piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
danieldegroot2 (2024-12-13 17:19:01+00:00): Hey Learscail,

I would not recommend adding historical objects during your first edits, but you are welcome to do so.

Unfortunately, we can not use the SMR as sole source for adding objects. The SMR and layers available on the Historic Environment Viewer (HEV) are a proprietary/copyright source and OpenStreetMap does not have permission to use them.

In order to add these objects, you will need another source to verify they exist.

We have permission to use the following layers

- Layers available in OSM editors such as the one you are using.
(which I commented on earlier)

- NLS historic maps
https://maps.nls.uk/os/#ireland

- Esri World Imagery Wayback
(of which most current and oldest are available in the editor)
https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=60013&mapCenter=-7.16811%2C52.61855%2C15

You can go outdoors and survey one to see if it is physically present, but most won't be visible (have been plough-levelled).
You can then add a source "survey" when saving your changes.

If you know or someone else knows about their existence you can add them with source "local knowledge of (myself, resident, employee, etc)" on saving your changes.

If there is a centuries old map/book in the library ('out of copyright') you can add the source as
"Book X, chapter Y, author Z"
(though this is preferably left to advanced contributors)

If you can't verify them in one of these ways, they are unverifiable and can't be added to OpenStreetMap.

---

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/538299207
KK024-011 is larger than mapped but the outermost ditch is only partially visible on aerial imagery.
It might not be quite circular.

For the enclosures in the meadows
KK024-159 might be visible on regular Esri but is deemed uncertain in SMR.
KK024-013001 is faintly visible.
KK024-013002 is clearly visible.
The enclosures in the meadows seem to be visible on regular Esri,

---

This changeset has been reverted in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160248638

Regards,

Daniel
danieldegroot2 (2024-12-14 16:07:19+00:00): Added KK024-01300(1,2) in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160284245
NorthCrab_upload (2024-12-13 10:21:02+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/1209504011

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
sosna_sieradz (2024-12-13 11:38:31+00:00): Ok, rozumiem. Tam nie ma nazwy ulicy. Niepotrzebnie wpisałem tam nazwę miejscowości. Usunę ten wpis.
pitscheplatsch (2024-12-13 16:12:31+00:00): Just a test?
pitscheplatsch (2024-12-24 13:25:52+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160534544
soliMM (2024-12-13 17:19:06+00:00): I have reverted changes you have made to road classification in this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160255030

Please do not change classification of the roads without further discussion with community. I urge you to establish contact with community as soon as possible, to clear many things up, in order to prevent further escalation.
eggie (2024-12-13 11:28:22+00:00): Dag jashano.. Op zich oke.
Je zou nog de orientation=perpendicular ... kunnen toevoegen.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:parking%3Dstreet_side
Mapse
eggie
Santi2222 (2024-12-29 18:34:50+00:00): Hola:
Por curiosidad, ¿se ha discutido anteriormente (en foros, lista de correo...) que las capitales autonómicas de facto no deban etiquetarse como admin_centre? En la wiki se dice al respecto: "Node representing the administrative centre (a capital, county seat etc.),", por lo que perfectamente se podría interpretar que las capitales de facto tendrían que etiquetarse como admin_centre (por ejemplo, Suiza carece de capital de iure, pero Berna está etiquetada como admin_centre).
MarinoBM (2024-12-29 22:07:09+00:00): Hola:
Como bien dices se puede discutir en el foro.
Yo voy a dar mi opinión sobre Castilla y León, que es lo que conozco: no tiene que haber capital.
En el Estatuto de Autonomía no se ha designado una capital para la comunidad autónoma. En él se propugna la descentralización de servicios y esto iría en contra. Además, Castilla y León son dos regiones históricas que forman una comunidad autónoma; si quieres poner una capital de facto, ¿dónde la pones y por qué; en Castilla o en León? Los legisladores se lo evitaron. No vamos a buscarnos nosotros un problema innecesario.

Un saludo.
Hugoren Martinako (2024-12-30 19:32:47+00:00): Buenas, lo cierto es que se ha mencionado en diversos changeset y el grupo de telegram de CYL.

En este conjunto es donde se habló más específicamente del tema, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/135446434, fíjate que surgida a raíz de un cambio en el campo capital. Eso llevo a corregir las otras comunidades.

En concreto, esta reversión la hice de igual manera que esta otra de hace 7 meses: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151932672. Ambas producidas por el tema que "salta" en algunos validadores, por ejemplo: https://nightwatch.openstreetmap.si/AdminCentre.

En Castilla y León, como te ha dicho Marino, es "complicado" porque surgen tiranteces. En Castilla-La Mancha tres cuartos de lo mismo. Sin embargo, si consideras que en Euskadi (la explicación sobre la capital está en la wikipedia indicada en uno de los changesets), no genera discusión alguna, y prefieres tener el rol admin_centre (y cambiar a capital=4 el nodo https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/27000791), adelante.

Agur bat
rskedgell (2024-12-13 11:32:45+00:00): Thanks for adding these. Would it be worth tagging these as building=storage_tank rather than building=yes?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dstorage_tank
Flynn_ (2024-12-17 14:03:25+00:00): Thanks. I didn't know that tag existed. I fixed it here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160300529
Branko Kokanovic (2024-12-17 19:51:30+00:00):  reverting as this is clearly error and since user is not reacting to us reaching to them, and continues to do it - I would say vandalism. There is no bicycle path, I took a street view today from this whole street: 

https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/stalker314314?lat=44.80758398820771&lng=20.48528435150945&z=17&pKey=1122251479622733&x=0.49231184075293705&y=0.4697372373598826&zoom=0&focus=photo
UT93 (2025-08-06 17:28:28+00:00): Worauf begründet, die in deiner "Detailverbesserung" attributierte Zugangsbeschränkung "access=no" auf dem https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1342224833
johnny_1982 (2025-05-11 06:12:50+00:00): Gelöschtes Telefon an der Masurenallee steht immer noch da.
geozeisig (2025-05-12 05:30:03+00:00): Hab gesehen das du ein disused:amenity=telephne hinzugefügt hast. Bin gespannt, ob es jemals repariert wird.
Aleksandar Matejevic (2024-12-13 14:32:18+00:00): Hi sergej zhiliackov,
I see that you have put some ways as a part of relation with subarea as a role. You should first create subarea relations and put relations as subarea. In a way that you have done it is not correct. Can you please correct this?
Đuro Jiří (2025-01-31 21:59:44+00:00): Scusa BLUES01,
hai scritto inserimento nome negozio "La Bottega del Motociclista"  però hai aggiunto "La Bottega del Motociclista" come nome dell'edificio, cioè manca tag descrittivo. Che tipo del negozio sia? E negozio occupa intero edificio?
NorthCrab_upload (2024-12-13 11:51:00+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, dodaj ją w addr:street. Jeśli nie, zamień addr:city na addr:place - tak oznaczamy adresy bez ulic.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/449082375

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Sakari_N (2024-12-18 17:24:11+00:00): Moi,

Mikä ajatus tässä informal=yes merkinnän poistossa on? Eikö se ole juuri oikea tagi tällaiselle oikopolulle, ns desire pathille?
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-17 02:26:21+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165051497
Tatfahren (2024-12-13 14:35:50+00:00): Hallo AdrianClaus und willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.

Deine Änderungen sehen soweit gut aus. Das einzige was ich gefunden habe ist ein Baum, den du wahrscheinlich versehentlich verschoben hast. Das ist aber kein großes problem da man ihn einfach zurückschieben kann.

Vielleicht möchtest du es selber machen, in osmcha kannst du beim Auswählen des Baumes die aktuelle Position (Gelb) und die Position vor deiner Änderung (Orange) sehen.

Der link zu osmcha sollte meinem Kommentar automatisch angefügt werden.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160243100
mavl (2025-05-13 15:06:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
eggie (2024-12-13 12:09:59+00:00): Aandachtspunt. Die parallelvoetpaden waar je zo de straat op stapt routeren niet in OSM  Probeer maar eens de straat over te steken. Gebruikelijk is het dan om de voetpadtagging op te nemen in de hoofdrijbaan met sidewalk=left right of both.
Echt consensus is er niet.
VBij een groenstrook tussen trottoir en rijbaan tekenen we wel apart in. 
Bedenk even wat verstandig is voordat je overal paralleltrottoirs gaat intekenen.
MVG
eggie
jashano (2024-12-17 19:50:49+00:00): oke bedankt
kitsee (2024-12-14 00:09:32+00:00): I'm reverting this. Please go and discuss stuff like this before making drastic changes. You cant just stroll into an area and force your standards upon everyone else. This is getting silly. if you haven't noticed I've micro mapped this entire town in high detail. There are 4 islands on this road, it is acceptable to map a island are a duel carriageway. Instead of having it merge and split 4 times I kept it as one chunk of duel carriageway which I think is an acceptable compromise between accuracy and practicality. What you've been doing lately is borderline vandalism, please stop it.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160265511
Nathan_A_RF (2024-12-17 13:50:53+00:00): You are being incredibly rude, obstructive, and hypocritical, speaking of myself "forcing your standards" on an area, and then forcing your own "standards" yourself just because (I presume) you live here. You do not own any part of the map, as do I. And no, this road should not be mapped like this. Yes, despite the fact I disagree with the pointless and frankly ugly mapping of traffic islands as two separate ways, I have conceded on the one mapped in Llechryd as you might have seen. However here, no, the B4257 is not a dual carriageway and there are prolonged areas of centrelines between each of these small islands. It should not be mapped like this. It is frankly laughable that you suggest this is "borderline vandalism" after having already reverted several of my changesets entirely for single changes you think were wrong, despite the fact each had a multitude of other edits, fixes and tag updates.
kitsee (2024-12-17 14:43:21+00:00): You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I am forcing my standard on this area because 80%+ of the mapping in a 2-3 miles radius around this changeset is my work so my work forms the standard of this area and I will admit I'm rather protective of it. Please understand from my prospective how rude and insulting it is to have someone come in, delete your work with no real explanation let alone a conversation. I brought up this dual carriageway in the discord, most people agree with my argument of why it should be like this. however Trigpoint has raised an counter argument which I have agreed with, being the inability to perform U-turns on this stretch. This is the kind of conversation / debate I would expect which you do not attempt, instead you invade a area, declare you know best and move on. I will apologize for the blanket reverts I've performed. My only excuse was tiredness. I stand that reverts were necessary but it should have been cherry picked. I still stand that what you have been doing in general recently is borderline vandalism. this changeset is more debatable but others are just downright wrong, you delete with no concern for the detail you throw away and I'm hoping going forward you will be more aware of your actions.
SomeoneElse (2024-12-17 18:07:36+00:00): It'd be greater to see a wider discussion about this, perhaps in the UK part of the forum c.osm.org?
Are there photos available along this length (e.g. from Mapillary)?
kitsee (2024-12-17 19:49:24+00:00): I agree, i've created a thread here 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/residential-road-with-separated-lanes
felipeeugenio (2024-12-13 12:10:59+00:00): En verdad es la Nota resuelta #4551356
woodpeck (2024-12-13 12:44:40+00:00): In this changeset you have deleted several dozen buildings which still seem to exist according to aerial imagery. Please explain.
grozog (2024-12-13 13:08:24+00:00): The existing buildings have been removed as they do not align accurately with the aerial imagery. They will be replaced with correctly positioned models to ensure proper alignment and consistency with the imagery.
woodpeck (2025-01-22 00:40:01+00:00): Please do not do that in the future. If you are sure that your imagery is aligned correctly (always remember it could be wrong - compare with GPS traces and adjust if necessary) then it is preferable to modify existing buildings to align with aerial imagery.

If you feel that you absolutely must delete existing buildings and replace them - which is not recommended - then do it in one editing step. Do not delete buildings first and say "I will replace them later". You deleted these buildings 6 weeks ago and you still have not replaced most of them!
woodpeck (2025-01-29 13:51:49+00:00): I have now restored those buildings that were deleted and not yet re-drawn: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161898314
ManuelB701 (2024-12-14 20:26:41+00:00): Hallo,

rein aus Neugier: Warum hattest du dem 630-Route-Master einige Haltestellen zugewiesen, obwohl es sich um eine Superrelation (beinhaltet nur andere Relationen) und sogar eine 630-Variante davon entfernt?
ManuelB701 (2024-12-27 16:22:53+00:00): Außerdem habe ich es genauer beobachtet und, meine Güte, sind deine Änderungen wirklich aus fragwürdiger Qualität (zugegeben bist du ein Neuling, aber dennoch).

Erstens gehört zu jedem Halt ein stop und ein platform bzw. public_transport=stop_position und public_transport=platform als Relationsmitglied, was größtenteils okay ist. Problematischer ist es, wenn du Elemente.

Außerdem ist die Reihenfolge wichtig: Zuerst die Halte, dann der Weg. Die ganzen Haltestellen-Knoten, die du hinzugefügt hast, wurden alle am Ende (dafür ist aber vor allem iD schuld mit seinen schlechten Relationseditor).
Außerdem wurden dieser keine Rolle zugewiesen.
Und dann verschwanden noch einige Halte (z.B. der Knoten des Bad Kreuznach, Bahnhof).

Dann noch das Problem der Redundanz (wobei OSM an sich ein Problem davon ist): Ich selber verwende highway=platform, um sichtbare Bussteige zu kennzeichnen. Dies schließt auch noch Bordsteine hinzu. Allerdings kann an einem highway=platform kein highway=bus_stop hinzugefügt werden, da highway=* ja schon verwendet wird, weswegen ich das highway=bus_stop dem public_transport=stop_position vergebe.
Diese ganzen highway=platform habe ich alle in barrier=kerb umgewandelt, um an Redundanz (s.o.) zu meiden (und ist an der Stelle immer noch korrekt).

Das sind jedenfalls meine wichtigsten Kritikpunkte an deiner Arbeit. Hättest du den Halten keine Namen vergeben, hätte ich deine Änderungen gänzlich zurückgesetzt, aber das war zum Glück nicht so.
eggie (2024-12-13 13:26:21+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback  Lijkt me wel oke.  

Het fietspad langs de Karel Lotsyweg is niet over het hele traject eenrichtingsverkeer dacht ik. 
Je kunt vanaf de Amnesti Internationalweg gewoon dat fietspad richting sportboulevard nemen. 

MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-12-13 13:40:19+00:00): Ik heb oneway =no toegevoegd tot aan de afslag naar de Sportboulevard. 
Je kunt anders niet bij de sportboulervard komen vanuit Sterrenburg. Bij de rotonde staat (stond?) een bord tweerichtingfietspad. Erg duidelijk is het allemaal niet in Dordt.
Wanneer dat bord tweerichting is verwijderd.. laat ,maar weten. Dan pas ik het weer aan. Ik was de voorgaande mapper hier. 
Mapse
eggie
nekocake kitsu (2024-12-24 01:04:51+00:00): Hey jakecopp, I've noticed that your changeset 160244461 covers a large area, which can make it  challenging to review and maintain accuracy. 

OSM guidelines recommend creating smaller changesets to keep edits manageable and easier to verify. So next time, if your doing a changeset that spans across a large distance, try to publish these changes in separate changesets to avoid this from happening again. 

Thank you for your understanding, and happy mapping! :D
jakecopp (2024-12-25 10:44:26+00:00): Apologies - will make sure to keen changesets more confined in future!

This changeset is made up of some changes in Oslo, as well as a few small edits near Sørum.
nekocake kitsu (2024-12-25 15:14:06+00:00): thank you for contributing to osm! :)
mavl (2025-02-05 14:02:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162167075 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted. Reason: wrong values for name:en - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161608012].
rempshaener (2024-12-13 20:21:10+00:00): Hallo,
du könntest das man_made=works auf den Umriss ziehen und diesen Node hier löschen.
Und bitte die Notes schließen :-)
Viele Grüße
mueschel (2024-12-22 09:18:21+00:00): Hallo,
was heißt denn "share trail"? Dieses Tag wird sonst nirgends verwendet. Die Tatsache, dass Fußgänger und Radfahrer den Weg benutzen dürfen ist schon mit foot/bicycle=yes ausreichend erfasst.
Christian Heitmann (2025-01-07 08:22:35+00:00): Hey mueschel,
das gebe ich dir recht, foot/bicycle deckt es schon ab und somit ist es doppelt gemoppelt. Vllt habe ich das übersehen bzw. werden so oder so verschieden Tags verwendet.
BCNorwich (2024-12-25 07:48:17+00:00): Hi, Please excuse me for pointing out that proper names should have the first letter of all words capitalised.

Regards Bernard.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-12-13 13:20:48+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/node/12420000011
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12420000012

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
mga_geo (2024-12-20 12:12:35+00:00): Bonjour,
Il ne faut pas ajouter de ways dans les relations route_master (r7577761).
Je corrige.
Marc
gendy54 (2025-06-20 19:57:26+00:00): Salut,
Dans le nom des gares, on ne rajoute jamais "Gare de xxx", je te laisse corriger celle de Périgueux
Pastèque24 (2025-06-23 11:27:14+00:00): Salut,
ok, c'est corrigé
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-12-15 01:32:29+00:00): This changeset reversed the direction of the flyover ramp.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/160246962
Kovoschiz (2024-12-13 19:17:57+00:00): You deleted the wrong object. There was an improper edit before, and this doesn't fix it.
soliMM (2024-12-21 10:25:32+00:00): I have reverted these edits in this changeset: 160462729

Important thing to keep in mind. You have added 130 km/h maxspeed to segment of the road which is not motorway but trunk (motoput). Default value for trunk road in Serbia is 100 km/h unless signs alongside road change that value to lower one.

Please do not blindly change maxspeed values without checking what is the correct value shown on the sign and on the ground.

Best regards
habi (2024-12-14 21:06:42+00:00): Ein schöner "Fund".
Speziellerweise sind die Gebäude wohl so neu, dass diese weder im Katasterplan Bern noch im Gebäude- und Wohnungsregister auftauchen (via https://qa.poole.ch/addresses/ch/), ich wollte nämlich die Addressdaten eintragen :)

Happy mapping,
habi
habi (2024-12-14 21:21:38+00:00): Kleines Detail noch: Wenn du nach dem Zeichnen der Gebäude die 'q'-Taste drückst, werden diese rechtwinklig (quadratisch) gemacht.
In der Schweiz sind die meisten Gebäude so gebaut :)
mottiger (2025-03-26 16:34:15+00:00): Höi north14

Vielen Dank für die vielen Ergänzungen in OSM. Einige deiner highway=crossing sind wohl fälschlicherweise mit crossing:markings=yes getagt. Weder auf den Orthofotos vom Kanton Thurgau, noch auf den Bildern von swisstopo sind Markierungen zu erkennen.
Falls dies entstanden ist, da du in iD eine Fehlermeldung weghaben wolltest, die müssen nicht zwangsweise weg geklickt werden.

Herzliche Grüsse und weiter happy mapping.
North14 (2025-03-27 06:38:57+00:00): Hoi Mottiger, 
danke für den Hinweis. Hoffe ich habe hier keine Flüchtigkeitsfehler gemacht. War mit dem Changeset eigentlich u.a. dabei falsch angelegte Straßenübergänge zu korrigieren. Wäre blöd, wenn ich dabei neue Fehler eingebaut hätte. Kannst du mir evtl. sagen an welchen Stellen genau das passiert ist? Beste Grüße
citrula (2024-12-15 00:16:54+00:00): Please don't auto-accept the suggested fixes by iD - you added ford=yes to places where there is not a ford.
pitscheplatsch (2024-12-13 16:13:04+00:00): Just a test?
lucasoferreira43 (2024-12-13 20:52:06+00:00): Yes, I mistakenly added them, I was supposed to do it on my local instance of osm. Thank you for the comment, I will delete them
pitscheplatsch (2024-12-14 07:14:35+00:00): Thank you for your response and your revert https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160261370
eggie (2024-12-13 14:30:16+00:00): Dag Tomas Lijkt me oke.. Een hek barrier=gate kun je beter op een node zetten verbonden met de weg  ipv op een lijnelement.
Nu geeft dat een foutmelding. 
MVG
eggie
Hb- (2024-12-13 14:18:48+00:00): Datenquelle: ALKIS
dieterdreist (2024-12-18 12:29:44+00:00): Hello Adrian, thank you for contributing to the map and adding the Roma Tiburtina Railway Station. You may have overlooked it, but the station was already mapped also here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1313285471 (and since 2011 at least, please consider this is a major railway station, how likely it is not mapped in 2024?).
I removed the duplicate node now.
Cheers,
Martin
dieterdreist (2024-12-18 12:36:20+00:00): I transferred the IATA code IRT you had added to the station node, but frankly I didn't find any reference to this code, rather I did explicitly not find it either in the iata lookup https://www.iata.org/en/publications/directories/code-search/ nor in the wikipedia list of IATA codes. Where did you get the code from? 
Cheers,
Martin
Adrian Kilroy (2024-12-18 12:51:00+00:00): Hi Martin,

Thank you for transferring the IATA code.

The source linking the IRT iata code to Rome Tiburtina Railway Station:
https://www.wego.com/airports/rom/airports-in-rome/roma-tiburtina-railway-station-irt

The iata lookup link you provided only searches for airlines and airports.

Best Regards,
Adrian
dieterdreist (2024-12-18 23:12:00+00:00): I think this is not a real IATA number, it might be from an unofficial or specific internal use for a particular service provider, but it is not a standard IATA designation and does not seem to be used by others.