piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
LordGarySugar (2026-07-23 14:42:37+00:00): Presumably it's because this relation in Ireland was modified at the same time https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12671221 as everything in Spain/France
MacLondon (2026-07-23 18:39:32+00:00): Yeah, I must have fogotten to save one set of changes before starting on the second set.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-07-23 10:00:05+00:00): Motorways in Quebec have a minspeed=60. Can you explain this change?
Kim Colvin (2026-07-23 13:01:42+00:00): Min speed was changed in error. Apologies!
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-07-23 14:05:03+00:00): No problem! Have a nice day!
Herwescheluc (2026-07-24 21:23:34+00:00): Hallo, Derkoenig,

wie kommst Du darauf, Solms sei keine Stadt?

Grüße aus Herborn

Andreas
Herwescheluc (2026-07-24 21:31:24+00:00): Ok, hat sich erledigt, nachdem ich alles nochmal genau betrachtet habe!

Grüße

Andreas
MyBeautifulSunflower (2026-07-22 21:09:37+00:00): Cualquier comentario, sugerencia y/o error, no duden en comentarlo o revertirlo de ser necesario, ya que comprendo que pude haber cometido algún error en alguna parte del changeset, aunque intenté revisar de que no lo hubiera cometido.
eggie (2026-07-22 21:39:55+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
ajmat (2026-07-23 09:21:10+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186222359
jb54osm (2026-07-23 10:21:51+00:00): Hi JTnl,
Wel jammer dat je oude luchtfoto's gebruikt. Nu kon ik Molentocht opnieuw intekenen 😢. Tip: gebruik (ook) BGT en QuickOrtho 2026.
Kuz78 (2026-07-22 21:20:41+00:00): autofill, just meant to say "some fixes"
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-23 05:08:43+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
Same again: Are the added names real?
PattaFeuFeu (2026-07-23 06:44:52+00:00): @pitscheplatsch Highly unlikely. :/ The whole account is full of changesets like this, sometimes dozens of versions for the same node, almost all with very questionable naming
Taya_S (2026-07-23 06:48:55+00:00): See: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20971
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-23 15:15:00+00:00): @Taya_S you may already be aware of this, but the user has not responded to any changeset comments, pls see: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=24284118
amosharper (2026-07-23 15:30:04+00:00): That's already covered in the block message linked by Taya_S, @pitscheplatsch, including the exact link you've provided :)
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-23 15:39:54+00:00): Ah, damn ... sorry, I missed that. I was probably still a bit annoyed by all the nonsense this OSM contributor has been causing here, and honestly, I probably would have gone for more than a zero-hour block myself ;)

Best regards, Pascal
Baloo Uriza (2026-07-22 22:51:06+00:00): Adding street names are appreciated as navigation systems do use this information for pedestrian (sighted and blind) directions.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186201700
alpacaMaps (2026-07-29 01:13:15+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — the nodes sit well away from any road, which usually means the cameras aren't physically present on the ground.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
eggie (2026-07-23 07:21:21+00:00): review_requested 	yes

Hoi,

Ziet er netjes uit.
Groet,
eggie
Troels Arvin (2026-07-23 04:58:43+00:00): You have tagged it so that it's no longer a bridge. But it clearly _is_ a bridge. I don't understand this edit, please explain.
Peter Schleinitz (2026-07-23 08:39:31+00:00): Sorry, my mistake. It is a bridge, but it wasn’t routable in the Guru Maps app, so I converted it to a road. Previously, the road was interrupted by what looked like a pontoon bridge.
Peter Schleinitz (2026-07-23 08:49:01+00:00): Please advise how to fix this best, many thanks
Troels Arvin (2026-07-23 09:01:21+00:00): Ah. Yes, the previous version had an odd man_made=pier tag; maybe that was what made it not routable in Guru Maps. I'll investigate and propose a change, unless you've already found a solution at that point.
Peter Schleinitz (2026-07-23 09:47:12+00:00): thanks, there’s also a separate sidewalk on the south side of the bridge, the sidewalk is connected to this unnamed zick zack way (stairway) in SSW direction
Troels Arvin (2026-07-25 16:27:28+00:00): I have hopefully updated it in a good way in changeset 186352123, including the sidewalk.
Anas masuris (2026-07-23 12:08:39+00:00): Hej, przypuszczam, że tarcza zaporowa ma numer "L" :)
Deftax (2026-07-23 18:23:10+00:00): "L"? - ze zdjęć z poziomu ulicy wydaje się, że jest to oznaczenie złożone z litery + cyfry (jak dla mnie może to być np. Z4)
A67-A67 (2026-07-23 08:19:30+00:00): In deze wijziging wordt een deel van de bushalte-tags verwijderd. Is dit per ongeluk gegaan of is de bushalte daadwerkelijk verwijderd? In het laatste geval kun je het beste de gehele haltenode verwijderen.
A67-A67 (2026-07-27 13:52:08+00:00): Ik heb de ontbrekende tags maar weer toegevoegd aan de bushalte. Het is erg onduidelijk wat je bedoeling is, als je het changeset-commentaar niet invult en niet reageert op wijzigingen.
pangoSE (2026-07-22 22:01:29+00:00): oh, i meant 500.
there were 54 mismatches that have to be manually investigated https://github.com/dpriskorn/HikingTrailMatcher/blob/e3d252599c7b528d7bedf6533773dd72f1d8922e/output/osmchange-2026-07-22-mismatches.csv
pangoSE (2026-07-23 07:24:16+00:00): to be clear: the mismatches were intentionally skipped by the script, so no change to those relations. they could be pointing to the right WD object (and we have duplicates in WD perhaps?) or they could be pointing to an incorrect item.
pangoSE (2026-07-23 07:31:20+00:00): Analysis of the first osm object in the mismatch list:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18458835#map=12/62.3777/17.1146&layers=N
Its a section but the wikidata tag points to the whole path and not the section in WD (perhaps the section is missing). So OSM is incorrect.
Same goes for the next 20 rows.
Row 22:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1688718 same issue as above. Links to main relation not the country section in WD.
gurglypipe (2026-07-22 22:10:04+00:00): This reverts changesets: 185263362, 185222840, 185210380, 185207665, 185193900, 185163946, 185163845, 185163411, 185163629, 185162888, 185152973, 185152629, 185152477, 185152204, 185152135, 185151736, 185151527, 185151340, 185150976, 185147920, 185147213
porfiriopaiz (2026-07-23 00:52:54+00:00): Hola.

¿Podrías ser un poco más descriptivo en los cambios que hacés?

No es la primera vez que se te solicita agregar comentarios más detallados a los cambios que hacés.
user_5359 (2026-07-23 10:42:50+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please have a loomk on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/14040423752, What is the mean of the tag="Damaturu = Central Mosque)? See the difference to name.
eggie (2026-07-23 06:16:34+00:00): Dag Filip,
Elk begin is moeilijk. Het is wel een carillon, maar het is niet de naam.
We gebruiken dus niet name= een carillon. Je zou wel description= kunnen gebruiken en wellicht is er wel een tag voor carillon. zie wiki. 

We taggen ook niet name=bankje of name=huis name=fietspad
Ik zal er description van maken.
Niet name=...  gebruiken om iets te beschrijven. 

MVG
eggie
gurglypipe (2026-07-26 15:43:18+00:00): Heya, thanks for your attention to the updates to the Bay Cycleway/NCN700.

I’m not sure the removal of the A5087 section near Rampside from the route means that its distance changes to 7km or that its end point becomes Rampside.

Instead, I would interpret that to mean that the route relation should become discontinuous.

Obviously it would be better if funding was put in to bringing the A5087 up to safe standards for cyclists, but OSM has to represent the world we’re in, and to me it seems more helpful to people to present a discontinuous route from Glasson Dock to Walney, with that section removed, than to say the route just ends at Roosebeck or Rampside.
Pete Owens (2026-07-27 10:39:41+00:00): Curious use of the word "Obviously".
There is nothing unsafe about the coast road. The attractiveness for cycling depends mainly on the wind direction.

And the real-world consequence of the Sustrans reclassifiation effort is that the key signs that have had the red patches covered are where the Bay Cycleway heads inland at Roosebeck & Bardsey. This means that anyone following the red 700 signage is actually directed to follow the A5087 all the way from Ulverston to Rampside.
gurglypipe (2026-07-27 10:52:00+00:00): My point was that the relation (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7024538) doesn’t make sense at the moment — it (correctly) has ways from Glasson Dock to Walney, minus the discontinuous bit on the A5087 — but the distance is now tagged as 7km rather than closer to 120km, and the to= tag says Rampside rather than Walney. That doesn’t seem correct to me and I’m struggling to understand the intent/reasoning behind your changes.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/21131746 now exists too, and I don’t understand why that one is necessary. As far as I understand it, Sustrans has renamed to Walk Wheel Cycle Trust, and they have removed some bits of road from the NCN, but the Bay Cycle Way is still NCN700 so there should just be one relation not two?
Pete Owens (2026-07-27 12:27:00+00:00): The Bay Cycleway is now and always has been a continuous signed cycle route from Walney Island to Glasson Dock. Created by the Morecambe Bay Partnership.

It some point Sustrans allocated route 700 to its entire length. So the two routes could be considered the same thing - and were mapped as one relation.

A few years ago Sustrans decided to dedesignate parts of route 700 so now the two routes are different, so need separate relationships
gurglypipe (2026-07-27 12:55:51+00:00): Are you sure the two routes are different? All the references I can find to it from either Walk Wheel Cycle Trust (WWCT) or the Morecambe Bay Partnership (MBP) refer to it equally as NCN700, the Bay Cycle Way, and a national cycle route.

The only official map I can find of it comes from WWCT and shows it as NCN700 with a dashed section on the A5087. The MBP point people towards WWCT for it.

See e.g. https://morecambebay.org.uk/discover-morecambe-bay/visit-the-bay/cycle-morecambe-bay/bay-cycle-way/
https://lancasterandmorecambebay.com/places/bay-cycle-way
https://morecambebay.org.uk/discover-morecambe-bay/visit-the-bay/cycle-morecambe-bay/
https://www.walkwheelcycletrust.org.uk/find-other-routes/bay-cycle-way/

There is some mixed messaging over the official direction of the route too. Most of the references say it goes from Walney to Glasson Dock, but the MBP suggested day splits have it starting at Glasson Dock.

So overall I’m not convinced that it is two separate routes or needs separate relations. Perhaps it was that way originally when MBP created it, but my impression is that they’ve effectively handed it over to WWCT, who have made subsequent dedesignation changes.
Pete Owens (2026-07-27 18:57:22+00:00): The Bay Cycleway is a CONTINUOUS signed route from Walney to Glasson Dock. Some parts of which are designated NCN 700 and some parts of which are not. One of these parts is the coast road.

Presumably "Simon Sustrans" will eventually get round to removing other other stretches of the Bay Cycleway form the NCN 700 relation - at which point I will need to repair the Bay Cycleway relation again.
gurglypipe (2026-07-27 20:01:03+00:00): Can you point me (and others) towards the sources which define the Bay Cycleway and NCN700 as separate things, and which show how they differ?
Pete Owens (2026-07-27 22:24:25+00:00): Ground survey of the direction signage. 

Stretches of the Bay Cycleway that are not parts of route 700 still have continuous Bay Cycleway signage, but no red 700 patches.
gurglypipe (2026-07-30 20:54:54+00:00): OK fair enough, that’s a good reason for having two separate relations. Thanks for taking the time to survey it.

I’m still not convinced that the relations as they are mapped right now are correct though.

As the Bay Cycleway is the continuous route, then the relation representing it (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/21131746) should be continuous — but currently it just contains the start and end points, and that one short section along the A5087. I think it should also contain all the ways which are in the NCN700 relation (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7024538).
Pete Owens (2026-07-31 10:38:24+00:00): The Bay Cycleway relation contains the NCN 700 relation. 

This will be fine so long as Sustrans are just deleting parts of NCN 700. PI guess at some point in the future they will sign an alternative route from Barrow to Leece.
ralley (2026-07-22 23:09:24+00:00): Google maps may not be used as a source: see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-23 18:02:45+00:00): As @ralley mentioned, use of Google Maps as a source is strictly prohibited by both OSM and Google policies, and may violate local law -- see the aforementioned https://osm.wiki/Google for more details. In addition, several of your tag keys/values (e.g. operational_status=*, website=* for the latter POI, name=* for the first, etc) are incorrect or problematic.

Therefore, I have reverted your changes, in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/186250244

If you can independently verify any of this information with allowed sources that do not involved Google Maps (e.g. in person survey, the company's website, etc), then you may add that back, taking care to use correct tagging.

Happy mapping!
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-23 04:58:56+00:00): #Vandalismus
Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186206571
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-23 04:57:51+00:00): #Vandalismus
Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186204924
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-23 05:02:25+00:00): User has been blocked https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20968
#Sockenpuppe
MassCartog (2026-07-24 00:40:37+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. Wanted to let you know, If the feature exists on the ground, it is valid.

You might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Even decommissioned trails should not be removed until they no longer exist. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property
gurglypipe (2026-07-26 15:44:21+00:00): See discussion of this on changeset 186204250.
Udarian (2026-07-23 20:43:17+00:00): I have tried everywhere I could to find any evidence of a bike track along this road have found nothing, so please read the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway wiki page, specifically the section on bike tracks and double check whether or not this segment of road actually has them, a bike track is a bike lane that is separated from car traffic on the road with kerb's or some other traffic island. I couldn't even find evidence of a bike lane along this segment of road. If there is a bike track (or lane) along a segment of this road I would want to fully map it so if there is any please provide evidence of it. 

happy mapping,
Udar
Subs@Bluceu (2026-07-23 23:41:58+00:00): There are no specific bike lanes on this Street... But I have seen on numerous occasions bikers sharing the road with cars. There is a lot of bicycling in Miami and there are very few places where it is explicitly forbidden. On this segment of the road in question I have seen bicycling on the sidewalk and sometimes on the road along with the traffic.

In the City of Coral Gables, people ride their bicycles on any street and traffic is expected to share the road with bikes. There are streets which have bike lanes and others where there isn't a set lane. If you feel that I should leave alone those areas where there's no set specific bike lane let me know and I will refrain from making any selection in those streets.
Udarian (2026-07-24 01:04:00+00:00): if there are no lanes than =track and =lane would be incorrect. If I am being honest the fact that under Fl law Bikes on roads are treated as vehicles and on sidewalks as pedestrians is something that I have been wondering what the best way to handle is for a while, through certainly in this case it is not lane or track. I will go and start a conversation about this on the OSMUS salck where allot of other folks in the US OSM community are and see what folks think the best way to handle this is. 

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Baloo Uriza (2026-07-22 23:52:08+00:00): Unclassified might be a better classification for a lot of these.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186205314
ajmat (2026-07-23 09:39:36+00:00): Partially Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186223215
Shohreh (2026-07-23 19:33:43+00:00): Bonjour,

Comme indiqué dans la discussion dans le forum OSM :
1. ces chemins ne sont pas privés, mais juste interdits aux véhicules motorisés sauf "ayants droit"
2. access=private interdit d'y passer même à pied/vélo/cheval

→
access=yes
foot=yes
bicycle=yes
horse=yes
motor_vehicle=private — mais ça exclut les véhicules de service par exemple; destination et permit ne sont pas non plus satisfaisants; dilemme
Hopla57 (2026-07-24 20:19:06+00:00): Salut,
Oui, il y a eu un conflit lors de la validation, j'ai du m'emmêler les pinceaux, désolé…
Shohreh (2026-07-25 03:24:37+00:00): À moins que quelqu'un trouve mieux, j'ai utilisé ça pour les autres chemins à côté équipés du même panneau : 

motor_vehicle	destination;agricultural;forestry;customers;delivery
DressyPear4 (2026-07-23 14:50:17+00:00): Este changeset foi revertido com changeset/186239363
DressyPear4 (2026-07-23 14:50:16+00:00): Este changeset foi revertido com changeset/186239363
DressyPear4 (2026-07-23 14:50:15+00:00): Este changeset foi revertido com changeset/186239363
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-23 05:00:15+00:00): #Vandalismus
Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186206571
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-23 05:01:47+00:00): User has been blocked https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20970
#Sockenpuppe
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-23 15:38:28+00:00): For a second I thought it was your real account getting blocked, heh! 😅
NeisRevert (2026-07-23 15:56:52+00:00): :D ... totally understandable, the tiny differences in spelling are very easy to miss. NeisRevert (without spaces or underscores) is still my genuine revert account and is operated by me. The other similarly named accounts have now been blocked. I have added this clarification to my profile ;)
user_5359 (2026-07-30 17:49:48+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1543107932. What is the mean of the tag
la-1 = scrub?
TrickyFoxy (2026-07-30 18:38:20+00:00): layer=-1

fixed, thank you!
Anonymous897234 (2026-07-23 02:40:36+00:00): Greetings wcedmisten. I was wondering if you have guidelines for clinic vs hospital, and emergency=yes/no?

I based my previous classification of Rampart on text from https://www.royalambulance.com/burning-man, https://esd.burningman.org/brcesdhome/what-we-do/medical/ and some other places:

"Our Nevada-licensed emergency healthcare facility, Rampart, delivers comprehensive, ER physician-level care tailored to meet the needs of Burning Man.
Equipped with licensed x-ray services, an on-site laboratory, and a fully licensed pharmacy, Rampart ensures quality care in the heart of Black Rock City, supporting patients with the same high standards found in traditional emergency settings."

"Higher level care is available on playa at Rampart, our MASH-style hospital staffed with Nevada-licensed providers."

I see this POI more as an emergency stabilizing field hospital, as, while they have OR-beds, I /think/ they lack a surgical department. Aka, somewhere between a clinic & normal hospital.

Just looking to learn; not particularly concerned about the classification of one place.
wcedmisten (2026-07-23 12:19:08+00:00): I think you are right, since it's described as a "MASH-style hospital" on the website, I've reclassified it.

I also added temporary=yes so that I can exclude this feature in my national hospital analysis. Thanks for the clarification!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186230768
wcedmisten (2026-07-23 12:21:51+00:00): The rule of thumb for hospital vs. clinic that I am following is whether they provide inpatient care or have a full emergency department (e.g. a standalone ED counts but not an urgent care clinic).
Anonymous897234 (2026-07-23 20:04:10+00:00): Ok thanks. Makes sense. I update its description and added emergency=yes.
Udarian (2026-07-23 18:21:16+00:00): I have already pointed out that the ref=* for a bus stop is not the name of the operator or network (in this case the network) so "Coral Gables Trolley" is not the correct value for the stop number of the bus stop aka the ref=*. Please stop doing this, in a previous comment about this I pointed out an example of the correct way to do this. 

Happy mapping,
Udar
CAM-Gerlach (2026-07-23 19:02:14+00:00): Reverted incorrect ref=*s on public transport stops at the request of @Udarian in changeset 186253058

https://osm.org/changeset/186253058
eggie (2026-07-23 07:18:37+00:00): review_requested 	yes

Hoi,

Lijkt me oke zo.

MVG
eggie
VLD0251 (2026-07-23 21:56:14+00:00): Hello, this hospital is already mapped as an area https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/416680855 
please update or complete the existing object instead of adding a new duplicate node
Happy mapping!
Udarian (2026-07-23 18:10:39+00:00): this is not sidewalk=both, there is only sidewalk on the right side of this road segment and non on the left, sidewalk=both implies that both the right and left sides of the road have a sidewalk, and as there is only sidewalk on the right it is incorrect. 

happy mapping,
Udar.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-24 20:18:38+00:00): Hi Chronocr,

Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thanks for the update here!

Most of your tagging was correct, but I did fix addr:street=* as it should be the exact name of the street (in the local language as applicable), not arbitrary free text directions. See https://osm.wiki/Key:addr:street for more details.

I fixed this as well as removed the now-outdated source=* tag in changeset 186315913

https://osm.org/changeset/186315913

Cheers, and happy mapping!
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-24 20:23:26+00:00): Hola Chronocer,

(Disculpe para mi espanol feo, no es mi lenguage nativo)

La majoria de su tagging estan correcto, pero you necesite cambier su addr:street=* tagging porque ayi pones solo el nobre del camino, y no otras cosas.

Hago esto en changeset 186315913 , y tambien borre el source=* tag porque con tus cambios no estan actual.

https://osm.org/changeset/186315913

Buena suerte y disfruta mapeando!
MxxCon (2026-07-27 19:03:59+00:00): Hello.
What is the source of this information?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186208746
hatul (2026-07-24 14:31:10+00:00): 2 digits road is trunk, not primary

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186299141