piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:17:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:12:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:18:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
Luzandro (2024-05-17 17:58:39+00:00): Hallo,

das ist keine "Korrektur", addr:unit ist eine korrekte Angabe für eine Unteradresse und bspw. in der Standardansicht auf osm.org auch sichtbar
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151246999
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:15:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:18:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:20:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:13:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:11:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
NeisBot (2024-05-13 02:45:08+00:00): Hi Sam8477, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/node/11900029270

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-13 06:02:35+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151250737
Allison P (2024-06-15 21:00:24+00:00): addr:state=SR in Texas? State Route 429 misinterpreted as state by crawler. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11415726019
Supaplex (2025-10-12 12:11:54+00:00): duplicated, already there
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4201921589
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151247638
NeisBot (2024-05-13 03:21:09+00:00): Hi hampsto, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature's:
https://osm.org/way/1282331821
https://osm.org/node/11899547107

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-13 06:04:11+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151250781
marc__marc (2024-08-29 12:25:30+00:00): Hello,
you have added 3000 nodes, without ever adding any attributes, some of which seem to be buildings (but which are sometimes already present in osm).
To make a building, select ‘line’ in josm and then add the building attribute.
When you send it, it's essential to look at the validator window, as it should have warned you of the problem.
I advise you to start smaller: make a few houses and, if you wish, let me know here so that I can give you my opinion.
Happy mapping !
NeisBot (2024-05-13 03:30:58+00:00): Hi hampsto, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1282332076

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-14 05:38:51+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151253713
literan (2024-05-13 20:10:56+00:00): вы опять отрисовали уже снесенное здание на стройплощадке
Dima Em (2024-05-19 16:25:04+00:00): Здесь не совсем понятно, т.к. на других картах здание есть...
clay_c (2025-11-09 17:41:40+00:00): Hi Dominick 👋 Thanks for your work on railroads in the Northeast!

I see a lot of railway sites and junctions, like CP Nice [1], were deleted in this changeset. Also, many sidings like the Lawndale Siding [2] were changed from service=siding to usage=main. Were these changes intentional?

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10827927926

[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98666977
RailandSea (2025-11-09 18:08:49+00:00): I Switched the interlocking site tag to the signal box tag to render under the new ORM.app site for the train protection tab and stand out with the operator tab as well. All the tracks were upgraded to main line track with the new signaling and PTC install on septa and CSX after the property separation, and de-electrification.
Shandhivya (2024-05-13 11:20:27+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great and also the changeset comments.
Keep up the mapping - many thanks! #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151248064
dypa (2024-05-17 08:55:18+00:00): При указании размеченных не регулируемых пешеходных переходов нельзя использовать тег crossing=zebra, см https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:crossing=zebra

Пожалуйста при внесении следующих правок используйте теги (Размеченный (нерегулируемый) пешеходный переход)
crossing=uncontrolled
crossing:markings=zebra
PcMouse1 (2024-05-13 04:27:09+00:00): Hello Makushi and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I strongly suggest having more detailed and constructive changeset comments as this allows other mappers to know what you are doing and what was changed. 
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments for more details.
user_7130456 (2024-06-06 15:50:34+00:00): correct 你妈了个逼的
Davidus2000 (2024-06-07 08:52:13+00:00): 典，顶着烂梗ID的嘴臭间或上来就满嘴喷粪，我还以为我懂了你妈的坟标哈哈。劳资改了就改了，你除了像我家小区里的狗一样看见人就狂吠，但碍于被狗绳拴着只能无能狂怒之外能奈我何？最后祝嘴臭的你全家不得好死，包括你本人哦^-^
PcMouse1 (2024-05-13 04:18:39+00:00): Bonjour BigKev97, je suggere d'utiliser des bon commentaires changeset. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications
BigKev97 (2024-06-02 14:28:14+00:00): Merci.
Shandhivya (2024-05-16 10:31:38+00:00): Great work, thank you for your mapping! To improve for next time, please zoom in close enough when tracing to avoid buildings sharing nodes or else overlapping. #OMGURU
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151249227
Shandhivya (2024-05-16 10:26:13+00:00): Well mapped but please square your buildings after tagging them by pressing ‘q’ on your keyboard. Keep up the mapping - many thanks! #OMGURU
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151249277
Shandhivya (2024-05-13 11:09:18+00:00): The mapping looks great but it would be helpful if you provide changeset comments and also please square your buildings after tagging them by pressing ‘q’ on your keyboard. Keep up the mapping - many thanks!. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151249294
Shandhivya (2024-05-16 10:22:54+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great but it would be helpful if you provide changeset comments and also remember to square the buildings. Keep mapping! #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151249380
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-13 07:37:58+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great but it would be helpful if you provide changeset comments and also remember to square the buildings. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151249429
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:21:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:19:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:11:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:20:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:17:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:15:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:20:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:10:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:17:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:19:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
Geo-Tobi (2024-09-14 16:29:38+00:00): HW=cycleway, aber cycleway:both=no, das klingt äußerst unstimmig. Wurde da was übersehen?
olecky (2024-09-15 05:22:06+00:00): Correct, cycleway (and also sidewalk) tag was leftover from before splitting the highway. Fixed now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156633850
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:16:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
Joe-w (2024-05-13 08:40:31+00:00): I doubt there's a cliff here. This changeset may need to be reverted.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:14:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:13:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:18:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:15:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:12:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:18:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:18:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:19:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:13:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:11:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:17:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:14:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
DaanLT (2024-05-13 12:39:05+00:00): čia kelias jau ne oneway, šiuo metu iki remonto pabaigos eismas į abi puses
Tomas Straupis (2024-05-13 14:01:48+00:00): Akei, tada reikia pakeisti į oneway=no. Ten mintis tokia, kad _link keliams privalomai turi būti oneway=* žyma, nes ant jų nevienprasmiškas tas vienpusiškumas :-) (aš tuoj pakeisiu pats)
Tomas Straupis (2024-05-13 14:01:57+00:00): Ačiū už pastabumą!
DaanLT (2024-05-13 14:28:04+00:00): oke
AndersAndersson (2024-05-13 15:22:59+00:00): Hej!
Varför tog du bort att Biltema är en affär?
MacksX (2024-05-15 12:42:27+00:00): Jag la väll till att Biltema är en byggnad, den låg på problemlistan...
divaddivag (2024-05-13 10:55:29+00:00): Salut Enzo, le tronçon https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/319681728 n'est pas oneway mais bien réservé aux rivevains/agris aussi non cela va poser des pbs de routage pour les locaux! A bientôt D
Nzau (2024-05-15 07:35:15+00:00): Salut David,

J'ai fait cette modif en me fiant uniquement au sens interdit + Sauf vélo. Mais effectivement je n'avais pas fait attention a l'autre panonceau.

Je vais faire la modif.
Bonne journée et merci pour ta vigilance !
divaddivag (2024-05-15 13:55:58+00:00): Merci ton pour ton retour express, rien de grave c'est juste que cela avait déjà été corrigé! 
En ce moment je revisite le littoral du Bessin en direction d'Isigny histoire d'être 'à jour' pour le jour J. Je pense qu'on est dans les clous mais j'aimerais bien avoir ton/vos retours et idées car j'ai l'impression de manquer de recul ;-( A plus David
Nzau (2024-05-16 20:46:24+00:00): Oui effectivement je n'avais même pas fait attention...

Et je vois que tu bosses bien c'est top merci beaucoup ! (Je reviens d'une balade vers Ver-sur-Mer avec quelques images qui devraient bientôt sortir).
Je vais essayer d'en parler avec le groupe, on s'est réuni hier soir en présentiel et on se voit mardi 21 à partir de 18h30 en visio (si jamais tu es dispo tu es le bienvenu !) 

Et d'ailleurs n'hésite pas à ajouter ton travail en cours qui est vraiment passionnant sur l'une des pages du wiki OSM https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Caen ou https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Calvados ou même https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Normandie

Bonne soirée et peut-être à mardi ou avant si tu souhaites en discuter de vive voix !
divaddivag (2024-05-20 07:03:59+00:00): Salut Enzo merci pour tes efforts pour animer et organiser la contrib sur Caen et c'est pas toujours évident pour moi de me déplacer ou de vous rejoindre surtout en ce moment. C'est clair qu'il faut que l'on se trouve un moment pour se voir ou discuter au téléphone a minima. Bref, je ne suis pas en marge de ce que vous faites au contraire!

 A bientot David
Sebastian | Yanosik (2024-05-15 09:06:35+00:00): Cześć! Przy zmianie wartości tagu highway na construction, bardzo proszę o dodawanie tagu construction=* przechowującego poprzednią wartość tagu highway.
Zachęcam do lektury: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dconstruction

Bardzo proszę też o podawanie źródeł wprowadzania zmian, czy jest to wiedza terenowa czy informacje prasowe (linki).

Pozdrawiam!
HellMap (2024-05-14 13:05:38+00:00): Hi!

Just a note that you should not change any objects solely to render on the default map. OSM is used by many maps and data consumers and what is rendered or parsed is different. For example, tagging this as a separate building means that the data now contains a separate building here (even if it looks like one on the default map).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

I adjusted here to how building "air corridors" like this are usually tagged. Depending on which building it is part of - that building would include this shape and then the part itself duplicating the contour can specify how it's different.

Notably for levels/floors OSM maps this a little confusingly, but this is a 2 level building that starts at the second level - `building:levels=2` and
`building:min_level=1`.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:min_level
markalex- (2024-05-14 22:47:27+00:00): Thanks for correcting!
I had same exact problem with somewhat similar "air corridor" here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/475617182

I fixed it in a similar way, as you explained. 

I still fill a bit confused regarding path underneath. Once I extended building and added building part, path had warnings. I think (but not really sure for now) that warning gone away once I placed points of separation of the path (for `covered=yes`) onto the contour of the building. But I'll figure this out.

Thanks again for you guidance!
HellMap (2024-05-14 23:00:03+00:00): Sure thing!

Warnings will happen, but they are just warnings - if the tagging and geometry are correct, then they can be ignored. The iD editor is not very good with complex situations with levels and building parts and often complains about stuff and offers incorrect fixes. Technically, the points do not connect to the building, because they are on different layers (and obviously do not connect in real life), but this is when the editor starts complaining - it does not understand that a building part on a different layer implies that the building itself in that location does not overlap anything. Building parts in particular are complex, because they "override" the building shape, but almost no tools out there (except 3D renderers) really understand this.
markalex- (2024-05-15 05:48:20+00:00): Not great. As a novice in tagging, I try to err on side of caution. And when I see warnings, I assume that it's my fault, not editor's (except for obviously ignored by somebody else previously warnings, like happens a lot with crossings).
richlv (2024-05-15 09:25:35+00:00): The standard and documented practice (for example, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel%3Dbuilding_passage ) is to have shared nodes where ways pass buildings in this way.
HellMap (2024-05-15 09:28:02+00:00): Yeah, it's not great. But warnings are technically not errors. So you don't HAVE to follow them - the software doesn't always know.

By the way, most crossing warnings can be fixed - these are more like "upgrades". The crossing tagging scheme was standardized not too long ago and most crossings are using the older imprecise style. You shouldn't bulk update them, but if you are updating the area, then feel free to upgrade them.

Just a side note - other editors like JOSM or many validation tools (you can toggle some on in the editor data layers) will show a LOT more warnings, errors, hints, etc. There are so many no one will ever be able to fix it all, so it's just something we have to live with. This isn't even mentioning that mappers don't actually agree on how many things should be drawn or tagged, even for what seems like basic significant features.