piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NorthCrab_upload (2025-05-28 16:21:12+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11563975613
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11563975699
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1120553666
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/810322677

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Damian05 (2025-05-30 18:41:21+00:00): Dziękuje za zwrócenie uwagi
Frans S (2025-06-10 15:11:58+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. 
Sorry to say, but your mappings are not representative of the situation.
Rather big offsets, Wrongly positioned
In JOSM it is not difficult to map accurate isn't it ?
Check this webpage where you can see your mappings and my modifications.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=167449750
Please improve your mapping skills.
Best regards
Taya_S (2025-05-28 19:08:26+00:00): Hello MxxCon,

I was wondering why you decided to remove the pedestrian areas here. I'm not really familiar with this area and it looks plausible going by the aerial imagery alone, so I'd love to hear your reasoning.

Best regards,
Taya Snijder
MxxCon (2025-05-28 19:11:57+00:00): Those features are already mapped as ways, and it's inappropriate to duplicate the same features twice.
Taya_S (2025-05-28 19:26:35+00:00): That is a really common way of mapping pedestrian areas. So common that the wiki specifically encourages it https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian#How_to_map

Granted ofc anyone can edit the wiki, but in this case it does represent how people map these features. To give a few examples from around the world:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/433297951
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/832568603
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107467883
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/298829373

I don't think that alone is a good reason to remove the pedestrian areas.
woodpeck (2025-05-29 08:22:24+00:00): Hello MxxCon, the DWG is looking at the disagreement between you and user catgirlseraid and we are tracking this in our ticket #2025052810000472.

You are right when you say that we normally abide by the "one feature, one object" rule. In an ideal world it would be sufficient to map a pedestrian area as an area. However, with both map renderers and routers being bad at labelling (or routing over) such pedestrian areas, it is indeed a widely practiced mapping style to have both - see the examples provided by Taya.

While I understand you reservations about micro-mapping, your deletion of pedestrian areas has lost some information. For example if you now look at #110 Andes Rd, the map seems to indicate a green area being present between the building and the road when in fact the concrete extends up to the (shrubbery just outside) the building. 

Could you please re-instate the pedestrian areas.

Also I see that you have replaced "forest" polygons with single trees which is ok, but some forest polygons seem to have gone missing without being replaced (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=166883890) - maybe you could check that again. 

Finally, can I ask you to try and remain objective in changeset comments; a simple "reducing micromapping on Governors Island" would have been better than speaking of "badly mapped features" that require "correction". (I can see that you did indeed correct a few mistakes but most of the edits in this changeset are a matter of taste and not of what is correct and what not - and even IF I correct a mistake that someone else has made I wouldn't usually make a big deal about how that was "bad mapping".)
MxxCon (2025-05-29 11:20:29+00:00): I haven't finished working on this area. I have limited free time to allocate to this and the amount of damage done to this area is significant. It'll take me multiple changesets to correct all the issues. As you know, it takes much longer to fix problems than to map from scratch.

I consider intentionally deleted tree nodes and instead drawing ambiguous "woods" shapes, even around single trees, to be bad mapping.

When I communicated numerous issues I observed in the previous mapper's changes, her reply to me was "fix it yourself" and "stop commenting on my changesets". I'm doing both.
catgirlseraid (2025-05-30 14:24:30+00:00): Hi,

I've gone back through and added any pedestrian and footway areas back, along with cleaning up a few other missing sections of landuse, returning deleted buildings that exist on updated aerial imagery and removed single member multipolygons left behind. Changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166970036. I then went back through using as many sources as I could find and converted most of the natural=wood areas, especially the small ones into a series of natural=tree nodes. Changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166974580 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166974943. Please comment if there's any further issues.

Thanks, Phoebe
MxxCon (2025-05-30 17:26:05+00:00): You know it's customary to communicate with the author of the changeset you are going to revert before reverting it... Something I've done for you, and for you to tell me to fix it myself, and something your haven't done to me. 
Your previous actions caused me to completely stop reviewing ALL changesets. 
Your current action made me stop contributing any edits.
Good destroying my passion for OSM after 15 years of contributing. 
Good job building OSM community strong.
woodpeck (2025-05-30 18:31:52+00:00): Perhaps we could (all!) cut back on the drama here. Disagreements between mappers are frequent; nobody owns a place and nobody does it right all the time. Barging into an area someone else is spending a lot of care on and establishing one's own (micro)mapping style can lead to conflict; being territorial about the area one has spent a lot of care on can also lead to conflict. An area where nobody reviews new changesets can quickly deteriorate; an area where someone over-reviews everything can stagnate.

About 8,000 people edit OpenStreetMap every day, there's bound to be different viewpoints and we need to find ways that work for everyone. If you feel offended by something, take a deep breath, maybe do something else for a day, and if you still find something is wrong, raise it on a community forum so that others who are not emotionally involved can give you a hint.

If you've done OSM for 15 years and liked it, don't throw your toys out of the pram just because of a single conflict; weigh that against the positive feelings that contributing to this fantastic team (!!!) effort has given you over the years - and allow others to have a little of that too.
MxxCon (2025-05-31 03:44:56+00:00): Let me be clear: I've never claimed ownership over any part of the map, nor have I ever tried to forbid mapping in any area. My core desire was always to see more mappers contributing to NYC. There's still an immense amount of work to be done – adding, improving, and updating.

My involvement in reviewing edits around NYC was born from my familiarity with the city. I live here, I know it. My goal was to ensure that such a highly visible and important area maintained the highest possible map quality. I wanted NYC to be a showcase and reference for OSM. When I saw what I considered to be inaccurate or suboptimal mapping, I'd comment on those changesets. This wasn't about stagnating the map; it was about seeking clarification, suggesting corrections, and ultimately, helping to prevent future mistakes, improve mapping standards and minimize the amount of changesets I would need to review. When I see edits from people that I know they consistently generate quality edits I only randomly look at their stuff to see if I can spot any unintentional mistakes.

Throughout my 15 years with OpenStreetMap, and particularly in recent years, I've navigated many disagreements. There have been misunderstandings and frustrations, of course. But every time, these issues were resolved respectfully, and we all learned something. What I've just experienced from @catgirlseraid, however, was a shocking and unprecedented "fuck you, fuck off" attitude towards my reviews and these following edits.

And when it came to "raising it with the community"? I tried. On Discord. My concerns were met with dismissive mockery – "🤓👆Ummmm, akschulally" and similar garbage.

The idea of "don't throw your toys out of the pram" misses the point entirely. These "toys" no longer bring me joy; they bring only stress. I'm no longer willing to endure that.

I'm increasingly seeing a trend where the community leans towards turning OSM into an art project with aesthetically pleasing shapes on Carto, essentially tagging for the renderer, instead of adhering to the principle of renderer-agnostic, data-accurate mapping. I'm no longer interested in fighting against it. I'm no longer interested in reviewing anything, nor am I interested in editing. I am simply done.

The 8,000 people who edit OSM daily will continue to improve the map, but I will not be among them.

P.S. As for the buildings @catgirlseraid re-added: they are temporary, seasonal tents erected and removed for various events. They are not permanent fixtures that should be mapped on OpenStreetMap. But I suppose that detail is irrelevant if it "looks good on Carto" for a personal portfolio website.
gurglypipe (2025-05-28 16:40:10+00:00): None of this is visible on Bing aerial imagery in ID as far as I can see — where are you getting updated imagery from? I’m interested to use it, thanks.
m-a-p (2025-05-28 21:31:47+00:00): Sorry, my fault, used Google maps as a reference to see what has been built (more recent) and transcribed that over the Bing photo (as most of the groundworks are on that).
gurglypipe (2025-05-28 22:29:29+00:00): Oh dear. Unfortunately, that’s not allowed by the licensing terms of Google’s imagery — see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google. If OSM had a license to use that updated imagery, it would probably be available in ID already.

Unfortunately, I think that means this changeset is going to have to be reverted, unless you can point to an alternate source which corroborates the changes? We can’t have copyrighted data in OSM as it’s incompatible with the license, and opens the dataset up to copyright infringement claims. :(
gurglypipe (2025-06-02 10:42:05+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167085620 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167085679.
Taya_S (2025-05-28 17:30:34+00:00): Reverted sockpuppet edits DWG Ticket#2025021610000053

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166886444
citrula (2025-05-29 01:56:20+00:00): Welcome to OSM, and thanks for your contributions. you also removed the brand and shop=supermarket tags from the Kroger next door - was that intentional?
c3358 (2025-05-29 14:43:25+00:00): Oh my, that was certainly unintentional. I've just reverted that change. Thanks for catching it and informing me!
Taya_S (2025-05-28 17:30:35+00:00): Reverted sockpuppet edits DWG Ticket#2025021610000053

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166886444
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-06-02 18:21:59+00:00): Can you edit https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1390498589 so it will be marked as a building?

Do you need explanation how to do this?
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-18 05:47:48+00:00): DWG revert - poor quality mapping & unresponsive user

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167765259
ralley (2025-06-05 20:02:50+00:00): Were you trying to map a building here?  Tagging as name=building is not the correct way to do this, please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166884884
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-18 05:47:49+00:00): DWG revert - poor quality mapping & unresponsive user

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167765259
TerraScribe (2025-05-28 16:54:25+00:00): source:IGN-Cadastre 2025
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-06-01 09:15:42+00:00): in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1390499800/history you have not really mapped building but rather entire industrial area - if you want you can also map buildings inside it

I tried to fix tagging already
ralley (2025-06-05 20:04:29+00:00): "dirt path" appears to be an (un-needed) description not a name, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166885132
gurglypipe (2025-05-29 08:58:00+00:00): Please don’t connect ways (like this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118865778) to the centreline of the roads, it makes future edits harder (the rec and road can’t be edited separately) and it’s not correct (the rec stops at the kerb, not the centreline of the road).
m-a-p (2025-06-02 17:48:14+00:00): I disagree with this format as when you use the map you get a gap between the feature and the road, therefore not knowing what is in the gap - which for data I use exported from OSM is quite important.  In reality the grassland abuts road edge, and as there are not separate road surface and kerb layers, does it not make sense to draw it at it appears?  I also note that although you don't join areas of grass to roads, you do so with footpaths - what's the reason for the inconsistency between these features (i.e the footpath stops at the kerb in the same way grass does)?
gurglypipe (2025-06-02 21:55:39+00:00): If you’re exporting data from OSM and need to know what’s in the gap then I guess you need to add the highway areas to the map (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway). Mapping the highway area as grass breaks others’ use of the data — for example, someone might use OSM to calculate how much of a town is green space, and having the grass mapped that way would significantly overcount its area.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean about footpaths (if you could link to an example that would be helpful), but it sounds like you’re talking about the links which make the footpath network routable. If the footpath centrelines aren’t joined to the road centrelines at crossings, then routing can’t work. The section of footpath which is on the road area can be tagged with footway=link (or highway=crossing if it’s a designated crossing) to differentiate it from the section above the kerb.
Herwescheluc (2025-05-29 16:16:43+00:00): Hallo, KartoGrapHiti,

bei der Einstufung der Straße durch Seelbach möchte ich gerne Einspruch einlegen.

Ich denke hier ist die "Klassifizierung" deutlich über einer Nebenstraße anzusetzen, also weiterhin tertiary anzuwenden.

Eine Überlegung meinerseits dazu ist auch das Fehlen einer innerorts 30er-Geschwindigkeitsregelung, welche zwar von (Teilen) der Bevölkerung gewünscht wird, aber seitens der Verkehrsbehörden abelehnt wurde, eben wegen der Durchgangsstellung der Straße.

Aufgefallen ist mir zudem, das Du die "Panzerstraße" (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/112136807#map=15/50.70227/8.35935&layers=N), die den dritten Ortseingang betrifft, weiterhin als tertiary belassen hast. Hier hätte ich eine Bearbeitung zu unclassified sogar begrüßt.

Da frage ich mich schon (und Dich als doch erfahrenen Mapper), was Deine Gründe für diese Umfirmierung und die unterschiedliche Behandlung sind.

Mer lernt schließlich nie aus!

Aber davon ab: Am westlichen Ortseingang hast Du ein kleines Stück samt nebenliegender Brücke übersehen (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65709033).

So oder so: Du müsstest da nochmal ran...

Herzliche Grüße aus Herborn

Andreas
KartoGrapHiti (2025-05-30 12:30:09+00:00): Hallo Andreas,

Ich habe keine Bedenken, die Panzerstraße in unclassified zu ändern. Darüber habe ich einfach nicht nachgedacht. 

Bei der alten Ortsdurchfahrt Seelbach habe ich festgestellt, dass die Straße 2017 schon mal Teil einer Tempo-30-Zone war und dass daher dort teilweise auch Tempo-30 auf den Straßen eingetragen war, wo nun aber wohl wieder Tempo 50 gilt. Für highway=tertiary soll folgendes gelten: "Sie verbindet kleinere Orte und dient dem innerregionalen Verkehr." (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dtertiary) Die Straße hat aber keinerlei Verbindungsfunktion zu einem anderen Ort, sondern dient nur dem Verkehr im Ort. Das spricht dann eigentlich sogar für residental: "Ist dagegen das durch eine highway=unclassified erschlossene Siedlungsziel klein und verursacht nur wenig Durchgangsverkehr so können Abschnitte der Straße in bebauten Gebiet auch als highway=residential belassen werden." (vgl. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dunclassified ) Das würde ich aber ehrlich gesagt erst setzen, wenn da eine Tempo-30-Zone ausgewiesen wird (was aus meiner Sicht rechtlich machbar wäre). Andererseits ist die "Hohe Straße" auch als residential ausgewiesen, obwohl sie auch Vorfahrtsstraße ist und genau so viel oder wenig Durchgangsfunktion hat wie die Marburger Straße. Nur weil die Marburger Straße noch baulich so aussieht wie zu Zeiten der Bundesstraße halte ich es nicht sinnvoll, die hochzustufen, weil sie für den überörtlichen Verkehr keine Bedeutung hat. Das wird wohl auch der Grund sein, warum von der Bundesstraße in die Ortsmitte von den Behörden keine Kreisstraße ausgewiesen wurde.

Ich stimme aber auch zu, dass das alles nicht eindeutig ist.
Herwescheluc (2025-06-08 20:19:47+00:00): Hallo, KartoGrapHiti,
nur zur Sicherheit:
Du hast meine PM erhalten?
Grüße aus Herborn
Andreas
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-18 05:47:50+00:00): DWG revert - poor quality mapping & unresponsive user

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167765259
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-18 05:47:51+00:00): DWG revert - poor quality mapping & unresponsive user

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167765259
rempshaener (2025-05-29 08:20:21+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.
Du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Ich habe nur eine Anmerkung: die Referenz, die derzeit in „name“ steht, wird bei Trafos in „ref“ eingetragen. Das ist aber schnell angepasst.
Vielen Dank für deinen Beitrag und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen.
Viele Grüße
user_5359 (2025-05-29 15:16:48+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1390508430. What is the mean of the tags
CODE = 3
PERENNIAL = no
Shape_Leng = 1124.31131254
?
pgc89 (2025-05-29 15:21:02+00:00): These are tags which were imported from the Source file.
user_5359 (2025-05-29 16:05:35+00:00): Then I would delete them, as we do not import the interpretation of these keys.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-17 02:39:27+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167718816
YomanNH (2025-05-28 18:38:01+00:00): Cześć!

Po co tworzysz duble tagów dotyczący przejść dla pieszych na linii highway=footway, gdy wszystkie cechy przejścia są już opisane na punkcie przecięcia z jezdnią? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Czemu gdy jest przejście + przejazd rowerowy, to dodajesz crossing:markings=zebra, skoro nie jest to tylko zebra? Jeśli już chcesz dodać tagi opisujące rodzaj użytych znaczników, to dodawaj np. footway:crossing:markings=zebra = cycleway:crossing:markings=dots.

Pozdrawiam
TranslatorPS (2025-05-28 18:45:03+00:00): Co do pierwszego: sprawdziwszy Wiki, nic nie sugeruje, żeby tak nie robić (ba, na angielskiej wersji jest to wręcz promowane, choć na starym tagu crossing_ref). Wracać i usuwać zamiaru nie mam, bo nie widzę w tym szkodliwości, najwyżej po prostu nie będę dodawał tego na linii.

Co do drugiego, słuszna uwaga. Dzięki.
pavvv (2025-05-28 18:51:36+00:00): > Po co tworzysz duble tagów dotyczący przejść dla pieszych na linii highway=footway, gdy wszystkie cechy przejścia są już opisane na punkcie przecięcia z jezdnią?

Takie użycie nie jest niezgodne z tą zasadą, ponieważ nie dodaje tagu fizycznego. Jeśli masz coś przeciwko stosowaniu  takich tagów na liniach, to zacznij lub ewentualnie odkop wątek na https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/general/tagging/70 w sprawie zaprzestania tagowania danych o przejściach na linii. Akurat ostatnio toczy się dyskusja o przejściach.
Bexhill-OSM (2025-05-29 01:47:19+00:00): I will amend these so they are entrance nodes as described here - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:flats.
Thanks, Alex
Libarch (2025-05-29 17:42:31+00:00): Hi Alex, sorry it probably seemed a rather pedantic correction. It's very unusual to have both a flat number and (unique) house number - in fact I don't see the point of it! But it is what it is...
Rick
Bexhill-OSM (2025-05-29 22:53:55+00:00): No problem! Many such cases... :)
Frans S (2025-05-29 14:38:11+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
These buildings are all round huts.
Map them as round huts.
Best regards
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-17 02:39:28+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167718816
SunnyIsland10 (2025-06-02 19:11:24+00:00): Greetings Badojo,

Thank you for your mapping in Bosnia and Herzegovina! I recently noticed new highway ref tags, such as ref=R-II 5511 and old_ref=R-457, that were added in this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166888058

Do you have any resources that confirm these new ref numbers? Any additional information on these would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you and have a great day!

SunnyIsland10
Badojo (2025-06-02 20:09:00+00:00): Hi,

the roads in Republika Srpska have been given new numbers. I use these two as sources (https://web.archive.org/web/20240716215656/https://vladars.rs/sr-SP-Cyrl/Vlada/Ministarstva/msv/Documents/%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D0%BE%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%9A%D1%83%20%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0_406181601.pdf) (https://www.putevirs.com/korisnik/dokumenti/Brojanje_vozila_u_RS_2019.pdf). Sorry for not adding them. I usually do multiple changesets in JOSM and forget to add sources after the first upload.
Badojo (2025-06-02 20:09:54+00:00): There is also a more comprehensive Wikipedia list, but these also state the old road numbers and are primary sources.
SunnyIsland10 (2025-06-03 20:58:27+00:00): Hi! 

Thank you for sharing these resources! I did notice that the formatting/syntax changed a little bit from the document. The pdf shows the ref as "RII-5511", but in OSM the ref is formatted as "R-II 5511”. Do you know if this was intentional, or is there any chance you have been able to confirm how these are signed on the ground?

Thank you,
SunnyIsland10
Badojo (2025-06-05 16:50:14+00:00): I'm not sure about the format myself. When the ref tags were first added to OSM it was in the "R-II 5511" format and that's what I went with. The original decision (https://web.archive.org/web/20240716215656/https://vladars.rs/sr-SP-Cyrl/Vlada/Ministarstva/msv/Documents/%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0%20%D0%BE%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%9A%D1%83%20%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85%20%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0_406181601.pdf) format is like that on page 6 upper left table says "РЕГИОНАЛНИ ПУТЕВИ ПРВОГ РЕДА (Р-I)" which in latin is REGIONALNI PUTEVI PRVOG REDA (R-I)" and then lists plain numbers. The other pdf list them in the RII-5511 fomat that is more in line with the previous numers like 4-65 for example. Per on-the ground rule it's best to tag them like on road signs but that needs to be checked.
Cheers,
-Frank
SunnyIsland10 (2025-06-06 20:42:58+00:00): Greetings,

Thank you for the insight and for sharing. Our team will look for on-the ground truths.

Have a great day!
SunnyIsland10
kapazao (2026-01-31 15:57:42+00:00): Hola, ¿por qué cambiaste gran cantidad del viario a calles residenciales perdiendo la navegación?

¿Ese catálogo viario realmente tiene preferencia sobre cualquier norma de OSM y mejora el ruteamiento de los mapas?