piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
YomanNH (2024-06-03 05:58:49+00:00): Cześć,
pojawiło się w terenie oznakowanie tej drogi jako ciągu pieszo-rowerowego?
adiatmad (2024-06-03 08:07:33+00:00): Dear andira bomjan,
Please avoid adding only hashtags comments. Kindly include human-readable changeset comments along with the required hashtags. For clearer guidance, refer to this page. Cheers!
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Good_changeset_comments)
(https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-deprecate-hashtag-only-changeset-comments/105770)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152131995
YomanNH (2024-06-03 05:58:03+00:00): Cześć,
pojawiło się w terenie oznakowanie tych dróg jako ciągi pieszo-rowerowe?
YomanNH (2024-06-05 05:38:11+00:00): Sprawdziłem w terenie, nie ma tam ciągów pieszo-rowerowych. Wycofałem zmiany https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152270302
YomanNH (2024-06-03 06:22:55+00:00): Dzisiaj rano widziałem, że można tędy przejść i przejechać, więc wycofałem Twoją zmianę.
lynx777 (2025-11-21 18:36:34+00:00): in JOSM I get error that the path cannot have foot=designated and bicycle=designated. I believe this path is used more for hiking bc it's unpaved. Either way, one of the tags should be set to =yes or both of them.
Gasconha18 (2024-06-01 18:10:48+00:00): *basée
mariotomo (2024-06-03 04:46:45+00:00): Hola y bienvenido a OSM. Tenga en cuenta que OSM es un proyecto colaborativo con miles de aficionados haciendo mejoras y control de calidad.  Para información finalizada a proyectos personales, existen plataformas como umap.openstreetmap.fr
mariotomo (2024-06-03 04:48:06+00:00): https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/es/about/
mariotomo (2024-06-03 04:52:33+00:00): No sería la antigua colonia de leprosos, o estación de cuarentena, Palo Seco?
Danil (2025-04-11 08:45:38+00:00): Using satellite imagery to align road mountainous area are not the best approach, always check OSM GPS traces before updating.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164804637
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-06-04 00:16:19+00:00): extra ways, fake parks etc

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152220820
Lezurex (2024-06-01 21:44:43+00:00): Hallo feuerstein,

Wenn du schon die public_transport=platform löscht und dann neu erstellst (was nicht nötig gewesen wäre und die History beibehalten hätte), solltest du wenigstens darauf achten, sie auch wieder den Relationen für die Tramrouten und die Station hinzuzufügen. Vielen Dank.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152139345

LG Lezurex
emersonveenstra (2024-06-13 13:24:40+00:00): Hi there,

You created https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1288766071 with no tags, could you please go back and tag it? Thanks!
cyton (2025-02-04 11:02:29+00:00): Ich würd gern wissen, warum du an der B96 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23623892) hier bicycle=yes getaggt hast
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152134825
Langlaeufer (2025-02-04 11:35:55+00:00): Es gibt keinen Radweg und Radfahren ist nicht verboten. Du kannst es aber auch entfernen wenn es duch stört.
Langlaeufer (2025-02-04 11:39:32+00:00): Ich wollte vermutlich nur verdeutlichen das der benutzungspfichtige Radweg zuende ist
cyton (2025-02-04 11:42:28+00:00): Ne, stört mich nicht, ist nur überflüssig, die Argumentation ist aber dennoch richtig.
Ich schaute nur nach wegen wo bicycle=yes dran ist, da ich einen gehweg gesehen hatte der das routing kaputt macht weil oneway=yes fehlte (und verbindungen zu querstraßen).
Und dieses teilstück war halt auch mit in den ergebnissen von overpass-turbo.

Ich frag mich allerdings ob das irgendein router benutzt, und diese fahrbahn bevorzugt.
Langlaeufer (2025-02-04 11:44:49+00:00): Gehe ich von aus, einige router bevorzugen grundsätzlich die Fahrbahn. Hast du schon brouter.de im fastbike mode getestet?
Fizzie-DWG (2024-07-02 00:16:37+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153433416
bergaufsee (2024-06-04 17:05:06+00:00): Hallo Langlaeufer,
die Schillerstr. ist im Kreuzungsbereich der Fontanestr. baulich schnurgerade. Das kann man gut auch an (deinen?!) Mapillary Bildern sehen. Deine Ausrichtung auf die gerundete Kurve der Hauptstr. und damit der Schlenker der Schillerstr. (den es so nicht gibt) führen zu falschen/irreführenden Routinganweisungen. Ich werde dies in den nächsten Tagen wieder korrigieren, bis dahin kannst du dir gern mal das Routing in diesem Bereich anschauen.
Vielen Dank für dein Verständnis.
bergaufsee
Langlaeufer (2024-06-04 17:49:30+00:00): O.k Ich hab es zurückgeneralisiert um das Routing wieder zu korrigieren.
Das sind halt die Kreuzungen wo man es nicht allen recht machen kann - Hauptverkehrsführung und Navi-Anweisungen für alle Richtungen.
bergaufsee (2024-06-04 18:15:37+00:00): Ja, genau, im Zweifel priorisiere ich Routing vor  "Schönheit" ;)
czubi (2024-06-02 12:52:46+00:00): habs mal verbesert
silversurfer83 (2024-06-03 07:24:20+00:00): Danke
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152137349
ayxis (2024-10-01 09:25:55+00:00): Hi CaptainCarte!
Der Weg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/168659072 ist doch eigentlich keine Einbahnstraße? Das Einfahren von der Schützenstraße ist durch ein Zeichen 250 zwar verboten, aber wenn man sich auf der Straße befindet steht es einem frei nach Norden auszufahren. Demnach ist es kein oneway=yes :)

Viele Grüße
ayxis
wielandb (2025-01-04 20:47:21+00:00): Hey :)
You changed the website of this establishment to a canva design. Was that intentional?
WhereTheMapAt (2025-01-04 21:19:21+00:00): Hi, at the time this was a valid link. The restaurant changed it to a google drive link by now…
eggie (2024-06-02 06:59:51+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback .. Je hoeft geen adresgegevens toe te voegen aan de gebouwomtrek. Er is al een adresnode.
Het adres heb ik vast verwijderd.

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:30:43+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152146201
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:32:22+00:00): Please don't add fictional map elements. Thank you!
user_21689380 (2024-06-24 19:00:04+00:00): This edit has a lot of problems. Street are signed as 20 mph. Drivers can disagree, but that’s what the speed limit signs say. Also you decreased a 35 mph road to 25 mph. Residential roads within residential zones are all signed as 20 mph and on-base regulations state the same.
user_21689380 (2024-06-26 19:19:04+00:00): This edit was successfully reverted. Due to previous comment (inaccurate representation of speed limits).
mavOsaure (2024-06-05 21:31:21+00:00): Édition corrigée manuellement, comme évoqué dans un message privé à mateo18000.
mavOsaure (2024-06-05 21:29:31+00:00): - Fusion d'un POI avec un sommet de bâtiment
- remplacement d'une clé par une valeur arbitraire

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152305583
VictorIE (2025-06-05 09:17:22+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1288793709

Just checking

brand=Tritium
operator=EasyGo

Is that correct? They do seem to have some partnership.
Zarr (2024-06-01 22:39:22+00:00): oh also added a sidewalk and stop signs
impiaaa (2024-06-01 22:59:31+00:00): Hi. Please use the changeset description field to describe what you changed and why; "updated" is not sufficient. Read more here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments OpenStreetMap is a map for everyone, and has a policy against mapping nonexistent features. Please do not map historical features. See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_historic_events_and_historic_features If you know the dates that something existed, you can instead add it to OpenHistoricalMap: https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/
mcliquid (2024-06-20 11:49:35+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please note for the future: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:
• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
• keep changes within the same country
• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
Das Beetle (2024-06-03 01:55:51+00:00): Correction: The source should say “Sevier County GIS”.
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 08:41:01+00:00): Hi IlDrewIl, welcome to OSM.

May we know the reason behind removing many mapped sidewalks?

Thanks.
IlDrewIl (2024-06-02 15:35:06+00:00): Hey there,

Sure! A great deal of the pathing that exists between the residential roads in this changeset does not exist as pictured anymore (or never did…) OR much of what was here can be inferred from a very rudimentary understanding of how apartment complexes are constructed (i.e. it is standard for there to be sidewalks immediately adjacent to streets in apartment complexes that allow for access to buildings). Many of these sidewalks were the equivalent of mapping out individual residential driveways. I  noticed no other apartment complex or neighborhood in the immediate area had this level of detail on their sidewalks within OSM. I compared to external benchmarks and found the same to be true so I deleted what I believe to be oddly specific (when compared to surroundings) overmapping of this area. I retained the very few sidewalks that are not building walk ups so users may continue to navigate the local area effectively. 

Cheers,
Drew
Allison P (2024-06-03 00:58:16+00:00): No such thing as "overmapping". Ther are valid reasons to map sidewalks along streets or even building walk-ups. Please revert this changeset.
IlDrewIl (2024-06-03 03:40:23+00:00): Good grief. You’re not even the commenter I originally responded to who asked an extremely valid question and did so politely. I find it curious you’ve offered none of these reasons you mention and still asked me to revert the changeset. I’m not going to be antagonized in the comments of an open source map edit so I’ll say my piece. Feel free to report me or my edits if you’re incapable of responding respectfully and are still upset. 

I’ve lived in the local area for years now and stand by the fact that plenty of these sidewalks didn’t exist as pictured. The paths that remain from my changeset are those that are much more difficult to locate without a map that make navigating the local community much easier - sidewalks that were lost to a sea of easily seen building walkups before for anyone utilizing the roads depicted in the map. 

Have you simply reviewed a changelog and found a hefty edit or are you looking directly at the changes? Please review not only the number of similar communities immediately surrounding this one, but the neighborhoods further out from there. Review the local businesses. Take note of how the sidewalks are managed at the nearby mall. Before even making the change in the first place, I looked around the city as a whole piecemeal and struggled to find examples of sidewalks mapped to the level of granularity presented in this apartment complex. So I’m curious what special conditions exist for the sidewalks at View at Lake Lynn that don’t apply to the city of Raleigh as a whole? I could’ve addressed or even agreed with them in this comment you’re reading now had you mentioned them in the first place. Instead, you’ve opted to talk down to someone new to making edits as if I do so flippantly. Please revert your attitude.
Allison P (2024-06-03 05:15:33+00:00): My comment was meant to be terse, not rude. I think it is better to use that time to add new data to the map.

All of the paths removed in this changeset that I looked at appear to exist, based on aerial and street photos. 

A principle of OpenStreetMap is that you can map anything that is verifiable. So someone decided to map this one area in detail. There is nothing wrong with that. It is the role of the data consumer to filter unwanted data.

You should provide some sort of evidence that these paths don't exist, otherwise someone else may map them again, using the aerial photo as a source.
Leo Slager (2024-06-02 13:29:03+00:00): You damaged 7 routerelations.
eggie (2024-06-02 14:26:02+00:00): 
reverted by changeset #152160618 by Leo Slager
eggie (2024-06-02 14:04:31+00:00): Dag Ro de Jong,

Je veroorzaak grote schade aan de kaart door op deze manier te mappen.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=152142229

Er zijn hier talloze OV routes die dan niet meer werken.
Ben je je wel bewust wat je aan het doen bent?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-06-02 14:27:09+00:00): Reverted with changeset #152160618 by Leo Slager
Intrinsical (2024-06-02 14:08:05+00:00): Why was this deleted? There appears to be a peak here according to USGS 3D Elevation Program, and even with the name, according to USGS Topographical maps. Please in future leave a descriptive changeset comment. "Corrections and Additions", is not representative, as there were no additions. Tell what was corrected, and why? Please list your source in the changeset's tags.
Intrinsical (2024-06-02 14:11:15+00:00): Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source
rolwirth (2024-06-02 17:11:55+00:00): My apologies for this incomplete edit.  I forgot to select the save button after completing my changes.  As I wrote in the new feature point notes:  the old label of "Harbor Point" is not used locally and could easily be confused with the taller nearby peak of Harbor Mtn.  Also by using the original Tlingit name we are appropriately honoring the first people of this land.  I'm curious to know if you are a local Sitka mapper?
rolwirth (2024-06-02 17:12:42+00:00): I have made what I feel are the appropriate changes now.
BilibiliDaqiboQi (2024-06-05 23:05:09+00:00): 您好 感谢您对变更集152239843的修正 请您讲此处的跑道变更为正确的哦！
KiloThree (2024-06-02 19:43:32+00:00): I updated this to driveway after riding into it. It's a parking lot that is signed as a tow away zone, not signed as a street, and is connected to the road network though a driveway apron. I do see it in the road atlas, so I'm going to at least mark it as private
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152142385
StreetSurveyor (2024-06-02 21:34:44+00:00): At most these, these should be marked as permissive vs. private. They are listed in the city GIS referenced as public and have no restrictions to access.
KiloThree (2024-06-02 21:55:13+00:00): Please see the Somerville data portal, in which this segment is listed as private. This in addition to the signage that was there last friday is why I have marked this as private https://data.somervillema.gov/GIS-Data/Streets/7jtq-qmnf/about_data
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:31:04+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152146209
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:32:26+00:00): Please don't add fictional map elements. Thank you!
tastrax (2024-06-02 03:48:56+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, +61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features .  I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
tastrax (2024-06-02 03:48:53+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, +61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features .  I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
NeisBot (2024-06-02 02:18:25+00:00): Hi hircine, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1288821672

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:31:18+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152146212
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:32:30+00:00): Please don't add fictional map elements. Thank you!
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:32:03+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/152146212
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:32:33+00:00): Please don't add fictional map elements. Thank you!
rskedgell (2024-07-25 12:54:09+00:00): Adding access=yes to a street which has "no motor vehicles" signs (with exceptions) effectively turned Drapery into a through route for all transport modes. However, it did not have access tags which matched the signed restrictions before you edited it either. Hopefully this is now correct.

The Bing street side imagery showing the restriction signs is at https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=52.238538%7E-0.897411&lvl=19.8&mo=om.1&pi=-11.1&style=x&dir=136.9
Orblivion (2024-06-02 02:46:00+00:00): I confirmed this as primarily residential on Chinburg's website.

I kept operator and website on the buildings and also put them on the landuse. However I only put the name on the landuse.

Note that the northern building is the original courthouse and I (previously) labeled only that one with old_name. The southern one is a new construction. I didn't put an address on the southern one either because I'm not sure if it has a separate address.

If I ever conclude that both buildings have one address, I'll take address off of the northern building onto the landuse. If I ever conclude that they're actually the same building, I can scrap the landuse thing anyway, though keeping the historical name attached to the old building only is nice so maybe not.

Just wanted to get a second opinion to make sure that all makes sense.
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:26:01+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152146083
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:27:01+00:00): Please don't add fictional map elements. Thank you!
NeisBot (2024-06-02 03:12:25+00:00): Hi Pikachu-Raichu, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1288829961

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:26:19+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152146092
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:26:58+00:00): Please don't add fictional map elements. Thank you!
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:26:33+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152146100
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-02 06:26:55+00:00): Please don't add fictional map elements. Thank you!
NeisBot (2024-06-02 03:51:26+00:00): Hi jibeo, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature's:
https://osm.org/way/1288833248
https://osm.org/way/1288833249

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-06-07 18:12:56+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/152261540
sanch3z (2024-06-02 08:37:57+00:00): Hi!

Gibt es eine Grund dafür, warum du bestehende Geometrien (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24787829) löschst und neu anlegst?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history
Paradine (2024-06-02 09:20:30+00:00): Ich wüsste nicht, dass ich Geometrien direkt gelöscht habe. 

Vielleicht macht das josm beim uploaden?
Paradine (2024-06-02 09:23:43+00:00): Das Einzige was dazu führen könnte ist Folgendes:

Ich kappe eine Linie an zwei Punkten und entferne das Mittelstück. Dann füge ich die Linien wieder zusammen.

Wenn das natürlich dazu führt, dass die Historie gelöscht wird, werde ich das in Zukunft nicht mehr tun.
Paradine (2024-06-02 09:24:04+00:00): Also passierte das Löschen der Historie unbeabsichtigt.
tastrax (2024-06-02 11:45:42+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, +61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features .  I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
felipeeugenio (2024-06-02 22:10:29+00:00): Hola Richard.
por favor no usar nombres descriptivos. Solo nombres oficiales.
saludos
i2004 (2024-06-03 21:09:24+00:00): te hice tambien la 129
i2004 (2024-06-03 21:11:13+00:00): en el metrobus de florencio varela
rskedgell (2024-06-05 07:18:58+00:00): You appear to have tagged a section of Bath Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?
https://www.bing.com/maps?toWww=1&redig=0E61462A315B4089ADF0DBB49CFAA9E5&cp=51.444843%7E-2.57872&lvl=22.0&mo=om.1&pi=-10.6&style=x&dir=5.2

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:foot

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.
Simon Hobeck (2024-06-05 18:36:45+00:00): Have another look at the section I marked. It is a very small stretch where cars cross to choose a different fork.
There is no pavement or anything here.
In the Bing street view you shared, turn to face South and you can see the blue car heading up the right hand fork (Wells Road) this is the section in question.
Simon Hobeck (2024-06-05 18:38:04+00:00): If this is not correct, because it is not officially prohibited for pedestrians, i'm happy to change it to a disabled quest.
Frans S (2024-07-02 13:06:08+00:00): Thanks for mapping.
Please tag very narrow traces not as unclassified highway. Path suits better here.
Best regards