piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Luzandro (2023-09-25 06:20:07+00:00): would be easy, if it would be only the one mistake - you put any name you can find nearby on unnamed footways. "Brunnen" means "fountain" and "Yunus-Emre-Brunnen" is the name of the following fountain and not of the ways next to it: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/417611013
Kevin Kofler (2023-09-25 09:43:30+00:00): > You will understand the need for any route list to have every part with a name.

Unfortunately, that is not how reality works in Austria. There are many unnamed foot paths here, even (or even especially) if they are part of an official hiking route. The way description if you want someone to follow the path is then usually "walk along hiking route Foo" (where "Foo" is the name or number of the hiking route). Or you have to describe the path in some way (that usually requires local knowledge), but that cannot be done by routing software (only by a human walking guide author) and also does not belong in the OpenStreetMap name= tag. You cannot describe a hiking route in Austria with path names alone.
goaned (2023-09-26 20:34:54+00:00): @Luzandro: do you want to decide whether to revert these two changesets in their entirety, or someone should cherry-pick the definitely bad changes? There is no deadline, but sometime we should make a decision; you are a more experienced mapper than me and seem to know things I don't.
Luzandro (2023-09-27 04:59:59+00:00): Well actually in total it's about 30 changesets in austria and as they are a few months old, I guess there will be conflicts anyway. I've mentioned it in the osm-at chat a few days ago and will look into it more closely in the next days or so. Preferably we can mainly revert the name changes, but keep the relations as proposed:route
AlwynWellington (2023-09-27 14:18:44+00:00): dear contributors

As I have said, with respect to this matter, I am away from my usual resources until late November/early December. 

I have some appreciation of the issues you raise.

I have undertaken to work with those who tell me they are having signs installed, along with other material for walkers.

In this recent stream there is mention of some other issues and a discussion. Can these please be listed so I can begin to consider them in December, when I will have access to my usual resources.

Best regards, Alwyn
goaned (2023-09-27 16:17:18+00:00): Luzandro, do you have a list of (some) changesets with these kinds of problems? I am only aware of this one and the one I mentioned in my original comment.
Luzandro (2023-09-30 12:56:49+00:00): @goaned you can use https://osmcha.org/ to filter by name, comments, area etc, see https://t.ly/ahSLM for changesets with "Sultan" in austria by AlwynWellington
you can also check the elements of the following Sultans Trail relation or more precisely the elements of the subrelations: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16073883

I've now combed through the changesets. Most of the cases where names were added, are actually separate sidewalks. While technically in most cases not clearly wrong, it's a controversial topic on its own, if sidewalks should have names, and Alwyn has already been told in other countries to refrain from doing so, where it's not common. For most of them I didn't remove the name but at least added footway=sidewalk so that a data user can identify and distinguish them. Most of the times there were already separate sidewalks, some were newly added without checking if the road already has sidewalk or sidewalk:surface tags.

I've removed the names where they were wrong or referred to something else, like parks (a few have already been removed by other mappers) - "Belvederegarten" for example is the name of the garden and not a few random footways, steps or service ways http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1BdK 🙄

There were a few other obscure changes, like that the following crossing of 6-lane road with crossing=traffic_signal nodes needs a crossing=uncontrolled https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/251518312 
And for crossings the name is even more questionable, so I've removed them. Even for routing instructions it's often just wrong depending on the direction you are going.

Also if there are 3 meters of grass on each side of the road, there can't possibly be a crossing, not even crossing=unmarked
stevea (2023-07-10 08:08:51+00:00): Cool!
euroPathfinder (2023-07-10 14:22:38+00:00): Hi Xaipe,
welcome to OSM and thank you for your contribution! Yyou have requested a review of your changeset. Most of it looks good to me, here are a few comments:
- you changed the rectangular shape of the building do a not so rectangular one. Best practice is to attach the building outline to a grid using the "Q" on the keyboard.
- the street you entered is rather a highway=service

Apart from that, I'd say everything is fine. I already made the tiny corrections I listed above, just take them as an advice for future edits. Happy mapping and don't hesitate to contact me or any other experienced mapper in case of uncertainties.

Best regards
euroPathfinder
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138311946
whb (2023-07-10 09:12:28+00:00): Guten Tag HDValentin,

es gibt beim Turnerbrunnen keinen extra Trinkbrunnen.
Die Daten der "Kühlen Karte" der Stadt Heidelberg stammen alle aus OSM (auch die Sitzbänke, Toiletten, u.s.w.), diese ist als Quelle für OSM also untauglich (OSM als Quelle für sich selbst).
Die Stadt Heidelberg hat hier offenbar keine eigenen Daten bzw. eigenes Wissen für die Darstellung der Trinkbrunnen (und anderer Objekte) verwendet und stellt alles was in den OSM-Daten nach Trinkbrunnen/Quelle aussieht mit dem entsprechenden Trinkbecher-Symbol dar, unabhängig davon, ob es sich tatsächlich um Trinkwasser handelt oder nicht.

Beschreibungen wie "Trinkbrunnen" oder "Brunnen" sind im Sinne von OSM übrigens keine Namen:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Names#Namen_sind_keine_Beschreibungen

Viele Grüße
whb
HDValentin (2023-07-11 17:12:59+00:00): Hallo whb, vielen Dank für die Erläuterungen und Änderungen. Das Problem ist: wenn nun jemand nach Trinkbrunnen oder Trinkwasser Heidelberg sucht, findet die Person nichts. https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=trinkbrunnen%20heidelberg Wie kann man das lösen? Viele Grüße Valentin
whb (2023-07-11 18:20:08+00:00): Hallo Valentin,

nach "Trinkwasser in Heidelberg" suchen sollte funktionieren:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Trinkwasser%20in%20Heidelberg

Einschränken auf Stadtteile geht auch, z.B. "Trinkwasser in Altstadt Heidelberg":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Trinkwasser%20in%20Altstadt%20Heidelberg

Wahrscheinlich sind aber nicht alle Eintragungen korrekt.

Viele Grüße
whb
HDValentin (2023-07-11 19:21:59+00:00): Hallo whb, danke. Ja, das hilft weiter. Ich denke nur, dass die Leute das „in“ nicht schreiben. Dann findet er nämlich nichts. 
Viele Grüße
Valentin
OPENER next (2023-07-10 14:05:26+00:00): Hallo,
du hast sicherlich aus Versehen, den Knoten (2177220766) beim Mäc-Geiz verschoben. Kannst du das bitte korrigieren.
Danke.
NorthCrab_upload (2023-07-09 21:30:15+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/node/4095982747
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11036239462
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/784878532
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/392167124

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Frans S (2023-08-23 10:59:30+00:00): Hello, thanks for mapping.
On this task, the hi rise schoolbuildings are incorrect mapped.
You can see both one or more side walls and the roof. The Imagery is taken under a certain angle, so you can see more than just the roof.
Often all visible walls and roofs are mapped as 1 building.
The correct way is to map the roofline and move the whole object on their footprint.
See this video.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V5-bADsYiffCD9bo6l64YOdTvmKqMGry/view?usp=share_link
Best regards
Faheem Chui (2023-08-23 15:23:07+00:00): Thank you for reminding my past mistakes. Now I am learning to mapping the high rise building. Btw, JOSM is really a good software than ID editor. Thank you for your appreciation and inspiring me!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138312337
emersonveenstra (2023-07-11 11:25:18+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for your contributions! Please note that conditional restrictions are not valid inside the main access tags, they need to be in a separate tag, so for example "bicycle:conditional", motor_vehicle:conditional", etc. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions#Traffic_modes for more examples.

Would you mind fixing these? Thanks!
Gfeich (2023-07-11 14:19:40+00:00): Thank you for the pointer. I believe the are all fixed now.
dankarran (2023-07-10 09:40:02+00:00): Hi svennnemans,

Thanks for your addition. Are you able to provide any more information about this 'alpine hut'? There's nothing on aerial imagery...

Thanks,
Dan
jalaska (2024-03-17 18:43:19+00:00): Hi, do you have local knowledge of this street's name? Just wondering because in the 2020 TIGER dataset it is still named "Beaver Lane", that's why I had changed it previously, but I cannot verify on site.
Xvtn (2023-07-10 20:41:34+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OSM! Here are a few tips to work better with the community:
- Add a changeset comment so that others know what you changed.
- Save, upload, etc. your changes in one area before moving on to another.
- It looks like a few of these are duplicates of existing nodes. Be sure to check for existing data before adding new stuff on top.
Again, welcome, and thanks for your contributions!
Patrickov (2023-07-10 03:06:58+00:00): Hi, what bug did you fix?
Patrickov (2023-07-10 03:09:45+00:00): 1. Please be more precise on what you have done, especially that the stuff you touched (or the changes you made in each object) are not necessarily related to each other.

2. I know sometimes people make stupid changes, but even in that case please put something meaningful in "source".  For instance, I will put "common sense" in that field
Patrickov (2023-07-10 07:41:43+00:00): Clarification:  For point 2, I mean even if people make stupid changes that frustrate you so that you need to revert them back, I wish you to state more clearly on what have you reverted -- a single sentence describing, say, what tag is removed, is enough.  Sorry for any confusion caused.
Kovoschiz (2023-07-10 09:23:16+00:00): 1. For that, please start by working and uploading them separately. 
2. `source=` is not forbidden to be funny. Eg `source=brain`. 
3. For information, I'm undecided on adding `motor_vehicle:backward=no` to contra-flow bus lanes due to historic reasons, overlapping meaning, and uncertain compatibility with `oneway=yes`. JOSM gives a warning to this, which I'm still willing to ignore. 
4. `placement=transition` is only used on sections where the alignment doesn't fit. So not the entire road section. I use it at merge and diverges.
HolloWorld (2023-07-10 09:58:20+00:00): A1+2. private reason, or PM me
A3. I just copy what are on sign, also if it's counter-flow bus lane then it is oneway=no
A4. lazy, will change from next time
HolloWorld (2023-07-10 10:01:46+00:00): also I have to publicly criticize kovoschiz that you have to reply what I response or I have to ask is your brain working
Kovoschiz (2023-07-10 13:14:05+00:00): What does that mean anyway? 
1. What's wrong with telling you to upload them in different changesets?
Kovoschiz (2023-07-10 13:15:08+00:00): 2. Unfortunately that's not what's recommended https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway#Possible_tagging_mistakes
user_5359 (2023-07-12 16:33:00+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please use the key"mtb:scale" with value "1" instead of the key "mtb:scale=0-6"="1".
Kai Johnson (2023-07-17 15:25:38+00:00): I intentionally used the natural=dry_wash tag here instead of natural=water + intermittent=yes. Why did you change it without discussing it with me?
Kai Johnson (2023-07-19 14:10:13+00:00): I notice that you have changed all instances of geological=volcanic_lava_flow to geological=volcanic_lava_field. This pattern of wholesale change to tags without discussion with previous mappers or the rest of the community concerns me. I have started a forum discussion about this set of changes. Would you like to add your perspective?

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/lava-field-versus-lava-flow/101382
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138314381
VictorIE (2026-04-24 12:23:17+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1188534724/

You added a fixme here.

fixme=Confirm that this is pay parking

I've gone through a bunch of the road-level photos and there is no parking ticket machine, so I'm thinking fee=no.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-08-01 12:37:25+00:00): What is your source for this edit?

Because https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1188538722/history with supposed railway tracks within road in building and "Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta" claimed as source for "tracks are all still there inside the complex. Buried in the road. " is quite confusing
RussNelson (2023-08-01 13:33:46+00:00): The tracks in the road, these tracks: https://photos.app.goo.gl/z8KdFZEak4A9UFNQ8 are still there. They aren't abandoned -- they are disused. I peeked through the fence and the rails continue. I could see them in the aerials and didn't see any reason on the ground why I shouldn't trust the aerials (e.g. demolition more recent than the aerials). Being military, and me being a foreigner, I made no attempt to enter.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-08-01 13:42:13+00:00): So tracks under Lidl (in the East) can be expected to be definitely gone, right?

For tracks in the abandoned industrial area: based on aerials it is now demolished, with also railways fully removed (old Esri, new Esri, Geoportal etc).

From https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1689132519 to the south railway remains to be present or traces of it remaining. Though tracks are almost certainly removed, you can see piles of sleepers on destroyed section.

Does it look accurate to you? Based on that I would propose to remove railways to the North from Karbacka and remove it to the South from Karpacka.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-08-01 13:42:48+00:00): Sorry! "and keep it to the South from Karpacka."
RussNelson (2023-08-01 14:00:38+00:00): Done, thanks for pointing that out. A lot changed in 3 months!
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-08-01 14:04:29+00:00): Thanks for a quick response! So https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139302251 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139302395 should resolve this
treestryder (2024-02-18 21:45:41+00:00): Found that these sections of path added were to the bicycling half of the Iron Belle Trail and am moving them to the hiking section now.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Michigan/Iron_Belle_Trail

Also, iD suggests "cycleway" where a paved "path" would be more accurate (and more discoverable and routable by people on foot and in wheelchairs).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Michigan#Pedestrian_ways

Also, as an old-skool OpenStreetMapper I am a bit of a purist. OpenStreetMap data is supposed to represent current on-the-ground realities. Having not seen the area, I am not sure if you have done this, but I would not add things which have only been planned for construction. For things that are under construction, have a look at the newer and more flexible tagging method.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Michigan#Ways_Under_Construction
treestryder (2024-02-18 22:06:52+00:00): I changed my mind. I started into moving the ways from the bicycling route to the hiking route. Following the route, I have too many questions and not enough time. For the moment, I will leave it to someone else.
NieWnen (2024-06-23 12:51:09+00:00): Hej,
trochę pozmieniałem ścieżek i poprawiałem zgodnie z wiki Przy okazji zachęcam do zapoznania się jak tagować infrastrukturę rowerową w OSM: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery#Drogi_dla_pieszych_i_rower%C3%B3w


Fajnie by było jeśli możesz zerknąć i potwierdzić, że się zgadza ze stanem faktycznym – na ortofotomapie jeszcze nie widać, a widzę, że dodane "survey", więc na pewno masz lepsze info niż ja :) 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153066249

To co głównie poprawiłem to:
1. Okuniewska: Konopnickiej-Mickiewicza na CPR miejscami i rozdzielone DDRy

2. Usunięcie zbędnej ścieżki wzdłuż Mickiewicza, bo widzę, że tam jest pas rowerowy dwukierunkowy (tagi w drodze) 

3. Poprawa ścieżki wzdłuż torów, choć tam nie wiem dokładnie, czy jest tylko DDR, czy coś więcej.
EM311 (2023-07-11 09:06:58+00:00): Können wir bitte diesen Edit-War hier beenden? Warum meinst du, es handele sich um yard statt spur? Warum ist die Streckennummer im name, obwohl sie im ref ist? Warum ist es die "Alte Bahnstrecken" und nicht die "Frühere" - wo ist dann die "Neue?
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-07-25 06:15:21+00:00): this edit was reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/138969879

this users makes highly dubious changes without discussion, refuses to discuss them when other users comment and make new ones at rate faster than other can keep up
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-07-25 06:15:19+00:00): this edit was reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/138969879

this users makes highly dubious changes without discussion, refuses to discuss them when other users comment and make new ones at rate faster than other can keep up
Kai Johnson (2023-07-18 01:11:03+00:00): I think there's a better way to tag these features and the features in similar changesets which were tagged geological=rock_glacier. The more appropriate tags might be natural=glacier + glacier:type=rock as documented here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:glacier:type
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138316124
Kai Johnson (2023-07-24 00:13:40+00:00): I think it would be good to get some broader community discussion about the replacement of tags for rock glaciers with tags for moraines, so I've created a topic for the discussion in the OSM Community Forum. If you'd like to discuss the changes, this would be a good place to do that: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rock-glaciers-retagged-as-moraines/101589
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138316124
SomeoneElse (2023-07-24 20:06:51+00:00): Agreed - some of these changes really do need to be discussed
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-07-25 06:15:16+00:00): this edit was reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/138969879

this users makes highly dubious changes without discussion, refuses to discuss them when other users comment and make new ones at rate faster than other can keep up
Stalker61 (2023-07-16 13:57:52+00:00): Добрый день.
Опять вопрос: В связи с чем понижен статус автодороги (улицы)?
Судя по истории вам никак не нравятся теги внесенные не вами?
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-20 04:17:56+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145314937
ManuelB701 (2023-12-21 06:29:09+00:00): Beim Edit hast du anscheinend einen Teil der Pfälsischen Maximiliansbahn als "disused:railway=rail" gemappt, was m.M.n. so nicht korrekt ist, nicht nur weil der Syntax nicht Standard ist, sondern auch, dass die benutzten Gleise dann zu den anscheindend "unbenutzten" Gleisen führen und auch die Linien, die darauf fahren, wurden nicht aktualisiert (sehe die Stelle im OSM Inspector nach).

Ich habe hierzu einen in einen Hinweis erstellt, wo ich mich darüber gewundert habe (und m.M.n. dort weitergeführt werden soll):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4034787
user_17551983 (2023-12-21 08:36:12+00:00): danke für den hinweis! habe die history kontrolliert: das ist offensichtlich ein tagging fehler - habe ihn korrigiert. wahrscheinlich sollte das "disused:" an einen der feldwege dort.
PPete2 (2026-05-10 09:40:43+00:00): Hello, are there any signs or markings of Sultan's Trail along its ways in Austria?
AlwynWellington (2026-05-10 14:19:15+00:00): hi PPete2.

I am away from home at present, returning iin July.

I did that stuff a few years ago using information supplied by the creators of Sultan's Trail.

I would need to check my notes from then including where specifically they posted signage.

I submitted from just north of Vienna to just shy of the border between Hungary and Serbia.

I noted recently that others have now submitted on to Istanbul.
Jan Olieslagers (2023-07-10 08:51:32+00:00): Thank you for adding this little aerodrome! I think the "building=hangar" should be removed from it, a separate entry could be created specifically for the hangar. Also, we need to add a runway.
If you don't object, I will proceed later today, or perhaps tomorrow.
patrXplorer (2023-07-11 03:32:13+00:00): Thank you very much for your comment. I've already applied your advices and added few objects, areas and power lines around. I'm going to create 2-3 that kind of aerodromes in the nearby of Warsaw, so if you don't see any mistakes I'll keep that way creation of aerodromes.
Jan Olieslagers (2023-07-11 06:18:19+00:00): Yes, it looks beautiful now, thanks again! One detail that I changed is to use "source=" for referring to dlapilota, rather than "website=". This latter would be used to point to the website of the aerodrome operator, perhaps an aeroclub.
Kind regards!
lyzone (2023-07-10 06:19:57+00:00): hoyyy sakto lage mam
lyzone (2023-07-10 06:19:11+00:00): psst
ovruni (2023-07-10 05:26:24+00:00): Hola, en este conjunto de cambios se han borrado nodos de instituciones educativas, en algunos casos nodos de inicial sin motivo, en un caso se ha agregado una vía con menos etiquetas de las que tenía el nodo inicial y ademas con un nombre en abreviatura [0], por lo que he restaurado los nodos. Todos esos nodos forman parte de una importación de nodos del ministerio de educación. [1]
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Nombres#Abreviaturas_(no_hacer_esto)
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Importando_instituciones_educativas_en_Per%C3%BA
Carreteras de México (2023-08-12 09:48:35+00:00): Revertido: el uso de la tierra está atado a las fronteras

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139780249
frizatch (2023-07-12 04:16:38+00:00): Welcome to OSM! It's great you found an area that needs building additions and started in on it. This particular building could use refinement, though.
Recommendations: 1) use the layers options to look at different imagery to catch the "L" shape of the building, 2) extend the south edge to catch the whole roof and 3) don't forget to "Square" the building using right click or the shortcut key Q.
BWarrenWCS (2023-07-10 14:12:25+00:00): The ruins for the golf course are still present in current aerial views.  Thus, the proper tag would be historic=ruins, not full deletion. Also, considering that I had mentioned using the layout for import into TGC2019 six days ago, it would have been appropriate to consult with me before deleting.  There was considerably more time and effort into mapping the holes than your swift deletion.
BWarrenWCS (2023-07-17 02:44:19+00:00): The tennis courts you added have been totally removed as of March 2023.  The golf course has dug a water storage pit in the location encompassing the fenced in area of the tennis courts.  I'll let you make the necessary changes so as to not step on your changeset.
i2004 (2023-07-12 16:05:15+00:00): te agrege mas paradas de la 59 y la 91
Svalbard (2023-07-14 05:28:57+00:00): Hallo Larifari77, Du hast zwar die Telefonnummer aktualisiert, aber das von Dir verwendete Format ist nicht korrekt. Siehe [1]. Gruß Svalbard 

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:phone?uselang=de
literan (2023-07-10 17:17:23+00:00): зачем вы ставите теги числа полос автодороги на линию границы районов? Это какой-то  абсурд
literan (2023-07-10 17:18:22+00:00): здесь то же самое, зачем то surface на границу проставляете