piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
AzatRiver (2024-11-13 22:39:03+00:00): Hello bernardo60, thanks for reaching out. The Indonesia tagging guidelines (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indonesian_Tagging_Guidelines#Roads) state that living street is appropriate for narrow road features that are narrow for only one car but also are "accessible to motorbikes and inaccessible to cars”.  For the living street feature https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/701109726, the motorcar=no tag prohibits vehicular travel but the classification does not seem to be an issue. I could also see it meeting the definition for track. However, the the living street feature without motorcar=no tag (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/701109604) appears in this ground level image (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-8.5946086257659&lng=115.32843015873243&z=18.306176427320903&pKey=480661337264850&focus=photo) to wide enough to "be passed by 1 car at low speed” which meets the specific tagging guidelines. This convention is widely adopted and in practice across Indonesia as a whole. Thanks and have a good day.
KiloThree (2024-06-04 14:56:46+00:00): To my knowledge, these are signed as private
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152221321
KiloThree (2024-06-04 18:00:21+00:00): How are you using the Cambridge GIS to determine whether ways are private? That map shows parcel and asset details, but does not go into details on individual streets. 

Farrell Way for example is on a private parcel.

Even if you were to rely on "does this street cross into a private parcel", that doesn't accurately reflect the conditions on the ground, as that map does not show what streets are marked as private
StreetSurveyor (2024-06-05 00:51:17+00:00): Re-read regarding private access please: “Note that it notes access, not ownership. Many privately owned roads are freely accessible for the general public without prior permission- in such case access=private would be wrong and it may be access=permissive if the owner can revoke this permission at their own discretion.” https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
KiloThree (2024-06-05 01:31:53+00:00): And looking closer at these, there is no particular signage beyond the private way signage. This I believe under MGL would make these access=permissive at maximum
aharvey (2026-07-06 08:38:05+00:00): Are you sure these are all public transport stops? For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11092810121/history as I surveyed it likely wouldn't count as a public transport platform, but it is a bus stop, since it operates more like a shuttle than a public transport route.
aharvey (2026-07-09 01:13:04+00:00): No reply I've removed the public transport tags from node/11092810121
KiloThree (2024-06-04 14:55:09+00:00): Isn't Pilgrim Street between Sidney and Landsdowne signed for no through traffic, as a private street?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152221401
hdevine825 (2024-11-26 00:51:50+00:00): Is this section of Steilacoom Road SE and Nisqually Cutoff Road SE really access=destination and does not allow bicycles?
FenyMufyd (2025-03-14 16:21:10+00:00): OpenStreetMap is not a property registry; thus, do not map individual ownership of buildings or plots; OpenStreetMap bukanlah database sertifikat tanah atau plot tanah kepemilikan, Silakan baca https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163616971
xenia_mapper (2024-09-16 05:22:52+00:00): these changes are flatly wrong. wrong addresses. addresses on carports. this is basically map vandalism.
Adam Franco (2024-06-10 19:25:13+00:00): Hi Sebastian, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:expressway -- access control alone is not sufficient for `highway=motorway` tagging. For controlled-access but undivided (just yellow paint) segments, then expressway=yes is sufficient to denote the enhanced infrastructure that is not up to federal instate highway standards.
Sebastian HD (2024-06-18 21:27:27+00:00): Thank you for the comment! I'll add the expressway key w/o motorway designation. Sorry for the delayed reply/fix
KiloThree (2024-06-04 14:47:04+00:00): What is this based on? this is an unsigned driveway, isn't it?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152222558
KiloThree (2024-06-04 18:03:24+00:00): Please se https://library.municode.com/ma/somerville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=APXCCIST_ART1LOLEWIPUPRST, this is a private street
Pepe Sánchez de Wu (2024-06-04 08:23:23+00:00): Hola Andres, soy de la zona y es cierto, todavía esta en obras todo ese tramo. Lo único que escuche (rumores) es que pronto van a habilitar desde la rotonda que la une con la Ruta 38 (Donde ya esta terminada la Autovía) hasta la altura de Molinari (Ruta 401) pero solo son rumores. Saludos.
AndresDuhour (2024-06-04 21:09:56+00:00): Hola! buenísimo. Nos preparamos para cuando se habilite. En ese momento también podemos pasar a primary la RN38. Saludos
habi (2024-06-04 02:36:30+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4276425
eggie (2024-06-04 10:53:26+00:00): Ro  Je gebruikt hier multipolygonen
Leden
2 leden

    Weg 731588925 als outer
    Weg 731588924 als inner
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10113621

Maar dat geeft een foutmelding.
Meestal gebruik je die alleen maar om een vlak als inner in te sluiten inde outer....maar dat is hier niet het geval.
Denk beter die relatie er afhalen.
MVG
eggie
Rodejong (2024-06-04 11:18:07+00:00): Ik ben mij niet bewust dat ik die gemaakt heb. Ik heb geprobeerd dat te herstellen, maar wat ik ook probeer, (ik moet iets over het hoofd zien) gaat het stuk.
eggie (2024-06-04 11:25:45+00:00): Ik kijk zo wel even. Het is ook niet heel belangrijk.
Volgens mij maakt editor iD soms spontaan een mp aan als je een vlak knipt.
eggie (2024-06-04 11:39:19+00:00): Laat het maar even zo. Zie outer zit nu niet meer in die relatie van die betonplaat.
Ik dank name=Betonplaat er niet ophoort.
We gebruiken geen name=  om iets te beschrijven. 
Zijn dat edits van een voorgaande mapper?
Haal name=Betonplaat er maar van af... of het moet de officële naam zijn? 

MVG
eggie
Rodejong (2024-06-04 12:00:07+00:00): Ik heb de "betonplaat" verplaatst naar de beschrijving.
Ik was mij idd niet bewust dat ik die gemaakt had. Wat ik wel gedaan heb is het aanpassen van Grasland naar Scrubland.
eggie (2024-06-04 12:19:59+00:00): Het is oke...  
De afgesprokne tag natural=shrubbery rendert ghelaas nog niet in Carto. Wel op andere kaarten.
Vaak wordt scrub dan nog gebruikt omdat het rendert al dekt de valg de lading niet helemaal.
Ook hier kun je draadjes vinden op het forum. Er zit een hele wereld achter OSM.
Frans S (2024-06-04 07:52:36+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. 
A remark. When you map a fence or wal around a plot, don't tag it as a building but as barrier= .. (hedge, fence etc)
Best regards
nevw (2024-06-04 18:44:42+00:00): Hi, this appears to be incorrectly placed. 5A Edward St is further south along this road.
nevw (2024-06-05 21:20:23+00:00): No reponse from mapper.
I have reverted this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152305312
Please add your business at the location you operate from.
tastrax (2024-06-04 11:39:23+00:00): This is miles from the actual address - does the business actually operate from here?
nevw (2024-06-05 21:20:06+00:00): No reponse from mapper.
I have reverted this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152305312
Please add your business at the location you operate from.
nevw (2024-06-04 04:24:49+00:00): 5A Edward St. Fawkner VIC is about 12km drive from where you have entered the business location. A business is expected to place their location at the building they operate their business from.
tastrax (2024-06-04 11:17:52+00:00): Looks completely spurious to me
nevw (2024-06-05 21:20:38+00:00): No reponse from mapper.
I have reverted this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152305312
Please add your business at the location you operate from.
user_177389 (2024-06-04 07:27:31+00:00): Hallo santasa,

what you have drawn here in several places are not boundaries and not protected_areas.
The multipoygons are also invalid, they are more like relations of type=site:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:site

Best regards,
Mario
user_177389 (2024-06-04 08:21:43+00:00): I have to correct myself: The multipolygons are building relations:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:building
santasa (2024-06-05 02:12:15+00:00): Hi, Mario, I am a bit confused because it says that "boundary" should be used in admin-political cases but also "nature protection and similar boundaries", and since I usually create "similar boundaries" by mapping heritage protection "sites" and entire "zones" which include not only building multi-polygons but also surroundings, and such places in topographical terms do not differ from zones of "nature protection and similar boundaries", I thought it can be tagged as "boundary" - another reason for choosing "boundary and "protected area" for such relations is that this is the only configuration that I am able to set up that then could be rendered with "map frame" on Wikipedia.  I am not sure who "corrected" these 3 or 4 relations that I created in last few days, but these are completely dismantled and as such irrelevant for the reason they were created in the first place as "protected heritage zones", and above all I am now practically in fear of turning myself into pariah if I try to recreate those to give them back some sense. For example, what the heck is this now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17674019/history/3 - it's nothing without the building; only building and the area surrounding it in relation has some meaning as a protected heritage zone. Sorry, this is a long reply so I will stop here, though I have few more points to share.
santasa (2024-06-05 02:43:09+00:00): Also, Key:heritage gives very clear instructions on creation of relations for protected heritage - maybe I am wrong or misunderstand some aspects of its instructions, but it clearly explains how boundary and protected area are used as tags in many situations.
user_177389 (2024-06-05 14:59:29+00:00): Hallo santasa,

the building multipolygons created were invalid in terms of data, as the buildings consist of parts glued together. At the very least, the relations should have been checked with a validator when they were created, then this would have been noticed. Since the OSM standard page does not support 3D rendering, great importance should be placed on correctness.

At https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17674019 I only removed the building tag from the relation. After all, the outer ring is not the building, but only the building itself with another inner ring. So the relation as it is now is wrong again. The boundary is only the outer ring, which includes everything inside. The inner parts, the important ones, namely the buildings, are excluded from the area by cutting them out as "inner". These are completely normal basics.

I found https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Social-protected-area, specifically protect_class=22. Sorry, I was probably too hasty. But remember: an outline in the relation is correct, everything inside belongs to the area and must not be cut out with inner members, but "outer" role on inner elements is completely wrong (hence the conversion to multipolygons with removal of the wrong members). Actually, multipolygons are technically the same as boundaries.

Best regards,
Mario
user_177389 (2024-06-05 15:15:33+00:00): Here is an example of how the display works without a broken multipolygon and without building relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/39.93626/32.85551
santasa (2024-06-05 22:05:22+00:00): Mario, I followed those instructions to the letter. It is very much possible that I am making a mistake in some regard, but than again I did not spare an effort to look around, to check some examples and I asure you that I would like my mapping to be as correct and precise as possible. I am content with your suggestions and I won't make any further changes until we sort this out properly - the only thing that bothers me is that we lead this discussion via these comment sections, it would be better if we could discuss it in little bit more appropriate place. I will look now what you are saying above and reply if needed; I will try to incorporate your remarks if possible or if I  find out how. Thanks and stay in touch.
santasa (2024-06-05 22:10:40+00:00): This role with inner/outer is something I recently found in one of the instruction pages where it is specifically said to use those two - I have to find that bit as I am unable to remember from top of my head where this instruction is stated. However, I will use your suggestions to make it better, and I will try to use validator which I never used before.
user_177389 (2024-06-06 14:39:30+00:00): There are two sides:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary

Both follow the same rules (apart from admin_centre, label and subarea). It is better shown with multipolygons. For the protected_area relations, a single outer ring around the respective area without the inner members is sufficient. (This is like an island, where a forest, a pool, a garden, buildings and so on belong to it and are neither cut out nor added to the relation in any other way.)
Fifthaveragenomad (2024-07-05 15:10:41+00:00): Hello, and thank you for your contributions to OSM. 
In Denver, streets south of Ellsworth have the prefix, "South", included in the street name. Streets north of Ellsworth do not have the prefix, "North" included as part of the street name. You can use Mapillary images to view sample street signs, or if you live in Denver, you can easily see this on street signs in the city. Can you go back and fix the addressed you’ve added with the prefix “North”? 
Thank you :)
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-11-06 10:34:34+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11954964903/history has shop = outlet that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
shop=outlet ? Is it outlet for home electronics like fridges? For clothes? For cars? For something else?
ricco2712 (2024-06-05 05:29:27+00:00): how did i accidentally modify something in australia aaaghh
lberges (2024-06-04 05:14:48+00:00): Hausnummer 3-5 lt. tim-online. 
Die 3 und 5 östl. auf Leverkusener Gebiet ist bei tim-online nicht (mehr) eingetragen
NorthCrab_upload (2024-06-04 05:20:22+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/375872735

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
WieKo68 (2024-06-10 07:45:56+00:00): POPRAWIONO
Supaplex (2024-06-04 09:23:15+00:00): 不完全是近期 tasking manager 花蓮地震的問題，有些是早年台灣社群繪製花蓮壽豐豐田三村的土地利用繪製，修改為符合近年的住宅區繪製方式
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152226433
mcliquid (2024-06-25 11:22:24+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please note for the future: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:
• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
• keep changes within the same country
• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
jngt (2024-06-25 12:25:40+00:00): Hi,
I fully agree and in fact this was a remainder in Osmand as I didn't have cell coverage when I added the point and forgot to upload it later. This way some different mods were combined later unintentionally. Thanks for the reminder, though.
silversurfer83 (2024-06-04 07:17:03+00:00): Moin Andy,

warst du vor Ort? Nur weil da ein Opening Date dran ist, heißt das nichts ;)

cheers
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152227652
mavl (2024-06-22 11:38:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 153025651, 153025658, 153025634, 153025596, 153025615, 153025678 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible sources].
impiaaa (2024-06-05 00:03:10+00:00): I repeat, do not add features that do not exist, and do use more descriptive changeset messages. Failure to ignore these messages may result in a ban.
nickkavalaris (2024-06-05 03:10:16+00:00): My apologies, I didn’t realize the impact. I was re-creating a golf course that used to exist so I can map it for SIM play. Is there an off-line version of OSM to use instead?
impiaaa (2024-06-05 15:04:35+00:00): That is a better question for "SIM" or its users, since OSM should not be the only way to re-create a course. There is JOSM for offline OSM editing, and QGIS for general map making, but I'm sure there's better suited solutions.
KiloThree (2024-06-04 15:08:31+00:00): I believe the segment from Mass Ave to Oxford St is in fact a 1 way? it's been about a week since I rode this, so I can't say authoritatively
KiloThree (2024-06-04 15:14:28+00:00): Oh, apologies, misread the changeset, looks like that is what is mapped here
NorthCrab_upload (2024-06-04 07:10:17+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/843913344

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
silversurfer83 (2024-06-04 07:21:50+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap und in Korbach :)

schön, dass du hilfst die Karte zu verbessern.

Wenn du Fragen hast, kannst du dich jederzeit an die Community wenden oder mich direkt fragen.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact_channels

Eine Bitte: Lies dir mal diesen Artikel durch und dann könntest du in Zukunft vielleicht aussagekräftigere Kommentare hinterlassen :)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments

cheers
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152229314
silversurfer83 (2024-06-04 07:24:24+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap :)

schön, dass du hilfst im Waldecker Land die Karte zu verbessern.

Bei Fragen kannst du dich jederzeit an die Community oder auch direkt an mich wenden
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact_channels

Eine Bitte: Dieser Artikel erklärt, warum gute Kommentare wichtig sind. Wäre super, wenn du in Zukunft hilfreichere Kommentare an deine Änderungen schreibst :)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments

cheers
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152229439
silversurfer83 (2024-06-04 07:33:58+00:00): Hi :)

um die Ecke in der Bahnofstraße ist schon ein Bio Hotel Belvedere eingetragen. Daher meine Frage: Bist du dir ganz sicher, dass hier auch eins ist? Wie hängt es mit dem Gebäude 100m weiter nördlich zusammen?

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152229847
Lezurex (2024-06-04 08:17:44+00:00): Hallo Fijord,

Ist das Gebäude "Valse des Roses" tatsächlich mit der Hausnummer 18.1 beschriftet? Ich kenne dieses Format so nämlich nur aus dem GWR oder der Amtlichen Vermessung, habe aber eine solche Nummer noch nie on the ground gesehen. Daher gehe ich davon aus, dass diese Nachstelle nur als Identifikator für ein Nebengebäude einer Adresse genutzt wird und keine eigenständige Adresse in dem Sinne ist. Entsprechend würde ich die auch nicht so mappen.

Vielleicht weisst du dazu mehr?

LG Lezurex
Fijord (2024-06-04 13:16:10+00:00): Hallo Lezurex, genau wie du vermutet hast, ist die Quelle vom GWR. Nebengebäude werden eigentlich nicht beschriftet.
Werden Nebengebäude Adressen im OSM nicht erfasst?
Vielen Dank, Gruss Fijord
d_berger (2024-06-04 14:48:42+00:00): @Fijord: Das ist im Grunde so, dass wir die "technischen Adressen" mit Dezimalpunkt und ähnlichem in OSM _nicht_ erfassen – zumindest solange es erkennbar technische Adressen sind. Was man in jedem Fall vermeiden sollte, ist dann daraus noch eine "postalische Adresse" mit PLZ und Ort zu basteln, die es schlicht nicht gibt.
Fijord (2024-06-05 10:59:34+00:00): Vielen Dank für die Rückmeldung, habe es wiederhergestellt. Bei gewerbliche Arealen, pflegen wir Nebengebäude, dass wir als Blaulichtorganisation sie finden oder darstellen können.
gileri (2024-06-04 20:08:55+00:00): Bonjour, est-ce qu'il s'agit de travaux temporaires ou cette fermeture aux véhicules motorisés est définitive ?

Merci
silversurfer83 (2024-06-04 09:04:33+00:00): Hi :)

vergleiche https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Education_features
Das gesamte Schulgelände wir als "amenity=school" erfasst. Ist dort noch die Grundschule?

Bitte um Antwort :)

silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152230723
diamondarmorsteve (2024-10-02 00:46:08+00:00): Hi, I have manually reverted many of these changes since they aren't consistent with current road classification guidelines. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance for more information
silversurfer83 (2024-06-04 09:05:20+00:00): Moin Max

meinst du wirklich, die Fläche ist ein ausgewiesener Parkplatz?

silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152230816
philam48 (2024-08-26 05:09:18+00:00): Hi @cs09736, I just noticed that the construction status was removed. I would argue that it should be retained until it is open for passenger service as it is not yet fully completed. Thanks!
cs09736 (2024-08-26 05:48:25+00:00): I spoke with the other Aussie mappers in the Oceania discord channel and the consensus was that since the tunnel and tracks have actually finished being built, and have testing trains running through them, the construction status should be removed. The existence of passenger services is captured by public transport route relations and not by the construction status of the tracks themselves.
The individual stations have their own construction statuses which also help reflect the non-existence of passenger services at the moment
philam48 (2024-08-26 06:36:04+00:00): Ok thanks for clarifying :)
cs09736 (2024-08-26 07:00:27+00:00): No worries. Feel free to jump in the discord or forum and get a few more people’s thoughts if you feel strongly the other way. I don’t think there were many responses when I first asked
silversurfer83 (2024-06-04 09:07:08+00:00): jetzt fehlt dem Gebäude die Adresse...
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152231059
流浪编辑者 (2024-06-04 08:40:03+00:00): 大型建筑提取待优化
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-11 15:24:57+00:00): Hi 流浪编辑者, welcome to OSM.

May we know the source of your data import?

Thanks.
silversurfer83 (2024-06-04 09:08:42+00:00): Hi :)

Vergleiche bitte https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen mit dieser Änderung. Danke
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152231127
Jordi MF (2024-06-04 15:25:53+00:00): Estos cambios realizados por un usuario bloqueado decenas de veces son considerados vandalismo.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-15 09:18:57+00:00): Reverted adding SEO POI with blatant advertising, possibly sourced from Google Map, sin changeset 184127382

https://osm.org/changeset/184127382
Marek-M (2024-06-05 07:10:07+00:00): Cześć, przystanki posiadają klucze shelter=yes i w sumie oddzielanie shelter od przystanku, to tworzenie duplikatu.

amenity=shelter na przystanku to oczywiście błąd, więc lepiej jest tak jak to zrobiłeś.