piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
DaveF (2024-07-19 11:02:35+00:00): Hi
Welcome to OSM
Creating individual platforms so they can be numbered improves the map, but instead of overlaying new platform polygons over existing, which doubles-up the overall number, could you please edit the existing by splitting them. There's instructions in the id editor on how to perform that. I note you've made a few changesets which you need to amend. 

Could you also add 'area=yes' to them as there's a bug in the main rendering program.
Taya_S (2024-07-19 13:55:57+00:00): AUB ook niet dit soort dingen als scrub taggen https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1151610223 Hier kun je prima doorheen lopen, dus dit zal zeker geen scrub zijn
Groeten,
Taya
tallcoleman (2024-07-19 00:34:04+00:00): Thanks!
Aleh Aliakseyenka (2024-07-18 14:15:20+00:00): Add only road based on bing maps aerial.
NeisBot (2024-07-18 14:18:37+00:00): Hi NMlandwoman, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 95% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 8 highway(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=154104053
NMlandwoman (2024-07-18 14:31:13+00:00): Hi, 

A lot of features on the map are not roads let alone highways. The changes I made were intentional and were confirmed by in-person experience, NMDOT maps, and Eddy County GIS maps.
Hugoren Martinako (2024-07-18 19:43:22+00:00): Buenas,

Los elementos diseminados realmente hacen referencia a un área no definida, y en general, no se han de incorporar al mapa si ya tenemos algún núcleo (referencias acabadas en 01, 02, 03...) definido para cada entidad singular.

Pero en el caso de Los Álamos, su referencia es 30016180199 (diseminado), contiene población (30 personas), y además es el único elemento dentro de su entidad singular, por tanto, para poder "encontrar" el lugar ha de estar presente con el código antes mencionado.

Si tienes alguna duda sobre el proceso, no dudes en preguntar, pues ya llevo bastante avance a nivel peninsular.

Ya restauro yo el nodo eliminado.

Un saludo
KikeTM (2024-07-18 20:00:15+00:00): Buenas tardes Hugoren, tienes razón en todo lo dicho, solo que creo que no has observado que Los Alamos ya se puede encontrar en el mapa, con su referencia correspondiente, ya que se mapeo en su momento como un limite administrativo, ya que no dispone de un núcleo definido donde colocar un nodo. Te rogaría no inicies la dinámica de deshacer ediciones de otros usuarios sin antes haber obtenido los argumentos que la avalen, ya que OSM es un proyecto colaborativo y no una iniciativa particular.

Si necesitas cualquier otro dato, estoy a tu entera disposición, ya que yo también llevo unos cuantos años en esto y la zona en cuestión la he trabajado bastante.

Un saludo.
Hugoren Martinako (2024-07-18 20:22:00+00:00): Hola,

Me gustaría saber cuál es la fuente original de la que obtuviste este límite: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5924691/history

Digo esto porque, aún conociendo que existía ese elemento, dicha delimitación tiene que ser oficial, es decir, provenir de un organismo competente para establecer dicha forma. Al igual que las diputaciones o pedanías, que sí proceden de una subdivisión oficial, por lo que tienen sus límites bien definidos.

En ese caso, asignar un diseminado a un área (relation) ciertamente es lo más correcto, pero como, por norma general, dicha delimitación no existe, no nos la podemos inventar. Y esa es la razón de utilizar un nodo (que vendría a indicar: "por aquí").

Saludos,

PD: En este mapa (https://osm-es.github.io/validador-ine/), que se refresca a diario, es donde van apareciendo los elementos que conoce el INE pero no están presentes en OSM.
Hugoren Martinako (2024-07-30 07:09:08+00:00): Buenas, ¿fuiste capaz de recordar/encontrar bajo qué fuente oficial se obtuvo la delimitación del barrio?
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-18 14:30:21+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1027193471
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1027193527
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1244039414
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1244039455
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1244039473

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302290208

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-18 14:30:20+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

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/11575135365
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302290458

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
TrickyFoxy (2024-07-18 15:10:35+00:00): Гугл карты использовать нельзя
Frans S (2024-07-21 10:09:35+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
D: Connecting Nodes to other features.
E: Buildings not squared.
G: Included the shadow of the building .


Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154105341
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-07-19 02:44:28+00:00): that's not a secondary road
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-07-19 02:45:06+00:00): no need to double map as a way and a node
GretaMN (2024-07-22 11:36:20+00:00): Hallo livtoed,
bitte einen ermittelten class:bicycle Wert von 0 folgendermaßen taggen: class:bicycle:description=Wert 0 nach LGMaps-Schema ermittelt, daher nicht gesetzt.
Danke! :)
#lgmaps
mavl (2024-11-13 06:13:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 159076991, 159077113 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible sources - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16857].
emersonveenstra (2024-07-18 15:48:51+00:00): Hi there,

Thanks for the additions! Just a note, tourism=apartment is for a vacation apartment (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism=apartment?uselang=en), so that tag doesn't go on regular apartment buildings
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-08 03:04:27+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164658497
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-18 20:13:39+00:00): Good edit
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154106087
antoon334 (2024-07-18 15:06:34+00:00): This place actually has two addresses: 170 AND 172 housenumbers. I saw the corresponding wiki article for that but I still don't get it how to make that properly. Ho I've added a field alt_addr:housenumber I found to understand as "alternative address". This may be completely wrong. 

Please add the 170 building number to this place somehow. Thanks!
eggie (2024-07-19 07:48:25+00:00): Hi  nr 170 is the address nextdoor.
So nr 170 is on the map already.
I removed your additional address.
Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2024-07-19 08:07:29+00:00): Hier is niet echt een oplossing voor.
Vaak zie je dan addr:housenumber = 170-172 op een aparte node. 
Los van de andere twee adresnodes. 
Meestal zet ik het bedrijf op het laagste nummer. Dan is het in ieder geval vindbaar.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-07-19 08:30:30+00:00): Maar ik heb jouw manier van taggen nog even teruggezet.
antoon334 (2024-07-19 14:39:50+00:00): Hi Eggie! 
Thanks for your notes as well as the fixes :)

I noticed you've reverted your own removal here. Why? 

Also isn't it possible to link 170 and 172 addresses here somehow? I see there is a thing called "relation".
eggie (2024-07-19 15:13:56+00:00): I know that manner in case there are two offices that wil share one addres.. but is the other way round.
One company wirh two addresses.
Perhaps a question for the osm forum?
eggie (2024-07-19 15:15:44+00:00): Revert..Why... you may found a solution and fix it by yourself.
I could not found your tag wilt alt_... in the wiki.
Greetz
eggie
antoon334 (2024-07-19 15:44:30+00:00): >> Perhaps a question for the osm forum?
I'm not *that* involved. Yet ;-D 

>> I could not found your tag wilt alt_... in the wiki.
Yeah, I did find a couple of mentions to use that tag for such a cases. But I haven't dug deeper. 
My concern is that if someone would search for 170 address specifically, they won't find anything. That's why I think this alt_ tag on the 172 node may be not sufficient.
eggie (2024-07-19 15:54:59+00:00): Here you will find the same problem.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/winkel-met-twee-huisnummers-volgens-site/103469

Google translate will do the miracle. 

In fact there is only one address where the shop is registrated. 
The habit of shops is using the double address..  But you may not find 170-172 in OSM.
The alt tag doens'nt work either.
antoon334 (2024-07-18 15:14:43+00:00): The new address for this place is here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2610216276/history
eggie (2024-07-19 07:50:51+00:00): Your edits are okay.
Gr eggie
Gonja (2024-07-26 14:09:03+00:00): please be careful when adding new footpaths not to lose connectivity of existing footpaths to streets
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-18 15:40:37+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061515174

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Typowy Miłośnik Autobusów (2024-07-27 11:42:33+00:00): Kiedyś był tu kiosk, ale jak byłem tu chyba ze dwa miesiące temu, to nawet śladu po nim nie było i go usunąłem. Nowy teraz postawili? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302305382
JD-001 (2024-07-18 15:37:27+00:00): The road at the end of Patanne Gardens is gated and is named Porters Court.
HellMap (2024-07-20 12:18:10+00:00): Sveiki,

Kā iepriekš minēts, lūdzu nezīmēt velojoslas kā atsevišķus ceļus, ja tās nav fiziski nodalītas.

Kā arī te palika pāri Jūsu pašu agrāk zīmētais ceļš būvniecības statusā, dubultējot ceļus.

Es šeit izlaboju.

Ņemot vērā iepriekš zīmēto, laikam arī https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1155448124 ir plānota velojosla nevis veloceļš?

Paldies
antoon334 (2024-07-18 15:48:36+00:00): The old incorrect one was here: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1764489848/history/8
antoon334 (2024-07-18 15:47:43+00:00): The new and correct AH is here: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9970460839
eggie (2024-07-19 07:58:01+00:00): Hi It's not the BAGaddressnode. So I deleted this address. BAG Node 622 is situated on the NE corner. IT was a duplicated address.
Greetz,
eggie
antoon334 (2024-07-19 14:45:41+00:00): Thank you, Eggie! :)
alan_gr (2024-09-17 15:45:35+00:00): Hi, do you know what type of road is
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302308244 , currently classified as highway=road? From aerial imagery it looks like it might be highway=residential, like the surrounding streets.

(Question prompted by discussions about the future of the highway=road tag on the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-deprecating-highway-road-in-favor-of-highway-unknown/118864/15)
mubuc (2024-09-17 16:40:28+00:00): Looking back, it probably is a highway=service, but I do not kniw the access.

I tagged it as road, because I was unsure what it really is when I walked there. At its beginning, it looks like a normal public residential road made of asphalt, but the surface it getting worse and worse towards the end, to  such an extent that i was unsure where it ended and where private property began. It also leads only to what appears to be a private property, yet without any signage prohibiting entry. So the locals probably dislike someone going there, as I also felt a bit intrusive to walk and map there as a foreigner, but I do not know if its illegal to walk or drive there without permission.
alan_gr (2024-09-17 16:50:44+00:00): Thanks! I think highway=service would be a safe choice, it has less expectation of public access than highway=residential (especially as it doesn't lead anywhere). Perhaps adding service=driveway to imply even more strongly it is not for general use. I feel that an "approximately correct" classification would be better than highway=road which could be anything. But I'll leave it to you as you have been there.
mubuc (2024-09-17 18:56:35+00:00): I changed it now accirding to your suggestion. Thanks a lot for helping me, since I'm still new to mapping. :)
alan_gr (2024-09-17 19:03:12+00:00): No problem - I've been in plenty of those "not sure if this is a public road or not" situations in Andalucía myself!
LockOnGuy (2024-07-18 20:52:29+00:00): Thank you! keep up the great work my friend.
zorglubu (2024-07-19 15:26:33+00:00): Bonjour,

merci pour vos contributions à OpenStreetMap.
Les remarques ci-après ne sont pas juste des critiques mais plutôt des invitations pour l'amélioration de la carte :-)

Comme indiqué ici :https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Groupes_de_modifications#Taille_g%C3%A9ographique_des_groupes_de_modifications
il est souhaitable de sauvegarder vos modifications "avant" de changer de département, cela facilite le travail des autres contributeurs. En particulier pour la surveillance de la qualité.

Vous avez créé des relations ne contenant qu'un seul objet, ce qui n'est pas souhaitable dans OSM. En fait elle sont inutiles car elles ne seront pas exploitées.

Enfin, pour le nom des résidences, la règle OSM est d'utiliser le nom de la résidence sans l'opérateur.
Par exemple "Résidence de la Cabre d'Or" et non pas "Terres de France - Résidence de la Cabre d'Or"

Merci encore et bonne continuation sur OSM.
muralito (2024-07-18 20:12:28+00:00): It seems you based this change in outdated imagery. 

Please check mapillary again filtering out older imagery.
muralito (2024-07-18 20:14:03+00:00): See https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=800893975233591
HurricaneGator (2024-07-19 21:46:34+00:00): Hello muralito, I was using this Mapillary from April 19th, 2024 (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1291919368413481) in my citation. It shows two signs showing that the directionality has reversed. Please let me know if this has changed. Thank you for reaching out to me.
Taya_S (2024-07-18 18:49:47+00:00): Leer asljeblieft een keer je edits te controleren. Iedere keer is het weer raak. het is niet de bedoeling dat anderen hun tijd moeten blijven verspillen om jouw fouten op te lossen.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/54635030
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/54635523
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302267539
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302267541
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302261519
eggie (2024-07-18 20:42:42+00:00): Dag Padvinder, 
Ik heb wat provisorisch hersteld aan de gebroken polygonen, maar de landuse ligt weer gewoon op elkaar.
Wanneer je mapt kun je toch de rendering controleren voordat je verder mapt.
MVG
eggie
adiatmad (2024-07-24 06:41:09+00:00): Hi andrewmzengeza, hope you are doing great! I don't think there are buildings here, could you please double-check?

(https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=39767&mapCenter=92.47681%2C26.39913%2C17&swipeWidget=39767%2C9598)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154109711
bxl-forever (2024-07-18 20:01:28+00:00): Hello,

For your information, standard practice in Belgium is that we no longer repeat full addresses on POI.  I know mappers in some countries still do this but this is unnecessary, and we prefer to keep a clean address register.  Don’t worry, I fixed your latest edits of the last hours. ;-)
NielsLa (2024-07-18 21:16:40+00:00): Good to know!
And happy to see someone managing edits!
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-05 15:52:13+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061618925/history has reference = 12508 that was added in this edit
maybe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref would fit?

ref= is widely used for references
mat (2025-05-09 06:16:54+00:00): Bonjour,
Combien de temps est-ce temporaire ?
DP24PH (2024-08-04 08:03:17+00:00): Greetings! We need to show the completed portion of the said expressway per Esri, Mapillary, Maxar imagery and ground validation.


DP24
(Inactive) Buddy-the-Elf (2024-08-05 15:03:13+00:00): Greetings and happy mapping! I did not add the tag suggesting there is a completed portion of the Expressway. I simply updated that section from 'highway=construction' to 'highway=proposed' to match the rest of the expressway, and based on the most recent ground imagery, construction has not begun on the highway. 
Feel free to update the tagging to reflect the current standing of the expressway!
ExoMal (2025-04-10 14:27:28+00:00): Hiya andrum, I see you tagged Rosyth Castle with permissive access, but the sign there indicates the land is Rosyth Ports property, private property, and no trespassing, did you have a particular reason for tagging permissive?
andrum99 (2025-04-10 14:54:04+00:00): Where are the signs? There is access right next to their entranceway, via an (intentional) gap in the small wire fence. The site adjoins the secure port area, but is outside it.
ExoMal (2025-04-10 17:52:10+00:00): You're right about the fencing, I see the very deliberate gap on the map, but see the street view (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@56.0238204,-3.4318502,3a,71.2y,141.45h,88.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSW_axill3VLqvawHNaONzg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D1.913866242945403%26panoid%3DSW_axill3VLqvawHNaONzg%26yaw%3D141.4549934927017!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDQwOC4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDU1SAFQAw%3D%3D) (looked exactly like this when I visited today).

The green sign indicates private property, no trespassing, and there's a small fence gently 'discouraging' pedestrians from continuing to the castle. The one page I could find talking about the castle suggests getting permission from the security first.

Suppose this is a case of 'technically private' vs 'no-one actually cares'.
andrum99 (2025-04-10 17:56:10+00:00): Is the sign actually still there? don't remember seeing it when I was there twice within the last year.
ExoMal (2025-04-10 18:07:22+00:00): Yeah, still there, from today https://imgur.com/a/wCA4mW9

I did recall freedom-to-roam though, this means access could just be left as permissive and leave the private sign as note.
andrum99 (2025-04-10 18:11:44+00:00): I see. I've obviously just ignored it then.

Yes, Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 applies 👍
ExoMal (2025-04-10 18:13:27+00:00): Righto, I'll just leave the private property stuff as a note then and leave access as permissive, cheers 👍.
MenKauRa (2024-07-18 20:56:34+00:00): Hello dear...
This is the second time (and there have been many such cases before) that you connect two nodes with a point that is absolutely unnecessary... there is a roundabout and a link to the right, which quite cope with the traffic rules at this junction... the connection point has been set creates an extra burden for you - I repeat, there is a circle and a link to the right...
Please, next time, before correcting my editing, contact me, and I will be happy to give an explanation... if I made a mistake, I will figure it out and definitely correct it...
Sincerely...
NeretvaRiver (2024-07-22 14:46:26+00:00): Hello MenKauRa. Thank you for keeping an eye on the data here!
To follow OSM Wiki guidance, all crossing highways that are on the same level must share nodes to represent the intersection (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Junctions#Simple_intersections), which is also called out in JOSM’s data validator for Crossing Ways (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Validator#Validations).
That being said, I do understand your routing concern here and I’ve gone ahead and added turn restrictions at this intersection, to ensure turning maneuvers utilize the highway link and circular junction. Thank you for bringing this to my attention!
MenKauRa (2024-07-22 19:51:54+00:00): hello...
The link you provided provides editing rules when “a single-lane roadway intersects a two-lane roadway,” and this rule has nothing to do with this node, which we are talking about...
Moreover, you set the turn restrictions incorrectly - instead of “straight only” you used the “straight and left” restriction (i.e. right turns are prohibited)..
Taking into account all that has been said, I removed the node point and I think this is the right decision...
Sincerely...
NeretvaRiver (2024-07-23 22:16:24+00:00): Hi MenKauRa,

I was referring to the Simple Intersections section of that page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Junctions#Simple_intersections) which states "A simple intersection is represented by the ways for the two roads sharing a common node.”

This editing standard is mentioned on several other OSM Wiki pages as well. For example, the Node page’s "Nodes on ways" section (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Node#Nodes_on_ways) mentions "Where ways intersect at the same altitude, the two ways must share a node (for example, a road junction).” And the Editing Standards and Conventions page’s “Junctions" section (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Junctions) says ""All road junctions should be drawn as a node which connects the ways (both or several ways share the same(!) node).”

From my understanding, there is no scenario where highways should cross on the same layer without a shared intersection node, as this goes against OSM editing guidelines and can break routing.

Regarding the turn restrictions, no_left_turn and no_right_turn restrictions are accurate here, because this junction involves two oneways. I agree only_straight_on is also accurate, as both options provide identical routing results, and I’d be happy to update the turn restrictions to only_straight_on, if that’s what you prefer.

I hope that’s helpful and please let me know what you think. Thank you!
MenKauRa (2024-07-24 13:54:39+00:00): Hello dear NeretvaRiver.
I would also like to note that the first link you provided concerns simple intersections 1+2 and 2+2, and not a road junction with a roundabout, and this rule is not a dogma(!) for a roundabout.
Regarding the second link, it says that the point of intersection of two lines is needed for the router to correctly determine the route options. In our case, the point you mark creates an erroneous route, since there is already a link to this point from this road to the right.
Also, I would like to notify you that I know and studied all the points you cited when I started working at OSM 12 years ago. I myself live in Azerbaijan, and due to my professional activities I know all the road regions in the country very well. It may not seem modest, but I note that 75% of the map of Azerbaijan was edited by me. That is, in terms of experience and editing practice, I seem to be doing quite well. The rules for editing in OSM themselves were created on the basis of agreements between OSM participants (every written rule begins with this phrase), and my experience shows that they are not ideal and are regularly adjusted.
Sincerely.
jndche (2024-07-29 17:59:59+00:00): 1302321372 is definitely not a cycleway, and 1302321373 does not exist and is impassable. Where did you get this information?