piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
literan (2023-12-06 20:34:38+00:00): этой правкой вы удалили маршрут "Золотое кольцо" (вместо того, чтобы просто вернуть корректный name вместо "Рашка сдыхает", и похерили многочасовой труд нескольких людей. Не делайте в будущем того, чего не понимаете, пожалуйста
Noktoborus (2023-12-08 01:14:56+00:00): Здравствуйте!

Отношение "Золотое кольцо" вернул частично: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/199133

Пожалуйста, будьте аккуратны и внимательны при удалении.
Mathias_ADAV (2023-10-26 15:19:15+00:00): Bonjour,
les marquage au sol sont orienté vélo donc j'avais opté pour cycleway. Je pense donc qu'il faudrait passer de footway à path au vue de la largeur de la voie.
Max-Kritic (2023-10-26 16:04:18+00:00): Il n'y aucun marquage vélo sur les trottoirs, ni aucun panneau. Jusqu'à preuve du contraire, un trottoir ne nécessite pas de panneau quelque soit sa largeur. Donc footway avec une notion de largeur.

 Je te conseille d'aller voir sur place avant de créer des pistes cyclables. Je n'ai pas pris de mettre dimanche lorsque j'y suis passé.
Mathias_ADAV (2023-10-27 07:51:22+00:00): Bonjour,
merci pour votre retour, je vais croiser avec la CUA à la rentrée, mais à ce que j'ai vu c'est assez large pour la mixité piéton vélo type voie verte et les traversée sont marqué avec des pictos vélos. A suivre, Bonne journée
NorthCrab (2023-10-25 20:44:14+00:00): Pozwól mi zaznaczyć, że access=destination oznacza aktywną kontrolę wstępu. Na zdjęciach ulicznych nie widać żadnego nadzoru. Zamieniłem na access=permissive. Pozdrawiam :-) !
d3mol3k (2023-10-30 14:02:16+00:00): dzięki - chyba nie to mi się klikło myszką podczas edycji. Pozdrawiam :-)
kuhni74 (2024-08-18 20:09:01+00:00): Woher kommt "Almkopf"? In den amtlichen Karten steht durchwegs Alpkopf, in älteren Ausgaben "Alpelekopf".
kuhni74 (2024-08-18 20:41:16+00:00): ist wohl der touristische Name, um sich von der Serfauser Alpkopfbahn zu unterscheiden?
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-30 04:09:10+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143342045
woodpeck_repair (2023-11-06 23:38:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 143713695 where the changeset comment is: revert von edits eines benutzers nach selbstlöschung
andrashann (2023-10-28 21:04:07+00:00): Szia! Sikondán az összes házat "tourism=chalet" taggel jelölted. Ez azt jelenti, hogy bérelhető házról van szó. Ezeket a házakat szerintem inkább building=house címkével lenne érdemes jelölni, kivéve azokat, amelyekről tudjuk, hogy bérelhetők.

A Wiki magyar fordításban:

Az idegenforgalomban működő, általában különálló szálláshelyek típusa. A "chalet" egy önálló konyhával és fürdőszobával rendelkező nyaralót vagy üdülőházat ír le. Ez vonatkozhat egyetlen faházra vagy faházak csoportjára.

Nem tévesztendő össze a francia "chalet" kifejezéssel, amit a magántulajdonban lévő hegyi faházakra használnak, ezek esetében helyette inkább a building=cabin vagy building=house címkét kell használni.
Spoonisher (2023-10-30 07:52:28+00:00): Szia!

Köszönöm a visszajelzésedet, a fordítás megtévesztő, javítottam!
woodpeck_repair (2023-11-06 23:38:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 143713695 where the changeset comment is: revert von edits eines benutzers nach selbstlöschung
Natasha_Zhovner (2023-12-22 07:30:03+00:00): Hello it seems that you removed actual road. Please take a closer look and make a revert.
https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1083573893
voschix (2023-12-22 17:39:05+00:00): Thanks for spotting this error. Should be OK now.
Jrachi (2024-12-06 14:19:54+00:00): Ciao.
Hai aggiunto un tunnel=culvert ad un boundary.

Ivo
voschix (2024-12-08 15:44:14+00:00): Ciao Ivo. Thanks for spotting this. It turned out that there was an old major problem in the area, which took me some while to correct. In reality there was no waterway there. Changeset #77175256  that had added, in 2019,  erroneously waterway tags for Scolo Tergolino (which I knew to run further north) to part of the boundary of Dolo. I hope I corrected all errors in my changeset #160060999. Please have look.
MrElpa (2023-11-21 18:48:57+00:00): What are the sources for this? Old version of the map was definitely more accurate according to the city map of the municipality.
JassKurn (2023-10-24 16:46:51+00:00): Hi, Can you give a bit more detail about  tagging this "way" as bridleway.  Does not appear managed as bridleway. And previous tagging as track made via landowner.
Dartymoor (2023-10-24 17:09:48+00:00): Hi. Certainly - a bridleway is a legal definition, and a track is not. OSM has always had a bridleway definition which is clearly understood and used widely throughout the UK, so when a way is legally defined as a bridlepath, that should be the definition used. 

A track can be private or public and has no definition, and shows up very differently in most renderers. 

Hope that clarifies the logic behind my change.
Cebderby (2023-10-24 23:17:59+00:00): Vehicles cannot pass along an OSM highway=bridleway.  This way has (private) vehicles on it, therefore it is a vehicle way (such as a track) carrying a designation=bridleway.  This is how OSM is.
Dartymoor (2023-10-25 06:16:35+00:00): I can understand that viewpoint, but I (politely) disagree with it - and so does Ordnance Survey who identify bridleways as bridleways. (Including this one) 

The legal definition is more important than the physical condition of the route, that's a well established cartographical norm. 

Secondarily - If a landowner is specifying something else, one might assume they are trying to suppress the legal definition.

If you cannot accept this view, please file a dispute so that the change can be reviewed by a wider audience.
Cebderby (2023-10-25 08:57:17+00:00): Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway
I think it's unambiguous.

Also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
which is a well defined long established OSM highway type, not to be avoided when correct (this and other changeset(s)) for ways with farm / tractor / four-wheel drive usage typically where ordinary road cars wouldn't be expected to routinely go.
Dartymoor (2023-10-25 09:53:13+00:00): I'm aware of the article - but I don't agree that it's unambiguous.

"On the other hand, in forests and on farmland the access is regulated by individual law in the federal states" 

- this clearly (in my view) biases this article to US laws, which are not applicable in the UK, and against our normative practices which are very largely mandated by the OS. Which, without exception, shows Bridleways as Bridleways. 

What do the public expect a bridlepath to be marked on a map as? If the route is drawn as you suggest, the map will show a track, nothing more, no matter how tagged it is. The reality is that such subtleties are largely ignored by many renderers - if it is a track it will be drawn as a track, not as a bridlepath (unless the renderer is very clever, which most aren't). Thus, the user in the field (of whom I am one, and who knows this local area well - I live only a few miles away) will check their map and be unclear as to the legal rights. Local signage is often incomplete. 

We must protect the public rights, and OSM is a part of that. It follows that we must also protect OSM from those who which to steer a narrative that protects their interests, rather than the public's - such as a landowner wishing to suppress a legal right of way. I am not saying that's what's happening here, but it might be.

I won't reply any further - I think we have both put our sides across as well as we could and there's no further benefit to this back and forth. I encourage you to refer to the data working group as the OSM framework provides for such disputes. Thank you.
Cebderby (2023-10-25 09:58:54+00:00): The paragraph you pick from the OSM definition of highway=bridleway relates to Germany.  The England/UK section has:
Occasionally, ways that are not physically bridleways are designated as public bridleways, such as when a right to travel by foot and by horse passes along an otherwise private way (often, a farm track). In these cases the physical feature should have whatever highway=* tag is the best fit for the physical reality, with the right of way indicated by designation=public_bridleway as above.
JassKurn (2023-10-26 18:04:05+00:00): Hi, didn't mean for this to get such a long set of responses after making the initial comment. I've got some issues, or am struggling with the decision of when highway=bridleway should be used. There are issues with tagging british designated public bridleways that follow a route along tracks, cycleways, and roads. I'll think I'll make some notes and seek a wider view on the mapping. I respond here again when I do.
AndresDuhour (2026-07-25 12:47:59+00:00): Buen día! Quería consultar si efectivamente la calle Honduras abarca ese tramo , porque parece rara la continuidad de nombres con Figueroa alcorta y con Isla de los estados. Saludos!
Paola Silvina (2026-07-28 15:10:34+00:00): Buenos días. Lo que falta modificar sería la continuación de Figueroa Alcorta en ese tramo. Ya que esa cortada Rep. Honduras es paralela. Lo que sucede es que ese tramo de Alcorta no está marcada, ya que por el suelo rocoso no está disponible al tránsito vehicular.
Cebderby (2023-10-23 23:02:16+00:00): reverted
citrula (2023-10-23 17:12:56+00:00): Welcome to OSM! This edit looks good to me - in the future, you can split the way by selecting the node and pressing "X" to make two ways. Doing this allows you to change the tags on part of it while preserving the history of the way for future mappers to see. Happy mapping!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/143026794
Kays (2024-06-09 20:09:46+00:00): This appears to be a duplicate of node 1098621675.

Did you mean to _move_ node 1098621675 to the position of the newly created node 11283977670?
StC (2024-01-17 15:26:38+00:00): Hi,

I just saw that this changeset removed name "Fin Montée du Purgatoire" from a node of the local hiking network. Do you confirm that there is no such signpost there?

Cheers,
St.
cehceh (2024-01-17 17:10:55+00:00): Hi StC,
last year we was there and I think I removed this name (but not the signpost itself), because the "Fin Montée du Purgatoire" is here instead:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9603995388
Both Via Ferratas (La Montée au Purgatoire and Le Chemin de la Vierge) are re-opened in the last year with slightly different routes.
StC (2024-01-17 18:04:36+00:00): OK, thx. Ideally, it would be great if you could move the lwn_name and network:type accordingly, as well as membership in the network relation, and the members of the route relations, when a network node moves. See e.g. https://knooppuntnet.nl/fr/analysis/network/12280062/facts for quality control tools.

Cheers
St.
archpdx (2023-10-24 23:18:44+00:00): Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for fixing this road name. However, please note that we don't abbreviate road names in OSM (see https://osm.wiki/abbreviation). In this case, this road name should be unabbreviated to 'Meadow Lark Drive'. Happy Mapping!
eggie (2023-10-23 18:36:43+00:00): Dag scxi
Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
feedback
access=no is bijna altijd fout icm met andere accesstags.
Het wil zeggen Verboden Toegang. 
Voor wie is de Laan van Selis dan verboden?

MVG
eggie
names de OSM Community
fititnt (2023-11-23 21:27:25+00:00): Olá.

Você tem certeza o elemento https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1212047912/history criado por um mapeador (Shishir Teja) que parece não ter conhecimento local, e mais tarde editada por dois mapeadores que parecem ser validadores (Martin Ligabue e jmsbert) é mesmo um landuse=orchard ?

Se sim, pode por favor explicar seu raciocínio?
confusedbuffalo (2023-11-04 17:57:23+00:00): Another postcode error, maybe more problems as well
CjMalone (2023-11-05 09:27:31+00:00): Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143641707
joost schouppe (2023-10-24 07:20:03+00:00): De brandweerpost was reeds gemapped op huisnummer 2, iets noordelijker
Fizzie-DWG (2023-11-16 03:36:18+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1223998671
Natasha_Zhovner (2023-12-20 15:18:01+00:00): Hello it seems that you removed actual road. Please take a closer look and make a revert.
https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1120915547
mcliquid (2023-10-24 15:21:22+00:00): Hi,

Welcome to OSM and thanks for contributing :-)

One general recommendation: 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

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
opendcc (2023-10-30 20:48:07+00:00): Hallo,

ich wage zu bezweifeln, dass diese  Änderung überall gerechtfertigt ist. Hier bei uns im Ort heißt die Grabstätte der KZ-Opfer 'Jüdischer Friedhof', wird aber von der Seelsorge her von den christlichen Kirchen mit betreut.
SHARCRASH (2023-12-21 23:50:37+00:00): Hello! These changes have been done by a user with whom i have problems. He did likewise wide country unjustified changes in Luxembourg and deleted a lot of data that I've personally surveyed again and still exists.

It's been an issus since 2021 where i hoped that some DWG moderators would have solved quickly but no real conclusion was ever done and no definitive block was ever made in order to stop him. Now I have strong believes that he continues under the account of Kugelbaum because this user was created right after the previous account named ltwo was terminated, he started to contribute in the city where the person lives and clearly has some tagging schemes/combos not coming from a  beginner.

Today, I've been trying to expose all these issues in this post in OSM's forum. Please feel free to write down there the problem you encountered here. 

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problem-with-vandalism-and-2-dwg-members/107298
eggie (2023-10-23 18:39:38+00:00): Wanneer hier een blokkade s kun je dat aangeven met barrier=block
evt met motor_vehicle=no
Dat maakt een weg nog geen fietspad of pad.
Kijk je nog even?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-10-23 18:44:39+00:00): Ik heb even wat aangepast ivm Changed temporary motorized blockade
Dus barrier=block met accesstags toegevoegd.
access=no verwijderd.
Houd je het zelf in de gaten?
MVG
eggie
scxi (2023-10-24 14:29:59+00:00): Goede tips, bedankt. Ik ga in de gaten houden wanneer de blokkade is opgeheven.
Twitters (2023-10-29 18:24:28+00:00): Is dit toegankelijk? (lijkt me eerder een veld)
wegspotter (2023-10-29 20:40:39+00:00): Over de hele weg toegankelijk.
wegspotter (2023-10-29 20:41:43+00:00): Officiële voetweg. En ook gebruik op strava.
dknelson9876 (2024-08-23 17:44:58+00:00): I see a lot of areas around here that are labeled as parks or recreation grounds with "commons" or "greens" in the name that I would normally just call grass areas. Can you confirm whether or not these names are signed anywhere, or in use by the local community?
Kuatsystems (2024-08-23 17:50:59+00:00): so, they are used by the local community, but there is no signage, would you like me to remove the labels?
Kuatsystems (2024-08-23 18:13:30+00:00): i think i see what you mean, i appreciate  your questions and helping fix issues i have caused, i will work on the area too.
5m4u9 (2023-10-24 23:58:19+00:00): Hi, officially this route is F9. F6 only goes as far as Ipati.
5m4u9 (2023-10-25 00:02:36+00:00): ... and jump from Boyoube (Benemerito) to Paraguay. Same as Route F4.
Lars_TheViking (2023-10-25 21:31:53+00:00): Hello 5m4u9, thank you for your input on this ref. I made this edit because the entire stretch between Boyuibe and Ipati was included in the route relation for F6 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5539621). It is quite common for refs to share the same stretch of road (in this case F6 and F9), therefore, I added the F6 ref tag on the ways here to match the route relation. Do you happen to have a resource that mentions the F6 ref terminating in Ipati and then resuming at Boyuibe before continuing east? I would be interested in any additional information you have on this area. Thanks again and I look forward to hearing back from you!
5m4u9 (2023-10-26 02:25:09+00:00): Hi, route relation F6 is wrong, perhaps because of some edits made without knowing the Bolivian reality.

Maybe in other countries all the routes have continuity, but in Bolivia there are several routes that have jumps because the design of the route is not done by planning, instead every time a section of road is built it is added to the route.

My mistake, route F6 is continuous, route F9 is the one with a jump between Ipati - Boyoube.

Some examples: F4 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/167835 jump between Patacamay - Caracollo), F9 (have two jumps between La Guardia - Pailón & Ipati - Boyoube, recently edited by adding that jump to route), F10 (jump between Los Troncos - San Ramón), F24 (jump between Moxos - San Antonio)...

See the latest official map: http://www.abc.gob.bo/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/mapa_abc_2019_web.pdf
Lars_TheViking (2023-10-26 22:41:20+00:00): Hello 5m4u9, thanks again for your insight into this.  The map you linked looks like a good reference, I will be sure to utilize it. Happy mapping!
aTarom (2023-10-23 17:46:59+00:00): Hi, this is correct?
"crossing"="unmarked"
"crossing:markings"="yes"
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8197578042/history
PD: In Spain we usually use PNOA, are you using another source other than Bing Maps Aerial?
Cheers
VLD075 (2023-10-23 17:59:04+00:00): Hello aTarom, thank you for reaching out to me! I made a mistake in marking "crossing:markings"="yes", I meant to put "no". I also based my decision off the aerial imagery I was viewing as I could not find any markings at this location. I can go ahead and fix my edit and I apologize for the error, but do you recommend keeping it as "marked" as it was previously? Thank you!
aTarom (2023-10-23 18:18:18+00:00): ok thanks for answering, I don't know if the cross is still marked, it seems that it isn't, if I'm not going to see it or I'm clear with PNOA or ICGC I don't edit. Don't you have the layers of PNOA/ICGC in Rapid?
VLD075 (2023-10-23 18:42:20+00:00): We do have the PNOA/ICGC layers available on RapiD, I apologize for my mishandling of editing without clearer imagery in the PNOA and ICGC. I will be more mindful when editing in Spain to make better judgments with these imageries. I will go ahead and fix the issue on the feature. I appreciate you taking the time to reach out to me about this and if you have any more comments, questions, or concerns please feel free to reach out. Thank you so much!
E de Wit (2023-10-23 22:18:32+00:00): Klopt, is samen gegaan met Oogwereld Vellinga op't Naauw.
Geen idee of deze opticiën nu ook een andere naam draagt.
JeroenHoek (2023-10-24 13:19:06+00:00): Dat doet hij inderdaad. Aangepast. :)
VigilantPenguin (2023-10-23 17:34:12+00:00): This changeset also removed a bicycle=yes tag between Denny and Howell, it was not necessary, bicycles are legal on most streets and there is no special signage on this one.
eggie (2023-10-23 18:29:12+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback  Straten op privéterrein aangegeven met bv art 461 wvs of kunnen in OSM gewoon op de kaart blijven.. mits goed getagd met access=private 
Het zal ook voorkomen dat een andere mapper het alsnog weer intekent. 
Ik draai je bijdrage terug.

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2023-10-23 18:31:39+00:00): reverted by changeset #143030496
Mocht je nog vragen hebben stel ze gerust.
MVG
eggie
MarcoR (2023-10-24 10:40:16+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM!

You removed 3 pedestrian crossings but every aerial imagery and even street level photos (i.e. Microsoft Streetside) show that they were there.

Are you sure about your edit?

Happy mapping,
Marco.
Twitters (2023-10-29 18:09:32+00:00): Raaienblokstraat (946535617) is enkel toegankelijk voor landbouwvoertuigen.
Rayenblokstraetje (946540173, v3) is niet terug te vinden op naam (bron: google maps)
wegspotter (2023-10-29 20:38:12+00:00): Raaienblokstraat is een officiële buurtweg. (thans: gemeenteweg) Dus eigenlijk toegankelijk voor iedereen die er door wenst te gaan.

Rayenblokstraetje is de officiële naam uit de atlas der buurtwegen.  Tot zolang die naam niet wijzigt, blijft die gelden.
mcliquid (2023-10-24 15:21:50+00:00): Hi,

Welcome to OSM and thanks for contributing :-)

One general recommendation: 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

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
groberschnitzer (2023-10-24 15:30:15+00:00): Hallo,

ja ich weiß - ich hatte im maproulette für die nächste Aufgabe "in der Nähe" ausgewählt. Hab etwas übersehen, dass nur mehr so wenige Aufgaben übrig sind und diese über mehrere Bundesländer verteilt sind. Ich werde da bei der nächsten maproulette challenge besser aufpassen.

LG
mcliquid (2023-11-20 12:44:33+00:00): Hi, gerade über Osmose entdeckt. Was soll das sein? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1217847796
groberschnitzer (2023-11-20 13:43:45+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, hab da wohl vergessen bei der Verbindung der beiden Straßen den highway tag drauf zu setzen. Ist korrigiert!
mcliquid (2023-11-20 14:04:42+00:00): Super, danke!
MarcoR (2023-10-26 09:42:44+00:00): Questo changeset aveva danneggiato il nodo di un centro abitato e l'ho ripristinato (solo quello)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143153542
ovruni (2023-10-23 23:49:20+00:00): Hola Jesús MárquezUr, para las tiendas el etiquetado es shop=convenience, por otra parte el valor de nombre solamente se pone cuando un objeto tiene un nombre en particular como "Sabor de la Selva", mas NO para describir el objeto que se ha mapeado.
Glassman (2023-10-24 19:17:37+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/143029137
Twitters (2023-10-29 18:02:13+00:00): Guldepleynweg is niet bekend in google. Google streetview laat zien dat de inrit aangeeft dat dit privé terrein is.
wegspotter (2023-11-29 18:47:23+00:00): Officiële buurtweg.
silversurfer83 (2023-10-23 21:04:23+00:00): Hi there :)

here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren are some guidelines on how to change the tags on that highway in accordance with the traffic sings.

cheers
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/143029439
heretofore (2025-09-04 19:55:59+00:00): I don't think extracting the bike lane into its own cycleway is the accepted way to approach buffered lanes.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway#Buffered_and_protected_bicycle_ways
NorthCrab_upload (2023-10-23 18:00:27+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353048935

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Fizzie-DWG (2023-11-13 02:39:05+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143953755
woodpeck_repair (2023-11-06 23:37:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 143713695 where the changeset comment is: revert von edits eines benutzers nach selbstlöschung