piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
gurglypipe (2025-02-07 12:57:01+00:00): Hiya, thanks for your edits around the Dales recently. I’ve reverted this change because the access tagging for this bridleway was already correct, and your changes broke vehicle access to Gunnerfleet Farm.

Bridleways are a right of way, and don’t necessarily describe the physical appearance of the route. The tagging to indicate a bridleway is designation=public_bridleway horse=designated. In this case, the physical appearance of the way is as a compacted gravel track, with private vehicular access to the farm.

highway=bridleway is a bit of a distraction and generally only makes sense to use when going across fields, with no vehicular access (a bit like highway=footway is used).

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_bridleways for more information on tagging them.

Thanks! Happy to answer any questions if you have them.

Reverted as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162244290
InsertUser (2025-02-08 20:40:41+00:00): What justification do you have for tagging node 12491868091 as an Australian bank from half a world away rather than the local Commonwealth Bank?
http://www.combankltd.com/
eggie (2025-02-07 21:34:32+00:00): Dag T4om  Ik denk dat access=yes hier weg moet.
Dat is in tegenspraak met de andere accesstags.
access=customers lijkt me voldoende. Dan kunnen de aparte categorieën weg en avccess=yes moet zeker weg.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=162242994

MVG
eggie
T4om (2025-02-08 19:41:34+00:00): Hoi Eggie,

Super bedankt voor de feedback, ik nog een keer goed de wiki lezen over de accses tags. 
gaat dus duidelijk nog niet goed.

mvg
Tom
pitscheplatsch (2025-02-07 20:10:50+00:00): #seo #spam
gurglypipe (2025-02-07 13:00:37+00:00): Reverted (as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162244615) for the same reasons as in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162242922 — see discussion there
s777n (2025-02-15 20:21:16+00:00): Перерисовал улицы
gscscnd (2025-02-07 15:49:07+00:00): residential to to samo tylko bez ograniczeń strefy zamieszkania. Główna droga to unclassified. Kontaktowałeś się z „wandalem”?
s777n (2025-02-15 20:20:47+00:00): Перерисовал улицы
BCNorwich (2025-02-08 07:26:18+00:00): Hi, You duplicated areas of solar panels that were already mapped by the fields. I've removed the duplication.

Regards Bernard.
julcnx (2025-03-16 15:02:30+00:00): Hi EZ_TT, thanks for your contributions! I reverted the roundabout classification change in two of your changesets. Roundabouts should generally match the highest road type they connect. Let me know if there was a reason for the change. Best, Julien
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162243866
Alexmol (2025-05-15 21:19:44+00:00): Charging station is under construction and was already mapped
SomeoneElse (2025-02-08 11:53:08+00:00): Hello,
I think that there might be a bit of a problem with some of the relations here - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/137279112 overlaps with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/375867813 now, which means that relations such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11047400 have overlaps and have fallen out of rendering databases.
The solution might just be as simple as deleting https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/375867813 and checking that all relations that were in it are OK afterwards (perhaps by using the JOSM editor's validator).
Best Regards,
Andy
aSalmon (2025-02-12 14:45:58+00:00): Thanks Andy. I don't really have the technical knowledge to understand this problem, so I just reverted the whole changeset with osm-revert.
SomeoneElse (2025-02-15 12:35:00+00:00): Thanks - everything has now reappeared, I think.
eggie (2025-02-07 13:05:14+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback   Dit lijkt me niet helemaal goed gegaan. Dit is geen highway=unclassified en de straatnaam zal niet zijn 'Dit is partulier terrein.
Het highway=path kan gewoon de accesstag krijgen access=private.
Welk bord staat hier vooraan?
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2025-02-07 13:28:33+00:00): reverted by changeset #162245615
eggie (2025-02-07 13:35:16+00:00): Aangepast naar access=private
eggie (2025-02-07 13:49:41+00:00): Het zal niet meer routeren zodra de verschillende routers (Kommot, Brouter, OsmAnd e.d en GPS kaarten hun update hebben gehad.
Okk zijn de paden nauwelijks te zien op de kaart.
Mochten er meer wegen niet toegangelijk zijn dan gewoon aangeven met een opmerking op de kaart. Het 'moet' in het veld wel op blijkbare wijze zijn aangegeven middels een bord (art 461 wvs en/of een gesloten hek) 
De toegang ontzeggen kan ook door woord en gebaar. 
Lijkt me vermoeiend.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-02-07 13:16:14+00:00): Beste   De Waterloolaan is toch gewoon een weg die openstaat voor VR diensten?
Dan hoef je toch geen emergency=yes toe te voegen?

MVG
egguie
Thomas Barkhof (VRG) (2025-02-07 13:23:42+00:00): Je hebt gelijk, vergist bij deze. Ik haal de tag weer weg.

Gr, Thomas
eggie (2025-02-07 13:26:28+00:00): accesstags aangepast.
eggie (2025-02-07 13:08:11+00:00): .. access=private zou kunnen, maar de straatnaam is niet VERBODEN TOEGANG: PARTICULIER TERREIN !!!!!!!

Verder zijn  je tags niet des OSM.
Hoofdletters gebruiken wordt gezien als schreeuwen.
Wat is je bedoeling met je OSM account?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-02-07 13:24:05+00:00): reverted by changeset #162245475
eggie (2025-02-07 13:42:28+00:00): Aangepast naar access=private Het zal niet routeren
Frans S (2025-02-09 17:26:42+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping .
Please use the tag building=yes for buildings. You tagged several buildings as highway=unclassified.
I corrected them.
Best regards
eggie (2025-02-07 13:09:55+00:00): Dag Schagerwaard.. Dit wordt gezien als vernieling van de kaarrt.
Je zou ook even in overleg kunnen treden met de OSM community. Dan kunnen we kijken of er een juiste oplossing is.

MVG
eggie
Schagerwaard (2025-02-07 13:14:13+00:00): Zeg mij maar hoe wij in contact kunnen komen met elkaar. Er staan hier routes op die over particulier terrein gaan. En we krijgen al meer last van wandelaars en fietsers over ons erf en door onze tuinen. 
Zeg mij maar hoe wij in contact kunnen komen. 
Graag zou ik het even mondeling willen toelichten.
eggie (2025-02-07 13:21:16+00:00): Beste Schagerwaard.

Ongenood bezoek op et erf lijkt me inderdaad vervelend. 
Ik draai even de changesets terug en zal en zal access=private toevoegen op de erftoegangswegen. 
Verder is het mogelijk om opmerkingen op de kaart te zetten middels een note. Dan kan een ervaren lokale mapper het oppakken.
We hebben ook nog het forum van OSM. Zie welkomstmail. 

Reageren kan inderdaad op de changesets zelf of via een PB naar mij. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-02-07 13:23:13+00:00): reverted by changeset #162245420
Paden worden straks aangepast met access=private zodat ze niet meer routeren.
Schagerwaard (2025-02-07 13:26:52+00:00): Een pb naar jou, hoe doe ik dat? Via welk medium/whatapp of zo? Graag overal waar ik tekst heb staan, overal prive van maken. We willen ook geen wandelaars door ons land heen. Momenteel lopen blijkbaar die routes overal, want we komen overal hardlopers, wandelaar, mountainbikers tegen. Ik ben al blij dat ik er deels achter ben, waar al deze routes op staan. Maakt komoot en gaia ook gebruik van deze kaarten?
eggie (2025-02-07 13:41:37+00:00): Komoot inderdaad wel. Het zal straks niet meer routeren in Komoot, want alles staat op access=private
... gaia   zegt me even niets.
Een PB kun je sturen door op mij naam te klikken en te kiezen voor Bericht verzenden in mijn profiel. 
Dat gaat dan direct naar mij en is niet openbaar.
domiden (2025-02-07 16:45:07+00:00): It should be “Additions …”
pitfire (2025-02-14 12:38:55+00:00): Hallo Pumpkinhead8520,

danke für Deine Änderungen und willkommen bei OSM. 
Dieser Änderungssatz entspricht nicht der regulären Vorgehensweise. 
Das Gebäude ist weitestgehend fertiggestellt und hatte die neuen gültigen Umrisse.

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=150203120

Bitte lösche keine Objekte vollständig die lediglich eine weitere Anpassung erfordern.
Jedes Objekt hat eine erhaltenswerte Historie / Lebenszyklus 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice

I requested a recovery mechanism

Gruß pitfire
pavvv (2025-02-07 13:46:25+00:00): Skoro tu już nie ma Poczty Polskiej, to powinno być old_name.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-02-11 15:24:20+00:00): jak jest już disused:amenity to atrubuty automatycznie odnoszą się do istniejącego obiektu

old_name to byłaby raczej poprzednia nazwa niestniejącej placówki pocztowej
pavvv (2025-02-11 17:12:12+00:00): > jak jest już disused:amenity to atrubuty automatycznie odnoszą się do istniejącego obiektu

ale ten prefiks należy dodać do wszystkich tagów, które mogłyby oznaczać coś niezgodnego z rzeczywistością
np. dajemy proposed:gauge na planowanych liniach kolejowych, nie dodajemy bicycle=yes na kładkach, które są w budowie

tak samo stosujemy nieaktualny wariant tagu name, bo ten obiekt już nie ma tej nazwy i
tym bardziej jak w tym miejscu powstanie nowy lokal, to old_name można zostawić, a disused:amenity zmienić na inne amenity
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-02-11 23:56:36+00:00): jeśli jest czysty obiekt który nie miesza martwego i aktualnego amenity to atrybuty jasno odnoszą się do tego martwego

a jeśli tam nie ma pozostałości poczty to i disused:amenity jest złe i niekatualne
maro21 (2025-02-16 20:28:51+00:00): Zgadzam się z Mateuszem. Nazwa zamkniętego sklepu nadal jest taka sama jak otwartego. Tag [old_name] to poprzednia nazwa i powinien być stosowany wraz z [name].
martien-176 (2025-02-09 20:18:04+00:00): Please do not forget to add imagery detail when you upload your mappings. 

It is regularly missing in your mappings. 

Thanks.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162245232
sahshoor (2025-02-07 13:36:48+00:00): Town correction: Nanga Tayap
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-03-09 18:36:27+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12565573511/history

are you sure about fee=no ?

are they giving out food for free?
silversurfer83 (2025-02-07 15:10:58+00:00): Hallo Sonja :)

zu diesem Weg ein paar Fragen:
Wenn ich die (älteren) Bilder der Dienste mapillary und Co richtig lesen, dann stehen an diesem Weg die Verkehrszeichen 240 (gemeinsamer Fuß- und Radweg). Ist das richtig?
Dann hast du dem Weg auf ganzer Länge die Eigenschaft "embankment=yes" gegeben. Ich bin mir relativ sicher, dass der weg nicht vollständig auf einem Wall verläuft. Bitte trenne den Weg an den Stellen auf, wo er nicht auf einem Wall liegt und entferne diese Eigenschaft an den Abschnitten.

Wege, die nur ein VZ240 haben, werden idR als "highway=path" (Pfad) mit bicycle+foot=designated getaggt. Bitte lass Wege so, wenn du sie findest. Das sind keine "Radwege" sondern gemeinsame Rad- UND Fußwege. Details im Wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dpath

Grüße
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162245943
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-02-08 01:03:47+00:00): Hi! Thanks for your contributions. Please refer to the official wiki for mapping cycleways in Canada: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada#Mapping_cycleways
Cycleways without physical separations must not be mapped as separate ways.
domiden (2025-02-07 16:46:13+00:00): Sorry, it should be “Additions …” not “Removing …”
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-02-07 14:42:07+00:00): Can you confirm that this street exist north of Rue Julien or is it fantasy data?
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-05-25 04:13:16+00:00): Why did you add restrictions like only_u_turn?
Fralambert2017 (2025-05-25 21:35:11+00:00): Just to be sure, this is on rue de la Petite-Noraie?
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-05-25 21:43:33+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1357790026
Fralambert2017 (2025-05-25 21:53:27+00:00): Probably a error, the only restriction I wanted to add was https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18664842 since this is a side lane to turn right.
michiganguy123 (2025-02-09 01:34:17+00:00): next time don't use the bridge tag for every road please
LordGarySugar (2025-04-01 02:12:09+00:00): I re-added a bollard node on Digswell Park Road that you converted to a way - without it there was nothing to prevent motor vehicle routing along the road
Adam Edwards (2025-04-01 13:07:35+00:00): Thanks.  I hadn't realised this was an effect of my change.
KarlaIbrahić (2025-02-08 16:30:08+00:00): Reverted because node was created. #OptimoRoute

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162286616
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-02-07 15:16:43+00:00): SVP arrêtez d'ajouter des données imaginaires ou erronnées à OpenStreetMap. Je vous dénonce au DWG
silversurfer83 (2025-02-07 15:21:23+00:00): Hi
du hast hier bei Malsfeld aus einigen Feldwegen Radwege gemacht und änderst damit das Routing in der Gegend stark.
Kannst du mir für die von dir geänderten Wege sicher sagen, wie diese nach stvo beschildert sind?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162246447
pitscheplatsch (2025-02-07 15:57:41+00:00): Hello and welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits, particularly those concerning the names you've added or modified.

It seems that some of these names are a bit unusual.

#NameCheck #NeisLab
NON YA SKIBIDI (2025-02-07 16:16:58+00:00): I’m just messing with a friend if you want I’ll change it when I get time
jeslop (2025-02-19 15:35:04+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162706102
FoldForever (2025-11-22 12:30:10+00:00): I've noticed some concerns with this changeset. The added paths conflict with existing pathways connected to the existing roads, this is causing routing issues on the map, as well as creating things such as non existent bridges.

I have concerns of this trail as a whole too - as it is not sign posted in the world this doesn't seem to meet the requirements to be on the map, as well as the fact there's no exact trail on the PDF so there's no specific route to map.
mrpacmanmap (2025-12-01 21:03:37+00:00): Thank you for bringing this to my attention- I would like to get some clarification regarding your comments.

I'm unsure what you mean by "the added paths conflict with existing pathways connected to the existing roads". I've taken a look at the mapped relation, and it all appears to be ordered in the correct directions. The majoroty of the route is mapped along sidewalks and footpaths that have no individual oneway=* tag; in some parts the route follows along roadways which have no oneway=* tag either; the one exception is a one way road near to Warrens Hall Riding School that flows in the opposire direction ot the trail- in this instance the member relation is reversed but this should not impact routing issues. Places where the trail crosses roads have been tagged with a marked/unmarked crossing node, as is best practice, but those individual nodes are not part of the trail relation. Where along the route are you referring to, and what impacts on routing have you experienced?

In reference to the creation of "non-existent bridges", I have checked along the mapped route and can't find what you may have been referring to. Any members along the trail with the bridge tag are, in fact, bridges (such as where the trail passes over a canal). Please could you respond with some clarification as to where these bridges are?

I understand your concern regarding whether or not this trail should have been mapped or not. In my opinion, as it met one of the criteria for suitability for inclusion on the map as stated on the OSM wiki ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes#Tagging_walking_and_hiking_route_networks ) then it was correct to map it- specifically that it is "documented by an organisation [sandwell council] that is responsible for this function [encouraging and facilitating active travel to improve the health and well-being of its residents]". Although no exact trail is present on the PDF document, points have been numbered so a route was inferred by me that connected the points in a sequential order. 

I hope this provides some clarification regarding why the trail was mapped.
mrpacmanmap (2025-12-01 21:05:38+00:00): For clarification, I verified that the relation was ordered in the correct order using this tool: https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=18664600&type=relation
FoldForever (2025-12-01 21:50:01+00:00): Thanks for your reply! To answer your questions:

The routing for example gets confused in this example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?
engine=fossgis_osrm_foot&route=52.477138%2C-2.052279%3B52.475945%2C-2.046
804#map=18/52.476532/-2.049546
Where it should stick to Powke Lane

And previously it was getting confused on how to navigate Waterfall Lane Bridge ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.472419/-2.055476 ) , where it would tell you to cross under to the canal, go under the bridge and back up to join a foot path on the other side
This specific case has been fixed for routing, as another user set the bridge state properly, but it does show the extra footpath as a separate "bridge" (or is certainly did before)

The PDF also mentions that the trail was in meant to be two separate trails "Each of the two routes is long and strenuous" so having the connecting section seems incorrect?

Regarding being added - I feel as the map is from 2009 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20091213212103/https://www.laws.sandwell.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/leisure-and-culture/local-history-and-heritage/heritage-trail/walk-rowley-regis/ ), and the council no longer hosts or has this information, I'm not sure this is enough to be added (?). The referenced PDF was a re-upload from a 3rd party

Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts from your side
mrpacmanmap (2025-12-04 15:31:07+00:00): Hi there,

I just tried to see what the issue was following your link, but the second address was invalid. Am I correct in thinking that it was from ~61 Powke Ln to ~15 Alwin Rd? If that is the case, then I can't understand what the issue is? For walking, it routes via Duke St, then down a public footpath that appears to still be open, which is the most direct route. For car navigation, it routes via the 3rd left, then 1st left, to the same destination. 

For Waterfall Ln Bridge, I can see that the part of the footpath I mapped is tagged as a bridge, as is standard practice for when a footpath passes over a bridge. When initially mapping the walking route, I only mapped the footpaths/sidewalks that the route would have used as it would have been too time consuming to map every sidewalk in the vicinity, I however did map a short section of footpath/sidewalk with no relation added at nodes where the path diverged to decrease the linkeness of a new mapper extending the footpath undert the relation in the wrong direction. Recently, I've been mapping sidewalks and footpaths separately to the roads they run alongside (as can be seen here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.518804/-2.009531 

I don't think I realised that the trail was meant to be split when I originally mapped it, as that is the case, it might be a good idea to split the route into two. I agree with your point here, though the connection does seem incorrect.

Whilst the route is old, the sites along it are all still in place as far as I am aware, so someone would easily be able to still complete it,  which would be a good reason to keep it? 

Thank you so much for getting back to me. I appreciate your response. :)
FoldForever (2025-12-06 12:25:38+00:00): Hi again,

Apologies if the links were not working, I'll explain with some images here - https://ibb.co/8LwhFMX7 This one here routes via Alwin road, while valid - you can simply stick to Powke Lane for a more direct route, it appears the footpath is confusing this routing

The previous one I tried to describe is again fixed by correcting the bridge and footpath, but prior to this the routing suggested the following https://ibb.co/HT7xQZc8 I at least want to point it out to help prevent any future errors!

Regarding the debate of separate side walks vs "part of the road", I'm aware it's a larger discussion in the community as a whole such as this megathread here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/separate-sidewalks-or-not-near-ealing/132613 My opinion is it's an "all-or-nothing" approach, and as the local areas do not have separate side walks, it doesn't feel right to add it exclusively for something like a trail cutting through an area, as it can give the appearance of incomplete or limited amount of paths

> Whilst the route is old, the sites along it are all still in place as far as I am aware
The one I am unsure of would happen to be "The Municipal Buildings" (number 5, which is via Barrs Road) I've never seen it local or on surveys.

Some research myself appears to show that it was in the same spot that is now the local Fire Station (next to the Haden Hill Leisure Centre)
While I know it is taboo to reference other map services, the example I can provide for you to see (beyond taking my word for it) is Google street view towards the Fire station - it is removed some time between 2012 and 2016

I imagine that puts the whole trail into question?

Thanks for reply - I don't wish to come over as hostile, I just want the best for the map and local area!
FoldForever (2025-12-19 19:44:53+00:00): Just a quick message for your thoughts on the above?
mrpacmanmap (2026-01-06 00:05:25+00:00): Hi FoldForever, please accept my apologies for the late response. I'm unable to see any notifications for your comments, so to prevent a delay like this from happening again, could you personally message me when you've responded so that I don't miss it again? 

I can see what you mean now about the confusing routing for the Powke Ln route. In terms of mapping the sidewalks separately, I can see both points expressed on the megathread. If you take a look at some of my recent edits, you will be able to see that I have been micromapping in a lot of detail, not too far away from the heritage walk. I have intended to eventually work my way over there once I have completed micro-mapping Oldbury. I guess I've been 'future-proofing' the area so that less work needs to be done when either I or someone else comes along in the future and maps the area in high resolution, which I can understand counteracts your all-or-nothing approach. 

You have an excellent point when it comes to the demolition of the municipal buildings- I was unaware of this, as it's been many years since I last passed through that, so I hadn't noticed that they were no longer there. However, I don't believe that the demolition of the buildings necessarily puts the whole trail into question due to it being a 'heritage trail'. Some trails that I have seen/mapped previously make stops at the former location of important landmarks/buildings? I guess that puts up for debate the whole intention of what a heritage trail is for? I'd like to hear your perspective on this.

Sorry again for the delay in the reply, I don't feel as though you're coming across as hostile, and I hope that you don't feel like I am either, as I also want what is best for the map and the local area.