piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
flohoff (2024-07-03 07:13:11+00:00): Moin,
die Addresse ist schon auf der Gesamtfläche des Campings. Dort auch mit Postleitzahl und Ort.

Ich hab grundsätzlich keinen Stress mit doppelten Hausnummern, aber so wie es jetzt eingetragen ist gibts die halt einmal vollständig, als Campingplatz getagged auf der Gesamtfläche, und einmal liegt da irgendwo ein Node mit einer unvollständigen Adresse - das macht wenig Sinn.

Flo
quittenkaes (2024-07-03 16:27:42+00:00): Hallo Flo,
Da ich nur gelegentlich kleine Anpassungen vornehme, mache ich bestimmt viel falsch und bin für jede Rückmeldung dankbar. 

Ich habe inzwischen festgestellt, zu welchem Gebäude die Hausnummer gehört und dieses entsprechend getagt. Der allein stehende Node mit der Hausnummer ist wieder weg. 

Der Address-Eintrag am Campingplatz war auch von mir. Den habe ich auch noch mal geringfügig korrigiert. 

Ich hoffe, das passt jetzt alles so. 

Michael
mavl (2024-07-03 03:19:44+00:00): Здравствуйте. Адрес "улица Широтная, 209 к1" уже есть на карте. Вы добавили дубликат.
Tatiana24 (2024-07-04 12:24:17+00:00): Добрый день. спасибо, что заметили, извините, я поторопилась.
MrMoehritz (2024-07-06 16:09:15+00:00): Hallo FireDragonMarco,

du hast eine review angefordert. Ich bin deiner Meinung. Es ist ja auch eine Relation d.h. Datennutzerinnen können die Route auf dem Client einfach aufsplitten, wenn sie die Relationsattribute an die einzelnen member-Wege übertragen.

Im osten der route fehlt leider noch ein kleines stück :-)
Filip009 (2024-07-04 19:05:02+00:00): Podľa čoho bol pridaný tento zráz https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1298657030/history?
NieWnen (2024-07-03 19:09:54+00:00): Zmieniłem na layer=1 i poprawiłem ten kawałek schodów (nie muszą być całe mostem).
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153516050
Dawid2849 (2024-07-03 20:28:11+00:00): Ooo, dzięki. Nie wiedziałem gdzie się kończy most i zrobiłem layer=2. Później też zobaczyłem, że zapomniałem zmienić na obrysie, ale może to i lepiej :P
Langlaeufer (2024-07-03 06:32:54+00:00): Ich hab das mal korrigiert. Ich denke mal es ist ein Zeitraum und nicht nur ein Tag gesperrt? Die Defaultwerte wieder ran. Fußgänge sind dort offiziell garnicht zulässig.
AntMadeira (2024-07-03 11:46:45+00:00): Hello, CkEsc.
I've noticed you changed the Portugal admin boundary in Peniche when moving the coast line.
These are official boundaries and should not be moved. If you want to edit other elements, please deactivate the boundary layer in iD, opening the right menu and go to Map Data -> Map Elements and deactivate that layer.

I'm going to revert this change. Please redo other changes as needed.

Regards,
António.
CkEsc (2024-07-03 14:33:18+00:00): Hello! 
I just wanted to clarify the boundary. After all, the state’s border probably coincides with the coastline.
Do I understand correctly that there is an independent source of coordinates of state borders and we should not change them even if they are not entirely logical (parts of the earth may stick out beyond the territory of the state)
AntMadeira (2024-07-03 15:13:18+00:00): Yes, the coast line follows the official admin boundaries.
So, although the Portuguese coast line was based originally on the Prototype Global Shoreline (PGS), it has been updated to coincide with the official boundaries, based on CAOP: https://www.dgterritorio.gov.pt/cartografia/cartografia-tematica/caop

There probably could be some corrections in some places, but that would need to be based on official data and not on satellite imagery.
If you want to propose changes/updates/corrections to the coastline, the Portuguese community can be reached on the Telegram channel:
https://t.me/OSMPortugal

Or in the Portuguese section in the community forum:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/pt/176

Regards,
António.
AntMadeira (2024-07-03 15:20:20+00:00): Just to clarify one thing:
the problem was not that you changed the coastline, but the admin boundary.
Hope it's more clear now.
Jrachi (2024-07-03 08:50:37+00:00): Hai invertito l'ordine di due way, sul 534.
Perché ti ostini a usare iD?
Ivo
GPYes (2024-07-02 23:17:05+00:00): Correction: Source used was Bing aerial imagery; INEGI; Maxar SecureWatch Imagery 2024-06-14
NeisBot (2024-07-02 23:24:24+00:00): Hi Erik Magnusson, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/12030064893

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-03 06:42:51+00:00): Thank you for your mapped beach.
Looks good!

#HappyMapping
Filip009 (2024-07-04 19:00:33+00:00): Zdravím, neklasifikovaná cesta sa nepoužíva v obytných oblastiach https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Tag:highway%3Dunclassified používa sa skorej https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Tag:highway%3Dservice
NeisBot (2024-07-02 23:26:24+00:00): Hi spaghettios, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 98% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
No primary map features!?

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

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=153479563
kitsee (2024-07-03 07:35:22+00:00): hi spaghettios, I believe it was a mistake to remove this route. As the wiki states "route=ferry can be used for large ferries carrying passengers, bicycles, cars, trucks and even rail cars"
This is a barge that carries railcars for a fee. as such it fits this definition perfectly.
clay_c (2024-08-15 02:18:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155264314
Gsgeorge (2024-07-03 15:48:01+00:00): Thanks for doing this! The bike route has needed fixing for a long time.
JeroenHoek (2024-07-03 06:47:45+00:00): Source for the proposed sections?
JeroenHoek (2024-07-04 06:56:20+00:00): Reverted in 153529752. These sections of proposed highway make no sense, and have not been proposed.

Please respond to changeset comments (you did a number of other edits after my comment).
JeroenHoek (2024-07-04 06:57:00+00:00): And please use more descriptive changeset comments. This change was not about 'access'.
gr4ff0 (2024-10-25 11:52:08+00:00): This should be opened again, no?
jeremy77 (2024-07-03 00:46:52+00:00): Hey there. No big deal but FYI the Victoria AAA bike routes are in two relationships routes due to a previous disagreement with another editor on here who didn't want any of routes named so as a compromise we did both named routes and a generic local route.
GunGoose22 (2024-07-03 01:03:47+00:00): I'm not really sure why this changeset is as big as it is.
5m4u9 (2024-07-03 22:25:32+00:00): Hola Boris,

en esta edición borraste unas etiquetas de los límites del departamento de Potosí 😱😱😱😱

Siempre siempre antes de empezar a editar, revisa la configuración para ocultar "boundaries o límites/fronteras"... esa línea punteada azul al editar. Puedes ocultar esto cuando estás editando y presionas la tecla U, en la sección "objetos de mapa/map features", descliqueas la opción "boundaries/limites/fronteras"... como en la siguiente imagen → https://imgur.com/a/ceWFytO

normalmente los límites no se edita los límites porque muchas veces son imaginarios.

Igual, ya lo solucioné...😂😂
Boris_YKS (2024-07-04 01:44:20+00:00): Lo siento mucho🙏, voy a tener más cuidado. Gracias por la imagen. 
Y muchas gracias por solucionarlo.
5m4u9 (2024-07-04 02:37:24+00:00): Nada, las gracias a unos chilenos que me advirtieron que algo andaba mal, por allá son más paranoicos...
Pranayraj Vangari (2024-07-03 08:08:32+00:00): thankyou sir
empty_child (2024-07-05 09:07:19+00:00): These changesets were reverted due to repetitive vandalism against Azerbaijanis toponyms. Keep in mind, that a claim against you was sent to the DWG

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153578764
syntex (2024-07-31 11:36:09+00:00): Why?
nevw (2024-07-03 05:16:09+00:00): Hi, you are meant to accurately outline the house shape instead of placing a rectangle on each property.
You need to reshape each one.
ElliottPlack (2024-07-04 02:38:02+00:00): Hi there Tyler. In this edit you have added congressional districts to the map. What is the source for these boundaries? Data added to OSM via sources other than what is observable on the ground or from the air are prohibited without proposing to import the data through the import process. Even if the source is a public domain dataset, such as US Census TIGER, you must still discuss this work with the community.

I came across this by chance while reviewing another boundary type in NYC of dubious origin: community boards. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/manhattan-community-boards-as-administrative-boundaries/115549

Before you continue importing these boundaries, please review our import guidelines. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import

As an example, check out https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-import-of-all-the-places-data-onto-existing-big-box-retail-pois-in-the-us/114939

I look forward to hearing from you via this changeset comment discussion.

Elliott Plack  
OSMF Data Working Group
Tyler806 (2024-07-23 22:03:07+00:00): Hello. Apologies if this was not allowed, and that I didn't see this comment, but allow me to clarify a few things. All of the data was inputted manually on top of or offset from existing boundaries, as U.S. Congressional Districts are (None of it was automatically imported). If this still isn't allowed, please let me know and I'll follow the correct procedure.

Thanks.
Roue-doudou (2024-09-16 12:43:36+00:00): Hello ! Related to this changeset i've seen this way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1298676047) that have no tag nor relation, that look like a boundary. Can i delete it or can you fix it ? I cannot upload my changeset will this way stay like this :/ Thank's
jmapb (2025-10-14 22:54:14+00:00): Hi, I removed osm.org/way/1298676047 in changeset 173253101
5m4u9 (2024-07-03 22:43:28+00:00): Hola,

No todas las vías en la ciudad son de tipo residencial/urbana, es decir "calles", hay otras vías con características más reducidas o limitadas que no deberían ser etiquetadas como "residenciales/ubanas".

En Bolivia, las calles que son estrechas o no tienen salida a otra calle las llaman "callejones" o "pasajes".

En OSM, las calles sean con o sin salida a otra calle, si son estrechas y no más de un carril, muchas veces sin aceras a los dos lados deberían estar etiquetadas como "service o servicio". Si se observa que es muy estrecha es candidata a "callejón o alley".

Diferenciar bien estas calles hace que al momento de "planificar una ruta" con auto en OSM no te lleve por estas calles que muy probablemente no quepas.
Boris_YKS (2024-07-04 01:37:36+00:00): Es una calle pavimentada en la que solo circula un auto. Creo que puede etiquetarse como Service = alley.
Boris_YKS (2024-07-04 01:37:59+00:00): Muchas gracias por el comentario
5m4u9 (2024-07-04 02:34:54+00:00): Entiendo, esta calle tiene aceras? si tiene se queda como calle urbana/residencial y todo traqui. 

la última vez que visité Potosí, vi sus calles y son muy particulares, varias no se "actualizaron" para autos y está bien, quedaron angostas por eso algunas yo las cambié a service, pero no recordaba todas y me fije más con la imagen satelital y como estas no son ortofotos y solo se ven de costado no se distinguen bien si llevan aceras y son "verdaderamente angostas".

Dejo a tu criterio si lo mantienes con tu cambio. Gracias por estar atento a los comentarios. Saludos!
Dino Michelini (2024-08-05 07:14:44+00:00): Hi, I'm an Italian mapper who has drawn some military polygons... I think it's not correct to put access=private for these reasons: 1) apps like OSMAND allow you to use private roads; 2) military lands are off limits to everyone except authorized military personnel; 3) mapping and photographing objects in military lands is generally prohibited. Personally, if I know the geographic boundaries of landuse=military, I only draw these but not what is included inside (no roads, buildings, etc.). I also point out: 1) the boundaries of landuse=military are somewhat uncertain; 2) fences are not shown while gates on access roads like highways do not have the access tag.
datatap (2024-08-05 22:55:32+00:00): Hi Dino! How would you suggest solving this problem: previously, Nortz Road did not have an `access` tag, and cycle routing software would navigate cyclists through the military base (it happened to me). The multipolygon for this base with `landuse=military` does help routing this option. 

After adding `access=private` to Nortz Road, routing software no longer suggests it as a way to navigate. `access=private` is not incorrect, and it has a positive effect. See the discussion at https://mastodon.social/@com/112840405064582145
Dino Michelini (2024-08-07 10:29:11+00:00): Many countries, including Italy, have laws that prohibit the mapping of military sites, but it is also true that services like Bing, Mapbox, etc., photograph everything. However, OSM requires mappers to carry out GPS surveys to map, so it is not possible to draw the content inside landuse-military in OSM unless it is a soldier at a base, but in this case it would be a crime. In general, I believe that it is correct to map the limits of the military area with landuse=military (just follow them) but I avoid mapping the content (roads, buildings, etc.) visible with Bing, precisely to avoid errors by apps and unwary people. The wiki's disclaimer for military tags simply confirms what is written.
access=private is not the solution because if the map shows a road the user who does not use routing will follow it. Also, there are apps like OsmAnd (https://osmand.net/docs/user/navigation/routing/car-based-routing) with access=private road routing.
datatap (2024-08-07 22:21:19+00:00): Hi Dino.

So, what is the correct solution?

ICYMI, this area was already entirely mapped. I don't know who did it. I only updated the `access` tag value.
Dino Michelini (2024-08-08 07:45:41+00:00): In my opinion, only the landuse & barrier & gate should be mapped. Everything inside landuse=military should not be mapped; if already mapped, it should be removed. However, this discussion is not related to this changeset but it needs to be clarified what should be mapped, so it should be moved to the “discussion” page of the landuse=military wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landuse%3Dmilitary.
Allison P (2024-08-10 17:19:59+00:00): Dino, your opinion does not reflect consensus. First, access=no should be used for military bases. Second, GPS is not required for all edits. Aerial imagery is an acceptable source of tracing and currently the primary source used for the vast majority of edits. Finally, appropriately licensed correct data should never be removed from OSM, even if it is illegal in a particular country, since OSM only operates under the laws of the UK.
NeisBot (2024-07-03 01:24:24+00:00): Hi TheFrayZer, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 100% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 8 highway(s)
- 9 building(s)
- 1 waterway(s)

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

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=153480981
TheFrayZer (2024-07-03 01:39:26+00:00): Yes these deletions are intentional as the buildings and roads have been removed to make way for new construction.
Fizzie-DWG (2024-07-03 03:30:41+00:00): Hi. You could also map the area either as =brownfield to show that it is a redevelopment site, or construction if work has actually started.
nevw (2024-07-05 13:02:58+00:00): Hi, this is not what I would map as a residential street. It is one lane with pedestrians using it too. It has been previously tagged as a living street which seems fine to me, however if it is not signed as a living street, which I expect is the case, it should instead be tagged as a service road and possibly as a driveway.
Also you need to use title case for street names.
NeisBot (2024-07-03 01:42:25+00:00): Hi AlecHsMaps, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/1557837235

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
AlecHsMaps (2024-07-03 02:18:52+00:00): My apologies: I believe I mislabeled the beach here as a general beach, and not a beach resort!
AlecHsMaps (2024-07-03 02:19:38+00:00): I've gone ahead and made the change to its descriptor already.
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-03 06:41:04+00:00): Thank you for your mapped beach and your corrections. Looks good!

#HappyMapping
angys (2024-07-04 20:00:18+00:00): Hiii, plz note that ur recent update is making the Lebuh straight, while actually there is a bend section for Kastam checkpoint, olease kindly review ur edit
GrabMY_ainayusof (2024-07-12 01:56:11+00:00): Hii. So sorry I thought it was due to previous construction. Ive seen you have update the road but then my colleague reverted it. However I've update the road as per GPS probe data from our end. 

Thank you for highlighting the issue!
angys (2024-07-12 17:13:28+00:00): Then u should really tell him again  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153848827
willkmis (2024-07-10 05:54:49+00:00): This edit added low quality names (unverifiable, sometimes already mapped, and not in title case) to various retail areas and made erroneous geometry changes, it's been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153768424.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-13 03:22:59+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164878198
mavl (2024-07-03 13:12:28+00:00): Здравствуйте. Напишите, пожалуйста, из какого источника взято название улицы "улица Московский Тракт"?
tastrax (2024-07-03 07:32:57+00:00): Hi Folks – Unit numbers should be added to addr:unit key rather than combined with the addr:housenumber key. I have just updated a recent edit you made. Cheers
Ethan Grobin (2024-07-03 08:13:57+00:00): Thank you! I will correctly tag the numbers next time, I did not know which tag was correct. Do you know how to input unit numbers into street complete ee without manually adding the tags?
tastrax (2024-07-04 11:12:06+00:00): I am an IOS user but I will see what I can find out from github
Ethan Grobin (2024-07-05 09:02:07+00:00): I figured it out, you have to press the 3 dots and press its in a block
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-10 02:13:17+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164748082
KiloThree (2024-07-03 05:53:08+00:00): Hmm, given I-90 is a motorway, I'd consider Storrow a grade below, so trunk feels applicable
mcliquid (2024-07-03 07:46:30+00:00): Related to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153485313
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153483208
OddlyAngled (2024-08-28 14:32:46+00:00): does that imply that this is an official maintained park trail? when I have been on this it was a use trail (informal=yes)
mavl (2024-07-03 13:11:13+00:00): Здравствуйте. Напишите, пожалуйста, из какого источника получено название улицы "улица Московский Тракт"?
geo_ozon (2024-07-19 16:07:32+00:00): Добрый день. Источник - ФИАС https://fias.nalog.ru/Search/IndexWithPath?objectId=1304011&addressType=2&fullName=%D0%A2%D1%8E%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%2C%20%D0%B3.%D0%BE.%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%20%D0%A2%D1%8E%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%2C%20%D0%B3%20%D0%A2%D1%8E%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%2C%20%D1%83%D0%BB%20%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9%20%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82&path=1305522.95250228.1308003.1304011
mavl (2024-07-20 16:00:29+00:00): Спасибо, но по ссылке указано "Тюменская область, город Тюмень, улица Московский тракт". Откуда появилось "улица Московский Тракт"? С большой буквы "Тракт".
geo_ozon (2024-07-30 10:18:37+00:00): За давностью времени сложно уже найти задание, которое было выдано. Была либо личная ошибка эдитора либо ошибка скрипта правки опечаток. Вообще у нас по инструкции простановка улицы выбором из существующих вариантов. Ну и нашелся пример заявки на адрес по этой же улице от владельца ПВЗ: https://disk.yandex.ru/i/6kVKEQIfRuc0ew . В нем все корректно.
mcliquid (2024-07-03 07:46:34+00:00): Related to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153485313
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153484197
mcliquid (2024-07-03 07:46:38+00:00): Related to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153485313
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153484838
mavl (2024-07-03 13:09:07+00:00): Здравствуйте. Вы перемудрили с названием улицы (улица Ю.-Р.Г. Эрвье). Назовите, пожалуйста, эту улицу так, как она называется в OpenStreetMap.
jeslop (2024-07-03 09:06:59+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153492134
flohoff (2024-07-03 07:10:17+00:00): Hi,
have these mass edits beein discussed anywhere beforehand? 

The changeset is HUGE and this at least gives a NACK from me.

This is not verifiable by any human. 

Flo
mapperue (2024-07-03 07:31:04+00:00): Hi,
see in more detail what I edited. So I don't need to visit all the edited places to fix the syntax and remove the space between multiple values.
flohoff (2024-07-03 07:35:31+00:00): Its not about what i see.

Automated Edits must be announced and discussed beforehand.

And they should be splitted to smaller chunks geographical chuks so people can validate.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits

I was asking on where you announced this edit?
jeslop (2024-07-03 09:07:00+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153492134
flohoff (2024-07-03 07:08:59+00:00): Hi,
i saw your change and i guess it would make sense to have a lit=yes on the shelter?

I agree that the shelter=street_lamp is bogus - but i guess the claim was that the shelter is lit.

Flo
Lumikeiju (2024-07-03 16:48:09+00:00): That makes sense to me - I've added "lit=yes" to these features in Changeset: 153510716. Happy mapping!
jeslop (2024-07-03 09:07:01+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153492134
jeslop (2024-07-03 09:06:11+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153492101
mini-me (2024-07-03 15:25:11+00:00): Адреса указываются на зданиях. На территории дублировать не нужно.
А вот основной тег детского сада (amenity=kindergarten) висит на территории, поэтому название и контакты следует указывать там же, а не на здании.
Поправил.
okadatsuneo (2024-07-03 23:49:57+00:00): pseekさん、こんにちは。
郵便局関連のデータ整備ありがとうございます。
1点お願いがありまして、住所(addr:quarter,addr:neighbourhood)に
関しては、
「町 / 字 / 丁 / 丁目」はaddr:neighbourhoodを使用することとし、
「大字〇〇字△」の時の「大字〇〇」だけaddr:quarterを使用するようにしていただけるとありがあたいです。

参照：
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Key:addr:*
の「日本の住所表記について」の項
pseek (2024-07-04 04:39:57+00:00): 了解しました。ご指摘ありがとうございます。
jeslop (2024-07-03 09:06:12+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153492101
jeslop (2024-07-03 09:06:13+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153492101
syntex (2024-07-13 15:33:15+00:00): Na jakiej podstawie wycofałeś moje zmiany?