piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-11-06 07:59:40+00:00): what you were trying to achieve with https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10913794408/history ?
Dodko (2023-05-26 07:21:13+00:00): Pre poľnú cestu prosím pridávajte aj značku tracktype pre kvalitu cesty.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Key:tracktype
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-03-16 07:06:25+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/83128393/history has construction = construction that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What construction=construction means? What you wanted to express by using this tag?
BCNorwich (2023-05-27 07:24:27+00:00): Hi, I've reverted all your changes that added many duplicated highways and incorrect oneway tags. The reason is because it seriously disrupted routing. 

If an object/feature needs amending it is OSM practice to amend the existing object/feature. Please don't duplicate highways.

Need help please just ask. Regards Bernard.
wireguy (2023-05-25 21:25:53+00:00): Nice additions, theman76... but fyi: The sidewalk accidently got an address.  House at 617 missing street info.
I-76 (2023-06-02 15:44:30+00:00): fixed, thanks!
OSM_RogerWilco (2023-05-25 20:42:04+00:00): Moin müllers,

die Kontaktdaten sollten besser an das amenity=school statt an das Schulgebäude: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/327624316

Viele Grüße
müllers (2023-05-26 07:28:05+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis. Ich habe die Daten "umgesetzt".

Schönes Wochenende
müllers
Ari Eduardo (2023-08-21 20:58:17+00:00): Done
vasony (2023-05-30 12:18:15+00:00): Kedves Zsolt! 
Mi írjunk át és mire?
Ön már jelölte az 53-at, igaz nem a házszám mezőben, de azt javítottam.
Tamás
Patr1k_P (2023-06-01 16:32:22+00:00): podla coho ste tuto cestu https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/754069282 a nasledne dalsie useky zmenili na cycleway, isli ste tadial?
NorthCrab_upload (2023-05-25 19:00:25+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/200134038
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/602411878

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
aceman444 (2023-05-30 14:20:03+00:00): Why are there 3 chapels "Kaplnka Sedembolestnej Panny Márie" in Macov attached to each other? Isn't that really one building that should be joined into one?
Matthew Hostak (2023-05-30 14:48:35+00:00): Yes, it is one physical building. Should I merge it or something else? Thx
aceman444 (2023-05-30 15:07:26+00:00): Ano, treba to spojit. Budova bola imoportovana z katastra (kapor2), ktoru ju mal z nejakych dovodov rozdelenu na tri casti, zrejme stala na troch parcelach. Ale supisne cislo budovy je tam len jedno.
Matthew Hostak (2023-05-30 15:11:56+00:00): OK, tak som to robil, len tu som to evidentne zabudol. Dik
aceman444 (2023-05-30 15:23:38+00:00): Ale nie je to dobre, netreba to ako multipolygon. Len spojit do jednej plochy. Neviem aka je na to operacia v editore iD, ale najdete to.
Matthew Hostak (2023-05-30 15:41:57+00:00): Hm, hladam, hladam, ale nic take tam nevidim. Jedine co tam bolo bolo Merge, ale to uz teraz nie je mozne, kedze uz je to mergnute. Any ideas, ako by sa to malo volat alebo tak?
aceman444 (2023-05-30 22:06:07+00:00): Neviem veru, iD radsej nepouzivam.
Opravil som to: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=136764891
Matthew Hostak (2023-05-31 07:40:36+00:00): OK, super, dik
Edelsalami (2023-06-04 12:34:25+00:00): Hi Nordgork/Streetview247,
könntest Du mir bitte erklären auf welcher Grundlage du die Melanchthonstraße ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=52507922 ) verschoben hast? Der Verlauf führt nun durch das Unterholz rechts der Straße. Das ist zB klar im DTM Hillshade zu erkennen. Bitte korrigiere das doch bei nächster Gelegenheit. Dankeschön!
Gruß
Nordgork (2023-06-04 20:45:52+00:00): Ich kenne keinen Streetview und das andere wusste ich nicht ich bin relativ neu bei Osm und kenne mich noch nicht so gut aus
Nordgork (2023-06-04 20:47:13+00:00): Ich habe nur das Gelände des Altenheim von der Straße getrennt dort
Edelsalami (2023-07-11 20:46:46+00:00): Lieber Streetview247, es ist zu merken, dass du dir mehr Mühe gibst als früher. Allerdings sind deine alten Verhaltensmuster noch merkbar vorhanden. Hast du in der Zwischenzeit darüber nachgedacht, warum deine alten Konten alle gesperrt wurden? Konkret: Planst du deine hier eingebauten Fehler irgendwann zu korrigieren?
Gruß
rempshaener (2023-05-26 19:39:30+00:00): Hallo,
bei dieser Hofanlage hast du den Straßennamen auf "place" geschoben.
Ich vermute mal, du beziehst dich auf das Wiki und den Eintrag "One common example are small villages in some countries (e.g. Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Germany), in which there are just a few streets with no names, so there’s no street name to put into the address, and addresses usually look like <Village name> <house number>, e.g. Steindorf 30, Tuchlinek 85, Rohovce 47. Since the part of the address before the house number is not, in fact, a street name, it would be wrong to put it into the addr:street=* tag: we would either need to put the name of the village on all actually unnamed streets in the village, thus violating the ground truth principle, or the software might start complaining there isn’t a street with such a name."
Dieses „Dorf-Beispiel“ passt hier nicht. Die Adresse ist offiziell – siehe auch die amtlichen Bestände des Rhein-Kreises Neuss, Geobasis NRW oder TIM online. Z.B. https://opendata.rhein-kreis-neuss.de/explore/dataset/rhein-kreis-neuss-strassenverzeichnis/map/?disjunctive.postleitzahl&disjunctive.stadtteil&disjunctive.strassenname&refine.stadt_gemeinde=Kaarst&q=Pannenbeckerhof&location=17,51.20699,6.62873&basemap=jawg.streets 
Zudem wäre es auch nicht konsistent, weil kein entsprechender Place existiert (auch wenn dieser nicht zwingend notwendig ist): „When using addr:place=*, make sure to keep the name consistent with the place=* object which the house number refers to. There are some rare cases where no such place exists.“
Würdest du deine Änderung noch einmal überdenken?
Viele Grüße
Ropino (2023-05-26 20:31:43+00:00): Hallo,
für mich kam hier addr:place in Frage, weil genau keine Straße/Weg hier so heißt.
Amtliche Verzeichnisse kennen die OSM-Lösung mit addr:street/place eh nicht und daher kann/will ich aus einer 'amtlichen' Adresse die einen 'Straßennnamen' enthält nicht zwingend auf addr:street setzen.
Die Adresse ist mit 'place' genausogut (oder schlecht) zu finden wie mit addr:street. Nur bei letzteren erwarte ich ein Stück Straße/Weg mit diesem Namen.
Irgendwelche 'Hilfskonstrukte' mit einem Stückchen Weg und diesem dann einen Namen zu geben, wäre mMn nicht wirklich sinnvoll.
Warum passt eigentlich das "Dorf"-Beispiel nicht? Auch die Adressen in Dörfern sind 'offiziell' bzw. 'amtlich'.
Für mich ist addr:place genau für so etwas gedacht, wo eben kein Weg/Straße mit einem solchen Namen existiert.
Btw: Schifferhof hat einen Place-Eintrag.
VG Ropino
rempshaener (2023-05-27 18:39:28+00:00): Hallo,
das Dorf-Beispiel passt eigentlich nicht, weil der Fall dort ein anderer ist: Es gibt Straßen, die aber keinen Namen haben, die Adressen nehmen den Ortsnamen auf - weil es ja gar keine Straßennamen gibt.  Heißt also auch irgendwas in die Richtung village, isolated_dwelling, nicht aber farm oder locality - da stellt sich das "Straßenproblem" nicht. 
Also mal so gesagt: Ich würde das mangels "place" so nicht vergeben.
Vielleicht schaue ich bei Gelegenheit mal, ob es da Straßenschilder gibt.
Viele Grüße
chriswhy (2024-12-20 04:57:29+00:00): At "The Fields Studios" there's a warehouse intersecting studios 1-5. What's going on there?
nickvet419 (2024-12-20 05:46:52+00:00): https://thefieldsstudios.com/ this page should answer that i think.
chriswhy (2024-12-20 15:58:26+00:00): Oh I see the warehouse is gone now, never mind, I've updated the area
SomeoneElse (2023-05-26 18:03:51+00:00): Hello avinet_ua,
You must use meaningful changeset comments.  "fix" is not good enough.  See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments .
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group
SomeoneElse (2023-05-26 18:04:16+00:00): Привіт avinet_ua,
Ви повинні використовувати змістовні коментарі до набору змін. "виправити" недостатньо добре. Перегляньте https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments.
З найкращими побажаннями,
Енді Таунсенд, від імені робочої групи даних OSM
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-28 22:33:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 136609773, 136639484, 136633089, 136645524, 136654047, 136623452, 136614651, 136672560, 136641952, 136607063, 136663965, 136598791 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed landuse=reservoir edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136557861 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7146
Xvtn (2023-12-14 20:45:57+00:00): Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good to me, except that the changeset comment field is for you to describe what changes you made, not the source. (There is also a source field for you to put "local knowledge".) Providing a descriptive changeset comment lets others review your work more easily. Thanks again and welcome to OSM!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-28 22:33:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 136609773, 136639484, 136633089, 136645524, 136654047, 136623452, 136614651, 136672560, 136641952, 136607063, 136663965, 136598791 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed landuse=reservoir edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136557861 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7146
hrhino (2023-05-25 22:47:23+00:00): Oooh, but is it tasty?
Adam Franco (2023-05-26 16:04:52+00:00): I don't know yet, but I hope to find out soon! :-)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-28 22:33:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 136609773, 136639484, 136633089, 136645524, 136654047, 136623452, 136614651, 136672560, 136641952, 136607063, 136663965, 136598791 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed landuse=reservoir edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136557861 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7146
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-28 22:33:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 136609773, 136639484, 136633089, 136645524, 136654047, 136623452, 136614651, 136672560, 136641952, 136607063, 136663965, 136598791 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed landuse=reservoir edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136557861 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7146
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-28 22:33:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 136609773, 136639484, 136633089, 136645524, 136654047, 136623452, 136614651, 136672560, 136641952, 136607063, 136663965, 136598791 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed landuse=reservoir edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136557861 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7146
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-28 22:33:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 136609773, 136639484, 136633089, 136645524, 136654047, 136623452, 136614651, 136672560, 136641952, 136607063, 136663965, 136598791 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed landuse=reservoir edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136557861 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7146
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-28 22:33:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 136609773, 136639484, 136633089, 136645524, 136654047, 136623452, 136614651, 136672560, 136641952, 136607063, 136663965, 136598791 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed landuse=reservoir edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136557861 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7146
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-28 22:32:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 136609773, 136639484, 136633089, 136645524, 136654047, 136623452, 136614651, 136672560, 136641952, 136607063, 136663965, 136598791 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed landuse=reservoir edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136557861 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7146
TrickyFoxy (2025-05-22 00:36:17+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166590080
AntMadeira (2023-05-25 21:22:48+00:00): Olá, João.
Sê bem-vindo ao OpenStreetMap!

Vi que adicionaste duas áreas residenciais.
A melhor prática não é criar áreas residenciais e dar-lhes nome, mas adicionar o ponto de aldeia (place=hamlet). Uma área não é verifícável, que é um dos pilares do OpenStreetMap. Para criar algo, esse algo tem de ser verificável.
Sempre que quiseres mapear uma aldeia que ainda não esteja no mapa, o melhor é adicionar um ponto no centro aproximado da povoação.

Qualquer dúvida, estou ao dispor por mensagem privada ou no canal da comunidade portuguesa de OSM, no Telegram:
https://t.me/OSMPortugal

Bons mapeamentos!

Cumprimentos,
António Madeira.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136557678
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-28 22:33:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 136609773, 136639484, 136633089, 136645524, 136654047, 136623452, 136614651, 136672560, 136641952, 136607063, 136663965, 136598791 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed landuse=reservoir edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136557861 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7146
tux67 (2023-05-26 06:04:42+00:00): Looks like an automated edit.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
Has that been discussed/announced somewhere?

BR
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136557767
silversurfer83 (2023-05-26 09:42:41+00:00): I guess here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136557861 is already an answer to that question
Taya_S (2023-05-26 11:38:59+00:00): You might also want to give the nodes you changed a check. A lot of them seem ... questionably tagged at best. 

Briefly looking at a few I'm already seeing:
 - A fire hydrant
 - node above an existing body of water with a description as name
 - A water tank bunker(?)
 - things that should probably be storage_tank's
and more.
tux67 (2023-05-26 11:53:47+00:00): Yes - many of these were wrong and are now differently wrong - but .. with the recent change date one may get the impression someone thoughtfully reviewed them. One of the disadvantages of these mass edits.
mr4703 (2023-05-26 14:03:29+00:00): i don't find that you can get the impression from a mass edit that someone has reviewed this. 
The way it's done only says something about the fact that tagging may have been made more precise here.
he has made it clear in the comment that he has merely replaced the old form of tagging with a new one. and this can also be done from a distance.
a renewed check for validity must nevertheless be carried out on site. 
What percentage of the changes are actually not correct?
Taya_S (2023-05-26 14:24:20+00:00): The issue with these sorts of undiscussed mechanical edits is their potential for unintended side effects. 
This wiki page describes it very well
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/What%27s_the_problem_with_mechanical_edits%3F

These edits could be totally fine, but it could also turn out that there is some kind of issue with them that the editor didnt foresee. and if that happens, then it would be all over the map, things would need to be potentially reverted and suddenly its a way bigger issue. 

This is why mechanical edits are best discussed beforehand. To make sure everyone is on board and people can discuss and bring up potential issues and pitfalls.
avinet_ua (2023-05-26 17:08:21+00:00): can you please show errors? i tested a lots of cases, all 100% are correct. of course, some places must be totally not "reservoir" before but this just makes correct usage of new tags.

this is straightforward fixes that do a lots of good things, is not it?
pyram (2023-05-27 18:24:08+00:00): No, it isn't!
One error e.g.:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199179361/history
That building is NOT natural=water.

An other error:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9609749628
is a "emergency=suction_point". The real error is the added "landuse=reservoir" in Version #5
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-28 22:33:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 136609773, 136639484, 136633089, 136645524, 136654047, 136623452, 136614651, 136672560, 136641952, 136607063, 136663965, 136598791 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed landuse=reservoir edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136557861 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7146
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-05-28 22:33:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 136609773, 136639484, 136633089, 136645524, 136654047, 136623452, 136614651, 136672560, 136641952, 136607063, 136663965, 136598791 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed landuse=reservoir edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136557861 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7146
silversurfer83 (2023-05-25 21:15:34+00:00): Hi there :)

I just checked the community and couldn't find any topic related to your large scale edit going on. So I'd like to ask you here: Did you discuss this thing you're doing?

cheers
silversurfer83
avinet_ua (2023-05-25 21:27:59+00:00): do we need to discuss fixes? its basic, old tag, and pair of replace for it
silversurfer83 (2023-05-25 21:32:27+00:00): I believe, according to this [1], we do.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
elveril (2023-05-25 21:32:36+00:00): 34 622 05 12 67 is the real phone , El Veril is a famous restaurant in    Graciosa island , at second time , give a second chance us a corner in the center , of service of bicycles , the other phone is a fake , phone this .. the real El Veril
avinet_ua (2023-05-25 21:36:57+00:00): what you want to discuss?
silversurfer83 (2023-05-25 21:38:53+00:00): I believe you have to act according to the code of conduct laid out in the wiki before starting something like this, don't you think?
avinet_ua (2023-05-25 21:44:06+00:00): maybe, but if this just fix of broken tags (!), nothing bad happens. there are lots of fixes, it is very nice, is not it?
silversurfer83 (2023-05-25 21:48:45+00:00): Sure, it's nice.
But this project (OSM) is huge and there are rules for this kind of thing (see my link).
And the tags aren't broken, they are just old.
Please read the wiki page and think about that before you embark on a mission like this.

Gotta get to bed now :)

cheers
avinet_ua (2023-05-25 21:52:50+00:00): thanks, bye
InsertUser (2023-05-25 22:38:30+00:00): Where was this mechanical edit discussed?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136557861
aTarom (2023-05-26 07:29:35+00:00): Fully automated? For example,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174925279/history
lavoirs have not been taken into account to properly label? By size or by name...
silversurfer83 (2023-05-26 07:57:02+00:00): That's why we have the rules, dear avinet_ua.
Please refrain from further large scale activities without prior discussion with the affected community. In this case, it would be the world wide community which you can find at the tagging mailing list and / or general talk at community.openstreetmap.org
Taya_S (2023-05-26 09:01:02+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/What%27s_the_problem_with_mechanical_edits%3F

I'd also like to offer this wiki page in addition to the one Silversurfer already shared. It provides a good reasoning and explanation for why mechanical edits, even ones that seem harmless or obvious can have bad side effects.
InsertUser (2023-05-26 10:21:19+00:00): Is someone reverting this?
tux67 (2023-05-26 11:03:27+00:00): There is more like that https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136557767 If the user is not willing to revert I suggest to pass that to the DWG
MxxCon (2023-05-26 16:51:59+00:00): It's sad that the principle is more important than the usable data. :/
SekeRob (2023-05-26 17:01:57+00:00): And more
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136560492

Makes it running total of 15K+
avinet_ua (2023-05-26 17:04:53+00:00): revert just for principle? this is straightforward fixes that do a lots of good things, is not it?
silversurfer83 (2023-05-26 17:25:55+00:00): As others, who invested some time, in this discussion pointed out: these edits, when not done carefully (with prior discussion) usually make a lot of the data worse than before.
So you see, @mxxcon and avinet_ua, the rules are there for a reason.

Once again: please discuss these things before embarking on missions that will surely be in vain if undiscussed
SomeoneElse (2023-05-26 17:35:22+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7146
SomeoneElse (2023-05-26 17:38:27+00:00): Revert started in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136598791 .  It may take some time.
DaveF (2023-05-26 22:46:58+00:00): @aTarom
What was wrong with this edit by 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174925279/history

What do you mean by "By size or by name"?

-----------------
OSM should be assessing edits based on quality, not quantity. These edits by avinet_ua fix n tag approved for deprecation.

It appears a few contributors are replying purely to try & look important rather than improve the OSM database, which just a waste of time & effort.
SekeRob (2023-05-27 08:07:19+00:00): hmmm, this mapper did 15K plus mass edits of reservoirs with the title"fixed old landuse=reservoir with replace with natural=water and water=reservoir. If then 1 or more obfuscated in there were not doing that but something else legit then it seems the CS comment was incomplete as well. No one would go seeking out single items in the 15K changes and exclude these from the revert with what was described as a single type change. Tough luck me thinketh.
MxxCon (2023-05-27 12:12:14+00:00): If 1 out of 15000 changes were wrong, I'll take that accuracy any day. Every single day I see dozens of edits around my city with 100% wrong changes. 🙄

Ok, we had wrong data in OSM. Somebody fixed it. It got reverted because it didn't follow the process. Let's see how long it'll take for somebody to step up and follow that process. In the meantime we have wrong data in OSM.
MxxCon (2023-05-27 12:16:42+00:00): And where's guarantee that a changeset that through the "proper" process won't have wrong change in it sneak in?
HellMap (2023-05-27 15:13:33+00:00): Where is the 1 out of 15000 number coming from anyway? Someone mentioned a mistake and someone mentioned 15K and we jumped to the 1 in 15K conclusion?

So I clicked 20 random ways. 2 were natural ponds. 2 were river areas. 2 were gone/dry ground. 2 were swimming pools. 1 was industrial emergency water pool. 1 was waste water plant basin. So that's (unexpectedly) 50% wrong in this arbitrary tiny sample. Sure, it's not technically a wrong change based on swapping deprecated tags. But at the same time, who knows when the feature was added - possibly before a tagging scheme for such features existed.

Personally, I think this should really be a MapComplete task instead and each case manually reviewed.
MxxCon (2023-05-27 15:19:35+00:00): But such mapcomplete task doesn't exist and didn't exist and who knows when it'll be created and completed. So instead status quo is better?
Were the tags worse before or after the change?