piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisReview (2025-07-18 04:18:54+00:00): #NameCheck

Hello and welcome to OSM.

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits, particularly those concerning the names you've added or modified.

Some of these names caught my attention as they are quite unique or a bit unusual. Could you please confirm if these additions were intentional or if they might have been added mistakenly?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
Baloo Uriza (2025-07-18 13:33:30+00:00): Always a good feeling when it comes to Flock.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169066125
literan (2025-07-17 19:11:50+00:00): не надо добавлять в url параметры utm - это расценивается как реклама и будет вычищено. Вы, при продолжении, можете быть заблокированы
mavl (2025-07-18 13:17:52+00:00): @Grand Line  
Здравствуйте. В теге name указывают только название. Информацию о том, что это офис продаж (или автомойка, или магазин, или кафе, или что угодно) добавлять не нужно. Об этом можно почитать на странице:  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:name  
  
О теге website можно почитать на странице:  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:website  
  
Ваши пакеты правок частично отменены и добавленные данные изменены.
TrickyFoxy (2025-07-19 08:49:26+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169141691
habi (2025-07-17 20:28:00+00:00): Ciao Peter

Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap!
Schön machst du hier mit und hilfst, die Karte und die Kartendaten zu pflegen.

Ich nehme nicht an, das das Haus wirklich als Name "Wave Nr. 80" hat, oder?
Die 80 ist wohl die Hausnummer?
Gruss aus Bern,
habi
Lezurex (2025-07-18 08:58:48+00:00): Ja die 80 ist die Hausnummer. Der Name ist meines Wissens nicht am Gebäude angeschrieben, der wurde einfach vom Architekturbüro vergeben. Kann man denke ich so lassen. Habe die 80 entfernt und den Image-Link noch auf eine direkte Bild-URL gesetzt: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169097590
Peter Ambühl (2025-07-18 11:57:14+00:00): Danke für die Rückmeldung, 80 ist die Hausnummer, der Name Wave kommt aus dem Projekt und steht auch an auf einer Plakette an den Briefkästen. Die Stoweg heisst auch Wave und im Dorf spricht man auch vom Wave, da die Balkone Wellenförmig sind.
FeetAndInches (2025-08-03 00:58:10+00:00): Hi there!

I am the person who originally traced this apartment building. Could you please explain why you deleted it and replaced it, and why you didn't replace any of the other apartments? Then I will know how to do it right the first time.

Thanks!
neuhausr (2025-08-03 03:06:03+00:00): Hi, I forget exactly what the issue was (I think self-intersection?), but it was flagged on OSM Inspector. https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-93.12179&lat=41.85282&zoom=7&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.95&overlays=self_intersection_ways
unni-geo (2025-08-27 09:33:18+00:00): FYI: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171069648
BCNorwich (2025-07-17 18:11:45+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've changed the business to a POI instead of the whole building.
Gregory Peony (2025-07-17 21:29:53+00:00): Hi, you certainly made an improvement to the map data here but didn't tag the highway correctly. You correctly deleted the secondary highway in the East here and recognised that the Western one should aslo not be tagged as such, but it is also not a path, because it is wide enough for a car to drive on as evidenced by the erroded tracks on the ground visible in the imagery and its width. I tagged it as unclassified instead. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169067336
Aralqum (2025-07-22 16:37:00+00:00): Hi Gregory Peony, Thanks for updating the highway!
Gregory Peony (2025-07-22 19:41:05+00:00): You're welcome; thank you for responding!
bagis (2025-08-11 06:25:20+00:00): Din lägesjustering av nod 441194290 medför att cykelbanan och tracket nu ligger helt fel. Jag har svårt att se att detta är en förbättring. Varför anser du att denna föändring är viktig och en förbättring?
archie (2025-08-11 07:09:33+00:00): ok, kolla en gång till. cykelbanan är skyltat som gc-väg och får alltså användas även av gångtrafikanter. Service-vägar har vi i Sverige - som en annan svensk mappare uttryckte sig helt korrekt "ute på landet efter sista bebodda huset" - inte i bostadsområden. 
Ändrad och lägesjusterat.
archie (2025-08-11 07:10:53+00:00): Vill du underförstått antyda att det saknar betydelse huruvida vägarna har rätt placering?
bagis (2025-08-11 07:36:36+00:00): Jag förstår inte ditt svar kring GC och serviceväg då jag inte har haft någon synpunkt på det.
Det jag såg var att din justering gjorde att vändplanen låg mer korrekt, dock så medförde det att de två vägarna låg helt fel och nästan gick genom hus. Så ser det inte ut varken på imagery eller i verkligheten. I detta fallet anser jag nog att om vändplatsen ligger lite "fel" så blir helheten mer korrekt.
Den justering du nu gjort anser jag är en acceptabel kompromiss.
archie (2025-08-11 07:39:33+00:00): Jag tror visst att du driver med mig. Noden för vändplatsen ligger så rätt som det kan bli. Inga vägar gick nästan genom hus. Vad använder du för bildbakgrund?
bagis (2025-08-11 07:54:34+00:00): Har ingen avsikt att driva med dig eller någon annan. Jag såg denna ändring som du gjorde för 25 dagar sedan då du justerade positionen på vändplanen (nod 441194290). Då gick https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1410293789 och https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37636084, nästan igenom husen och stämde varken med NVDB, Lantmäterietes Ortophoto eller verkligheten.
I https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170276804 som du gjort för cirka 40 minuter sedan har dessa vägar nu fått "en krok" på väg in mot vändplatsen vilket för mig är tillräckligt bra för att justera det jag brydde mig om.
archie (2025-08-11 08:18:45+00:00): Så, så ser "nästan" ut för dig (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=169067651). 
Om du riktar kritik avseende detta "nästan" med bakgrund av hur det ser ut lägesmässigt i både området och på övriga ställen, så är du ute i andra, ohemula, syften. Du raljerar ju också med att nämna ordet "förbättring" två gånger efter varandra, dels som fråga samt dels som påstående. Det här är inte ok från din sida!
archie (2025-08-11 08:31:18+00:00): Ditt påstående i din inledande kommentar   "medför att cykelbanan och tracket nu ligger helt fel. " måste väl betraktas som en synnerligen otrevlighet från dig gentemot mig. Uttrycket "Helt fel" brukar inte användas vid avvikelser som är så minimala som det här är fråga om.
bagis (2025-08-11 09:08:32+00:00): Ja, min inledande kommentar skrev jag för hastigt. Den var tämligen dåligt formulerad. Ber om ursäkt för det.
archie (2025-08-11 09:26:04+00:00): Ok, då glömmer vi det här.
bagis (2025-08-11 09:39:59+00:00): Bra vi kunde reda ut det trots min fyrkantiga ingång. Ha det bra tills nästa gång våra kartvägar möts.
archie (2025-08-11 09:48:04+00:00): Ingen fara. Jag har nog gjort värre saker mot andra i denna genre än vad du har åstadkommit här. 

Du noterade förresten att jag lade in rätt många garager? 
Ha det!
bagis (2025-08-11 09:56:23+00:00): Nej, garageuppdateringarna har jag inte sett. Springer mest runt med StreetComplete och pillar sedan på sådant som jag snubblar över.
NeisBot (2025-07-17 15:39:42+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
pitscheplatsch (2025-07-23 07:16:24+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted due to lack of response from the original contributor by https://osm.org/changeset/169327087
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-08-06 11:13:45+00:00): W jaki sposób ta uwaga była zweryfikowana?
OSMCowboy (2025-07-18 19:00:28+00:00): Correction: Source used was ESRI World Imagery
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169068606
uprkos (2025-07-18 19:45:08+00:00): Cześć, dzięki za zmiany i rozwiązywanie uwag w okolicy, to bardzo pomocne i potrzebne. 

Mam kilka drobnych skazówek:
1. J. K. Karpiński Nieruchomości oznaczyłeś jako sklep spożywczy - to może być błąd.
2. Nazwy sklepów i firm zapisujemy wielką literą, ale nie całość capslokiem.
3. Nazwa jest tylko nazwą własną. Jeśli antykwariat nazywa się Aurum, to wystarczy zapisać tylko tę nazwę. To że jest to antykwariat wynika z otagowania.

Powodzenia i dobrej zabawy z mapowaniem!
uprkos (2025-07-18 19:45:58+00:00): To może się przydać: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Nazwy
TommyRobloxOfficial (2025-07-25 17:40:04+00:00): Dopiero się ucze korzystać z OSM, na pierwszy rzut oka nie zobaczyłem odpowiedniego znacznika na sklep J. K. Karpiński Nieruchomości, nazwa sklepu była napisana capslockiem na google maps więc też dałem nazwe capslockiem, i już będe wiedział na przyszłość nie musze dopisywać do nazwy typu budynku, czyli w tym przypadku antykwariat. Dziękuję za wskazówki!
Comino (2025-07-17 18:27:23+00:00): Hi Bitcoin Amantikir,

In your edit you use the deprecated tag "payment:bitcoin=yes".

Please DELETE the payment:bitcoin=yes tag !
Use the "currency:XBT=yes" instead.

For more information please read: https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-general/wiki/Tagging-Merchants#legacy-tags
and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Happy mapping,

Edwin
silversurfer83 (2025-07-17 18:14:38+00:00): Hi there :)

please watch out for "lines" that define borders of any kind. Please DO NOT connect anything else to them.

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169069011
royus7 (2025-07-20 15:02:42+00:00): sad truths
mavl (2025-07-18 15:00:41+00:00): Здравствуйте. Подскажите, пожалуйста, зачем вы удалили адреса со зданий?
addr: (2025-07-30 06:53:47+00:00): Здравствуйте. 
Думаю дело в том, что они не правильные, если судить по кадастровой карте и панорамам, все три здания имеют номер 2.  
Так же, Wiki написано, что повторяющихся номеров домов быть не должно, что бы не было неоднозначности адресации. Если на территории одного ЖК несколько домов под одним адресом, то нужно не добавлять к каждому зданию повторяющийся адрес, а сделать мультиполигон с адресом объединяющий полигоны здания, или добавить адрес на всю территорию ЖК, что и было сделано.
Похоже сейчас на карту вернули исправленную ранее ошибку.
mavl (2025-07-30 07:32:02+00:00): Дубликаты адресов вполне обычное явление.
addr: (2025-07-30 08:05:57+00:00): Да, бывает. Но в работе нужно руководствоваться какой то инструкцией. Это позволяет достигать предсказуемого результата, и уменьшает количество спорных ситуаций.
В этой правке я придерживался рекомендаций статьи про адресацию в OSM Wiki, по этому не вижу проблемы добавить адрес на полигон ЖК

Вот из вики:
"Несколько зданий с одним адресом
Это часто встречается на фермах, заводах и школах. В таком случае допускается нарисовать линию по периметру объекта и добавить на нее адресные и другие общие теги, например название. Данный подход позволяет избежать избыточности в данных. Если здания не могут быть объединены единым периметром (например, школа из двух зданий в квартале друг от друга), используйте отношения multipolygon или site. "
...
"Адреса, присвоенные по одному адресообразующему элементу ― объекту дорожной сети (улице) либо элементу планировочной структуры (территории), ― формируются так, чтобы быть уникальными. Это является требованием "Правил присвоения и аннулирования адресов", утвержденных правительством РФ. Вероятно, из этого существуют случайные исключения, являющиеся нарушениями (например ― два дома № 10 по одной улице), однако это редкость. Существует неверная практика дублирования адресных тегов. Такое дублирование, возможно, облегчает обработку данных для сопоставления всех организаций с адресами, однако создает избыточность данных, которая не может быть устранена, если целью обработки является получение адресов самих по себе (например, для поиска с выбором адреса), так как при дублировании нет никакой возможности определить, какой из нескольких одинаковых адресов является реально существующим."

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%90%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B0#%D0%9D%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2
Andrea Musuruane (2025-07-19 08:43:56+00:00): Ciao. Il "bar" italiano si etichetta con amenity=cafe e non con amenity=bar (che è invece usato per gli american bar). Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169069424
NeisBot (2025-07-17 16:21:59+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
pitscheplatsch (2025-07-23 07:18:03+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element https://osm.org/changeset/169178396
kuhni74 (2025-11-12 23:57:13+00:00): why did you delete wikidata?
eerib (2025-07-17 16:22:40+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted as it has been identified as vandalism. Continued vandalism will result in an account block.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169069737
JimmyJones999 (2025-07-17 16:39:01+00:00): Not vandalism. Original uploaded is mistaken
pavvv (2025-07-17 20:15:16+00:00): No ale jednak to nie żaden ogród. We Wrocławiu, całe szczęście, nie używa się tak tego tagu. Uważam to za tagowanie pod render. natural=shrubbery było prawidłowe.
Dawid2849 (2025-07-18 10:10:09+00:00): Nie skasowałem tagu natural shrubbery, a opis ogrodu na wiki jest tak ogólny, że taki skrawek natury jak najbardziej można pod ogród zaliczyć. Na angielskiej wiki w garden:type (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type) jest wartość street_side, która ma odnośnik do artykułu na ogólnej Wiki właśnie o roślinności na poboczu
eerib (2025-07-17 16:54:53+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted as it has been identified as vandalism. Continued vandalism will result in an account block.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169071040
eerib (2025-07-17 16:54:54+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted as it has been identified as vandalism. Continued vandalism will result in an account block.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169071040
JimmyJones999 (2025-07-17 17:08:05+00:00): It's hilarious that you insist on trying to map stuff that shouldnt be public and yet you don't even have all the actual, legal public mtb trails in town. C',mon mate. Concentrate your efforts in the right place.
eerib (2025-07-17 23:54:51+00:00): Would you be able to provide a list of the legal public mtb trails that are missing?
eerib (2025-07-17 17:03:32+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169071389
Strubbl (2025-07-17 18:38:03+00:00): Hallo XXXVII,
warum änderst du die Wege von path zu footway? Und du löscht zB. das foot=yes. Weißt du, was dies bedeutet? Hast du das Wiki dazu mal gelesen?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway=footway
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway=path
Ich bezweifele, dass an den ganz Zuwegen zu den Gebäude das Schild DE:239 steht. Kannst du das bitte wieder korrigieren?

Viele Grüße
XXXVII (2025-07-22 17:10:03+00:00): Das genannte Schild ist dafür keine Voraussetzung. In diesem Fall ergibt sich die Änderung durch die bauliche Gestaltung.
hamare_raaz (2025-07-17 18:28:43+00:00): Way 1415340621 is genuinely a particularly sensitive trail - is there a way to set its settings such that it appears on a minimal number of other OSM-based map services (esp. Trailforks, Gaia, and Strava) whilst still having it logged on OSM? For context, the trail has a 'legendary' status that attracts many MTB riders who are often severly under-skilled and under-prepared for the difficult and high-consequence trail, who then need to be rescued by either SAR or Whistler Blackcomb patrol. Over-use of the trail by under-skilled riders might result in decommissioning/closing of the trail; I support having it (accurately) on OSM, but it would be best for all involved if it were as hard-to-find as possible for casual mountain bikers using OSM-based mapping apps.
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-17 18:41:38+00:00): I'm glad at least one other person here has some level of common sense and local knowledge.
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-17 22:46:29+00:00): No comment eerib? Continuing to map this trail is dangerous and any injuries occurring will be on your hands.
eerib (2025-07-17 23:12:06+00:00): Thank you for pointing this out. I've added metadata for the trail in changeset #169083272. I've added the name of the trail, difficulty ratings, marked the trail as unsanctioned, and added a description.

The trail looks to be within Whistler's Controlled Recreation Area and therefore may have a legal access restriction. I am not up to date on the legal restrictions of the CRA and therefore did not add a legal access restriction.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169083272
eerib (2025-07-17 17:07:50+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted as it has been identified as vandalism. Continued vandalism will result in an account block.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169071560
eerib (2025-07-17 17:25:16+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted as it has been identified as vandalism.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169072389
hamare_raaz (2025-07-17 18:20:21+00:00): The ex-mayor of Whistler did the trail...
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-17 18:23:49+00:00): I'm sure if Ken wanted it public he'd have made it so by now.... See The Thing.
hamare_raaz (2025-07-17 18:33:17+00:00): Hard to say; The Thing wasn't on OSM until yesterday.
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-17 18:42:59+00:00): It's been on Trailforks since it was built. Initially hidden and marked as sensitive for the first year or so, then made publicly available. Given Kens relationship with Worca I assume that was all entirely deliberate.
hamare_raaz (2025-07-17 23:07:25+00:00): Fair enough. It has been on OSM for 9 months but that's mostly been over winter; hopefully no one will be injured on it this summer due to OSM.
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-17 17:51:19+00:00): 0 public benefit in having this trail, or any of the trails in this zone, publicly viewable
user_18023081 (2025-07-17 18:07:37+00:00): @MomentSkiGuy go back to Google Maps if half-decent trail mapping bothers you that much
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-17 18:23:05+00:00): Dangerous trail mapping. 
Not everything in the world needs to be online. 
The trail users who are good enough to ride this trail would find it without help. 
Everyone else shouldnt be here.
user_18023081 (2025-07-17 19:45:12+00:00): Not a reason to delete paths

AND to make multiple sockpuppet accounts
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-17 20:29:04+00:00): "Not a reason to delete paths" - Says who? If OSM and it's users don't provide a way to hide trails that shouldn't be public that is a reason to remove a path as there is no other option. 
No one here has given a good reason as to why these trails need to be shared publicly other that 'this is how is it' and 'this is what we do'.
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-17 20:33:29+00:00): Why should 1 or 2 users be the arbiters of when a trail location is shared to the public? Especially when it's been deliberately kept that way for decades? 
No local knowledge, history, context, feet on the ground... Did they discuss with the local trail org or SAR before adding?
eerib (2025-07-17 23:21:44+00:00): You're welcome to create a discussion topic on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum regarding trails to get community feedback. You're also welcome to propose a new policy and tag that would introduce the ability to hide trails.

https://community.openstreetmap.org

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process

Rationale for OpenStreetMap's policy regarding trails has been provided to you several times so it's not just "how it is". Additional explanations have also been provided in various changeset discussions with yourself and other mountain bike users over the past week.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

You've had your say but you don't necessarily get to have your way. You need to reach out to the wider OpenStreetMap community and get consensus if you want to change something with regards to OpenStreetMap's policies.
MomentSkiGuy (2025-07-17 23:34:53+00:00): Again, you have refused to engage with the debate and instead hide behind OSM policy.

I'm glad you've accepted that you are now partially responsible for any injuries and SAR callouts that may happen here, because thats not something I'd want on my head. 

"Rationale for OpenStreetMap's policy regarding trails has been provided to you several times so it's not just "how it is"." - the OSM policy is literally, this is how it is on the ground and so how it should be on the map. Which conveniently ignores all of the good reasons why that sort of black and white, absolutist policy is ridiculous.
kitsee (2025-07-18 10:56:38+00:00): Your argument a frankly ridiculous. as the wiki page states, OSM is a database so the trail exists then it should be mapped, full stop. there are various access and difficulty tags applied on top to restrict or discourage or inform use which appears to have all ready been partly done already in this case with the addition of `access=discouraged informal=yes`. 

"OSM Policy" as you called it is not a arbitrary decision made by some anonymous exec at a company. these are standards which the community as a whole have decided on. going against them like this is going against all of us and the way you talking about it is frankly insulting. This could have been handled a 100% better by taking it to the forums for so the community may have discussed it. resorting to a revert war is just pathetic and a waste of people's time.

I see you main account has now been banned. Please be better in future if you still which to be part of this community.
ceirios (2025-07-18 13:14:59+00:00): > “you are now partially responsible for any injuries and SAR callouts that may happen here”

REMOVING valid data makes it so much more difficult for emergency services, especially in areas like this with a lot of tree cover. Not having the trail mapped could lead responders down the wrong path in a situation where time is paramount, and potentially leave them underprepared. This point does not stand up in any way.