piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Luzandro (2025-05-30 10:26:20+00:00): Hallo,

es handelt sich hier nur um einen Fahrradstreifen auf der Fahrbahn und keinen baulich getrennten, separaten Radweg. Diese werden mit dem Tag cycleway an der Straße erfasst, was hier schon der Fall war, und nicht als separater highway=cycleway

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:cycleway

Wenn es tatsächlich ein separater Radweg gewesen wäre, hätten auch Anfang und Ende mit der Straße verbunden werden müssen und nicht unverbunden als Sackgasse neben dieser enden, wodurch nicht darüber geroutet werden könnte.

Ich habe den Weg daher wieder entfernt.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166943056
solenoid jam (2026-04-02 11:26:13+00:00): Hello. Could you please tell me what geographic feature on the ground is indicated by this relationship?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19191186
Tewuzij (2026-04-02 13:26:28+00:00): I map the footpaths that are connected together in that region
solenoid jam (2026-04-02 15:15:05+00:00): I understand. Unfortunately, this practice is against OSM guidelines. First, the relationship is used as a collection of objects. The wiki article on relationships states that this practice is incorrect. Relationships are not collections.
Also, type=route relationships are described in the wiki, and we see that this use of these relationships is not intended. These attributes are only suitable for routes, not for collections of sidewalks. Currently, in navigation apps, this relationship is shown as a trekking route.
Any of these points is sufficient to deem this designation incorrect, since incorrect use of attributes leads to data pollution, making it impossible to use correctly.
I believe this relationship should be removed.
If you explain why you did this, perhaps I can help find an appropriate way to implement your idea.
In any case, thank you for your contribution to open mapping.
tux67 (2025-05-30 06:16:46+00:00): It would help a lot then if someone talks to the owner of the payment template for josm ...
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166943839
SK!! (2025-05-29 21:51:44+00:00): Das ist kein Vandalismus das ist Kunst!
dadavid (2025-05-29 22:05:27+00:00): Hömma, 
Ich verstehe ja dass du dich über gewisse Staaten und deren Chefs aufregst. Ich verstehe auch, wenn man dann einen kommerziellen Kartendienst aus diesem Staat angreift (ich finds falsch und nervig, aber ich verstehe es). 

Was ich nicht verstehe ist, wieso man eine gemeinschaftliche, offene, nichtkommerzielle Projekte wie OSM attackiert. Das ist wie car-sharing Autos anzünden. Völlig unnötig. 

Wir machen das hier alle in unser Freizeit. Ich würde mich freuen, wenn du damit respektvoll umgehst anstatt offene Projekte kaputt zu machen. Dann ist’s bald soweit dass nur noch kommerzielle Apps existieren, die viel Geld für  Qualitätssicherung ausgeben können. 

For the uninitiated: https://www.br.de/nachrichten/netzwelt/der-neue-golf-von-wuerzburg-fake-gewaesser-bei-google-maps
SK!! (2025-05-29 22:17:11+00:00): Ich möchte mit dieser Aktion hier niemanden verletzen oder etwas negativ beeinflussen.

Ich bin selbst Teil der Open-Source-Community und ein großer Befürworter freier und quelloffener Software sowie offener Kartendienste.

Allerdings glaube ich, dass es bei einem so kleinen Teich keinen großen Unterschied macht, wenn dieser umbenannt wird. Unter den Kelkheimer Bürgerinnen und Bürgern wird dieser Teich ohnehin als „Ententeich“ bezeichnet.
Ich habe mich außerdem mit etwa 20 Personen aus Kelkheim zu diesem Thema unterhalten, und wir sind alle zum gleichen Schluss gekommen: Diese Umbenennung hat keinen Einfluss auf das Stadtgeschehen oder die Navigation. Alle befragten Personen fanden die Aktion gut – viele sogar sehr amüsant, da es sich um einen sehr kleinen Teich handelt.

Zudem ist der Teich in vielen kommerziellen Kartendiensten nicht einmal benannt oder eingezeichnet.

Ich denke nicht, dass diese kleine Änderung der Karte oder dem Projekt schadet.
dadavid (2025-05-29 22:43:33+00:00): Ich verstehe was du meinst und ich kann nachvollziehen, dass du glaubst hier niemandem zu schaden. Das sehe ich ziemlich anders. 

Schaden: ich stamme aus dem Blaulichtbereich. Leitstellendisponent:innen haben oft kaum Ortskenntnis und verlassen sich auf den geocoder und korrekte Geodaten. Bricht hier im Winter ein Kind durchs Eis ist es durchaus realistisch, dass die Ortsanlage im Einsatzleitsystem deutlich erschwert ist, da der korrekte Name, den Notrufende nennen, nicht gefunden wird. 

lustige Kunstaktion: 
Mag sein, dass du und andere das lustig finden, ich fand’s auch ein bisschen witzig, keine Frage :) Aber OSM ist nicht der Ort für solche Aktionen. Die Community hinter OSM möchte das nicht und es verstößt ganz klar gegen die Regeln, die sich die Community gegeben hat. Dagegen verstößt du, und machst uns allen damit unnötige Arbeit. Generell wird durch solchen Vandalismus die Zuverlässigkeit offener Projekte in der Öffentlichkeit in Frage gestellt, und das ist doch einfach schade. 

Und nu: 
Wenn die Leute vor Ort das lustig finden, stell doch einfach ein entsprechendes Schild vor Ort auf. Dann kannst du es auch in OSM als loc_name eintragen, spricht aus OSM Sicht nichts gegen.
SK!! (2025-05-29 22:46:48+00:00): Dieses Schild gibt es bereits.
dadavid (2025-05-29 22:55:05+00:00): Dann gib doch bitte auch Quellen im Changeset Kommentar an. Und bitte bitte setze dich ein bisschen mit unseren Grundregeln auseinander, bevor du weitere Bearbeitungen machst. 

Du hast hier bereits einige Leute in der Community viel Zeit gekostet. Zeit, die hätte genutzt werden können, um osm wirklich besser zu machen. 

Zum reinkommen empfehle ich das Wiki, insbesondere zu https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen

Viele Grüße und bitte sei in Zukunft etwas sorgsamer. 

Viele Grüße 

David
CurlingMan13 (2025-05-30 04:50:00+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  reviewed edit.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166944571
NorthCrab_upload (2025-05-29 22:30:53+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/949690592

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Fizzie-DWG (2025-05-30 00:57:00+00:00): DWG revert - fictitious name

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166947854
Fizzie-DWG (2025-05-30 01:00:09+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18305
Hayleox (2026-04-23 04:42:23+00:00): Hi, I've been going through and refining this part of Pike County. Please be careful when mapping where roads and waterways meet as to whether there's a tunnel or a bridge. There were quite a lot of segments of Big Beaver Creek tagged as culverts, but in aerial imagery there is clearly a bridge instead. In general, if you get a warning message that you're not able to resolve, it's better to just upload with the warning still in place instead of making something up. That way, the problem is visible to everybody, and someone can hopefully fix it later. Thanks!
OhioGeographer (2026-04-23 04:52:55+00:00): Totally understandable. It likely was an oversight from me, and this was one of my older changes on the site. Although I haven't been mapping on OSM a lot lately, I likely will map more in the future and this actually does help a lot for when I map streams later on. Thanks.
Hayleox (2026-04-23 05:27:05+00:00): Thanks, appreciate it! And yeah, would love to see more people active in southern Ohio! I'm hoping to eventually get the forest cover all the way to the border with West Virginia. If you're not already there, you're welcome to join us on OSM US Slack in the #local-ohio channel (and possibly also #forest-mapping if you're into that)! :D
rohieb (2025-05-29 22:58:49+00:00): Argh, node ≠ node… https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4364868 meinte ich
archpdx (2025-06-04 06:33:18+00:00): Given that this stretch mainly consists of RIRO junctions, this would be considered a borderline case as outlined in this wiki article: http://osm.wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance#Exceptions_and_Borderline_Cases

Because of this, this stretch of Central shouldn't be changed from its current classification without consultation with the local community. I ask that you please revert these changes until consensus is reached with the community.
btwhite92 (2025-06-07 15:10:24+00:00): Hi there,
Would like to second the comment above - this does not meet 'motorway' standards for CA. There was a considerable effort a couple years ago to enumerate all motorway and trunk roads in the state, please see the following:  

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classification_Guidelines

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/Freeway_ends
archpdx (2025-06-08 08:16:27+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167339056
idkwhatname2use (2025-06-11 18:40:05+00:00): Thanks for letting me know, I was not aware of this at all!
DwarfNebula_ (2025-06-02 12:54:28+00:00): Hey Leo,

Eggie verwees me door naar jou (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166983145). Waarom zouden deze er als disused op moeten staan? Afgezien van de tegels is er geen spoor terug te vinden dat hier bushaltes hebben gezeten (halte bordjes zijn ook weg). Ik hoor graag van je!
Leo Slager (2025-06-02 14:29:40+00:00): Tja, dat is weer zo'n grijs gebied.
Als de gemeente de zaak volledig verwijderd had, zou er geen bezwaar bestaan om de halte van de kaart te verwijderen. Nu het platform en de verhoogde trottoirband duidelijk maken dat dit een bushalte was, kies ik er voor om die halte als disused:..  aan te merken.
Verder zie je vaak dat zo een halte bij een volgende wijziging van de dienstregeling weer in gebruik wordt genomen en dan scheelt het veel tijd bij het opzoeken van gegevens en de juiste positie.
Veelzeggend is ook dat de busmaatschappij de gegevens van de halte niet verwijderd heeft uit het landelijke halte bestand.
Mijn eerste reactie is dus altijd om de halte als disused: aan te merken.
LordGarySugar (2025-11-22 00:02:41+00:00): Approximately how long ago was this?
SomeoneElse2 (2025-05-30 07:55:54+00:00): Hello - it looks like this edit introduced a small spur to the Wales Coast Path - I've split https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1390827060 so that hopefully it's contiguous again.
Glassman (2025-05-30 23:14:08+00:00): #TIP: you might also want to add the unit number since it appears that a number of businesses occupy the building
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166946939
joost schouppe (2025-07-15 11:35:54+00:00): Something went wrong with the nature reserve here: the relation was added twice, the admin level was set to 1 (but it's not even an admin area) and the way was tagged with the same tags as the relation. I've tried to simplify at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168960758
eggie (2025-05-30 05:55:51+00:00): reverted by changeset Wijzigingenset #166953133

Beste .. Het is niet de bedoeling om wegen ook al zijn ze prive uit OSM te verwijderen.
access=private was hier al toegevoegd.
MVG
eggie
NeisBot (2025-05-30 00:18:34+00:00): Hi Mariane Rodrigues, 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=166947256
woodpeck (2025-05-30 13:45:53+00:00): User deleted their own mapping - apparently place=plot which is unwanted anyway?
Xvtn (2025-05-31 01:08:27+00:00): Hi tcarlisle,
In the future, can you please write a more descriptive changeset comment? To keep data quality high, I and others review others' changesets. [0] Having a descriptive changeset with a summary, justification, or other info makes it much easier for the community to skim changes. There is a wiki article about good changeset comments. [1]
For example, for this changeset you might put something short like "Add fences, improve stream geometry, improve rail depot features".

[0] https://osmcha.org/?filters=%7B%22users%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22tcarlisle%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22tcarlisle%22%7D%5D%2C%22date__gte%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22%22%7D%5D%2C%22checked%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22Both%20Good%20or%20Bad%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22True%22%7D%5D%7D

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
tcarlisle (2025-05-31 03:21:19+00:00): I’ll do my best to improve, and I appreciate the feedback. That said, I want to be honest—I'm unlikely to go into extensive detail moving forward. I know that might not be the ideal response, and I don't mean it to come off negatively.

The reason is based on a past experience where a well-intentioned, detailed description led to a serious misunderstanding with another user. Despite my efforts to clarify, things escalated, and it ended up causing ongoing issues outside of the platform. It wasn’t entirely their fault or mine, but I realized afterward that a simpler comment would’ve avoided the situation altogether.

Since then, I’ve adopted a more minimal approach to commenting—not out of disregard, but out of caution. I focus instead on making the highest quality edits I can. In my experience with OpenStreetMap, too much explanation sometimes opens the door to more miscommunication, not less.

That said, I do understand the value of comments for collaboration, and I’ll make an effort to be a bit more clear when it’s helpful. I’m always open to constructive dialogue and working with others, but I also want to avoid repeating a situation that was difficult and counterproductive.
eggie (2025-05-30 05:48:47+00:00): Dag TPM....   
Het water ontbrak. Ik heb dat toegevoegd.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-05-30 05:43:49+00:00): Dag TPM  Maar die bomen staan er toch gewoon? 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=166947558

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-05-30 05:41:40+00:00): Dag TPM Wat doet een grenspaal midden in het vaarwater.
De straat naam is her Geldersesluis toch niet Waterschap Vallei en Veluwe?

Graag reactie
MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-05-30 05:44:21+00:00): Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=166947892
eggie (2025-05-30 05:53:21+00:00): Fixed impossible oneway=yes
Fixed streetname
evgenykatyshev (2025-05-30 05:04:34+00:00): I reverted you edit. You've created useless multipolygon for bridge

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166951882
NeisBot (2025-05-30 02:03:49+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-05-30 06:59:46+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted due to lack of response from the original contributor by https://osm.org/changeset/166955144
archpdx (2025-06-04 06:50:56+00:00): Although it is true that many tourists visit Laguna Beach, given its population is only ~20K it wasn't considered a population center of inter-regional importance (although it looks like it was listed as a potential borderline case). https://osm.wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classification_Guidelines

The US community has also been trying to form a more coherent network of motorways and trunk roads in recent years, and avoiding spurs and islands of these classifications as mentioned here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance#Classification

Because of this, I think it's best to leave Laguna Canyon as primary  before further discussion with the community.
archpdx (2025-06-08 08:17:39+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167339109
Roydon Olive (2025-06-10 09:18:51+00:00): Thanks for noticing this! I visited to investigate. It looks like they had a concrete path at normal sidewalk width, and then later they added a second section of concrete the same width right beside it to double the width (one side of the concrete looks newer and recent). So it looks like it started looking like a normal sidewalk, hence the appearance in the aerial imagery, and then later they came back and widened it to make it a multi-use path. I will update the map to what I found on the ground.
NeisBot (2025-05-30 02:23:10+00:00): Hi schoolacount31415926535, welcome and thank you for your contribution to the OSM project!

To help improve collaboration and make your edits easier for others to understand, please consider providing brief descriptions of your changes in the comment field. This will make it easier for the community to follow your adjustments. You can find some helpful tips on good comments here: https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Furthermore, based on your map edits in this changeset, I’ve drafted a suggestion for what a comment could look like: "Removed playground and recreation ground tags, replaced with cushion playground theme and accessibility information"

PS: I’ve also sent this message via the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#HelpfulComment #AIgenerated #Gibberish
skfd (2026-04-18 06:12:55+00:00): Helloo! I also do gbfs for Canadian cities, and Quebec is always up to date, very nice!

Noticed one node being a duplicate of another node in same place, it also does not have amenity tag, please review -- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12847955725
wolfy1339 (2026-04-18 12:08:43+00:00): That node would be out of date.

I must've missed that one when running conflation.
I just updated the stations the other day
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-14 04:30:40+00:00): DWG revert - fictitious mapping

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167598555
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-14 04:33:06+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167598585
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-18 05:47:52+00:00): DWG revert - poor quality mapping & unresponsive user

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167765259
Scottie0001 (2025-06-10 12:54:22+00:00): Hi, these place tags were tagged as villages based on popular perception rather than population as per the Australian Tagging Guidelines:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Places
pwbriggs (2025-06-01 03:53:03+00:00): Thanks for the contribution!

Your usage of `house=terraced` looks good to me.

One thing I would note is that we generally try to "preserve the history" of objects by *changing* them rather than deleting & creating new objects. In this example, you've deleted the original `building=apartments`. However, since the new `house=terraced` units refer to the same physical object that the original single building referred to, it might make more sense semantically to adjust the shape and tagging of the original building into one of the individual houses (and then create additional townhouse areas for the other houses in the row). See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history for more info.

I did also notice that you have both `addr:housenumber` and `addr:unit` on each house. This is probably correct, but I'm not sure (I've never used `addr:unit` myself before). I've asked OSM US for a review (https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ #tagging)

Thanks again for the contributions and welcome (back?) to OpenStreetMap!
Glassman (2025-06-01 17:33:12+00:00): addr:unit is needed when multiple addresses have the same addr:housenumber as these do. Typically most condo and many retail and commercial buildings host multiple businesses.
pwbriggs (2025-06-02 03:23:08+00:00): Okay, thanks for confirming. Looks like you're good to continue mapping these buildings @HackBug! Thanks!
HackBug (2025-06-02 03:25:54+00:00): Thanks all, I'm going to do some scouting tomorrow and make sure I have the unit numbers right. I'll try to make sure not to delete the old object next time. :)
pwbriggs (2025-06-02 05:04:04+00:00): Sounds good, thanks! And don't worry too much about preserving the old object if you accidentally delete it-- it's not that big a deal.

Happy mapping!
NeisReview (2025-05-30 08:46:23+00:00): #DeletionsCheck

Hi, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed many of your changes in this set involve deletions.

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

Looking forward to your response.
woodpeck (2025-05-30 10:20:18+00:00): I am reverting this deletion which claims to be "for safety reasons". Please do not delete existing infrastructure from OSM for any reason.
eggie (2025-05-30 05:38:11+00:00): Dag nl0wnd,
Het vervolg van de eenrichtingsweg heeft een uitzondering voor tweewielers. Dat is bijna altijd zo. Ik heb de uitzondering toegevoegd. Het zal anders niet naar behoren routeren.

MVG
eggie
NeisReview (2025-05-30 08:46:17+00:00): #DeletionsCheck

Hi, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed many of your changes in this set involve deletions.

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

Looking forward to your response.
rempshaener (2025-05-30 19:10:16+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.
Du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Ich habe hier nur eine Anmerkung:
Hydranten sollten nicht mit Straßen oder Flächen verbunden werden.
Das lässt sich schnell beheben: im Editor „E“ drücken und der Hydrant löst sich von der Straße.
Vielen Dank für deinen Beitrag und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen.
Viele Grüße
rempshaener (2025-05-30 19:38:28+00:00): Hallo,

du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Du hast ein Objekt überarbeitet, das habe ich mir angeschaut.
Das Objekt war bislang ein Sauganschluss 1xA, der sich aus Grundwasser speist, also ein Löschwasserbrunnen für den Saugbetrieb mit festem A-Sauganschluss.
Nach deiner Umstellung „von Hydrant auf Löschwasserzisterne“ passen die Daten jetzt nicht mehr richtig zusammen.

Wenn

couplings=2

gilt und es sich jeweils um Storz A handelt, müsste auch noch couplings:diameters=A;A
ergänzt werden.
Dann hast du

emergency=water_tank
man_made=storage_tank

ergänzt. Das passt weder zu

fire_hydrant:position=parking_lot
fire_hydrant:pressure=suction
fire_hydrant:type=pipe
(es handelt jetzt technisch um keinen Hydranten mehr)
noch zu
water_source=groundwater
(das wäre eher was für einen Brunnen, nicht für eine Zisterne) und spricht insbesondere für eine Wasserentnahme aus offenem Wassertank – was aber nicht zu 2xA passt.


Vielleicht bist du über „Hydrant“ gestolpert. In OSM ist ein Hydrant nicht nur ein Unter- oder Überflurhydrant, sondern z. B. auch ein fest verrohrter Sauganschluss.
Im besten Fall hättest du einfach nur auf water_source=water_tank umstellen müssen.

Worum genau handelt es sich denn?

Bei Fragen bitte melden.
Viele Grüße
Mapiate (2025-09-15 16:04:44+00:00): Hi, 

The one-ways added to this roundabout https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1390874350/history seem to be applied in the wrong direction. Can you review and correct as needed?
Lkumar_lyft (2025-09-16 11:55:06+00:00): Hi, Mapiate,

My name is Lalit, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for addressing it.
I apologize for adding incorrect directionality.  I have changed the oneway direction in the changeset.


 Best regards, Lalit
Lkumar_lyft (2025-09-16 12:47:40+00:00): This is a link to the Changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172007347#map=19/43.512037/-79.821261&layers=N