piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
trigpoint (2024-05-31 17:24:12+00:00): Hi
Not sure if you have surveyed this, but I know it well.
I am not convinced this fits the definition of a busway.
The first paragraph starts with "Busways are not meant to be used by motorists, pedestrians, or cyclists.". Whilst there are no entry signs there is no restriction on foot traffic and routers should not be sending pedestrians the long way round to get to the surgery.
Whilst unclassifed was a bit OTT it is just a bus station where highway=service with appropriate access would be more appropriate.
Cheers Phil
Paul Berry (2024-05-31 23:19:57+00:00): Hi Phil.
You're right: I had mis-tagged (it doesn't help that the Standard Layer _still_ doesn't render busways). Now corrected on changeset #152101448.
Regards,
_Paul_
trigpoint (2024-06-01 08:05:13+00:00): Thank you
GEO ECLA (2024-06-03 07:42:38+00:00): Corrigé. Le tag "ref" correspond à un identifiant. Le nom du poste est bien à mettre dans "name".
Attention à ne pas faire des modifications pour le rendu !-)
Lelio Alves (2024-05-31 09:30:21+00:00): Good Job, Keep Mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152069736
Lelio Alves (2024-05-31 09:23:12+00:00): Good Job, Keep Mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152069745
Patchanka (2024-05-31 12:43:12+00:00): bonjour 
ce changement a modifié beaucoup plus de choses qu'une piscine et une maison.
Pas mal de choses sont totalement incohérentes comme par exemple l'ajout d'un arbre sur un container de recyclage, modifications de voies, modif d'équipements, etc.
Qui plus est sur une grande zone.
J'annule donc ce changement.
sen_takeya (2024-06-06 08:53:24+00:00): Reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152320349
Airfall (2024-06-01 13:55:40+00:00): Thanks so much skumarchandela! I really appreciate the great work you and the lyft team are doing for OSM.

Keep up the amazing work! :)
chriz1978 (2024-05-31 09:27:03+00:00): Weiterer Streckenverlauf bislang noch nicht aus der Luft heraus konstruierbar.
NeisBot (2024-05-31 09:31:00+00:00): Hello LiamMeunier,
Welcome to OSM, and thank you for your contributions!

I've taken a look at your recent edits and wanted to discuss a few discrepancies I noticed regarding the surrounding environmental features. Specifically, the locations in your edits don't seem to align with the typical geographical characteristics expected in that area. Here are the relevant links to the edits:
https://osm.org/node/11947410458
https://osm.org/way/1288306085

Could you please take a look?
Looking forward to your response.

#Somewhere
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-31 13:26:46+00:00): Partly reverted by 
https://osm.org/changeset/152081303
https://osm.org/changeset/152081317
AndreaDp271 (2024-05-31 12:03:34+00:00): Modifica errata, ripristinare
elgolfo (2024-05-31 20:10:04+00:00): Hi lexikos, 
was ist denn die Idee, auf dem Schulgelände viele Wege mit highway=service zu mappen?
Ich würde den Schulhof mit leisure=schoolyard mappen und die Wege, die die Eingänge der Gebäude verbinden als hw=footway.

Viele Grüße
Moritz
lexikos (2024-06-01 08:33:27+00:00): Das ist einfach der Default von Zufahrt, hatte da nicht drauf geachtet. Ich schau mal rein, ansonsten pass das gern an. Grundsätzlich ist der Hof ja betoniert und befahrbar.
elgolfo (2024-06-01 13:10:51+00:00): Alles klar, danke.
osmviborg (2024-05-31 09:41:33+00:00): Sjælland
eggie (2024-05-31 12:53:59+00:00): Dag steffen  
Je vraagt feedback. 
Het kan zo wel. Je kunt een leisure=track ook als vlak intekenen, maar dan zul je multipolygonen  moeten toepassen. 
Voorbeeld van een leisure=track als vlak. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.80507/4.69715
Evt nog het aansluitende pad intekenen om er te komen.
MG
eggie
Langlaeufer (2024-05-31 12:39:17+00:00): oneway=yes reicht, es gilt nur für Fahrzeuge. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway
Godik (2024-05-31 12:53:29+00:00): Ah, alles klar, danke!
sen_takeya (2024-06-06 08:50:10+00:00): Reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152320196
Gonéo (2024-05-31 14:56:37+00:00): Attention sur l'avenue Rockeferrer, à Mermoz il y a les voies de tram au milieu. Il y a un segment pour chaque sens de circulation de l'avenue mais le centre n'a pas de trottoir. Le trottoir n'existe que d'un côté (right) de chaque segment.
fgouget (2025-02-27 10:30:05+00:00): Bonjour,

Je suppose qu'il s'agissait de ces ways :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/587263987
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1237215061
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1050228519

Ils avaient sidewalk=both. J'ai mis sidewalk:right=separate coté trottoir mais, à cause de l’ambiguïté créé par les voies du tramway, j'ai préféré ne pas toucher l'information sur l'autre coté qui s'est donc retrouvé marqué sidewalk:left=yes (traduction unilatérale de sidewalk=both).

Mais je suis d'accord que sidewalk:left=no semble plus correct.

Cordialement,
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-31 12:05:58+00:00): Just a test?

Thanks for your answer.
AndreaDp271 (2024-05-31 12:03:25+00:00): Modifica errata, ripristinare
Kovoschiz (2024-06-01 08:01:27+00:00): This is obviously not a `traffic_sign=`
Kovoschiz (2024-06-01 08:02:57+00:00): I'm transitioning from `road_marking=` to `road_marking:id=` as words are predominant in `road_marking=`
mueschel (2024-06-01 08:13:06+00:00): I think 'traffic_sign' is totally correct here. In most legislatures "traffic signs" are not only the metal plates on poles, but any type of road marking are defined in the same part of law and also named traffic signs. 

I'd suggest to use 'traffic_sign' and in addition some kind of 'location' tag specifying its position and type, e.g. 'on_street'. In this particular case this is not even necessary, because HK:604 already is the code of a sign that always is painted and not on a physical sign.


I strongly recommend not to use road_marking:id. First of all, this resembles the syntax for tags in Indonesian language and second it seems to be based on 'traffic_sign:id' which was recently proposed and heavily downvoted.
Kovoschiz (2024-06-01 08:39:20+00:00): 1. The common language connotation is preferable over some legal interpretation. Despite being titled "Traffic Sign" , Vienna Convention is still split into chapters of "Traffic Sign" and "Road Marking". Under TSRGD, UK's Traffic Signs  Manual still mentions "on the correct use of traffic
signs and road markings ". https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/773421/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf
2. What would be the reason to use `traffic_sign=` , when markings already use `road_marking=` ? They aren't using `traffic_sign=solid_stop_line` . It has been suggested this be continued. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:road_marking#Stroke_details
3.1. `road_marking=` is not freeform text. Language suffixes don't have to apply. `url` is the Urali language. Does `*:url=` need to be banned?   I don't oppose to alternatives eg as in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:osak:identifier , but `*:id=` is popular enough now. 
3.2. `traffic_sign:id=` was rejected for many reasons. I voted against the proposal, but the idea isn't bad.
mueschel (2024-06-01 08:47:41+00:00): I can only repeat what I wrote several times: Please don't invent new tags without documentation and discussion. This just makes the data inaccessible for anyone else who is not a human manually reading the tags on an object.
Kovoschiz (2024-06-01 08:49:54+00:00): Fundamentally, in this direction of thinking, `road_marking=` could still be treated as a combination under some hypothetical `traffic_sign:*=road_marking` ... 
Similar to the possibility of "signs" being fixed plates, flip-flap, or LED display, markings can be paint, surfacing (bricks) , studs, reflectors, Botts' dots, etc. This is complex enough.
Kovoschiz (2024-06-01 08:51:41+00:00): Should the use of `traffic_sign=` be redefined to include markings? I have only seen you suggest this now.  Diluting it still pollutes the data.
Kovoschiz (2024-06-01 08:56:21+00:00): The application and rendering of signs is completely different from markings. Mixing them in `traffic_sign=` directly causes a mess (including to applications using them now), and requires more processing to identify whether they are panels or markings.
mueschel (2024-06-01 08:58:53+00:00): Nothing new to suggest or define here, that's an established use case, even supported by common presets in JOSM. See e.g.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/traffic_sign=DE%253A298
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/traffic_sign=DE%253A293
Kovoschiz (2024-06-01 09:14:55+00:00): And where is this documented or discussed? 
On the contrary, markings were stilll  discussed around that proposal https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/large-scale-change-of-traffic-sign-to-traffic-sign-id/107508/61 
`=GB:1003A` doesn't have that many more `traffic_sign=` than `road_marking=` . It was seemingly added by someone for self-docuemntation. That still doesn't explicitly show it is marked but not signposted. It may be incomplete data.  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway=give_way&oldid=1641607
Instead, `traffic_sign=` has 10k `=none` and ~800 `=no` . These are more likely to mean there is no plates, rather than no traffic control devices including markings.
Kovoschiz (2024-06-01 09:21:03+00:00): I believe `traffic_sign=none` was discussed to mean no plates, but there can be markings https://community-cdn.openstreetmap.org/uploads/default/original/2X/c/cec22899d55dead5714839e00eb430e9f6f92037.jpeg https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/fahrradinfrastruktur-tagging-realitat-und-fragen/8417
Supaplex (2024-05-31 11:43:10+00:00): Are you sure about the buildings' outline? One of the outline you map contains more than one building
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152073143
ianlopez1115 (2024-06-01 09:37:22+00:00): Hello, mueschel 

If contact details are to be modified in a changeset, please indicate it as such (in this instance, "fix payment key and contact:facebook details").

Kind regards,
Ian Lopez/ianlopez1115
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152073213
Szymson (2024-05-31 12:56:46+00:00): Dlaczego oznaczyłeś https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/401792697 jako otwarte, skoro takie nie jest? Wczoraj wieczorem wyglądał on tak:
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,onerror=redirect,width=1920,height=1920,fit=scale-down/https://www.skyscrapercity.com/attachments/20240530_205010-jpg.7317231/
literan (2024-06-02 17:20:54+00:00): основная функция этого здания не торговый центр, а пассажирский терминал МЦК
arafin (2024-06-17 16:58:23+00:00): thanks for mapping.#OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152073961
arafin (2024-06-17 16:55:45+00:00): Thanks for mapping.#OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152074013
arafin (2024-06-17 16:47:14+00:00): Thanks for your mapping.#OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152074030
arafin (2024-06-17 16:41:45+00:00): Thanks for mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152074080
Lelio Alves (2024-05-31 10:56:44+00:00): Good Job, Keep Mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152074675
Lelio Alves (2024-05-31 11:00:15+00:00): Good Job, Keep Mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152074795
czubi (2024-05-31 15:34:34+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/802174487
Hier genauso, es ist eine ausgewiesene Ragwegrelation Bach-Rad.... Steht dort ein VZ 239? Nur dann ist es footway, Außnahme: Es ist ein straßenbegleitender Fußweg, kann ich dort aber nicht erkennen.
czubi (2024-05-31 15:35:07+00:00): sorry, falscher link https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33332369
czubi (2024-05-31 15:46:44+00:00): https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=3483714171895251&lat=50.8373707&lng=10.9414904&z=17&focus=photo
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335555231#map=19/50.83744/10.94139&layers=N
hier genauso, wäre für mich ein geteilter Rad/Fußweg. Es sei denn das Bild stimmt nicht mehr!?
czubi (2024-05-31 15:52:21+00:00): Und hw=footway zusammen mit bicycle=designated macht überhaupt keinen Sinn https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35934501#map=19/50.83744/10.94231&layers=N
HBanu (2024-06-20 17:29:03+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152075181
arafin (2024-06-16 06:52:26+00:00): Good Mapping , #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152075201
AndreaDp271 (2024-05-31 12:03:16+00:00): Modifica errata, ripristinare
Armando Hasanbelliu (2024-05-31 12:14:58+00:00): In che maniera è errata?
woodpeck_repair (2024-06-05 00:22:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 152266030 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by user who added lots of fictional data
woodpeck_repair (2024-06-05 00:22:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 152266030 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by user who added lots of fictional data
woodpeck_repair (2024-06-05 00:22:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 152266030 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by user who added lots of fictional data
woodpeck_repair (2024-06-05 00:22:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 152266030 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by user who added lots of fictional data
ika-chan! (2024-06-03 07:14:09+00:00): Kindly refer to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Placement for information about the lane placement guidance, which is in use for the ORR and most European countries.
woodpeck_repair (2024-06-05 00:22:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 152266030 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by user who added lots of fictional data
woodpeck_repair (2024-06-05 00:22:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 152266030 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by user who added lots of fictional data
arafin (2024-06-17 16:39:27+00:00): thanks for your mapping .#OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152075972
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-31 11:35:53+00:00): Hi Kiliann e, welcome to OSM!

I guess something went wrong with your name of the following new map element, correct?

https://osm.org/node/11944996226
arafin (2024-06-17 16:34:04+00:00): Thanks for the mapping.#OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152076005
Quaternion (2024-05-31 11:46:14+00:00): Die beiden Wege jeweils in drei Teile zerlegen und dann die beiden mittleren Teile, welche auf den beiden Brücken liegen, um 'bridge=yes' und 'layer=1' ergänzen.
stimme-logistik (2024-05-31 11:56:03+00:00): Vielen Dank für die Info. Wir haben es bereinigt.
Quaternion (2024-06-01 08:56:23+00:00): Ok, fast perfekt. Jetzt fehlt nur noch 'service=driveway' an den beiden Brückensegmenten.
stimme-logistik (2024-06-03 06:19:01+00:00): Alles klar vielen Dank für die Info. Wir haben dies bereinigt.
tguen (2025-02-15 01:26:34+00:00): According to Bing Streetside imagery, this hotel is signed only as Hyatt Place, and the name tag should match. Please fix.
Lelio Alves (2024-05-31 11:29:09+00:00): Good Job, Keep Mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152076279
woodpeck_repair (2024-06-05 00:23:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 152266030 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by user who added lots of fictional data
arafin (2024-06-17 16:25:46+00:00): Thanks for mapping . #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152076346
bdentremont (2024-06-01 03:26:49+00:00): Adeyyyyy:
Please stop making false edits.

In this changeset, you have added a city with a population of nearly half a million people where ESRI imagery shown no evidence of human habitation.

I suspect many, if not all, of your edits are false, as I have found no verification for any of your work that I've attempted to follow up on.

Specifically:
I find no internet evidence for "Samsung Supermarketa" in Sumsun, Turkey
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11947633342

The Pharmacy in Morocco to which you've assigned an address, has a different address on the cross street according to several internet sources.  The Kaart imagery you cite exists for this street, but I can't find a house number on the building.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/611625922   

I find no internet evidence for Hearts Restaurant in Warsaw.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11944642665

Consider this a warning before I report your account for abuse.  If you would like to rebuild your credibility within OSM, please cite and explain your sources well.  I would recommend StreetComplete's photo tool for any survey work you need evidence of.
tastrax (2024-05-31 12:04:57+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features .  I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
TrickyFoxy (2024-05-31 11:34:47+00:00): ..anup Id=0
Lelio Alves (2024-05-31 11:40:59+00:00): Good Job, Keep Mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152076814
DressyPear4 (2024-05-31 12:58:45+00:00): Nessas redes de energia é mais adequado usar power=minor_line
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152077381
AndreaDp271 (2024-05-31 11:57:21+00:00): la modifica è completamente errata, riportare allo stato precedente
Alliegaytor (2024-06-01 01:53:27+00:00): Hi, 

Thank you for contributing to Open Street Map. Just commenting to let you know that I've changed the carpark https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/909282332 roughly back to what it was. This is because the Bing Imagery for it is very out of date and doesn't accurately reflect what it looks like at the moment. The Esri World Imagery seems to be much more recent, especially when you zoom out with it. What I normally do is switch between the two imageries to make sure that nothing major has changed between them. Hope that helps!

Happy mapping!
AndreaDp271 (2024-05-31 12:03:08+00:00): Modifica errata, ripristinare
Frans S (2024-06-02 09:45:32+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
You mapped most buildings correctly, However, you overlooked some rectangular buildings with a blue/gray roof.
I added them.
rskedgell (2024-05-31 19:10:49+00:00): You appear to have tagged a section of Onslow Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists and have therefore reverted your edit.

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:foot

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=50.912299%7E-1.400481&lvl=20.6&mo=om.1&pi=-16.2&style=x&dir=264.3
Ben_2 (2024-06-01 07:51:21+00:00): Thank you for fixing that. I think the question in StreetComplete is poorly worded as that's not how I interpreted it at all. I've disabled that quest on my device so I don't accidentally do it again, as it's started showing me those quite frequently in the last month or two.
highflyer74 (2024-06-13 08:14:31+00:00): Hallo!

Danke für Deinen Beitrag! Bitte beachte, dass Namen in OSM nur für Objekte vergeben werden, die auch wirklich einen Namen haben. Beispielsweise hat eine Bank nicht den Namen "Sitzbank". Dass es sich um eine Bank handelt, ist bereit durch das entsprechende Attribut (in OSM Tag genannt) klar.

Danke, dass Du bei weiteren Bearbeitungen daran denkst :-)

Viele Grüße!
woodpeck_repair (2024-06-02 17:17:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 152169761 where the changeset comment is: revert edits made by a new account created in circumvention of user block
eggie (2024-05-31 12:42:40+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
NeisBot (2024-05-31 12:15:25+00:00): Hi millamin, 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/way/1288349792

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 (2024-05-31 12:29:03+00:00): Thanks for mapped beach.
Looks good!

#HappyMapping
arafin (2024-06-17 16:25:02+00:00): Thanks for mapping.#OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152078262
arafin (2024-06-17 16:21:40+00:00): Thanks for mapping.#OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152078334
arafin (2024-06-17 16:20:25+00:00): Thanks for your mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152078356
arafin (2024-06-17 16:11:11+00:00): Thanks for mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152078442
Maciej9 (2024-08-24 12:01:49+00:00): Ten parking przy Śniadeckich w Krakowie wciąż działa jako ogólnodostępny i bezpłatny?