piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
rajdhani (2026-07-30 11:57:56+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186640057
rajdhani (2026-07-30 12:07:07+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186640517
rajdhani (2026-07-30 11:45:29+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186639489
Wildsharky (2026-07-30 12:26:21+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186640657
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-31 06:03:04+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/21038
dvillas (2026-07-30 17:45:05+00:00): Correction: Source used was Bing Streetside
gurglypipe (2026-07-29 23:58:42+00:00): Hiya, I don’t think the Bob Graham round can or should be mapped on OSM. It’s not a fixed route, it’s a series of summits to visit (actually in any order) and the person doing it can choose any route between them — so it cannot be represented as a relation of ways in OSM.

From a verifiability point of view, there are no Bob Graham signs or waymarkers on the route, so nobody can verify it on the ground.

While you might argue that there is a route which people commonly take for doing the summits in a clockwise order, I don’t think that should be on OSM either. The route takes a series of fell running trods which are now seriously suffering from wear and path erosion (to the extent that the BG committee have put limits on the number of support runners for a BG attempt). Anything which steers people towards all using exactly the same route for a BG is going to amplify this path erosion.

I realise you probably mean well, but I think these edits should be reverted.
MDe (2026-07-30 17:36:04+00:00): Hi. Thank you for your vigilance. You raise interesting arguments. For me the main point would be "there are no Bob Graham signs or waymarkers on the route". However, as a user I'd like to be able to find a BGR route on OSM, or I'd like to direct a user saying for any well known itinerary in the world, "sure it's probably on OSM, go get it". Of course, what is "well known"*?... An existing Wikipedia page is a good start I guess. 

The wiki says (the third condition on routes that are suitable for inclusion in OSM) : "(...) The route itself is shared common knowledge among a significant number of people that are not all mutually connected. This usually means that it is easy to find different sources of information about it online or many people living in the area know about it. Examples for routes matching this criteria include the Haute Randonnée Pyrénéenne or the Greater Patagonia Trail, which are both unofficial and mostly unsigned, but are well known among long distance hikers.
If in doubt, suitability of a route for inclusion in OSM should be discussed with the relevant OSM community."

Maybe we should start a discussion on the forum? Or this discussion was already done?

*note: You can even buy a map https://www.harveymaps.co.uk/acatalog/Bob-Graham-Round-YHFRBG.html

Cordially.
lakedistrict (2026-07-30 17:41:07+00:00): I agree with @gurglypipe on this - in the absence of an exact, definitive route it does not meet the OSM verifiability test and does not belong on OSM. 

An argument could be made for creating a relation containing just the requisite fell summits and start/finish point, but excluding any paths/routes.
MDe (2026-07-30 17:51:12+00:00): Thanks. Yes I thought about that too (before I started the route) but it seems that the consensus is : relations are not collections https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories
but maybe it could apply here, and it's an elegant solution...
gurglypipe (2026-07-30 21:18:47+00:00): I would tentatively support a change to have the relation contain just the summits and start/finish point.

Overall, though, I’m not sure that this kind of fell running challenge is in scope to be mapped in OSM at all. Once you dig into it, you’ll find there are maybe 100 different challenges like this, and people keep coming up with new ones (and forgetting old ones). They are broadly only relevant within the fell running community. IMO they belong in an overlay map, not the main OSM database.
MDe (2026-07-30 21:27:50+00:00): OK. I remove the relation for now, and maybe I'll make a new one with only summits/start/stop, after asking on the forum. I'll ping you both. Thanks for your hindsight.
gurglypipe (2026-07-30 21:33:52+00:00): Great, thanks for your engagement and understanding :)
pwbriggs (2026-07-31 07:41:56+00:00): oopsie: tag pasting mistake on opening_hours. Fixed!
watmildon (2026-07-31 20:03:57+00:00): Ope.  Thanks for tidying up!
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-30 06:22:08+00:00): NB, at least per the wiki, old_name=* is preferred over was:name=* (especially without the other was:*-* tags) https://osm.wiki/Key:old_name and sees around 40x more usage and more support by downstream projects per TagInfo https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/compare/old_name/was:name
MassCartog (2026-07-29 23:40:21+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. Wanted to let you know, If the feature exists on the ground, it is valid.

You might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Even decommissioned trails should not be removed until they no longer exist. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

PS nice work updating the other features in this area!

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property
hafe-nps (2026-07-30 15:25:52+00:00): Thank you for your explanation and I understand the concern, but I was acting in good faith as a park official. I was not aware of the motivation and policies of OSM regarding unauthorized trails on national park land, I am only aware of the issues that OSM's policies are causing in our park.

After reading your response, I understand that I previously removed a few social trails that have not yet been re-vegetated by our Resources staff, which I now see need to be instead changed to 'unauthorized' or some variant of. Unfortunately, revegetating these social trails takes years of repeated treatments, and having these social trails reinforced on public maps actively works against our efforts, so I am disappointed to read OSM's policy on this from an NPS perspective. 

With the exception of that area, the rest of the trails I removed are trails that no longer exist on the ground. These have been brushed in with vegetation and are no longer maintained or mowed, so they are completely inaccessible by foot.

Others are eroded banks (not trails, just ground without vegetation) or subtle game trails used by white-tailed deer that have been incorrectly identified as trails: there is no legitimate foot trail at these locations. Since the park has a legal mandate to protect natural resources on our land, the misidentification of game trails as foot trails can lead to the development of new trails that actively damage park flora, which we are obligated to prevent. "Vandalism" in this case would be promoting these trails as human trails at the detriment of park flora, when they are not.

I'd like to re-do these changes to reflect the ground truthed reality, but before I do, I'd like to confirm that they will not be rejected. I make these edits as a park staff member with the on-the-ground expertise required to provide ground-truthed data. I will, however, take a more careful view in my deletions and if there is an illegal/dangerous trail that still appears to be accessible to the average hiker, I will change the access field instead. I will, however, remove, "Trails that are entirely fictional, with no tangible evidence of existence visible to the average person on the ground." One example of such a trail that does not exist on-the-ground but is promoted on OSM presents a serious threat to personal safety should someone attempt to go looking for it: it is a cliff face where thinking that a trail exists where it does not could lead to someone falling to their death.
DaveF (2026-07-30 17:12:29+00:00): Hi Could you expand/clarify your edits.
Why was this way deleted?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106446506
Colin Smale (2026-07-30 17:24:41+00:00): Hi Dave,
The electoral divisions of Bristol have undergone a major revision since they were added to OSM over 15 years ago. I can't say why this specific way was deleted, but it was probably because it no longer forms part of a ward boundary. I have preserved the relations where the wards still exist.
DaveF (2026-07-30 18:15:05+00:00): Hi
You replaced it with a like for like. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1545638671#map=15/51.44578/-2.56314&layers=V
Please retain ways for historical purposes where possible.
Colin Smale (2026-07-30 18:51:01+00:00): Sorry Dave, I have to take issue with your insinuation here. I do retain ways, and even parts of ways, where they remain identical. Due to the use of a more accurate transform from OSGB to WGS84 the ways are not exactly identical. OSM is not about retaining the full history of every element, it's about reflecting the current situation as accurately as possible. If you want to travel back in time, openhistoricalmap.org can probably help. I spent over 20 hours on this in the past week, because a mapper requested an update and I volunteered to help out. I don't appreciate being criticised for something trivial like this. If you want to see some real abuse of mapping of boundary relations, take a look at what happens in Ireland, where entire relations are regularly deleted and recreated.
KartKollektor (2026-07-29 20:50:52+00:00): Kartieren von POIs und Micromapping am Schloßberg

(Als Diskussions-Eintrag, da ich leider kein Kommentar zum Changeset hinzufügen konnte, wurde mit der EveryDoor-App erstellt)
user_5359 (2026-07-31 17:01:27+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1545854902. What is the mean of the tag https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13968560#map = 18/-32.158905/-64.134348? (I assume a copy & paste error.
user_8y978a (2026-07-29 21:33:02+00:00): mi riferisco al changeset 186607093 e successivi.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-30 06:36:00+00:00): It seems that the landuse=farmyard is immediately to the northeast of this, where all the buildings, equipment, etc. are located. This looks more like landuse=meadow to me, possibly (horse?) pasture (meadow=pasture).
mewhenthe (2026-07-29 23:31:19+00:00): Looks good to me.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186612290
bxl-forever (2026-07-30 07:43:19+00:00): Your edit has been reverted.

Cinéma Palace has been on the map for many years.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1334658369

Please avoid editing the map with Organic Maps, which only shows you a selection of objects on the map. It is advised to check out against real OSM data first.

Thanks.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-31 05:19:39+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/21036
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-30 06:39:52+00:00): Regarding the fixme=* tagged way 1545862415 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1545862415 , I'm not sure what made you think its a natural=wetland -- this looks far more like an artificial water body, specifically a stormwater retention basin, to me (i.e. water=basin basin=retention ) https://osm.wiki/Tag:water%3Dbasin
nerihv (2026-07-29 22:04:56+00:00): mapeado con fondo esri 2024
comparando con bing -6.61, -1.8
mapbox -0.63, 2.66
maptheworld2050 (2026-07-30 16:55:25+00:00): Regarding the change made to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13011584769, Memorial Day is not May 25 every year, nor is Labor Day always September 7. I updated it to "May Mo[-1] -2 days-Sep Mo[1]". (-2 days because the business's website actually says it opens "Memorial day weekend" not "Memorial day".) If there are any other places you recall making a similar mistake it would be good to correct those too, it's hard for me to check.
iandees (2026-07-30 19:05:55+00:00): Huh, I tried multiple ways to describe Memorial day and didn't find something that met the opening_hours schema so I used the month + day as a fallback. Thanks for sharing. I'll go back and update.
Wildsharky (2026-07-30 14:36:34+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186648373
Jarek 🚲 (2026-07-30 02:20:26+00:00): Hey there, I deleted the Maverick's you added here in Parkdale in Toronto -- the Fab's Donuts shop already mapped here used to be a Maverick's, but they dropped the franchise and renamed sometime in 2025. (You already edited the Fab's last week in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186293155)
eggie (2026-07-30 18:00:21+00:00): Hoi,

Lijkt me oke.

Met die bomen langs het water is altijd lastig. Er zit gewoon water onder de bomen.
Vaak wordt het water dan te smal ingetekend.
Ik gebruik meestal de BGT omtrekgericht-transparant  als achtergrond met editor JOSM. . Zo'n achtergrond zit ook ergens in editor iD. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-07-30 18:11:16+00:00): Zo heb ik net dat eilandje aan de westzijde apart ingetekend en in een mp gezet.
Dan kies je als achtergrond voor PDOK BGT standaardvisualisatie
Je ziet dan precies waar de oevers lopen.
mapse
TheIndra (2026-07-30 20:22:48+00:00): Hoi Eggie,

Ik gebruik inderdaad regelmatig de BGT standaardvisualisatie sinds die het makkelijkste is om over te trekken. Bedankt voor al de hulp met dit park, sinds grote delen ervan lijken sinds de 3dshapes import niet meer bijgewerkt te zijn 😅.
MappingMore (2026-07-30 10:59:13+00:00): Reverted in  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186637098
MappingMore (2026-07-30 11:06:39+00:00): Reverted in  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186637528
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-31 05:15:47+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/21035
Kaloan-koko (2026-07-30 02:07:10+00:00): Лампите би трябвало да са с mount=straight_mast
В EveryDoor май излизаше като опция с по-нисък приоритет, та затова ги тагнах така.
Като се доотбележат за парка да се сменат и тези.
Fraxi (2026-07-30 08:29:38+00:00): Абе не те интересува "приоритет"... Гледам в ED, че е под "pole". За тези конкретно не мога да кажа, но за онези по по-известните алеи (в западна посока), ми се струва, че са като https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Generic_LED_Streetlight.jpg

Мога с 1 промяна с JOSM да променя тага, само да сме сигурни в точната стойност.
Kaloan-koko (2026-07-30 12:45:55+00:00): Не изглеждат така, по-скоро са един пилон, който отгоре свършва и с две-три пластини за него се закрепя на 20-ина сантиметра отстояние по-високо една плоска, кръгла част. 
От долната част на нея има някакви LED лампи. 
Всъщност по пътя край рекичката на западния бряг продължават от същия тип като добавените от мен на юг от мостчето.
Fraxi (2026-07-30 13:27:59+00:00): Така, както ми го обясняваш, са и като тези от тази редица - давам една от тях - node/13028268387
Те сигурно по-голямата част в парка са вече такива.
В уикито пише:"
If support=pole, then:
straight_mast – The light sits atop a (straight) mast.
bent_mast – The light is at the end of a bent mast.
angled_mast – A pole that starts out straight but then is (usually 90°) angled.
high_mast – A tall pole (greater than 30 m) with lighting mounted at the top."
Но като гледам снимките от https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lamp_mount визуално много не приличат.... Може би най-близко е high mast но не са толкова високи.
Fraxi (2026-07-30 13:29:26+00:00): Такива са и около тези столчета - node/13043170914
Deltaloop (2026-07-29 23:37:45+00:00): Corrects and extends changeset #186534000.

I am unsure how to tag the obstacle point. The editor suggested and recognizes barrier=log, but the Wiki suggests obstacle=fallen_tree. So I used both for now.

The obstacle at the added point is both fallen trees as well as new vegetation growing. The path is impassable at this point, but you can walk around it.

The paths marked with obstacle=vegetation are partially overgrown and full of woody debris, so bicycling isn't possible anymore.
Deltaloop (2026-07-30 02:34:02+00:00): See also forum here:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/145919
Wildsharky (2026-07-31 07:36:38+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186682671
eggie (2026-07-30 04:28:39+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
Wildsharky (2026-07-30 14:34:14+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186647566
bxl-forever (2026-07-30 13:16:35+00:00): Hello,

You should have asked before doing a major change like this.

The cycle lanes were already mapped, as attributes of the main road (cycleway=lane is set on the road).

Mapping cycle lanes as separate ways is not advised. We often do this for segregated cycle tracks but rarely for lanes. And if we do, we should *always* update tags accordingly on the main road, to avoid double tagging.

In addition, this edit breaks no less than 18 bus route relations because you also cut roads in a strange way.

I am sorry about a few things which this changeset might have improved, but we are forced to revert it all, to restore a valid situation on the map.
Araxe (2026-07-30 00:19:57+00:00): Please put this back.  I removed it accidentally.
nerihv (2026-07-30 00:32:48+00:00): mapeo anterior de 5 dias que calculo mapeo con fondo esri con un desplazamiento aproximado de -0.36, 4.42.
Polígonos creados posteriormente fueron relocalizados utilizando este desplazamiento.
En tres casos rediseñamos la forma del polígono.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186618005
Supaplex (2026-07-30 02:14:59+00:00): 請問是否有完整門牌地址？
另外OpenStreetMap為國際計劃，電話號碼需要加上國碼
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186619020
kapazao (2026-07-31 11:22:17+00:00): Hi, could you explain where did you got information about this node or give some reference about it?
Regards
Oceanos (2026-07-31 13:58:09+00:00): del mapa Instituto Geográfico Nacional ---> https://www.ign.es/iberpix
nerihv (2026-07-30 01:30:58+00:00): mapeado con Esri 3.75, 0.16
Supaplex (2026-07-30 02:15:56+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4973827922
It is already closed
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186619547
pizzaiolo (2026-07-30 02:23:57+00:00): Thanks. The Wikidata link can still be added, however.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-30 21:32:01+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/186670309
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:27+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:26+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:25+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:24+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:23+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:22+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:21+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:20+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:19+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:18+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:17+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:16+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:15+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:14+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:13+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:12+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:11+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:10+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:09+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:08+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:07+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:06+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:05+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:04+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:03+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:02+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:01+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:32:00+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:31:59+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:31:58+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:31:57+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:31:56+00:00): Reverting clear vandalism
Jarek 🚲 (2026-07-30 02:05:31+00:00): The changes at Hornby intersection are per aerial imagery showing construction in progress matching https://www.halton.ca/for-residents/infrastructure-and-growth/road-water-wastewater-construction/trafalgar-road-halton-hills-widening . Also deleted the turn restrictions which no longer apply due to the slip road having been removed (and at least one of them was already invalid due to a missing `to` way)
Fraxi (2026-07-30 08:14:12+00:00): Sorry за въпроса, ама работи ли изобщо? Колко пъти досега съм я заварвал заключена.
Fraxi (2026-07-30 08:15:48+00:00): То има и една в тая градинка - https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=42.667487&mlon=23.304759#map=19/42.667487/23.304759...
nerihv (2026-07-30 02:41:56+00:00): mapeado con esri usando desplazamiento 4.18, 2.26
tomando como referencia el camino y mapeo anterior
Usando fondo bing para comparar la forma de las viviendas.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186620632
nerihv (2026-07-30 02:42:11+00:00): mapeado con esri usando desplazamiento 4.18, 2.26
tomando como referencia el camino y mapeo anterior
Usando fondo bing para comparar la forma de las viviendas.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186620702
nerihv (2026-07-30 02:42:17+00:00): mapeado con esri usando desplazamiento 4.18, 2.26
tomando como referencia el camino y mapeo anterior
Usando fondo bing para comparar la forma de las viviendas.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186620702
Frans S (2026-07-30 12:24:41+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. We welcome you as a new mapped.
A few remarks. 
Don't hide errors by adding a layer to a highway like here. Adding a layer=1 means that it is a bridge or a fly over ! which is not the case.
Just adjust the mappings which causes the error.
Best regards
Frans S (2026-07-30 12:24:55+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. We welcome you as a new mapped.
A few remarks. 
Don't hide errors by adding a layer to a highway like here. Adding a layer=1 means that it is a bridge or a fly over ! which is not the case.
Just adjust the mappings which causes the error.
Best regards
Alliegaytor (2026-07-31 03:55:19+00:00): reverted: changeset/186683509
Alliegaytor (2026-07-31 03:54:10+00:00): reverted: changeset/186683480
Bienson (2026-07-30 20:55:31+00:00): Korrigiert in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186668834