piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Tomas09 (2024-12-11 22:26:08+00:00): oh oke bedankt (: en het is een winkel met een hoop spul zoals ijs, kaas, kleine souvenirtjes ook
eggie (2024-12-11 22:57:40+00:00): Oke... Kijk in de wiki hoe zoiets het beste te taggen.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop
.. en wellicht heeft het hier een naam.
Succes
eggie (2024-12-12 08:05:15+00:00): BAG data (rusthuis zonder naam?)  teruggezet.
Tomas09 (2024-12-12 12:31:00+00:00): Wat is BAG?
eggie (2024-12-12 13:45:33+00:00): Basisregistratie Adressen en Gebouwen. Zeg maar de administratie van het Kadaster.
eggie (2024-12-12 13:48:15+00:00): https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/?searchQuery=Rheden&objectId=1501&theme=BRT+Achtergrond&geometry.x=198255.27656152775&geometry.y=446870.5944760952&zoomlevel=12.62629953344795
eggie (2024-12-12 13:50:46+00:00): Kennelijk zijn er plannen voor nieuwbouw hier want er zijn bouwvergunning verleend.
Masyas (2024-12-12 13:51:43+00:00): 龙江北路已改造完毕建成通车？
MichS (2024-12-12 06:15:41+00:00): Hallo,

ein Hinweis: Bei ID gibt es einen Tastendruck Q um Gebäude rechtwinklig zu machen, per rechter Mausklick geht das auch.

MFG
CatotheCat (2025-01-03 17:53:16+00:00): Hi, it looks like you undid my edit on way 40906300 back to how it was before a detour was added there. The detour was added quite recently, and doesn't show up on satellite imagery. I reverted this already, but please be careful using old imagery!
grzegorz75jan (2025-02-01 11:24:38+00:00): I słusznie. Trochę za dużo węzłów na tej drodze od strony zabudowań. W warstwach tła masz cieniowanie terenu które może być bardzo przydatne w rysowaniu na terenach leśnych.
Jeżeli bywasz w tym miejscu to możesz sobie pobrać aplikację na telefon np. GpsLogger czy dowolną aplikację mapową do nawigowania i rejestracji aktywności choćby mapy.cz i nagrać ślad gps który następnie nakładasz na mapę. W lesie nie będzie dokładny ale da ci jakąś orientację a w połączeniu z cieniowaniem terenu to bajka.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160187021
RedAuburn (2024-12-11 22:19:02+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4475547
jjyach (2024-12-11 22:47:27+00:00): These are service roads by definition for vehicle access, not paths.  Please do not change.
Joseph R P (2024-12-23 01:59:43+00:00): Do innocuous changes like those which you have reverted actually need to be discussed beforehand? I don't see how changing frivolous bits of road (I'm talking less than a quarter mile long each) to fix highway connectivity or indicate that a very short highway segment does not meet OSM's motorway standards requires community consensus. Nothing would get done anywhere else if that were the case. I understand immediately reverting massive undiscussed changes, like if I were to reclassify a trunk route to primary despite it being documented on the OSM Wiki that such a road should be primary, or a particular road which has had its classification discussed before—things like that, but I don't believe that this territorial approach of monitoring each and every minor roadway edit in the state you live in is pro-community. You don't seem to give a true reason for reverting these edits aside from them being "undiscussed", when the vast majority of edits anywhere on OSM are undiscussed by default, or show me which exact venue I'd need to go to (Slack? Forum? Wiki?) in the event I were to discuss any sort of edits with the community.
Mashin (2024-12-23 10:03:09+00:00): Hi Joseph,
sorry, I know that this feels frustrating, but it is certainly not about all edits to OSM. Road network is a bit of a special case. Not so long ago the road classification in US was a mess until quite long discussion and difficult agreement happened. Jnighan was part of that discussion for CT and put a lot of work in creating classification system that seems to work.

Now if people start doing tiny changes to what they personally perceive as not correct and then another group of people change half of that to something else because they have a different opinion and so on, then we end up again with a mess. 

Therefore I think for this particular case it is good to discuss what the problem with the current classification is, how does the proposed change fixes that, and then also apply it consistently all cross the state. 

Before I asked you to contact jnighan or start some discussion about it. Have you tried and what was the outcome? 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157603271
I think he was still active on Slack. 


Cheers
Joseph R P (2024-12-24 04:20:57+00:00): I considered reaching out to jnighan at first before hesitating and ultimately deciding against it because I figured it would not be productive to converse with another person over some few hundred feet of roadway on the map. That's not reaching out to any community (just one person who has documented highway classification in the state), but community consensus for minor edits should technically not be required in the first place. I understand that it's not about all edits in Connecticut—just road-focused ones—but I still cannot see how minor edits to the road network could create accumulate so much so that it turns into a mess, even without aggressively monitoring every change that happens in the state. 

I myself have documented road classification in my home state of Virginia and am responsible for much of how the major roads are classified. If someone adds or removes a trunk or primary route, I'll scrutinize it and likely revert it—I'd expect the same thing to happen in Connecticut or any other state with documented highway classification. However, I would not expect myself or anyone else to scrutinize a change to a roadway so small as 1000 feet of undivided highway or a median break at a signalized intersection, especially if the edits are not breaking anything or going against any proposed state highway guidelines.

You are correct about it being frustrating to me because I feel that it's counterintuitive to require that anybody have to reach out to a particular contributor for confirmation over relatively insignificant edits. If this is procedural for when responding to the edits of a more-experienced editor like me, then I am concerned with how you would take care of edits from new users who are inevitably out of the loop of any "discussion".

I do not yet know what jnighan's opinions on how minor road edits should be handled are, so I will contact him via Slack. As far as I know, though, it seems to mostly be up to you for what should and should not be reverted, which is anti-community in my opinion.

I apologize if my message sounds heated or disregardful, but as someone who has had countless encounters with territorial editors since day one of me editing OSM, I am concerned about the approach to "community" here.
jnighan (2024-12-24 17:15:39+00:00): Hi, Joseph! Thanks for the replies and direct message. In 2022, I created a classification system based on community input and other models for CT (link at bottom of comment). Mashin has been a great partner in alerting users that we do in fact have a system in place, and edits should be in keeping with the system (e.g., exceptions to the system are documented on the wiki). Mashin is definitely not "anti-community." CT is a small state, so I think it's good that we scrutinize both large and small edits to the highway system. My goal was to set good foundational criteria, and then to minimize hand-picked deviations from those rules. This creates a classification system that is consistent, which is a core value for machine-actionable data such as OSM (my day-job is in metadata, so classification is my bread and butter). Any instance of a hand-picked deviation from the classification system is 1) listed in detail on the classification page and 2) a justification is given, so other mappers can understand why the change was made. It's fine to make (reasonable) edits that deviate from the classification system, but they should be documented on the classification page in the section titled "Exceptions to this classification scheme" (link at bottom of comment). So far, the exceptions generally resolve these problems: 1) "classification spurs", e.g. when a primary road would simply end without connection to another road of a greater classification. These aren't good for an interconnected system of highways, which is a priority on OSM. And 2), a general lack of primary roads through rural areas (there are only a few of these).

I've reviewed the edits you've sought to contribute, and I'm seeing the following types:

1.) Upgrading a **short** segment of a 'side road' connecting a motorway link and another important road (e.g., upgrading a segment of Meadow Road in Windsor from residential to primary). Is this type of change helpful? We haven't making this type of exception in the past. I think routing software will figure it out, and this type of edit isn't necessary. Please elaborate if you disagree.

2.) You changed a road bridging a trunk dual carriageway from service to trunk_link. This was correct, and is covered by OSM general guidelines. I don't view this a something that should be covered by state-level classification projects.

Thanks to both of you for your edits. Jnighan
jnighan (2024-12-24 17:19:12+00:00): Here's the link to the classification page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Connecticut/Highway_classification
Joseph R P (2024-12-24 18:02:39+00:00): In response to the classification of side streets which connect primary roads to motorways—I classified it as primary not with the expectation that it wouldn't be properly navigated by routing systems if tagged lower than primary, but rather from the standpoint that if the section of road is used primarily to get from a primary road to motorway link or vice versa, primary would make sense and would accurately reflect this usage. It would not be a disconnected primary stub as it would meet a road of the same classification (primary) at one end and a road of a higher classification (motorway) at the other.

Regarding two more changes I made that have not yet been discussed in full here yet:

One change I made was downgrading a section of US 7 in Danbury to trunk as it was nearing the terminus of its motorway segment and was undivided at that point. I had seen the state classification guidelines prior to this discussion and how the motorway classification guidelines stated that they must be divided, so I would have assumed that my edits were correct. Another rationale for the change is that the US 7 freeway is at its terminus here, and that traffic entering from Miry Brook Road is technically not entering a 'motorway' if such road is undivided and is 1000 feet long before it becomes a standard undivided highway.

The other change was upgrading a short section of Columbus Avenue in New Haven which was classified as residential to tertiary to bridge a gap between the primary route in the west and short tertiary segment in the east. This is under the assumption that traffic travelling between the primary section of Columbus Avenue and S. Orange Street are not taking Church to Union, back to Columbus, and up Orange and that this specific section of Columbus functions as a local residential street.
jnighan (2024-12-25 18:41:05+00:00): Hi,

Re: classification gaps, I think this makes sense. I will add a note about this type of mapping on the wiki page, and I'll start working on it. Feel free to do the same. I'll add text on the wiki page saying very short gaps (use reasonable judgement) on side streets between motorway links and roads of higher classification can be upgraded. Since this general note will exist on the page, we don't need to document every instance of it. We just want 'exceptions' to the rules to be listed so that we can keep track of them. I'll work on this now.

Re: US 7 in Danbury, I agree with what you're saying; undivided highways should not be motorways. It looks correct to me right now.

Re: Columbus Ave, I considered making that same upgrade, but decided to wait and see whether US 1 may be re-routed through the very recently constructed segment of Columbus Ave. If you want to make this edit, that's fine, but then please add it to the "Exceptions to this classification scheme" table on the Wiki page by creating a new row in the table.
jnighan (2024-12-25 18:59:26+00:00): I added a paragraph to this section:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Connecticut/Highway_classification#Motorway
Joseph R P (2024-12-27 01:03:38+00:00): Thank you for adding the paragraph regarding these classification gaps and clarifying the reasons for the other roadways' classifications.
ZLima12 (2025-12-01 21:21:59+00:00): Generally, in cases like the I-91/CT-159 interchange, I feel that it is better to not change the classification of the connecting road (Meadow Road in this case). The ground truth is that CT-159 is the primary road, and you have to get off onto a side street to access it. If we tag the side street as primary, this information is lost, or at least obscured. I would be more okay with giving highway=tertiary to this particular segment, but if it was really a residential street with houses on either side, I think it should stay as highway=residential.

In contrast, I am okay with tagging the side street higher if it is the beginning/end of a route of that classification. For example, this segment connecting I-84 to the primary route on CT-34 should stay as-is: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/411203807 . This is especially the case if a numbered route of that classification is signed along the ramp and side street.
Paul Berry (2025-01-21 11:42:33+00:00): If possible, could you let me know which navigation apps were attempting to use this stub road?
HolaAmigos (2025-01-21 11:47:13+00:00): Hey @Paul Berry, I was using Magic Earth when it tried to navigate me off the roundabout and then immediately back on via these ways instead of going around the roundabout as normal. I understand that this is technically "editing for the router" but if it doesn't provide any value keeping it as a normal road then I think it's fine?
Paul Berry (2025-01-21 16:56:24+00:00): Hi,

Tricky one, this. Strictly speaking it's tagging for the router (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_router), to make life easier for them even though what's on the ground is correct. I'd go for what works rather than being a purist, so let's leave it as it is.

Incidentally, how does Magic Earth cope with, say, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1000900605

Regards,
_Paul_
HolaAmigos (2025-01-21 17:58:20+00:00): Magic Earth actually hasn't updated it's OSM data yet so I was still able to replicate the old behaviour. It handles that way you linked fine, perhaps because of the longer junction arms?

I don't really like editing for the router in major cases (like changing an entire road classification), but this seems fine. At the same time though if there's other cases it might just be best bringing it up to the Magic Earth team to see if they can fix it.

It certainly seems strange to me, because surely routing by this junction doubles the length travelled? I do wonder if putting give way nodes would help.
HolaAmigos (2025-01-21 18:13:48+00:00): I've reverted the construction changes and reached out to the Magic Earth team, I'll let you know if they get back to me.
Paul Berry (2025-01-21 20:08:01+00:00): Appreciated, thank you.
DFW-Backyard7 (2024-12-11 22:38:00+00:00): Changeset comment should be "add streams, adjust road alignment, draw houses, fix validator issues"
Marek-M (2024-12-12 09:43:10+00:00): Większość dróg w OSM ma domyślnie ustawione wartości dla różnych środków transportu na wartość `yes`, więc zbędne jest ich dodawanie. Tutaj https://www.osm.org/way/117570264 dodałeś zbędne tagi typu bicycle, foot...

Tutaj zaś na wale p-powodziowym https://www.osm.org/way/108210277 dodałeś sporo tagów z dostępem ustawionym na `no` + `foot=yes` - tutaj jest lepiej dodać jeden tag `access=no` i dodać wyjątek `foot=yes` - mniej tagów a dają lepszy wynik.

Już to poprawiłem ale informuję o tym na przyszłość.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-17 08:27:12+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12413964014/history has amenity = fixme that was added in this edit
What kind of object is here? Is it a shop? What kind of a shop? (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop )
NorthCrab_upload (2024-12-11 23:40:59+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12413989615
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1001777792

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
joost schouppe (2025-01-08 14:27:37+00:00): It's best to fit existing polygons to the new buildings you import, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894308907
NorthCrab_upload (2024-12-12 00:10:49+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12414008997
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/740435421

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
GeorgeKaplan (2025-01-01 12:46:21+00:00): Bonjour, l'opérateur est-il vraiment Lidl ou erreur de copier/coller ?
tykayn (2025-01-01 16:45:20+00:00): Bonjour, selon l'open data oui c'est Lidl qui est opérateur
fūrai-bō (2025-07-13 09:55:19+00:00): 疎開道路にref=9012と付与されていますが、これは何か根拠があるのでしょうか?
大阪市の認定道路網図では、大阪市道上新庄生野線は路線番号5002012、重複する大阪市道城北矢田線は路線番号6017850でいずれとも一致しないので何らかの案内上または管理上の番号なのだろうとは思いますが、こちらでは根拠らしきものを見つけることができませんでした。
現状のままですと画面上に[9012]と表示されて目立つので、それなりの根拠が必要ではないかと思います。
taketaketake (2025-07-14 02:40:00+00:00): その質問はデータをインポートしたhttps://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mds878
に質問して下さい。
私はrefについて編集していません
履歴を確認して下さい
fūrai-bō (2025-07-14 10:07:36+00:00): 失礼しました。履歴から辿ったつもりでしたが見誤ってしまったようです。
refについては根拠が見当たらなかったのでこちらで適正に修正作業をすることにしました。
stillhart (2024-12-27 10:27:39+00:00): ♥️
spalinger (2025-01-11 18:13:06+00:00): 🤗
Supaplex (2024-12-12 08:04:32+00:00): Hi

Most of the places already exist on the map. So you should add the English name on the correspond objects.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160189690
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-08 04:17:40+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164659535
Codesurfer (2024-12-22 14:43:01+00:00): I deleted an industrial tag for the building and added the correct tag for a riding hall. Any insights on why this is flagged as a Mapbox harmful deletion would be appreciated.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160189909
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-12-22 15:13:50+00:00): Generally all buildings should retain the building tag.
I've updated with building=sports_hall.
see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dsports_hall#Tagging
Codesurfer (2024-12-23 01:36:03+00:00): Oh, thanks! I forgot to add the building tag. I'm following this structure and changing to building=riding_hall. Following this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Riding

Corrected and adding the building=riding_hall tag instead of building=sports hall. Working edits with Spaghetti Monster.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160189909
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-18 04:06:14+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165094911
NeisBot (2024-12-12 02:18:38+00:00): Hi vicmap_import, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 100% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
No primary map features!?

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

PS: I have also sent this message through the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=160190587
vicmap_import (2024-12-12 02:23:38+00:00): Yes this was intentional. See https://gitlab.com/alantgeo/vicmap2osm#stage-3---repair for more context. This deleted corrupted data which this account just added the day prior.
pitscheplatsch (2024-12-12 05:06:41+00:00): Thank you for your reply.
ngry_pazuzu (2026-01-03 07:43:27+00:00): The Spirit Trail is definitely designated for bicycles, but why did you mark Welch Street and Bridge Road as designated for bicycles?
krmatthews (2026-01-03 15:54:49+00:00): There are signs (for example at Whonoak) indicating that 'scenic' cyclists should be on the trail and 'direct' cyclists should be on the road.
ngry_pazuzu (2026-01-03 17:13:25+00:00): I see that one sign now looking at street level imagery. They aren't the most obvious signs. Where are the other signs? I don't see one for the eastbound direction.
krmatthews (2026-01-06 03:25:38+00:00): I'm not aware of any eastbound signs in this area, I would have to go check. But the part through Ambleside Park has some, and Bridge street has sharrows.
ngry_pazuzu (2026-01-06 18:55:34+00:00): I'll also check for signs the next time I am in the area. The sharrows on Bridge Street eastbound only go up to the crosswalk up under the Lions Gate Bridge. So given the lack of clear signage or road markings from that point onwards and the aggresiveness of drivers there, the general understanding appears to be that portion of roadway isn't designated for cyclists. Almost all cyclists I know (a number of whom average 30+ km/h on flat terrain) will take the Sprit Trail instead.

That's not to say that I don't think it should be designated for cyclists. It would be nice it is were, because t's really annoying if not risky to get from the Spirit Trail back onto the eastbound bike lane on the roadway that starts at Whonoak Road.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-08 04:20:33+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164659597
pitscheplatsch (2024-12-13 16:10:19+00:00): And?
Glassman (2024-12-13 18:57:00+00:00): removed beach tag
pitscheplatsch (2024-12-14 07:15:23+00:00): Thank for your revert @Glassman

https://osm.org/changeset/160258394
Metzor (2024-12-12 07:22:13+00:00): Danke!
gscholz (2024-12-13 17:02:04+00:00): Hi MarAurPer,
this changeset has created duplicate nodes by adding a bus route overlapping normal highways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-75.55615&lat=20.37382&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Can you please fix this?

You may like to educate yourself about how to edit bus routes properly:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buses

Kind regards
Guido
jb54osm (2024-12-12 11:37:10+00:00): Hi FM,

Straten die alleen toegankelijk zijn voor voetgangers krijgen een Pedestrian tag, geen Footway.
Zie ook de jarenlange historie.
mavl (2025-05-13 15:05:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
mavl (2025-05-13 15:08:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].