piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Kuritsyn Roman (2026-06-15 16:20:58+00:00): Зачем удаляете данные с геометрии населённых пунктов?
Вальдимар (2026-06-16 07:50:01+00:00): И вам добрий день. Во первих, оно лишнее, информация дублируется на точку села. Во вторих, оно искажает изображение на картах. Лушче делать по границе села. В третьих, оно очень не точное, местми даже слишком
FajrAl (2026-06-15 15:55:39+00:00): Harap selesaikan tutorial interaktifnya di iD editor-nya
evgenykatyshev (2026-06-15 13:56:06+00:00): Hello! This service road should be attached to the main road, not to the landuse polygon. Please fix
Altts (2026-06-15 14:05:48+00:00): Hello! Just fixed it, thanks for the comment
MappingMore (2026-06-17 05:59:12+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184209595
hahae (2026-07-13 11:47:59+00:00): 您好，osm不能上传test内容
ftrebien (2026-06-26 01:36:02+00:00): Como esses pequenos centros urbanos na área rural do município (Santa Maria, Fazendinha, Areinha, etc.) têm menos de 2 mil hab, a regra 4.1 do sistema de classificação em vigor não se aplica, e a regra 4.3 também não porque são vias fora da área urbana, logo não podem ser secundárias.
Maksim Sazanovich (2026-06-30 08:20:16+00:00): Hello, sbedwal_Lyft! I found this edit and it looks incorrect: the bridge features were mapped just over the existing ways, and they weren't connected on one side. Would you mind to fix this?
Best regards, Maksim.
sbedwal_Lyft (2026-07-02 05:28:51+00:00): Hi Maksim Sazanovich,
My name is Santosh, and I am a mapper on the OpenStreetMap team at Lyft.Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we apologize for the oversight.
The issue was caused by duplicate ways in this area (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1529676652)which were left incomplete, resulting in incorrect bridge mapping. In this changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184904988#map=13/35.69265/-120.69760&layers=P), the duplicate ways were removed, and the bridge was mapped only where it exists.We also reviewed the surrounding area to maintain the accuracy and consistency of the data. Please let me know if you identify any other issues or if any further changes are needed here.I apologize for any inconvenience my changes may have caused and will be more careful with future edits.


Happy Mapping!
Regards,
Santosh
Maksim Sazanovich (2026-07-02 06:39:09+00:00): Santosh, thank you for the quick respond and fixing this issue!
Best regards, Maksim.
Rom1 (2026-06-18 07:53:58+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai remis supermarket à https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/722979213 convenience est réservé aux petits commerces https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:shop%3Dconvenience
Rom1 (2026-06-18 07:56:26+00:00): Par définition footway interdit la circulation à vélo.
MxxCon (2026-06-16 20:38:39+00:00): Hello.
In this edit you renamed 2 parallel streets as Navy Yard Drive. Is that accurate?
Also, could you please provide some supporting information regarding these changes? 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184135479
bknavyyard (2026-06-17 12:58:32+00:00): Yes, this is accurate. The street currently known as Paulding street will now act as a more local service road for loading for the buildings along Navy Yard Drive and will have the same name.
Bask (2026-07-07 19:22:19+00:00): Ale zdajecie sobie sprawę z tego, że ten remont nawet jeszcze nie ruszył?
MxxCon (2026-06-16 20:40:17+00:00): Hello.
In this changeset it seems like you accidentally dragged a node of a railway a few blocks over. I corrected it for you. However, if the future, please try to be more careful when you are panning around the map not to accidentally cause damage to unrelated features. 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184136089
bknavyyard (2026-06-17 13:00:31+00:00): Thank you!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184136089
FajrAl (2026-06-15 15:17:07+00:00): Harap selesaikan tutorial interaktifnya dahulu. Bangunan jangan saling bertabrakan.
Kuritsyn Roman (2026-06-15 16:26:34+00:00): Зачем удалили внешнюю геометрию Благовещенки и все теги?
Вальдимар (2026-06-16 07:50:30+00:00): И вам добрий день. Во первих, оно лишнее, информация дублируется на точку села. Во вторих, оно искажает изображение на картах. Лушче делать по границе села. В третьих, оно очень не точное, местми даже слишком
MxxCon (2026-06-16 20:41:58+00:00): Hello.
In this changeset you deleted name "Dock Avenue" from way 5677695. Was that intentional?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184136445
bknavyyard (2026-06-17 13:04:31+00:00): Yes, in fact there actually isn't a through street there really. The two sections do not connect at 12th row. The name no longer fits into our new naming convention.
MxxCon (2026-06-18 21:12:33+00:00): I see what you mean that those 2 sections are not connected. As such I split them.
LordGarySugar (2026-06-16 01:24:02+00:00): Hi there, welcome to OSM! It's great to see lots of missing shops and housenumbers getting filled in! I've had a look over all your changesets and made some minor tweaks/typo/capitalisation fixes but overall everything looks good! I would ask, that when drawing buildings, use 'Q' to square the corners, this will make the geometry a lot neater and will be more accurate :).
If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them!
Makergeek (2026-06-16 08:12:28+00:00): Ah! I should have realised there would be an easy way to square up a building! I shall do so.
something of a return to OSM for me, albeit I couldn't remember my old account, about 15 years ago I did a lot of the original streetmapping of Eastleigh. quite a few things have moved on since then. it's been interesting to pick it up again.
Kuritsyn Roman (2026-06-15 16:37:17+00:00): Удалили периметр населённого пункта Есперлі
Вальдимар (2026-06-16 07:50:47+00:00): И вам добрий день. Во первих, оно лишнее, информация дублируется на точку села. Во вторих, оно искажает изображение на картах. Лушче делать по границе села. В третьих, оно очень не точное, местми даже слишком
Kuritsyn Roman (2026-06-16 13:38:41+00:00): 1.Где именно вы видите дублирование? На сайте OpenStreetMap?
2.О каком искажении идёт речь и на каких картах оно проявляется? Граница застройки не является границей населённого пункта. Утверждение об искажении ничем не подтверждено.
3.Границы населённых пунктов нередко определяются вполне точно по документам. Лично мной были нанесены многие границы на основании официальных описаний с привязкой к километровым столбикам, дорогам и земельным участкам.
4.Напоминаю, что ранее вы уже получали блокировку за подобные действия.
SekeRob (2026-06-15 13:53:51+00:00): Errata: Includes complete redo of large orchard polygon https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261127942 which substantially had other landuses, horticultere grounds, natural wooded areas and residentials.
felipeeugenio (2026-06-15 13:21:35+00:00): Hola. Para nombres alternativos, usar alt_name=.

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184136652
Kuritsyn Roman (2026-06-15 16:19:58+00:00): Зачем удаляете данные с геометрии населённых пунктов
Вальдимар (2026-06-16 07:49:37+00:00): И вам добрий день. Во первих, оно лишнее, информация дублируется на точку села. Во вторих, оно искажает изображение на картах. Лушче делать по границе села. В третьих, оно очень не точное, местми даже слишком
bxl-forever (2026-06-15 14:20:04+00:00): Hello,

You may be inerested to know that the way you are using "contact:street" in your recent edis in Brussels violates your own rules, which you stated there: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Digitaleo#Address

if you want to use this tag, it should match the street name, while contact:housenumber stores a copy of the housenumber.

Please observe that street names and city names in Brussels are bilingual.  I won’t remove them here because we usually ignore addresses as contact:*, but it would be cleaner to follow the same rules as everyone.

Finally, there is a large bunch of contact details, within the "contact:*" namespace. While "contact:website" was already correctly set, in this edi you removed it in favour of the legacy "website" key. This feels like a regression to me.
Digitaleo (2026-06-15 15:09:42+00:00): Hi, and thank you for the detailed and constructive feedback it's exactly the kind of report that helps us improve.

1. contact:street containing the house number. You're right, and this was a genuine bug. Our address parser only handled the French convention (number first, e.g. "35 rue X") and left Belgian addresses ("Rue Darwin 35", number as a suffix) untouched so the number stayed glued to contact:street and contact:housenumber was never set. We've fixed the parser to detect the suffix format for Belgian addresses, so future edits will produce contact:street=Rue Darwin + contact:housenumber=35.

2. Bilingual street and city names. Good point. We only hold the single language the business owner entered, so we can't reconstruct the official bilingual form ("Rue Darwin - Darwinstraat") and we won't fabricate it. 

Note that we never delete or overwrite a contact:street / name value maintained by contributors when it's equivalent to ours we preserve the existing one to avoid pointless changesets.

3. contact:website → website. I want to reassure you on one point: our process merges tags and never deletes existing data and for the website we even keep the more specific existing URL when one is present. So the value wasn't lost; what happened is that our normalization renamed the key contact:website → website, because our previous policy treated bare website as the preferred form. Following your feedback we've reversed that: we now normalize to contact:website, consistent with the rest of the contact:* namespace we already use (phone, email, social media). We've updated our Organised Editing wiki page accordingly.

Both changes are going through review on our side. Thanks again please keep the feedback coming !
MxxCon (2026-06-16 20:43:18+00:00): Hello.
Could you please provide some supporting information regarding these building name changes?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184137195
bknavyyard (2026-06-17 13:06:53+00:00): We have renumbered the buildings to follow a logical east to west scheme, with buildings on the easternmost side of the Yard being the lowest and grouped by 100's ascending to the west. The buildings now have new signage on them indicating their new number.
MxxCon (2026-06-18 21:15:26+00:00): Is there some online map/document with these building numbers and new street names that could be used as a reference?
bknavyyard (2026-06-22 15:25:58+00:00): Please see the visitor's map found here:
https://www.brooklynnavyyard.org/directions-map/
eggie (2026-06-15 16:20:00+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
eggie (2026-06-15 16:22:20+00:00): Je pad loopt wel erg recht toe recht aan en eindigt op een prullenbak. Ik heb het iets aangepast.

MVG
eggie
Dodko (2026-06-18 08:24:38+00:00): Opravený preklep
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1529698865/history
Vaidotas (2026-06-19 15:38:43+00:00): What this object with strange name "xsch" supposed to be?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13942771913
nurdafur (2026-06-21 06:27:52+00:00): This was a remark for myself to move the crossing of the paths/tracks to the correct position. It ended up on the map accidentaly.
nurdafur (2026-06-21 06:28:08+00:00): I deleted it allready
JassKurn (2026-06-18 01:27:08+00:00): Hi wilda69.
The change you've added is significant and implies other mapping changes are needed. (the mapped sign posts etc)

The edit means the PRoW Exmouth Footpath 1 has a section closed off. This is serious and requires some notification on Devon CC PRoW pages. I can not find any notification.

Re-routing of the SW Cost Path is common, but always recorded on the SW Coast Path website. Again nothing on that website.

Can you let us know what exactly has has happened on the ground?
eg a fence between the chalet and hedge? or a landslip?

Thanks, Jass
JassKurn (2026-06-18 01:28:18+00:00): And I should have added... How long do you think it's been like that?
wilda69 (2026-06-18 06:44:37+00:00): Hi Jass,
We walked from the pub towards Bayview but at the end of this road we were met by a wooden fence down to the cliff separating the chalets. There was no sign of any path on the other side of the fence. I have plotted the CP along the footway you plotted but we made our way to Willows walking in between the chalets. There were no CP signs whatsoever. It was obvious that the owner of the chalets had instigated the blockage. There was no landslip. 
Cheers,
Dan
wilda69 (2026-06-18 06:47:31+00:00): btw its difficult to say how long it was like this. The area around the chalets is all grass and was cut but strikingly no sign of a former path
JassKurn (2026-07-03 13:32:08+00:00): Hi wilda69,

Walked this bit of path last week and found a faded planning application notice. Followed it up with Devon CC, and found out the following.

Devon Cliffs put in a planning application with East Devon District Council (EDDC) to move some chalets. Due to new planning laws it has to be automatically approved by East Devon Council. Devon Cliffs then put in an application to EDDC to move the PRoW to enable the approved planning application. When a PRoW has to be changed to due to an approved planning application the the planning authority makes the decision on the deletion or move of the PRoW. EDDC approved the move of the PRoW to a new alignment back from the cliff edge. 

EDDC are responsible for notifying Devon CC so they can make changes to the definitive map. EDDC are also responsible for putting up signage at the site.

This process causes problems because Devon CC have no information on their website, and have not updated their Definitive map yet. Devon CC have asked EDDC to provide signs and are aware that has not happened yet. 

Although the PRoW has been changed, Devon CC told me they have asked whether the SE Coast Path & CIII England Coast Path can continue on the old path. From what I saw I think that is unlikely to happen.

There's no evidence of the movement of chalets that the planning application was for or a need to move the PRoW and walking routes. The addition of the fences and the premium location makes me fear that Devon Cliffs have abused the change in planning law to exploit a loophole to get the PRoW and walking routes moved.  The previous route alignment has been fenced off to create private gardens for premium chalets overlooking the bay.

After talking to Devon CC I was able to see the notice for the new route and follow it on the ground. I have made some changes to it is now mapped.

Jass
wilda69 (2026-07-03 13:59:00+00:00): Thanks Jass for your useful feedback and confirming the signs are not in place - yet. I was worried we had somehow missed them.
I have plotted the  SWCP as you have updatred it and see it now goes a long way inland. A shame.
Dan
dpolovinkin (2026-06-16 07:33:01+00:00): this place is literally a full-on outdoor gym with numerous equipment, why change it to leisure=fitness_station when it's not correct? it is much more than that. will return the correct tag
Kri_ttt (2026-06-18 16:18:14+00:00): I'm so sorry about that. Now that I researched about it, it is really a full-fledged gym.
isotopicemoting (2026-06-17 21:31:14+00:00): Hey, I just noticed that the key place_of_workship= on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/363489347 looks like a typo. That was probably meant to be place_of_worship=?
gion274 (2026-06-18 06:01:53+00:00): yes, you're right, thanks, I corrected it
Ltrlg (2026-06-25 06:05:27+00:00): La barrière était déjà présente : way/1510992041.
mw014 (2026-06-25 08:12:39+00:00): Ah oui merci
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-19 01:18:21+00:00): DWG revert - improper mapping & deletion of valid features

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184294100
Kuritsyn Roman (2026-06-15 16:23:10+00:00): Зачем удаляете данные с геометрии населённых пунктов?
Вальдимар (2026-06-16 07:50:16+00:00): И вам добрий день. Во первих, оно лишнее, информация дублируется на точку села. Во вторих, оно искажает изображение на картах. Лушче делать по границе села. В третьих, оно очень не точное, местми даже слишком
dlegg73 (2026-06-15 14:10:23+00:00): Correction: Source used was Vantor satellite imagery via Vantor Hub 2026-05-24
aceman444 (2026-06-26 20:11:47+00:00): Thanks!
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183733271
Nakaner (2026-06-22 08:23:12+00:00): Hallo,

das systematische Abschreiben von Verzeichnissen berührt das Datenbankschutzrecht. Was darf ich denn unter "camping portals" als Quelle verstehen?

Viele Grüße

Michael
Peter_v_Aalst (2026-06-24 12:09:19+00:00): Hallo Michael,
danke für den Hinweis. Ich habe bereits begonnen die neu von mir erstellten Einträge, die sich auf Nomady und Alpaca stützen zu löschen. Hier habe ich als Quellen park4night und Bing verwendet. Beide Quellen würden jeweils auch einzeln reichen meine Änderungen zu begründen. Von Bing und park4nights habe ich nur sehr vereinzelt Daten übernommen.
Wenn das gegen das Datenbankenschutzrecht verstößt, dann bitte ich darum meinen Eintrag rückgängig zu machen. Ich bin mir leider nicht sicher, wie man Änderungen sauber rückgängig macht und möchte nicht noch mehr Schaden anrichten. Ich entschuldige mich für die Umstände.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen 

Peter
Kamil Kalata (2026-06-15 18:26:56+00:00): Dzień dobry.
Zweryfikowałem zmienione przez Panią informacje i, o ile adres jest rzeczywiście przypisany do ulicy Granicznej, to sama droga leży wzdłuż ulicy Piaskowej, co widać zarówno na e-mapie gminy Mszczonów, jak i na ogólnokrajowym Geoportalu (warstwa "Nazwy ulic"). Zmianę Pani skoryguję.
woodpeck (2026-06-15 22:04:34+00:00): Hallo, Privatwege werden bei uns nicht gelöscht. Dafür gibt es viele Gründe - die Wiki-Seite https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F gibt eine Übersicht. Falls es sich tatsächlich um Privatwege handelt, können sie z.B. mit "access=private" ausgezeichnet werden, um dieser Tatsache Rechnung zu tragen. Ich habe die Wege zunächst wiederhergestellt.
Woazboat (2026-06-15 23:44:03+00:00): Ich möchte hier auch gerne darauf hinweisen, dass das Betreten von Wäldern und Waldwegen zu Erholungszwecken in Österreich durch das Forstgesetz grundsätzlich erlaubt ist und nur in Ausnahmefällen eingeschränkt werden darf.

https://www.bmluk.gv.at/themen/wald/wald-freizeit/verhalten_wald/betretenwald.html

https://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10010371

Wenn ein _befahren_ hier  nicht gestattet ist, kann das mit `vehicle=private` eingetragen werden. Ein `access=private` wäre falsch, da das auch das Betreten zu Fuß mit einschließen würde.
kuhni74 (2026-06-17 12:48:03+00:00): Viele der kürzlich gelöschten Wege sind übrigens auch in der amtlichen Karte 1:50.000 des Bundesamts (BEV) sowie in basemap.at (ebenso amtlich) eingetragen. Im übrigen stimme ich den Vorrednern völlig zu.
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-15 16:04:41+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
Are the added names real?
Main Road (223332157), v9
Main Road (223332306), v25
Main Road (223710203), v8
...
sha001@1 (2026-06-15 18:24:14+00:00): Yes its a real name
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-16 08:33:33+00:00): Thanks for your reply.

Is the previous name, "Tribhuvan Highway", outdated?
MxxCon (2026-06-16 20:53:08+00:00): Hello.
Could you please elaborate why did you remove solar panels tags from this building? Does it no have solar panels anymore?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184142147
bknavyyard (2026-06-17 13:08:14+00:00): This was a mistake, as a new usage for the building related to power production is not quite public information yet. Please disregard.
eggie (2026-06-15 16:22:49+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
felipeeugenio (2026-06-15 19:38:27+00:00): Hola. un condominio no es un barrio. Yo corrijo esta edición, por favor tomar nota de como lo dejo. Saludos y gracias.

Estamos para ayudar.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184143955
felipeeugenio (2026-06-15 19:50:22+00:00): Corregido. por favor no pegar las delimitaciones a las veredas o calles.
Saludos
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-22 03:56:04+00:00): As an account mapping on behalf of a commercial business for financial gain, please be advised that you are expected to understand and carefully follow documented OpenStreetMap standards and conventions, which will both directly benefit the quality of your mapping and avoid consequences for your account and the features you map. See https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Fixed malformed/SEO tagging for POI in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/186153663
felipeeugenio (2026-06-15 19:37:41+00:00): Hola. No, está borrando los landuses para agregar los nombres. Por favor dejar los polígonos y agregar los vecindarios como nodos mientras tanto.
Yo lo corrijo.

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/184144010
pwbriggs (2026-06-18 05:51:45+00:00): So https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5345063 is done now?
WHS Contributor (2026-06-18 15:19:40+00:00): Good catch, yeah.
Try hard 67 (2026-06-15 16:28:46+00:00): Merci bg
confusedbuffalo (2026-07-02 19:32:30+00:00): Hi, thanks for updating this. I wonder if you could double check the phone number, it doesn't quite seem to be valid
ThatWeltschmerz (2026-07-02 20:42:17+00:00): Hi, I apologize, I left out a digit. It's (094) 902 4422 (I left out a zero). Just updated it. Thanks!
confusedbuffalo (2026-07-03 09:04:55+00:00): Thank you very much
Romwriter (2026-06-15 20:33:27+00:00): Hallo heigo, herzlich Willkommen bei Openstreetmap und vielen Dank für Deine Bearbeitungen! Hier habe ich noch eine Rückfrage. Steht dort ein Verkehrszeichen 239 (https://trafficsigns.osm-verkehrswende.org/DE?signs=DE:239) am Weg? Dann könntest Du das in die Daten übertragen, indem Du dem Weg das Tag "traffic_sign=DE:239" gibst. Das bietet gegenüber der aktuellen Kennzeichnung den Mehrwert, dass jeder erkennt, dass mit "ausgewiesener Fußweg" eine amtliche (straßenverkehrsrechtliche) Kennzeichnung gemeint ist. Beste Grüße, Romwriter
heigo (2026-06-15 20:49:59+00:00): Ja, eben dieses Schild ist an beiden „Eingängen“, im Westen und im Osten aufgestellt. Ich füge die Info hinzu sobald ich wieder am Rechner bin. Mal schauen, ob ich das hinbekomme. Bin recht neu bei Änderungen bei OSM. Aber ein Tag hinzuzufügen bekomme ich glaube ich hin. Vielen Dank für den Hinweis!
heigo (2026-06-15 20:53:01+00:00): Doch noch eine Frage … Füge ich das Tag dem Poller oder dem Weg hinzu?
Romwriter (2026-06-15 20:55:59+00:00): Grundsätzlich dem Weg. Man kann zwar auch einen Punkt (Node) dort erstellen, wo der Pfahl mit dem Schild steht, aber dann ist technisch kaum auszuwerten, auf welchen Weg sich das Schild bezieht.
heigo (2026-06-15 21:06:25+00:00): Danke für den Support!
user_21298810 (2026-06-21 17:13:07+00:00): Porque você reverteu Yuri Matias
user_21298810 (2026-06-21 17:13:56+00:00): Porque você reverteu Yuri Matias, as velocidades nas vias locias estavam corretas!
mueschel (2026-06-21 17:41:55+00:00): Hallo,
was heißt "washing_up"? Dieses tag gibt es sonst nirgends.
Peter_v_Aalst (2026-06-23 22:44:24+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis. Habs entfernt.
woodpeck (2026-06-18 00:01:49+00:00): Don't use OSM to complain about what other people do. This is a map of things that exist, not a diary of "people and their activities that Nicholamsy takes offence at"