piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
InsertUser (2024-12-08 01:40:41+00:00): Node 6101995487 looks like it was a tourism=aquarium added by someone without enough OSM experience. to know the correct tag. Are you saying that all 1.4k aquariums in the database should be summarily deleted?

Also all 65k natural=cave_entrance? (6006695609)

Have you been to both of these places to make sure they don't exist on the ground?
andrewsh (2024-12-09 09:01:49+00:00): There’s no need to put words into my mouth and make absurd statements like this. That object might have been a collateral (although I doubt it), but most of these objects were just personal notes on how to walk around the gates.
(Post office in a middle of a roundabout with name:en=Free entrance? Seriously?)
InsertUser (2024-12-09 12:34:10+00:00): The inevitable collateral of this sort of blind find and delete edit is one of the main reasons for the longstanding policy against this sort of slapdash mechanical edits.

Here you took genuine edits by people trying to improve things and instead of manually reviewing them to see what the correct tagging might be you have just done a find and delete on edits using words you don't like.

There are reasons for the policy against this.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
andrewsh (2024-12-09 13:04:30+00:00): Well, this wasn't an automated edit. I did check every object I deleted. I may have misjudged with the aquarium — or maybe not. I every other case I checked the actual object was nearby and tagged properly.
jxpsert (2024-12-07 18:16:51+00:00): Pardon, bron vergeten; PDOK luchtbeelden en de BGT!
woodpeck_repair (2024-12-10 15:20:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 160133779 where the changeset comment is: revert edits from blocked account, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16967 https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16954
Nathan_A_RF (2024-12-09 22:15:47+00:00): Please update maxspeed:type tags when updating maxspeed tags
jaap de vries (2025-02-11 09:02:54+00:00): Jasper,

Ik zie dat je brandgangetjes aangeeft in Oost. Let even op:
Hoe ze buiten gepositioneerd zijn, sommige hebben een poort dus pas is dan privé, of lopen onderdoor een gebouw geeft dit dan even aan. Of zijn niet toegankelijk van de weg.
HantDX (2024-12-07 20:54:55+00:00): Все здания отрисованы криво. В ID эдиторе выделяйте здания и нажимайте правую кнопку мышки и выбирайте Square либо же нажимайте 'Q'.
opendcc (2024-12-09 17:11:39+00:00): Node 12402917275: wurde vor drei Jahren gefällt.
rempshaener (2024-12-07 23:12:36+00:00): Hallo,
du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Ich bin über diesen Weg hier gestolpert: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/139749228
Ich vermute mal, der Editor meckerte, weil ein Weg und ein Gebäude sich schneiden? Das tun sie auch tatsächlich. Dadurch, dass das Ende des Weges (www.openstreetmap.org/node/2983113368 nicht auf dem Gebäudeumriss, sondern knapp im Gebäude liegt, liegt auch der Weg „im Gebäude“. Dafür dürftest du ziemlich nah ranzoomen müssen. Der Editor meckert jetzt nur nicht mehr, weil du durch das layer=1 suggerierst, der Weg läge auf dem Gebäude.
Heißt: layer=1 wieder runter und einfach den Eingang auf den Gebäudeumriss ziehen – fertig.
Bei Fragen gerne melden.
Viele Grüße
qwertzMA (2024-12-08 18:44:29+00:00): Danke dir für deine Hilfe!
Habe es angepasst.
Viele Grüße aus Mannheim
mappinglander (2024-12-08 13:21:42+00:00): İyi de yanlış değil ki, Tüneli girişinde açık şekilde belirtilmekte?..
ACGG (2024-12-08 18:18:38+00:00): Tünelin üstündeki yolları düzeltmeye çalışıyordum. Yanlışlık olmuş.
il Vaz (2025-04-20 15:01:14+00:00): Buongiorno, si richiede motivazione della chiusura.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-12-08 11:13:49+00:00): I'd avoid using 
access=employees. Not a popular tag unlikely to be understood by consumers. IMO access=private covers the usage good enough.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-12-08 11:17:28+00:00): You probably wanted to connect this to another path https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1340855959
ristik (2024-12-08 11:32:00+00:00): Thanks, fixed by 160053334
citrula (2024-12-10 03:21:42+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please use access tagging for private roads rather than removing them entirely.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160037992
jandar22 (2024-12-17 19:56:16+00:00): Please review your edited features and the extent of your changeset before saving. While it looks like the intent of this changeset was to add building footprints near Myrtle Beach, you also edited a couple service roads in Boalsburg, PA, and pulled a node far from its correct alignment, overlapping buildings and other roads. I'm sure this was unintentional and probably caused by panning around the map to browse before saving the changeset. Ways in question are: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/763190671; https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/763190673
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160038191
Hb- (2025-01-05 11:53:14+00:00): By creating the way1340858182 the two relations 7375629 and 1929070 were interrupted. Solved in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161017325
os-emmer (2025-01-11 15:31:10+00:00): Hallo qwertzMA,
du hast hier amenity=public_building in amenity=building=public umgeändert. Ich vermute, das sollte eigentlich building=public sein, oder? Kannst du da noch mal drüber gucken?
qwertzMA (2025-02-09 19:36:35+00:00): Danke dir für den Hinweis. Ja, da hatte ich die Anpassung nicht korrekt durchgeführt. Jetzt müsste es aber passen.
Filip009 (2024-12-08 20:01:49+00:00): Čo znamená lcn=provisional? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1340858812
Filip009 (2024-12-08 20:03:06+00:00): Sorry, otázka na zlého autora, až potom som si všimol, že to bolo aj na pôvodnej ceste.
Branko Kokanovic (2024-12-10 21:36:03+00:00): This is better set of changes, but please write meaningful comments.
---
Ovo su ok izmene, ali molim te piši smislenije komentare
brendan77 (2024-12-19 19:48:23+00:00): This changeset needs to be reverted due to bad data
brendan77 (2024-12-19 19:50:52+00:00): Reverted via changeset 160408437
jnighan (2024-12-19 20:08:29+00:00): Hi, what in the world does this mean? Thanks for giving me 3 minutes to respond before reverting my large changeset. I will seek intervention by the OSMF Data Working group if I don't hear from you soon.
brendan77 (2024-12-19 20:23:20+00:00): This changeset deleted buildings that do exist and added buildings that no longer exist
Mashin (2024-12-19 21:04:43+00:00): Hi Brendan,
can you be more specific. which still existing buildings got deleted?
I mostly see that information about churches got conflated onto building outlines and only a handfull of church POIs got deleted without replacement.
jnighan (2024-12-19 22:04:11+00:00): I only deleted church POIs after extensive internet searches and found no evidence of their existence. If a church building still exists, I moved POI data from the node to the building and added "was:..." tags to preserve the historical data.

I only delete buildings after comparing old and new satellite imagery and verified they no longer exist. Same goes for adding new buildings.

Please undo your revert on your own or I will do it soon. Thanks.
brendan77 (2024-12-19 22:16:55+00:00): Please do not undo my revert. Changest 160038445 replaced high quality ground truth data with lower quality data. For example way 1340858917 has not existed for over a year.

There is nothing wrong with doing large imports but you have to be very careful to make sure the data you are importing is correct.
jnighan (2024-12-19 22:24:39+00:00): What are you talking about? I did not import anything whatsoever.
jnighan (2024-12-19 22:33:48+00:00): By the way, reverting changesets 3 minutes after commenting on them is **probably** worse than me adding one building by mistake and you calling that an "import". Learn how to identify a bad import before reverting manual changesets people put effort into because you find one error and allow 3 minutes for it to be corrected. You need to give me more reasons why I shouldn't undo your revert and report this, or I will. Thanks.
jnighan (2024-12-19 22:35:13+00:00): And calling your edits "high quality" and "ground truth", and mine "low quality" doesn't count as a reason. Cheers.
brendan77 (2024-12-19 22:39:22+00:00): I'm not trying to start an argument. I saw that changeset 160038445 removed correct data and replaced it with outdated data so I reverted it assuming that you used some tool to do a mass import and you used outdated data.

Please do not undo my revert.
jnighan (2024-12-19 23:28:38+00:00): Can you name one more problem with my changeset? Even one more? Or did you see one error and decide to delete all my work. You had no basis to assume it was an import. Are you even a local mapper to this area? You edit all over the place. How did you come to find the one (1) building that I mistakenly added, misidentify a "mass" import, and undo all of it after only 3 minutes of commenting? I am not trying to "start an argument", I am giving you a chance to explain yourself--a critical part of good behavior on OpenStreetMap, and something you failed to do with me. I will start the process of undoing your revert tomorrow and reporting this if you don't have a better explanation.
brendan77 (2024-12-19 23:39:57+00:00): I saw that edits around the area that I’ve made over the past year had been rolled back and I traced it to this changeset. I assumed you did a mass import - I now realize that you didn’t, I’m sorry for making that assumption. If I had realized you made these changes manually I would have given you more time to reply to my original comment.

I do my very best to make sure I’m only adding high quality data to the map but if you look though my edit history hard enough I’m sure you will find mistakes and I’m happy to have those reverted. Adding bad data by accident is normal. I guarantee you that every OSM mapper with more than a few hundred edits has made at least 1 mistake, but undoing a revert because you want to prove a point crosses the line into vandalism.

This isn’t personal at all. I don’t know you and you don’t know me. You are just a screen name to me and we are both trying to improve the quality of the map.
Mashin (2024-12-20 07:41:50+00:00): @brendan77
Thanks for pointing out the mistakes. Could you perhaps go through the original changeset of jnighan again and list all the changes that you identified as wrong?

This way we could think of an approach that would bring back the good edits while avoiding repeating edits that are clearly wrong.
lakedistrict (2024-12-08 14:30:50+00:00): Hi, thanks for your mapping. Just wondering what level of checking you are doing and if you have surveyed/have local knowledge? 

For instance, you have changed cork to artificial grass in this changeset, which is incorrect and suggests you might not have checked previous changesets and comments on this object https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156687932 or checked the wikipage for surface=cork.

As another example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/198626878 has been changed to surface=asphalt, but the previous tagging suggests it is only partly asphalt. It might have been more helpful to remove the surface value entirely (or move it to a description) which would then prompt surveys and refinement in apps like StreetComplete. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/968877478 Could this also have meant timber rails? 

Messaging the original/previous mapper or leaving a map note might be a better approach where the actual surface value is less obvious/undocumented.

Thanks, and happy mapping :)
lakedistrict (2024-12-08 14:34:14+00:00): Actually, the slipway was tagged with a metal surface originally, and not timber: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/968877478/history :)
Simon Hobeck (2024-12-08 19:11:21+00:00): Hi, thanks for your helpful comments.
For this area marked as cork, I did check some photos of the area and I was trying to apply the best fitting value.  I have been looking at the wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface?uselang=en) but couldn't find any mention of Cork.

Similarly for the slip way - I was trying to use the values in the drop down so changed "Rails" to "Metal" as Rails was not on the wiki.

For the path that was "partly asphalt" I felt this was less useful than simply "asphalt".  However, I did consider removing the value entirely but felt this would be losing some information.  If this is better practice, I will happily do that.
I'm sorry if I've accidentally degraded the map - it certainly wasn't my intention. I'm still learning the conventions so any guidance is appreciated.
lakedistrict (2024-12-08 22:08:24+00:00): Hi, thank you for replying and for researching/considering the changes you are making. 

The wiki page for the cork tag is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:surface=cork although it doesn't seem to be linked from the surface values page. I've made some tweaks to the Castle courtyard in Lancaster in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160071618 to reflect this and previous discussions. 

I've also split the track in Millom in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160071000 and updated the track_type tagging for the section which looks to be asphalt, and removed the surface value from the section which doesn't look to be asphalt.
gurglypipe (2024-12-09 11:02:05+00:00): Heya, did you survey this in person? I remember trying quite hard to find a suitable surface value when I surveyed it, and as far as I remember, tartan wasn’t suitable. It was a while ago though
Simon Hobeck (2024-12-09 11:21:49+00:00): No, i didn't survey in person.  i was using images where i oculd.
I was tryngot replace the previous value of "Safety surface" with something generic and the guidelines (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface#Special_(sports,_etc.))
suggest that "Tartan" can be used as a generic name.
gurglypipe (2024-12-09 11:34:49+00:00): I would read that page as meaning ‘tartan’ can be used as a generic name for all branded running/athletics surfaces — but this is a multi-use games area. Its surface could as easily be acrylic, plastic or perhaps clay.
Simon Hobeck (2024-12-09 11:38:59+00:00): Ok, should I change it back to the previous value (I tihnk it was something like "safety surface")
Or try a different generic value?

Perhaps this is a more fundamental principle on whether values should aim to fit within the default values or be hyper tailorered.

I was using MapRoulette which suggest that rare values maybe less useful (presumably for different apps that consume the data).

What would you suggest? i'm happy to be guided.
gurglypipe (2024-12-09 11:54:14+00:00): I’ll add a note to the map to promote a re-survey and hopefully someone will go and take another closer at the surface soon.

Yes, there is a bit of a fundamental tension here. Data consumers want a restricted set of well-defined values for things, but unfortunately the real world has a long tail of odd ways of building things which won’t fit within that set. For an area like Lancaster which has had a reasonable amount of QA done on its map already, the rare surface values that remain are probably there for a good reason.

Personally I think that MapRoulette tasks like this one should only be used to fix obvious typos in surfaces. Anything more than that needs an in-person survey to check what the original mapper meant with their tagging. It can be quite hard to decide between “was the original mapper aware of this other, more standard, surface tag, and they deliberately didn’t choose it for some reason; or were they unaware of it and would have used it if they’d known about it?”.

There’s some discussion of this topic on the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like

Anyway, thanks again for your work on improving the map. I see a number of your MapRoulette edits in the area I’m interested in, and most of them have been obvious and welcome improvements. :D
Simon Hobeck (2024-12-09 12:24:04+00:00): Thanks - I am genuinly keen to help improve the map . I have hit exactly that scenario you describe.  The MapRoulette task shows a sequence of rare values for surfaces - most of which are typos or obvious mistakes and then you encounter a value which could be a mistake, or missing something and its so hard to tell, especially whne in the headspace that most previous entries were errors.
I'm pleased the other changes have been useful (As i hoped).
gurglypipe (2024-12-11 14:18:38+00:00): I surveyed it today and I think it’s more like surface=rubber than surface=tartan, so I changed it to that in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160170824
eggie (2024-12-07 21:08:28+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback.. In OSM taggen we bij op de adresnodes.. Dus geen adres en bedrijfsinfoe toevoegen aan de gebouwomtrek.

MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-12-07 21:14:39+00:00): reverted by changeset #160039960

De apotheek is al ergens ander gemapt op de adresnode Ekingenstraat 21 . Dat is overigens ergens anders.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-12-07 21:17:00+00:00): Zie https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.356099/4.796986
Het zijn ook wel verwarrende straatnamen hier. 
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-12-07 21:23:29+00:00): Dag Mister Fryslan...  name=Voetbal pleintje met 2 goals. Praamsmalaam (spelling?)
heb ik verwijderd. We gebruiken geen name=... om iets te beschrijven. Bovendien zal het veldje geen naam hebben.
Sommige Cruyff courts dan weer wel. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-12-07 21:25:16+00:00): Veldje staat nu op vlak zonder naam.
Groet
eggie
Mister_Fryslan (2024-12-12 15:54:43+00:00): Goedemiddag Eggie,

Excuus dat ik het fout heb gedaan. Fijn dat het hen gecorrigeerd.

Besef dat mijn fouten je werk bezorgen. Voor nu hou ik het bij de zit bankjes, speeltuintjes en monumenten zoals buste en beelden. Hier in de buurt. Die nog niet in kaart zijn gebracht. 

mvg Mister Fryslan
eggie (2024-12-12 16:18:50+00:00): Hoi,

Houd je niet in.
Dat screenen hoort er gewoon bij en de opmerkingen zijn voor jou ter Leering ende Vermaeck om een goede mapper te worden.

Mapse,
eggie
Harvesterify (2024-12-07 20:34:22+00:00): Added using trace taken by car (cf. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Harvesterify/traces/11703051)
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-12-08 02:49:24+00:00): vandalism reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160044678
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-12-08 02:58:45+00:00): deletions reverted. Please modify existing data instead of deleting to add later unless the feature no longer exists.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160044755
infeeeee (2024-12-08 22:06:42+00:00): Szia! Üdv az OpenStreetMapen! Ezzel ország-világ számára megosztottad hol laksz, letörlöm inkább.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160071791
Piskvor (2024-12-09 15:40:08+00:00): Zdravím,

to vypadá dobře, díky za doplnění  mapy :)

Jen pro upřesnění - z ulice Nad Lomem se do Jasné I nedá dostat? Předpokládám, že kvůli výškovému rozdílu?

Díky,
Piskvor
simacekjakub (2024-12-09 15:48:53+00:00): Dobré odpoledne, díky. Ano, je tam výškový rozdíl, ale teď koukám, že v mapě chybí schody. Doplním.
simacekjakub (2024-12-09 15:52:29+00:00): A ano, pěšky to projít jde. Je to přes soukromý pozemek, ale přístupný a otevřený.
Piskvor (2024-12-09 18:28:10+00:00): Tak to bude skvělé, já si jen z leteckých snímků schodů nevšiml. Pokud jsou ty schody přes soukromý pozemek, ale obvykle se přes ně dá chodit, možná by stálo za to jim dát access=permissive (nejsem si jist, jak je to v češtině, pokud to nenajdete, nevadí).

Mapování zdar!
simacekjakub (2024-12-09 21:43:47+00:00): Udělal jsem. Tohle byly moje první úpravy v OSM, tak jsem raději požádal o prohlédnutí. Díky za pomoc!
Glassman (2024-12-09 03:25:36+00:00): Instead of connecting the path to the parking lot, it's better to connect it to the road to allow routing to the final destination. Can you fix?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160039958
NorthCrab_upload (2024-12-07 21:30:57+00:00): 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/12403341765

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
bluvel (2024-12-08 11:22:28+00:00): Sprawdziłem kilka źródeł i katalogów firm, a także przejrzałem alternatywne mapy (Apple Maps, Google Maps).

Wszędzie podawany jest ten sam adres:
Żytowań 35,
66-620, Żytowań

Mogę też potwierdzić na podstawie kilku osobistych ankiet, że znajduje się tam gospodarstwo agroturystyczne.

Źródła:
https://teraz-otwarte.pl/zytowan/agrolech-gospodarstwo-agroturystyczne-2118401
https://www.cylex-polska.pl/firmy/agrolech---gospodarstwo-agroturystyczne-13641110.html
https://www.facebook.com/agrolech/

(Translated with Deepl)
bluvel (2024-12-08 11:27:30+00:00): również stacja benzynowa obok agrolech ma adres

Żytowań 36,
66-620, Żytowań

(Translated with Deepl)
NorthCrab (2024-12-08 13:26:38+00:00): Hello, seems like it should be addr:place=Żytowań with city/street tags removed - tagging for addresses without street names.
eggie (2024-12-07 21:44:26+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Alle begin is moeilijk. Dit zijn je tags 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=160040186

Je pad heeft geen highwaytag
bv highway=path
Wanneeer je er mag lopen dan kun je foot=yes toevoegen en evt bicycle yes of no..
Het pad zit nu vast aan de landuse=forest net als de track waar het begint.
Wat is het voor een weg? Een bosweg highway=track of een paadje highway=path

MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-12-07 21:49:06+00:00): Het  'pad ?' heb ik losgemaakt van de landuse forest.
Nu nog de juiste highway= tag.
eggie (2024-12-07 21:59:22+00:00): Aangepast naar highway=path
Groet
eggie
FoundOnTrail (2024-12-08 19:10:33+00:00): Bedankt voor het welkomstbericht. highway=path is de juiste keuze dan inderdaad.
literan (2024-12-08 11:58:21+00:00): судя по снимкам, 80% этой территории не покрыто деревьями. Так делать не стоит
mcliquid (2024-12-09 11:34:48+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please note for the future: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:
• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
• keep changes within the same country
• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
mcliquid (2024-12-09 11:34:56+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please note for the future: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:
• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
• keep changes within the same country
• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
Glassman (2024-12-09 03:23:28+00:00): what is unpaved=pathway tag? I could not find it in the wiki.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160040809
A67-A67 (2024-12-08 00:01:51+00:00): In deze wijziging wordt de stop-positie bij halte Leiden Centraal verwijderd. Ik heb deze weer hersteld.
Harvesterify (2024-12-08 12:50:01+00:00): Thank you, I don't know why Relatify keeps removing it, I'll check more in depth the root cause