piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Teilnehmer471 (2023-06-18 06:46:14+00:00): Da ich es selbst fast nicht glauben konnte, habe ich eben noch einmal nachgesehen:
Es wird tatsächlich nur Kartenzahlung unterstützt, keine Barzahlung.
lipuma (2023-06-19 09:01:56+00:00): Hi, what does `bulding_2=common' mean?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/806216350
Udarian (2023-06-18 03:32:02+00:00): why did you delete this, I can confirm from having passed it that it is real. also I fixed it recently when there was a duplicate, unless this has gone out of business in the last few months it is still here.
Udarian (2023-10-15 05:39:38+00:00): these features still exist, I an confirm since I saw that they were there around a month ago, so I am reverting these commits. for any questions you can always message me through OSM though I may not be able to respond immediately due to being in the middle of a semester of collage so I cannot due to that taking priority check OSM everyday.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142602246
Udarian (2023-06-18 03:32:12+00:00): why did you delete this, I can confirm from having passed it that it is real. also I fixed it recently when there was a duplicate, unless this has gone out of business in the last few months it is still here.
Udarian (2023-10-15 05:39:39+00:00): these features still exist, I an confirm since I saw that they were there around a month ago, so I am reverting these commits. for any questions you can always message me through OSM though I may not be able to respond immediately due to being in the middle of a semester of collage so I cannot due to that taking priority check OSM everyday.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142602246
jr++ (2023-06-18 11:49:49+00:00): Die korrekte Schreibweise lautet "Black Café"
jimkats (2025-04-08 20:40:05+00:00): Hi, based on what data you drew the lines for boundaries of the communities? In other changesets of yours it's implied that you used geodata.gov.gr to correct the boundaries you drawn, but there's a lot of deviation, especially in the mountain parts. I'm fixing those parts based on the geodata datasets (which are provided by ELSTAT).
no details provided here (2023-06-18 09:27:14+00:00): Can I ask if you were involved in working on Crossgill, Astley please?  Some curious shaped structures appeared after my survey and plotting of houses there.
Jrachi (2023-07-23 10:03:39+00:00): Ciao.
Attento alle relazioni con iD!
Hai lasciato un buco nella relazione M07
3Pappa3 (2023-07-23 16:05:49+00:00): Grazie, risolto
Jrachi (2023-07-24 07:10:38+00:00): Ciao.
Hai riempito il buco ma l'ordine dei membri è ancora sbagliato.
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2023-06-20 03:11:36+00:00): الأماكن الخاصة لا يتم إدخالها في الخريطة نرجوا منكم عدم إضافتها مرة أخرى
MxxCon (2023-06-27 21:55:39+00:00): Hello.
When tagging sidewalks in NYC, generally the ones that are poured in place are just "concrete". "concrete:plates" are intended for the ones poured offsite and moved in-place as a whole, such as bridge spans as an obvious example.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137462371
Eberth (2023-06-19 13:55:35+00:00): Wären diese Tags nicht besser an dem benachbarten Knoten "Historica Gewölbe" aufgehoben? 
Die Kulturveranstaltungen finden nämlich dort statt und nicht im Gebäude darüber.

Viele Grüße
Thomas
ivanbranco (2023-06-18 08:08:11+00:00): Ciao Luigi, benvenuto su OpenStreetMap e grazie per la modifica,

solo un appunto, Cascata delle Fate era già indicato come alt_name (nome alternativo). Così come hai modificato tu il nome Cascata Riscifu è andato perso. Se pensi che Cascata delle Fate sia il nome piu' conosciuto, avresti piuttosto dovuto scambiarli, mettendo Cascata Riscifu come nome alternativo (invece ora Cascata delle Fate è ripetuto sia come nome principale che come nome alternativo).

buon proseguimento e buon mapping
Luigi Carroccio (2023-06-18 08:36:17+00:00): Ciao Ivan, volevo che spuntasse il nome Delle Fate anche sulla mappa, ma adesso ho corretto. Grazie per la precisazione. A presto
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2023-06-19 12:24:47+00:00): لماذا قمت بحذف مكان "بني ثور"
لقد قمت بذلك مرات عديدة ومن حسابات مختلفة، نرجوا منكم عدم القيام بذلك وتذكر أن هذه الخريطة عامة يستفيد منها الجميع وليست خاصة بك!
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2023-06-19 12:24:55+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1237962307
The-Lorax (2024-03-14 09:27:45+00:00): Hello Tuxayo,
Vous avez essayé de changer le tag "highway=footway" en "area=pedestrian" ou équivalent j'imagine? Il doit y avoir un point quelque part le long de cette ligne qu'il faille supprimer auparavant?
NieWnen (2023-06-18 08:21:36+00:00): Nie dodawaj proszę `addr:street:sym_ul`. 
To niechciany tag i raczej trwa jego usuwanie "przy okazji".

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:street:sym_ul
Robercin (2023-06-19 04:32:24+00:00): Dziękuję za info, nie wiedziałem tego. Usunąłem te tagi dodane wtedy przeze mnie.
Emilius123 (2023-06-18 17:08:40+00:00): Dis is fine
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-10-23 13:37:03+00:00): Hello! Can you take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3954554 ?
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-10-23 13:17:38+00:00): Can you take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3954536 ?
FraukeLeo (2024-01-29 11:36:43+00:00): Hallo iSebDE, bitte benutze die üblichen (englischen) Werte für Schlüssel, damit die Daten auswertbar sind. Ich habe hier mal auf Verdacht surface=erde durch surface=ground ersetzt.
silversurfer83 (2023-06-19 13:21:33+00:00): Hi Luk :)

kleiner Tip für die Zukunft, um unnötiges Löschen zu vermeiden:
Du kanns an der Stelle, wo aus dem Weg eine Treppe wird einen Punkt setzen und dann den Weg mit dem Scherenwerkzeug an der Stelle in zwei Wege auftrennen. Anschließend kannst du die Eigenschaften für die beiden Teile unabhängig voneinander bearbeiten. Aus dem "highway=footway" kannst du einfach ein "highway=steps" machen ohne die Linie neu zeichnen zu müssen.
Und wenn du magst guckst du nochmal hier
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dsteps
was alles an interessanten Informationen an eine Treppe angefügt werden kann.
(gilt auch für den Weg mit den vielen kurzen Treppenabschnitten im Ort, den du vorher gemacht hast)

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137463400
luk323 (2023-06-22 21:01:28+00:00): Okay, danke für den Tipp. :) Bei der Treppe bin ich mir leider mit den Deteils nicht so sicher
silversurfer83 (2023-06-22 21:04:37+00:00): Alles klar. Wichtig ist, dass da eine Treppe in der Karte ist, wenn da eine Treppe in der Welt ist. Details können immer nachgereicht werden.
 Ich stand auch schon mit dem Lastenrad an einer Treppe und hab mich geärgert, dass sie als Weg und nicht als Treppe in der Karte war :)
Vas111 (2024-09-13 19:40:09+00:00): Hello,
If it is known locally as that name it should be tagged as loc_name instead of name
InsertUser (2023-06-26 11:46:24+00:00): Where was this mechanical edit discussed?
Graptemys (2023-06-26 13:39:56+00:00): I believe it falls under the typo correction section of the Automated Edits CoC.
tyfi (2023-06-17 23:51:50+00:00): I also added a bridge.
silversurfer83 (2023-06-19 14:47:42+00:00): Hi :)

das ist vollkommen in Ordnung, wenn du das so machst. Am Besten machst du noch ein Feld "note=neubau. anpassen wenn neue Luftbilder vorhanden" oder so ähnlich an die Objekte (Wege, Gebäude) die das betrifft.

Noch was zu der Änderung: Was ist mit dieser Lampe? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7273182208 die hast du ca. 50m nach Süden verschoben und AUF die Straße gesetzt. War das Absicht?

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137463675
luk323 (2023-06-22 21:03:16+00:00): Nein war ausversehen, sorry 😅
Emilius123 (2023-06-18 16:49:28+00:00): Bruh
bbigras (2023-06-18 17:11:16+00:00): Don't connect-shame me. At least I own my mistakes.

I went there and I was sure that the other place wasn't there anymore but I went there again a day later and saw that I was wrong.
fkv (2023-06-18 06:59:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 137468175 where the changeset comment is: revert 137463961
Kevin Kofler (2023-06-18 10:12:17+00:00): Echt jetzt? Ein *vierter* Revert hintereinander, trotz ausdrücklicher Warnung? Musste das sein?

Die DWG ist bereits informiert.
tyfi (2023-06-18 00:35:11+00:00): I used boundary=census since this is a CDP without legal status.
tyfi (2023-06-18 00:44:57+00:00): I was not aware that boundary=census was not rendered in Carto which implies that CDPs that DO render in Carto are incorrectly tagged as admin boundaries...yikes

I still believe this belongs in OSM if it's tagged appropriately since an app can render it if it likes
GOwin (2023-07-07 08:16:44+00:00): Wow! Thank you for completing the street names in this area.
felipeeugenio (2023-06-18 17:13:06+00:00): Hola
Si una calle cambia de situación, como por ejemplo si estaba en contrucción y ahora ya no, entonces por favor cambiar los tags. no corresponde borrarlas y agregar otro nuevo. Se pierde todo el historíal.
Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137464424
felipeeugenio (2023-06-18 17:10:26+00:00): Hola Andrés
Estás duplicando las direcciones y nombres

si ya hay un nodo con los datos, entonces no agregues el área.

o borras el nodo después de agregar el área.

hiciste lo mismo con la clícia. Agregaste los datos al edificio.

cuidado con esos detalles
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/137464554
LockOnGuy (2023-06-18 10:36:53+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap, I see you have different name tags in name and name:ar as they don't match in https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10983330305  can you please share with us the name of the store so we can correct it? Thank you!
wireguy (2023-07-21 17:00:20+00:00): Pdubbs13,  your updates have broken the park and golf course boundary relations.  Can you revisit and correct?
Warin61 (2026-03-21 03:53:24+00:00): Relation roles corrected
38446 (2023-08-06 05:51:30+00:00): Moin! Ich finde es absolut sinnvoll darüber nachzudenken wie man Rufbus Flächen mappen kann. Habe gesucht, aber es scheint da noch keine Ansätze zu geben. Habe in meinem OSM diary jetzt auch etwas darüber geschrieben. Mal sehen, was passiert. Jedenfalls auch noch mal von mir herzlich willkommen bei Openstreetmap!!
38446 (2023-08-06 06:05:08+00:00): P.S. statt public_transport=demand-responsive könntest du auf jeden Fall schon mal on_demand=yes nehmen, das gibt es schon für liniengebundene Anrufsammeltaxis.
aTarom (2023-06-18 06:02:12+00:00): Hello, thanks for editing, please do not use Bing Maps Areial in Spain, it is not usually well aligned, we use PNOA in combination with Catastro
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1182802944/history
Cheers
lipuma (2023-06-19 08:54:40+00:00): Hi, what does the tag `socond_hand = yes' mean on a `shop=ticket' ?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10983338545
tankarup (2023-06-19 10:12:47+00:00): They buy tickets (for example train tickets) and sell them at a lower price.
tyfi (2023-06-18 02:46:45+00:00): Renamed "Chicksaw [sic] Lane" to "Chickasaw Lane" and moved it into the correct location.

Bing StreetSide has better coverage than I expected here
Graptemys (2023-06-18 03:27:33+00:00): Apologies for submitting a change with nodes in Alaska and New Zealand. But there are 1400 other nodes in between and on every continent. Even splitting it into chunks it would have covered most of the globe with at least one bounding box anyways.
JeroenHoek (2023-06-18 06:24:34+00:00): Bear in mind that a space after the semi-colon in multiple values isn't wrong:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator

'cuisine=indian; italian' and 'cuisine=indian;italian' are equivalent. Mappers sometimes put the space in deliberately to make the combined value easier to read.
rayleigh1 (2023-06-23 10:13:18+00:00): I'd argue this changeset is worse than useless; using a space is more readable *and* correct.
Graptemys (2023-06-23 14:16:55+00:00): The 1400 changes I made represent 0.3% of cuisines tags with semicolons, and just 0.1% of all cuisine tags. That is, 99.7% of people were already using the space-less separator.

IMO that's rare enough that data consumers shouldn't have to, or are likely to forget to, handle this case. But also 1400 is large enough that it's worth making sure the information for these restaurants can get used.
maro21 (2023-06-27 18:44:14+00:00): Was it a mechanical edit?
Graptemys (2023-06-28 03:02:48+00:00): I did review every tag before making changes, and only changed tags that were already in list format. There were a few that had semicolons but were more like sentences or descriptions - these are bad and need to be fixed but I didn't just blindly remove spaces from them.
ybungalobill (2023-06-20 00:34:41+00:00): Hi CurlingMan13,
This is a turning lane, not a service road. Turning lanes are usually tagged either as *_link as same type as one of the ways it connects.
CurlingMan13 (2023-06-20 00:40:21+00:00): Hi ybungalobill,

Understood.  It's just however StreetComplete did it.  I wish I could just tag it as a turning lane.  Feel free to update this way accordingly, and pass it along to the SC developers since you understand it bwtter than I do.  I imagine there are many similar edits by many other users.
jptolosa (2023-08-04 19:39:50+00:00): Hola, de dónde obtuviste el nombre "Pasaje Two" para el pueblo de El Carmen?
jafar4300 (2023-06-18 04:57:20+00:00): اسم خیابانها درست نامگذاری گردید
EllieNyaa (2023-06-20 16:34:08+00:00): Nice job mapping this so quickly!
mavl (2023-06-18 05:25:55+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 137445041, 137445106, 137445345, 137445411, 137445458, 137445533, 137445564, 137445574, 137445602, 137445614, 137445639, 137445678, 137445697, 137445720.
NorthCrab_upload (2023-06-18 05:30:13+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Klucz addr:place oznacza brak nazwy ulicy. Kombinacja z addr:street (który definiuje nazwę ulicy) jest błędna.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/379966595

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab (2023-06-19 03:47:53+00:00): ^Chyba coś popsuło się w tych tagach
vnourdin (2023-06-19 13:13:17+00:00): Hi, I don't understand why you removed the attribute waterway=lock_gate from those lock gates ?
geozeisig (2023-06-20 05:22:49+00:00): The lock_gate should be on a way not on a node if possible.
See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lock
vnourdin (2023-06-20 06:08:01+00:00): From what I understand of the wiki, in "Large lock", the point 3 say to add "waterway=lock_gate" to the gate.
But jOSM told me that it was a repetition, as part of the relation was already defined as a lock.
geozeisig (2023-06-20 06:26:05+00:00): We have Large locks when the channel is drawn with Riverbank, this is mostly the case. The lock gate is then drawn as way (the green line in the picture). This can then be rendered in carto.

By the way, the forest should not go over the water.
vnourdin (2023-06-20 07:30:36+00:00): Oh, sure, I missed the point that the gates' ways were tagged as lock_gate.
Thanks a lot for your explanation, there is a lot to do I think, because every canal I saw had lock_gate as a point.

I haven't created such overlap on purpose, but I will be careful in the future and try to split existing ones.
tyfi (2023-06-18 05:35:51+00:00): Bounding box is large because I added layer=5 to some power lines.
tyfi (2023-06-18 05:42:02+00:00): Also added a new bridge on MO D just west of Osage County Route 727.
Nearby0051 (2023-06-19 18:04:56+00:00): Existiert der Weg trotz Sperrung noch?
Eagle18 (2023-06-24 06:50:34+00:00): Moin, es ist eine Feldzufahrt für die Landwirte. Es geht hier um ca. 40 Meter, die entscheiden, ob es eine Störung ist oder nicht. Seit der Sperrung fängt der Weg an zuzuwachsen. Es ist naturschutzrechtlich Sperrgebiet. Nicht öffentliche Wege sollten daher nicht aufgeführt werden. Allein schon um vorzubeugen: "Hier ist doch ein Weg eingetragen." Ähnliche Probleme habe ich auch mit Geocachern.
Nearby0051 (2023-06-25 14:51:08+00:00): Moin,
wenn der Weg noch existiert sollte er eingetragen bleiben, alleins chon um zu verhindern, dass er erneut eingetragen wird.
Das Zuwachsen und die Sperrung kann man über das tagging recht gut definieren, keine normale Routing-software sollte diesen Weg dann verwenden.

Ich würde den Weg dann wiederherstellen, als access=no markieren und dann auch eintragen, dass er überwachsen ist.

Danke für deine Hilfe :)
Gazer75 (2023-06-18 05:48:55+00:00): Hit enter to early on accident.
Description should read "Fagrafjell substation now completed and energized."
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-04 10:48:30+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/846884937/history has roof:shape = pitched that was added in this edit
Maybe roof:shape=skillion was intended here? Or roof:shape=gabled? See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:roof:shape=pitched
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-09-27 17:35:43+00:00): Hi, I've looked at some bicycle=designated roads and noticed that there are some crossings which are mapped with it 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1115986757

which are between footways where bicycles are not welcome.

IMO we should map 
bicycle=designated
on crossings where there are special road markings or signs for bicycles and 
bicycle=yes
where there is none, but the crossing connects highways which bicycles are intended to use.

And there is no reason to map one as bicycle anything if it's between footways.

What do you think?
Apirnus (2023-09-27 19:40:36+00:00): Hello!

It is a bit more complicated than that. If we start looking at the law, then by definition of ID "designated" tag tooltip, any crossing is designated for cycling, literally any. The definition in ID for the tag is: "Access allowed according to local signs or specific local law." While tag yes means: "Access allowed by law; a right of way."

Since I am working with ID as the best tool I can use right now, I have been mapping crossings mostly with designated since ID tooltip gave such hint.

The WIKI says on the other hand for designated: "A preferred or designated route for the class of traffic specified by the tag key, such as foot=designated, in general this means that there is a (explicit) sign saying something like "pedestrians allowed", or a pedestrian icon."
While for the yes tag: "The public has an official, legally-enshrined right of access; i.e., it's a right of way."

Kind of complements the ID tooltips that are shown on access tags.

Now, if we start looking at local law, then literally its falling apart on any distinction of the access because anyone can cycle anywhere of any age despite various limits. Its the exceptions that allow any cycling on any path.
Hence why I have been tagging crossings with designated tag for cyclers. Its WIKI explanation is literally as wide as out local law regarding of cycling.

Same thing with footpaths, sidewalks etc unless there is specific sign that disallows usage of a path fir cyclers. The best example of this is the vehicle path in front of Kristiine keskus toward city center. There is explicit sign that disallows cycling on the vehicle path and cyclers must use the sidewalk.

Exact same problem is with pedestrians on cycling path. Our local law explicitly says that pedestrians are allowed on cycling road if there is low traffic on it. But how low or how high, is left to decide for the pedestrian and hence you can simply add once again "designated" tag for the cycling road for the pedestrian access.

So what I think about it? Well "it depends" is the answer here because of our law... Designated access tag had just so wide meaning that its basically safe bet to use if you dont know the area, dont have any street level imagery or any other kind of info that could set better tag for the path, area, crossing etc.

But we could come up with some simple rules anyway since slaping "designated" everywhere is a bit tedious in the end and does not give great feedback on what is actually at the site.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-09-27 20:39:42+00:00): Well I think we should ignore the exceptions and not make people abuse them without a reason. Bicycle=yes can be added on footways where there is no good alternative, but that's besides the point.

In this case there is a crossing where both sides don't have bicycle=designated or anything about bicycle access, but the crossing itself suddenly has it. IMO it's a bit strange that crossing has more access than the paths it connects.

As for iD tooltips, I don't think we should 100% trust them. I don't mean that there is any big problem with how the things are mapped, but maybe in future we can be better.

One other thing I'd like to also get rid of is a 

highway=footway
bicycle=designated

at least on non-crossings, as this is not the best combination and you won't really find wiki examples of it. Some clients like Komoot treat it differently.

If the path is signed, then a different combination is better

highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=designated

(or at least the iD-way of highway=cycleway, this time CyclOSM will be confused)

Sometimes there is also footway=sidewalk, but as it turns out 

highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
footway=sidewalk

is perfectly ok
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk
Apirnus (2023-09-28 04:35:55+00:00): The thing is I have had no proper time to at least review the paths access tags besides vehicle paths where we have LS22 lg3 law applicable. Hence why there are so many paths with inconsistent and even incorrect access tags even in my most knowledgable district in Tallinn - the Mustamäe district. So its not anymore such a mystery on why crossing has more access than the paths it connects to. Its simply that the access tags of the paths or vice versa, have not been set up properly for whatever reason, in my case having only two hands instead of four.

But there are other access tags also. For an instance dismount tag. We could use dismount tag too as it gives specifically for cyclers on non-signed crossings a right of way as a pedestrian. Basically any crossing that is simple zebra, could use this tag instead of yes or designated. Even more so... In a lot of places I have seen cycling and pedestrian path road sign that ends cycling and pedestrian path right before the crossing, rendering the crossing that way to simple zebra where cycler has no right of way to cycle over while dismount would give a right of way as a pedestrian. How we should then mark such crossings? Dismount? Yes? Designated?

For crossings that have road markings such as simple zebra and cycling and pedestrian path has ended with a proper ending sign right before crossing I propose Foot=yes, bicycle=dismount.

For crossings where cycling and pedestrian path has not been ended with proper sign right before crossing and the road markings are simple zebra, I propose Foot=yes, bicycle=designated.

For crossings where the cycling and pedestrian path has not been ended with proper sign before the crossing AND the road markings are not zebra but some other road marking or combination of markings with zebra, I propose Foot=yes, bicycle=yes.

But this is all regarding the signed aka marked crossings.
Unmarked crossings are a bit more tricky one in this case so we should at least get some simple rules for mapping marked crossings first as was the initial idea of your original post. First things first as they say it :D