piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-12 15:31:01+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12995965919

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-07-12 18:52:01+00:00): Hello, why did you downgrade this portion of Lake Mead Parkway to primary? Just west of the intersection is a sign labeled "EXIT ONLY," implying that the road is a freeway rather than an arterial road.
Joseph R P (2025-07-13 18:12:56+00:00): It's may sound trivial, but I tagged it to as primary to match the rest of the road since this is the last ramp to intersect Lake Mead Parkway before it merges with the Beltway. This is the same logic used for the other side of the road but in reverse (where Lake Mead Parkway meets the I 11 N to 564 E ramp). Technically, traffic going from west 564 to I 11 south isn't entering a short freeway before turning onto a completely different highway, but traffic that goes straight does, as that's a mainline highway segment (of Lake Mead Parkway/564) that directly merges with another freeway with no actual ramps.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-07-13 19:19:41+00:00): Alrighty then. I'll change it back.
NeisReview (2025-07-13 08:11:22+00:00): #DeletionsCheck

Hi, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed many of your changes in this set involve deletions.

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

Looking forward to your response.
Gwenedad (2025-07-17 16:12:02+00:00): Hello, these deletions are intentional. Buildings, roads, parking lots... have all been razed to the ground. They formed a neighborhood that the municipality wished to demolish in order to rebuild something new. You can check the aerial imagery directly. Let me know if I've done anything wrong, like deleting the addr:housenumber for example. I'm still new to OSM. Thanks in advance
NeisReview (2025-07-18 04:25:09+00:00): 👍 Thank you for your reply and confirming that your deletions were intentional.

#HappyMapping
user_5359 (2025-07-13 15:20:43+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please have a look on  https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key%3Atactile_paving for better notation. 

Please notice also the difference between name and description ("Blind People Path Edge 1" is a description!)

Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1414281785. What is the difference between the key "pavement Type" and "pavement type"?

If you need help: You are welcome!
Leo Slager (2025-07-14 10:41:22+00:00): Also see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_for_the_blind
Leo Slager (2025-07-14 11:38:01+00:00): Please give a reaction in the Dutch forum:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/osm-voor-blinden-en-slechtzienden/132685
evgenykatyshev (2025-07-23 14:31:45+00:00): I reverted these edits because they included deletion of existing objects which cause some issues in iD velifator. This revertion is apprived by local Geogian community

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169348212
silversurfer83 (2025-07-13 12:29:35+00:00): Hi there

any reason why you changed https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268486847 from railway=stop to railway=station?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168842961
Natsu_ (2025-07-12 16:18:43+00:00): 公共汽车208路(惠州市)更新。
joel56dt (2025-07-12 20:56:58+00:00): Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap. Can you move this node to its correct location? You have placed it in the middle of a sidewalk.

Thanks,
Joel
flohoff (2025-07-12 19:53:23+00:00): Moin,
ich habe hier deinen changeset gesehen. 

Wenn du highway=give_way oder stop als note in den way rein machst, macht es sinn da auch ein direction=forward/backward - also die richtung in die das Schild gilt relativ zur richtung des weges mit zu taggen.

Nur so als hint.

Flo
AndreaDp271 (2025-07-28 09:32:30+00:00): Thank you for your contribution but try to make smaller changeset areas. Thank you. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168843862
berndw (2025-07-12 17:01:41+00:00): Typo Vz 240 ;-)
IvanGrishko (2025-07-15 09:04:54+00:00): Что за проспект им. Шевцовой?
Нет здесь никаких дублёров проспекта Комарова.
Никакой информации о планах строительства подобного не нашёл.
На основа каких данных были сделаны эти правки?
berndw (2025-07-12 17:01:24+00:00): Typo Vz 240
jeslop (2025-07-21 15:42:12+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169251376
aceman444 (2026-03-14 15:28:01+00:00): Zdravim, s akymi ostatnymi mestami to zjednocujete? A podla coho by to malo byt spravne?
Bilykralik16 (2026-03-20 09:56:46+00:00): Namátkou třeba Praha, Brno, Paříž, Berlín... Ohledně správnosti dle OSM wiki: place=town pro města, place=suburb pro jeho velké oblasti s názvem a vlastní identitou, dále place=quarter pro "menší" části města, které nemusejí být správními celky.
aceman444 (2026-03-22 21:25:35+00:00): No pokial viem ani v Prahe v tom nemate jasno, vedu sa diskusie na akej administrativnej urovni su jednotlive casti. Mestske casti Bratislavy maju statut mesta/obce maju aj take pravomoci (okrem nejakych, ktore ma magistrat). Vsimnite si aj tag city_id na tych bodoch (teda maju od statu identifikator obce). Takze ked pisete place=town pre mesta, bolo to spravne pred Vasou zmenou, su to samospravne celky (https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestsk%C3%A1_%C4%8Das%C5%A5). Ano, nie vzdy to tak aj ludia beru a chapu Bratislavu ako jedno mesto/celok. Ale ak chcete navrhnut takuto zmenu, mali by ste ju naprv prediskutovat na slovenskom OSM fore. To, ze to nejak maju v nejakom inom meste v zahranici nic neznamena.
jeslop (2025-07-21 15:39:10+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169251249
dieterdreist (2026-02-15 22:00:11+00:00): Hi, what are your sources for this edit?
happilymappingrway (2026-02-15 22:52:19+00:00): The names on the buildings, the tags on buildings and sports areas and street level photos indicate school grounds.
fmc_1 (2026-02-16 06:30:45+00:00): I see, actually I have been there lately, there is a school but only in the south western corner, the rest is the oratorio San Paolo and the collegio Beda.
NeisBot (2025-07-12 17:48:42+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
JVSRamos (2025-07-12 18:30:00+00:00): No problem, I'll revise the description.
NeisReview (2025-07-18 05:33:30+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element https://osm.org/changeset/168847999
Matt McCutchen (2025-07-12 17:50:08+00:00): Oops, the source should also include "Esri World Imagery" for confirmation of the approximate location.
bxl-forever (2025-07-14 10:39:57+00:00): Your edit unfortunately damaged some building outlines.

Please do not trace buildings from (distorted) aerial imagery.

In Belgium, buildings should follow numerical imagery provided by governments.  For Wallonia, the available layer is SPW(allonie) PICC numerical imagery.  Please use only this one.

Happy mapping!
iamMY (2026-03-23 19:58:31+00:00): Hi, Please add the name tag to the road. Otherwise it didn't render the name of the road.
Vis_M (2026-03-29 19:28:50+00:00): Hi, yes, I do add whenever possible.
grzegorz75jan (2025-07-12 18:46:21+00:00): Dzięki ci dobry człowieku.
W końcu wlazłem na ten przystanek albo on na mnie i zrobiłem foty.

Nim bym sam zgłębił czy ma być z 04 czy bez to by zeszło z tydzień. Wiem, że gdzieś widziałem jakieś wskazówki czy dodawać cyferki i z czego faktycznie brać nazwy ale zapomniałem no i na przystanku jedno a na rozkładach różnie i pewnie dodał bym parę znaczników mniej nie mówiąc o miejscu zatrzymania.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168847807
Udarian (2025-07-12 20:55:06+00:00): please don't duplicate data next time, the business has already been moved into the building, please check before duplicating next time.
Sylabowy Kot (2025-07-14 19:02:42+00:00): Tak lokalne zmiany lepiej opisywać po polsku, a przynajmniej źródło, bo tak przetłumaczone trudniej znaleźć - uchwała jest po polsku, więc nawet obcokrajowcowi było by na rękę mieć szybciej inputa po którym znajdzie uchwałę, którą to dopiero sobie przetłumaczy jak chce.
AndersAndersson (2025-07-15 22:26:20+00:00): Det står med på denna sida. Är det något jag missar?
https://vallasen.se/ledkarta
archie (2025-07-16 07:07:40+00:00): "Loas Gröna" som väg-/gatunamn har inte kunnat verifieras. 
Men det finns en vandringsled med det namnet: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18910827
AndersAndersson (2025-07-17 21:35:26+00:00): Ok, då är jag med. Tack för svar!
mueschel (2025-07-13 15:19:26+00:00): Hi,
why did you delete a dental office here?

The amount of edits all across the US looks like some commercial project.

Please read and follow the 
https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
and the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
Baloo Uriza (2025-07-14 13:16:44+00:00): Full street names are expected without abbrevation, also description tag is not an appropriate venue for ad copy.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168848663
Nzau (2025-07-25 19:20:14+00:00): Salut TheFighter137,
J'espère que tu vas bien ? 
Je viens de voir que tu avais ajouté quelques "bicycle=designated" sur des routes classiques avec des itinéraires cyclables.

Pour info, c'est une mauvaise pratique, ducoup je vais enlever ces tags. La relation a elle seule suffit largement pour indiquer qu'il y a un itinéraire cyclable. 

"bicycle=designated" est vraiment dédié aux routes dédiées et conçu principalement/uniquement pour les vélos. 
Par défaut, les highway classiques ont bicycle=yes d'impliqué, pas besoin de renforcer cela ^^

Sinon nous serions obligé de mettre motor_vehicule sur tous les highway :/ 

Une discussion sur le forum : https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/bicycle-designated-ou-cycleway-shared-lane/25975/20?u=nzau

La page wiki sur bicycle=designated : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:bicycle%3Ddesignated

Au plaisir d'en discuter ^^
TheFighter137 (2025-07-25 19:50:30+00:00): Bonsoir, je vais bien merci.
Si cette pratique est mauvaise, dans ce cas il faudrait modifier la page wiki à propos de la signalisation routière française : il y est indiqué à côté du panneau d'indication "Partagez la route" de renseigner bicycle=designated sur les axes concernés.
Nzau (2025-07-25 19:55:22+00:00): Tu parles de cette page ? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Signalisation_routi%C3%A8re_en_France

Je n'ai rien trouvé sur le panneau "Partagez la route" ?
TheFighter137 (2025-07-25 20:00:04+00:00): Erratum, voilà la section fautive
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bicycle#Partageons_la_route
Nzau (2025-07-25 20:08:15+00:00): Merci pour la référence ! 
Effectivement je ne connaissais pas cela, mais je pense que ce n'est vraiment pas le plus adapté (il s'agit uniquement d'un panneau, rien pour protéger les cyclistes donc rien de conçu pour eux...).
Surtout que le panneau C50 ne donne aucune priorité pour les cyclistes...

Peut-être plutot mettre cycleway=shared + cycleway:lane=FR:C50, qu'en penses-tu ? 

D'ailleurs, cette partie a été ajoutée le mois dernier, et je ne sais pas si cela a vraiment été discuté :/
TheFighter137 (2025-07-25 20:15:51+00:00): Ton point sur l'absence totale de séparation physique ou virtuelle par marquage au sol est important, je pense par conséquent qu'il faut simplement mettre cycleway=no : les relations des véloroutes sont suffisantes comme tu l'as indiqué, et cycleway=shared est apparemment obsolète (la discussion dans le forum est toujours envisageable bien sûr).
Qui plus est, ces panneaux semblent avoir été créés uniquement pour celles-ci, n'ayant vu aucun C50 autre part.
Nzau (2025-07-25 20:25:40+00:00): Oui, tu as raison pour cycleway=shared, en fait je pensais à cycleway=shared_lane ^^
Mais cycleway=no semble être la bonne solution pour bien représenter le terrain.

Les C50 semblent servir pour tout et rien : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panneau_routier_d%27indications_diverses_en_France

Par contre, on peut ajouter "traffic_sign=FR:C50[Partageons la route]

Cela permet de retrouver facilement les routes avec ce type de panneau, et pourquoi pas les mettre en avant dans les routeurs type Geovelo.

Merci pour tes réponses rapides et ton aide sur le sujet ^^
Nzau (2025-07-25 20:55:58+00:00): Je viens de mettre à jour le wiki en ce sens, et je viens de faire les modifs sur tes routes.

J'espère que cela conviendra ^^
Bonne soirée
TheFighter137 (2025-07-26 06:11:18+00:00): Yes, merci toi aussi (même si c'est déjà passé)
Kovoschiz (2025-07-13 03:13:05+00:00): This might have been discussed before. The NE section connects Kam Tin Rd and Kam Seung Rd, sorta forming a ring road around the airport. SW section connects Kam Tin S with them. It's rather discussed whether Kam Ho Rd should be promoted to `=secondary`
vectorial8192 (2025-07-13 03:49:25+00:00): I also vaguely remember there might be relevant discussions before.

With this section of road having `share_taxi=no`, perhaps the ring outside the airport is not intended. (iirc this road was made just to connect to the newly opened railway station, and is therefore quite local).

But we can revisit this when Kam Ho Road widening is complete.
kingkingHK (2025-10-08 14:06:30+00:00): Hi there, the Kam Ho Road widening is largely complete, so you might be interested in revisiting this.
vectorial8192 (2025-10-08 15:00:11+00:00): Good to know.

With the share_taxi situation, I am inclined to just make Kam Ho Road `=secondary` from Kam TIn Bypass to Pat Heung Road and finish.
vectorial8192 (2025-10-09 15:42:17+00:00): Actually, upon further review, it turns out Kam Ho Road also has share_taxi=no.

So, seeing Tung Hui Road has `=tertiary`, I think it's reasonable to expect Kam Ho Road to also have `=tertiary`. No actions will be taken.
kingkingHK (2025-10-10 12:30:19+00:00): > Actually, upon further review, it turns out Kam Ho Road also has share_taxi=no.

But that only means Kam Ho Road and Tung Wui Road should get the same classification, and does not imply anything about what the classification is, right? After all, the whole point of this discussion initially was to decide whether Tung Wui Road is `=secondary` or `=tertiary`.

Imho just the fact that Kam Ho Road and Tung Wui Road provides access to Kam Sheung Road Station should be enough to justify `=secondary`. KSR station (alongside with the bus terminus and park & ride) basically gives indirect railway access to the entire Kam Tin/Pat Heung plain, and perhaps the villages along CPR-Tam Mi too. It's similar to how Pat Heung Road gets `=secondary`, presumably due to the connection with Tai Lam Tunnel.
vectorial8192 (2025-10-11 07:59:22+00:00): See "Big Three of Shatin" (Tai Wai, Sha Tin and Fo Tan) all only has `highway=tertiary` to connect to them. There are more similar examples.

CPR (Ko Po - Ngau Tam Mei) tends to use Yuen Long Station instead. (See KMB 76K, and the many minibus routes.) Northern Link (construction is starting) is reducing importance of KSR station in terms of actual passenger in-out count via KSR station; would go in/out at Northern Link stations instead.

I understand Pat Heung Road gets `=secondary` because it needs to connect with Kam Sheung Road, which is itself uncontested `=secondary`.

imo this is OK-convincing but not ultra convincing, but perhaps @Kovoschiz may have something to say?
vectorial8192 (2025-10-11 08:05:55+00:00): afaik in rural context, `highway=secondary` must have some sort of cross-district capability (e.g. Kam Tin Road, etc.). I don't see Kam Ho Road has this.

But, we might in another occasion consider promoting Kam Ho Road separately with justification as "Grand Mayfair wants access to Route 3", just as how some time ago Sai Sha Road got partial-promoted to `highway=primary` with justification "Sierra Sea et-al is big & has improved road works".
kingkingHK (2025-10-11 14:13:31+00:00): > See "Big Three of Shatin" (Tai Wai, Sha Tin and Fo Tan) all only has `highway=tertiary` to connect to them.

Which roads specifically are you talking about?

> CPR (Ko Po - Ngau Tam Mei) tends to use Yuen Long Station instead. (See KMB 76K, and the many minibus routes.)

I think public transport go to Yuen Long only because it's a major town whereas KSR station is basically in the middle of nowhere. As for private cars, Yuen Long does not have park and ride facilities, does it? And even if it does, it would probably still be less attractive due to the congestion in Yuen Long and the higher parking fees from a busier location.

And even if CPR does indeed prefer Yuen Long, Kam Tin and Pat Heung still have enough population to justify a `=secondary`. Pat Heung Road doesn't serve CPR nor Kam TIn (due to the Kam Tin ramp on Route 3), but it's still `=secondary`.

> Northern Link (construction is starting) is reducing importance of KSR station in terms of actual passenger in-out count via KSR station; would go in/out at Northern Link stations instead.

I don't understand this sentence at all. How does Northern Link (transfer passengers) affect in-out count? The only station whose in-out count might be affected would probably be Yuen Long due to the B1, 64K, etc. Or are you saying that fewer people would drive from CPR to KSR because they could have taken the train instead? But didn't you just say that CPR is going to Yuen Long?

> afaik in rural context, `highway=secondary` must have some sort of cross-district capability (e.g. Kam Tin Road, etc.). I don't see Kam Ho Road has this.

Given the PTI and park & ride at KSR, it's pretty clear that cross-modal transfer is encouraged and/or popular. Then, the West Rail can simply be seen as an alternative to Route 3, being cross-district. When Tung Wui Road and Kam Ho Road are the only ways to access KSR Station, they can be seen as an extension of the West Rail, which is cross-district, making Tung Wui Road and Kam Ho Roads themselves cross-district. This is practically quite similar to the "no change in highway classification without junction" rule: when you consider the rather remote location of KSR station, most people (except perhaps the residents of the new developments) using it are probably continuing their journey (using Tung Wui or Kam Ho roads) anyway, so the cross-districtness of the West Rail can be inherited to the roads.
vectorial8192 (2025-10-11 14:50:00+00:00): I feel like this is increasingly indicating KSR station does not fit (my) existing mental models, and the station might belong to a new category of station that contains only itself: rural stations.

KSR station is built in an area with a lack of any high-density development / any new town development. Quite rural. Other theoretical "rural" stations simply don't exist (e.g. Kwu Tung, Hung Shui Kiu, etc.) or no longer exist (e.g. Tai Po Kau). We might simply have no precedents for this.

In basically every other railway station in HK, the railway station itself doesn't suddenly cause nearby roads to promote towards primary/secondary; the nearby roads *are* already primary/secondary by themselves, regardless of whether the station exists, let alone whether park-and-ride exists.
vectorial8192 (2025-10-11 14:52:46+00:00): Also, I have no idea whether the Kam Sheung Road park-and-ride is part of KCR's original plans, or something the MTR is actively promoting after their takeover.
vectorial8192 (2025-10-11 14:54:59+00:00): Actually, looking at recent news, it seems to me the park-and-ride aspect/attractiveness is being diminished:

e.g.

https://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/article/20250828/s00002/1756317494666/%E6%B8%AF%E9%90%B5%E6%B3%8A%E8%BB%8A%E8%BD%89%E4%B9%98%E5%84%AA%E6%83%A0-%E6%92%A4%E6%97%A5%E6%B3%8A%E5%B0%81%E9%A0%82%E6%94%B6%E8%B2%BB%E8%AE%8A%E7%9B%B8%E5%8A%A0%E5%83%B9-%E9%8C%A6%E4%B8%8A%E8%B7%AF%E7%AB%99%E6%96%B0%E5%81%9C%E8%BB%8A%E5%A0%B4%E6%8C%89%E6%99%82%E8%B2%B43%E5%80%8D
gscholz (2025-12-10 06:44:45+00:00): Hi serjiosann,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=37.28417&lat=46.92550&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Obviously the beach cannot be rendered on the maps any longer.

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2026-01-03 09:13:56+00:00): Hi serjiosann, 
this error still exits, can I get your feedback here?
Guido
NeisReview (2025-07-13 08:09:33+00:00): #golf #mapping
b-jazz (2025-07-13 15:13:31+00:00): @NeisReview: what is the purpose of your changeset comment? It doesn't provide any value afaict.
NeisReview (2025-07-13 16:24:08+00:00): @b-jazz: The hashtags I use reflect, to some extent, a changeset comment.

Unfortunately, the contributor of this changeset did not see any sense or purpose in leaving a comprehensible description. If you look at the changes in the changeset, you’ll see many deletions and a redrawing of the removed objects: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=168849710

The goal is presumably a better representation of the golf course in a game or something similar. This type of changeset occurs more frequently in the winter. New members delete already mapped golf courses and their features, and then redraw the objects — more or less accurately (with more detail). Unfortunately, most of them do not improve the existing objects and also remove their history.

In the past, I often asked contributors not to simply delete but to revise instead. I now use hashtags as a flag to indicate that I have reviewed the changeset and that it falls into this category. So I completely understand why you're asking.

Best regards,
Pascal
b-jazz (2025-07-14 14:45:23+00:00): Hey Pascal! Wasn't sure this was you or not. Love your tools!

I agree with everything you say. I'm a "mega active" mapper, mostly due to golf course cleanup over the last few years. I was already cleaning up the edits from the user and noticed your comments. I didn't see any "call to action", so I wasn't sure if it was intended for the mapper of this particular changeset or a trigger for others to look into it. Sounds like it is that latter.

Is there some coordinated effort that chases down these tags? I'd love to know about that if so.

Thanks.
pitscheplatsch (2025-07-17 06:51:30+00:00): Hi b-jazz, thank you very much for your feedback.

Yes, just a single hashtag from me as a comment is certainly not ideal, I should handle that differently in the future. 

In this case, however, I don't believe any further action is necessary. I'm not aware of any major effort otherwise that is focused on the tags.

Best regards, Pascal