piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Adava Pays d'Aix (2023-02-27 06:59:42+00:00): Bonjour, Pourquoi avoir supprimé toutes les infos du cycleway ? Sur la partie Ouest (coté bois de l'aune) il y a toujours une bande cyclable présente depuis la rue Hugo Ely. Et pour le reste de l'avenue il y a une piste cyclable bidirectionnelle coté parc donc l'aménagement est bien tagué séparément de la route, les tags étaient corrects à priori, non ?
Adava Pays d'Aix (2023-02-27 07:02:08+00:00): Vu que vous avez aussi modifié l'avenue du Four d'Eyglun je pense que vous n'avez pas compris la définition de "separate" dans OSM. C'est pas pour indiquer qu'il s'agit d'une piste cyclable avec séparateur mais pour indiquer que c'est cartographié séparément, avec 2 chemins bien distincts.
Theo03 (2023-02-27 19:09:04+00:00): Bonjour, 
Merci pour votre retour, en effet je n'avais pas exactement compris cette notion de separate. Vu que coté Route d'Eyglun la route et la piste sont séparées par des portelets je pensais que le changement était à ce coté. 
Pour cette deuxième zone, je viens aussi de faire la mise à jour entre la rue Hugo Ely et la rotonde du Bois de l'Aune. J'ai vérifié ce matin, devant le collège du Jas de Bouffan la piste a été remplacée par une voie piétonne et des stationnements de véhicule mais pas sur la dernière partie de la montée. 

Merci à vous
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:16:55+00:00): This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found.

It appears you added a house on top of the existing house. I removed your duplicate.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133062929
DiogoBaptista98 (2023-02-27 09:46:12+00:00): Bem vindo ao OSM, gostava de entender porque alteraste esta rotunda para como estando em construção sendo que a obra se encontra acabada? Recomendo que verifiques no terreno a informação atualizando-te antes de editares contudo. Boas edições
stan1zlaw (2023-02-27 09:58:47+00:00): Boas, existia uma nota em aberto a indicar que estava em obras e batia certo com as imagens do street view mas não me apercebi que já tinham 1 ano. Já desfiz, Obrigado.
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:23:15+00:00): This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found.

Same as previous edit - you added a building on top of an existing building. You just need to update the tags on the existing building. I fixed it.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133063097
Mazda05 (2023-02-27 03:50:42+00:00): Добрий день, чим аргументована ця правка?
avinet_ua (2023-02-27 17:58:06+00:00): В історії ж видно: перекладено назви
k127 (2025-02-04 20:09:46+00:00): Servus Krypton_256,

mir ist gerade etwas aufgefallen:

Du hast bei einigen dieser Hydranten angegeben `fixme="Durchmesser unklar"` zusammen mit `fire_hydrant:diameter=80`.

Wie ist denn das gemeint, dass einerseits ein Leitungsdurchmesser angegeben ist, und andererseits dieser unklar ist?

Soll das einfach bedeuten, dass der Durchmesser dort, wo ein `fixme`-Tag gesetzt ist, unbekannt ist?

Wenn dem so ist, würde ich vorschlagen, das Tag `fire_hydrant:diameter` zu löschen. Kann ich gerne in einem Aufwasch erledigen.

Was meinst?

Beste Grüße, k127
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:26:25+00:00): This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found.

It looks like you accidentally dragged a service road. it has been fixed.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133063226
Glassman (2023-02-28 17:23:22+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133063230
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:27:23+00:00): This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found.

I removed the duplicate bldg
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133063249
iandees (2023-02-27 01:37:19+00:00): Hello. I see you're systematically adding buildings associated with a single religion. Where are you sourcing this information?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133063340
swimdb (2023-02-27 15:34:44+00:00): From consulting the source, jw.org

I also merging GNIS data already in OSM.   At some point I will clean up the outdated or otherwise incorrect  related GNIS. 


I also use county land parcel govt opendata, for example 

https://marioncounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b41e1f1b340a448682a2cc47fff41b31&find=072W20CA03000


This org has financialized a bunch of their real estate assets recently and knowing what they own vs what they use for their core mission is very interesting. 

An additional twist is that all 151 of the PA locations have a litigation hold and subpoena on them for CSA documenting material at present.   It is likely this legal action will imperil the finances of the entire org, leading to increased interest into their assets. 

This is a data journalism submarine waiting to surface. I am getting things somewhat in order for whoever picks up the story down the line.
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:32:04+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133063476
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:35:13+00:00): It looks like you dragged club court street. I fixed it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133063871
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:36:04+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133063910
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:36:33+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133063955
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:37:57+00:00): service streets typically don't have names. Tagging is sufficient. Can you remove the name of the gas station service road?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133064016
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:40:36+00:00): This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found.

You added a duplicate building again. It has been fixed. I'm not checking your HOTOSM edits but I'd strongly recommend you review those edits.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133064154
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:47:25+00:00): It looks like you acidentally dragged a node on the taco time building. It has been fixed.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133064242
ivanbranco (2023-02-27 10:29:44+00:00): Hi oshehcat,

I wonder why you changed "File:" with "file:" here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1417635914/history
it was fixed only one week ago. Was it intended or some kind of iD bug?
emersonveenstra (2023-02-28 12:22:07+00:00): Hi,

This changeset created https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10695996409 which is a duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9897889108, could you please fix it? Thanks!
❤️‍🔥 (2023-03-02 02:43:20+00:00): thanks for your edit, it's much appreciated
dmfr (2024-01-17 21:59:38+00:00): Hello! Why is the L'Enfant Plaza mapped as two different nodes? All similar cases I've seen, the station is mapped with a single node (since it is a single entity). I understand that the station has two different railway:refs because of the different levels, but I believe there is a better way to express those railway:refs without needing two separate station nodes. E.g., you could create two new relations to group the correct stop_positions with the corresponding refs.

I know this issue probably existed before your changeset, but I don't know where else I could ask/debate this.
whammo (2024-01-21 14:37:17+00:00): That's a good question, and I honestly don't know enough about public transportation tagging to know if it's incorrect. I would pose the question in the #public_transport channel in the OSM US Slack, and someone who knows more would be able to weigh in.
watmildon (2023-02-27 01:59:10+00:00): Thanks for helping out. Let me know if you have any questions or if anything is unclear.

Happy mapping!
ivanbranco (2025-05-14 11:06:06+00:00): Hi pfhllnts,

a user made a question about this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4428258

maybe you can reply to them?

thanks and good mapping
pfhllnts (2025-05-14 20:00:19+00:00): Oh! Thank you for notifying me, I didn't get an email notification about that. I'll have a look shortly.
pfhllnts (2025-08-21 13:12:51+00:00): Well, it wasn't "shortly", but now it should be fixed.
MxxCon (2023-02-27 21:26:39+00:00): Hello.
Please note that that this kind of tagging supposed to go on the building way itself rather than an address node.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133065720
CurlingMan13 (2023-02-28 20:14:23+00:00): This should just be tagged as a driveway instead then.

Deletion reverted in:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133144806
CurlingMan13 (2023-02-28 20:12:25+00:00): Private roads should still be mapped, just with private tags.  Driveways and pools are incredibly helpful for first responders.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133065936
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-01-31 07:28:09+00:00): Hello!

You used
power=portal#1
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10696061146/history

Have you maybe meant
power=portal
?

I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).

Or have you used this value deliberately? In such case, what was the intended meaning?
MxxCon (2023-02-27 21:36:20+00:00): Hello.
Please note that in Manhattan correct value for addr:city is "New York", NOT Manhattan.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133066226
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-11-01 14:01:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 174063813, 174063778, 174063039, 174063675, 174063839, 174063864, 174063733, 174063852, 174063722, 174063049, 174063081, 174063378, 174063746, 174063119, 174063802, 174063878 where the changeset comment is: Following a DWG complaint, reverting a dubious import.  See e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1311170850 https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18848
MxxCon (2023-02-27 21:38:36+00:00): Hello.
Please note that this kind of mapping is invalid for OSM and will be reverted.
OSM is about how the map is NOW, not in the fall of 2023. Once that business is open, you are welcome to add it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133066493
MxxCon (2023-02-27 22:00:57+00:00): Hello.
I'm not sure why you created multipolygon relation out of these buildings, but it's completely unnecessary in this game. As such this edit have been reverted.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133066670
MxxCon (2023-02-27 22:21:04+00:00): Hello.
Could you please elaborate on this edit? The official website doesn't list this location https://chachamatcha.com/pages/locations
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133067111
shmello (2023-03-07 13:29:00+00:00): Hi. Yes, I see the official website has not listed it yet...I visited the store on Sunday 3/5 and it's very much open and running. I took pictures as well. Would I be able to send those for verification?
MxxCon (2023-03-08 03:05:34+00:00): If you know their phone number and biz hours, that would be very useful to add. Also any other info relevant to that POI would be good to add.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133067111
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:52:18+00:00): #TIP: square building by selecting the outline then just type a "q".

Also - why did you remove the turning circle in the cul-de-sac? It is typically to place one there. Can you review this edit?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133067998
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:56:41+00:00): #TIP: square buildings by selecting the outline then just type a "q"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133068169
mavl (2023-04-25 09:01:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
Glassman (2023-02-28 23:17:38+00:00): This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found.

The strip mall at Old Olympic Highway  two different buildings are on top of another.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133068304
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:58:09+00:00): Can you verify that the post box is operated by Mail Box Etc? It is unusual to see one of theirs in a residential neighborhood.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133068406
mavl (2023-04-25 09:10:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
mavl (2023-04-25 09:10:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
Glassman (2023-02-28 23:00:05+00:00): I recommend you review your house additions and square the buildings and make sure they match the roof line better.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133068738
mavl (2023-04-25 09:05:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
Frans S (2023-02-27 09:53:57+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
A remark.
Tag highways in urban areas, like here as residential, instead of unclassified.
See this wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways

Please don't cluster buildings either.
Best regards
Frans S (2023-02-27 09:57:13+00:00): Back again.
Please pay attention to next points:
Buildings are in general rather rectangular. just 4, 6 or 8 nodes are sufficient.
Each rectangular building need to be squared. !!  Q key when still selected
Nodes of buildings may not connect to other buildings or features.
The shadow of a building is not a part of the building. 
this document might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
MxxCon (2023-02-27 22:33:43+00:00): Hello.
Are you sure that website is correct? When I go there I get redirected to a website hosting malware..
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133069146
sid2002 (2023-03-20 04:16:43+00:00): Hi,
I visit it again today, and they are not sure whether they have a website.
mavl (2023-04-23 15:56:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-25 09:09:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
GinaroZ (2023-02-27 17:15:55+00:00): Why have you added this road, when clearly it runs through the back gardens of some houses? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1149797340
silakshm (2023-02-28 06:35:40+00:00): Hi GinaroZ, 

Thank you for reviewing the changeset and brining this our notice. The editor has made the edits based on outdated internal imagery due to a technical issue. I have reverted the edits in the changeset #133114581 and will ensure that such errors do not flow from our end. We appreciate your feedback.

Regards,
silakshm
mavl (2023-04-25 09:08:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
map per (2023-02-27 07:18:55+00:00): Hello yadavzhi,

why did you change the classification of this road from residential to service? Which sources did you use?
The road has a name, so it's probably not a servece road.

Best regards
map per
silakshm (2023-02-28 07:06:02+00:00): Hi , 

Thank you for bringing this to our notice. The editor has made the changes based on the information provided on the wiki regarding the highway=residential tags. 
"Roads carrying primarily through traffic, or non-residential traffic, should instead be tagged with another highway tag (e.g. unclassified, tertiary) as appropriate (see highways). Roads to individual dwellings would normally be tagged as highway=service (and likely service=driveway)."
However, considering the nature of the entities the segment could have been retained as residential. Hence as per your suggestion, I have made the necessary changes. Your feedback is highly valued.

Regards,
silakshm
skquinn (2023-06-13 08:58:37+00:00): Why was building=residential changed to building=yes on some buildings? Also, addr:country=US was removed on those same buildings for no apparent reason.
watmildon (2023-06-13 21:38:43+00:00): Hello!

At a minimum, I see there's a bit of doc deficiency here. Thanks for pointing it out. There was more information in the tasking manager project but I see that the detailed info is no longer available after the projected is completed and in "archive" status.

The short version is that several mappers in KS had identified that this area could use an overhaul of address data (and other information) due to the low quality of a few previous imports. One of the issues was somewhat dodgy mapping of building tagging from the original dataset to OSM tags. When discussing with mappers in the  Kansas channel of the OSMUS Slack and the global Discord, the consensus was to "downgrade" some of the specific tagging to buliding=yes so it could be reviewed/resurveyed by local folks (ex:StreetComplete has a popular building=yes quest).

As for addr:country, the ESRI data endpoint had exceptionally good unit level address information so almost every address tag got remove for the refresh. There were also a lot of things (random nodes, roadways etc) that, in my experience, don't have addr:country tags in the United States.

All that said, if there's an area you'd like me to review or a set of tags you think should be returned to items, that's super useful information and I'm happy to work on it.

Matt
bisonprarieafternoon (2023-06-13 21:56:53+00:00): Local mapper here in Kansas, a lot of the imports that were done in Topeka over a decade ago were of exceptionally poor quality, duplicate data and the address information was poorly aligned to the point you couldn't tell what house it went to. The import never should have been permitted to happen, removing it and starting clean was agreed to be the most reasonable option
mavl (2023-04-25 09:00:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
mavl (2023-04-25 09:10:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
map per (2023-02-27 07:21:35+00:00): Hello niskumal,

why did you delete service=fuel on this road? It's not a standard value but it makes sense so please don't do automated edits that delete rare service values (see (1)). (Undiscussed automated edits are not appreciated in OSM)

Best regards
map per

(1) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits
map per (2023-02-27 07:22:18+00:00): * I mean Hello yadavzhi of course
deepikja (2023-04-02 18:00:42+00:00): Hi, 
We sincerely apologize for not responding to your comments on this CS.
We have updated our internal wiki and withdrawn the instructions on erasing the service tags added on the existing segments regardless of the presence of building outlines or address points in accordance with your prior recommendations. Changes to service tags won't be made any more.
But in this instance, I can see that the building's outline (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/66240632) has an amenity=fuel attribute. As a result, we haven't reverted the specifics on the service road. If you would like us to reverse the edit, kindly let us know.
Regards,
Deepikja
map per (2023-02-27 06:56:31+00:00): Hello niskumal,

these roads aren't service roads but tracks.
Please don't do automated edits that change all highway=road to highway=service (see (1)). (Undiscussed automated edits are not appreciated in OSM)

Although the road classification of course isn't ideal as it describes an unknown classification it is way worse to have data with a wrong classification.

Best regards
map per


(1) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits
silakshm (2023-02-28 09:16:43+00:00): Hi,

We appreciate you reviewing the changeset and alerting us to this. The editor has accidentally made an incorrect edit . I have reverted the edits in the changeset #133115812 and will ensure that such errors do not flow from our end. We appreciate your feedback.

Regards,
silakshm