piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Vandana@28 (2026-04-17 01:44:38+00:00): Apologies for the mistake and Thank you for your valuable feedback. I will make sure to be more cautious in future. Thank you.
Vinber (2025-10-31 17:02:56+00:00): bonjour,
je vois que tu as mis operator:type=government y compris pour des écoles qui semblent privée. Dans ce cas c'est plutôt operator:type=private et public pour les écoles publiques.

est-ce ok si je refais une passe dessus ? ou est-ce qu'il y a des éléments que je ne connais pas qui explique cela ?
bonne carto
custodiankeyy (2025-07-23 22:28:39+00:00): Merhaba, zaten o bölge İpekyolu Ticaret Merkezi olarak işaretlenmiş. Ek olarak nokta koymaya gerek yok, siliyorum. Lütfen tekrar eklemeyin.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169369363
DD1GJ (2025-07-23 18:15:32+00:00): Revert, das ist der "offizielle" Adressknoten des Gebäudes Berliner Allee 69. Oxfam ist daneben.
LordGarySugar (2025-08-09 21:06:07+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170221005 - you added a duplicate tourism=museum and related address tags when there is already a way for Tacla Taid museum here
Vinber-Pro (2025-08-26 15:32:39+00:00): bonjour,
peut-être le +33 en début du téléphone non ? je pose la question car je crois que ce n'est pas toujours le cas !
mavl (2025-07-23 13:16:59+00:00): Здравствуйте. Подскажите, пожалуйста, вы уверены, что это правильное название института?
mavl (2025-07-24 16:10:45+00:00): Здравствуйте. Ваши изменения были отменены. Пожалуйста, добавляйте на карту только реальные объекты. Свои шутки вы можете присылать на сайт  
  
https://www.anekdot.ru/
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-23 12:51:20+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

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/920711727

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
rskedgell (2025-07-23 16:59:17+00:00): It was already tagged correctly, by you, 10 years ago. Deleting the highway tag in order to hide it from the map is essentially vandalism. I've restored that and removed the redundant access tags.

No pedestrian routing software will send people down a highway=footway + foot=private way, unless the software is hopelessly broken.

If locals are using it as a shortcut because the gate at the S end is unlocked, attempting to remove or hide the path will not help.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
WDC_CKennett (2025-08-21 18:13:40+00:00): Mmm ... I don't appreciate the opening accusation of vandalism and attempting to hide anything. Some polite guidance on the correct way to do things and avoid future mistakes would go a long way.
rskedgell (2025-08-21 22:43:39+00:00): You could have read the documentation from links within the iD editor which you used, to understand the meaning of a tag before deleting or changing it. If you really didn't know what the effect of deleting the highway tag would be, you shouldn't have done it. I apologise for using the term vandalism when reckless might have been more apt.
Josef73 (2026-07-05 14:52:42+00:00): Guten Tag, hat die Hirsch Apotheke (133173488), v10 auch am Montag geöffnet?
galen8183 (2025-11-11 03:38:47+00:00): Hi, splitting this roundabout broke PTv2 relations for route 78 -- I've fixed them up here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174491103

Please make sure routes are intact after editing them! Thanks
sanjanasharma_lyft (2025-11-13 07:00:20+00:00): Hi galen8183,

My name is Sanjana, and I'm a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for your insight. Regarding my edits- I added lane details in this changeset. To accurately apply lane tags. I divided one segment into two shorter ways. Initially, there were two relations on the roundabout & after the split it remained on all the segments. The bus relations have remained where it was.
In any case I apologize if I unintentionally broke the PTv2 relations. Thank you for promptly correcting the relation and your contribution! Unfortunately, bus relations are not our area of expertise & are not within the scope of the lanes project https://github.com/Test-DCT/OSM-LYFT-DCT/issues/26.
We do not validate the accuracy of the applied bus relations. Instead, we focus on maintaining integrity and avoiding disruptions during significant geometric changes. I hope for your understanding in this matter.

Happy Mapping!
Regards,
Sanjana
Kovoschiz (2025-08-06 18:05:53+00:00): 

Reminder: `name=` and `place=` are the existing common name and concepts in public use, not what you think should be correct or proper. Put historic names and locations in OpenHistoricalMap, not OSM. Discuss with the community, where the Discord server (https://discord.com/invite/CyG9zte) has been made available in OSM Community Index for a long time already, and there is a wiki project (osm.wiki/Hong_Kong).
TrickyFoxy (2025-07-30 05:30:01+00:00): 👋 https://osm.org/way/461417432

17=16
Что имелось в виду?
Kees 59 (2025-08-03 12:58:38+00:00): Hi,
Here I am again. Looks like another typo on node 13018991307. it says WW;WW2. Looks like a 1 is missing on the first WW?
PèreForez (2025-08-03 14:04:10+00:00): C"est corrigé
Merci
bartgron (2025-07-23 20:49:11+00:00): Dodałem poprawny adres (sam adres był dodany jako osobny punkt, wystarczyło go połączyć z budynkiem)
citrula (2025-08-01 20:08:16+00:00): I'm not sure if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1416740102 is really a dam. I think it is just built up for the road bed and not for flood control reasons - there's not really any sort of overflow/emergency spillway like you would expect with earthen dams around here. What do you think?
kaleidoscopica (2025-08-03 14:47:04+00:00): (Discussed via Slack, decided to leave as a dam and add dam=earth tag)
SomeoneElse (2025-07-25 09:31:05+00:00): Hello,
Currently there is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2941541 (not proposed) and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5868477 (proposed) - if some of the bits around Porthcawl are now signed should they be moved to the other relation?
Best Regards,
Andy
mstrbrid (2025-07-25 16:06:58+00:00): Hi Andy, 
I was a little surprised to find two relations at the time. I found that Sustrans don't indicate that the route will even get as far west as Porthcawl, and that "at the moment, only short sections of the route are open" https://www.sustrans.org.uk/find-a-route-on-the-national-cycle-network/route-88/
I thought I'd wait until more of the route was surveyed by mappers before deciding how / if to merge the two relations.
Kristian
SomeoneElse (2025-08-06 10:56:52+00:00): Thanks - I'd suggest that if you know where there's signage on the "proposed" relation it's worth you moving it to the other one.
CJJ2501 (2025-08-06 13:38:55+00:00): Hi rskedgell,

Rule 1 in the "Rules for pedestrians" section of the UK's Highway Code  states: "Pavements and footways (including any path along the side of a road) should be used if provided."
(https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35)

To me this sounds like an almost perfect application for the foot=use_sidepath tag. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:foot%3Duse_sidepath

In your feedback on my changesets, you mentioned:
1) that (in the UK) "Pedestrians use highways by absolute right unless explicitly forbidden". But this is in line with the foot=use_sidepath tag, which "applies only to roads with a classification that allows pedestrian use" (according to the foot=use_sidepath wiki entry)
2) that "This tag should only be applied in countries that have compulsory footways." (according to the foot=use_sidepath wiki entry). But this seems to be in line with the Highway Code. 

And in any case, the sentence "This tag should only be applied in countries that have compulsory footways." in the wiki entry was added by a single user (Mikebag) with no user page on the wiki or corresponding OSM or OSM Forum account and no mention about why this was done on the Talk page. From the edit description it seems that this sentence was simply re-used from bicycle=use_sidepath wiki entry, reason unknown. If you know more, let me know.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Afoot%3Duse_sidepath&diff=2161228&oldid=2095519
So we can further debate whether the use of the foot=use_sidepath tag should hinge so strongly on this sentence, or whether the sentence should be there at all.

I only added the foot=use_sidepath tags to roads where the sidewalks were mapped separately.

Maybe I am missing something. If we can't agree here, then maybe this should become a discussion in the United Kingdom category on the OSM Forum.

And as a second point, I appreciate the feedback on changesets in general, I think it helps a lot when people engage like this, and not enough people are doing this. But I'm not an armchair mapper, and I don't know why you would assume as much. I was in London recently and tried to improve the map in the areas where I walked around (including adding sidewalks, POIs, etc.). Maybe tone down the aggression in the comments a tad, e.g. "In what way is ... a big improvement?" (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167444504#c1464805). Most of us are trying to improve the map, just like you. 

As you suggested, going forward I'll put some more effort into adding the sidewalk$side=separate tag onto streets.

Cheers!
rskedgell (2025-08-06 13:49:50+00:00): The wiki page foe foot=use_sidepath clearly said, even before the edit you quote "In some countries it is illegal for pedestrians to use a road if a parallel compulsory sidepath exists."

This situation never arises in the UK.

Anything in the Highway Code with "should" or "should not" is guidance. Pedestrians still have an absolute legal right to walk on the carriageway unless they are explicitly forbidden.
rskedgell (2025-08-06 14:11:20+00:00): For a discussion about the frequently incorrect addition of foot=no through a StreetComplete quest which is now disabled in the UK, see:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/poll-should-streetcomplete-disable-the-are-pedestrians-forbidden-to-walk-on-this-road-without-sidewalk-here-quest-in-the-uk/118387

The fundamental issue here is that access tags in OSM are supposed to represent legal permissions and restrictions. In that context for public highways in the UK:
foot=no requires explicit signage
foot=use_sidepath doesn't exist

Having said all that, many thanks for the separate sidewalks you added on some of the main roads in the City of London. Those will be helpful to people like me who use OSM-derived pedestrian routing applications.
CJJ2501 (2025-08-06 14:11:26+00:00): As I understand it, the foot=use_sidepath tag exactly reflects that they still have that right, just that using the sidewalk/pavement is preferred, as stated by the official guidance document from the national government.

The foot=no tag is for cases where it is illegal for pedestrians to use a road when there is a parallel sidewalk. But I didn't add any foot=no tags.
rskedgell (2025-08-06 14:56:12+00:00): You did add a very small number foot=no tags, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/184658172/history/9

You may also infer the UK mapping community's general attitude to foot=use_sidepath from the fact that there are only 72 instances of that tag in the UK, 10% of which are on nodes (no idea what was intended there).
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/foot=use_sidepath#overview
CJJ2501 (2025-08-06 15:07:33+00:00): Ah, OK then those foot=no tags were definitely wrong. Thanks for fixing them.
Mairie de Bayonne (2025-07-25 07:22:27+00:00): Bonjour

merci pour l'ajout de la boulangerie, cependant elle était déjà présente :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4867754111
J'ai donc fusionné les doublons.
Attention à la carte d'Organic Maps qui n'est pas actualisée tous les jours donc elle a toujours un temps de retard.

Bonne journée
eserte (2025-07-24 18:21:44+00:00): Hallo,

old_name=Anton-Wilhelm-Amo-Straße ist definitiv falsch --- das wird der neue Name in ein paar Wochen sein! Kannst du deine Änderungen bitte nochmal prüfen und ggfs. rückgängig machen?
user_5359 (2025-07-25 07:12:58+00:00): Änderung wurde zurückgenommen.
Leo Slager (2025-07-25 22:18:24+00:00): Zou je de bruggen die je toevoegt ook kunnen voorzien van de tag layer=1  ?

Dat voorkomt al die foutmeldingen van kruisende ways  !
padvinder (2025-08-01 16:31:08+00:00): dat doe ik altijd al als het gaat om kruising van wegen. Hier zie ik echter geen bruggen met kruisende wegen.
Leo Slager (2025-08-01 21:18:54+00:00): Hoi padivinder,
Als je de onderstaande twee footways selecteert dan kun je in de geschiedenis zien dat ik layer=1 heb toegevoegd en dat de 2e de tag nog niet heeft.
蕉饼电脑 (2025-07-28 06:27:59+00:00): 你好。此次更改将福马路君竹环岛至鼓山段重新划为104国道，并首次将福州三环路马尾至福峡路段及附近道路划为104国道。请问此划分有何依据？
需要注意的是，表示“福马路是104国道”相关信息的路牌大约在2020年被替换。现有的福马路路牌仅表示104国道在君竹环岛方向。
yzuio (2025-08-05 10:14:42+00:00): 你好，个人当时参照百度地图进行标记，经查看福建省政府官方公布的普通国省道规划图确认后，此处不应标记为104国道。个人已revert，感谢您的指正！
fortera_au (2025-07-27 00:12:33+00:00): Hi,

Andrew from the Data Working Group here.

Can you please explain your edits here. While the construction items you removed aren't visible on aerial imagery, the items you have added also don't reflect on aerial imagery.

Kind regards,  
Andrew Welch, OSMF Data Working Group

(translated with deepl)

안녕하세요,

데이터 작업 그룹의 앤드루입니다.

여기서 진행하신 편집 내용을 설명해 주시겠어요? 제거하신 건설 관련 항목들은 항공 사진에 표시되지 않지만, 추가하신 항목들도 항공 사진에 반영되지 않고 있습니다.

감사합니다,  
앤드루 웰치, OSMF 데이터 작업 그룹
literan (2025-07-23 19:53:03+00:00): не надо вандалить. В следующий раз за такие действия получите блок.
Clintozzz (2025-07-24 04:57:30+00:00): это не вандализм, я объяснил, мне это необходимо по работе. А вот вы назвали госбюджет бизнесом основанным на рекламе, что так же является искажением. Прошу вернуться к обсуждению расширения зоны здания 10с2 по каширскому шоссе.  Gps трекеры склонны отклонятся от координат, как следствие у меня происходит не корректное отображение начала маршрута спец техники, которая работает по городу и снимает незаконно-установленную рекламу, сверх яркие лед -панели и т.д.
literan (2025-07-24 19:41:38+00:00): я вас предупредил. подобные эксперименты проводите в своей личной локальной копии базы.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-28 12:37:14+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1330768852/history has addr:housenumber = building that was added in this edit
Are you sure this building has "building" as an address number?
Leo Slager (2025-07-23 22:44:42+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
Leo Slager (2025-07-23 22:50:08+00:00): Hallo Albert,

ik heb de naam toegevoegd aan de leisure=pitch.
willsandy (2026-07-31 09:01:26+00:00): Bâtiment qui accueillait le marché de la Darse de Fort-de-France.
Le bâtiment existe toujours, mais n'est plus utilisé pour le marché. Il est ouvert au public.
willsandy (2026-07-31 09:02:01+00:00): Nouvel emplacement du marché de la Darse de Fort-de-France
Leo Slager (2025-07-23 22:53:38+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
felipeeugenio (2025-07-23 14:23:49+00:00): 4871387 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-07-23 16:16	closed	ok.
4871388 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-07-23 16:16	closed	ok.
4871389 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-07-23 16:16	closed	ok.
4871386 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-07-23 16:16	closed	ok.
4870204 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-07-23 16:11	closed	ok
Comino (2025-07-23 21:12:51+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
felipeeugenio (2025-07-23 14:25:42+00:00): Note	Contributor	Tmstmp UTC	Action	Comment
4871380 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-07-23 16:24	closed	ok..
4871381 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-07-23 16:24	closed	ok..
4871382 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-07-23 16:24	closed	ok..
4871383 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-07-23 16:24	closed	ok..
4871379 (iD)	felipeeugenio	2025-07-23 16:24	closed	ok..
Allison P (2025-07-23 22:16:47+00:00): Huh, what do you know. Saw a listing for it. Guess it was just in disrepair. It was a law office until a decade or so ago. It looked abandoned when I last walked by circa 2020. Thanks for updating!
liamrocker (2025-07-24 19:40:59+00:00): Yeah, no problem! Have a great day!
Leo Slager (2025-07-23 22:58:54+00:00): Hallo wjbg,

Dat staat allemaal al op de kaart.
Ik zal je bijdrage dus verwijderen om dubbele vermeldingen te vermijden.
mueschel (2025-08-02 16:20:13+00:00): Hi,
please check these rivers, something went wrong with the name tag:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1034345594
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1315952576
neverdance (2025-08-06 06:30:09+00:00): Thank you for reminding me—I have corrected it.
Leo Slager (2025-07-23 23:02:30+00:00): Die namen staan nu dubbel op de kaart.

Ik zal je bijdrage dus weer verwijderen.
pavvv (2025-07-27 19:37:48+00:00): Zapraszam dodać coś od siebie na forum, ale ostatnio przeprowadzona ankieta wygląda tak: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/town-vs-city-w-polsce/123756/29
literan (2025-07-23 19:51:59+00:00): Цветы, Шаурма, это не названия, а текст с вывески. Не надо такое вносить в поле name
zamotkin (2025-07-24 07:18:27+00:00): ок, спасибо
Yunan973 (2025-10-28 12:12:35+00:00): Bonjour,

le site web et la page facebook du resto la bohème ne fonctionnent plus, je les ai supprimés.
Je ne sais pas si tu habites sur place (moi je suis en Guyane), mais il serait peut-être bien d'y aller voir pour vérifier s'il est toujours là.
Cordialement
Brickelt963 (2025-12-26 14:42:23+00:00): Merci. Je n'habite pas non plus sur place mais c'est quelque chose que je pourrais vérifier en août prochain. J'y suis seulement passé en coup de vent.
Brickelt963 (2026-01-04 12:42:18+00:00): Confirmation de la fermeture définitive via annuaire-entreprises.data.gouv.fr.
Yunan973 (2026-01-04 14:30:01+00:00): Bien vu
Leo Slager (2025-07-23 23:13:35+00:00): Hangar stond al op de kaart.
Dubbele vermelding weer verwijderd.
Leo Slager (2025-07-23 23:12:35+00:00): Namen weer verwijderd.
Aim311_ (2025-07-23 15:06:37+00:00): Na mapie Dino https://marketdino.pl/map jak na razie sklepu brak.
rskedgell (2025-07-23 16:49:58+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this.

If the café is entirely vegan, it should probably be tagged as diet:vegan=only rather than diet:vegan=yes
uprkos (2025-10-16 20:22:45+00:00): Hej, spojrzysz proszę na:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4943530#map=16/53.13963/23.25674&layers=N

?
NeisBot (2025-07-23 16:16:33+00:00): Hi Pvltr, 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: "Added Alanya Grill restaurant with address and building details, adjusting its building levels."

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

#HelpfulComment #NoComment #AIgenerated
javbw (2025-08-14 00:13:04+00:00): Please use Big imagery, fix the roads fisrt. THEN map the farmland polygons. 

There is a lot of bad farmland mapping in Japan, mostly people using the map as a coloing book. I see you are trying to map it nicely, but it needs to be a bit neater, and cleaning up the roads first will help.  Trying to clean up the roads and farmland polygons after it has been mapped is not a good use of other mapper's time.
dzamper (2025-07-23 21:10:23+00:00): 1. dlaczego twoim zdaniem te edycje są błędne
2. jeśli uważasz że te zmiany wymagają dyskusji:
a) w takim razie to czemu tej dyskusji nie inicjujesz tylko wycofujesz zmiany cichaczem
b) próbowałem dwa razy przedyskutować ten temat w 163949558 ale uznałeś go za nieistotny
c) w takim razie gdzie jest dyskusja w wyniku której uznano że trzeba obniżyć linki – przejrzałem na wyrywki historię edycji tych łącznic i chyba w każdym przypadku ty byłeś autorem obniżenia kategorii
pavvv (2025-07-23 22:25:30+00:00): 1. np. tu https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169343042 napisałeś, że są to "ulice w obszarze mieszkaniowym", a nie tym jest kategoria residential. Kategoria residential jest drogą lokalną, najniższą tranzytową w hierarchii dróg, prowadzącą jedynie do domów. O reszcie napisałem w podlinkowanej dyskusji na końcu tego komentarza.
2a. no bez jaj. Dyskusję przeprowadza się przed zmianami, a nie po. Myślałem, że już się tego nauczyłeś, ale byłem w błędzie.
2b. pierwszy wpis albo przeoczyłem albo uznałem odpowiedź za oczywistą. W każdym razie nawiązuję trochę do https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114577444
drugi wpis był bezsensowny bo próbowałeś porównać podwyższanie kategorii drogi do zmiany kategorii łącznic, ale nie miałeś ochoty tematu rozwinąć
2c. powiązany wątek: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168519937
dzamper (2025-07-24 06:04:46+00:00): 1. No to w końcu wg ciebie jest tranzytową czy jest prowadzącą jedynie do domów? :)
2a. nie ma obowiązku dyskutowania każdej zmiany, tym bardziej jeśli są to  poprawki błędów
2b. drugi wpis był bez sensu bo założyłem że nie przeoczyłeś pierwszego i że w twoim komentarzu była gdzieś odpowiedź na mój. No nie jest oczywiste dlaczego co widać po ilości changesetów gdzie były edycje w tym zakresie w jakich są z tobą dyskusje. No a co do 114577444 to Sycowska istotnie nie jest żadnym węzłem – no i przecież jej nie zmieniłem :)
2c. skąd teoria że we Wrocławiu jest jakaś konwencja odmienna od reszty kraju? tym bardziej że zdaje się że jesteś odpowiedzialny za zmiany we wszystkich miejscach gdzie ta „konwencja” została zastosowana

no a poza tym to tak średnio wygląda. wycofujesz moją edycję jako wcześniej nieprzedyskutowaną. która poprawia twoje edycje które wygląda na to że też były wcześniej nieprzedyskutowane. za to np. w ww. 168519937 mamy jedynie dyskusję post-factum gdzie twoje zdanie nie zostało podzielone.