piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ArizonaMapper (2025-07-08 17:19:09+00:00): Hello Udarian,

I mostly map land cover and land use all over the world and I rarely, if ever, use multipolygons. I only use them if the geometry is complex enough to require them, which is not the case with the polygons I am adding nor is it the case with these canals - the topology is simply not that complex, especially considering I am careful to ensure they share the same nodes. I always edit with the "multipolygons only when necessary" approach, and this is the first time in my years of editing anyone has ever commented on this approach.

Furthermore, the canals can all be represented by individual canal area polygons and related through a relation if necessary. There is no need to store them as a multipolygon. It's easier on the database and if you are querying a specific local bounding box, you would only return the canal areas relevant to your bounding box instead of the entire canal.

This is especially true with the grass area in the interstate as the grass areas are not related to each other in any sense. They can easily be treated as individual polygons and storing them as multipolygons makes the data needlessly complex.

I'd actually suggest using /less/ multipolygons unless absolutely necessary.

Cheers
ArizonaMapper
Udarian (2025-07-09 00:36:46+00:00): As previously mentioned, the canal is one conceptual object and thus should have one area representing the area it takes up. It is also significantly easier when edits to one part of the canal do not generate a changeset comment the geographic size of the canal. When an area is attached to a relation of any sort it can be a pain to detach it and update it at a latter time so it is better to do it as a multipolygon from the get go. There is also the fact that when multiple land use areas share parts of polygons but are not mapped as multipoygons there is duplication in the data and that is something I try to avoid in Miami dade county, I also find it significantly easier to update and fix land use when it is mapped as multipolygons rather then simple polygons especially when mapping areas that cover relatively large amounts of space. 

As for the grass along the highway it would anyways need to be done as a multipolygon as I am mapping the barriers and other such features along the highways in Miami Dade and as I go I add the land cover along the right of way of the highway and attach the land cover to the barriers added, and as to (as mentioned above) not duplicate geometry I do them as multipolygons; and as such since there is usually one continuous stretch of grass along both sides of a highway it only makes conceptual sense to merge the multipolygons together into one for each section of the highway. 

For these reasons, and more, multipolygons are the best way to map land use and land cover in my opinion, and thus we should have /more/ of them, they should be the default in my opinions with the obvious exception of a single land use area not attached to anything else. 

Happy mapping,
Udar
Matt McCutchen (2025-07-08 13:39:15+00:00): FWIW, technically the source should include "Mapillary Traffic Signs" because I took the precise location from there (via Osmose) after checking it was consistent with the approximate location from my survey.
Leo Slager (2025-07-07 17:08:33+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
momiji-takinogawa (2025-07-08 17:51:40+00:00): こんにちは。万博会場を精力的に編集していただいてありがとうございます。私の方で現調をして、アメリカ館をSimple 3D Buildingでマッピングしていたのですが、building:partだった個々の部分がこちらのchangesetで全て独立したbuildingになってしまったようです。こちらは意図どおりの編集でしょうか。それとも、この部分を差し戻してもよろしいでしょうか？
momiji-takinogawa (2025-07-08 17:58:12+00:00): また、indoor=corridorは廊下のエリアに対して使うのが標準的で、歩行可能なウェイを表す目的で使うと経路エンジンが認識できず具合が悪いのではないかと思います。highway=corridorのほうが適切でしょうか
K_Sakanoshita (2025-07-08 22:02:25+00:00): コメントありがとうございます。
アメリカ館は、見た目が変わらないよう気を付けながらシンプルにしました（マルチポリゴンやbuilding:partが必要な複雑さは無いと考えました）。もし、情報が欠落しているなどあればご指摘ください。
K_Sakanoshita (2025-07-08 22:06:14+00:00): highway=corridorについては、私の認識が不足していました（エリアのみが一般的な点）。こらは、highway=footwayとindoor=yesの組み合わせに修正したいと思います。
momiji-takinogawa (2025-07-09 03:21:30+00:00): お返事ありがとうございます。立体的な情報の欠落の点では、中庭のステージの部分がbuilding:part=roofだったこと（空洞になっていて屋根だけがある）が失われてしまっています。また、渡り廊下（真ん中の浮いているシアターと，左右の三角形の継ぎ目）の部分はbuilding:part=corridorとして表現していたはずで、個別のbuilding=yesとタグづけすると3Dレンダラにとっての形状以上のセマンティックな情報（両側の建物とつながっていて行き来できるなど）を失っているのではないでしょうか。
momiji-takinogawa (2025-07-09 03:28:14+00:00): 3Dレンダラーによっては単一の建物を取り出して表示できますが（たとえはOSM Building Viewer）、このようなツールにとってはどこまでが一つの建物なのか機械的に判断できる情報が必要で、アメリカ館のような形状の建物でmultipolygonやbuilding:partを避けるのは困難であるように思います
K_Sakanoshita (2025-07-09 10:24:18+00:00): まず、highway=corridorがより正確なタグ付けでした（私の訂正自体が間違えていました）。

中庭のステージは他の部屋が無いのに、そこだけ描かれたことに違和感を感じて削除してしましたが、残しておいた方が良かったと考え直しています。ここは申し訳ありません。

ただ、四角の建物はbuilding:part=corridor（渡り廊下）とするほど単純な部屋では無いと思います。highway=corridorをウェイで書く方が現時点では適切かと思いますが如何でしょうか。

また、3Dレンダラーの機能不足にはレンダラー側での対応が必要と考えます（参考レンダラーのためのタグ付け）。
OSMデータ的には、すでに三角形の建物と四角形の建物（と隙間にある建物）はノードを共有しているので、マルチポリン化は必要ないと考えます。

同じ壁面が続く建物の一部だけ高さが異なるなど（マンション屋上への階段で一部建物が出っ張っているとか）、複雑な場合はmultipolygonとbuilding:partを組み合わせる必要があると考えますが、アメリカ館はシンプルに書けると考えます（実際、現状何かレンダリングで問題ありますでしょうか）。
momiji-takinogawa (2025-07-09 11:21:03+00:00): いえ、building:part=corridorとしていたのは真ん中の四角の建物（シアターの部分）ではなく、四角の建物と三角の建物をつなぐ部分（2か所）です。この部分は実際の構造も通路になっています。

> 3Dレンダラーの機能不足にはレンダラー側での対応が必要と考えます
この点に関しては明確に反論させてください。複雑な形状の建物をbuilding=*とbuilding:part=*の組み合わせで描くのは、そうしなければ、小さな建物が壁を接して並んでいるのか、1つの建物が複数の異なったタグを持つ部分から成るのかを区別できないからです。レンダラーが機能不足なのではなく、必要な情報を削ってしまうと理屈上ただしくレンダリングすることができなくなるという指摘をしています。

> 実際、現状何かレンダリングで問題ありますでしょうか
先に挙げたようにOSM Building Viewerで建物の正しいレンダリングができなくなっていますし、OSM標準のレンダラでも継ぎ目の部分に余分な線が入っていて正しくないレンダリングになっていると思います（部分ごとに独立した建物としてタグ付けされているのが原因です）
K_Sakanoshita (2025-07-09 12:01:22+00:00): building:part=corridorの場所は承知しました。確認不足で申し訳ありません。

また、「複雑な形状の建物」が良くわかりません。非常にシンプルな形状に思えます。他のマッパー（特に初級〜中級）による編集を難しくさせてまで、building:partとmultipolygon化する必要は感じません。

また、「OSM Building Viewer」で正しいレンダリングができなくとありますが、以下のことでしょうか？

https://osmbuildings.org/?lat=34.64928&lon=135.38550&zoom=19.0&tilt=30

上記の地図を見ても、そんなにおかしく見えません（OSM Buildings自身の機能不足は感じますが）。

それと、「OSM標準のレンダラでも継ぎ目の部分に余分な線」とはどれのことでしょうか？キャッシュクリアした上で1/350サイズで画像を書き出しましたが、そんな余分な線とは見当たりません。

現地で確認されてご存知かと思いますが、三角と四角の建物は材質や構造から見ても別物かと思います。もし、コメントの「継ぎ目の部分に余分な線」とは、その建物同士の接続部分を意味するのであれば、むしろ必要な線だと考えます。
K_Sakanoshita (2025-07-09 12:46:00+00:00): もう一度コメントを読み直しました。
そこで気づいた点について、確認させてください。

具体的には「小さな建物が壁を接して並んでいるのか、1つの建物が複数の異なったタグを持つ部分から成るのかを区別できないからです」の部分です。

「小さな建物が壁を接して並んでいる」とは、同じ壁を共有している意味（例えば長屋）であれば、一つの建物としてマッピングする必要があると考えます。
※この場合、壁はインドアマッピングの範囲と考えられます。

また、「接しているように見えるほど近い」の意味なら、建物を分けて（ノードは共有せず）マッピングする必要があると考えます。

そして、「1つの建物が複数の異なったタグを持つ部分から成る」が建物の高さや種別が異なる場所を意味するならbuilding:partとmultipolygonで書けば良いと思います。

恐らく、上記の私の回答はmomiji-takinogawaさんの考えと同じでは無いかと思います（この点、基本的な考えは同じとかと）。

ただ、「一つの建物」の定義がお互いで違うと思います。恐らく、「アメリカ館全体を一つの建物」と捉えるか、「三角と四角の建物の組み合わせ」と捉えるかの違いではないでしょうか。

上記の捉え方については、私は「アメリカ館」を敷地として捉えています（way/1381316142）。

そのため、「アメリカ館の敷地に複数の建物が組み合わさっている」と認識しています。
K_Sakanoshita (2025-07-09 13:04:16+00:00): 実際、建物の庇やルーフ、建物同士を繋げる廊下など、壁や屋根が繋がっている例は多々あります。

これらは同じ壁や屋根を共有していますが、同じノードを共有しつつ、エリアを分けてタグ付け（例えばbuilding=roof）した方が良いと考えます。

もちろん、3Dのフットプリントとして庇や廊下を含めた大きなエリアを書いてbuilding=yesを付けることも文法的には可能ですが、情報量が減ってしまうので、私は望ましいこととは思えません。
Robert Whittaker (2025-07-25 10:28:30+00:00): Hi Simon,

In this changset, you edited the post box https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/29160634 on Martyrs Field Road. But the comment says "Update Zealand Road postbox".

So I'm wondering if you accidentally changed the wrong object in OSM. Perhaps you intended to edit https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/29160767 instead?
Simon Cooksey (2025-07-25 10:32:02+00:00): Yes, I did make exactly the error you think I made! Good catch, thank you. I'll revert this change and update the correct post box.
Simon Cooksey (2025-07-25 10:35:01+00:00): I edited the wrong post box! Thanks to Robert Whittaker for spotting my mistake.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169446140
tordans (2025-07-07 15:27:18+00:00): Hi! Bitte ergänzen:
- cycleway:right:mapillary=*
- cycleway:right:traffic_sigh=none (?)
- separation left|right
- cycleway:right:source:width=*
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168610874
fmc_9 (2025-07-08 08:19:22+00:00): ok danke,
hab
cycleway:right:source:width & 
cycleway:right:traffic_sigh=none
ergänzt.

Die anderen Sachen sollten vielleicht erst wenn es aktuelle Mapillary Bilder für den ganzen Abschnitt gibt, eingetragen werden.
b-jazz (2025-07-08 15:24:56+00:00): RE: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1413051513

The lines that define fairways, greens, bunkers, water hazards, and tees should never intersect (partially overlap) each other and we noticed that they are overlapping in one or more of the feature pairs in this changeset. Objects that are joining each other should *share* nodes on the border, but not cross over each other. Alternatively, you can go around one of the objects and leave a small gap. For instance a fairway polygon that skirts around a bunker. Please read this wiki for instructions and examples of how to better map golf courses: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls. If you have any questions, please reply here and I'll gladly help clarify things. Thanks!
NeisReview (2025-07-07 16:03:50+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168611772
NeisReview (2025-07-07 16:03:17+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168611838
NeisBot (2025-07-07 15:46:49+00:00): Hi B4rb4r4, 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 a park feature by deleting its node and associated tags."

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

#HelpfulComment #Gibberish #AIgenerated
bbqman (2025-07-07 15:39:15+00:00): Also removed a path that no longer exists
UW Maddie (2026-01-12 03:45:40+00:00): Hello, I've noticed some of your geometry alignments are misaligning the map and really not necessary. Bing being the default everywhere means it is typical to align geometry to its positions on Bing. If you want to use King County Orthoimagery, note that it is not aligned to the same location, so please use an imagery offset. This can be set up on the Background menu at the bottom either by manual movement or pasting. This offset can be pasted in and matches Bing:
 -1.73, 0.77
VLD288 (2026-01-12 16:21:30+00:00): Hi UW Maddie, 

I appreciate the advice and will keep this in mind for future edits. 

Thanks! 
VLD288 / Weston
fabiotofy (2025-07-18 20:35:39+00:00): Anche quì, nel campo name va taggato ciò che si vede. Il cartello di ingresso al comune (coordinate 45.8707018,13.4813847) riporta il nome di SAGRADO. Questo è quanto va riportato quindi.
flohoff (2025-07-11 09:11:44+00:00): Moin,
hier ist was kaputt gegangen - Sind da oneways oder turn restrictions kaputt? 

So wird man jedenfalls nicht fahren dürfen. Rot alt (Was okay war) und Grün neu.

https://osm.zz.de/routeqa/?rid=1041146,1081914
chris66 (2025-07-11 11:39:50+00:00): Da fehlen anscheinend TRs, werde ich ergänzen.

Wurde bei der Freigabe des neuen B67 Teilstücks wohl vergessen.
chris66 (2025-07-11 13:13:17+00:00): TurnRestrictions sind nun ergänzt.
paulbrunner (2025-07-07 15:56:54+00:00): Actually I used Esri World Imagery here (from 2024) because Bing is from 2009 to 2015.
DD1GJ (2025-07-08 06:56:50+00:00): Revert, "Beschriftung" entfernt.

Hallo Laetitia,

Willkommen bei OSM. Das Projekt ist keine Marketing-Plattform für Immobileienentwicklung. Wenn AVENTOS spezielle Karten für ein Exposé benötigt, dann verwende bitte https://umap.openstreetmap.de . 

Mehr zu OSM erfährst Du unter https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf

Viele Grüße, Joachim
MassCartog (2025-07-07 17:13:31+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. Seems like the features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, On OSM, we do not removed features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public, or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing them is actually considered vandalism.

Trails that exist, but are "not publicly available", is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
redd (2025-07-10 10:36:43+00:00): Hallo Ze0zohk1,
normalerweise erfasst man tracktype=* doch nur für Feldwege der Art highway=track.

Du taggst nun alle diese Fuß- und Radwege in Botnang mit tracktype=1 zusätzlich zu dem schon vorhandenen smoothness=excellent. 

In OsmCha finde ich niemand anderes, der das so macht. Daher gehe ich davon aus, dass du deine SCEE Einstellungen angepasst hat. 

Kannst du bitte kurz erklären, warum du den tracktype für highway=footway/path als notwendig erachtest?

Vielen Dank,

redd
Ze0zohk1 (2025-07-10 10:52:37+00:00): Hallo redd,

ja, tracktype wird primär für highway=track verwendet, aber nicht ausschließlich. Vgl. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype#How_to_map Bin nicht der einzige der das so mappt :-)

Warum ich das so tagge? Aus dem gleichen Grund warum ich tracktype an tracks tagge: Nämlich um die Festigkeit eines Wegs zu dokumentieren.

Viele Grüße
Peter
bigopenmac (2025-07-10 20:32:51+00:00): Привет!

Используй, пожалуйста, для единообразия  support=post для ящиков на такой стойке как фото этого https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=765450839235287  .
support=pole если на осветительном столбе.
support=wall если висит на стене.
Андрей Кирилов (2025-07-10 20:49:14+00:00): ок
felipeeugenio (2025-07-07 19:02:01+00:00): Hola. Todo es canal es un tunel?
o es un error?
saludos
bigopenmac (2025-07-10 20:06:03+00:00): Привет!

Хотел обратить твое внимание, что post_box:type повсеместно lamp (если ты редактируешь через ID, то надо выбирать тип "Почтовый ящик на столбе", не зависимо где он закреплен, на стене, столбе или стойке.) и только где-нибудь в здании почты может быть тип pillar (тумба, стоящая на полу).

Тег support, если висит на стене то это wall.
Если висит на кронштейне, закрепленом на стене, то это wall_mounted но таких не встречал пока (например вот такое крепление https://k-ng.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/History-7-%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8B-%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8_955x638_NG-fb.jpg)
silversurfer83 (2025-07-07 18:32:05+00:00): Hi :)

der nächste Tip: Objekte, die am Ende rechtwinklig sein sollen kannst du mit der Taste "Q" rechtwinklig machen. Betrifft oft Gebäude.

Und bei Zugangsberechtigungen sparst du dir Arbeit, wenn du in der Hierarchie ganz oben anfängst: Wenn die Zufahrt hier nur für Kunden frei ist, dann reicht ein simples "access=customers" um für alle Verkehrsmittel den Wert auf "Kundschaft" zu stellen. Die Hierarchie wird hier erklärt:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:access

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168615925
Xvtn (2025-07-09 16:17:30+00:00): Hi, and thanks for your contributions. Another user Ezra Jenks has pointed out that some or all of these trails are still frequently (possibly illegally?) used by the public. However your private access tags remain in place. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168677183
I assume you represent the property owner - If you still allow public use despite this being private property, we also have the "permissive" access value to show that.
Also, thanks for not simply deleting these trails. Perhaps you are already aware, but there are myriad benefits to marking with appropriate access tags instead of deleting. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

Let me know here if you have any questions or further input.
Gregory Peony (2025-07-22 07:13:35+00:00): Consider that you are looking from above when viewing aerial imagery, but mapping building footprints. The roof shape is not necessarily the same as the footprint. It's generally accurate to map footprints slightly smapper than the roof; this also prevents data issues like overlaps etc. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. 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_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168616422
silversurfer83 (2025-07-07 18:28:32+00:00): Hi :)

Wenn auf diesem Weg zum Sportlerheim (nehme ich an) KFZ für Anlieferung oder auch Rettungskräfte fahren können, dann sollte es ein highway=service sein. Bei einem highway=footway erwarte ich üblicherweise eine klare Beschilderung, die grundsätzlich Fußverkehr vorsieht. Ggf. mit Zusatzzeichen "Radfahrer frei". Gerade in Feld in Wald gibt es selten Wege, die mit blauem Lollie gekennzeichnet sind. 

Bei Fragen immer raus damit
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168616442
Gregory Peony (2025-07-22 07:06:54+00:00): Highways and buildings should not share nodes. Hold alt to prevent the creation of shared nodes. I recommend that you watch the new mapper mistakes videos on this page https://www.youtube.com/@TheMissingMaps or perhaps a HOT ID editor training webinar. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. 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_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168616725
Patrick Gerzanics (2025-07-07 20:23:42+00:00): Updated to match MLS
user_5359 (2025-07-08 14:04:08+00:00): Hello! I revert your change set. The standard key for every path, footway, service street, road, street is  *highway* ! Please have a look on https://wiki.osm.org for a better description of your type of streets!
nmeum (2025-07-11 16:33:47+00:00): This is a "false one-way street" with a no-entry sign located at the intersection of Berdingstraße and Brackebuschstraße (preventing entry into Brackebuschstraße from Berdingstraße). However, the recommendations for "false one-way streets" from the wiki presently exceed my OSM skills.
Gregory Peony (2025-07-22 07:18:26+00:00): You're tagging these as houses; have you surveyed them? If so, I'd be great if you could include the source "survey" in your changeset tags.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168617056
Glassman (2025-07-09 00:41:28+00:00): #TIP: We spell out street names in OSM, the reason is that software has a hard time expanding abbreviated names. I noticed you added a few abbreviations. If you could expand them that would be much appreciated.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168617250
Leo Slager (2025-07-09 10:20:10+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
bartgron (2025-07-07 20:06:27+00:00): Witaj, niestety narobiłeś strasznego bałaganu na mapie, dlatego wycofałem ci wszystkie zestawy zmian które w jakimkolwiek stopniu dotyczyły dróg.
Pozdrawiam
bartgron (2025-07-07 19:10:25+00:00): Punkt był w dobrym miejscu. Zestaw zmian wycofany:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168619942
Gregory Peony (2025-07-22 06:56:21+00:00): You incorrectly modified the geometry of a waterway to avoid an overlap issue. Map the geometry of highways and waterways accurately and resolve overlaps using fords,bridges and culverts when you know what's there. If you're not confident then just leave it; it's better than hiding the error which makes it more difficult for others to find and fix. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. 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_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168617434
ceirios (2025-07-07 19:03:38+00:00): Hi there Supergooper, croeso i OSM

Are you sure this is a bar? 

In the editor, you can click on the little "i" icon and it will give you a description of the tag and take you to the wiki where you can find more information

Cofion gorau
Ceirios
Glassman (2025-07-09 01:56:02+00:00): #TIP: square houses by selecting the outline then just type a "q"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168617566
Aim311_ (2025-09-11 10:31:04+00:00): historic:civilization=komunist skąd pomysł na taki tag? W Polsce PRL nie było komunizmu (m.in. za sprawą silnego ochronnego wpływu KK) tak jak w ZSRR, tylko socjalizm. 
Skąd pewność, że basen nie powstał za Niemca, te tereny do 1945 roku były niemieckie. 

Resumując zamiast wątpliwego tagu historic:civilization=komunist lepiej dodać po prostu datę początku istnienia.
Glassman (2025-07-09 01:57:09+00:00): #TIP: we typically don't add descriptive names. Is Densmore Close the name of the  building?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168617679
s banerian (2025-07-09 17:35:12+00:00): yep
ika-chan! (2025-07-13 23:19:39+00:00): We have a tag to describe a road where cars are restricted: highway=pedestrian + motor_vehicle=destination.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168617776
Theodreee (2025-07-14 06:20:16+00:00): Cars are not fully restricted. Cars of the residents of that street are allowed
ika-chan! (2025-07-14 14:26:19+00:00): To be honest I am still trying to get the gist of vehicle access for residents only. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values states that "'access only for residents' is motor_vehicle=private", but I think motor_vehicle=destination would also do the trick. But it's definitely not motor_vehicle="citizens only" because that is not a standard value.
mueschel (2025-07-11 16:41:13+00:00): Bitte schau nochmal nach dieser Flaeche hier, da stimmt das Tagging nicht:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1413078986#map=19/50.092347/11.857557
dx125 (2025-07-11 18:56:20+00:00): Oh, da bin ich irgendwie verrutscht ;-)
"name=Klimastation Neuenhammer"  berichtigt. Danke für den Hinweis.
tantanWS (2025-07-07 19:56:21+00:00): there are a few roads that where deleted and then recreated. this deletes their history. Is there a reason for this?
ar58 (2025-07-07 21:50:30+00:00): Hi, do you speak Hebrew? It will be more comfortable.
Makeena (2025-07-07 18:27:29+00:00): ... and inexistent platforms marked as abandoned
one_half_3544 (2025-07-15 20:33:13+00:00): Please stop auto-translating the names - name:xy is for a real name in some language, not for google translate junk

Also, please don't remove Russian name= in Kyrgyzstan, as Russian is an official language according to the Kyrgyz constitiution.