piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ivanbranco (2025-03-26 17:43:13+00:00): Ciao Paguro01,

qualcosa non mi torna. Se vado su https://lepuntinedelmondo.it/ in fondo alla pagina leggo "© Copyright 2012 - 2025| Le Puntine del Mondo by Juri Bertoldero", sei sicuro che siano dati utilizzabili?

Poi scrivi "Importazione manuale", ma se fosse manuale penso che ti saresti accorto che queste fontanelle sono in mezzo alla strada https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12703061261/ https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12703078491/ o che questa é mappata all'interno di un edificio https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12703100392/ ecc.ecc.
Paguro01 (2025-03-26 19:09:18+00:00): Ciao ivan,
ho scritto a Juri per avere una conferma ma lui stesso ha "puntinato" dati su OSM e sono sicuro che non ci saranno problemi perché gliene avevo già parlato. In ogni caso a conferma ricevuta la metterò sui forum e linkata qui per completezza.
"Importazione manuale" perchè le ho aggiunte una per una, integrando fontanelle già esistenti anziché duplicarle, controllando la posizione, il tipo, aggiornando i Camper Service ove possibile, eccetera. Possibile che qualcuna mi sia sfuggita, adesso le ricontrollo tutte così non ci sono errori. Per alcune su strade o sentieri aggiungerò un `fixme=position` per consentire a chi del posto di spostarla con precisione (oppure sul posto ci vado io come in passato, quale si verifica prima).

Qualsiasi altro dubbio scrivi pure nei commenti, anche se ne trovi altre dubbie! Grazie della dritta!
Paguro01 (2025-03-26 20:41:34+00:00): @ivanbranco Ho ricevuto conferma da Juri, testualmente: "Vai, volentieri, è un omaggio che ho fatto per la comunità." - considero confermato che i dati del changeset e dell'elenco rubinetti sono compatibili ODbL.
Đuro Jiří (2025-05-20 21:52:09+00:00): È questa fontanella non esiste, non c'è ne nessuna nei dintorni.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12703109609
Đuro Jiří (2025-06-05 21:14:30+00:00): osm.org/node/12703061261/ questa ho corretto e questa https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12703109604#map=19/45.536582/12.646416&layers=N ho cancellato, perché non esiste.
Đuro Jiří (2026-04-22 10:36:13+00:00): Duplicato 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12703075278
tantanWS (2025-03-27 06:34:31+00:00): added the tag religion=jewish to the syngogue. changed the outdoor fitness to leisure=fitness_station as reccomended in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dfitness_station
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164130890
rskedgell (2025-03-27 15:31:22+00:00): Already mapped as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1634345 (although it has an unusual value for the surface tag)
rskedgell (2025-03-27 15:48:15+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164170120
rskedgell (2025-03-27 15:29:46+00:00): Already mapped as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2893803
rskedgell (2025-03-27 15:47:49+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164170120
Jakka (2025-03-26 18:56:37+00:00): Dan moet je eens naar je stad gaan om de officiele kaart bij te werken.
Staat geregistreerd als
379321
weg bestaande uit één rijbaan
Weg categorie lokale weg type 3
Beheerder Stad Maaseik
https://www.geopunt.be/shared/cc349032-f4f9-4fe1-b568-e10130392eed
Gregory Peony (2025-04-08 02:50:14+00:00): Hi, generally isolated dwellings will not have a sufficient number of buildings to warrant mapping a residential area around them, for example way/1371859099. To quote from the project instructions: A residential area is an area of land predominantly dedicated to housing. Draw a residential area around a cluster of five (5) buildings or more. You also moved a node of a building which shared a node with a residential area. You may want to consider drawing a new geometry using fast draw and using the replace geometry function for smaller residential areas; doing so will reduce the possibility of modifying features which share nodes. Thanks for your contributions; keep mapping.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164131336
gurglypipe (2025-03-26 23:31:53+00:00): Thanks also for your edits around Bothel today :)

Does this bus shelter have its name printed on a sign (like a shop)? If not, the `name` tag should probably be a `description` — see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
rskedgell (2025-03-27 15:28:09+00:00): Why did you delete the polygons incorrectly tagged as traffic_calming=island, instead of tagging them correctly as area:highway=traffic_island ?

The landuse=grass area you created should have shared the geometry of the Eastern traffic island you deleted, not been glued to the bounding highway lines.

Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164169329
mapbear66 (2025-03-26 18:33:01+00:00): Hi. The name "Speyside Way" should not be on the constituent paths. Some paths may have their own names. Speyside Way is already, correctly, a route relation. Please remove the erroneous name tags.
Paul Frost (2025-03-26 20:07:14+00:00): Aplogies, I didn't notice the route relation section. I think I have reverted all my changes but can't see an obvious way to check.
Paul Frost (2025-03-26 20:14:32+00:00): The original changelist included 16 Nodes but my last change didn't include any Nodes, but I can't see how to change a Node.
mapbear66 (2025-03-26 22:26:33+00:00): No bother. It helps to know relations are around, and some editors are set up better to show them.
Anyway I think you fixed them all.
Langlaeufer (2025-03-26 18:50:17+00:00): hallo helpi,
ich glaube das mit even/odd und dann Buchstaben auf den Endpunkten funktioniert so nicht.
entwerder even 2-10, oder odd 1-9
oder alphabetic 1a-1e aber nicht odd 1a ... 5a. Hier muss man die Hausnummern wohl einzeln setzen.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164131777
Gregory Peony (2025-03-26 18:04:03+00:00): The northern footprint outlines what appears to be a building under construction so it is valid and you squared it appropriately. It's fairly accurate but could be a little bit smaller. You can scale features by using (shift + +/-) press ? to see ID editors shortcuts. More like this in the future. The southern footprint does not represent a building I deleted it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164132165
rskedgell (2025-03-27 15:09:59+00:00): Already mapped as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2570527
rskedgell (2025-03-27 15:47:34+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164170120
Gregory Peony (2025-03-26 17:56:15+00:00): These footprints do not represent buildings in the imagery the one in the west possibly outlines a yurt which should not be mapped. I recommend searching for tasks by least recently updated to see if you can find one with fewer mapped buildings that you may find easier to identify to get you started. Also in this area use bing as an interpretation aid switch between imageries using (Ctrl.+B). Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164132244
dypa (2025-03-29 09:03:54+00:00): При указании размеченных не регулируемых пешеходных переходов нельзя использовать тег crossing=zebra, см https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:crossing=zebra

Пожалуйста при внесении следующих правок используйте теги (Размеченный (нерегулируемый) пешеходный переход)
crossing=uncontrolled
crossing:markings=zebra

Заранее спасибо!
Célio_Santos (2025-03-28 11:24:54+00:00): Deverá retirar a nome "Rua Tiradentes" sendo a via denominada "Rua Duque de Caxias", pois a "Rua Tiradentes" já existe e é outro cruzamento.
RaphaelPasloin (2025-03-27 05:05:34+00:00): Hello,

No this "path" was not just the building garden. Before your edit there is certainly somme adjustement/correction  to do here but certainly not deleting the way and recreate  a new path for theses reasons : 

- Principe of good pratice : see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history

- On the west part of the path you deleted there is in fact a footway that allow entrance to the building : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1122943351924628 , this footway connect also the Street with steps (not yet mapped) : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=513273780630861

- On south the path was faulty (crossing the coursive wall) : but you recreate it on the same position, the existing one next to the pound is enough here.

- On east : there is a gate with a sign for no parking next to it and we can see that grass has  different texture following a line of something that looks like "klinkers" : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=6404652808119672022  It's also well visible in Urbis Orthophoto 
2022 NS  So for sure there is a path with private access and probably a good reason for this (maybe Siamu, maybe technical for Foyer Laekenois) but in any case the path exist and should not be deleted.

I m affraid we need to reverse your changeset and make the correction but before that can you say if there is a connection on the north or a gate , or just a bollard ?

Have a good day,
Raphaël 



-
JannesBraet (2025-03-27 06:54:47+00:00): The west side are indeed entrances to the house, but I assumed just like we don't map every other entrance to a  house in OSM this wasn't actually supposed to be there. 

The east side and north side are really just a garden for this building, but I guess since it is behind a fence it could become a private path instead. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

On the north it was a plain fence, no gate at all. So the connection between north and west was definitely wrong.
eggie (2025-03-27 09:57:59+00:00): Welkom bij OSM.
Kleine aanpassing gedaan zodat de praktijk zichtbaar wordt op de kaart.

MVG
eggie
rskedgell (2025-03-27 15:08:48+00:00): The running track is already mapped correctly as an area, in this case a multipolygon ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2534285 ).

You don't need to duplicate the multipolygon's tags, or a subset of them, on the inner or outer members of the multipolygon.

Please ensure that you have read and understood the following before you edit any more athletics tracks.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dtrack

If you could explain what you are trying to do and why, I will try to help you. Most facilities for track and field in the UK could do with being mapped more accurately.
rskedgell (2025-03-27 15:47:19+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164170120
Leo Slager (2025-03-27 11:30:30+00:00): Hier is kennelijk iets heel erg fout gegaan.
Waarschijnlijk heb je een node verplaatst maar daar zat wel het hele gebied aan vast zodat alles naar een andere positie is gesleept.
De schade is zo groot dat er niets anders overblijft als het reverten van de hele changeset.
Hier kun je het resultaat van je changeset zien:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=164132576
Leo Slager (2025-03-27 11:35:45+00:00): Reverted with my changeset 164159466
Claudius Henrichs (2025-04-10 11:21:22+00:00): Sorry for inadvertently having moved that polygon and thanks for fixing it again.
Gregory Peony (2025-04-14 21:33:16+00:00): Footprints are generally valid, appropriately squared and have an accurate orientation but tend to be oversized and include the shadow a building casts in its footprint size. I flagged footprints which outline multiple buildings.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164133065
Langlaeufer (2025-03-26 18:43:40+00:00): Ist das Stück irgendwie Beschildert oder wurde die Durchfahrt nur baulich verhindert?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164133117
Nortix08 (2025-03-26 20:23:23+00:00): Beides, siehe Blick von der Nordseite: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bachstra%C3%9Fe_in_Langenhagen_1.jpg
Langlaeufer (2025-03-27 08:32:32+00:00): Was soll den diese Grünfläche im Nordosten sein? Die kann ich auf dem Foto nicht entdecken. Der Fußweg geht wenn westlich davon vorbei.
Bitte schaue mal ob ich die Ränder richtig umgebaut habe. Surface habe ich auf paving_stones geändert.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164133117
VA00 (2025-11-20 12:11:23+00:00): Bez żartów. Gruntowy track i grade1 to wzajemnie wykluczające się tagi. Po dzisiejszej jeździe, to ja bardziej do grade3 bym się skłaniał....
eggie (2025-03-26 19:28:15+00:00): Tip...  Wanneer je iets intekent gebruik dan de linker alttoets. Dat voorkomt plakken van wegen aan de vlakken.

MVG
eggie
chris66 (2025-06-26 13:42:10+00:00): Zur Info: Purzelbaum schließt in Kürze (Räumungsverkauf) .

VG.
maraf24 (2025-07-16 12:05:36+00:00): Jakie jest źródło tej nazwy?
I która nazwa przeważa?
voltairovicz (2025-07-16 12:13:25+00:00): https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pustelnik_(Trzebnica)
YomanNH (2025-03-27 10:40:34+00:00): Jak ta droga jest oznakowana w terenie? Bo po poprawkach, które wprowadziłeś, dalej nie wygląda to dobrze...
TrickyFoxy (2025-04-10 21:25:51+00:00): 👋 turbo_right=yes What did you mean?
yopaseopor (2025-04-10 22:13:38+00:00): This means that one possible turn direction in this roundabout is turbo_roundabout to the right
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Yopaseopor/Proposta_senyals_tr%C3%A0nsit_Catalunya#Encreuaments_i_rotondes
Gregory Peony (2025-04-04 02:42:06+00:00): Valid and accurate footprints here. Hold alt to prevent your cursor from snapping.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164134691
M!dgard (2025-05-31 10:07:37+00:00): Beste, de juiste tag voor punten op privédomein is access=private
yrtimiD (2025-03-26 21:06:11+00:00): Hello and welcome to osm!
Unfortunately we can't use any external source of data for the mapping. There is a very limited list of approved sources (like Bing aerial maps). If you didn't got an official approval from municipality - this is a clear copyright violation. 
In most cases the only acceptable source is to physically collect such data on the ground.
b-jazz (2025-03-29 05:47:00+00:00): Why? I can't think of a reason why this should be done. Please revert or explain this to me. Thanks.
tpatte02 (2025-03-29 14:22:36+00:00): Changes were removed - multipolygon shouldn't be used for golf course items
b-jazz (2025-03-29 16:44:01+00:00): That is 100% not true. Can you please tell me why you think that is? If you'd like to join the various forums/communities and discuss there, I'd be happy to join you.
tpatte02 (2025-03-29 17:01:50+00:00): Multipolygon items are not pulled correctly when importing OSM data for LIDAR created courses.  Regardless of my opinion, changes you requested reverted were - have a good day
b-jazz (2025-03-29 17:11:31+00:00): Thanks for reverting. Just because a third party tool doesn't behave correctly is no excuse to not map properly. There are hundreds of other apps/tools/services that use OSM and they all need to be following the same guidelines.

Are you talking about Chad's Tool? If so, maybe you could pressure the maintainers to incorporate the following fix into their next release: https://github.com/chadrockey/TGC-Designer-Tools/pull/143

It sounds like that might resolve the problem.
tpatte02 (2025-03-29 17:16:22+00:00): Hopefully that PR does get merged to main on the next release, but I still disagree completely that fairways that circle a green need to be multipolygon object - rough that circles other features is not tagged that way and there's no reason for it.  Again, have a great day
b-jazz (2025-03-29 17:26:49+00:00): When you draw the polygon for a fairway, you are saying that absolutely everything within that polygon is a fairway. So even if there is a green in that fairway boundary, you are saying that it is a fairway as well. Both a fairway AND a green at the same time. The purpose of a multipolygon is to say everything within that boundary is a fairway EXCEPT any "inner" relations of the multipolygon. And yes, roughs should be drawn correctly and tagged as multipolygons as well.
I'm guessing you would probably agree, but just struggle because a tool you use doesn't handle them properly.
tpatte02 (2025-03-29 17:36:05+00:00): No, I just have the ability to look at the separate polygons on a golf course map and determine that they are separate features.  Have a great day and I'm sure you can find others to lecture about your way of mapping.
Allison P (2025-03-29 18:34:49+00:00): It is not his way of mapping. It is the entire rest of the community save for you golf course mappers who have been damaging the map for years. It is beyond me why you all think you are entitled to map wrongly just for your niche use case. Maybe you should switch to the dev server where you can map from scratch however you want
tpatte02 (2025-03-29 19:12:04+00:00): I disagree, but each of us are entitled to our own opinions - this is an open source project.  A fairway without a multipolygon tag is NOT damaging the map in any way shape or form.  Golf course mappers have actually improved the map as a good majority of courses weren't even being mapped before we came along.
b-jazz (2025-03-29 21:37:20+00:00): I'm sorry, but this isn't a question of opinions. It's just proper mapping vs improper mapping. And yes, this is a community project and we all need to respect each other's work and abide by a common set of goals and practices. Multipolygons are correct. While the lack of a multipolygon isn't necessarily "damaging", removing a proper polygon is most certainly damaging. Deleting other people's fairway so that you can draw your own *is* damaging. Sloppily drawing fairways across a green *is* damaging.
We appreciate golf simulator mappers filling out golf courses. There is no question about that, but we want them to map according to community standards.
There are well over 20,000 fairways in the US that have the fairway overlapping the green and they need to be fixed thanks to simulator mappers. It's going to take me a year to fix that and try to get others to stop that bad practice.
tpatte02 (2025-03-29 22:18:53+00:00): This is a question of opinions - there isn't a standard for using multipolygons - it's just your preference, and opinion. 
 The problem is that you think it needs "fixing" when in reality, it doesn't.  Multipolygons are not correct in my opinion and I won't be mapping that way when mapping courses I want to map. There is nothing damaging about lines not being completely correct - I can point to plenty of boundaries, roads, buildings, etc. that aren't "properly" aligned, but the vendetta you seem to have against golf course mappings are the only ones you seem to care about.  Taking it upon yourself to "police" the way others map courses is a battle you chose to take on, on an open source project.  Good luck with that
Allison P (2025-03-29 23:17:08+00:00): This is not a matter of opinion, full stop. The way we are saying to represent geometry is the most basic principle of multipolygons. You are simply in the wrong, and you are in denial.

If you will not map correctly, you will not map at all. The DWG has blocked many of your ilk in the past for not mapping golf courses properly, and should I see any more edits I will be sending a report.

Almost all data can be improved in quality, especially that imported from TIGER. What's different is that low-quality data is added less frequently because we give users advice on properly mapping, and they follow it.

Whether or not we have anything against golf, our ire is squarely on the refusal to map correctly after being educated on doing so. Perhaps the fact that this is frequently an issue specific to golf mappers contributes to a "vendetta".
tpatte02 (2025-03-29 23:28:42+00:00): I am mapping correctly - and I'm taking a screenshot of your disdain for our "ilk" as proof when you try to file a false report against me because you just don't like the way we map. If you can point to a set of rules with these standards, that would be fantastic, but you can't because it does not exist.
b-jazz (2025-03-29 23:40:34+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%253Dgolf_course

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history
tpatte02 (2025-03-29 23:49:36+00:00): First link doesn't work.... and what you both are failing to realize is that a "green" is just a fairway cut to a slightly lower height. Have a great day - I'm done arguing with the OSM self appointed "police"
b-jazz (2025-03-30 00:39:31+00:00): Yup, encoding problem. This one should work. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course 

Your latest argument makes no sense and isn’t convincing anyone that you understand mapping. If you’re saving your best arguments for another day, I guess we won’t be blessed to read them.
tpatte02 (2025-03-30 01:00:45+00:00): Yes, you don't understand golf courses - at all.  Happy mapping and policing anyone you feel entitled to - Muted
b-jazz (2025-03-30 05:12:27+00:00): Well. That was something.
eggie (2025-03-26 19:29:17+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
l3BAM (2026-03-26 17:48:37+00:00): Vous avez changé les références de nombreuses routes en remettant parfois des références (Nationales) obsolètes depuis au moins 20 ans ! Quelles sont vos sources ?
eggie (2025-03-26 19:56:48+00:00): Yep... dit is goed met access=private !
Dat werkt in de routering. 
gr eggie
Allison P (2025-03-26 19:38:14+00:00): Thank you for adding details to the business listing! Keep in mind that phone numbers should be represented in +country_code-area_code-exchange-local format, in this case +1-208-345-2046.
sarttiso (2025-03-26 19:44:04+00:00): Thanks for the guidance! I also attempted to add both opening_hours and opening_hours:kitchen. Is my formatting of these hours appropriate?
sarttiso (2025-03-26 19:45:24+00:00): My apologies, my comment above refers to a different changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164136336
NeisBot (2025-03-26 19:30:46+00:00): Hello Val-qui-rit, welcome to OSM, and thank you for your contributions!

I've taken a look at your recent edits and wanted to discuss a few discrepancies I noticed regarding the surrounding environmental features. Specifically, the locations in your edits don't seem to align with the typical geographical characteristics expected in that area. Here are some (max 10) relevant links to the edits:
https://osm.org/node/12703345751

Could you please take a look?
Looking forward to your response.

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

#Somewhere
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=164135826
NeisReview (2025-04-02 15:44:24+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164136469
eggie (2025-03-26 20:01:49+00:00): Dit is nu weer correct en zo was het ook oorspronkelijk getagd door Dvdhoven

Dat TopoGPS daar niet mee om kan gaan is een probleem van die app. Je zult dus een berichtje 'moeten' sturen dat TopoGPS een probleem heeft met een valide tag als foot=permissive.
Over de brug heb ik nog even op permissive gezet. 
permissive hoort te routeren. 
gr eggie
eggie (2025-03-26 20:02:33+00:00): Zie https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=52.216205%2C6.715522%3B52.21646%2C6.72335
eggie (2025-03-26 20:04:41+00:00): Het zal hier alleen routeren voor fietsers en voetgangers. 
Immers alles staat op access=private
eggie (2025-03-26 20:08:09+00:00): Maar nu wordt het echt lastig.
Wanneer er een bord staat Verboden voor motor_voertuigen is de tag
motor_vehicle=no
traffic_sign=NL:C12

.. maar access=private houdt al alle verkeer tegen behalve wandelaars en fietsers.