piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
PeterCooperJr (2025-03-05 18:52:34+00:00): If there's a physical path there, but people aren't supposed to go there, marking it as private rather than deleting it allows for people using maps based on OSM data to see that they shouldn't go there, rather than maybe confusing it for some other path or thinking that it was a path that just hasn't been mapped yet. It can also help with orienting oneself ("I walk past the closed path, and take the next left" and such). You may want to take a look at these wiki pages:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trails_Stewardship_Initiative
watmildon (2025-03-05 18:58:21+00:00): Hello! I am glad to see you working on stewardship of this type. As you can imagine, this comes up a TON with various trails and protected areas. The US local chapter has an entire working group dedicated to helping sort these things out and you would be absolutely welcomes to participate in those efforts. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Trails_Stewardship_Initiative

They've produced some FAQ style documentation that you may also find useful (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F). The short answer is that deleted things don't stay deleted and that it causes other (perhaps worse!) side effects than your already trying to combat.

There's a large community of US trail/park mapper and app developers in the OSM-US Slack instance and we're generally a helpful bunch to try and resolve issues of this type. Just takes a bit of sorting through.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Matt (OpenStreetMapUS board member)
watmildon (2025-03-05 19:15:18+00:00): Oh! I guess this is also live now and may also provide some insight: https://digitaltrails.us/
rhhs (2025-03-05 17:51:44+00:00): Hi, I saw you are adding links to an airport database for this airport and many more. I don't think this is a good idea: should we then also add links to a city database for all cities in the world, a link to a school database for all schools in the world, etc.? There is already a link to wikidata and a wikipedia page: I think that should be enough.
Vlad-Andrei Băcanu (2025-03-05 18:06:08+00:00): Hello, I just thought that it would be a useful addition given that the database contains far more information about airports than the standard OpenStreetMap database and could be useful. I am definitely not saying we should link all kinds of databases to all sorts of features but as far as airports are concerned, I am updating as many as I can
rhhs (2025-03-05 18:16:47+00:00): Please don't. The database you are linking to does not contain useful information that isn't already in the wikipedia page. Only the frequencies mentioned might be useful for professionals and could be added to the infrastructure mapped on OSM. If you disagree, I will open a discussion on the OSM community forum
Vlad-Andrei Băcanu (2025-03-05 19:05:46+00:00): My intention was to help people who wish to access the OSM database programatically (via API). As you probably know, wikipedia is not as reliable as a database maintained by professionals and not nearly as programmer-friendly (because the formatting standards shared among wikipedia pages are very loose, for example a field having the same destination could have different names on different airports’ pages).
Please provide some arguments against linking the two databases (is the storage space really limited? does the map take longer to load?).
Thank you in advance.
rhhs (2025-03-05 19:38:42+00:00): I'm mainly worried about the precedent it will create. If you add these links, someone else will like to add links to other airport database websites, and them maybe review websites for airports, and before we know it we will have a very long list of weblinks for airports, buildings, restaurants, hotels, schools, ... See also here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/add-key-to-link-third-party-website-with-pictures-menus-description-or-reviews-about-pois/100390 for a similar discussion
saintam1 (2025-03-05 22:38:40+00:00): Hello all, personally I think the intention here is good but adding a site-specific tag with a URL in it is not the right approach. The airport data on OSM already contains multiple IDs (IATA, ICAO, Wikidata) which refer to existing standards and can be used to join OSM data with other databases. There's no need to create new tags or point to specific URLs which are likely to stop working some day.
Harel M (2025-03-23 21:14:10+00:00): Is this really a picnic site and not just just two picnic tables? From the image and the fact that this POI doesn't have a name I would consider changing the tags. 
Picnic sites is Israel, especially in KKL forests, usually have a name - חניון something. 
If this is not the case here I would consider changing the tags to a picnic table. 
Also the uploaded images looks very similar, consider deleting one of them.
Yitzchak M (2025-03-24 01:35:39+00:00): There are 4-5 tables all within a 30 x 30 meters area. The area has no official name but it looked like a picnic site to me. The second picture was a mistake. I meant to load a different picture, but even that one is not necessary. Thanks.
s777n (2025-03-09 19:40:59+00:00): Здравствуйте. Удалил вашу правку. Вы исправили границу поселка так что она исключала дом. И вы нарисовали здания не там где 3 дом а там где дом 1. Здание перерисовал заново в нужном месте.
Nekoatthegates (2025-03-05 17:59:36+00:00): Correction: Source used was Bing Streetside.
NeisBot (2025-03-05 17:43:14+00:00): Hi Prakhar Barthwal, and thank you for your contribution to the OSM project!

I've noticed that over the past few hours, you've made several changesets with comments that might be unclear, difficult to understand, or consistently repetitive.

To help improve collaboration and make your edits easier for others to understand, please consider providing brief descriptions of your changes in the comment field. This will make it easier for the community to follow your adjustments. You can find some helpful tips on good changeset comments here: https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments.

PS: I’ve also sent this message via the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#HelpfulComment
NeisReview (2025-03-05 17:27:36+00:00): #NameCheck

Hello and welcome to OSM.

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits, particularly those concerning the names you've added or modified.

Some of these names caught my attention as they are quite unique or a bit unusual. Could you please confirm if these additions were intentional or if they might have been added mistakenly?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
NeisRevert (2025-03-14 07:24:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163598382 where the changeset comment is: 
Remove tags/data due to lack of quality and no response
NeisReview (2025-03-05 17:27:29+00:00): #NameCheck

Hello and welcome to OSM.

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits, particularly those concerning the names you've added or modified.

Some of these names caught my attention as they are quite unique or a bit unusual. Could you please confirm if these additions were intentional or if they might have been added mistakenly?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
NeisRevert (2025-03-21 20:16:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163923122 where the changeset comment is: 
Remove data due to lack of quality and no response
jbcharron (2025-03-05 21:03:46+00:00): Bonjour,
Merci pour vos contributions
Attention, lorsqu'on vous contribuez aux adresses, il est préférable de ne garder qu'un seul noeud pour les adresses, ajouter plusieurs fois la même information à plusieurs endroits peut porter à confusion.
A mon sens, utiliser la quêtes des adresses à Metz n'a pas beaucoup de sens car la complétion est a 99%.
Bonne soirée
StreetSurveyor (2025-04-27 19:07:33+00:00): FYI...The name of the condo doesn't facilitate a change for the name of a road. This is 50 Undine Rd and the sign for Chestnut Hill Green has that address.
NeisReview (2025-03-05 17:26:45+00:00): #NameCheck

Hello and welcome to OSM.

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits, particularly those concerning the names you've added or modified.

Some of these names caught my attention as they are quite unique or a bit unusual. Could you please confirm if these additions were intentional or if they might have been added mistakenly?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
NeisRevert (2025-03-14 07:23:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163598340 where the changeset comment is: 
Remove tags/data due to lack of quality and no response
NeisReview (2025-03-05 17:26:36+00:00): #NameCheck

Hello and welcome to OSM.

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits, particularly those concerning the names you've added or modified.

Some of these names caught my attention as they are quite unique or a bit unusual. Could you please confirm if these additions were intentional or if they might have been added mistakenly?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
NeisRevert (2025-03-14 07:22:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163598318 where the changeset comment is: 
Remove data due to lack of quality and no response
Jacopo (2025-03-07 07:56:41+00:00): Ciao Andrea
ho annullato questo inserimento in quanto l'elemento "landuse=residential" deve includere solo i centri abitati e non zone così vaste che sono anche campi coltivati

Ciao
J
pitscheplatsch (2025-03-06 17:09:59+00:00): Thanks for reverting. It would be really helpful if next time you could leave a comment on the reverted CS. That way, we can all stay in the loop about the changes you're making.
c3o2it (2025-03-05 17:46:25+00:00): Se serve posso fornire Certificato di Residenza rilasciato dall'ufficio anagrafe del Comune di Rutigliano che riporta la variazione toponomastica.
ivanbranco (2025-05-03 18:01:36+00:00): "Traversa Via Noicattaro" era il nome precedente? in tal caso potremmo aggiungerlo come old_name
c3o2it (2025-05-03 18:41:23+00:00): Sì era il nome precedente
Filip009 (2025-06-04 14:20:10+00:00): #mapycom user report #2833280 - "Studnička tu nie je našiel som iba hadicu v listí ale ani voda ani strieška"

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/974572676

Prečo ste to teda prerobil späť na studničku, máte nejaké informácie, že to funguje, prípadne foto, na potvrdenie aktuálneho stavu?
Peter Matejovsky (2025-06-04 14:27:42+00:00): Pri najblizsej navsteve to mozem preverit, som lokalny, nejaky pramen by tam mal byt, v zavislosit od toho ako vlemi sucho je v danu dobu..
PPete2 (2025-03-05 18:26:23+00:00): Merci, das freut mich. Hättest du aber im Prinzip auch gleich ohne den Note-Tamtam ergänzen können. Wenn du die Zeit hast die Notes anderer Kollegen zu kontrollieren welche zuvor jahrelang ungelöst herum gelegen sind - dann kann man solche kleine Korrekturen/Ergänzungen oder dazu nötige Anfragen bei Behörden gleich selber erledigen um nicht in den Ruf eines Nörglers zu kommen ;-)
Aber wiegesagt, hier hast du eh selber die Initiative übernommen, thanks!
derloris (2025-03-05 18:44:47+00:00): Das Zeitaufwandsthema haben wir schon an anderer Stelle diskutiert. 

Bzgl Wiederöffnen geschah das aus dem Grund, da die Userin bei bisher sämtlichen ihrer Notizen auf Erledigt geklickt hat (auch unmittelbar nach dem Erstellen) und daher davon auszugehen war, dass sie die Funktion anders verstanden hat. Dass sie eine Gleichbehandlung der Vereine im Tagging sinnvoll fände, hat sie immerhin angesprochen und wenn sie schon die Informationen liefert, ist es auch wertschätzend ihr gegenüber, sie einzuarbeiten.
gscholz (2025-03-11 08:29:40+00:00): Hi Magict02,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=3.87371&lat=45.02430&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=163255597

As you may know, this kind of error irritates routing software and look ugly on the maps.

Can you please fix this?

You may also like to educate yourself about how to edit cycling routes properly:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes

Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2025-03-18 07:01:37+00:00): Hi Magict02, 
this error still exits, can I get your feedback here?
Guido
Magict02 (2025-03-18 07:21:33+00:00): Hi Guido, 

Thank you for your feedback, first time for me. I watched tutoriel to create somme routes. If i understand well, i have to change routes regarding to some elements in the maps (bridges tunnel..) ? Furthermore, theses new routes are actually in works by authorities, end is programmed for the end of the year 2025.
gscholz (2025-03-28 09:00:06+00:00): Hi Magict02, 
thanks for your feedback. There are still a lot of overlapping ways not edited properly as route relations. Can you please fix this?

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=3.89439&lat=45.01953&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

Guido
NeisBot (2025-03-05 18:27:37+00:00): Hi CYPRESSMTB, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 16 highway(s)
- 13 natural(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

PS: I have also sent this message through the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=163255647
eerib (2025-03-05 18:31:29+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by CS# 163255805

Reason: Vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163255805

The accusations made in the changeset comment are false. This edit is associated with a number of accounts that have vandalized trails in this region over the past few years.
CYPRESSMTB (2025-03-05 18:51:39+00:00): These accusations are not false. When local rescue organizations are also petitioning for a change of eeribs behaviour it behoves OSM to consider whose actions are inappropriate. Eerib is creating dangerous situations for innocent bystanders to the extent that everyone, including provincial and federally funded organizations are begging eerib to stop - eerib is a liability to OSM.
eerib (2025-03-05 19:22:19+00:00): Can you share that petition?

I am only aware of one circumstance of where North Shore Rescue formally asked for a trail ("Taint" on Grouse) to be removed and it is unrelated to the trails that have been the subject of mass vandalism by mountain bike users. First off, Search and Rescue agencies in British Columbia have a very low understanding of OpenStreetMap and mapping best practices. Second, the North Shore Rescue member that asked for a trail to be removed was a new member of the organization that did not understand the OpenStreetMap tagging scheme or best practices around mapping of trails. Ultimately, in consultation with another user (user "Bookwus") that trail had it's tagging altered to reduce potential for issues.

I should also note that the "Taint" trail is available other services like Strava where the trail is visible in the route builder as user-generated heat, a segment, and public photos.

https://imgur.com/a/A2IvTRn

The "Taint" trail is also available on Outside's TrailForks service.

https://www.trailforks.com/trails/tint/

Finally, the trails that were the subject of deletion in this changset are for the most part fully annotated with tags, such as informal, sac_scale, mtb:scale:imba, trail_visibility, and trailblazed to follow best practices developed by the US Trails Working Group.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-03-05 23:26:32+00:00): CYPRESSMTB you can post on the forum if you wish to get more perspectives.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/
CYPRESSMTB (2025-03-06 17:10:43+00:00): Will do but I want to make sure you have the background. 

Eerib is uploading dangerous trails with insufficient descriptions that are ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. These are not public lands. Eerib is encouraging people with insufficient skills to trespass on dangerous trails on private property. The no trespassing signs are everywhere. 

Rescue recently pulled a biker off one of the trails eerib uploaded. That biker should never have been on that trail but was guided there by eeribs upload and OSMs highlight. 

Land managers/owners go to extensive legal lengths to properly characterize trails. Eerib is not trained in this and OSM is adopting legal liabilities by mischaracterizing trails on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Mapping private property should be outside of OSM policy by itself, no?

Making it more egregious, when warned of eeribs dangerous behaviour, my deletions were reversed without proper consideration of the risks I’ve outlined. This shifts burden of liability to OSM. 

What do you need to remove all the trails eerib has uploaded on PRIVATE PROPERTY?

I can get you a cease and desist from the land owner. I can get you a polite letter from a lawyer asking you to stop.  I can get you letter from a lawyer threatening a class action for all the harm that eerib has cause people who have been guided to dangerous trails. What do you need to stop this dangerous behaviour?

Cease and desist from the land owner politely asking you to stop mapping rogue trails on Private Property? It seems reasonable that if you had one of those that you would be required to remove it all, correct?
eerib (2025-03-06 17:49:08+00:00): For DWG members reading, please note that the accusations and information provided is a gross mischaracterization of the situation and/or incorrect. Please note that trail vandalism accounts associated with this group of mountain bike users have a multi-year history of levying false accusations in attempts to have trails removed. Please note that I have extensive documentation for trails in this region. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me privately with regards to any clarifications for specific accusations.

See previous blocks for more information on this prolific vandalism by this group of users:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6216

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6218

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6219

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6220

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17115

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17116

Examples of previous false accusations in an attempt to have trails removed by this group of mountain bike users:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120006279

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117341465
CYPRESSMTB (2025-03-06 17:57:12+00:00): For one, I am NOT one of those who you mention. If there has been complaints in the past, I’ve had nothing to do with those and those people have nothing to do with this. 
It’s really quite simple. 
Eerib has been damaging to the lands of the Northshore. Its population and those who rely upon OSM. 
Eerib has been directing users to PRIVATE PROPERTY 
Eerib has been mischaracterizing trails resulting in damage to many. 
Simply guiding people to these trails ON PRIVATE PROPERTY is damaging enough to landowners 
But users are now getting hurt. 

What do you need to stop this damaging behaviour? I’m asking. Seriously.
user_18023081 (2025-03-06 20:49:41+00:00): Just mark these trails as private and call it a day...

Otherwise cry about it.
impiaaa (2025-03-06 20:54:15+00:00): You can find more information about private property in OSM here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
eerib (2025-03-06 21:31:19+00:00): Something to note for other editors chiming in, the land is a mixture of provincial park public lands, provincial agency public lands, municipal park public lands, municipal undesignated public lands, private land, and private land currently being transferred to municipal park public lands. Some trails are fully within the public land portion, some trails cross between public and private, and some trails are fully on private land.

The private portion of the land is sign posted at some major trailheads with "exclusion of liability" signage and is intended to provide a permissive license. No other information has been provided by the property owner.

See: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonparis/16421400221/

The public portion of the land is a mixture of loosely managed and unmanaged lands with little or no access information provided.

This complex ownership and lack of management is why very few of the trails have access tags. However, I have made sure to tag all unsanctioned trails as such using the informal tag as per the best practices developed by the Trails Working Group.
CYPRESSMTB (2025-03-06 21:55:51+00:00): I will speak only about the private land for now but most of the concerns and damages extend to the other lands as well. 

Eerib is not correct about the signage. There are a few Exclusion of Liability signs yes but eerib is failing to mention, on purpose or by being careless, that the signage actually says:

DO NOT ENTER. 
DANGER
NO TRESPASSING 

That is the signage for the lands on which eerib maps, seemingly despite the number of well intentioned people expressing concern and asking eerib to stop. Politely so far. 

I’ll ask again, do you want a cease and desist from the ACTUAL OWNER OF THE LAND?

Hint: Outdoor the company that owns Trailforks has chosen not to show the dangerous trails we are talking about for all the legal reasons I’ve expressed to you. They’re unsafe for most users and they’re on private property behind no trespassing signs.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-03-06 22:08:47+00:00): CYPRESSMTB It would be helpful if you could provide a source for any your claims.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-03-07 17:22:02+00:00): "Eerib is uploading dangerous trails with insufficient descriptions that are ON PRIVATE PROPERTY."

then proper fix is to add missing tags, not to vandalise map
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-03-07 17:22:59+00:00): and if some tags were missing you can let mapper know what they should have added

(and private property is not exempt from mapping anyway, this part is utterly irrelevant)
CYPRESSMTB (2025-03-07 17:53:27+00:00): Well much of that seems insane to me. 

So I’m clear, if the owner of lands requests that their lands not be mapped on OSM, that’s irrelevant? 

I can send pics of the DANGER, DO NOT ENTER, NO TRESPASSING signs. Does it not matter that trails on the other side of those are being mapped?

Seems like a legal time bomb to me
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-03-07 18:28:30+00:00): "So I’m clear, if the owner of lands requests that their lands not be mapped on OSM, that’s irrelevant? "

yes
we are mapping Barbra Streisand’s house (and equivalents), mansions of billionaires, Putin's palace, Chinese military bases (and other military bases), North Korean concentration camps and so on.

"DO NOT ENTER, NO TRESPASSING signs" - this kind of thing makes ways eligible for access=no tags - not for deletion of ways

you can create thread at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/ca/95

> Seems like a legal time bomb to me

see also https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-03-07 18:30:08+00:00): (to be clear, there are limitations on mapping private data but it does not mean that private owner may request not mapping forest/house/prison/palace/road/swimming pool they own)