piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-18 22:59:59+00:00): The above comments just expose how little everyone in this community knows about the situation on the ground and in the sea to sky riding community. 
The local SAR and emergency teams ALL HAVE ACCESS TO THIS DATA AND THESE TRAILS. There is zero need to have these publicly visible. 

"these are standards which the community as a whole have decided on. "
Why should the OSM community decisions override those of the communities who build these trails, manage the land, deal with accesses issues, advocate for trail usage? 
Eerib states he wants to promote outdoor activity, but their actions in mapping these trails do nothing but damage relationships, trails and communities and risk destroying the status quo. 

"I see you main account has now been banned. Please be better in future if you still which to be part of this community." -  I have no idea what you're talking about. 

" the way you talking about it is frankly insulting." - The insulting thing is this community thinking it knows better than the people IN THE COMMUNITIES that you are affecting. 

You should all think more about the impact you are having and how you are going about your hobby.
kitsee (2025-07-19 06:34:56+00:00): "Why should the OSM community decisions override those of the communities who build these trails" - 

Because the map doesn't belong to you. OpenStreetMap is not a private registry for land managers or trail builders to curate what they think the public should or shouldn’t see. It’s a global, open, factual map of what exists on the ground. The job of OSM is not to enforce your access policies or preserve your status quo—it’s to reflect observable reality, transparently and accurately.

No one is denying the effort local communities put into trail building or land stewardship. But that doesn’t give you veto power over what gets mapped. If a trail is visible, verifiable, and walkable, then it belongs on the map—with appropriate tags like informal=yes, access=private, or hazard=yes. That’s how responsible mapping works.

Pretending something doesn’t exist by keeping it off the map doesn’t make it safer, doesn’t reduce usage, and doesn’t protect your community. It just makes users less informed. And that’s the real danger.

This is the last comment i'm gonna make in this thread as it is not the place for such a discussion. if you are serious about this then please start a discussion on https://community.openstreetmap.org/ and convince the community of your argument. 

Kind regards,
Kits
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-20 04:27:38+00:00): "Because the map doesn't belong to you. OpenStreetMap is not a private registry for land managers or trail builders to curate what they think the public should or shouldn’t see. It’s a global, open, factual map of what exists on the ground. The job of OSM is not to enforce your access policies or preserve your status quo—it’s to reflect observable reality, transparently and accurately."
This is not the strong argument you think it is. It is a statement of what OSM does, but ignore the reality of your work. 

" If a trail is visible, verifiable, and walkable, then it belongs on the map" - WHY? No one here can ever give a answer to this question. 
Mapping is not a neutral action. 
You are damaging trails and communities and the work that has gone in over decades to achieve the status quo. 
Mapping a trail or something like a secret sauna then shrugging your shoulder afterwards and saying, "oh well, it is what it is, mark it as removed/closed/etc" is just incredible in it's ignorance. 

"Pretending something doesn’t exist by keeping it off the map doesn’t make it safer, doesn’t reduce usage, and doesn’t protect your community."
It absolutely does all of these things. It's incredibly easy to trace the closure, destruction and increased maintenance load of trails that were off map and are now public. Or get promoted through vapid instagram influencers. 

"It just makes users less informed. And that’s the real danger."" - Downstream consumers of the OSM baselayers do not get the tags, trail ratings, or other meta data associated with the previously off- map, trails. Surely you can see how this is now problematic? If i have no idea this trail exists, I'm not uninformed, Im unaware. Now I see it on the map but have no idea that it's a proline trail and it's easy for me to get in over my head. The latter situation is immensely preferable. 

"That’s how responsible mapping works." - Well in that case OSM is not being a responsible mapper as trails are frequently added without proper naming, difficulty data, warnings, nor ensures that downstream consumers are acting responsibly when they get the data.  If anyone here really cared about responsible mapping then these things would all be considered and they are clearly not. 

"convince the community of your argument."  - Lets be serious now. No one should have to convince the community. Your community doesn't and shouldn't override the wishes of the community which you are having an impact on. To suggest that one or two OSM users rights and wishes overrides that over hundreds of local riders, builders and advocates is absurd and offensive.
0235 (2025-07-18 13:06:51+00:00): There are many widespread approved tags which can be added to Trails to reflect the private, or discouraged nature of trails:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trailblazed:visibility

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness/Gallery

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:informal%3Dyes
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-18 21:27:13+00:00): These should all be added from the get go then. Trails should not be added without the appropriate metadata. 
I still take the stance that trails like this that the local community has worked had to keep off the map shouldnt be mapped at all as all it does it expose users to unneeded risk. 
If they are to be added then a) it should be with full and proper tags and data and b) with the expectation that consumers of the data respect the tags. 
Point b above is a HUGE issues as far as I can tell none of the data consumers respect that tags.
ceirios (2025-07-19 00:35:28+00:00): You can add these tags yourself based on your knowledge of the track. That’s what OSM is all about.
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-19 00:39:03+00:00): I don't want to be a member here at all, but the irresponsible behaviour of certain users has forced me to join the conversation. 
I've fixed the name here, but I really wish the user in question would realize the negative effect of their contributions.
ceirios (2025-07-19 01:04:13+00:00): That won’t get anybody anywhere. If you have knowledge of the trail, you could use it by tagging the trail appropriately, to your knowledge, and then data consumers should eventually take and process these tags - everybody benefits. Adding more data is a good thing!

Access tags can be added to show that the trail isn’t public, and as 0235 said above there are more tags for trail conditions. A lot of things on OSM start out with almost no detailed data to them with the intent of others adding more in over time
eerib (2025-07-19 02:17:40+00:00): I have added details for this trail and others in the Sootip Peak region in changeset 169134453.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169134453
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-19 16:37:18+00:00): "Adding more data is a good thing!"
Everyone here states this over and over again, but it is not universally true. By making these trails public you are essentially promoting them which changes the very nature of the trail itself. Mapping is not a neutral action. And this case, causes damage to the work of hundereds of people that has been put in over decades. 

"Access tags can be added to show that the trail isn’t public,"
Again, this is only useful if it is a) supplied at the start, which is very often isnt. and b) downstream data consumers show and/or respect the tags.  Which they dont. Users of other platforms only see the trail but none of the associated data. 
You might say, well thats on them to properly handle our data, but it is your naive approach to mapping these sensitive trails which is the root cause.  

"everybody benefit" - No, not everybody benefits for the above reasons. Please please think carefully about your actions as a community.
GRi (2025-07-31 13:51:54+00:00): Beste Robbre.
Op 3 juni 2025 ben ik over de brug gelopen over de Berkel, die je hier verwijderd hebt op grond van satelliet beelden.
Mag ik je verzoeken nu naar die plek te gaan dan zul je met eigen ogen zien dat die brug daar ligt.
Je kunt een filmpje over de aanleg hier bekijken: https://gerwers.nl/project/brug-over-de-berkel-almen.
Kortom: wil je de verwijderde brug met aangepaste paden weer terug zetten? Zodat de situatie daar weer actueel is?
GRi
robbre (2025-07-31 14:37:21+00:00): Ik ben er pas geweest en heb de brug (door de kromming v/d berkel) gezien vanaf Besselink niet opgemerkt. 
Heb hem weer toegevoegd en zal er binnenkort eens overheen lopen om alles te controleren
robbre (2025-07-31 14:46:19+00:00): Hoi GRi,

Ik lees in de krant dat de burg nergens op aangesloten 'mag' worden.

Is hij dus ook niet meer op het wandelpad ten zuiden v/d berkel aangesloten ?

"de gemeenteraad van Lochem de knoop over deze uitgave definitief doorgehakt. Dat gebeurde niet zonder slag of stoot: een grote meerderheid van de gemeenteraad besloot dat er géén toegangswegen en -paden mogen worden aangelegd om de zogeheten landbouwbrug in het buitengebied van Almen te ontsluiten. Dit om minder gemeenschapsgeld uit te hoeven geven. In totaal mag de brug maximaal 630.000 euro kosten.

Een opvallend besluit. Een van de argumenten om de landbouwbrug te willen bekostigen als gemeente, was volgens het college immers om de ‘recreatieve structuur’ rond Almen te versterken. Een soort bijvangst van de brug was immers dat wandelaars óók van de extra oversteek gebruik kunnen maken"
GRi (2025-07-31 17:35:43+00:00): Het is 1 lange discussie geweest in de raad.
Maar de voetpaden sluiten wel degelijk aan op de brug (lopen er bijna tegenaan).
Vandaar dat ik er overheen gelopen ben.
fmc_7 (2025-07-17 18:48:52+00:00): Hey Steph. Die Änderung sieht gut aus. Ein Multipolygon ist das allerdings noch nicht :)

Ich hab's dir mal in JOSM gemacht. Grundsätzlich, wenn du ein Multipolygon erstellen willst, was bei einem Nationalpark durchaus Sinn macht, pack die tags dann erst auf die Relation und lass die Geometrie (Linie) leer :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169074543
Interswd (2025-08-12 13:01:40+00:00): Przecież te tory są rozebrane i w budowie. Nie zmieniaj tego do końca remontu!
trial (2025-07-17 21:01:31+00:00): Salut, non il a été détruit (detroyed:building), pas démoli.
trial (2025-07-17 21:01:56+00:00): tu peux ajouter un end_date !
K12230LF (2025-11-18 14:42:15+00:00): C'est fait :)
Udarian (2025-07-17 21:19:19+00:00): This business is clearly inside of Coral Gables so the "addr:city" should be Coral Gables, it is on Ponce de Leon Boulevard as so that is what should be in the "addr:street" tag, these are also the same on the address database on the miami dade open data hub, see https://gis-mdc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/eef6b33da60d47c0964387960c840eea_0/explore?location=25.764140%2C-80.259731%2C18.88

It is also generally custom in OSM to only have single number in the "addr:unit" not something like "unit 4"
Also, phone numbers are supposed to be in the format of (in the US) "+1 XXX-XXX-XXXX" were the X's are single integers.
Udarian (2025-07-17 21:20:24+00:00): Also we are not supposed to use short codes for road types like Blvd for Boulevard
evgenykatyshev (2025-07-18 06:02:45+00:00): Hello! Thanks for adding new buildings to the map.

Just a small note. In Georgia it's better to use Esri satellite imagery instead of Bing. Bing imagery is very poorly aligned with actual coordinates, while Esri is well adjusted. You can switch it in the menu on the right side of the editor.

I'd recommend moving your buildings to match Esri imagery.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-17 18:41:00+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2782915989
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/401768580

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
custodiankeyy (2025-07-17 20:49:30+00:00): residential=apartman etiketi yanlış. Onu kaldırdım. residental= etiketi landuse= için kullanılır.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169080324
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:residential
muralito (2025-07-18 11:35:26+00:00): Si claro, pero ya esta mapeada en esta via, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1415234761. Las cosas no se mapean dos veces. El nodo de la direccion se usa unicamente para la direccion.
jeslop (2025-07-21 15:12:28+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169249864
Gregory Peony (2025-07-17 20:42:11+00:00): Hi Anabel, You identified buildings in the imagery, well done. These footpritns however are not accurate due to their size and not being squared. Watch this video for an explanation and demo https://youtu.be/Xs5wX592E1o?feature=shared ---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/169077090
Gregory Peony (2025-07-17 20:42:53+00:00): The footpritns I flagged outline multiple buildings. Every footprint should represent an individual building.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169077090
Gregory Peony (2025-07-18 14:43:21+00:00): Hi Tania, it looks like you identified and added some likely highways in the imagery, but tagged them incorrectly. Please reference https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features and highway tag aftrca for how to tag highways in this region.--- The project you locked a task in #17823 requests the mapping of buildings; not highways. Therefore you are not required to add any highways as part of it, perhaps you could modify them if they caused data quality issues with features requested for mapping. Watch this video to see how to find porjects based on your interests https://youtu.be/XMtpZf9RoMc?feature=shared&t=862 ---Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Preserve the project hashtags when contributing to projects. See my resolution in Changeset: 169113177 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/169077423
Strubbl (2025-07-17 19:46:28+00:00): Hi ludwich, ich glaube, dass was du derzeit in Name reinschreibst, zB. DE07342, ist nicht der Eigenname von den Bäumen. Das gehört doch in den ref-Tag (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:ref).
ludwich (2025-07-24 13:02:25+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis. Ich werde nochmals prüfen, wie wir die "Monumentbäume" am besten so Taggen, dass Sie in einer "Tree"-Map landen. Es ist geplant 300 der Riesen zu fällen - deshalb sollten Sie dokumentiert werden (Umfang, Höhe, Krone, Genus werden gerade erfasst)
Beste Grüße ludwich
Đuro Jiří (2025-07-20 12:20:42+00:00): Čau Thartek, mužů vědět, proč jsi vrátil geometriju této budovy? Ve skutečnosti je to jedna budova a né dvě.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1137017756/history#map=19/48.994993/14.652828&layers=N
Đuro Jiří (2025-07-20 12:23:34+00:00): Nebo tato budova, vidíš tu geometriju?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/861042180
user_2061236 (2025-07-20 12:25:36+00:00): takto je to zaneseno v RUIAN
user_2061236 (2025-07-20 12:27:06+00:00): podle vseho to tak i odpovida zakladum budovy
Đuro Jiří (2025-07-20 12:27:25+00:00): Je to tam zakresleno špatně!!!!!
Đuro Jiří (2025-07-20 12:28:25+00:00): Osobně jsem to viděl,je to jenom jedna budova.
user_2061236 (2025-07-20 12:31:53+00:00): Ja ted pro overeni koukal na panoramu a jsou to dve budovy spojene strechou a a ta druha ma zed a na ni je pristresek, cili odpovida to RUIAN
Đuro Jiří (2025-07-20 12:38:32+00:00): Jestli tomu dobře rozumím,tak se mapují zdi a ne budovy.
user_2061236 (2025-07-20 12:39:32+00:00): a podle konvenci OSM se mapuji pudorysy budov
Đuro Jiří (2025-07-20 12:42:40+00:00): Promiň, ale toto je otázka, nebo odpověď?
user_2061236 (2025-07-20 13:07:54+00:00): konstatovani ze takto to odpovida konvencim OSM a je to spravne i podle RUIAN. Tj. "rozdelena budova" jsou ve skutecnosti garaz a obytny dum spojene strechou a ta "zed" u druheho domu odpovida pudorysu, to, ze je ten prazdny obdelnik zastreseny je druha vec
Đuro Jiří (2025-07-20 16:59:58+00:00): "takto to odpovida konvencim OSM" - ????
"takto je to zaneseno v RUIAN" , "cili odpovida to RUIAN" - toto je OpenStreetMap a ne RUIAN.
"to, ze je ten prazdny obdelnik zastreseny je druha vec" - ?????

Promiň mi, ale si na kanálu OSM Telegram, můžeme pokračovat tam?
View @openstreetmapcz
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building?uselang=hr
onovy (2025-07-20 19:03:55+00:00): Ahoj,

Tharteku, building reprezentuje __pudorys__ cele budovy. To ze je to pouze strecha se sloupkama neni podstatne. Pokud by platila tvoje premisa, tak bychom benzinky museli mapovat jako prazdno, protoze ty jsou pouze strecha.

Zadna konvence o kterech ty mluvis tedy neexistuje. V zadnem pripade neplati, ze mapujeme pouze zdi jak pises.
user_2061236 (2025-07-20 19:36:10+00:00): Benzinky se mapuji zpravidla jako budova, kde je prodej a building=roof, kde jsou stojany, Paklize pudorys znamena prumet strechy a ne rez budovou v 1 m vysky pak je 99 % budov v republice spatne a melz by se premapovat. Dam si tedy pauzu s mapovanim budov s pouzitim traceru a katastru, dokud tedy nebudou jasna pravidla a opravi se wiki (" buildings are better represented with their footprints"", totez v ceske mutaci)
Đuro Jiří (2025-07-20 19:44:11+00:00): Mislim, že si pleteš mapování budovy, jako budovy a mapování 3D budovy.
user_2061236 (2025-07-20 19:49:46+00:00): 3D a tvary strech jde mimo me. Ciste hypoteticky budu mit pudorys budovy ctverec 2 x 2 m a nem bude strecha 10 x 10 m, v katastru budou 2x2 m, jak se to bude mapovat?
user_2061236 (2025-07-20 19:53:21+00:00): Nebo budu mit 2 budovy s pudorysem 2x2 m 10 m od sebe a polozim na ne strechu, jsou to dve budovy nebo jedna, pudorys jsou dva ctverce 2x2 m 10 od sebe, na snimku jedna budova, v realite normalne prochozi
user_2061236 (2025-07-20 19:55:31+00:00): Tedy at je ve wiki napsano, obkreslujme strechy, tracer, katastr a RUIAN je jenom pomocny, zasadni je tvar strechy
onovy (2025-07-20 19:57:23+00:00): Pokud ta střecha není jenom pohozena, tak jedna budova se třemi :part.
Đuro Jiří (2025-07-20 19:57:45+00:00): Už si to nemyslím, už to vím, pleteš si to s 3D.

Když se přidružíš na Telegram,tak ti to ukážu.
onovy (2025-07-20 19:59:36+00:00): Či tři budovy co se dotykaji, ta prostřední building=roof. To už pak záleží jestli to vnímáš jako jednu budovu, nebo tři různé. V každém případě ale i ta část jenom střechy bude building.
user_2061236 (2025-07-20 20:05:36+00:00): Cili nemapujeme pudorys (ve wiki je treba opravit) ale prumet strechy
onovy (2025-07-20 20:14:34+00:00): Mapujeme půdorys budovy včetně střechy.
onovy (2025-07-20 20:15:36+00:00): I když, nebude to tak snadné. Pokud střecha precniva kousek přes okraj budovy, tak ji většinou nemapujeme.
user_2061236 (2025-07-20 20:21:29+00:00): Strecha a pudorys jsou dve rozdilne veci. Dle stavarske definice je pudorys rez budovou v 1 m vysky, to co ma RUIAN pokud ma rozumna data, obrys strechy je jeste minimalne o 1,5 m vys. Pudorys tedy nemapuje. Mapuje se tedy nejaky hypoteticky obvod s ohledem na celkovy obrys strechy?  Jde mi o nejaky jednotny postup, protoze mapovani obrysu strech typicky ve mestech vede k nesmyslne kolizi s chodnikem.
onovy (2025-07-20 20:27:50+00:00): Definici nemám a myslím že je vhodné přesunout diskuzi buďto na chat nebo mailing list, ať mohou názor vyjádřit I ostatní.
Đuro Jiří (2025-07-20 20:28:58+00:00): Na toto platí předchozí komentář.

Taková kuriozita, podle te stavarske definice,jak by se mapovala budova,co je na sloupech?
user_2061236 (2025-07-20 20:38:03+00:00): Ja to do wiki nenapsal. Pro me je treba nesmysl plot pripojeny ke strese. taky kuriozita. Mne to v zasade muze byt jedno. Ja mapuju podle wiki, ted to pro me taky neni zdroj, takze uz nemapuju a tim bych to uzavrel.
Đuro Jiří (2025-07-20 20:59:23+00:00): Wiki může opravit/přidat/smazat kdokoliv,to znamená že když poslední příspěvek je od někoho,kdo to tam napsal podle svého přesvědčení,....

OpenStreetMap je kolaborativního typu, když je ňaky problém,tak se ho společně snažíme  vyřešit. Nikdo neřekl, že já a onovy máme pravdu a ty ne. Tady jde o to, že mi to vidíme jinak, než ty a proto jsme ti navrhli,aby jsme to prodiskutovali i druhýmy.
user_2061236 (2025-07-20 21:09:09+00:00): Ale me to je uplne fuk, ja s lidma resim podobny nesmysly cely dny, ja to nechci delat zadarmo ve svym volnym case. Proberte si co chcete, kdy chcete, udelejte z toho vystup, na kterym se shodnete. Ja si nandam sluchatka, neco si pustim a budu si podle toho hodinu nebo dve kreslit, pro me to je relax.
SomeoneElse (2025-07-17 19:32:06+00:00): Odd though it sounds, we can't actually use wikipedia as a source for OSM as the licence is incompatible.
However, I'm sure that there are licence compatible sources (look at whatevev wikipedia used, for example) and also our of copyright sources (since I doubt that it has changed recently).
jeslop (2025-07-21 15:10:44+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169249773
b-jazz (2025-07-20 03:04:17+00:00): RE: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1415475862

When drawing golf course areas (such as greens, fairways, bunkers, tees, etc.), please be aware that the lines used to outline those areas can't cross over each other. Fairways outlines shouldn't cross over greens or bunerks or other fairways for example. Take a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Golf.png for an example of the "Wrong" way to map a fairway and a green. (The same can be said about fairways and bunkers, tees, roughs, etc.) There are some cases where a fringe exists around a green and you should draw the fairway outline completely around a green. Other times, the fairway and green butt up against each other. In that case the fairway and green should share the same nodes at the boundary between the two. If you could go back and clean up where you've made this mistake, that would be great. But more importantly, if you could stop from doing this in the future, it would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions about golf course mapping, feel free to reach out.
Yamski (2025-07-29 14:39:43+00:00): I will align the splines so they do not intersect.
felipeeugenio (2025-07-18 15:16:04+00:00): Hola. Buenos días. Sigues teniendo una confusión entre casas y predios y direcciones. Corregí las casas que acabas de agregar, pero estaban bien dibujadas y las cambiaste a predio, pero con el tag building=.

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169078339
jmarchon (2025-07-18 04:04:04+00:00): Welcome to OSM!
MxxCon (2025-07-17 21:23:00+00:00): Hello.
When you are buildings, you can right click on them and select "make square" to make it have right angles. Doing that will make your mapping look neater and more accurate to the real world.👍
Also it would be great if you added address for this building.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169079350
cappinghard (2025-07-17 21:37:17+00:00): Thank you for telling me.