piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
robby_rumble (2024-04-04 17:15:54+00:00): Hi Kris, I'm reaching out to better understand these edits to the Weber spur.

Specifically, I'd like to understand why you chose the Edens as the dividing line for restricted access. Especially as the jersey barriers you referenced to justify this edit are located in LaBagh Woods.

If you think the entire Weber Spur should be marked off-limits I'm happy to have that discussion, but using the Edens as the demarcation point feels completely arbitrary.
Kris Lucius (2024-04-04 17:56:23+00:00): Oh wow, this is the first time I've ever had interaction on here, happy to know someone is reviewing these things--i try to leave very descriptive comments because I'm never confident that what I'm doing on here is correct protocol.

Why I stopped my edits at the Edens I honestly do not recall, could've just been a natural break in the geometry and I didn't realize i didn't have the others selected. But my main thinking is that I know that Union Pacific is anything but "permissive" in the true sense of the word. I know they don't actively suppress access, especially between NBT and Devon, but the jersey barriers are a fairly recent addition (they aren't there in my 2014 and 2015 photos). But if you think there is a more correct designation I totally defer to you, but I'd love an explanation of your thinking so I can better learn the nuance of these things among more established Open Street Mappers.
SK53 (2024-01-26 20:59:00+00:00): Can you explain what "communising ..." means?
zorque (2024-01-26 22:25:54+00:00): I'm trying to 'communise' concurrent variations of [addr:city], [addr:suburb], [addr:village],[addr:place] into [addr:city][addr:suburb] where city is a UK posttown, if this is the dominant variation.
SK53 (2024-01-27 00:14:23+00:00): There is a danger that you break some data with this approach and particularly so with values of addr:place which should be used in a separate way from addr:suburb etc. Changing an addr:place to addr:suburb in my view will change the semantics. (Further, the actual semantics of addr:suburb have changed over time so that you may be obscuring such differences).

You really need to document the approach you are using and discuss it on talk-gb. I take it that you have some lists of inconsistencies: I think sharing these would be generally valuable.

Jerry aka SK53
crushtheserpent (2024-01-20 00:14:40+00:00): I also edited East 26th Street: I downgraded the portion of it inside an active rail yard to a service road, made that portion private, and adjusted its road geometry
emersonveenstra (2024-01-22 14:44:51+00:00): Hi there,

did you mean to tag https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/962941810 as a whitewater=rapids?
mikeocool (2024-01-22 16:04:46+00:00): Ahh -- the whitewater wiki page does not make it clear that that's the desired tagging https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Whitewater_sports -- though it definitely has a lot more usage than just a whitewater:rapid_grade tag.

Will go ahead and add it, thanks!
emersonveenstra (2024-01-25 12:53:53+00:00): Thank you!
Xvtn (2024-01-24 16:05:57+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. In this case, this trail is tagged as a downhill piste, aka a route a downhill skier might take. (No summertime trail visibility is necessary for that.) Given that, are you sure the deletion is correct?
Let me know what you think! Thanks for your contribution, and welcome again!
Rexreator (2024-01-24 16:22:50+00:00): Hey I'm not sure what trail you are referring to as I have redone the entire ski map at CMC.  I work there so I am sure my edits are accurate as I travel this land every day.  Thanks for taking a look though and thanks for taking time to reach out.  How long does it usually take for the base map to update?
Xvtn (2024-01-24 16:52:40+00:00): In this changeset, you deleted a piste way called Cowpuncher. You won't be able to see it now because of that.
That's great to hear that you work here, I'm sure you have some really valuable map info for the area! For map updates, it depends. If you mean the openstreetmap.org "standard" map, it's usually pretty quick, like 5 mins max. (You might need to clear your browser's cache, ie ctrl+f5, to get the updated tiles.)
If you're looking at other maps that use OSM data, it can vary wildly depending on their systems. Anywhere from hours to months.
Xvtn (2024-01-24 16:58:36+00:00): While looking around the area, I noticed a couple other issues: Cascade Cat Rd is tagged as a tramway, not a road. Also, the all-caps name tagging might look good to some people, but unless it's an acronym or something, things shouldn't be tagged that way. It's considered tagging for the renderer: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Lmk if that makes sense. If you don't feel like fixing that stuff, I'm happy to - I love editing OSM! Lol.
paunofu (2024-01-22 07:06:24+00:00): Bon dia,

Aunque si bien el nombre del municipio ha cambiado, solamente ha cambiado su etiqueta name, pasando de la forma única en castellano a la forma única en valenciano. Para que el topónimo en castellano cambie a la forma valenciana se tiene que considerar en desuso por la RAE, universidades y demás autoridades lingüísticas.

Si no hay ningún problema procedo a revertir.

Un saludo, Pau.
paunofu (2024-01-22 07:05:08+00:00): Bon dia,

Aunque si bien el nombre del municipio ha cambiado, solamente ha cambiado su etiqueta name, pasando de la forma única en castellano a la forma única en valenciano. Para que el topónimo en castellano cambie a la forma valenciana se tiene que considerar en desuso por la RAE, universidades y demás autoridades lingüísticas.

Si no hay ningún problema procedo a revertir.

Un saludo, Pau.
GilliganEye (2024-01-20 01:49:08+00:00): Correction: Source used was Maxar SecureWatch Imagery 2024-01-05; Bing Streetside.
paunofu (2024-01-22 06:44:50+00:00): Bon dia Txitxarra,

El topónimo del municipio de 'la Granja de la Costera' lleva el artículo en minúscula, así lo marca la Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua. En valenciano los artículos de los topónimos van en minúscula. Y Novetlè es solo en valenciano, por tanto la etiqueta name:es sigue siendo Novelé.

Si no hay ningún inconveniente procedo a revertir.

Un saludo, Pau
PiedmontPark (2024-01-23 06:54:37+00:00): Hello miluethi,

I see in this changeset you have removed the “NIC-” from all the ref tags of the way members within https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17054421. I also saw that your other account NicaTopo (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NicaTopo) has also recently made the same removal from sections of NIC-26 such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593527558, and along NIC-71 as well looking at all the ways on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17024682.

Based on these Mapillary imagery (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=12.6074116&lng=-86.672133&z=17&pKey=317756230572718&focus=photo&x=0.5071714594913809&y=0.4467698815261874&zoom=0,  https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=11.982313287824&lng=-83.853974709182&z=17&pKey=987171662090604&focus=photo&x=0.5943986315345279&y=0.5937387215514213&zoom=1.1103381750718602), the actual signboards have the NIC-## format displayed. The OSM wiki on ref states that we should "tag what's on the ground.” (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref#Examples_on_ways). This is also represented with the majority of Ref tags throughout the country historically and I see that you have left the NIC-## format on the relations.

Is there a specific reason why you are actively changing the format of these refs on way features in Nicaragua?

Thanks and look forward to your reply.
miluethi (2024-01-23 21:58:18+00:00): Hi Piedmont Park.

This is a really good question and there is no perfect answer to it. 

The short answer is that ref-tags should be as short as possible to avoid rendering issues.

The longer answer:
For all highways with an updated ref-tag, I created a relation=route and with a name=NIC-xx and a ref=xx. So you still can search for the "NIC-xx" feature and the road name shows NIC-xx, but the road banner is only "xx"

The the official documentation for the road network in Nicaragua is the Red Vial Nacional 2020 by the MTI here: https://biblioteca.mti.gob.ni/ and it lists two types of names NIC-xx mostly for the main roads and NN-yyy for mostly small roads. There is no case where NIC's and NN's share the same number. So the number is unique within the entire Nicaragua.

On official INETER maps, the roads normally have only a number --> Google search "condega-nicaragua-50k-2956iii-1986". This map shows NIC-1 as "1" and NIC-51 as "51"

Adding NIC- or NN- to the banner road number makes it the harder for OSM to render correctly, to read and doesn't help to identify the road.

I created also relation=route together with shortening the ref tags. If the community decides to move to add NIC-xx and NN-yyy this can be very easily done.

Historically, most of the NIC and NN road names were introduce by myself in 2012-2015 when I lived in Nicaragua ;-)

Let me know what you think ;-)
PiedmontPark (2024-01-26 01:03:46+00:00): Hello miluethi,
Thank for you all of your insight and perspectives on how you’ve modeled these refs. I believe it would be better if the refs across the country consistently followed the same pattern.  With Nicaragua's two distinct route classes (NIC-##  for the main roads and NN-### for smaller routes), the prefix is useful information. I think the larger issue, more than consistency or utility, is that this method of modeling refs goes against the two OSM best practices of ‘don’t map for the renderer’ and ‘map what’s on the ground’ (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice). Tagging the route relations and ways in different ways could lead newer or more inexperienced mappers to remove or alter the ref tags on the relations and/or ways when attempting to follow global OSM best practices or ref modeling policy which specifically states that refs should follow what’s on the ground (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref#Examples_on_ways). Most of the refs on ways across the country still have NIC-## or NN-### on them, but after these changes the ref system is now inconsistent across the country.

All of that being said, though, the Apple team is committed to following local mapping practices and preferences whatever those may be. I believe that the best way of going about making these changes to Nicaragua’s ref system would be: proposing the widespread removal of ref prefixes (NIC / NN) to the larger Nicaraguan OSM community, getting a consensus to agree on those changes, and then documenting the country-specific ref tagging method on the OSM Wiki. Otherwise, unaware mappers attempting to follow global best practices may overwrite your edits and create a more inconsistent map of Nicaragua for everyone. If you would like to have a more open ended discussion about ref tagging with the broader Nicaraguan OSM community or would like assistance with proposing, updating, and implementing country specific tagging guidelines, I can get you in touch with our community manager Teddy. Without local consensus, though, I think it would be best to return the ref tags to how they were modeled before. Let me know what you think and if that works for you!
Thanks and Happy mapping!
citrula (2024-01-20 09:49:05+00:00): The commercial area probably shouldn't have the restaurant attributes on it. Those should only go on the building or on a node inside of the building.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146463006
user_14547832 (2024-01-21 19:44:10+00:00): It looks like South Dallas County had a "Superparcel Remover".
ZeLonewolf (2024-01-21 20:31:40+00:00): I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
wireguy (2024-01-21 13:01:00+00:00): fyi, this change broke relation 191205 relation 11582238, fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146511776
wireguy (2024-01-22 12:43:00+00:00): odd but relation 2554044 showed as broken today, I believe also from this changeset.   Not sure why it didn't show the other day.   Fixed.
ZeLonewolf (2024-01-22 12:45:17+00:00): Thanks!
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-01-31 15:57:02+00:00): Can you take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4094701 ?
gpserror (2024-01-20 04:10:36+00:00): hey, thanks for trying to resolve https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1975179 but I think the tag should be added to object https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3160247 instead of object https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174701039 perhaps?
dannmer (2024-01-20 04:17:04+00:00): That's fine. Not sure how to do that though
gpserror (2024-01-20 04:21:51+00:00): Just needed to put the tag on the relation object instead of the way object.  I'll go ahead and do it then.
dannmer (2024-01-20 04:30:35+00:00): Thanks. I'll take a look at what you've changed later
muralito (2024-01-20 17:08:55+00:00): Hola. ¿Esto dejó de ser carcel?
Nakaner-repair (2024-02-01 13:13:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 146945592 where the changeset comment is: Revert all changesets by DenisHammer because they are very likely spam, personal notes or vandalism.
Глеб (2024-10-09 19:51:38+00:00): привет.
некоторые здания имеют не самый точный адрес.
разработчик плагина обновил его, теперь сетку кадастра видно, очень удобно.
https://t.me/ruosm/775384

цитата:
 russian-address-helper только что обновился до версии 0.9.0.0. Можно обновиться через встроенную в JOSM обновлялку. Обязательно подключение слоя ЕГРН, в инструкции написано как. Замечания и предложения можно в личку, или в гитхаб. https://github.com/micronull/JOSM-Russia-address-helper-plugin
Masyas (2024-01-25 13:07:34+00:00): 江阴有两个问题。
江阴-靖江工业园虽为合作，但应仍属于靖江，江苏省内也无跨江画法；
江阴临港开发区是否误标为申港街道，且admin_level应标为9，目前甚至还包括了利港、夏港两个街道。
以上仅作本人观点。
Masyas (2024-01-25 13:09:13+00:00): 更正，admin_level应为7
meongseolin (2024-02-10 12:38:46+00:00): 谢谢更正；另外，Masyas君，我如有编辑错误，还请发送至我的消息，我一般不看变更集的，还请见谅。
tastrax (2024-01-20 06:39:03+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features .  I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
Amin Fozdar (2024-01-20 07:07:35+00:00): Oh thanks, I'll have a look at that so I can get them done well next time. Thank you for correcting my recent ones.

Thanks,
Amin
Pan (2024-01-20 21:02:32+00:00): Nice! I am happy my images are useful. :-)
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-21 09:37:05+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11532966402/history has amenity = fixme that was added in this edit
What kind of object is here? Is it a shop? What kind of a shop? (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop )
Ewen Hill (2024-01-21 01:54:52+00:00): Hi Ina - Thanks for all the detailed edits and changeset details.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146465417
uᴉʍOꓨ (2024-01-22 01:44:20+00:00): Great edits! You might want to save more often, to keep the changeset smaller, otherwise you're doing great for a new mapper . 

Do you bike, too? I do! :) But, I noticed that when you added the City Cycling Shop, you tagged it as shop=tyres, instead of shop=bicycle. If you're trying to denote a bike shop that fixes bikes (or tyres) you can also add the tag "service:bicycle:repair=yes"

Here's how that may look like: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11538579163

Kung may tanong ka, or interesadong malaman kung paano i-edit ang iba pang mga bagay sa OSM, maari mo akong kontakin, o pasyalan mo yung mga community-maintained channels dito sa Pilipinas:

https://osm.org/wiki/PH
postown (2024-01-25 07:03:32+00:00): 町田市民病院前の道路形状ですが、現地調査の結果、既に道路形状が変更されていますので、元に戻させて頂きます。宜しくお願い致します。
user_17222985 (2024-01-20 05:57:58+00:00): виправляв межі смт тому тей хто малював межі смт не додав частину теритрії 

межі сільських рад виправляв бо якшо проаналізувати загальну картину на охоплюваній території то межі сільрад не узгоджувались з межами смт Піщане
MTolman (2024-01-20 14:31:51+00:00): CurlingMan13 - quit editing my property.  You don't need to add sidewalks etc.  The private road was removed because the delivery algorithms are ignoring the private tag and amazon comes through every day.  You will have amazon mad when I put up gates and spikes.  Just leave it alone.  I understand the spirit of adding things  but now you are adding silly things like fence lines to just make a point.  And you removed actual gates that you cant see in the imagery but are mine and there by local knowledge.  you are also identifying "animal paths" that are in pastures and change every 6 months.  Stick to public access areas and leave this alone.  Look at the properties around it - you havent marked their secondaries or paths.
MikeN (2024-01-20 22:05:42+00:00): Hi, I'd recommend setting access=no to the bollards, as well as the middle connecting track.   Possibly even set the type to track as well.   Ideally the roads would remain present to prevent someone else coming later and adding them again with the wrong access tags.    (Amazon has to deliver to private "keep out" driveways at the request of the buyer, therefore they seem to ignore private access).
Allison P (2024-01-21 03:21:02+00:00): It's not your property. You don't own OpenStreetMap. It is mystifying how when a government allows someone exclusive rights to a property of land how many believe they have become the arbiter of reality. Anyone can make a map of your property, and even if it were illegal for them to do so (it's not) you have no recourse. With that said, deleting valid data is a form of computer vandalism, a felony crime. What Amazon does with the data they download is their problem. I know many of us mappers take issue with Amazon too, but it's none of our business if they use our data to make bad decisions.

Furthermore, detailing your property is not done to "make a point". CurlingMan13 is probably trying to improve the quality so that Amazon does not trespass. Fences are fair game for the map.

Even if it were about pettiness, you could just choose to give your neighbors the same mapping treatment.
MTolman (2024-02-02 23:09:55+00:00): Thank you Mike N.  To Allison - apparently the lawyers disagree with you.  Yep - consulted with them to check you out.  No worries we added features to the roads now that we wont document and they can come retrieve their vehicles with tow trucks now.  Yep - local police have been consulted and advised.    You could have helped the better way but chose to be snippy.  Problem now solved.
Allison P (2024-02-03 00:43:18+00:00): Enjoy your spikes. Not sure why you needed your lawyers to look at me and disagree or what the "better way" you wanted me to help was.
gscholz (2024-01-23 08:40:16+00:00): Hi Manfutu,
your recent changesets have created a lot of errors in the OSM database regarding duplicate nodes and self intersecting ways, for example here:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=106.50436&lat=38.55801&zoom=10&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=146466617

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
gscscnd (2024-01-21 08:06:29+00:00): To tylko nazwa, do usunięcia pozostałe tagi:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171897131
gscholz (2024-01-21 09:05:42+00:00): Hi Rukkhadevata,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=129.36650&lat=42.80281&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=146467354

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
ljc_jlyb (2024-01-22 23:23:53+00:00): 现有边界与国土空间规划有出入 http://www.longjing.gov.cn/hd/yjzj/202311/P020231122340228226446.pdf
map per (2024-02-01 20:54:07+00:00): Wegen review_requested:
Die Änderung sieht gut aus, danke!
map per (2024-02-01 20:55:42+00:00): Eine Relation, die das Gebäude mit den Gebäudeteilen verbindet braucht man eigentlich nicht
JakubOSM (2024-02-02 21:57:53+00:00): Danke, dann habe ich die Doku falsch verstanden. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Simple_3D_Buildings

Ist aber so einfacher.
zluuzki (2024-01-20 09:43:28+00:00): Stop mass-deleting features where you haven't even bothered to read the documentation.
railway=abandoned is for abandoned railway right-of-ways which are still visible.

Reverted this and similar changesets.
gsquaredxc (2024-01-21 05:14:16+00:00): Per documentation, "If it is impossible to determine the former route of a railway from the ground or through aerial imagery you must not map it." I have surveyed a significant proportion of the area you have chosen to revert, and have personally asked the OSMF on guidance in this area. Per OSMF guidance, I have reinstated edits. Please provide specific examples of areas that contain railways, or remnants or railways, via current aerial imagery or on the ground survey. Railways that go through houses are not considered "still visible".
zluuzki (2024-01-22 19:07:37+00:00): There is no "OSMF guidance".
Please provide some significant examples where the course is *not* recognizable. Looking at https://osmcha.org/changesets/146500622/, like 95% is *clearly* visible from aerial imagery, and railway=abandoned is perfectly valid tagging there.
gsquaredxc (2024-01-23 02:59:39+00:00): I'm happy to provide specific examples. Way 1182420396 goes through two buildings, and the only source for having existed is an unknown "topographical map" which does not pass verifiability. In fact, there has not been a verifiable rail path here in decades. I'm not even sure this rail has ever existed, and may have been a mapping error. You can observe similar phenomena from each of the ways that were deleted, such as 1182420410, which goes through a grain silo. Way 1181526151 goes through a building. 167035610 goes through 9 buildings by my count, a stream, and a whole lot of planted crops. I'm not sure how *clearly* visible can be true when there are buildings in the way. The reason I noticed a good chunk of these railroads is because I saw a way pass through a building, which is extremely rare. Since you've asked me to provide significant examples, I'd like to ask for you to provide significant examples of places where the course is very recognizable.
zluuzki (2024-01-24 11:56:45+00:00): 1182420396 does not go "through" buildings, it is next to the buildings, USGS topos are definitly verifiable sources.
1182420410 is next to the grain silo
1181526151 went into the building
167035610 doesn't go through buildings, and it it does, it is misaligned by a few meters, fix it then.
Examples where it is clearly visible that this is an abandoned RR right-of-way (as mentioned, de-facto everything):
1182142557
1182142564
1182142600
167035610
22030467
791413950
114854758
665388499
1199657583
24098898
157028323
5325158
1182420392
etc etc etc
VLD549 (2024-03-07 17:15:20+00:00): Hi,
From the source  https://livo.be/   it looks like the name should be just Livo.
Could you explain why Livovabo or LivoVabo?

Thank you.