piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
olehz (2026-07-13 08:26:03+00:00): To produce a useful proposal, I first need to work through real edge cases. Australia is a convenient test bed for that. My intent is not to invent a parallel tagging scheme or redefine existing keys that renderers already depend on.

What I have been adding are additional geometries and tags that sit alongside the established model and should not break current rendering — for example area:aeroway=* polygons next to the usual centreline ways. Existing aeroway=runway / aeroway=taxiway ways remain the primary features.

A few practices I keep seeing (and that AMDB-style thinking highlights) are, in my view, misunderstandings rather than the OSM “standard”:

1. Runway — a runway centreline way is essential. Treating a large polygon that merges runway pavement with adjacent taxiways as aeroway=runway is not the same thing and often confuses the layout.
2. Displaced threshold / stopway — these are frequently tagged incorrectly, including by splitting the runway line into segments by surface type instead of modelling those elements properly.
3. Runway threshold nodes — these matter for operations and alignment; they are often missing or under-specified.
4. parking_position vs taxilane — a taxilane is part of the surface routing graph (a way used to move between taxiways and stands). A parking position is the stand itself: typically a node (or small area), a designated position that several taxilanes / lead-ins can connect to. It is not a marked line analogous to a taxiway. Mixing the two — e.g. tagging stand lead-ins as parking_position, or treating parking positions as linear features — confuses the graph with the stand identity. AMDB-style separation keeps graph = lines (taxiway / taxilane) and stands = points/areas (parking_position).
So the experiment is mainly about adding missing structure (polygons, thresholds, clearer separation of stopway / displaced threshold / blast pad), not ripping out the line-based scheme mappers already know.

I understand the concern about “map everything first, propose later.” I am not running an organised import of third-party geometry; this is on-the-ground / imagery-based mapping while I draft something that can be discussed properly. I will put up an Organised Editing / proposal page once the tagging pattern is stable enough to describe — trying to propose before the edge cases are clear would just produce a weak proposal.

OSM’s do-ocracy works best when experiments are visible and reversible. If particular changesets are problematic, I am happy to discuss those case by case and revert or retag where the local community prefers the previous representation.

https://skybrary.aero/articles/airport-mapping-database-amdb
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-13 05:43:45+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20942
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-11 16:08:01+00:00): Hallo, willkommen bei OSM.

Ich glaube bei dem eingetragenen Namen ist ein kleiner Fehler unterlaufen. Sollte es nicht eher "Lechpfoten" anstatt "Lechpfotern" lauten? Siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11166504799/history/4

Am Ende ist wohl ein r zu viel.

Viele Grüße
Pascal
wa_wheatbelt (2026-07-12 04:55:30+00:00): Thanks, Ewen.
kingkingHK (2026-07-12 03:32:51+00:00): Hi there, is there a particular reason you typed the address in `note=` and not `addr:*=`?
vectorial8192 (2026-07-14 16:28:07+00:00): It is unclear whether it should be "unit" or "door" (as always). However, in most cases, since the shop(s) should be easily observed from the streets anyway, there should not be too much issue even if the shop number is placed inside the notes field. Regular users can still physically find the shops, and OSM mappers still know what's up when the specs are finally clear.
kingkingHK (2026-07-15 01:53:35+00:00): To me, it seems obvious that it is door. But whatever.
K12230LF (2026-07-15 22:44:02+00:00): Bonjour, il y a une petite erreur dans le oneway de https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404948841 . Je vous laisse corriger avec la valeur adéquate ?
barnes38 (2026-07-16 18:11:04+00:00): Corrigé
merci K12230LF pour la notification !
Dimitar155 (2026-07-12 18:46:51+00:00): Thanks for the change! The address on the node is not needed when the building shares the same address. It is inherited automagically when the node is within the building.
saintam1 (2026-07-13 04:38:21+00:00): Ah yes, thanks for the reminder!
Sharko_MV3 (2026-07-11 18:07:49+00:00): Reverted
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185552262
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-11 18:14:34+00:00): > Can someone revert my deletion? It turned out to be visible only on Mapbox satellite imagery

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185552262
Sharko_MV3 (2026-07-11 18:25:19+00:00): Thank you
Zrop (2026-07-11 17:21:13+00:00): Hallo ticki_52,
aus welchem Grund löschst Du korrekt gemappte Einzelgaragen https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1032669688 und ersetzt diese durch einen Garagenblock ?

Warum hast Du diesen Parkplatz https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/257669687 so vergrößert ? Der Parkplatz entspricht jetz
nicht mehr seiner eigentlichen Fläche.

Und warum löschst Du massenweise "natural" + "landuse" und ersetzt sie teilweise durch neue anstatt sie anzupassen ?

Gruß
Zrop
silversurfer83 (2026-07-11 21:27:20+00:00): Zusätzlich hätte ich noch folgende Fragen/Anmerkungen:

- warum löscht du die (zugegeben "interessant" gemappte) Schaukel ersatzlos?

- Zwei durch eine große Straße getrennte Wohngebiete in einem MP zusammenzufassen verkompliziert die Daten unnötig. Jedes Wohngebiet für sich und dann ist gut.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185543300
silversurfer83 (2026-07-12 08:07:59+00:00): Ich habe noch einmal nachgedacht und nun für einen Revert entschieden.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185576401

Warum?

ticki mischt hilfreiche und teils klar falsche Änderungen in einem CS und kümmert sich dann nicht um berechtigte Rückfragen bzw. räumt anschließend die angemakelten Probleme nicht selbst auf.

Wie nakaner in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/loschung-von-parking-aisle-und-parking-space/145018/12 schon sagte: Aufdröseln ist zu aufwändig.
silversurfer83 (2026-07-15 14:55:36+00:00): Auch hier der Verweis auf die weitere Diskussion in meinem Revert-CS

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185576401#c1626337
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185543300
bxl-forever (2026-07-11 16:06:38+00:00): Hello,

A large changeset across Nicaragua can be fine for this kind of task.

Maybe it was scripted, and with a mistake, because this changeset also added wikidata tags to random nodes in Germany, Sweden, France, Austria, and Turkey… and that makes a really large bounding box.

I removed the bad wikidata tag on the European nodes.
bxl-forever (2026-07-11 16:09:46+00:00): The 5 bad nodes are here below:
* node 1456744006
* node 1094366618
* node 1299579494
* node 1474895362
* node 420313175

If you replace node with way, those will be places in Nicaragua, which you probably intended to tag.
dnLcrT (2026-07-11 16:15:18+00:00): Also removed bad wikidata from the node 13040280073 which is in Canada
cyclist789 (2026-07-13 08:02:36+00:00): Could OSM be made to automatically split such changesets when they are submitted?

Or is this impossible because of the ability to post changes without "closing" the changeset?
eggie (2026-07-11 18:10:10+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-07-11 18:12:39+00:00): Merkwaardig dat hier een fietsverbod was terwijl er een fietspadaansluiting is. Ik het deze verwijderd.
Gr eggie
pos-ki (2026-07-11 18:29:58+00:00): Thanks for the warm welcome! There might be some discrepancy because the footpath used to also double as a bikepath for a while during a construction in the area. The current (presumably stable) state is that from the railway crossing towards NW, the bikepaths merge into the road. (Im not sure if I marked everything fully correctly, because Im not too familiar with the OpenStreetMap UI, and was just using the StreetComplete app)
eggie (2026-07-11 19:18:27+00:00): Hi...
In case the cycleway is merged we call that a fietsstrook (cycleway=lane) sometimes shared_lane. Lines on the road to look the road more narrow.

Enjoy mapping,
eggie
MxxCon (2026-07-14 04:16:04+00:00): Is it the one that's on the roof of a building nearby?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185549017
Minh Nguyen (2026-07-14 05:39:05+00:00): The sign is mounted on a streetlamp pole, actually a rigid metal sign now that I look more closely.
rhhs (2026-07-27 17:04:04+00:00): Hi, I saw you made an edit to node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/14000582356/ I will add a 0 to the opening hours (should be 00:00). I noticed that there is another former restaurant node nearby that you last edited 2 years ago. Are these restaurants in the same space? Then it would be better if the data of the Home restaurant were added to the node for Crouton restaurant, and the Home restaurant node deleted.
limes11 (2026-07-11 18:48:51+00:00): Moin, es gibt für Stolpersteine artwork_type=stolperstein. Hat SC das in der Auswahl, fehlt das ? VG
NieWnen (2026-07-11 21:55:28+00:00): Cześć, jeśli to jest tylko kolorowy chodnik, to oprócz zmiany szablonu należy usunąć pozostałe tagi pozostałe z ciągu pieszo-rowerowego, czyli foot=* i bicycle=*
Sharko_MV3 (2026-07-11 18:11:08+00:00): Can someone revert my deletion? It turned out to be visible only on Mapbox satellite imagery
Minh Nguyen (2026-07-11 18:22:01+00:00): This was reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185552871
Sharko_MV3 (2026-07-17 20:19:56+00:00): Thanks
Uralla (2026-07-13 06:58:25+00:00): А что это вообще за переименования странные? Не в курсе?
Sharko_MV3 (2026-07-11 18:25:51+00:00): Thank you -- I had only checked Bing imagery
Valerio_Bozzolan (2026-07-16 15:00:53+00:00): Hi! thanks for your contributions!

I'm trying to fix a warning and I need your help, if possible.

I noticed this way with air_conditioning=unknown

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/551709032

I see that this is the only usage worldwide for the air conditioning. I suggest to just leave the field empty. Hoping to be useful, no action is required, as I'm doing this edit myself.

But if I forgot something, thanks for discussing :) and I will undo. Thanks!
DerKaiserschmarren (2026-07-17 06:35:28+00:00): Thanks, you are right, it probably should not be mentioned if it is unclear whether the entire building is airconditioned.
Thanks for your edit! :)
dzamper (2026-07-13 14:56:59+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian :)

„dodałem brakujące elementy” niezbyt pasuje do zestawu w którym tylko usuwano
pwbriggs (2026-07-16 17:02:37+00:00): Thanks. It should actually be expanded even more "Ave" -> "Avenue"
caprieldeluca (2026-07-12 14:30:59+00:00): Hola, gracias por contribuir con el mapa!
Revisé el conjunto de cambios. Las paradas deben mapearse siguiendo las indicaciones que tenemos en la wiki: - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Argentina/Transporte_p%C3%BAblico#Paradas

Básicamente, falta agregar el lugar donde las personas esperan el transporte y agregar ambos nodos con sus roles y en orden en las relaciones rutas de los transportes involucrados.

Cualquier consulta: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Argentina#Contacto
FajrAl (2026-07-24 16:04:40+00:00): Terima kasih kontribusinya pak, namun perlu diketahui bahwa tag is_in:*=* itu sudah tidak digunakan lagi
eggie (2026-07-11 20:55:30+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
LucGommans (2026-07-11 18:55:55+00:00): changeset comment failed to upload in osmand...: deduplicate exact duplicates; deduplicate "A beside B" and "B beside A"; remove descriptions of existing elements (localities are only allowed if there is no on-the-ground element); use alt_name for alternative descriptions or spellings of the same imaginary feature
vasony (2026-07-12 13:27:31+00:00): Szia!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179207843
Malom liget nincs utcaként felrajzolva, ezért volt addr:place, most így dupla addr:street = addr:place

Tamás
vasony (2026-07-12 13:28:52+00:00): a kérdéses ház
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1323928547
tomhukins (2026-07-26 18:06:41+00:00): Thank you for your helpful work adding details to these bus stops.  I have removed the "naptan:verified=no" tag from some of them as I know they exist in the locations mapped.
pwbriggs (2026-07-16 16:53:51+00:00): Thanks. Proper phone number format in OpenStreetMap in the US has dashes separating every group with no spaces, so +1-206-624-3034 is correct, not +1 206-624-3034. I fixed this.

Thanks again for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
NoctZan (2026-07-11 19:28:08+00:00): Also updated address
schobbish (2026-07-11 20:22:54+00:00): Reverted in changeset 185558453. Please follow our tagging conventions and do not include promotional material in your edits.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-12 12:14:12+00:00): Thanks for taking care of this so quickly. This SEO spam ring has been spamming these "All Dogs Unleashed" POIs at a rate of ~1 per day over the past few days; funny enough I first discovered them over 6 months ago when they were spamming dozens of "Dogtopia" locations.

While they aren't known for commonly restoring SEO spam tags/POIs after they are being removed like some of the other (even larger, with sometimes dozens of accounts and hundreds of changesets per week) SEO spam rings I'm tracking, there's always the chance they pop up again here with another account.
gmar5 (2026-07-12 10:34:06+00:00): Hi. 

I don't think this is the correct approach. It looks like an automated edit, but every single case should be checked individually.

There is nothing preventing the name of the building (name=*) from also being used in the postal address (add:housename=*), and the address tag does not automatically render name=* a duplicate. 

It is debatable in the case of single residential houses. Some names are indeed purely residential addresses; others, however, could be name tags (e.g. if the building is historical). 
The change is certainly wrong in other cases of buildings -- for example most of these in Oxford that I know.

I think the changeset needs to be reverted, and every case judged with local knowledge.

Thanks.
confusedbuffalo (2026-07-12 11:12:34+00:00): Hi, thanks for reviewing 

Firstly, it wasn't automated, I reviewed the changes and did not remove every name which duplicated the housename.

Secondly, I do think that it's an error to have the same value in both name and addr:housename. As for which should be used, perhaps I made the wrong call in some cases. To construct an address, I would include the name (which could be a business name) and then the address tags in a suitable order. Therefore it is duplicating data, and wrong, to have the name repeated.

I think that single residential houses are the least debatable, things like apartments may be more nuanced.
gmar5 (2026-07-12 11:46:32+00:00): Why would it be an error? The two tags are semantically different and serve different purposes. There can't be an automatic exclusion. As you said, you don't remove every case, just because the value is the same. At most, it can be redundant, but removal can result in loss of detail and information, for little gain.

- For houses, take the case of a historic building, listed status, wiki pages, etc.. That can deserve its own name tag. Whether it has an address or not, and whether the name is part of it or not, is irrelevant.
- For commercial buildings, and those inside hospital grounds, schools, universities, etc. It is likely that name is the correct tag, not addr:housename, if they cannot be addressed individually. However, even it they can, it doesn't mean that the building name should be removed.
The more likely case is that automated tools encourage users to fill addresses for all buildings, even when not appropriate, so less experienced users end up putting the name into addr:housename.
- For flats, it is also complicated, since the name might or might not be part of the address. Depending on your interpretation of the address tags (cf. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom), it might not even go into the housename tag, but the substreet one.

If you are confident with your edits and individual checks, I trust you -- I will change back all of those in Oxford that I think are mistaken, and others can do the same elsewhere.

Thanks.
confusedbuffalo (2026-07-13 09:02:55+00:00): Well, hmm, some of the reviews were fairly quick, I'll take more care in future. Thank you for the detailed response
Frans S (2026-07-12 10:32:07+00:00): Hello. You managed to map 12 buildings  twice!
Check also this changeset 
Changeset: 185547636
This in a timespan of 3 hours.
Did you forgot to upload the mapping ?
Best regards
Frans S (2026-07-12 10:33:33+00:00): You must have seen this when you validated your work.
Best regards
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-13 21:02:48+00:00): Jak jedynie ogłoszono przetarg na projekt to NIE oznacza to rozpoczęcia budowy

ponownie dodajesz fikcyjne budowy

PRZESTAŃ
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-13 21:04:44+00:00): a jak budowa trwa to podaj źródło co to potwierdza
Dawid2849 (2026-07-12 15:50:47+00:00): Dobra robota, dzięki za zmapowanie :)
Straszny bajzel tu był gdy dodawałem relacje EC Cracovia
Anas masuris (2026-07-12 15:53:15+00:00): Jeszcze część KŚ jest do przepięcia, ale to wtedy, gdy nakreślę resztę odcinka (Chybie - Zebrzydowice). Proszsz :)
Dawid2849 (2026-07-12 16:57:30+00:00): Jedyne zastrzeżenie jakie mam, to że skoro WC Cracovia jest zmapowana jako PTv2, to nie powinna tu być poprowadzona po budowanym torze: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/492362777
Anas masuris (2026-07-12 17:01:47+00:00): Prawda, zaraz przepnę
rarad74 (2026-07-12 18:00:33+00:00): Salut. Te rog nu mai folosi maps.me pentru a adauga apartamente , deoarece nu are suport pentru asa ceva. Tu ai adaugat un punct de interes de turism ceea ce nu este corect. Acel bloc nu este o pensiune/hotel.
pwbriggs (2026-07-13 03:31:04+00:00): Thanks for the contribution. I think that's already described by the kerb=lowered tag. I don't know enough about this area of pedestrian mapping to make a definite statement, but my gut instinct is that wheelchair=yes doesn't belong on curb nodes unless there's something particularly special about this lowered curb. What do you think?
ceirios (2026-07-11 23:05:14+00:00): Should this be in addr:housename=* instead?
eteb3 (2026-07-12 05:06:59+00:00): That might be better.

I'm trying to show the name of the location. The chapel seems to go by the name "the chapel at Pen yr Heol". You'll know better than me how placenames go in Wales, but it seems to me that the "pen" must be the area, with both house and chapel taking their names from that area, rather than the other way round. It's the name of this area of land that I'm trying to show.

what would you do?
eggie (2026-07-11 20:57:36+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback Je info heb ik samengevoegd met de bestaande adresnode.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
thorf1nn (2026-07-11 21:22:25+00:00): Thank you for the kind welcome!
eggie (2026-07-11 21:00:09+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback. Wanneer een bedrijf sluit zal toch het adres intact blijven. Dat heb je nu ook verwijderd.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-07-11 21:03:04+00:00): Adressen hersteld
TheSwavu (2026-07-12 09:08:48+00:00): Hi,

Address components beyond street are optional (See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Addresses). Not adding them does cut down the chance of making an error, for example these addresses are actually in NSW.

I have fixed these ones.

Cheers.
Damienm1197 (2026-07-12 20:22:28+00:00): All good, mate. I'd put them in as the local Real Estate had addressed them.  I had second guessed it, as judging by the map, the address marker on the road would be in Queensland, while the actual dwelling is technically in New South Wales. Their driveway crosses the border! Bit of a grey one, but we got it sorted. :)
Jan_Mapman (2026-07-11 21:27:45+00:00): Correction: “comunity” should read “community”. The intended changeset note was: “Added local community garden with some access information.”
alpacaMaps (2026-07-31 02:38:47+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — the nodes sit well away from any road, which usually means the cameras aren't physically present on the ground.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
alpacaMaps (2026-07-15 00:43:57+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — the nodes sit well away from any road, which usually means the cameras aren't physically present on the ground.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
Luzandro (2026-07-13 10:51:46+00:00): Hallo,

durch das oneway am Radweg kann man jetzt nicht mehr gerade weiter fahren und ich halte die Teilung generell nicht für sehr sinnvoll: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_bicycle&route=48.206414%2C16.382508%3B48.206757%2C16.38275#map=19/48.206901/16.382985&layers=N

auch die Radroute verläuft noch über den Fußweg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/174501#map=19/48.206605/16.382835&layers=N
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185561261
0xjoke (2026-07-13 13:28:06+00:00): Hi Luzandro, danke für das Feedback! Ich bin noch recht neu in der Welt der OSM-Editorena und würde mich freuen zu wissen, warum du die Aufteilung nicht für sehr sinnvoll hältst. Mein Gedanke war, das Routing Apps (vor allem für Fahrräder) die Abbiegemaneuver genauer zeigen können, seit die Ecke an der Kreuzung neu gemacht wurde.
Luzandro (2026-07-14 04:34:39+00:00): Es war schon als getrennter Geh- und Radweg erfasst - das auf zwei parallele, physisch scheinbar nicht verbundene Wege aufzusplitten macht es fehleranfälliger, weil notwendige Routing-Verbindungen fehlen, oder wie hier durch Beschränkungen nicht benutzt werden können. Die Abbiegemaneuver werden auch nicht übersichtlicher, wenn mehr Wege auf einem Fleck sind.