piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
IndiaKW2Gf7rTBt5C (2026-07-20 06:04:03+00:00): Good edit, keep going
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186040101
IknowJoseph (2026-07-20 08:05:23+00:00): Hi, I don't think this edit was a fix. On the imagery you can see that the centre lines of the minor lines don't line up perfectly - so "very close junction" is actually how this is in real life, even if maproullette doesn't like it.
whitepanda (2026-07-23 15:13:09+00:00): Hi IknowJoseph, 
thank you for taking the time to review my edit and share your observations.  I understand your concern regarding the road alignment and appreciate you highlighting your perspective. Upon reviewing the area once more, specifically the alignment of the lane markings and painted islands across each other, I still think it would be correct to merge the two junctions into a single one. Please let me know of your thoughts. I look forward to reaching a mutual understanding and sticking with that.
b-jazz (2026-07-21 18:26:19+00:00): Hey Stephen, there are ton of problems with your edits that you've made to this golf course. I don't even know where to begin fixing it. You've duplicate a bunch of information that already exists. cart paths, fairways, greens, water hazards, etc. You should go back through and clean them up. I'll check back in 48 hours.

You've also named items that shouldn't be named. Please read up the various golf related wiki pages at wiki.openstreetmap.org and look at how other courses are mapped to get an idea of community standards. 

I see you are using JOSM, but I don't see that you validated your changes, because around a hundred ways have duplicate nodes in them that should have been caught (and fixed).
IknowJoseph (2026-07-20 08:31:56+00:00): Hi, this edit has changed OSM data from being correct to being incorrect. You can see this by looking at the centre lines of roads on the aerial imagery. The task instructions tell you to consider "when roads positioning does not reflect reality" but you have made this edit so that roads no longer reflect reality.
whitepanda (2026-07-23 15:29:52+00:00): Hi IknowJoseph,
 thank you for taking the time to review my edit and share your observations. I understand your concern regarding the road alignment and appreciate you highlighting your perspective. 

In this case, after reviewing the area once more, I would agree with you that I shouldn’t have merged the junctions. Furthermore, would you agree that Burley road shouldn’t change orientation while connecting with the Prince Regent Lane and remain a straight line?  

Please let me know of your thoughts. I look forward to reaching a mutual understanding and sticking with that.
arte2002 (2026-07-24 22:50:14+00:00): Hola dseira, gracias por mejorar OSM

En este camino creo que no hay ninguna indicación que afirmen que esta pista sea privada o prohibida para la circulación de vehículos, podrías confirmarlo de algún modo.
Gracias
dseira (2026-07-25 11:18:54+00:00): Lo he puesto como privado porque precisamente pasé la semana pasada (para subir a Peña Rubia por el camino) y hay una señal de "30  sólo vehículos autorizados". Le hice una foto pero por aquí no se puede adjuntar nada por lo que veo.
arte2002 (2026-07-27 14:41:35+00:00): Gracias por la info, hace un tiempo estaba solo la señal de 30.

Pero al no estar cerrada con cadena o similar dudo entre las etiquetas
motor_vehicle=private
motor_vehicle=permit
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:access%3Dpermit

Saludos
dseira (2026-07-27 19:46:45+00:00): Ahora están las 2 señales, la vieja de 30 y la nueva un poco antes de "30 sólo vehículos autorizados". Cadena no hay, pero al final no deja de ser un camino privado.
Wildsharky (2026-07-22 12:16:07+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186112010
ajmat (2026-07-22 06:29:17+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186158541
moonraver (2026-07-21 08:33:55+00:00): Ahoj, buď opatrný, keď dávaš výhľady na územie s 5.stupňom ochrany ako si dal na Vrštatské bralá sem:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10219683679

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10219683686

Podľa zákona o ochrane prírody smú turisti aj cyklisti od 3.stupňa ochrany chodiť iba po oficiálnej vyznačenej turistickej alebo cyklo trase a k tým dvom výhľadom žiadna nevedie. Ja som po tom brale nastavoval tiež cesty aj výhľady kedysi. Cesty som tam potom nehal + access=no,aby bolo jasné,že tam prístup nie je (lebo v teréne sú stále viditeľné) + tag source:access=protected_area. Výhľady som zmazal, aby to tam ludí nelákalo chodiť. Vidím,že vždy môže prísť niekto a dotagovať tie výhľady, tak som tie tvoje dva nehal a pridal na ne access=no + note aby sa nemazali.
IknowJoseph (2026-07-20 08:32:48+00:00): Hi, this edit has changed OSM data from being correct to being incorrect. You can see this by looking at the centre lines of roads on the aerial imagery. The task instructions tell you to consider "when roads positioning does not reflect reality" but you have made this edit so that roads no longer reflect reality.
whitepanda (2026-07-23 15:33:20+00:00): Hi IknowJoseph, 
thank you for taking the time to review my edit and share your observations. I understand your concern regarding the road alignment and appreciate you highlighting your perspective. 

In this case, after reviewing the area once more, I would agree with you that I shouldn’t have merged the junctions. Moreover, I think the said roads should be realigned with respect to their centerlines, resulting in the junctions being further apart from each other.  

Please let me know of your thoughts. I look forward to reaching a mutual understanding and sticking with that.
Aethonatic (2026-07-31 21:12:18+00:00): I've fixed this so that the staggered junction is now clear again. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186730598
aTarom (2026-07-20 14:32:23+00:00): Hello, thank you for your edits. Please review the building geometries carefully. The cadastral layer clearly shows the building footprints, including the individual sections of each building and their corresponding building:levels. We also have a dedicated group for importing cadastral data and its associated metadata:
https://t.me/OSMes_Catastro
Example bad geometry:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1540938191/history
Jaguare19 (2026-07-20 14:37:14+00:00): Okay, I will pay more attention when making the mapping. Thank you ^.^
PL 2188677 (2026-07-20 17:51:59+00:00): And the limits have a name there, the name of the farm. 

Othewise we would have named each building and surface with the name of the farm, which does not make any sense.

There are buildings from the solar panels 2 km south. And, if you check Portuguese Predial, they also belong to that farm.

Thatway:
With all due respect, I believe the previous edit (yesterday's edit v21) does make much sense.
FajrAl (2026-07-21 15:24:06+00:00): Please map only inside your assigned task area. Avoid completing squares that were not assigned to you. Mapping outside your assigned area can lead to edit conflicts and might cause a building duplicate.
Sammyhawkrad (2026-07-24 16:43:32+00:00): A lot of the roads you added here intersect existing buildings. I also doubt whether these are roads. They seem to be spaces around buildings that a car could pass through, but not actually roads.
SaladoRiver (2026-07-27 16:00:01+00:00): Hey Sammyhawkrad, thanks for reaching out and letting me know! I will fix those validations warnings for the intersecting buildings and ways. I chose to classify these roads as residential since that is how similar roads in the area are classified.
IknowJoseph (2026-07-20 08:30:28+00:00): Hi, this edit has changed OSM data from being correct to being incorrect. You can see this by looking at the centre lines of roads on the aerial imagery. The task instructions tell you to consider "when roads positioning does not reflect reality" but you have made this edit so that roads no longer reflect reality.
whitepanda (2026-07-23 15:26:57+00:00): Hi IknowJoseph, 
thank you for taking the time to review my edit and share your observations. I understand your concern regarding the road alignment and appreciate you highlighting your perspective. 

Upon reviewing the area once more, I still think it would be correct to merge the two junctions into a single one. Looking at the centerline of Forest Road, and where the extensions of William Street and Chewton Close connect to it, modeling a single junction probably would be OK. 

Please let me know of your thoughts. I look forward to reaching a mutual understanding and sticking with that.
Baloo Uriza (2026-07-20 15:11:51+00:00): opening_hours=24/7 would mean that someone could reasonably expect to go to that location specifically any time of the day or night and expect service.  Is that correct?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186045088
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
ajmat (2026-07-21 10:16:56+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186106801
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-21 07:23:01+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
Is the added name real?
My Home Sayuk Tower 2 (13312977938), v2
MayankAg040506 (2026-07-23 08:10:29+00:00): Yes, I live here
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-23 15:22:45+00:00): Living there does not make this a valid building name. “My Home Sayuk” may the complex name, while “Tower 2” is only a building designation. Please correct or remove the name. Thanks!
MayankAg040506 (2026-07-23 16:50:07+00:00): Hi, there are 12 buildings in the complex. Complex name is “My Home Sayuk”. Each building is named from “Tower 1” to “Tower 12” within the complex. There is no other name for the buildings except for this Tower  designation. People searching any tower name always goes to just a common point in the middle of complex, thus leading to wrong destination. This suggested name is what designated to the building locally thus been added here. Each building should be searchable separately to avoid confusion. This is a newly built complex thus this addition is required. If you are suggesting we should add “”Tower 2, My Home Sayuk” instead, so in India the common way is “My Home Sayuk, Tower 2” for such building within complex.
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
silversurfer83 (2026-07-20 21:44:26+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap :)

Danke, dass du hilfst die Datenbank besser zu machen. 

Wenn du Fragen haben solltest, meld dich.

Grüße aus Korbach

silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186046345
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mini-me (2026-07-20 15:15:58+00:00): Не надо придумывать названия всяким боковым проездам и съездам на развязках
Alex Ber (2026-07-21 07:10:33+00:00): День добрый! Не хотел в чужой монастырь со своим уставом, но мы пользуемся адресным поиском и при запросе по координатам для этих боковых проездов не возвращается название улицы и получается что-то вроде "Санкт-Петербург" или "Санкт-Петербург" и район или микрорайон что не очень удобно для понимания реального местоположения. Портить что-либо намерения не было.
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
lostmike (2026-07-30 12:12:13+00:00): This is wrong. This edit puts kinks in both highways which do not exist.
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mini-me (2026-07-23 20:19:47+00:00): Пожалуйста, начните с чего-то более простого, чем административные границы. Веб-редактор для этого не очень подходит.
eggie (2026-07-20 09:16:52+00:00): Dag afd Verkeer,

De extra tag die je kunt toevoegen is footway=alley   .. voor een brandgang.

Zie
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dalley

MVG
eggie
CoryS89 (2026-07-21 15:29:16+00:00): That is a service road, not a residential road, please stop making bad edits and learn the difference between road types. I've seen almost all of your edits are inaccurate. I've reported you twice for vandalism and how you're not banned is a mystery to me.
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
norgis (2026-07-21 12:08:08+00:00): Why did you remove highway=bus_stop from all the stops in this changeset?
norgis (2026-07-21 13:33:58+00:00): Reverted. This changeset deleted highway=bus_stop.
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
ajmat (2026-07-21 10:04:56+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186106162
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
mavl (2026-07-21 14:02:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186117882 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20965].
eggie (2026-07-28 13:15:31+00:00): Hoi Jaap,

Volgens mij is de maxaxleload toch 2.7 en niet 2.6 ?



Zie https://nos.nl/artikel/2624714-caravans-vast-op-versmalde-brug-in-gelderland-drie-borden-geven-het-aan

Groet,
eggie
aTarom (2026-07-20 14:44:50+00:00): Hi, please check elements like
ele=2437.8
to
name=2435???
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4506421579/history
aTarom (2026-07-20 14:51:51+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4506421581/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4506489654/history
eggie (2026-07-20 15:35:14+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback   de info heb ik samengevoegd met de bestaande adresnode.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
donux-nl (2026-07-25 12:24:34+00:00): Dag Mylandw, ik heb de openingstijden van het natuurmuseum weer aangepast, want meestal is het op maandag gesloten (uitgezonderd de schoolvakanties). Groeten, Donux
Kovoschiz (2026-07-20 17:13:51+00:00): No, this was correct. The elevators are  north of them. There is no "dragged" when it's created at ver 1. You can't use remote imagery for what's indoors.
squeaker_andrus (2026-07-21 08:56:57+00:00): Greetings, Kovoschiz!

I apologize if my changes were incorrect. I made this correction because it closely resembled other instances of accidentally dragged nodes.

Thank you for clarifying and fixing it!

Have a nice day and happy mapping!

squeaker_andrus
user_5359 (2026-07-21 19:15:12+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1540962116. What is the mean of the tags
CITATION = Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Florida Conservation Lands, June 2026.
COMMENTS = Boundaries in GIS. Palm Beach County owned lands; the FL Dept. of Environmental Protection holds and monitors a conservation easement on a 185 acre portion of site that is a wood stork rookery; easement was established in 1987. Totacres from Amanada Krup
COOWNERS = ZZ
COUNTY = Palm Beach
DESCRIPT = This 430 acre conservation area and trail system is part of the NE Everglades Natural Area. Pine flatwoods, prairies, marshes, cypress swamps and cabbage palm hammocks are utilized by snail kite, wood stork, bald eagles, and other fauna.
DIGBND_SRC = DIGITAL BOUNDARIES PROVIDED BY PALM BEACH CO. PROPERTY APPRAISER. 01/2015
ESMT_HOLD = State of Florida
LTF_ACRES = 185.0
MAJORMA = ZZ
MANAGER = AMANDA KRUPA
MANAGING_A = Palm Beach County
MANAME = SWA Greenway Trail System
MANAME_AB = SWA Grnwy Trl System
MATYPE = LPMPM
MATYPE2 = Local
MA_ID = 2891.0
MA_WEBSITE = https://www.swa.org/
MGRCITY = West Palm Beach
MGRINST = Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
MGRPHONE = 561-640-4000 x4604
OBJECTID = 2096
OWNER = Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
OWNERTYPES = L
PROTSTAT = 2.0
Shape_Area = 1910575.801849412
Shape_Leng = 7836.6979008653325
TOTACRES = 430.0
(No other OSM keys)?
carciofo (2026-07-21 20:07:58+00:00): Thanks for the heads-up! It was an oversight on my part. I've fixed the tags in changeset #186138345. Cheers.
MappingMore (2026-07-22 05:29:17+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186156501
norgis (2026-07-25 16:24:59+00:00): Reverted as it removed highway=bus_stop in Norway
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186051399
donux-nl (2026-07-25 12:40:16+00:00): Stond er geen helemaal geen Kruidvat op het Pieter Vreedeplein? Jeetje, wat erg! Ik moet beter opletten.
eggie (2026-07-26 07:44:22+00:00): Hoi,

Ik begrijp even niet wat je bedoelt.
Ik heb hier alleen maar de winkel samengevoegd met de bestaande adresnode. Denk bij hulp aan een startende mapper.
Dan moet ik even kijken of ik die mapper kan achterhalen, want bij samenvoegen zijn die acties verdwenen.

Groet,
eggie
eggie (2026-07-26 07:50:53+00:00): Dat is deze changeset geweest. Daar heeft iemand een Kruitvat toegevoegd, maar misschien is er wel geen Kruidvat?
De spellibg was ook verkeerd en ik dacht dat winkelketenmapper 'Hagenaar' zelf deze winkels aanpaste. Daarom vond ik het al vreemd. Van mapper geen reactie ontvangen. 


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186050464#map=17/51.558920/5.085299

en

https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-edits-tile/#16/51.5587/5.0904

Wanneer die winkel er niet is kan die uiteraard weg met behoud van het adres.

Groet,
eggie
eggie (2026-07-26 08:01:45+00:00): Donux,

Ik heb borishag even ingeseind.

Het komt wel goed.

Gr eggie
donux-nl (2026-07-26 08:57:17+00:00): Het Kruidvat zit daar al heel lang. En stond ook al heel lang op de OSM. Vandaar mijn verbazing dat deze opnieuw is toegevoegd.
eggie (2026-07-26 09:03:00+00:00): Denk dat nu de juiste winkelgegens wel worden toegevoegd. Wanneer iets verwijderd is altijd lastig om te zien wie dat heeft gedaan.
tux67 (2026-07-20 12:16:48+00:00): Hi CoffeecatDE, danke für die updates. Kleiner Hinweis noch: Kannst du bitte entweder die restlichen Details des alten Arztes löschen, wenn du nicht sicher bis ob die fortbestehen oder aktualisieren (Hier z.B. Telefonnummer, Fachrichtung (Neurologie statt Allgemeinmedizin, etc)). Das  Namensfeld wird übrigens nur für den Namen verwendet - für die Fachrichung gibt es healthcare:speciality=neurology
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Verwende_nicht_das_Name-Tag,_um_Dinge_zu_beschreiben

Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186052732
MappingMore (2026-07-21 10:09:44+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186106464
felipeeugenio (2026-07-20 12:41:50+00:00): Hola. Ya habíamos corregido el nombre. pero ahora lo agregó otra vez duplicado.
Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186053698
Legras_TT (2026-07-21 03:18:11+00:00): Hi there, thanks for your contributions. Just a quick tip - the corners of buildings can be made perfectly 90 degrees by using the "Q" shortcut. 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186054126