piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Nico D (2023-02-28 04:46:19+00:00): Hello again, I see you are still active but you didn't respond to this comment.

I have just reverted your changes (133112472).

I've just been there and nothing changed. The streets are still only for pedestrians. I have also added some barriers I saw there. 

I suspect you are not from here, you saw roads in aerial imagery and you retagged them.

If you had been to the park, and you had saw vehicles using those roads, and then you retag them. That would be perfect! But this was not the case.

Or, if you hadn't been to the park but you had some reliable source that the cars can use those roads. Ok, that would be fine I guess.
Or, if there isn't any road mapped yet, and without being here you may assume that the roads you see in the images are for cars. Ok, I would understand that, even some areal imagery may be old and still have some vehicles using them.

Please, reconsider future changes (anywhere) if you can't survey the site or you don't have another source.
csimeona22 (2023-02-28 22:30:43+00:00): Greetings,

Thank you for the information and notice! I am not fluent in Spanish. It appears that the imageries I used to make these edits were outdated and showed vehicle traffic on them. 

To answer your question about tagging a way specifically for pedestrians and bicycles, it depends on the infrastructure: if it were narrow and specifically made for bicycles and pedestrians or had barriers designed to block traffic, I would tag it as highway=pedestrian with bicycle=yes. If it has roadway features but vehicles are restricted I would tag it as a roadway (service/residential/etc.) and add a motor_vehicle=no tag to prevent their access.

Since you mentioned there were barriers added to block these roads from vehicle traffic, I think the tagging highway=pedestrian with bicycle=yes is appropriate here. I appreciate you updating these roads to the correct tagging based upon your local knowledge.

Thank you,
csimeona22
muralito (2023-02-25 11:38:59+00:00): I disagree with the changes in Salto road classification.
RiverBearings (2023-03-01 00:10:26+00:00): Hello muralito. My goal in this change was to unify some of the broken classifications in Concordia & Salto. I will leave the classifications as you have them now but do you think that roads like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/598631853 & https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1137031299 currently classified as secondary could be unified to their connecting roads (in this case tertiary)? Curious about your thoughts on those cases. Thank you!
muralito (2023-03-01 00:41:52+00:00): Yes, I agree. Several roads in Concordia classified as secondary should be downgraded to tertiary, but let me ask for advise in the Argetina. I posted it here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/ayuda-para-analizar-clasificacion-de-vias-en-concordia/9392
AgusQui (2023-03-01 13:33:54+00:00): La clasificación de caminos de Concordia la estoy haciendo en mis momentos libres, estuve en la zona hace poco, por lo que quedaron cosas pendientes. En ciudades highway=secondary lo usamos sólo para avenidas, si la misma repentinamente se interrumpe en una calle común, la interrumpción queda reflejada con el rebaje de la clasificación a tertiary.
RiverBearings (2023-03-02 00:41:57+00:00): Agusqui. Hola. Gracias por su explicación de las clasificaciones sobre la avenida Concordia. ¿Eso es una practica de mapeo común sobre todo el pais? Gracias por su asistencia en ayudarme a entender esto.

AgusQui. Hello. Thank you for your explanation of these avenue classifications in Concordia. Is that a common mapping practice country-wide? Thanks for your assistance in aiding my understanding here.
AgusQui (2023-03-10 14:51:24+00:00): Si, es bastante común
RiverBearings (2023-03-10 23:39:09+00:00): Gracias AgusQui
CurlingMan13 (2023-02-28 20:17:04+00:00): This driveway still exists in aerial imagery, and should remain on the map, just tagged as a private driveway.

The removal was reverted in:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133144886
GullibleMappazo (2023-02-25 00:51:55+00:00): i was gonna add more sand traps but i had to go somewhere
mueschel (2023-03-11 17:59:54+00:00): Hi,
the tag 'grounded' is not used in any other place. What does it mean?
Can it be replaced by e.g. a 'location' tag?
gurglypipe (2023-02-25 22:46:55+00:00): Hiya, in this changeset did you mean to change https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1095049811 in Keswick to be a shed? In aerial imagery it looks a lot like a house (and it’s not at ARM)! Ta
Wookey (2023-02-26 20:35:20+00:00): Clearly I managed to merge two sets of changes into one changeset. The shed at the back of the ARM building in Cambridge, and the changes around fieldside farm in Keswick. Making an unhelpfully huge bounding box. I find this is perhaps too easy to do in both Vespucci and JOSM and it happens to me every so often. 
Apologies for that.
gurglypipe (2023-02-26 22:22:40+00:00): It happens! But is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1095049811 in Keswick a shed or a house?
Wookey (2023-02-27 04:43:32+00:00): Ah I see what you mean. It's a house. Fixed.
gurglypipe (2023-02-27 08:50:16+00:00): Great, thanks for clearing that up :)
Glassman (2023-02-26 19:09:36+00:00): #TIP: square buildings by selecting the outline then just type a "q"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132990894
ACIPasig (2023-02-25 02:27:08+00:00): DZCA 1170
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2023-02-25 16:20:17+00:00): Please revert this changset. You deleted golf data, which still exists. This A13 proposed is non official and there is no way it would pass through the Mirabel airport anyway. Please revert every changes you made as soon as possible.
mueschel (2023-03-11 14:26:44+00:00): Hi,
you added the tag "road_closed" here - what does it mean? Is there some construction work? 
Please check the Wiki for 'construction' and 'access' tags.
fabiojs (2023-03-14 01:12:07+00:00): Hi.
8 nós
4753755802 (parte da linha Avenida Antônio Miranda (1149326294))
3094036115
3597381781
3597381782
8822787694
3597381783
8822787693
3597381787 (parte da linha Rua Anhanguera (946110886))

A Avenida Antônio Miranda está bloqueada, com trânsito impedido, desde o início de março de 2020. A interdição desse trecho ocorreu após fortes chuvas, houve deslizamento de terra e a via ficou intransitável.

Notícias da imprensa local:
<https://tribunademinas.com.br/noticias/cidade/05-03-2020/defesa-civil-registra-70-novas-ocorrencias-nesta-quinta-feira.html>
Fotos da Avenida Antônio Miranda com afundamento de pista e formação de degrau de abatimento.

<https://tribunademinas.com.br/noticias/cidade/13-02-2022/moradores-de-130-areas-de-risco-em-jf-convivem-com-medo-e-inseguranca.html#goog_rewarded>
"...outro ponto que está interditado por risco de deslizamento é a Avenida Antônio Miranda, que dá acesso ao Bairro Guaruá. A rua dá sinais de aumento das rachaduras no asfalto, com vegetação crescendo e invadindo a pista. A Defesa Civil afirma que realiza o monitoramento do local e que uma obra de contenção será realizada na encosta, segundo a pasta, o projeto está em fase de revisão."
mueschel (2023-03-14 08:38:16+00:00): Hi,
thanks for the reply. A road that can't be used by anyone should have the tag 
access=no

If there is some construction planned ongoing, there should be the tag
highway = construction.

If the road has been destroyed,
a tag like
destroyed:highway = tertiary
is appropriate.
just_another_mapper (2023-02-28 07:10:41+00:00): Nice changes!
arctic-rocinante (2023-02-28 11:31:33+00:00): Thanks! :)
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2023-02-28 13:28:19+00:00): Please stop doing this. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
mavl (2023-04-23 15:49:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
Glassman (2023-02-26 19:12:50+00:00): I'm curious - why did you remove the existing restaurant then add it back? It would have been easier to just align the building. BTW - newer imagery is often offset from the previous imagery. It can be adjusted in the background layer settings.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132992120
mavl (2023-04-23 16:12:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 16:03:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
Glassman (2023-02-26 19:13:53+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132992151
mavl (2023-04-23 16:09:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 16:11:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:54:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 16:09:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
Glassman (2023-02-26 19:13:58+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132992181
mavl (2023-04-23 16:07:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
Glassman (2023-02-26 19:14:33+00:00): The road looks more like a service road. Can you review this edit?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132992212
mavl (2023-04-23 16:05:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 16:11:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:59:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:51:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 16:06:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 16:11:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:53:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:48:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:47:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:59:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2023-02-26 14:56:07+00:00): Please read. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
mavl (2023-04-23 16:01:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:59:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:53:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:56:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:52:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:50:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 16:01:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 16:08:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:52:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 16:02:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:52:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:57:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 16:03:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 16:07:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
mavl (2023-04-23 15:52:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 135261135 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6928].
MxxCon (2023-02-26 00:24:14+00:00): I might be mistaken but I think that pain means cars must keep intersection clear, not that pedestrians can walk anywhere on it. Or am I wrong?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132992566
daniel_solow (2023-02-26 01:07:49+00:00): you are correct. Usually they are accompanied by signs that read "don't block the box". However since this is considered a 'barn dance' intersection, pedestrians are given the option to cross either parallel to road, perpendicular or at a diagonal. OSM to my knowledge doesn't have a better alternative.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132992566
MxxCon (2023-02-26 01:12:23+00:00): It's Barnes Dance, not barn dance. 🤣 Named after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Barnes_(traffic_engineer)
daniel_solow (2023-02-26 01:25:11+00:00): my bad! I knew I was saying it wrong :P
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132992566
mueschel (2023-02-28 10:23:27+00:00): Hi,
welcome to OSM!
You added many tags that are not used by anybody else.
In OSM we have to use a well-defined set of tags to allow all the software tools to understand the data and e.g. show it on maps.
Please use only keys that are documented in the Wiki or are available as presets in your editor.
Thanks!

Example Keys:

Leaver Handle 
Push/Pull 
Door Handle
door handle
Door handle
emersonveenstra (2023-02-25 16:15:43+00:00): Hi,

I'm a little confused with what you're trying to do here, i think you should read the wiki page for the layer tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer?uselang=en, specifically the "Features at layer 0 should not normally have a layer tag." and "Use the smallest suitable layer value. Only use layer=2 for a bridge that passes over a feature that is already at level 1"
emersonveenstra (2023-02-25 16:17:11+00:00): Also see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man%20made=bridge?uselang=en#One_or_more_ways,_one_level for the correct way to put layer tags on a man_made=bridge with a highway going across it
Mashin (2023-02-25 14:30:48+00:00): Hi,
since you started to retag destination info it might be worth checking here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Minh_Nguyen/destination:street

It suggests that destination:street to be used when street name is an additional information on the road shield and destination tag if the street is the main destination.
MikeTheWhalersFan (2023-02-27 01:40:48+00:00): Shoot. Guess I'll have to go back and fix them all!

Quick question, if an exit guide sign says, for example, 
"Exit 42
To Route 159
Windsor Locks"
does that mean the syntax should read "destination:ref:to=Route 159" or is it preferred "destination:ref=To Route 159"? I just want to make sure I have that correct.
I know that on non-expressways "destination:ref:to" is what should be used.
Mashin (2023-02-27 16:32:42+00:00): Uff.. I am not an expert on these type of tags, but how I understood this old proposal (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Destination_details#destination:ref:to) it should be destination:ref=CT 159. The destination:ref:to tag seems to be used for roads that are up ahead, not those that the exit directly leads to.

Feel free to join osmus.slack.com and post a question there. There are more people that understand this better than me.
kurisubrooks (2023-02-25 06:24:09+00:00): Forgot to add source. Source is Maxar and NSW Base Map.
emersonveenstra (2023-02-25 17:38:37+00:00): Reverted for vandalism, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132978734
julcnx (2023-02-25 16:57:48+00:00): Hi AndrewCNX, these roads were correctly classified as per the Thailand wiki. They are not significant thru-traffic, nor their main purpose is to provide access to permanent residences. Service roads do not automatically imply private access and can be public without an access=* tag. Since we had already an exchange last year about this exact topic, and you seem to still not agree with the general consensus, I invite you again to take note of the Thailand Wiki definitions or share your concerns with the community. Until then, I have reverted your changes. Thank you for your understanding. 

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/thailand-s-minor-road-classifications-revision-proposal-unclassified-vs-service-vs-residential-vs-track/5805/5
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132993916
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2023-02-25 16:11:46+00:00): This section of the tunnel is closed for a long period of time, that is why it was set as construction. Can you explain why you reverted it back to a standard motorway?
marczoutendijk (2023-02-26 08:05:16+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6899
emersonveenstra (2023-02-25 17:38:35+00:00): Reverted for vandalism, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132978734
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-11 08:08:49+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10692445729/history has fixme:type = office that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What kind of office is here?

If unclear, maybe office=yes would fit? Already more clear than hopeless amenity=fixme

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:office