each other. In that case the fairway and green should share the same nodes at the boundary between the two. If you could go back and clean up where you've made this mistake, that would be great. But more importantly, if you could stop from doing this in the future, it would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions about golf course mapping, feel free to reach out.
Kees 59 (2025-08-03 12:53:18+00:00): Hi,
You tagged memorial:conflict using Roman numerals. Should that not be decimals as per the wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:memorial:conflict)?
tagishsimon (2025-08-04 12:13:28+00:00): Yes; thx.
nevw (2025-07-18 01:23:48+00:00): Hi, you have duplicated the dump point here. Are there two or just one?
Levity01 (2025-07-18 03:14:57+00:00): Sorry is my first submit, only one, my bad
nevw (2025-07-18 03:21:22+00:00): Ok thanks, duplicate deleted now.
osmuser63783 (2025-07-18 18:31:27+00:00): Hi, unfortunately in your edit you removed the highway= tag from Stora Nygatan (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/166392236/history/14). Could you please fix this and do you think this was just a typo / wrong click or is there anything else in your change set that needs fixing?
tammj (2025-07-19 23:23:43+00:00): hi, thank you for letting me know. another user already solved the issue. I confirm it was a wrong click as I did those chageset to update parking data.
TrickyFoxy (2025-07-19 08:41:41+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169141467
Gregory Peony (2025-07-18 02:19:37+00:00): Hi, it looks to me like you improved the accuracy of the residential area here. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169085259
iandees (2025-07-18 02:40:17+00:00): Hi! Welcome to OSM. It looks like you made some changes that weren't connected to anything or weren't tagged. Let me know if you need any help getting started.
pb-mapping (2025-07-29 15:20:04+00:00): Why wouldn't you replace geometry here instead of deleting the previous nodes?
aharvey (2025-07-18 03:10:45+00:00): generally highway=trunk assumes bicycle=yes by default, at least per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions however there's no harm is explicitly specifying this with bicycle=yes.
btwhite92 (2025-07-24 14:45:39+00:00): Hello,
Please note the long-distance 'trunk' network, at least for CA & NV, has been mostly settled for a couple years now - see documentation here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nevada/highway_classification
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classification_Guidelines

Major road classification changes in particular have been a source of "spirited"
disagreement in the past, so getting some community buy-in, especially for 'trunk' roads, is greatly recommended. The OSM community forum (https://community.openstreetmap.org) as well as the US Slack channel area both active. I will be reverting this classification upgrade, as well as 395 north of Alturas, pending discussion with the community.
Joseph R P (2025-07-26 21:01:51+00:00): I'm just curious—what's would be the objection to Route 50 being trunk here aside from the lack of a wider community consensus/documentation? I think it's a little unfair to cite the NV highway classification page on the OSM Wiki since it's still supposedly a draft, and has only been contributed to by two users and is essentially abandoned with no discussions on its talk page and no further work since Feb 2023.

I disagree with the assessment of classifying it as trunk based on its greater cross-country route due to the implications that other relatively minor sections of any lengthy US Route should be trunk. However, considering it's the only major E-W route through central NV (aside from Route 6, which actually has about half the AADT and is less connective than 50), it seems like a pretty strong case for trunk here.
btwhite92 (2025-07-26 22:57:08+00:00): My objection is that one of the things settled on with the 2021 reclassification guidelines is that 'trunk' routes should be used to denote the "best" routes connecting major population centers. US 50 through Nevada isn't used preferentially to connect any two major population centers - I don't really agree that Ely counts as a 'trunk'-level destination, but I'm willing to hear others' perspectives on that specifically.

My point in bringing up the classification guidelines is that the bigger the change, the more there needs to be an effort to get some consensus. The point of making the effort to document all this (and to generally stick with the decisions made) is so other mappers can see the logic as to why a certain piece of road was decided on belong to a certain class, give a framework to discuss with other mappers if there's a disagreement, and hopefully, most importantly, stop switching road classifications back and forth ad nauseum.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-07-27 02:56:54+00:00): While Ely is not as large as Reno or Las Vegas, it is a city with more population than other populated places in Nevada, like Panaca or Caliente. On a related note, Ely is a stop on US 93 when going from from Las Vegas to Idaho. The only other major stops along said route are Wells and Jackpot, neither of which are served by US 50.
Also, the wiki specifies that "trunk" is for the most important road routes. US 50, being designated a US highway and being divisible by ten, is a major cross-country route that spans multiple states. Even if it has been bypassed by Interstates like I-80, it is still an important road in the United States' road network, and I-80 would be classified as a motorway (freeway) anyway. This alone should make US 50 worthy of being a trunk route, while a one-mile-long US highway (like former US 94 in Florida) would obviously not qualify as a trunk road, even though it is classified as a US Highway.
btwhite92 (2025-07-27 07:08:18+00:00): Yes, Ely is a "major" stop on the route between Las Vegas and Twin Falls - US 93 is a "trunk" because it is the best route between Las Vegas and Twin Falls, Boise, etc; not because Ely is a stop on the way. US 50 through NV carries *regional* traffic to regionally important population centers, but definitely not traffic between any two major metropolitan areas.
Joseph R P (2025-07-27 18:39:10+00:00): Regarding Ely as a trunk destination—it is by no means as large as other distant smallish rural cities like Elko or Fallon, let alone a major metro like Vegas or Reno, but it is certainly a significant hub relative to its region. It has a population just shy of 4,000, which is a big deal in a largely remote area of Nevada like this, where the next largest community, McGill, is just a satellite town of Ely with about 1k people. Its also a major hub logistically with its industrial activity, its airport, and its position on the crossroads of three U.S. Routes.

But regarding your second point in your previous comment—the issue is we've never really had an official complete classification document, at least not as of this year or even the last, or an active ongoing discussion. As I recall it, most of the trunk highway classifications made in Nevada have simply been made by either you or me with no prior discussion on our own justifications. I think going straight to reverting a change like this—only citing the lack of community consensus as a reason for reversion—is counterintuitive to avoiding the "switching road classifications back and forth ad nauseum", too.
btwhite92 (2025-07-27 20:06:08+00:00): The disagreement here is whether Ely counts as a "major population center" in the sense that it will induce the main E/W route to 'trunk'. In my opinion, maybe, but probably not. We're talking about upgrading 400+ miles of highway to 'trunk' on account of one town with less than 4,000 people. This is a super duper edge case with respect to the trunk definition given in the 2021 Highway Classification wiki page, which has had a considerable amount of voices in developing.

I'm not 100% opposed to this being upgraded, but the discussion needs to happen first and with more voices than just you and I, given the "edgeness" of it. Until that happens, yes, I am insisting that this keeps the same classification it has had for the last 12 years.