piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
felipeeugenio (2024-05-25 13:23:50+00:00): Hola Mario.
Gracias por las ediciones.
Sin embargo, te pedimos por favor dibujar la base de las estructuras tal como salen en la foto.  (revisar San Fernando o Providencia) 
A veces es como que estuvieras haciendo dibujos esquemáticos con un polígono un poco desorganizado sobre cada casa que ves en vez de tratar de representar la casa que realmente hay.
Por otro lado, por favor usar la letra Q para cuadrar la casa. así te quedan con ángulos rectos y no irregulares, como algunos de los que veo que haces.
Saludos
Mario ICG (2025-02-03 02:26:47+00:00): Hola Felipe ¿Cómo puedo representar bien la forma de la casa si la calidad de la imagen satelital no es buena?
Saludos
felipeeugenio (2025-02-03 13:04:41+00:00): Hola. Es dificil, pero se puede hacer una aproximación y se puede identificar la base de la casa y discernir si lo que estás dibujando es la base de la estructura o el techo.
En todo caso hay distintos proveedores de imágenes (bing, Esri y Mapbox) todas disponibles en el editor que usas (ID).
Quizas hay alguna mejor que la otra.
Acabo de revisar todas las imágenes satelitales disponibles en el barrio y en todas se pueden dibujar casas mejores que las que dibujaste. Por favor dibujemos lo mejor que se pueda..
saludos
ZLima12 (2024-06-13 19:57:59+00:00): Hi,

Unfortunately I've had to revert the classification changes in this changeset because they go against the current state classification guidelines. I've left the motorway junctions that you added though, since I don't know of any consensus on whether turn-arounds should get that tag.

In New York State, classifications are mostly based on the ACC codes provided by the NYSDOT. For more details, please see this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TMP-Proposal:_New_York/Highway_Classification

Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have question or comments.

Best,
John
infeeeee (2024-05-25 15:28:04+00:00): Szia! Üdv az OpenStreetMapen!

A Budafoki úti Bubi állomás már szerepelt a térképen: 
https://www.osm.org/node/11766362662

Régi verziója az Organic Mapsnak, frissítsd a telefonodon, és akkor az újabb térképeket is letöltheted. Márciusi verziót használsz, van már májusi is.

Ha kérdésed merülne fel, a magyar szerkesztő közösség elérhetőségeit megtalálod ezen az oldalon: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hungary/Közösség

További jó térképezést!
serock (2024-05-25 15:13:03+00:00): Hola  Leandro Martínez, consulta, la calle Florida que unía Av. Sabatini y la Av. San Martin, no existe mas ?
Leandro Martínez (2024-05-25 15:27:37+00:00): Exactamente, se eliminó por completo. Ahora solo hay tierra y van a instalar mobiliario y construir caminos peatonale. Además ví un terraplén justo encima de lo que era la calle.
akimapbuilder (2024-05-27 06:29:42+00:00): Hi! I had to revert your changeset since there is no building in sight.
Glassman (2024-05-25 20:39:58+00:00): This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151792114
Glassman (2024-05-25 20:41:09+00:00): None of the building match the roof outline. Also - does the path end just before the street or is it connected?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151792114
DaveTO (2025-09-25 11:05:27+00:00): Construction is best indicated by using the "construction" key, rather than setting "access=no". The "access" tag is meant for legal restrictions.
Glassman (2024-05-25 20:43:11+00:00): I think you want to add landuse=construction to the entire area. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Construction for more info on how to use the construction tag
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151792177
user_11609320 (2024-05-25 11:10:34+00:00): I would change it from permissive to permit required. Not a US citizen, military police won't allow you through by yourself. must get permit to traverse through the base.
https://www.pendleton.marines.mil/Main-Menu/Base-Access/Recreational-Bicycling/
stevea (2024-05-25 18:18:19+00:00): Thank you very much; done (with your link included)
MxxCon (2024-05-26 06:13:47+00:00): Hello.
When mapping sidewalks, generally it's best to map them as a single way from curb to curb, without those tiny "antennas" on the intersection of 2 sidewalks.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151792577
Robin Zyx (2024-05-26 06:32:29+00:00): I think the ones I was messing with were marked as street crossings from one sidewalk intersection to another, and I was lopping the bits that were actually on sidewalk and marking them as being sidewalk. Is there a better to do that without ending up with little lines that represent all of 3 feet of sidewalk?
MxxCon (2024-05-26 06:37:44+00:00): You can simply merge them. Select both, that small segment and the rest of its sidewalk and either right-click to select "Merge" or press "C" shortcut(for Combine).
If there are any conflicting tag values iD/Rapid won't let you do that and throw a message at the bottom of the screen. If that happens simply make sure conflicting tags are matching and the rest should just work.
Robin Zyx (2024-05-26 06:39:52+00:00): Of course it would be something simple like that.
Robin Zyx (2024-05-27 08:25:01+00:00): Just tried using the C for combine action amidst some changes that affected the SE corner of Broadway and W114. Not sure if it worked, so I didn't try updating the NW and SW corners the same way.
Gregory Peony (2024-11-11 05:52:33+00:00): The northern footprint is certainly valid and both footprints have been approprately squared. I think that the northern footprint is oversized. You can cross reference this by checking esri imagery. See how I mapped it in Changeset: 158994181. Hope this helps.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151792618
jcil4ever (2024-05-25 02:51:01+00:00): sorry, didn't mean to request review.
miluethi (2024-05-25 12:13:23+00:00): Chris,

I also realized that many of your buildings are far too big. I deleted them.

Please narrow down the building shape to the satellite imagery.

Thank you.
miluethi (2024-05-25 12:09:36+00:00): Hi Chris,
Please square out all buildings in OSM. Just press the "Q" key with a selected building shape. 

Thank you for contributing to OSM Nicaragua.
jehrard (2024-07-13 01:16:47+00:00): cmon bruh
NeisBot (2024-05-25 03:19:11+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
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 07:12:31+00:00): Hi Najmaali,

Thank you for your edits. 
Your changes look good!

Best regards,
Pascal

#HappyMapping
Gregory Peony (2024-07-04 22:18:01+00:00): I verified this change-set as bad for the following reasons; 
1. Using aerial imagery you mapped what  should be interpreted as multiple buildings using only one footprint. 
2. Building footprints are inaccurate. They are usually not well aligned with imagery, many "T" and "L" shaped buildings are mapped as simply quadrelatirals, The size and orientation is not always correct. e.g. WAY: 1286466796 is actually T shaped, and WAY: 1286466761should be L shaped.
3. Buildings you added contain excess nodes with no additional tags e.g. WAY: 1286466746.

I have left further comments in the HOT TM project and task this was mapped on [task 7](https://tasks.hotosm.org/projects/16807/tasks?search=7) they go beyond the scope of this change-set.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151793267
BCNorwich (2024-05-25 05:43:10+00:00): Your fiction has been removed. You are welcome to add genuine features to OpenStreetMap.

Regards Bernard.
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-27 14:57:04+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great and also the changeset comment. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151793334
Gregory Peony (2024-07-05 02:10:27+00:00): Most of these footprints are inaccurate in one way or another. WAY: 1286468996 & WAY: 1286468986 are quite accurate: please map more like that in the future.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151793515
Akrimullah (2024-07-05 03:24:13+00:00): Thank you for your feedback. Appreciate that :)
Jochen Topf (2024-05-25 13:14:40+00:00): Please don't add bogus coastlines in the middle of nowhere. I am going to revert this.
i2004 (2024-05-25 13:40:38+00:00): buenas te termine el ramal del 148 sentido a varela por otro lado algunas esquinas de florencio varela no las estoy puidendo cortar para hacer ramales de la 148
Zainab Ramadhanis (2024-05-28 13:58:25+00:00): Hi, great job on the mapping! Thanks for your hard work. Just a quick reminder to align the roads with the satellite imagery. Thanks!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151793907
RedGreenBlue09 (2024-05-25 10:43:47+00:00): Why?
RedGreenBlue09 (2024-05-25 10:45:22+00:00): This road literally goes through 3 districts.
phoenixsaigon1698 (2024-05-25 10:52:44+00:00): Chào bạn. mình đã có chút nhầm lẫn với việc degrade đường LTK từ primary xuống secondary. Sẽ chỉnh sửa lại.
Kai Johnson (2025-02-16 17:30:57+00:00): Hi! Could I ask what made you remove the tracktype=grade2 tag from Mosaic Canyon Road? Would you suggest a different value for that tag or was it correct?
habi (2025-02-17 20:33:27+00:00): Hey Kai
I’ve removed it because „at home“ this tag is usually not applied to hw=unclassified.
There was not much more thinking from my side involved, I figured that surface=compacted and smoothness=bad specifies the Canyon road well enough.
I drove the road with our rental RV, and just about managed to do it.
If the removal interferes with something you expect/do, then don’t hesitate to put it back.
Happy mapping,
Greetings from Switzerland,
habi
Kai Johnson (2025-02-18 23:45:43+00:00): Hey Habi! It's common practice "around here" to include tracktype on highways that are not paved, especially since there are plenty of "significant" highways that are just graded or unmaintained. Maybe a little different from Switzerland! I'll put the tag back. Glad you made it down the road in your RV!
habi (2025-02-20 11:56:28+00:00): 👌
BR_pebble (2024-07-18 08:13:13+00:00): Hello rakshe00
Thank you for mapping!
I have added service way 19.8788998, 75.3626892 Created Missing buildings 19.8788329, 75.3626852;
19.8788934, 75.3627554;
19.8789376, 75.363168;
19.8795644, 75.3632538;
Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
Happy Mapping!
Gregory Peony (2024-07-05 01:02:53+00:00): Building footprints inaccurate.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151794730
BR_pebble (2024-07-02 08:16:04+00:00): Hello Arjun khotodkar
Thank you for mapping!
I have added missing buildings -37.861395, 144.9856;
-37.8617882, 144.9858489;
-37.8617965, 144.9859337;
-37.8617927, 144.9860613;
-37.8621384, 144.9859234;
-37.862243, 144.9859329;
-37.8622009, 144.9858272;
-37.8620011, 144.9867583;
-37.8619154, 144.9867431;
-37.8617604, 144.9867781;
-37.8617133, 144.9867547;
-37.8616519, 144.9867695;
-37.8615514, 144.986808;
-37.8616164, 144.9868753;
Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
Happy Mapping!
MxxCon (2024-05-26 06:21:55+00:00): Hello.
Please split your edits into smaller geographic regions. There's no reason for such a changeset to contain edits from US, Africa and Europe.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151795340
NeisBot (2024-05-25 06:00:24+00:00): Hi Tomokino, 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/157248774

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 (2024-05-25 06:59:22+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151797004
NeisBot (2024-05-25 06:00:24+00:00): Hi Tomokino, welcome to OSM!

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

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11932349915

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
NeisBot (2024-05-25 06:58:45+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151797103
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 06:58:57+00:00): .
NeisBot (2024-05-25 06:00:25+00:00): Hi Tomokino, welcome to OSM!

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

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11932367685

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
NeisBot (2024-05-25 06:57:56+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151797084
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 06:58:25+00:00): C'mon,
stop adding fake beaches!
NeisBot (2024-05-25 06:00:25+00:00): Hi Tomokino, welcome to OSM!

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

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11932348914

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
NeisBot (2024-05-25 06:57:29+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151797072
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 06:57:36+00:00): .
Glassman (2024-05-25 20:38:22+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/151795435
NeisBot (2024-05-25 06:00:25+00:00): Hi Tomokino, 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/203824035

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
NeisBot (2024-05-25 06:56:42+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151797066
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-25 06:57:02+00:00): Again, again: Please don't add non existing beaches. Thanks!!
martianfreeloader (2025-04-15 09:27:17+00:00): Hi!

Thanks for you contributions!

Please not that we do not map individual lanes of roads in OSM. We map a road as only *one* object in OSM (not one for each lane). Exception: When there is a physical separation between the carriageways (more than just paint), then they can be mapped separately.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway

Happy mapping!
BR_pebble (2024-07-02 08:22:55+00:00): Hello Arjun khotodkar
Thank you for mapping!
I have added misiing buildings -37.8603962, 144.9850367
-37.8598393, 144.9851336;
-37.8604157, 144.9862049;
-37.8604381, 144.9864602;
-37.8602234, 144.9864427;
-37.8601802, 144.9861445
-37.8595518, 144.9859493;
-37.8592277, 144.9861903;
-37.8591862, 144.9858728;
-37.8591507, 144.9857971;
-37.859067, 144.9857854;
-37.8590181, 144.9856697;
-37.8589728, 144.9850851;
-37.8592828, 144.9847303;
Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
Happy Mapping!
Gregory Peony (2024-07-06 03:51:53+00:00): Building footprints are inaccurate.
Footprints which envelope multiple buildings: WAY: 1286492322, 1286492319, 1286492318, 1286492328, 1286492334, 1286492310, 1286492307, 1286492313, 1286492310.

Others are inaccurate for other reasons.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151796284
Gregory Peony (2024-07-26 15:35:14+00:00): WAY: 1286492384's orientation is not accurate. It can be easier to identify the orientation at lower zoom levels, because the image is less distorted. Then zoom in toplace the nodes accurately, while keeping in mind the orientation you obtined at the lower zoom level.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151796341
Gregory Peony (2024-09-06 00:21:13+00:00): The building footprints you drew here are too large. A building's footprint is usually <= the roof shape/size. I modified these footprints and you can see that via their history.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151796419
Gregory Peony (2024-09-06 00:22:15+00:00): Good job extending the footprint of the Western buidling which is partially obscured by vegetation.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151796419
Bendita Moreira (2024-06-13 13:43:33+00:00): hello akuksouski_lyft based to my observation your mapping looks good so keep going it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151796499
Gregory Peony (2024-11-03 03:06:03+00:00): A good number of footprints here envelope multiple buildings.---WAY: 1286492972 is inaccurate, becasue you've only mapped the light side of the gabbled roof reference:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:roof:shape%3Dgabled. When a light source (sun) is perpendicular to the cord line of a gabled roof one side will be darker than the other; both should be used to draw the footprint.--- Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151796559
BR_pebble (2024-07-02 08:19:52+00:00): Hello Arjun khotodkar
Thank you for mapping!
I have added missing buildings -37.8574193, 144.9839779
Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
Happy Mapping!
kuhni74 (2024-10-28 07:53:27+00:00): ist hier wirklich "access=private"? hier ist ein Wanderweg markiert - gilt das vielleicht nur für vehicle?
Luzandro (2024-10-28 08:03:25+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151625336

ich hatte damals die gelöschten Wege (die im Gegensatz zu diesem jetzt noch alle Sackgassen waren) als private wiederhergestellt und den User informiert, der sie ursprünglich angelegt hatte
kuhni74 (2024-10-28 08:31:54+00:00): Ah, verstehe, danke! Aber mich wundert nur, dass sie in der ÖK50 und in kommerziellen Karten von Tourismus Lungau als Wanderwege (Relation 26) eingezeichnet sind. Leider ist die Preberstraße nicht von google street view erfasst, aber vielleicht schaffe ich es noch diese Woche persönlich hin.
kuhni74 (2024-11-01 16:54:00+00:00): war heute dort, es gilt eindeutig "foot=yes"
kuhni74 (2024-11-03 09:47:54+00:00): dem Benutzer rw1234 passt das gar nicht, aber das ist mir derweil egal wegen https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-01-10 09:30:38+00:00): Are you sure about this Q12621461 ?

It links to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12621461 while https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q62605260 seems to be a better match

(but I am not so familiar with South Korea!)
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-13 04:54:54+00:00): opened https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4707954
mikko_tamura (2024-05-25 11:02:43+00:00): please use proper noun case. As far as I know it is not allowed to use allcaps in OSM.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151797735
Djerom (2024-05-25 08:44:40+00:00): This is false. How can I delete it ?
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-05-30 14:46:52+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4364090/history - would surface=wood work here well?

If yes, no action is needed - I changed it already.

If https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:surface%3Dwood is not fitting please let me know.
tastrax (2024-05-26 06:55:17+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.

Its also best practice to add a meaningful changeset comment so folks know what has actually been edited. – Cheers
lakedistrict (2024-05-25 15:22:55+00:00): I used amenity=washing_machine on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11523754643 (and previously on the former one at Morrisons). 

The wiki page has a photo of one of these Revolution machines if the scroll down to the gallery section. I think there's one at the petrol station on Coastal Road, too.
Dezza (2024-05-25 18:07:26+00:00): Good call, thank you. I've updated it as suggested
Gregory Peony (2024-11-10 02:21:23+00:00): I think that it would be best to map this with two building footprints. Check Changeset: 158954016 to see how I mapped it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151799208
Gregory Peony (2024-09-06 02:30:44+00:00): I do not believe that WAY: 1286509575 is a building, because it does not cast a shadow similar to other nearby buildings.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151799532
Gregory Peony (2024-09-06 02:37:53+00:00): WAY: 1286509640, WAY: 1286509615 (,and others) are L shaped buildings, look at the way the roof is illuminated and where the shadows are to help you determine the shape of buildings. N.B. the shadows in this imagery are cast to the SW and secions of the roof facing the sun will appear brighter.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151799532
Gregory Peony (2024-09-06 02:39:13+00:00): WAY: 1286509577 is a T shaped building, again because of the illumination and shadows on the roof.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151799532