piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse (2024-01-14 18:49:41+00:00): Are you sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/313156653 is open?  It didn't look it.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4068353 .
SomeoneElse (2024-01-14 18:57:33+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/168771637 has also closed and reopened under a different name.
SomeoneElse (2024-01-14 18:58:23+00:00): You've also left "note:opening_hours:covid19" while deleting the tag that it refers to, which doesn't make a lot of sense.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-01-15 10:03:36+00:00): > Are you sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/313156653 is open?

No, and this edit has not verified/checked it - and it was not intended to verify this.

Note also that this edit was configure to not remove opening_hours:covid19 tags declaring POI to be closed during Covid, exactly to avoid potential information loss in cases where "temporary" closure become pernament on
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-01-15 10:05:49+00:00): Edit was also configured to not remove any opening_hours:covid19 that were not merely repeating opening_hours (some people run edit removing all of them, but i have not done this)
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-01-15 10:33:19+00:00): >  You've also left "note:opening_hours:covid19" while deleting the tag that it refers to, which doesn't make a lot of sense.


Fixed here and elsewhere, thanks for spotting! Left one that has potentially useful info.

( though I have no idea what you meant as problematic in "Are you sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/313156653 is open? It didn't look it.")
Filip009 (2023-08-20 20:01:31+00:00): Dobrý deň, hodnota, ktorú ste zadali do ref tam určite nepatrí. Odporúčam použiť tagy operator a voltage.
Filip009 (2023-08-20 19:59:11+00:00): Dobrý deň, myslím, že krčma sa nevolá "Nová krčma - pizza". Do mena sa dáva názov daného miesta.
Filip009 (2023-08-20 20:10:08+00:00): Taktiež otváracie hodiny majú svoju syntax, ktorú je pre správne fungovanie potrebné dodržať. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Key:opening_hours#P%C5%99%C3%ADklady
Filip009 (2023-08-20 20:03:59+00:00): Dobrý deň, namiesto použitia tagu name odporúčam name vymazať a použiť vhodné tagovanie https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Tag:man_made%3Dreservoir_covered
gallseife (2024-01-07 22:44:46+00:00): Hallo Famiras,

Stellwerke stehen häufig unbenutzt herum. Diese sollten per disused:railway=signal_box getaggt und keinesfalls als railway=signal_box.
Du fügtest des öfteren railway=signal_box bei aufgegeben Stellwerken ein. Mach das bitte nicht mehr.
Bei Stellwerke.info findest du eine hervorragenden Überblick über alte und neue Stellwerke.
Nakaner (2023-12-07 10:37:39+00:00): Hi,

in this and other changesets, you changed various VzG route relations in Germany (route relations to model the railway lines from infrastructure point of view) from route=tracks to route=railway. This is wrong. route=railway is used for routes to model the routes represented by a timetable sheet.

I would like to ask you to correct your changes. You can use the following Overpass API query to find your mistakes: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1EqX

Best regards

Michael
Wilmer Osario (2023-08-10 23:35:07+00:00): Hola, ¿Qué fuentes cartográficas está utilizando para obtener los nombres de las calles y barrios? Pregunto porque todos sus cambios coinciden con la información publicada en Google Maps.
mariotomo (2023-08-11 04:43:12+00:00): son 98 nombres nuevos, y 13 modificados, por un mapero de sillón, supuestamente utilizando Bing, curiosamente coincidiendo con Google Maps?
gurglypipe (2023-08-10 07:23:35+00:00): For anyone who comes across this later, the points were subsequently extracted and fixed up in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139691870
Xvtn (2023-12-14 20:02:34+00:00): Hi, and thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I went over the changes you made. I think in this case you could use either playground=swing or playground:swing=yes. While playground=swing seems to be much more commonly used, I'd consider that to be more appropriate for an area that only has swings, rather than a larger playground that contains swings as one of many features.

playground:swing=yes has the benefit of allowing more feature tags to be added without resorting to multiple values on one key (like playground=swing;slide) which is usually good only as a last resort.

Hope that makes sense. Thanks again and happy mapping!
mariotomo (2023-08-11 04:27:44+00:00): here you're reading names from Bing? again?
BigKev97 (2024-01-31 18:59:40+00:00): No.
mariotomo (2024-01-31 20:20:01+00:00): Good, so you have been adding names, from what source if the question wasn't clear enough.
MapSpot (2024-03-12 16:47:04+00:00): Glad I'm not the only one who makes the typo natural=woof sometimes. WOOF! 🐶
Fixed the issue here.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148558332
Joseph R P (2024-03-13 19:28:06+00:00): LOL my bad! Thanks for correcting it for me. :)
SomeoneElse (2023-08-18 12:11:39+00:00): I'd suggest that "note:opening_hours:covid19" on at least https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634146183/history should probably go too.  Perhaps you'd like to check the rest of these individually?
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-08-18 12:51:44+00:00): I will look manually through associated tags like https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=opening_hours%3Acovid19#keys
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-09-07 18:38:06+00:00): I looked through most, currently looking at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1zWa
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-25 09:59:54+00:00): full cleanup completed - as far I was able to do so

thanks for spotting the problem
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-25 10:00:11+00:00): and please, let me know if you spot anything like this
literan (2023-08-10 20:56:07+00:00): тротуары вдоль дворовых проездов обычно не наносят. Ведь дворовые проезды и так приравнены к жилой зоне, и пешеходам там можно ходить где угодно, обладая преимуществом
Kompass1 (2023-08-13 15:18:10+00:00): Thank you for contributing to HOTOSM! When mapping, please be careful to not mark cars and trucks as buildings.

It seems that you marked a blue truck that appears on Bing maps as a building in this changeset.
vladigivanov (2023-08-13 15:41:48+00:00): Thanks for spotting that!
maraf24 (2023-08-11 19:28:58+00:00): Why did you make this change? What the source? 
Note that 'fix and add road and buildings in wroclaw" is not enough.
Provide proper comment and source for your edits.
maraf24 (2023-09-08 09:57:33+00:00): Still no answer.
The road is fully accessible for pedestrians, so access=no is wrong.
It is also not oneway road.
bxl-forever (2023-08-10 12:39:43+00:00): Hello,

I see you are routinely entering width and length values for aeroways all over the world.  I suspose this is not a personal survey but copying from a source.
Would you mind providing a link to the source of the data you used for this?  We would like to check if there is some copyright restriction for this data, because OSM has very strict requirements against copying from non-free databases.

Thanks in advance.
Joe Polastre (2023-08-10 14:13:28+00:00): Hello! Information typically comes from Wikipedia or from each country’s AIP, which is a freely available document. In this case, the information is sourced from: https://ops.skeyes.be/html/belgocontrol_static/eaip/eAIP_Main/html/eAIP/EB-AD-2.EBBR-en-GB.html

In most of the other cases, the information was incorrectly entered in the wrong field or with the wrong units.
RaphaelPasloin (2023-08-15 04:06:15+00:00): Hello,

You have put the length of the 7L/25R on 7R/25L. Correct data is 3 211 meter not 3 638. That being said ft should be writen <feet>'<inch>" not ft.  (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features/Units) 

On another airports in Belgium, local mapper use meter as it's published like this in AIP.  That prevend conversion error. EBBR is an exception and we have a mix and some "yoyo" on units in changesets history. I think it's better to keep this coherent and put units in meter.

Also you put incorrect length here : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/517469023

Can you fix this ? 

Have a nice day.
Joe Polastre (2023-08-15 05:07:20+00:00): Sure, 7R/25L is now fixed and in meters.
Joe Polastre (2023-08-15 05:08:38+00:00): Note that the other runway (7L/25R) at this exact same airport has length and width specified as the following, so there's very little consistency.
length	11935 ft
width	147 ft
Mathias_ADAV (2023-08-18 13:41:53+00:00): Bonjour, 

techniquement on est sur une voie verte (panneau C115) où les piétons  et les cyclistes cohabitent (segregated = no ) donc on devrait donc indiquer highway = path + bicycle designated + foot designated . 

C'est comme cela que c'est indiqué dans le wiki dédié : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bicycle#Voies_vertes
Iron TUX (2023-08-19 13:36:14+00:00): Bonjour,
Voie verte, voie cyclable, je ne faisais pas trop la différence. Je n'ai été très rigoureux sur ce coup-là.
J'ai lu tout le sujet sur le wiki, et comprends finalement que je devrais corriger certaines de mes interventions sur les voies cyclables. Je ferais çà ce soir ou demain.
Merci pour ton assistance qui m'a bien éclairée.
A+
Mathias_ADAV (2023-08-21 08:08:48+00:00): Pas de soucis ;) C'est vrai que le concept de voie verte n'est pas forcement clair de première abord à caractériser..
skfd (2024-05-17 22:11:40+00:00): hiiii! Sidewalks do not need names, thanks!
user_5359 (2023-08-10 06:20:39+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please don't add building to property, only add building to a building. Did youe see https://www.osm.org/note/3386415?
AgusQui (2023-10-06 04:51:10+00:00): Si le vas a poner tan pocas ganas mejor no lo hagas, horrible estos edificios, nada que ver con la realidad
NorthCrab_upload (2023-08-09 22:40:16+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/10069550628
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196632493
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196632469

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
LockOnGuy (2023-08-09 23:11:12+00:00): Hello ڕاستی,     
I see you removed n11065547253, that has an Arabic name in 'name' tag, and renamed w887311316 which is the same market but mapped in Kurdish to another name in kurdish, and you moved the old name from w887311316 and added it as "name:ar" while it's kurdish not Arabic, you should've added the correct Arabic name from the node you deleted, not a kurdish name. The tag name:ar means Name in Arabic, and it should have Arabic names in Arabic script not Kurdish, Can you please fix this issues and add the correct Arabic name from the supermarket node you removed to the supermarket way?      
Regards.
LockOnGuy (2023-08-09 23:15:35+00:00): In top of that, you keep deleting "addr:postcode=44001" Which I told you many many times before to not delete but you ignore and keep delete, in this changeset you deleted it from: "way 607896551, node 4432459696, node 5861874986"  please stop, as deleting valid postal code is vandalism.      
Can you restore these ones and the ones you deleted previously?
ڕاستی (2023-08-10 16:59:25+00:00): Right now I'm busy I can't reply your comments. When I get home I will.
Regards.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139680587
SherbetS (2023-08-10 13:48:59+00:00): Hi,

Where was this import discussed?
ATZ410 (2023-08-10 14:59:41+00:00): This is not an import. Used mapwithai and verified results/fixed conflicts
SherbetS (2023-08-10 15:36:19+00:00): what do you mean verified results? after a few seconds of looking I found these

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196638202

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196638797

If I was manually reviewing mapwithai objects, these would not be included. are you actually looking at all objects being uploaded?
ATZ410 (2023-08-10 15:51:47+00:00): Why would those not be included there are building there? What sat image are you using?
SherbetS (2023-08-10 16:10:15+00:00): I'm looking at the mapbox imagery in OSMcha, and the building footprints do not align at all. I would not accept these buildings for that reason if I was actually manually reviewing these objects.
ATZ410 (2023-08-10 16:13:22+00:00): Odd, everything seems aligned on my side. Also when I click edit on the osm site the buildings are aligned as well..
ATZ410 (2023-08-10 16:17:30+00:00): Also for this particular edit many of the building already existed. The ones added were consistent with  existing ones as far as spacing goes.
SherbetS (2023-08-10 16:43:33+00:00): What I mean is that the geometry is not accurate. If you look on the imagery, the objects I linked do not line up with the building footprint. Please look again.
ATZ410 (2023-08-10 16:48:57+00:00): The first object looks fine to me but it is covered by a tree so I can't really tell. I see what you mean for the second though
SherbetS (2023-08-10 19:05:56+00:00): are you actually reviewing these objects?

In this changeset alone, I was able to find 10 more objects almost immediately that suggest that this was not manual review. none of these appear to represent an actual building on the map.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196635281
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196635266
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196635270
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196635278
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196635275
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196635287
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196635298
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196634418
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196634116
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1196636208

I also find it extremely suspicious that you have added nearly 300,000 buildings in under a week.

If you aren't manually reviewing all objects, you need to follow the import guidelines and automated edits code of conduct
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
ATZ410 (2023-08-10 19:44:09+00:00): I see, thanks for the information
SherbetS (2023-08-11 02:27:36+00:00): Please revert the edits you have made so far.

If you are not able to, I will revert them for you.

If you do want to add these objects, please either follow the import process correctly, or review the data manually.
ATZ410 (2023-08-11 15:42:00+00:00): Would this be for SA stuff? I manually reviewed the stuff before this change set https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139494461
SherbetS (2023-08-11 16:58:34+00:00): Only the automated is fine.
IamPersistent (2023-08-11 17:06:28+00:00): If a revert happens, what will happen with any subsequent edits. I adjusted and added information so some of TTT6969420's edits.
IamPersistent (2023-08-11 17:07:49+00:00): I meant to say "added information on some of"
VDOT511 (2023-08-12 03:15:14+00:00): The changes will likely be lost.
ATZ410 (2023-08-12 15:59:35+00:00): How do I revert my changes?
VDOT511 (2023-08-12 16:05:06+00:00): Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Change_rollback
ATZ410 (2023-08-12 16:33:25+00:00): Can I get some help? One of the sites is down and the other doesn't seem like it would be able to revert this many change sets
SherbetS (2023-08-12 17:37:20+00:00): I can revert these changes. Lots of the revert tools available online are not great for reverting large amounts of changes, and just working with overpass in JOSM is the easiest way to get it done.

I made this query to grab all the buildings you added since the date you stated that you stopped reviewing all objects.

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1yPJ

Once the data was loaded, I saved a copy as a .osm so you can use it to add the buildings again when you get approval.

https://cloud.disroot.org/s/HtsTyiY66nYLziX


Presently, I'm waiting for JOSM to load the upload dialog, and will have the revert complete today.
ATZ410 (2023-08-12 18:03:09+00:00): Perfect thanks! also how were you able to load that many buildings in josm? I tried to load them in mine but I kept running out of memory (gave 4G before giving up)
SherbetS (2023-08-12 18:32:53+00:00): You can allocate more ram when you start JOSM using this command

java -jar -Xmx32G josm-tested.jar

You can replace 32G with the amount of ram you wish to allocate to JOSM.

If you don't have the memory available to load the file, I can split it up so that JOSM can digest it easier.
IamPersistent (2023-08-12 20:26:40+00:00): It looks like a bunch of points were left behind from the revert.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/29.50984/-98.67348
ATZ410 (2023-08-12 22:35:02+00:00): Odd, how did that happen?
SherbetS (2023-08-12 23:29:25+00:00): You can allocate more ram when you start JOSM using this command

java -jar -Xmx32G josm-tested.jar

You can replace 32G with the amount of ram you wish to allocate to JOSM.

If you don't have the memory available to load the file, I can split it up so that JOSM can digest it easier.
SherbetS (2023-08-12 23:30:12+00:00): Yes, my computer lost power at an extremely unfortunate time. I'm still trying to get it cleaned up.
user_11609320 (2023-08-09 23:10:01+00:00): was replaced with micro transit called GoMicro
user_11609320 (2023-08-09 23:11:02+00:00): https://www.riversidetransit.com/index.php/riding-the-bus/gomicro
PhilippeC20 (2023-08-14 13:29:49+00:00): Path 1196644966 : confirmed: there is not even the smallest trail that can be used, except by wild boar. It is also a private, inhabited area.
I am afraid that all these modifications are based on far-fetched imaginations but do not correspond to reality.
PhilippeC20 (2023-08-14 13:52:29+00:00): It is carnage!
All these paths, if they exist, are inaccessible because they are on private property.
(...) 1196644928, 1196644929, 1196644930, 1196644931, 1196644932, 1196644933, 1196644934, 1196644935, 1196644936 (...)
It's sad, because the hiking trails in southern Corsica were 99% reliable, and now they don't make sense at all!
Mopshase12 (2023-08-14 14:18:40+00:00): I removed 28-31 concerning your claim of private property and since I cannot prove if they really exist or if it's a optical illusion on the aeral picture.

32-36 should definitely be there (you can even see the wheel tracks). Trails do not necessarily need to be hiking trails – it's sufficient if they are there.

Thank you very much for the confirmation on site :)
PhilippeC20 (2023-08-15 13:53:27+00:00): The two examples you want to keep are typical of the situation.

Track 1196644936 is on private land that is totally inaccessible. Your aerial images are certainly old, because today it's been transformed. The most recent aerial images we have (Ortho 2021) show that the top of the runway has reverted to scrubland, but that illegal construction has taken place at the bottom. As for track 1196644932, if you go near it you'll at best be evicted at gunpoint, but I'd advise you not to try.

As you well understand, this is not our case. We, those who hike or hunt on the spot, who voluntarily clean (and make) the small public footpaths alongside Collectivité de Corse officials and map them on OSM, provide very up-to-date, relevant and usable information. It's these trails the concern. OSM is the only tool that allows us this cartographic agility, and we're very keen on it.It's important to understand that the layout of trails in South Corsica are constantly changing and constantly used. Before your crazy additions, almost all the usable trails *and only them* were listed on OSM.  Your additions create deleterious confusion.

For OSM mapping, the use of aerial images is an absolutely indispensable tool when it comes to constructions, but these same aerial images are a poor snapshot of public trails and paths. They only identify an ephemeral situation, at least in Southern Corsica, with a very high risk of error. There, only surveillance and GPS are reliable. This is the information we publish. Ranting based on obsolete aerial images, without knowledge of what is private and what is public, and without taking geological reality into account, can only generate data that is out of touch with reality and false.

That's why I'm asking you to withdraw all the trails and tracks you've added in southern Corsica, with total disregard for reality. There's no question of fighting path by path: these are just examples. It's your method that is wrong.
felipeeugenio (2023-08-10 12:26:43+00:00): Hola

shop=fuel?
Es una bomba de bencina como cualquier otra? entonces amenity=fuel.

O es una tienda donde venden algo?

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139681229
LockOnGuy (2023-08-09 23:47:49+00:00): Hello ڕاستی, I see you deleted n11065547287 in this changeset and it's not duplicated or mapped. This node is for Carrefour convenience store which is located inside the mall.       
Can you check and undelete n11065547287?    
If you don't know how to undelete objects let me know please and I will be happy to restore it back.     
Waiting for your answer.    
Regards.
ڕاستی (2023-08-10 16:16:30+00:00): Hello LockOnGuy
The node is duplicated and this is not a convenience store and look at this n5830239957 then you will see it is duplicated. And look at the name tag it is a mess not a name, this type of edit must be deleted no matter what is the language.
Regards.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139681502
LockOnGuy (2023-08-10 16:30:22+00:00): Hi, before removing you should've moved the Arabic name to the node that you say it's duplicate with, not remove the node entirely.        
The name says "Carrefour tablue mall - Kirkuk Street" just take the name of the store and add it to the other one instead of deleting it. having "kirkuk street" in the name is not an excuse to not add it to the other one, you could've just take the name without the word "kirkuk street"       
You sated "this type of edit must be deleted no matter what is the language." NO! it's valid data, and clear, and it should be improved and corrected not deleted!       
Please in future if you see something for example a shop with "John's electronics in 143 main street" just remove the street from the name and keep the store name, do not delete it entirely...     
I've checked with the store website and this place do exist in fact in this location and there website.       
Also, please reply to the tens of comments I left you on your changesets here:  
  https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=4800812    
Regards.
tomhukins (2023-08-16 11:44:30+00:00): Thank you for adding this: I have added more details in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139960125
Mashin (2023-08-10 09:58:16+00:00): From the imagery you can see that this is not a sidewalk. Perhaps the surface is not asphalt, but it is still used by cars to access the residential buildings
fusfeld (2023-08-10 11:49:14+00:00): Its not a public road past the gate, I was there on foot 2 months ago.
Mashin (2023-08-10 12:07:16+00:00): You can map the gate by adding barrier=gate to a node at its location. And to indicate restricted access past the gate, just add access=private to the road.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier#How_to_map_barrier_nodes
Mashin (2023-08-10 09:56:23+00:00): You are right that this is not a residential road since there are no residential buildings that it services.
However it is also not a path. You can see from imagery that it is a service road used by cars to access the scrapyard.
Hugoren Martinako (2023-08-20 13:06:23+00:00): Solo mencionar que una dirección con addr:place es correcta siempre y cuando exista un place=* cerca.
MarinoBM (2023-08-21 11:52:13+00:00): En este caso es más adecuado addr:street porque la dirección está ligada a una calle y no a una zona.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:addr:place
Glassman (2023-08-11 17:15:33+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good. 

One suggestion - we spell out street names in OSM - the reason is that software has a hard time unabbreviating. Can you expand Ln to Lane?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139682164
user_14366776 (2023-08-13 11:11:32+00:00): 1000!