piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
felipeeugenio (2026-07-18 14:05:41+00:00): Hola.
El tema de las veredas (sidewalk) es un poco más complejo:

sidewalk=both(right/left es cuando la vereda está pegada a la calle y no hay nada entre medio.

Pero basta que haya una franja de pasto, postes, árboles o lo que sea para que ya se empiece a calificar como una vereda separada de la calle, para lo cual ya hay que dibujarla por separado, como highway=footway + footway=sidewalk y a la calle misma agregarle sidewalk=separate (en caso que tenga por ambos lados de manera separada) o sidewalk:right/left=separate/no

Dejarla así como la dibujó no está mal en sí, pero eventualmente alguien lo va a cambiar.

En Providencia, Temuco, San José de la Mariquina son ciudades donde está bastante extendido el uso que le menciono. El Centro de Viña del Mar también creo.

Saludos
StreetSurveyor (2026-07-18 01:20:25+00:00): This is incorrect per MassGIS.
cubbe8 (2026-07-18 02:04:26+00:00): Slip lanes are to be tagged as links per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link
woodpeck (2026-07-17 23:04:25+00:00): The under-construction roads you have entered here are very coarsely drawn and are not at all visible on Bing aerial imagery. Are you sure that construction is ongoing here - have the trees been removed? Has this road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1069992947 which conflicts with the construction been removed?

If this is not really being constructed right now, please remove it and wait until construction actually begins on the ground.
HaritaDuzenlemeHesabi (2026-07-18 15:02:21+00:00): Hi @woodpeck. Truthahnblatt's changeset might be partially correct. I drove on this road (way/113731460) on July 17th. After seeing your comment, I checked my dashcam recordings. Due to my dashcam's field of view, I can only definitively say that there were roadworks on way/1540136827, way/1540136826, and way/1540136828. However, I can't say anything about the other roads Truthahnblatt modified.

Also, I suspect, almost certainly, that Truthahnblatt is someone who has had 14 different accounts blocked in the past. Because their modification pattern is exactly the same as those 14 previously blocked accounts. This person sometimes makes incorrect changes, sometimes correct ones. And it's impossible to contact them to correct their mistakes. He/she doesn't respond to any comments or messages. It's also questionable whether the data he/she add is compliant with the OSM license. I listed this person's blocked accounts here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/olasi-vandalizm-suphelileri-geri-dondurme/138035/3

Have a nice day.
dav23r (2026-07-17 22:52:58+00:00): *spiral staircase
*layering - river area <> stairs segment <> stairs segment
EarlEBird (2026-07-21 16:38:38+00:00): Hello Jsjajshahshsjwhhs and welcome to OSM! Thank you for mapping.

I noticed you have been making changes around the village of Caramujo. 

For example, you reclassified this highway: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/441340486#map=19/-15.842897/-57.863441

This highway is better aligned with the definition of highway=trunk_link rather than highway=trunk. Based on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link, as “it connects through lanes of highways to other roadways of all types, where the linking way is not the main line of either of the highways being linked but forms the connection between them.” Let me know if you have any issue with me reclassifying this highway to a highway_link.

I am also curious of your source for the addition of name=AVENIDA DIEGO LANDIM. That name already appears on a nearby feature heading in a different direction.

Regards,
EarlEBird
VA00 (2026-07-18 05:51:45+00:00): Usunąłem building=yes z Chiptuning Śląsk itd, bo to nie są budynki. Czy ten przejazd z Uwagi jest otwarty 24/7:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/250950379

Nie ma żadnej bramy zamykanej np. na noc?
StanislawB (2026-07-18 07:54:01+00:00): z tego co pamiętam nie ma tam żadnej bramy. są dwie bramy, na wylocie z tej drogi przy oczyszczalni ścieków (dodałem na mapie). nie spotkałem sie żeby były zamknięte, ale nie mogę tego wykluczyć.
mueschel (2026-07-23 12:08:19+00:00): Hi,
you used a combination of 'both_ways' and 'forward/backward' here - this is not common. Is this 3-lane part simply reversible in full?
JeroenvanderGun (2026-07-23 20:05:55+00:00): I made sure lanes:both_ways, lanes:forward (if any) and lanes:backward (if any) add up to lanes. The parts where lanes:both_ways is less than lanes, indeed have lanes that are only used when operational in one direction but not when operational in the other direction.
JeroenvanderGun (2026-07-23 20:08:12+00:00): All lanes are correctly rendered with https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Styles/Lane_and_Road_Attributes
mueschel (2026-07-23 20:23:39+00:00): Those tags are fine. I meant those where both suffixes are in the same key like

"access:lanes:both_ways:forward"
JeroenvanderGun (2026-07-23 21:19:07+00:00): Oh, you mean https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1540074043 ? I've now removed access:lanes:both_ways:forward and access:lanes:both_ways:backward there, since it's the same lane that is closed (so access:lanes:both_ways suffices), but kept turn:lanes:both_ways:forward and turn:lanes:both_ways:backward because the purpose of the third lane (if it is unusually open) depends on the direction of operation (exit lane on the left if operating forward, merging lane on the right if operating backward).
hdevine825 (2026-07-17 23:25:37+00:00): Hello, I see you mapped the bunkers as both golf=bunker and hazard=bunker. I think you only need to tag them as golf=bunker. I did a quick check and I don't believe hazard=bunker exists anywhere else on the map.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185932567
nogene22 (2026-07-17 23:52:29+00:00): Hi, yeah I unfortunately realised too late that the golf=bunker tag was added automatically. I had it laid out in my mind to have a tag hazard=bunker that i could use for my own project using geojson later. Only halfway through did I realise there was a preloaded tag.
unknown246 (2026-07-22 21:37:51+00:00): Thank you for adding this
Jarek 🚲 (2026-07-17 23:22:22+00:00): I would want to survey it more directly (walking its length) to confirm building numbers and types, and which if any buildings are attached and which are garages vs sheds or others. I will try to do that at some point but no guarantees!
CAM-Gerlach (2026-07-18 17:15:42+00:00): Hey Frank!

Seems like StreetComplete made a mistake here for some reason, incorrectly issuing a quest here when both sidewalk=no and sidewalk:both=no were already correctly tagged and doing nothing but removing the valid sidewalk:both=no tag I added. I'll be reporting this as a bug to their GitHub, and I've reverted it in changeset 185968865.

https://osm.org/changeset/185968865

BTW, still in the process of getting to formally reviewing and fixing a couple small issues with your recent Givens Lane changesets as part of a basic pass in the area; hope to finish that in the next few days.
CAM-Gerlach (2026-07-18 18:58:29+00:00): Reported as https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/6944
Frank Peng (2026-07-19 17:28:53+00:00): Oh ok, I wasn't aware that this changeset removed the valid sidewalk:both=no tag.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185932878
silversurfer83 (2026-07-18 21:59:59+00:00): Das ist falsch. Machst du das selbst rückgängig?
Trafford_Mapper (2026-07-18 08:09:01+00:00): Thank you for correcting my Typo, hadn't even realised I'd done that. Appreciate it :)
ChrissW-R1 (2026-07-24 21:28:02+00:00): No problem. You're welcome.
FajrAl (2026-07-29 04:43:39+00:00): Hi! I noticed 14 overlapping buildings here and have fixed them. Going forward, please keep the JOSM validator enabled and address its warnings before uploading.
adigis (2026-07-29 12:01:21+00:00): I never turn off validator and before I upload I solved ther error and warning.
m_fuhrmann (2026-07-18 21:11:25+00:00): Hi und danke für deine Änderungen. Wenn du Kontakt zur OSM Community in Fulda suchst, schaue doch mal im OpenStreetMap Wiki von Fulda vorbei. Dort findest du unseren Chat usw.

Wäre cool, dich mal kennenzulernen.
FajrAl (2026-07-18 15:39:17+00:00): Ini parkir apa?
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-18 08:16:44+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Please see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Cleaned up nonsensical branch=* value and other malformed tags in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185944552
GA_Kevin (2026-07-18 14:08:49+00:00): Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap in Brevard County, Florida! Please feel free to continue improving the map wherever it needs updating to make a free, open source map for all! If you have any questions, our wiki (https://osm.wiki) is a great resource or you can message me (another Brevard County native). Happy mapping!
5m4u9 (2026-07-18 16:51:29+00:00): hola, estos survey_point son los sellos dorados en el suelo 🤔?
noahheffron (2026-07-18 12:29:19+00:00): This node, and others recently added nearby, does not exist. Please only add nodes that you have verified on site. Thank you for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.
noahheffron (2026-07-18 12:29:14+00:00): This node, and others recently added nearby, does not exist. Please only add nodes that you have verified on site. Thank you for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.
noahheffron (2026-07-18 12:29:10+00:00): This node, and others recently added nearby, does not exist. Please only add nodes that you have verified on site. Thank you for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.
noahheffron (2026-07-18 12:29:00+00:00): This node, and others recently added nearby, does not exist. Please only add nodes that you have verified on site. Thank you for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.
noahheffron (2026-07-18 12:28:54+00:00): This node, and others recently added nearby, does not exist. Please only add nodes that you have verified on site. Thank you for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.
FajrAl (2026-07-18 15:37:15+00:00): Ini apa? Pos pendakian resmi?
Sammyhawkrad (2026-07-18 17:44:42+00:00): Hi SELASI_EDMUND, welcome to OSM. 

You've added "building map from the scratch" as changeset comment to all your changesets thus far. The changeset comment is for describing what you did e.g, added buildings, updated name, etc.

Moreover, you're not mapping from scratch. There are already mapped objects, so you should either edit them or replace them. Drawing over them is not acceptable practice. Pay attention to existing objects and don't duplicate them. The Kade Market was already mapped.

You have also been adding addr:housenumber=123 to all objects. That cannot be right.

Names of places should be in Name Case, but not UPPER CASE.

I'd suggest you read a little bit on https://learnosm.org/en/ to familiarise yourself with how mapping is done on OSM.
ika-chan! (2026-07-18 03:19:06+00:00): For context, all three main imageries (Bing, Esri and Mapbox) do not show the filter road. If the change in road layout occurred very recently, please use source="Survey of 2026-MM-DD" on affected ways and do the same for the changeset's source. We err on the side of caution due to a history of unsourced road layouts by a different user.
noahheffron (2026-07-18 12:29:05+00:00): This node, and others recently added nearby, does not exist. Please only add nodes that you have verified on site. Thank you for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.
alpacaMaps (2026-07-18 03:53:36+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — the nodes sit well away from any road, which usually means the cameras aren't physically present on the ground.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-18 03:53:35+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — the nodes sit well away from any road, which usually means the cameras aren't physically present on the ground.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-18 03:56:49+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in spots that looks unlikely — they are clustered in an area and some are not closely associated with roads. Combined with the in-field adds, these are being reverted.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-18 03:56:50+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in spots that looks unlikely — they are clustered in an area and some are not closely associated with roads. Combined with the in-field adds, these are being reverted.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-18 03:56:52+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in spots that looks unlikely — they are clustered in an area and some are not closely associated with roads. Combined with the in-field adds, these are being reverted.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-18 03:56:53+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in spots that looks unlikely — they are clustered in an area and some are not closely associated with roads. Combined with the in-field adds, these are being reverted.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-18 03:56:54+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in spots that looks unlikely — they are clustered in an area and some are not closely associated with roads. Combined with the in-field adds, these are being reverted.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
CAM-Gerlach (2026-07-18 17:06:50+00:00): Hi HingleMcCringle,

Thanks for your contribution--this is definitely a big improvement to the mapping and detailing in for this assisted living complex!

After reviewing the changeset, I've got a few tips and bits of feedback. I've already implemented all of them in changeset 185966133 , plus a handful of other tweaks and enhancements, but I figured I'd share them here for the benefit of your future mapping!

https://osm.org/changeset/185966133

Here's the points I have to share:

- The (entire) service way that goes under the covered roof at the entrance was tagged level=-1, which would actually mean it was an underground tunnel. Instead, there are two main methods to actually handle this correctly: the part of the building that is just the roof could be split as a building=roof with layer=-1, and/or the road passing underneath it can be split where it enters and exits the roof area (with the split nodes shared between the road way and the building way) and that portion only of the road tagged covered=yes. I ended up doing a combination of both in my changeset. See https://osm.wiki/Tag:building%3Droof for more details
- The service way around the building is actually not a service=parking_aisle; it's a common mistake but parking aisles are not intended to be used for a way that provides through access like this one, but rather individual aisles in a larger parking lot (see, for example, how the service ways in the Gucci Kroger parking lot north of here are tagged). More details: https://osm.wiki/Tag:service%3Dparking_aisle
- There were a fair few extra nodes on that service way and it wasn't quite streight--straight ways should be kept straight, without extra nodes in between, see https://osm.wiki/Good_practice#Keep_straight_ways_straight
- Likewise, the right parking lot particularly and parts of the left were not quite square, despite being so in real life--you can use the "square" feature in your editor to align the parking lots to right angles, where they are in fact square (or nearly so)
- Also, while not strictly required its a really idea to tag at least parking=* and access=* on amenity=parking ways, as they can represent a bunch of different things (parking lots, parking structures, street parking, underground garages, etc) and consumers need to know who can park there in order to be useful in most cases. See https://osm.wiki/Key:parking
- Also not required, but its a good idea to add a specific building=* tag (at least as specific as you reasonably can), to classify what type of building it is. See https://osm.wiki/Key:building
- Finally, note the standard formatting for phone=* in the US/NANP is +1-NNN-NNN-NNNN; a bot should come around and fix most cases automatically, but figured I'd mention it as its simpler to get it right from the get go. See  https://osm.wiki/Key:phone#United_States

Thanks, and happy mapping!
CAM-Gerlach (2026-07-18 17:07:59+00:00): (Typo correction--I mean the building=roof could be tagged with layer=1 , not layer=-1)
HingleMcCringle (2026-07-18 23:20:15+00:00): Ok, thank you for the advice
CAM-Gerlach (2026-07-19 16:30:08+00:00): Sure thing. Happy mapping!
Baconcrisp (2026-07-22 16:23:03+00:00): May I ask what your source is for this change? Please provide a link to the source.

I am in the process of verifying the routes in the Grand Junction area so please refrain from making any edits. I will make the necessary changes once I have an answer from the state regarding its exact whereabouts.

Thank you,

Baconcrisp
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185937912
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-22 17:41:49+00:00): I checked using street-level imagery. You can see this on Bing Streetside or Google Maps Street View, for example.
Baconcrisp (2026-07-22 19:55:00+00:00): Will you please provide the link to Bing Streetside imagery you used so I can confirm it?

As for the Google imagery you're not allowed to use that at all in OSM since it is proprietary data. See here for more info: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google#:~:text=that%20exception%20applies).-,Google%20Maps%20terms%20of%20use,-%5Bedit%20%7C
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-22 21:18:10+00:00): (How do I link to a Bing Streetside picture again? I don't think it's possible)

Go to https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=3199421354 and face north. There, you'll find a "US 6" shield, but no corresponding "US 50" shield.
Baconcrisp (2026-07-22 22:01:25+00:00): You say you have a source but don't know how to share it? I'm not going to do the work for you. If you have an image to back up your claim, you can look up how to post it here.

Not all routes are well-signed. That's why I reached out to the city, county, and state regarding US 50—a lack of signage doesn't necessarily mean the route doesn't exist there. It just means it's unsigned. Until I hear back from the state, we won't know which route is official, but I was able to confirm a plausible path using both the CDOT site and Wikipedia, which I cited in this forum post. I gave the city, county, and state that same information, and they are looking into it. When I hear back from them with the official alignment of US 50, I will make the changes accordingly. Please let the locals handle this matter.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-23 00:21:14+00:00): I didn't remove "US 50" from the ways entirely. As I stated, I moved them from ref=* to unsigned_ref=*.

Anyway, here's a link to the image: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/6/61/US_6_but_no_US_50.png
Baconcrisp (2026-07-23 14:04:06+00:00): The main issue is you know I am actively investigating this route, and you have been explicitly told by two members of the DWG and multiple community members not to make these kinds of changes without first discussing them on the forum and reaching consensus. You have failed to do that, repeatedly prioritizing your own assumptions over local knowledge.

You've also been asked multiple times to refrain from editing in this area, as your edits are degrading data quality rather than improving it. Please stop editing these routes immediately. I will resolve the remaining inconsistencies once I receive the verified information I need from the state.
Baconcrisp (2026-07-23 14:14:44+00:00): Moving data to a different tag or altering existing tag structures still modifies the map data and affects route rendering and navigation. Making these structural changes unilaterally—while an active review is underway—is precisely what the community asked you not to do.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-23 16:07:39+00:00): Okay. As I stated before, I'll leave it to the community to fix these route relations.
SomeoneElse (2026-07-23 20:31:08+00:00): Re " You can see this on ... or Google Maps Street View, for example."

For the avoidance of doubt, you cannot use Google Maps Street View to update OSM.  The licence is incompatible.
Supaplex (2026-07-18 08:13:37+00:00): 如果是有路，但僅供住戶出入，加通行限制即可，不必移除路名
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185937913
m_fuhrmann (2026-07-18 21:09:45+00:00): Hi und danke für deine Änderungen.  Wie ich sehe warst du früher schon aktiv in Fulda. Schau doch mal im Fulda Wiki vorbei. Dort findest du unseren Chat. Wäre cool dich mal kennenzulernen.
tian2992 (2026-07-18 20:11:42+00:00): Varios de estas edificaciones tienen duplicados en lineas, por favor ten cuidado a la hora de editar ya que es un error.