piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
literan (2024-03-10 16:50:40+00:00): foot=permissive означает, что любой пешеход в любое время может свободно войти (но владелец в любое время может запретить проход - обычно такое в школах).

не верится, что в детский сад свободный проход. Исправлю на access=private
Maxiller (2024-03-10 16:57:08+00:00): Всё верно, вход только для причастных. 
Спасибо.
CjMalone (2024-03-06 20:12:33+00:00): Buildings are usually rectangle, even if they don't look like it from aerial imagery.

I've updated them in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148313490
dypa (2024-03-03 19:33:48+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
szydzio (2024-03-03 07:49:21+00:00): Cześć! Czy sprawdziłeś stan ścieżki 988106431 w terenie przed jej przywróceniem ?
Zadałem sobie trud i PRZESZEDŁEM ją z GPSem w ręku żeby sprawdzić dokąd faktycznie dochodzi. NIE ma jej tam, nie ma tam również brodu (strumień został prawdopodobnie pogłębiony przy pracach konstrukcyjnych wieży). Był to stan sprzed wezbrania Warty. Poza tym rewertując czyjś changeset warto wpierw podjąć kontakt z autorem i wyjaśnić wątpliwości.
Yog Sot (2024-03-03 13:57:15+00:00): wielokrotnie tam jeździłem, teraz była wycinka, prawdopodobnie nielegalna, która mogła ścieżkę uszkodzić, a bród jest jak w warcie są 2 metry wody mniej. 
Dlatego w prywatnej wiadomości informowałem cię o tym. 
Jak wprowadziłeś swe dane, to wody były tylko 80 cm niżej. 
Nie zwróciłes też uwagi iż z mostu po drugiej stronie strugi Owińskiej doskonale widać wydeptane zejście. 
Dla ścieżek, które są trudno widoczne oznacza się tagiem "trail_visibility"
Dimitar155 (2024-03-03 14:55:16+00:00): Благодаря за промяната. Ограничението е за цялото Цариградско до София Тех Парк и за централната градска част (според наредбата за движение в София). В overpass-turbo (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1I7u) се виждат границите на зоната.
czebureks (2025-08-03 08:43:40+00:00): Cześć!
Dzięki za edycję i wkład w mikromapowanie Trójmiasta. :)
Mam pytanie, co to za zegar i gdzie się dokładnie znajduje?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11685726964
Ortofotomapa pokazuje w tym miejscu coś, co przypomina raczej zjeżdżalnię lub podobne urządzenie.
Pozdrawiam
czebureks (2025-12-14 16:50:09+00:00): Czy ten zegar znajduje się na zjeżdżalni?
emersonveenstra (2024-03-02 22:46:53+00:00): Hello,

Can you please describe why you have called these "bandit trails"? Thanks!
Skinl19 (2024-03-02 23:09:54+00:00): The deleted segment are on DNR property. These were originally constructed without approval and the DNR wants them to remain closed. People are reopening them despite trying to keep them blocked. Maps of these trails only make it worse because people assume the are legit.
emersonveenstra (2024-03-03 00:24:19+00:00): okay, so deleting them is not the right thing to do, because someone is just going to come around and add them again. I'll revert this changeset and then add access=no so that everyone understands that the trails are not supposed to be used
Skinl19 (2024-03-03 00:53:39+00:00): No one looks at that because it shows up on all sorts of maps pulling from OpenStreet. What about the person who added unauthorized trails on the map to begin with? I guess I'll just tell the Department of Natural Resource ranger that there was nothing I could do.
emersonveenstra (2024-03-03 00:58:05+00:00): All major trail applications that use OSM will respect access=no. The person originally adding them is probably one of the many people who maps trails based on Strava heatmaps.

I'm not sure what a better option is, unless you want to constantly double check this location to make sure no one else re-adds them
mcconner22 (2024-03-11 14:04:35+00:00): I know I'm late to this discussion, but just wanted to say thanks to both of you for trying to clean up the trails - Bald Mountain seems especially bad when it comes to this. Does anyone know if there's an official map or list of maintained trails. There are a many other trails that I'm also not sure should exist - I've tried to clean some of them up in the past, but maybe emerson's approach would be better.
Skinl19 (2024-03-11 14:16:30+00:00): The state has their own map of trails for both the north and south units that you see posted at the trail intersections. They also have an overview of both units on the DNR site. There are many trails all over all of Bald Mountain that are considered hunters or hiking trails and are not official. I know most of them pretty well having lived in the area for 27 years.
Skinl19 (2024-03-11 14:18:07+00:00): The DNR does not mind people hiking because you can walk anywhere. What they do care about is people creating, maintaining, or reopening non-official trails.
athens_nng (2024-09-23 11:15:32+00:00): Should it be maybe junction=roundabout?
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2024-09-23 12:35:24+00:00): No.

It is not a roundabout because the traffic on the road does not have right-of way. Route de Beaune goes right throuh it and there are traffic-signals.
athens_nng (2024-09-23 12:43:28+00:00): Thanks for the clarification!
szydzio (2024-03-03 08:00:34+00:00): Część!
Ścieżka 988106431 nie istnieje w terenie w takim przebiegu, również nie ma brodu. Przywracam stan zgodny z wizją lokalną.
Pozd!
Yog Sot (2024-03-05 12:52:01+00:00): nie prawda, ściezka jest pod wodą, bo Warta jest powyżej stanu ostrzegawczego, a bród ma głębokość 2 metrów w tym momencie. 
Dróg się nie kasuje z powodu powodzi.
szydzio (2024-03-05 13:47:32+00:00): Cześć! 
Dyskutowaliśmy już o tym na Discord. Obecny stan wody nie był wyznacznikiem.
Pozdr!
greyim (2024-03-02 23:51:01+00:00): Tag options natural
scree
heath
bare_rock
zorglubu (2024-03-03 18:46:43+00:00): Bonjour,

Je présume que ces contours n'ont pas été importés de Corine mais viennent de divisions et améliorations de tracés existants. Ce qui est une très bonne idée ;-)

Je te suggère dans ce cas de systématiquement supprimer de tous les contours que tu modifies,  les attributs source="...Corinne land cover", ainsi que les attributs CLC:* qui n'ont plus aucun intérêt, et rendent la lecture difficile.

Bien cordialement.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-03-02 22:20:52+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/node/11685780157

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
gscholz (2024-03-05 09:00:26+00:00): Hi dkwolf,
this changeset has destroyed the boundary relation of "Reserva Natural Laguna de Tisma":

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-85.94258&lat=12.07790&zoom=17&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=148148607

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6088753/history#map=15/12.0777/-85.9352

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
felipeeugenio (2024-03-03 12:42:50+00:00): Hello.
You keep changing the value for the access= tag for a lot of roads. I understand that.
But those roads are private. those tree plantations are private.
But what happens in a lot of those plantations, is that pedestrians and cyclist are allowed to walk/bike. This is difficult to know from aerial imagery and you could only know that by going there or deducting it from strava traces.
But, if that is the situation on a particular road, the access= value could be permissive: open for general public use, but access is not protected by law. An owner of the object, or way, may revoke access without following a legal process.
regards
travishughes54 (2024-03-03 18:10:34+00:00): Hi, thanks for your comment, I agree that some of these roads should be set to permissive. Thanks for the suggestion, I will change the ones where that seems appropriate based on my conversations with people and my own experience. I currently live in Talca, and I biked on a portion of the Millalemu road yesterday, that is why I changed it to public, which I agree is not correct, but it seemed that private was not appropriate also because I talked with a family that I know that lives close to here (Picazo Alto) and I am friends with a man where his family used to live on this Arauco land before they kicked them off of it 30 years ago and they told me that anyone can bike, walk, or drive on these logging roads. I also did not seem any signs on the roads saying that the road is private or that driving/biking/walking was not allowed.  But I do agree that this is private land and that the company most likely has the right to not allow access to the public anytime they want to. Sometimes it can be hard to figure out who owns what land even when you physically ride or run on these roads. I will change the permissions to permisive for the ones that I changed previously to public (from private) as that makes the most sense. Thanks for your help.
travishughes54 (2024-03-03 18:18:25+00:00): If you know that these roads should be set to private then do so and I won't change them to anything else.
felipeeugenio (2024-03-03 18:24:40+00:00): Hello.
Thanks for your attitude and your time.
Idk the roads. I was just saying because those are clearly managed forest. But maybe the road is just public and the road just have to be changed to unclassified.
As a community we monitor these because sometimes private road have a better standard that the public ones (in the moving sector this happens a lot) and often mappers confuse then and create a routing problem.

But if the road is public, then is public.

You can know that better than me.

Regards
GovernorKeagan (2024-03-02 22:43:06+00:00): Not sure how to map these apartments with retail below them.
GovernorKeagan (2024-03-02 22:45:16+00:00): The whole of Beacon South Quarter could do with some remapping.
tekim (2024-03-05 02:04:42+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap(OSM).  Thanks for the edits, however, for legal reasons we are not allowed to use Google Maps when editing OSM in any way.  Please refrain from using it or even mentioning it. Thanks
SpinOff (2024-03-05 22:23:06+00:00): Hej. Musiałem wycofać tę zmianę z następujących powodów:
- droga oznaczona na całej długości jako most
- oznaczony całkowity zakaz wstępu

Zachęcam byś zrobił drugie podejście, ale do określenia przejezdności użył tych tagów:
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:smoothness
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:surface

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148270230
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
woodpeck_repair (2024-03-02 23:50:45+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 148130563, 148137217.
tekim (2024-03-05 02:02:21+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.  Thanks for the edits, however, we are not allowed to use Google Maps when editing OpenStreetMap.
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
bdentremont (2024-03-03 00:19:09+00:00): description incorrect, intended to say: add vocational school
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
ivanbranco (2024-03-03 01:49:50+00:00): Hi Bman,

pay attention when merging elements, in this case the natural= value is now "lake;pond", it should be only one (based on size, I suppose =pond is the correct one). Also the name seems descriptive, so it should be deleted in my opinion

good mapping
Bman (2024-03-04 07:31:13+00:00): Good eye @ivanbranco.  Value updated to "pond".
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
dzamper (2024-04-15 12:46:52+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1257032933
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1257032930
^ To nie są nowe budynki których brakowało na mapie, tylko budynki wyburzone rok temu które zostały z niej usunięte…
The Polish (2024-04-15 13:37:39+00:00): Dzięki, poprawiłem.
silversurfer83 (2024-03-03 14:55:56+00:00): Hello :)

there's two things about this changeset I'd like to draw your attention to:

- the size. Because you edited something in Hungary (I guess) and something around London the bounding box covers several countries and thus shows up in the quality assurance feed of quite some people trying to keep an eye on their neck of the woods. What I try to say: please keep it local if possible. Thank you.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

- the comment. It doesn't help understand what you did here. Please read the following wiki entry and try to create better comments in the future. Thanks again :)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Apart from that: happy mapping
silversurfer83
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
Lewatoto (2024-08-05 01:28:59+00:00): Para la próxima vez que editen en automático, favor verificar que no se rompa ninguna relación de rutas de transporte.
Magick93 (2024-03-03 05:35:39+00:00): Gracias Saludos Arqui
AgusQui (2024-03-10 03:12:42+00:00): Hola, una consulta ¿esta sirenas que mapeaste https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11686408029 quisiste agregar una "parada segura" puede ser?
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
Ktr101 (2025-09-28 03:15:38+00:00): Just a heads up, it might be easier to use LIDAR for some of the abandoned features, as there is a wye outside of Breton Woods that was in the wrong spot.
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
foreigner037 (2024-03-03 09:22:06+00:00): Can you provide a source for this edit? This is not something that would go unnoticed
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-23 17:28:53+00:00): So https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11136331404 is closed now?
Xvtn (2024-03-04 16:29:29+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Thanks for updating these, this is really valuable info for routing and addresses! One minor problem is that names shouldn't be abbreviated. That's because it's easy for software to shorten names where appropriate, but can be harder to "expand" them. (More info: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Abbreviations)

I went ahead and fixed that so no need to do anything. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!
wille (2024-03-04 18:31:44+00:00): testing comments again
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148152353
Supaplex (2024-05-29 03:54:25+00:00): Revert due to it is a fake bus station

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151969677
Xvtn (2024-03-04 16:34:35+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks great! Thanks for your contributions.
tekim (2024-03-05 02:01:05+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.  Thanks for the edits, however, we are not allowed to use Google Earth when editing OpenStreetMap.
PineappleSkip (2024-03-05 05:46:55+00:00): Ok, thanks.
CurlingMan13 (2024-03-03 04:33:05+00:00): When adding buildings.  Use "Q" to square up the corners and make them 90 degrees.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148152874
Tommybara (2024-03-03 06:43:10+00:00): Can you point out which user manual/instruction tells us not to "use nature reserves as the outer area"? Otherwise, I find this edit to be unconstructive.
user_14538650 (2024-03-03 06:47:35+00:00): This is because it would make a very big multipolygon mess later on and when that happens, it would be much harder to cleanup (I've made that grave mistake when mapping forests at lai chau and it will took me weeks trying to clean that up). I will try to add independent forest areas (as in a seperate multipolygon relation that does not include nature reserve boundaries as the "outer area") in these nature reserves when I have more time.
Tommybara (2024-03-03 06:56:20+00:00): Not convincing. If the "outer" of the forest is also the boundary of the nature reserve, then I don't see the reason why we should not used that as a "shared" border.

Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "very big multipolygon mess". Several multipolygons have hundreds, if not thousands of children. For example, this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9443832, and it was totally fine.
user_14538650 (2024-03-03 07:03:06+00:00): Some multipolygons have thousands of children out of necessity because they are named features. But forests are not named features and as such their geometry should be simplified in such a way that it is easier for editors to maintain it. Also, not all nature reserves are completely covered with forest, if you take a look at Ba Vi national park you can see a road cutting through two big chunk of forests, so mapping the forest as one big multipolygon with the boundaries as children is wrong. It would be better to map the forest along and not glued to the national park.
Tommybara (2024-03-03 07:18:25+00:00): Please note that none of the forests that you deleted is "one big multipolygon with the boundaries as children". They only used some ways that are boundaries as their outers, and that's when its outer is also the boundary. I'm not the only one who map this way. Mappers in other countries also do the same thing, like this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/922405753#map=13/4.9162/102.5063.

If you want to map the forest independently, that's totally fine and I'm not gonna stop you... BUT... I would suggest that you do it the moment you deleted the "glued" forest. Otherwise I'm going to revert that deletion. Last time you deleted all of the mangrove forest areas of Mui Ca Mau but only remapped a few of them and then leave it as it was for months. That's the most terrible thing to do.
Tommybara (2024-03-03 07:27:39+00:00): In case you find the example above not convincing enough, then you can also take a look at this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/799458336.
user_14538650 (2024-03-03 11:44:06+00:00): I promise, I will map them in a few weeks.
Tommybara (2024-03-03 20:03:33+00:00): I think you didn't get what I meant. There's no "few weeks" here. As soon as you delete a "glued" forest, that deleted forest should be replaced by an independent forest area (or whatever you call it) IMMEDIATELY.

Other mappers took a lot of time and effort to map those enormous forest areas, and you just delete them because it doesn't look right to you. Unless those forests are erroneous (which are apparently not), deleting without a proper replacement is not okay at all.
user_14538650 (2024-03-04 06:59:18+00:00): I wouldn't say "putting the entire edge of the nature reserve as the outer edge for a natural=wood relation" as a high-effort work.
Tommybara (2024-03-04 10:28:56+00:00): So now you are justifying yourself by judging other people's edits as not being "high-effort"? Don't forget that this is a voluntary, so every edits that are not vandalism count as effort.

On the other hand, deleting objects that are not erroneous, without a proper replacement, is more of a vandalism. And again, using a nature reserve boundary as a forest outer is NOT erroneous, because it is also done in other countries including US (like the example I showed).

Also, in this changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16894115) you also deleted a huge amount of forest outers that are NOT nature reserve boundaries. That makes it a lot more like a vandalism.

Anyway, to sum up:
1. The next time you delete a forest for the redrawing of its independent version, you are expected to have the redrawing done soon. And by soon, I will make that at most in one week. Therefore, make that clear by giving a deadline in the changeset comment.
2. If you you think you can't redraw the "independent" version of those forests, COMPLETELY, within one week, then leave the forest as it is.
user_14538650 (2024-03-04 11:43:15+00:00): Challenge accepted.
Ewen Hill (2024-03-03 08:38:05+00:00): Re yout review request GotBoost... Well done on the road realignment and southern house, the road is much improved. Re the top house, please use the "Q" key to square the building edges so they are all 90 degrees however you might need to align them manually first. In this instance, I think I would have added two buildings as appear to be completely different. All the best and good luck mapping.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148153158
MxxCon (2024-03-07 01:54:44+00:00): When adding disused:shop=bakery, don't forget to delete the regular shop=bakery otherwise it becomes a logic conflict..is it operational or disused :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148153286
SomeoneElse (2024-03-03 09:58:06+00:00): I believe that the changeset that you reverted was an attempt to create "boundary=disputed" areas such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17296617, in line with what is written at https://osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf "We have and will continue to build mechanisms
where alternatives can be recorded and easily used in maps more suitable to you".
You reverted it without any discussion, which isn't OK.
I do notice that some of the objects here at admin_level=4 and below are boundary=administrative objects.  That isn't unusual in OSM; countries often claim to "administer" areas that they don't control but only pretend that they do.
Please discuss your problems with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148136531 et al with the author of that changeset in a civilised manner?
I'd actually suggest that https://community.openstreetmap.org/ is the best place to do that.
SomeoneElse (2024-03-03 09:58:33+00:00): 我相信您恢复的变更集是试图创建“boundary=disputed”区域，例如 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17296617，与 https://osmfoundation.org/ 上的内容一致 w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf “我们已经并将继续建立机制
可以记录替代方案并在更适合您的地图中轻松使用”。
你没有任何讨论就将其恢复，这是不行的。
我确实注意到，admin_level=4 及以下的一些对象是boundary=administrative 对象。 这在 OSM 中并不罕见。 一些国家常常声称“管理”他们无法控制的地区，但实际上只是假装他们控制了。
请以文明的方式与该变更集的作者讨论您的问题 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148136531 等？
我实际上建议 https://community.openstreetmap.org/ 是最好的地方。