piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
scai (2025-11-22 18:38:28+00:00): Hi Andreas,

die Änderungen auf der Wikidata-Seite hatte ich auch selbst durchgeführt. Das ist für den iD-Editor aber nicht relevant, die Lizenz von Wikidata ist nicht mit der von OSM kompatibel, so dass Daten von dort nicht ohne weiteres übernommen werden dürfen.

Die derzeit noch falschen Daten in iD müssten meines Wissens nach vom name-suggestion-index (NSI, https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index) kommen. Dort hatte ich die Informationen eigentlich auch aktualisiert. Möglicherweise dauert es jedoch etwas, bis der aktuelle Stand in iD ankommt. Hier kenne ich mich leider nicht aus, wann oder wie oft Aktualisierungen durchgeführt werden, oder ob ich alles korrekt im NSI aktualisiert habe.

Schauen wir mal, ich hoffe dass demnächst keine neuen, falschen Einträge mehr entstehen werden :)

Grüße
Alex
Cucazer (2025-11-17 00:47:48+00:00): Nice, but why this changeset on top of the previous one? Seemed ok before that...
Руслан Мамедов (2025-11-17 06:31:12+00:00): I'm sorry. I couldn't figure out how to do this.
HantDX (2025-11-16 21:44:59+00:00): О, а от усадьбы Неморшанских что-то ещё осталось там около больницы? Говорят руины усадьбы уже полностью сравняли с землёй.
mueschel (2025-11-17 13:09:01+00:00): Hi,
you added many "FIX_ME = YES" here - can this be changed to something more meaningful, if anything needs to be fixed at all?
Jvitegem (2025-11-25 04:51:40+00:00): Hi 
FIX_ME is a tag I use for internal purposes during an area review process. I didn't intend to upload this tag. That was a mistake.
I removed them.
notmyproblem1 (2025-11-16 20:21:20+00:00): per ridere volevo scrivere "Vedri? a no?" xD
Fizzie-DWG (2025-11-17 06:36:11+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18969
TrickyFoxy (2025-11-27 22:04:06+00:00): Какое приложение вы использовали для редактирования?
Paweł_M (2025-11-16 20:29:21+00:00): W sensie jest tu kran zamiast hydrantu.
eggie (2025-11-16 20:37:44+00:00): Hoi Richard..
..denomination=protestant ?
Wellicht die regel wehalen?

Mvg
eggie
eggie (2025-11-16 22:31:22+00:00): denomination protestant verwijderd
pwbriggs (2025-11-16 20:43:44+00:00): Thanks for cleaning that up! Remember that this is a live map ❤️

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap!
ilias_ (2025-11-16 21:53:29+00:00): Amazing job
kpv8 (2025-11-16 21:38:42+00:00): Czemu adres skasowałeś jak jest w nawet w e-mapie?
emilmaks (2025-11-16 21:49:03+00:00): Przejdź się ruch Ci Adamie dobrze zrobi i zobacz czy tam jeszcze firma istnieje? Rafał przeniósł działalność.
kpv8 (2025-11-16 21:56:11+00:00): Ja się nie pytam o POI tylko o adres.
kpv8 (2025-11-16 21:42:36+00:00): Czemu znowu kasujesz drzewa?
emilmaks (2025-11-16 21:50:38+00:00): Żebyś miał robote
emilmaks (2025-11-16 21:51:00+00:00): Poza tym krzewy nie są drzewami
NorthCrab_upload (2025-11-16 20:51:15+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/node/13309230030

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2025-11-16 20:51:12+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

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/2241268182
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2241271081
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/674260813
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/674260816

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Frans S (2025-11-17 11:24:21+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
A: Inaccurate mapping. 
E: Buildings not squared or rounded.
Mapped a yard a building.
High building(s) incorrect mapped. 
Check this footage how to map high buildings

https://youtu.be/dsfUcslLtVc?si=yH6eWDbsb_ILAVb9
 Or See par 20 chapter About Buildings



Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174745494
Frans S (2025-11-17 11:25:00+00:00): Please map only the objects as requested by the project
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174745494
Berdly (2025-11-18 15:37:15+00:00): Thank you very much for expanding this area! Nice to see a town I mapped some of be more mapped :)
Joseph R P (2025-11-19 01:14:13+00:00): My pleasure. I appreciate the recognition!
NeisBot (2025-11-17 07:13:25+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly.

In total, I detected 63 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
- https://osm.org/way/424008044 | crossings=9
- https://osm.org/way/424008047 | crossings=9
- https://osm.org/way/405158617 | crossings=9

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=174745598
user_5359 (2025-11-17 08:09:24+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please be carefull! You move four (!) nodes more than 100 meters!
I reverted your change set and rebuild your one ALPR object (see https://www.osm.org/changeset/174759684)
SomeoneElse (2025-11-17 00:37:18+00:00): Please use meaningful changeset comments.  "fix" doesn't really help anyone to understand what you were doing. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments should give you some ideas.
4004 (2025-11-16 22:45:01+00:00): retagged to trunk link
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174745876
MapMenMan (2025-11-17 19:56:37+00:00): The multi-level parking garage only encompasses the area North of the covered walkway. There is no underground section south of this roof. Should not be tagged as a building similar to other obscured underground areas such as those in the UCC Boole lecture theatres, the underground parking on Anderson Street, and the undergound sections of Camden Fort
VictorIE (2025-11-17 21:04:34+00:00): "Fun". :D

Thanks. Any thoughts about actual tagging?

The only reason I went near it was that Osmose was complaining that there was a car park node attached to a car park area.
MapMenMan (2025-11-17 23:34:42+00:00): This car park is a weird one. The underground portion has a closing time (which I can't recall right now), whereas the surface does not have a closing time. I feel that the way I had it tagged before worked as you could consider the upper and lower decks to be totally separate car parks with different restrictions in time and height. 

Simply having the two entrances to the lower deck tagged as "parking garage entrance/exit" could work, but as the upper and lower deck have different rules (and different signposted names which I discovered), I feel it would be appropriate to tag them as separate car parks.

Either way, I don't feel the building tag is appropriate because of the examples I mentioned previously
ilias_ (2025-11-16 21:38:04+00:00): Why did you remove all the tags from this relation?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4125637

As I said you're only creating a duplicate, your work would be way more useful adding the ways to the original relation.
NeisBot (2025-11-16 22:46:19+00:00): Hi oversized682, welcome to the OSM projekt and thanks for your contribution!

To make collaboration easier and help others understand your edits, it’s best to add a short description of the changes you made. Clear comments help the community follow your work and provide better feedback. You can find tips on writing good comments here[1].
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment #NoComment
NeisBot (2025-11-16 22:46:19+00:00): Here is a sample comment based on your map edits: "Added postcode and website"
keepright! ler (2026-01-05 14:46:01+00:00): For your info: The access restrictions you described don’t warrant a highway=motorway tag. In the future, please use motorroad=yes instead, with bicycle=no and foot=no for good measure (as I did in my changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176865082).
NorthCrab_upload (2025-11-16 22:00:55+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/node/13309448599

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
trial (2025-11-20 13:18:26+00:00): Salut, quelque chose me dit que tu as zappé deux voies au moins (sans compter que de la sortie du giratoire à Citroën il y a un petit problème de cohérence). Mais merci !
trial (2025-11-20 13:18:40+00:00): https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=174747921#21/47.80011/-3.47635
cpa8 (2025-11-20 21:17:04+00:00): Merci pour ta vérif, j'en ai profité pour repasser sur toute la zone.
Et merci pour l'outil, c'est plutôt pratique :)
trial (2025-11-20 21:22:33+00:00): je l'utilise pour surveiller une zone : je vérifie ce que font certains sur ma zone de confort (FeedBro sur FireFox : https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-tiles-feed?bbox= suivi de l'enveloppe qui t'intéresse)
michael63 (2025-11-21 21:34:32+00:00): Hello,
I think you misinterpreted one tag. You designated complete quarters within Istanbul as a pedestrian area. "highway=pedestrian" is a road or place exclusively reserved for pedestrians, see the explanation in the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=pedestrian?uselang=en.

Your mapping would mean that the whole area is one big square for pedestrians which is certainly not what you want.
yitimox (2025-11-22 10:38:41+00:00): please someone revert ts
michael63 (2025-11-22 11:49:57+00:00): I removed those highway=pedestrian assignments from the large areas, done with changeset 174984895
DeeBee Cooper (2025-11-17 13:44:30+00:00): There will be another 20 nodes to add, however I am waiting to see if this first node meets the standards.
user_5359 (2025-11-17 07:59:52+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/relation/19659380. There is a role via missing. Please have also a look on https://www.osm.org/note/5056073
ilias_ (2025-11-17 11:35:26+00:00): This changeset was reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174767223
MappingMapper12 (2025-11-16 22:42:17+00:00): Dear user, please do not use false tags. This change needs to be reverted. Thank you!
あじさか (2025-12-03 05:29:56+00:00): Thanks for the correction. I had confused genus with taxon. I’ll be careful from now on.
ilias_ (2025-11-16 22:55:05+00:00): What are you doing? I asked you to remove the duplicate you created like an hour ago, not the relation that has more than 90 versions and is 11 years old
ilias_ (2025-11-16 22:56:05+00:00): And why did you change this https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93797132 from 3 lanes to 0?
ilias_ (2025-11-17 11:34:05+00:00): This changeset was reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174767166
brdrsrsu (2025-11-16 23:41:28+00:00): Hello, why have all these long existing paths now been wrongly renamed to Peterova biciklistička staza? These paths ARE NOT NAMED! I personally was among the people marking the orange-heart Staze zdravlja around 5 years ago, Zoran marked all the hiking trails, and Peter is the guy making and maintaining MTB trails in the forests. But none of these newly renamed paths bear such a name, and it not definitely not ok to spray an invented name across all the paths where a mountain bike can pass. Please revert the name changes, as it is right now it looks like vandalism. Thank you
ilmar (2025-11-17 00:03:50+00:00): Hey, my friend, don’t be upset. Vandalism looks completely different, trust me. I just added the tags following the pattern of several segments that existed before. It looked strange to me too. I’ll remove the names from the segments themselves and leave them only on the main trail, no problem at all.
Also, maybe you can advise? I also added a marked section of an MTB trail a bit further east. The marker color is different there, so I assumed it’s probably a separate trail. But maybe it’s also part of Peter’s Trail?
brdrsrsu (2025-11-17 00:15:57+00:00): Thank you very much! Sorry, I got a bit surprised seeing these changes just before sleep. Yes, the second path is different. It was created and maintained by the same guy, Peter, because motorcyclists were destroying the first one in Daščanska šuma (the western one). So his words were that he "made a new trail" in Hrastovača, but as I haven't yet had the chance to follow his full new path through Hrastovača, I do not know whether they are connected anywhere.
ilmar (2025-11-17 00:42:24+00:00): Ok, thanks for the information!
We rode the trails in Hrastovača, they are great. I connected them to the current Peterova biciklistička staza, since they’re now linked by the tunnel under the railway, start right from there, and are ridden as a single track.
But my question was about the trail even further east, from Radanovačka šuma along Peščarina Street. I added almost all the segments, but for now I left it simply as a nameless MTB trail. I hope someone will give it the correct name someday.

I hvala za trejlove i putokaze, oni su odlični!
brdrsrsu (2025-11-17 06:52:16+00:00): I feel sorry for overreacting last night, and thank you very much for helping make the map of our area better! This new path you've traced I didn't know existed yet, but I will ask people about it. We go to these forests pretty much every week, and I know most of the guides and activists, but with kids, we don't usually manage to pass more than a kilometer or two before slowly circling back. Thank you, and have a great week!
NorthCrab_upload (2025-11-16 22:50:44+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/2183515573
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/315735638

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
ChrissW-R1 (2025-11-17 00:58:16+00:00): Reverted in changesets https://osm.org/changeset/174747883 and https://osm.org/changeset/174750514 to fix boundaries and other relations.
ChrissW-R1 (2025-11-17 00:58:17+00:00): Reverted in changesets https://osm.org/changeset/174747883 and https://osm.org/changeset/174750514 to fix boundaries and other relations.
MassCartog (2025-11-17 01:45:29+00:00): Mapping feature that do not exist and misusing the tagging system is considered Vandalism on OSM. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
Marek-M (2025-11-26 10:00:07+00:00): In Poland, pedestrian and bicycle paths without physical divisions are mapped as a single line with `segregated=yes/no` tag. Your edit requires a partial revert.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery#Drogi_dla_pieszych_i_rowerów
Marek-M (2025-11-26 10:32:28+00:00): Partial revert of this edition:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175147790
Marek-M (2025-11-26 10:55:49+00:00): I tried to partially restore this edit, but there were too many incorrect changes. I'm reverting this edit in its entirety.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175148725
Alexey Vazhnov (2025-11-26 15:12:47+00:00): Hello, Marek!

1. "mogą być rysowane" is not a "must be tagged only this way", right?
2. I see you're actively writing these "rules" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/?diff=2821515 but is there any Polish OSM community decision behind it? Or is it some personal opinion written into the wiki page?

I remember I've read thread https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-of-adjacent-cycleway-footway-sidewalk/108404 and I found there is no strict rule about such tagging.
Alexey Vazhnov (2025-11-26 15:41:54+00:00): + one more long thread to read (for me): https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-separated-footways-or-cycleways-along-central-street-as-one-tagged-line-versus-mutiple-lines/126766
Yog Sot (2025-11-26 17:18:11+00:00): @alexey, marek is part of the crusader force. He is presenting his personal opinion backed by some other ppl in his city. Basically he refuses rules you quote and will change em to prove himself right. The issue runs deeper tho. Yes, he cant remap your infoo that he reverted, but so is your mapping loosing some routing options. There are like 1000+ posts on this issue and ppl are still unwilling to solve it :]
Marek-M (2025-11-27 11:38:06+00:00): Everyone has personal preferences, including you, @Yog Sot. You've already aired your personal insults on the forum. If I may ask, please refrain from doing so in the changeset comments.

In the Tricity area, pedestrian and bicycle paths without physical separation are drawn with a single line, and this is the local community's decision. It's also visible on the map that this is the local standard.

Drawing such paths with two lines remains controversial (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery#Różne - ref S5), and forum posts suggest that nothing has changed.
Alexey Vazhnov (2025-11-28 19:53:12+00:00): Marek, could you please share a link to "the local community's decision" which **forbids** me to draw 2 roads with different surface as 2 ways?

Just a note for myself: I see you're okay with reverting someone's huge job https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/?diff=2821415 without even say "sorry" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny/Archive_2#Why_did_you_remove_my_translation,_which_I_worked_on_for_a_week?
Marek-M (2025-11-28 21:06:37+00:00): In OSM, it's difficult to say something is forbidden when the wiki allows different solutions to the same problem.

The topic of pedestrian and cycle paths has been discussed many times in various discussions, but the most relevant thread for the Tricity area is here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapowanie-ciagow-pieszo-rowerowych-w-aglomeracji-trojmiejska/120463

I don't know what you expect from this discussion. Basically, a lot of time can be wasted arguing over and over again about the superiority of one solution over another, and everyone will likely stick to their own opinion.
Yog Sot (2025-11-28 22:07:32+00:00): Oh wow, just say that I'm the definition of an insult itself xD
Really doesnt matter that much what you decided for your own city. What matters is that sidewalks and cycleways can be mapped separatelly, because it was decided so, so maps (especially carto) can actually render em. 
You map sidewalks separatelly even if there is just a lowered kerb separation. 

on this node
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1965654513
you should mark an unmarked crossing for a footway, but not for a cycleway. 
But you won't map it, because your not able. 
If someone maps it, you gonna delete it. 
Those are fact and you refuse to address em. 
But you call em insults instead.
Alexey Vazhnov (2025-11-28 23:14:20+00:00): Marek,

Why I've asked about the rule from community, which forbids this ^^^ changes:

If there is a change to the OSM, which reverts something, which is not forbidden, and removes information about smoothness, removes check_date tags, removes objects which are exist in the real world but were absent in OSM, adds object which is absent in the real world, adds wrong information about pedestrian access (maybe it is even dangerous for people's health) — is it okay to call such a change "vandalism"?
Yog Sot (2025-11-29 11:55:38+00:00): @Alexey, i gues we can remap some of your changes coz Marek is not trying to remap details like smoothness, that you added and he removed?
ChrissW-R1 (2025-11-17 00:58:19+00:00): Reverted in changesets https://osm.org/changeset/174747883 and https://osm.org/changeset/174750514 to fix boundaries and other relations.
Glassman (2025-11-18 03:32:57+00:00): #TIP: The ALRP's are not typically in the middle of the street. Can you fix?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174749123
Glassman (2025-11-18 03:34:07+00:00): I would appreciate if you could be more precise with the location of the node. Look for the shadow the pole makes to find the base location.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174749190
ChrissW-R1 (2025-11-17 00:58:21+00:00): Reverted in changesets https://osm.org/changeset/174747883 and https://osm.org/changeset/174750514 to fix boundaries and other relations.
frosm (2025-11-18 07:58:00+00:00): Bonjour,
merci pour ces améliorations.
cependant comme le suggère le validateur n'hésites pas à ajouter un nœud commun entre les différents cheminements comme ici https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13313020066
Bonne continuation
brdrsrsu (2025-11-16 23:48:51+00:00): Same as for the other changeset, this is vandalism. The paths in the forest do not bear this name. There is a specific trail, created by Peter from Subotoca, that has this name and is already properly tagged. But the paths themselves do not bear this name. Please revert
b-jazz (2025-11-17 06:43:01+00:00): RE: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1451207927

You shouldn't have two golf course features like the fairway and water hazard intersect/overlap like they do on Hole #4. Your fairway should go around the water. Otherwise, you are saying that everything in that overlap is both fairway grass and water at the same time.
❤️‍🔥 (2025-11-23 09:34:32+00:00): hey, this one is actually 4958. There is another set of TfNSW lights slightly futher south which was unmapped until now. Maybe that one is 4999? https://osm.org/relation/19873095
Lockstar (2025-11-25 21:45:18+00:00): Thanks for the heads up.  The info I have from TfNSW is that 4998 is the "DJLU Access" and 4999 is the "IMEX Terminal Access". I haven't been able to field verify these details, so your suggestion may be correct.
❤️‍🔥 (2025-11-26 23:54:32+00:00): thanks for the info, very helpful! these ones are correct now:
• 4999/IMEX: https://osm.org/relation/19873095
• 4958/Trajan St: https://osm.org/relation/19847239
• CCPIWE01: https://osm.org/relation/19873096
• QUBE noref: https://osm.org/relation/19873097


but now we have another puzzle, you said DJLU should be 4998, but it's currently mapped as 4514: https://osm.org/relation/19713913 - do you have any more details about 4514 ?
Lockstar (2025-11-29 04:26:32+00:00): I think 4514 is the old intersection before the Moorebank Av realignment.  This is now replaced by 4988 at the new alignment.
❤️‍🔥 (2025-12-01 12:45:24+00:00): i see, thanks. should be all correct now, appreciate your help