piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Viima (2025-07-24 19:45:35+00:00): Hei ja tervetuloa muokkaamaan Openstreetmapia.

Teit karttaan muutoksen, joka vaikuttaa kokeiluilta. Kumosin tekemäsi kokeilun, sillä kartan tulisi kuvata maailmaa sellaisena kuin se on. Ethän jatkossa lähetä kokeiluja palvelimelle.

Ystävällisin terveisin,
Viima
McKulkin (2025-08-08 01:03:17+00:00): Mr. Utiashvili, contributors like you are what keep the OSM service afloat and thriving. You are the foundation and the essential part of making OSM a reliable source of up-to-date cartographic information—and I thank you for that.

But, please, stop adding random trails in random places. I believe you misunderstood OSM’s motto, which is to keep things real. You can’t lay down a path through a forest just because you walked there once and thought it was the way to go. If you’re mapping a trail, be sure there’s an actual path—visible and passable—not a fox’s track or a mushroom picker’s circles that you mistook for a trail.

You can’t continue doing what you’re doing—I beg you—make sure you understand the OSM rules before contributing. We followed the “path” you created only to find unbroken forest; what was supposed to be a 15-minute walk became a two-hour ordeal. I almost collapsed trying to climb a hill in search of drinking water (which you had mapped) when there had been none. Thanks to a local farmer, I was able to recover—but he was as amused as I was to hear about a well/spring right next to his house.
-Utiashvili (2025-08-08 09:05:01+00:00): McKulkin, thanks for the comment and sorry to hear that trail did not work for you. 
We do off-roading on those areas for many years and mark track roads, as well as short paths to return when things go not as planned. 
If you did not find the path visible in August, it is totally fine for Georgia. You will easily do in February.  Water spring was there and most local people should know it by name. 

Also, in that particular area, they have established National Park and restrict cutting trees, so over time even track roads may become unpassable, as some of them already do. 
So, thins change over time, and if you have new information, please update the map accordingly. That's how I see OSM.
-Utiashvili (2025-08-09 01:30:45+00:00): Thanks for very detailed feedback, much appreciated. I can understand your frustration. I myself do trails for 30+ year, probably already across 30+ countries, from Alaska to New Zealand, and it never happens that you go to remote track with a map and end up without challenges. There are obvious reasons behind. 

For this particular case. Seasonality matters a lot. Go there after snow February and you will see it. As mentioned, this area south-east of Ikvlivi was established as a protected area, so people no more go there to cut trees or hunt, while recreational travelers are not that many, so trail probably became abandoned over time. 10Y ago Kevliani-Ikvlivgorana was an ordinary maintained track road, but now there are 5m tall trees in the middle, right after the protection zone. 

Notes are helpful, but tricky. I had a case when a experienced Indian mapper hiked a very popular offroad track in Kakheti and edited it, saying no more visible trail even for hiking, heavy bushes, not passable and etc. While other people have driven it again later. So there are subjectivity as well, how you perceive things. You   argue on passability of Ikvlivi trail, but in practice you seem to pass it, there are open source tracks that others passes it, so it works :) ok, that's a joke, in return to you all swearing for me in different languages. 

About rational: those are not just a lines. I map path/track to popular destinations, to suggest the short ways or the best ones to approach. When I find and map the historical landmarks, church in forest, viewpoint or something similar of public interest, then the obvious question will be how you get there. I don't believe, that leaving that part of the map blank is efficient. It should be an extra, valuable information for an average hiker.  Herewith, I understand the downside, sometimes people might end up swearing at me when the pre-planned short trails end up not that smooth. 

Regarding the switching over to `smoothness' for tracks - it is a good suggestion, but so far local off-road community is more used to `tracktype` classification, as well as it gives more straightforward visualization, so probably I will keep it. 

Anyway, thanks for your comment. I will keep your concern in memo and try to address in the future. Feel free to edit the Ikvlivi trail as you have the most recent info. 

Hope you enjoyed the Ikvlivi view. Suggest the other nearby mountains as well, when insects season goes away.
afgb1977 (2025-09-04 20:02:52+00:00): Hola Andrés, bienvenido a OruxMaps.
Voy a hacer algunas pequeñas correcciones a tu conjunto de cambios. Empezando por el bosque, vivo al lado de el y definitivamente no se llama Villa Ana, como podrás ver ya existe un poligono o área demarcando el área del bosque (natural=wood) y usted creo un nuevo polígono adentro de este, lo correcto es pasar la info al polígono original y eliminar el tuyo o reutilizarlo en otro pequeño bosque. Lo otro, en un nodo correspondiente a una vía añadiste=
name=casas de villa ana
Igualmente incorrecto ya que está info no debe ir en un nodo de un highway=*, esta info debe añadirse al conjunto residencial colocando el nombre correcto que sería: Solar Reservado.
Me causa curiosidad que añadieras source=local knowledge teniendo en cuenta que el Conjunto tiene un letrero suficientemente grande donde se puede leer de forma adecuada el nombre.
TinPetreković (2025-07-23 08:59:41+00:00): COMMENT CORRECTION

Adding weight restrictions #OptimoRoute

SOURCE:
https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/KYTC::kytc-truck-weight-classification/explore
TinPetreković (2025-07-23 08:59:45+00:00): COMMENT CORRECTION

Adding weight restrictions #OptimoRoute

SOURCE:
https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/KYTC::kytc-truck-weight-classification/explore
Langlaeufer (2025-07-22 17:04:33+00:00): Dann ist es aber bicycle=designated foot=designated highway=path
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169298698
Langlaeufer (2025-07-22 17:04:54+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169298698
Syl (2025-07-22 15:54:43+00:00): Bonjour, à quoi correspondent ces hauteurs ? Les valeurs ont l'air fantaisistes avec des quais à plusieurs dizaines de mètres du sol...
Marie Grand-Clément (2025-07-22 16:11:15+00:00): Bonjour, merci pour le retour. Il s'agit de la hauteur du quai par rapport à la voie, les valeurs sont en cm. Je m'occupe de corriger les unités au plus vite!
cjbe25 (2025-07-22 15:18:22+00:00): I realized I didn't complete the whole highway, according to https://www.olympiaodos.gr/en/Uphresies/Interactive-Map/ 

I'll continue later
TinPetreković (2025-07-23 08:59:58+00:00): COMMENT CORRECTION

Adding weight restrictions #OptimoRoute

SOURCE:
https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/KYTC::kytc-truck-weight-classification/explore
TinPetreković (2025-07-23 09:00:03+00:00): COMMENT CORRECTION

Adding weight restrictions #OptimoRoute

SOURCE:
https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/KYTC::kytc-truck-weight-classification/explore
TinPetreković (2025-07-23 09:00:08+00:00): COMMENT CORRECTION

Adding weight restrictions #OptimoRoute

SOURCE:
https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/KYTC::kytc-truck-weight-classification/explore
TinPetreković (2025-07-23 09:00:14+00:00): COMMENT CORRECTION

Adding weight restrictions #OptimoRoute

SOURCE:
https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/KYTC::kytc-truck-weight-classification/explore
TinPetreković (2025-07-23 09:00:19+00:00): COMMENT CORRECTION

Adding weight restrictions #OptimoRoute

SOURCE:
https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/KYTC::kytc-truck-weight-classification/explore
TinPetreković (2025-07-23 09:00:24+00:00): COMMENT CORRECTION

Adding weight restrictions #OptimoRoute

SOURCE:
https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/KYTC::kytc-truck-weight-classification/explore
Scout Jens (2026-06-21 18:52:31+00:00): im Bau ist da aber erst was im westlichen Teil (dort sogar schon fertig)
TinPetreković (2025-07-23 08:55:54+00:00): COMMENT CORRECTION 

Adding weight restrictions #OptimoRoute

SOURCE:
https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/KYTC::kytc-truck-weight-classification/explore
SomeoneElse (2025-07-25 09:24:48+00:00): Hello,
Just wondered - is the extra spur northeast of Chillaton deliberate? 
https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=5422375
Best Regards,
Andy
Simon Sustrans (2025-07-29 09:41:44+00:00): That's an error, now removed. Also spotted a rogue spur at Marystow. Thanks, Simon
SomeoneElse (2025-07-30 21:46:33+00:00): I wonder if that got saved?  I still see both spurs at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5422375#map=16/50.62383/-4.20835 ?
Simon Sustrans (2025-07-31 17:22:03+00:00): That's weird, I'm sure I had saved it. Let's hope it works this time.
user_5359 (2025-07-23 11:41:38+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/node/13017510400. Did you mean https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:orchard%3Dmeadow_orchard ?
Gregory Peony (2025-07-22 22:19:39+00:00): Regarding your comment about deletion; it probably was possible to seperate the features which shared nodes by disconnecting them. You did well to try to preserve the tags and inform me of the deletion. I have restored the history of the school buildings and pitches deleted in this changeset. Check here https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/258922387
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169300765
Leo Slager (2025-07-22 23:13:15+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
Yunan973 (2025-10-28 15:11:47+00:00): Bonjour,

es-tu sûr du numéro siret de MLK bâtiment, cf. la note que j'ai rajoutée sur le point et sa source
Cordialement
l3BAM (2025-11-15 16:21:24+00:00): Il me semble que c'était un établissement de MLK bâtiment de Verrières en Anjou. Source retrouvée ce jour : https://www.startpage.com/sp/search?query=%22mlk+b%C3%A2timent%22+%22segr%C3%A9%22
Il est peut-être fermé aujourd'hui.
l3BAM (2025-11-15 16:25:06+00:00): Mais effectivement aucune indication de SIRET pour celui-ci. C'est une enseigne pourtant vue sur le terrain à la date de ma modification.
Yunan973 (2025-11-23 12:35:01+00:00): Ok, j'ai un peu modifié le noeud, si un jour tu repasses par là quand ils sont ouverts, le plus simple c'est de leur demander leur numéro siret, (normalement indiqué sur leur tampon, tiquet de caisse et/ou facture) mais y a pas urgence.
totera (2025-08-21 18:02:07+00:00): Qui la SS16 nella parte de facto variata dal Raccordo SP227 era classificata secondary in analogia a quanto avviene in altre città, anche vicine (ad es. a Senigallia per il tratto sotteso alla Complanare, a Pescara per il tratto variato dalla circonvallazione, ecc.)
f_gonella (2025-08-21 20:46:35+00:00): In realtà, la segnaletica proveniente da sud indica la SS16 per la direzione Ancona e la variante solo per il centro di SBT. Sinceramente sono combattuto se in questo caso si debba seguire il principio che la variante declassa la strada precedente o quello per cui la direttrice principale è quella indicata dal gestore della strada. In tutti gli altri casi da te citati la direttrice principale è segnata sulla variante, non sul vecchio tracciato.
totera (2025-08-25 20:53:14+00:00): Credo che su OpenStreetMap dobbiamo considerare più criteri e non limitarci a uno soltanto...
A San Benedetto la competenza sulla SS16 è del comune, e il comune di San Benedetto ha a quanto pare l'abitudine di utilizzare le indicazioni per individuare le strade in base alle loro destinazioni storiche anziché avviare gli automobilisti ai percorsi migliori. Ad esempio, all'incrocio della vecchia Salaria (via Torino) ci sono i cartelli che indicano L'Aquila, come fossimo ancora negli anni Settanta!
Altro caso di indicazioni inspiegabilmente non ancora aggiornate: sulla SS76 le indicazioni per Matelica e Camerino sono ancora all'uscita di Borgo Tufico per la vecchia 256 anziché a Fabriano Est per la variante... ma anche in questo caso credo che su OSM abbiamo fatto bene a declassare la vecchia strada a secondary.
f_gonella (2025-10-10 11:10:21+00:00): Grazie mille, ne terrò conto!
partyfan (2025-07-24 10:29:14+00:00): https://www.comune.reggioemilia.it/novita/avvisi/in-via-g-rinaldi-e-viale-martiri-di-piazza-tien-an-men-modifiche-alla-viabilita-dal-10-giugno-2025-all11-gennaio-2026
Gregory Peony (2025-07-22 17:10:24+00:00): Generally it looks to me like you're identifying buildings in imagery and taking care to map the features you add accurately, and you're modifying features instead of deleting and re mapping them. Thank you very much for that. The footprint I flagged likely does not represent a building but rather a part of the roof of the building to its East. Consider that you are looking from above at the roofs of buildings but trying to map the footprint (which is at ground level). The footprint doesn't necessarily completely match the shape of roofs try to map what is the most likely footprint shape e.g. there could be some parts of the roof missing, or they might overhang the footprint. Sometimes the roof is corroded making it appear as a different building. I hope this helps.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169301425
Langlaeufer (2025-07-22 17:03:33+00:00): Hi,
ich hab mal ein wenige Nachgebessert https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169304301.
1) Gemetrie mit ESRI-BIldern verbessert
2) an Ausfahrten über den Gehweg keine crossings
3) Übergänge müssen verbunden werden. Es fehlen noch Fuß-und Rad-Verbindungen an der Kreuzung in der Mitte!
4) wenn das ein Rad- und Fußweg ist dann auch cycleway:both=separate
5) Die Kreuzungen mit Straßen sind unmarked
Grüße Langläufer
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169301888
osmmapper222 (2025-07-22 18:00:03+00:00): Danke für die Verbesserungen. Bzgl. Punkt 3: soll ich Verbindungswege an der Kreuzung wie folgt in Blau anlegen? https://imgur.com/a/mExXedH
Langlaeufer (2025-07-22 18:17:44+00:00): Sieht gut aus
osmmapper222 (2025-07-22 18:33:57+00:00): Ich habe die Wegführung entsprechend angepasst: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169308402
rskedgell (2025-07-23 08:53:32+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Thanks for adding this, although you'll need to add some other tags for the POI you added for it to be useful to data consumers. Please take a look at the following wiki page for some suggestions:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:healthcare%3Dphysiotherapist

If you would like any help, please feel free to ask.
b-jazz (2025-07-23 18:07:52+00:00): RE: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1416564391

When drawing golf course areas (such as greens, fairways, bunkers, tees, etc.), please be aware that the ways used to outline those areas can't cross over each other. Fairway 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.
partyfan (2025-07-24 10:30:02+00:00): https://www.comune.reggioemilia.it/novita/avvisi/in-via-g-rinaldi-e-viale-martiri-di-piazza-tien-an-men-modifiche-alla-viabilita-dal-10-giugno-2025-all11-gennaio-2026
frydzio (2025-07-23 06:11:02+00:00): Hej,
Jeśli przywracasz przystanki to usuwaj proszę tagi z prefixem "disused:". Przy okazji stworzyłeś też (zapewne przypadkowo) pusty węzeł https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13017608719
Sylabowy Kot (2025-07-23 22:01:50+00:00): Na Wałbrzych!
rempshaener (2025-07-23 17:29:55+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.

Du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Ich habe zwei Anmerkungen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/291238116: Das Gebäude „heißt“ jetzt Christian Gäng. Nur: wer oder was ist das? Hier fehlt noch eine Angabe. So wie hier:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/212379625: Das Gebäude heißt nicht „Schreinerei Gäng“, sondern die Schreinerei. D. h. es fehlt die Angabe craft=joiner am Gebäude.

Vielen Dank für deinen Beitrag und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen.
Viele Grüße
custodiankeyy (2025-07-23 22:15:38+00:00): Merhaba, mevcut binayı küçültmek yerine kendi işletmenizi ayrı işaretleyebilirdiniz.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169369031
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-22 16:51:22+00:00): 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/way/724093300

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NeisRevert (2025-07-23 16:44:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/169355636
where the changeset comment is: 
Remove vandalism
joost schouppe (2025-08-02 09:39:00+00:00): You made them trunk roads :)
GowanusCanal (2025-08-06 18:24:28+00:00): Hi joost schouppe,
Thanks for catching that! I had intended to classify these roads as service, but classified them as trunk by mistake. It looks like another user has already updated these ways to service. Have a nice day!
Xavizard Knight (2025-07-23 17:28:04+00:00): Hello! Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap!

In this commit, you've added noexit=yes tags to four gates of houses.
This tag doesn't make sense here. Why did you add it?
ratrun (2025-07-24 03:02:50+00:00): Hi, 
the reason was that OSMI routing view (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing) detected  the end nodes of these 0.5 meter short ways as unconnected ways and classified this as priority 1 error. 

So it  appears as a prominent error.  

You might argue that this is a false positive, but OSMI routing view detects these errors for a reason: It cannot know that the way ends with the tagged gate.

It would not detect the error if you continue the super short way behind the gate as in this case: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1416131842
Xavizard Knight (2025-07-25 00:53:40+00:00): This looks a lot to me like "tagging for the router".

The reason why some gates have ways behind them and others don't in this neighbourhood, is because some paths can be seen from aerial and/or street-level imagery.
I've added only the paths that can be seen from the imagery. I haven't added paths that I haven't been able to see from imagery (even if, in almost all the cases, these paths are simple B-lines from the street gate to the building).
Should I (or someone else) in the future have more imagery, then I'll complete these paths (in fact, now that I think about it, a fixme=continue tag might be a good idea to add to these gates, will do that when I can).

There are many other houses nearby with partially or completely missing entry ways that you haven't yet tagged with noexit=yes, like for example house numbers 147, 149, 157, 159, 163, 173, 179, 183, 185, 191, 193, 195, 197, 199, 209, 211, 213, 215 or 217, among others.

Adding noexit=yes tags to barrier=gate nodes doesn't make sense because:
A) A gate is not the end of a way, is an entrance to an area or property or a split between areas/properties (in this case, is the entrance to a private home). If this node would impede the way from continue onward, then it will be a fence or a wall with no gate nor entrance, and it would be tagged as such.
B) The vast majority of the nearby houses (including the two where you've added the noexit tags) have two (or sometimes more) entrances: one for  vehicles and the other being the main walking entrance. So, technically speaking, there is no noexit situation because there is an exit through the other entrance (or manoeuvrer and turn around at the front garden or directly inside the house, but that's not directly applicable to OSM routing).

And if you argue that these gates are technically noexit situations because the way on the other side isn't (yet) mapped to OSM, then I assure you that I would  have mapped the gates differently if the way didn't continue on the other side (because otherwise it would be a disused: or an abandoned: gate).
ratrun (2025-07-25 15:14:23+00:00): Yes, I do argue that these gates are noexits and I do not see the benefit of such extensive micromapping. 
Anyway, I would ask to keep the noexit tag as I do respect your micromaping style even tough I don't see any use in it.
Xavizard Knight (2025-07-26 11:44:11+00:00): I don't have plans to delete these tags (at least not for now), as they don't seem to break anything and they don't annoy me that much as to go out of my way and go delete them right now (aside from being logically contradictory if we look it from a tag meaning perspective). But I will delete them when I finish the ways.

The only propose of your noexit tags is explicitly tagging for the router (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_router) because you are only using them to appease the OSMI validator. And actually, this seems like a validator that's acting weird because it only flagged the four gates that you've modified, and not the many other unfinished ways that are scattered in this neighbourhood. This behaviour should be reported as a bug instead of adding tags to mitigate it.

The wiki page of the noexit=yes tag (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:noexit%3Dyes) also provides guidelines that conflict with your tagging:
> It must be ignored by routing (GPS).
> ## When not to map (...) It's also not a substitute for the tag barrier=* when the road is stopped by a barrier or wall.
> ## Alternatives (...) If you wish to indicate that a way does continue but that you have been unable to map it for some reason use fixme=continue (or any other text) to show that a way goes further but is not mapped yet. This may often be a very short stub from a road indicating the start of a path or side road.

Also, it's confusing that you say adding barriers and accessways is "nonbeneficial micromapping" since you're adding these noexit tags to help a routing software on barriers and accessways.
CurlingMan13 (2025-08-22 03:22:49+00:00): Fixed tag typo from "refd=" to "ref="

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170807623
silversurfer83 (2025-07-22 19:40:04+00:00): Hi

so, what is it?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169305686
Diocesis colonial 21 de Marzo (2025-07-22 17:38:38+00:00): Que la paz de este siempre de ustedes La plaza solidaridad de la 21 de Marzo Soledad Graciano Sánchez San Luis Potosí México y está cerca de La Catedral de la 21 de Marzo Santa Rosa de Lima es un parque plaza verde y el Kiosco y muchísimas gracias y Bendicie al señor gracias adiós
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-22 17:50:49+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3652388277
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1212111016

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
dooley (2025-11-19 21:42:57+00:00): Hallo Scout Jens,

du möchtest eventuell nochmal nachschauen, was du hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1249127653 gemappt hast? 3 Gebäude auf diesem passt nicht.

Danke!